The Effect of Tissue Flossing on Ankle Range of Motion, Jump, and Sprint Performance in Elite Rugby Union Athletes

in Journal of Sport Rehabilitation

Context: Given the relatively novel technique of tissue flossing is currently lacking in the research literature despite some positive findings in preliminary studies, the modality clearly requires further research. Current evidence suggests that band flossing results in performance improvements and may also be an effective method in injury prevention. Objective: Previous research has shown that tissue flossing may result in increased ankle range of motion, jump, and sprinting performance in recreational athletes. The present study aims to extend on this research, within an elite athlete sample. Design: Counterbalanced, cross-over design with experimental and control trials, separated by 1 week. Setting: University laboratory. Participants: Fourteen professional male rugby union athletes (mean [SD]: age 23.9 [2.7] y). Intervention: Application of a floss band to both ankles (FLOSS) for 2 minutes or without flossing of the ankle joints (CON) on 2 separate occasions. Main Outcome Measures: A weight-bearing lunge test, a countermovement jump test, and a 20-m sprint test at pre and at 5 and 30 minutes post application of the floss band or control. Results: There were no statistically significant interactions between treatment (FLOSS/CON) and time for any of the measured variables (P > .05). Effect size analysis revealed small benefits for FLOSS in comparison with CON for countermovement performance 5 minutes post (d = 0.28) and for 10-m (d = −0.45) and 15-m (d = −0.24) sprint time 30 minutes post. Conclusion: Findings from the current study suggest minimal benefits of tissue flossing when applied to the ankle joint in elite athletes for up to 30 minutes following their application.

The anecdotal use of floss bands among athletes is becoming a popular strategy to increase joint range of motion (ROM), enhance prevention and rehabilitation from injury, and improve athletic performance, despite limited evidence for its efficacy.1 Tissue flossing involves the wrapping of a thick rubber band around a joint or muscle, partially occluding blood flow while concomitantly performing ROM tasks for 1 to 3 minutes.2 The effects of blood reperfusion to an occluded area via tissue flossing have been reported to augment exercise performance mechanisms, such as growth hormone, catecholamine responses, muscle force contractility, and the efficiency of excitation–contraction coupling in the muscles.2 In addition, tissue flossing may influence fascia tightness via the fascial mechanoreceptors, therefore reducing muscle activity, resulting in a greater ROM.3 This mechanism has been suggested for acute changes in ROM observed after applying pressure with a foam roller.4 Nevertheless, for tissue flossing, these mechanisms remain speculative.

Previous research by Driller and Overmayer1 supports the use of tissue flossing on ankle ROM and single-leg jumping performance in recreational athletes. This study investigated the use of floss bands when applied to 1 ankle joint (with the other ankle acting as the control [CON]) on dorsiflexion and plantarflexion ROM and subsequent single-leg vertical jump performance using a linear position transducer in 52 recreational athletes. Results showed small (d = 0.22–0.49), significant (P < .05) improvements in all ROM measures (dorsiflexion, plantarflexion, and a weight-bearing lunge test [WBLT]) and single-leg jump velocity, 5 minutes after the application of a floss band to an average pressure of 182 (38) mm Hg for ∼2 minutes. The authors concluded that a limitation was the flossing of only one ankle and that only one time point was assessed (5 min post).

In a follow-up study, Driller et al2 investigated the time course benefits on bilateral ankle ROM; WBLT; countermovement jump (CMJ); and sprinting performance at 5, 15, 30, and 45 minutes post the application of a floss band to both ankles in 69 recreational athletes. Results showed significant increases in WBLT compared with CON (P < .05) following the application of floss bands to an average pressure of 178 (18) mm Hg for ∼2 minutes. These results were associated with trivial effect sizes at all time points (d = 0.15–0.18), except for 5 minutes post, where there was a small effect in favor of FLOSS (d = 0.20). Small but nonsignificant benefits were seen for FLOSS when compared with CON for CMJ force at 45 minutes post (d = 0.21). FLOSS was also associated with significantly faster 15 sprint test (SPRINT) times and a small effect size in comparison with CON at 45 minutes post (d = −0.27).

Researchers have examined the effects of applying floss bands on regional blood flow.5 In this study, 5 subjects participated in 14 days of tissue flossing, combined with joint mobilization and resistance exercise. The authors reported that dorsiflexion peak torque increased by 22% in the treatment leg (P = .06), whereas there was no change in the CON leg and no change in blood-flow parameters between legs following the intervention. By contrast, the effect of applying floss bands to both shoulders while concomitantly performing ROM exercises in 17 male recreational athletes has been investigated.6 The study reported that despite trends toward improvements, there were no significant increases in ROM or upper-body power following the floss band treatment when compared with the CON.

In a more recent study, the effect of tissue flossing on elbow ROM in tennis players has been investigated.7 Twelve elite tennis players participated in this randomized cross-over study, whereby they attended 2 separate testing sessions (floss band or no floss band). There were no significant differences between floss band and no floss band for all ROM measures, with the authors deeming the intervention as being ineffective at improving ROM.

Other than the proposed ROM and performance benefits, tissue flossing may also be an effective method in injury prevention. Reduced ankle ROM is reported to be a risk factor for the development of patellar tendinopathy and other lower-limb injuries of the ankle and foot such as anterior cruciate ligament rupture and stress fractures.8,9 Therefore, being able to appropriately dorsiflex at the ankle is an important component in the safe and effective absorption of lower-limb load when landing from a jump.8

The aim of the current study was to further investigate the use of tissue flossing on athletic performance and ROM in professional rugby union athletes. Given the small changes in ROM and performance in lesser-trained individuals following tissue flossing, we would hypothesize that there would be negligible effects found in a highly trained athletic population.

Methods

Participants

Fourteen elite, male rugby union athletes (mean [SD]; age 23.9 [2.7] y, mass 102.4 [11.4] kg, height 188 [8.0] cm) volunteered to participate in the current study. All athletes were from the same rugby union squad, which played in New Zealand’s top provincial competition. The study took place during the preseason phase of competition, which included 8 weeks of training prior to this study. All athletes were free from lower-limb injuries (hip, knee, or ankle) that may have affected their ability to perform the tests. Written informed consent was obtained from each participant, and ethical approval was approved from the human research ethics committee of the University of Waikato and was in the spirit of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Design

In a counterbalanced, cross-over trial, participants attended a sport science laboratory for testing on 2 separate occasions and performed a number of tests pre and post application of a floss band (LIFE Flossbands; LIFE, Sydney, Australia). Athletes were placed in pairs, and each performed a different intervention for the first trial and switched for the second trial. Prior to testing, participants performed a standardized warm–up, which consisted of 5 minutes of progressive and continuous running; selected dynamic and mobility movements (which included 1-leg standing knee flexion, bodyweight calf raise, squat, and CMJ); and progressive 20-m sprints.

The 2 trials were performed separated by 7 days: CON, where no floss bands were applied and FLOSS, where a floss band was applied to both ankle joints. Following the pretests, researchers applied a floss band to both ankles of participants in the FLOSS group. Then, in a seated position on the floor, with the knees positioned at 180°, all participants were instructed to perform both plantarflexion and dorsiflexion to their extreme ranges of motion (2 s for each) and to complete these mobility exercises for 2 minutes. The floss bands were then removed, and the tests were performed at 5 and 30 minutes later and in the same order as the pretests. The order of tests for all participants was as follows: WBLT, CMJ, and 20-m SPRINT. Performance tests were selected as they are applicable to most team sports and cause minimal fatigue when remeasured multiple times with adequate recovery.

For the FLOSS condition, interface pressure between the skin and the floss band was measured to assess the level of compression (mm Hg) achieved by the wrapping technique (see below). The Kikuhime pressure monitor (MediGroup, Melbourne, Australia) sensor was placed on the anterior aspect of the tibia on the midline between the lateral and medial malleolus (Figure 1). The Kikuhime pressure monitor has been shown to be a valid (ICC = .99, coefficient of variation [CV] = 1.1%) and reliable (CV = 4.9%) tool for use in the sport setting.10 Only one ankle at a time could be measured for the pressure exerted. Researchers were aiming for a target pressure of ∼180 mm Hg, as this is what has been used in previous studies.

Figure 1
Figure 1

—The floss band ankle-bandaging technique used by researchers.

Citation: Journal of Sport Rehabilitation 29, 3; 10.1123/jsr.2018-0302

Procedures

The WBLT was performed as a measure of dorsiflexion ROM on both right and left ankles. Participants placed their foot along a measuring tape which was secured to the floor, with their big toe against the wall and both their toe and heel on the centerline of the measuring tape. Participants were then asked to progressively move their toe further back from the wall on the measuring tape, repeating the lunge movement until the maximum distance at which they could tolerably lunge their knee to the wall without heel lift, was found. Measurement was made using the tape measure from the tip of their big toe to the wall in centimeters. The WBLT is a functional and reliable method to indirectly assess dorsiflexion by measuring the maximal advancement of the tibia over the rear foot in a weight-bearing position.11 Previous investigators have reported robust intertester and intratester reliability associated with the assessment of WBLT performance in healthy adults, with high levels of test–retest reliability demonstrated (standard error of measurement = ∼0.5 cm).11

Data regarding the peak force (N) during a CMJ were measured using a force plate. CMJs were performed, and the best of 3 attempts at each time point, determined by peak force (N), was recorded and used for subsequent analysis. Participants performed 3 maximal CMJs with ∼3 seconds between each jump. Two force plates (PASCO PS 2142; PASCO, Roseville, CA) were used to measure peak force at a sample rate of 500 Hz. The force plates were connected to an analogue to digital converter (Sparklink, Pasco Scientific, Roseville, CA), which was then connected to a PC and the Pasco Capstone software (version 1.4.0; Pasco Scientific, Roseville, CA) through a universal serial bus (USB) port. Each trial started with the subjects standing on top of the force plates with their knees fully extended and their hands on their hips to eliminate the influence of arm swing.12 Participants were then instructed to descend to a self-selected countermovement depth and to jump as high and quickly as possible.13

The straight-line sprint tests were performed indoors on a synthetic running track. During each trial, participants were asked to sprint as quickly as possible over 20 m. Dual-beam electronic timing gates (Smartspeed; Fusion Sport, Queensland, Australia) were positioned each 5 m to obtain 5-, 10-, 15-, and 20-m split times. Participants began each sprint from a standing position with their front foot 0.50 m behind the first timing gate.14 Time was measured to the nearest 0.01 second, with the fastest time obtained from 2 trials at each time point of assessment (pre and 5 and 30 min post) and used for later analysis.

A standard ankle-bandaging technique was used by the researchers to apply the floss band as described previously1 (Figure 1). Once the floss bands were applied to both ankles, in a seated position, participants performed the active ROM task that included continuous repetitions of plantarflexion and dorsiflexion for 2 minutes (taken to the extreme ROMs). Both the FLOSS and CON conditions performed the active ROM task, with the only difference between groups being the floss band application. After 2 minutes, the floss band was then removed, and the participants were instructed to stand up and walk around for 1 minute to allow for blood flow to return to the foot.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for Social Science (version 22.0; SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). A 2-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was performed to determine the effect of different treatments (FLOSS or CON) over time (pre/5 min post/30 min post) on all measured variables, with a Bonferroni adjustment if significant main effects were present. Analysis of the studentized residuals was verified visually with histograms and also by the Shapiro–Wilk test of normality. Descriptive statistics are shown as means (SDs) unless stated otherwise. Standardized changes in the mean of each measure were used to assess magnitudes of effects and were calculated using Cohen d and interpreted using thresholds of 0.2, 0.5, 0.8 for small, moderate, and large, respectively.15 An effect size of ±0.2 was considered the smallest worthwhile effect with an effect size of <0.2 considered to be trivial. The effect was deemed unclear if its 95% confidence interval overlapped the thresholds for small positive and small negative effects.16 Statistical significance was set at P < .05 for all analyses.

Results

Mean pressure (±SD) applied by the floss band in a cohort of the study population (n = 14), as identified using the Kikuhime pressure monitor, was 178 (22) mm Hg. There were no significant differences between FLOSS and CON for any of the measured variables pretest (P > .05). There were no statistically significant interactions between treatment (FLOSS/CON) and time (pre/5 min post/30 min post) for any of the measured variables (P > .05, Table 1). Effect size analysis revealed small benefits to FLOSS in comparison with CON for CMJ performance 5 minutes post (d = 0.28) and for 10-m (d = −0.45) and 15-m (d = −0.24) sprint time 30 minutes post (Table 2). All other measures resulted in trivial or unclear effect size.

Table 1

Comparison of All Pre and Post Measures (5 and 30 min) for Experimental (FLOSS) and Control (CON) Trials, Mean (SD)

Pre5 min post30 min post
FLOSSCONFLOSSCONFLOSSCON
WBLT, cm9.9 (3.4)9.7 (4.0)10.3 (3.5)10.1 (3.5)10.3 (3.2)10.1 (3.4)
CMJ, N2926 (288)2894 (307)2965 (265)2843 (345)2930 (255)2936 (326)
5-m SPRINT, s0.99 (0.07)0.99 (0.06)1.01 (0.08)0.99 (0.07)0.99 (0.07)0.98 (0.08)
10-m SPRINT, s1.77 (0.11)1.75 (0.09)1.76 (0.10)1.76 (0.09)1.74 (0.09)1.77 (0.11)
15-m SPRINT, s2.42 (0.15)2.41 (0.12)2.42 (0.13)2.41 (0.14)2.39 (0.13)2.42 (0.13)
20-m SPRINT, s3.06 (0.18)3.07 (0.15)3.07 (0.17)3.07 (0.18)3.06 (0.16)3.08 (0.18)

Abbreviations: CMJ, countermovement jump; SPRINT, sprint test; WBLT, weight-bearing lunge test.

Table 2

Comparison of All Post Measures (5 and 30 min) to Pretest Values

5 min post

ΔFLOSS − ΔCON

Effect size
30 min post

ΔFLOSS − ΔCON

Effect size
WBLT, cm0.0 ± 0.5

0.01 ± 0.18, trivial
0.0 ± 0.5

0.01 ± 0.19, trivial
CMJ, N90 ± 117

0.28 ± 0.45, small
−37 ± 77

−0.12 ± 0.30, trivial
5-m SPRINT, s0.01 ± 0.02

0.15 ± 0.39, unclear
0.00 ± 0.04

0.01 ± 0.61, unclear
10-m SPRINT, s−0.02 ± 0.03

−0.18 ± 0.35, trivial
−0.04 ± 0.04

−0.45 ± 0.52, small
15-m SPRINT, s−0.01 ± 0.05

−0.05 ± 0.43, unclear
−0.03 ± 0.05

−0.24 ± 0.43, small
20-m SPRINT, s0.00 ± 0.03

0.00 ± 0.18, trivial
−0.02 ± 0.03

−0.13 ± 0.29, trivial

Abbreviations: CMJ, countermovement jump; SPRINT, sprint test; WBLT, weight-bearing lunge test. Note: Data are presented as raw difference in values (mean ±95% confidence intervals) with effect sizes (and 95% confidence intervals) for comparison between experimental (FLOSS) and control (CON) trials.

Discussion

In the current study, the use of floss bands when applied to both ankle joints revealed small but nonsignificant (P > .05) benefits for FLOSS in comparison with CON for CMJ performance 5 minutes post and for 10- and 15-m sprint time at 30 minutes post application. Although there may be some trends toward improvements, the overall findings from our study showed negligible differences between FLOSS and CON for any of the measured variables. Although this is the first study to evaluate the effect of floss bands on the ankle joint in elite athletes, the small trends toward improved performance within this sample are somewhat surprising and warrant future research.

At the final time point tested in this study (30 min post), the floss band trial was associated with a small effect in comparison with the CON group for 15-m sprint time. Small but nonsignificant benefits were also seen for FLOSS when compared with CON for countermovement peak jump force 30 minutes after application of the floss bands. In comparable research, Driller and Overmayer1 reported small but significant effects in favor of FLOSS for improvements in a WBLT, dorsiflexion and plantarflexion ROM, and single-leg vertical jump height directly after a tissue-flossing intervention in lesser-trained participants. Furthermore, they also reported a significant treatment and time interaction for FLOSS when compared with CON for a WBLT. The baseline ROM, sprint, and jump test results in the current study were considerably higher/faster than in the previous study by Driller et al2 (9.9 vs 8.9 cm for WBLT, 2926 vs 1708 N for CMJ, 0.99 vs 1.14 s for 5-m SPRINT, 1.77 vs 1.96 s for 10-m SPRINT, and 2.42 vs 2.71 s for 15-m SPRINT). Given that the current study population was highly trained, the changes observed following tissue flossing may have left less potential for improvement when compared with the recreational groups tested in previous studies. Indeed, it can be assumed that when there is less room for improvement due to the training status of the participants, any intervention is less likely to have a significant effect in comparison with a lesser-trained group. Furthermore, the effect size results in the current study are comparable with those reported in the previously mentioned studies.1,2

It is possible that these acute responses, when implemented in a chronic setting, may lead to long-term physiological adaptations. Bohlen et al5 assessed the benefits of tissue flossing in a chronic (14 d) setting while applying the floss band to 1 knee during daily exercises. Recent research1,2,5 reported benefits to dorsiflexion measures (in this case, peak torque) following the experimental period. With this in mind, the small trend toward improved performance observed in the current study following a tissue-flossing intervention warrants further investigation in a chronic setting to assess whether the potential benefit could be additive across multiple applications/sessions.

Of the current literature available that has investigated the effects of tissue flossing on athletic performance measures, it is difficult to determine the physiological mechanisms that may have contributed to the ambiguous findings to date. This is a significant limitation of the current and previous tissue-flossing studies and has not yet been investigated. Therefore, any theories on their impact following a tissue-flossing intervention are only speculative. Future research should aim to investigate the influence of such physiological mechanisms and their impact, following a tissue-flossing intervention. Previous mechanisms that have been suggested in ischemic preconditioning literature should be considered, including hormonal and catecholamine responses, muscle force contractility, and the efficiency of excitation–contraction coupling within the muscle, are examples of possible mechanisms to investigate further. Future application of the tissue-flossing technique in injury rehabilitation settings could also be considered. Given the improvements in ROM properties outlined by previous research, it may be advantageous to investigate whether such a technique could speed up rehabilitation processes via this mechanism of increasing ROM.

Another limitation of the current study was the lack of a placebo/sham condition. The psychological advantage that may be associated with the use of tissue flossing should not be discounted. However, the experimental intervention in this case is difficult to provide a placebo condition for; therefore, future studies could investigate different levels of pressure applied by the bands in a cross-over design (eg, <50 mm Hg, 100 mm Hg, 150 mm Hg, >200 mm Hg). This would allow for the optimal pressure of tissue flossing to be determined and also give greater insight into the possible mechanism and their impact. In future studies, the pressure applied to both limbs (rather than just one) should be employed, and control over the pressure applied (eg, ±2 mm Hg) should also be considered.

Conclusion

The findings from this study suggest limited support for the use of tissue flossing for improved ROM, CMJ, and sprinting performance, for up to 30 minutes post application in elite rugby union athletes. However, given the small effect sizes for the sprint and CMJ tests, coupled with the promising results from previous analysis, further research is warranted on this relatively novel technique.

References

  • 1.

    Driller MW, Overmayer RG. The effects of tissue flossing on ankle range of motion and jump performance. Phys Ther Sport. 2017;25:20–24. PubMed ID: 28254581 doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2016.12.004

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Driller M, Mackay K, Mills B, Tavares F. Tissue flossing on ankle range of motion, jump and sprint performance: a follow-up study. Phys Ther Sport. 2017;28:29–33. PubMed ID: 28950149 doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2017.08.081

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Schleip R, Müller DG. Training principles for fascial connective tissues: scientific foundation and suggested practical applications. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2013;17(1):103–115. PubMed ID: 23294691 doi:10.1016/j.jbmt.2012.06.007

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Kelly S, Beardsley C. Specific and cross-over effects of foam rolling on ankle dorsiflexion range of motion. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2016;11(4):544–551. PubMed ID: 27525179

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Bohlen J, Arsenault M, Deane B, Miller P, Guadagno M, Dobrosielski D. Effects of applying floss bands on regional blood flow. Int J Exerc Sci Conf Proc. 2014;9(2):Article 7.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Plocker D, Wahlquist B, Dittrich B. Effects of tissue flossing on upper extremity range of motion and power. Int J Exerc Sci Conf Pro. 2015;12(1):37.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Hodeaux K. The Effect of Floss Bands on Elbow Range of Motion in Tennis Players [master’s thesis]. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas; 2017.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Malliaras P, Cook JL, Kent P. Reduced ankle dorsiflexion range may increase the risk of patellar tendon injury among volleyball players. J Sci Med Sport. 2006;9(4):304–309. PubMed ID: 16672192 doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2006.03.015

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Fong CM, Blackburn JT, Norcross MF, McGrath M, Padua DA. Ankle-dorsiflexion range of motion and landing biomechanics. J Athl Train. 2011;46(1):5–10. PubMed ID: 21214345 doi:10.4085/1062-6050-46.1.5

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Brophy-Williams N, Driller M, Halson S, Fell J, Shing C. Evaluating the Kikuhime pressure monitor for use with sports compression clothing. Sports Eng. 2014;17(1):55–60. doi:10.1007/s12283-013-0125-z

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Bennell K, Talbot R, Wajswelner H, Techovanich W, Kelly D, Hall A. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of a weight-bearing lunge measure of ankle dorsiflexion. Aust J Physiother. 1998;44(3):175–180. PubMed ID: 11676731 doi:10.1016/S0004-9514(14)60377-9

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Cormack SJ, Newton RU, McGuigan MR, Doyle TL. Reliability of measures obtained during single and repeated countermovement jumps. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2008;3(2):131–144. PubMed ID: 19208922 doi:10.1123/ijspp.3.2.131

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Secomb JL, Lundgren LE, Farley OR, Tran TT, Nimphius S, Sheppard JM. Relationships between lower-body muscle structure and lower-body strength, power, and muscle-tendon complex stiffness. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(8):2221–2228. PubMed ID: 25647652 doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000858

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Buchheit M, Simpson BM, Peltola E, Mendez-Villanueva A. Assessing maximal sprinting speed in highly trained young soccer players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2012;7(1):76–78. PubMed ID: 22001861 doi:10.1123/ijspp.7.1.76

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.

  • 16.

    Batterham AM, Hopkins WG. Making meaningful inferences about magnitudes. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2006;1(1):50–57. PubMed ID: 19114737 doi:10.1123/ijspp.1.1.50

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

Mills, Mayo, Tavares, and Driller are with Health, Sport and Human Performance, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Mills is also with Chiefs Rugby Club, Hamilton, New Zealand. Mayo is also with the Bay of Plenty Rugby Union, Mount Maunganui, New Zealand. Driller is also with High Performance Sport New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand.

Driller (mdriller@waikato.ac.nz) is corresponding author.
  • View in gallery

    —The floss band ankle-bandaging technique used by researchers.

  • 1.

    Driller MW, Overmayer RG. The effects of tissue flossing on ankle range of motion and jump performance. Phys Ther Sport. 2017;25:20–24. PubMed ID: 28254581 doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2016.12.004

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Driller M, Mackay K, Mills B, Tavares F. Tissue flossing on ankle range of motion, jump and sprint performance: a follow-up study. Phys Ther Sport. 2017;28:29–33. PubMed ID: 28950149 doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2017.08.081

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Schleip R, Müller DG. Training principles for fascial connective tissues: scientific foundation and suggested practical applications. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2013;17(1):103–115. PubMed ID: 23294691 doi:10.1016/j.jbmt.2012.06.007

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Kelly S, Beardsley C. Specific and cross-over effects of foam rolling on ankle dorsiflexion range of motion. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2016;11(4):544–551. PubMed ID: 27525179

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Bohlen J, Arsenault M, Deane B, Miller P, Guadagno M, Dobrosielski D. Effects of applying floss bands on regional blood flow. Int J Exerc Sci Conf Proc. 2014;9(2):Article 7.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Plocker D, Wahlquist B, Dittrich B. Effects of tissue flossing on upper extremity range of motion and power. Int J Exerc Sci Conf Pro. 2015;12(1):37.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Hodeaux K. The Effect of Floss Bands on Elbow Range of Motion in Tennis Players [master’s thesis]. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas; 2017.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Malliaras P, Cook JL, Kent P. Reduced ankle dorsiflexion range may increase the risk of patellar tendon injury among volleyball players. J Sci Med Sport. 2006;9(4):304–309. PubMed ID: 16672192 doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2006.03.015

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Fong CM, Blackburn JT, Norcross MF, McGrath M, Padua DA. Ankle-dorsiflexion range of motion and landing biomechanics. J Athl Train. 2011;46(1):5–10. PubMed ID: 21214345 doi:10.4085/1062-6050-46.1.5

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Brophy-Williams N, Driller M, Halson S, Fell J, Shing C. Evaluating the Kikuhime pressure monitor for use with sports compression clothing. Sports Eng. 2014;17(1):55–60. doi:10.1007/s12283-013-0125-z

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Bennell K, Talbot R, Wajswelner H, Techovanich W, Kelly D, Hall A. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of a weight-bearing lunge measure of ankle dorsiflexion. Aust J Physiother. 1998;44(3):175–180. PubMed ID: 11676731 doi:10.1016/S0004-9514(14)60377-9

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Cormack SJ, Newton RU, McGuigan MR, Doyle TL. Reliability of measures obtained during single and repeated countermovement jumps. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2008;3(2):131–144. PubMed ID: 19208922 doi:10.1123/ijspp.3.2.131

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Secomb JL, Lundgren LE, Farley OR, Tran TT, Nimphius S, Sheppard JM. Relationships between lower-body muscle structure and lower-body strength, power, and muscle-tendon complex stiffness. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(8):2221–2228. PubMed ID: 25647652 doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000858

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Buchheit M, Simpson BM, Peltola E, Mendez-Villanueva A. Assessing maximal sprinting speed in highly trained young soccer players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2012;7(1):76–78. PubMed ID: 22001861 doi:10.1123/ijspp.7.1.76

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.

  • 16.

    Batterham AM, Hopkins WG. Making meaningful inferences about magnitudes. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2006;1(1):50–57. PubMed ID: 19114737 doi:10.1123/ijspp.1.1.50

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 3 3 3
Full Text Views 63 63 63
PDF Downloads 29 29 29