Key result
Post-match foam rolling and static stretching did not significantly improve cardiac-autonomic, hemodynamic, or neuromuscular recovery compared to passive rest (p >0.05).
Why the study?
Practical strategies facilitating rapid restoration of cardiovascular and neuromuscular function are needed to support the short recovery window between matches in high-level wrestling tournaments.
Does post-match foam rolling or static stretching improve acute cardiac-autonomic, hemodynamic, and neuromuscular recovery compared to passive rest in national-level wrestlers?
RCT (n=16)
Computer-generated random number list, Latin Square design
No
Does post-match foam rolling or static stretching improve acute cardiac-autonomic, hemodynamic, and neuromuscular recovery compared to passive rest in national-level wrestlers?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Post-match foam rolling and static stretching do not provide statistically significant acute cardiovascular or neuromuscular recovery benefits over passive rest in wrestlers.
Practical strategies that facilitate rapid restoration of cardiovascular and neuromuscular function are needed to support the short recovery window between matches in high-level wrestling tournaments. This study compared the effects of post-match foam rolling (FR), static stretching (SS), and passive rest (PR) on cardiac-autonomic, hemodynamic, and neuromuscular performance markers in national-level wrestlers. Sixteen male wrestlers (weight class range: 57–92 kg, ≥ 5 years of wrestling experience) participated in this randomized crossover study. Recovery interventions were performed on separate days immediately following a maximal-intensity match simulation. Heart rate variability (HRV), brachial blood pressure (BP), and countermovement jump (CMJ) parameters were measured pre-match, post-match, immediately post-recovery, and 10 min post-recovery. Across all recovery methods, HRV parameters showed progressive but incomplete recovery following post-match reductions (p < 0.05), while transient post-match BP increases were followed by a hypotensive response (p < 0.05). CMJ parameters were reduced at all post-match time points, with the greatest impairment observed immediately post-recovery (p < 0.05). Although no condition × time interactions were observed (p > 0.05), Hedges’ g effect sizes showed that at 10 min post-recovery, HRV parameters were higher for FR (g = 0.62–0.95), and to a lesser extent for SS (g = 0.54–0.69) versus PR. Mean arterial pressure was lower for FR versus PR (g = -0.69) at the same time point. While effect sizes suggest modest HRV recovery benefits favoring FR with neutral CMJ effects, the lack of statistical significance provides no conclusive evidence to recommend these modalities over PR for post-match recovery. Clinical trial number Trial registration: NCT07305506 (Registered date: 12 December 2025). This study was retrospectively registered on https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07305506.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Güngör et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Post-match recovery (n=16). Foam rolling and static stretching vs. Passive rest was evaluated on Condition × time interaction for cardiac-autonomic (HRV), hemodynamic (BP), and neuromuscular (CMJ) recovery markers (p=>0.05). Post-match foam rolling and static stretching did not significantly improve cardiac-autonomic, hemodynamic, or neuromuscular recovery compared to passive rest (p >0.05).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: