Further, the significant improvement of the VFR group in comparison with the NVFR group (-1.95 points; ES: 0.61) could be due to the mechanism underlying the positive effects after vibration.
Following these results, it is reasonable to speculate that VFR could also enhance PPT more than NVFR. However, in our study, NVFR and VFR were effective in increasing PPT in the vastus lateralis, medialis and rectus femoris after treatment (NVFR group ES: 0.23, 0.24, 0.23; VFR group ES: 0.41, 0.29, 0.35, respectively).
To our knowledge, this is the first study to measure Sm[O.sub.2] after a VFR or NVFR protocol.
In neuromuscular performance, the current study showed an average decrease of 9% in CMJ after EIMD, which subsequently improved an average of 7.49% (ES: 0.29) in the VFR group and 5.18% (ES: 0.42) in the NVFR group.
In the present investigation, the VFR group achieved an average 18.5% hip joint ROM, whereas the NVFR group obtained 15%, which shows a small improvement in the VFR group for passive hip joint ROM in comparison with the NVFR group (ES: 0.36).
NVFR, non-vibration foam roller group; VFR, vibration foam roller group; VAS, visual analogic scale.
NVFR, non-vibration foam roller group; VFR, vibration foam roller group; VAS, visual analogic scale; ROM, range of movement; PPT, pressure pain threshold.