










































MANUSCRIPT TYPE


CLINCAL OUTCOMES RESEARCH  

 

12 
Copyright © by Indiana State University                                                                                Clinical Practice in Athletic Training  
All rights reserved. ISSN Online 2577-8188                                                                              Volume 5 – Issue 1 – April 2022 

 
 

Body Tempering and its Effect on Ankle Dorsiflexion and Power 
Neal Ori MS, SCAT, ATC*; Justin Goins, PhD, SCAT, ATC, CSCS†; Jay Patel, PhD, CSCS, TSAC-F, CES*; 
Robbie Ingle, MS, SCAT, ATC‡,  
*University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC; †University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL; ‡ Prisma Health, Lexington, SC 

  

 
ABSTRACT 
Body Tempering (BT) is a newer myofascial release (MFR) 
technique that is used by athletes and healthcare 
professionals. The effects of BT are stated to be similar to 
foam rolling (FR) and other MFR techniques, but there is 
minimal research assessing the effects of BT on power and 
range of motion (ROM). The purpose of this study was to 
determine the effect of BT on ankle dorsiflexion ROM and 
power, as well as to compare the effects of BT to traditional 
FR. Twenty college-aged participants (10 males-10 females) 
were tested before and after intervention on three 
measurements of the broad jump (single-leg and double-leg) 
and weight bearing lunge test. Week one, each participant 
was randomly assigned to a 30-second treatment (BT or FR) 
performed on both calves, simultaneously, at a pace of 1 
pass every 2 seconds. Week two, the treatment that was not 
received in session one, was administered. Paired sample t-
tests between post-intervention and baseline measurements, 
as well as BT and FR showed statistically significant 
differences in FR and BT between pre and post single-leg 
jump averages for the left leg (FR-Pre: 93.22 cm, Post: 96.77 
cm; p = .046) (BT-Pre: 94.53 cm, Post: 100.27 cm; p = .03) 
and the right leg (FR-Pre: 92.28 cm, Post: 99.38 cm; p= .007) 
(BT-Pre: 94.22 cm, Post: 99.83 cm; p= .036). Average ROM 
was only found to be statistically significantly different for BT 
on the right leg (Pre: 8.32 cm, Post: 8.80 cm; p = .035). There 
were no statistically significant differences in power (p= .293 
-left leg; p= .894 -right leg; p= .362 -bilaterally) or ROM 
(p= .791 -left leg; p=.825 -right leg) when comparing the 
BT to FR interventions. When throwing, jumping, and running, 
single leg power is important, and these techniques could 
increase muscle performance needed during activity.  
 
Key Phrases 
Clinician-rated outcomes, manual techniques, College and 
University Patient population, body tempering, foam rolling 
 
Correspondence 
Neal Ori, University of South Carolina, 1300 
Wheat Street, Columbia, SC 29208. 
E-mail: nrori95@yahoo.com  
Twitter: @realneal35 
 
Full Citation 
Ori N, Goins J, Patel J, Ingle R. Body tempering and 
its effect on ankle dorsiflexion and power. Clin Pract 
Athl Train. 2022;5(1): 12-21. 
https://doi.org/10.31622/2021/0005.01.3.   
 
Submitted: May 25, 2020 Accepted: April 14, 2021. 

 
 
 

INTRODUCTION 
 
Functional movement and power are vital to an 
athlete’s performance, but these qualities can be 
hampered by myofascial adhesions or decreased 
ROM of muscle and fascia.1 To help the body 
perform at maximum capacity these myofascial 
adhesions need to be treated or released.1 MFR 
is a process by which pressure is applied to tissue, 
supplying increased blood flow to the area and 
reducing myofascial adhesions once the pressure 
is released.2 Fascia exhibits the phenomenon of 
thixotropy, in which it becomes more fluid or soft 
when it is moved or disturbed and more solid when 
it sits undisturbed.3 Therefore, MFR allows tissue to 
relax and become more elastic.1,4  

There are several MFR techniques, all of which can 
be divided into two categories: invasive and non-
invasive. Invasive techniques include injection 
therapy and dry needling, and noninvasive 
techniques include massage, stretching, myofascial 
release, ischemic bands, Graston, deep tissue 
massage, neuromuscular therapy, therapeutic 
ultrasound, and laser.5 The exertion of mechanical 
pressure that many of these techniques provide is 
theorized to decrease myofascial adhesions 
between tissue layers, improve muscular 
compliance and decrease muscle stiffness of the 
muscle fibers.2 This in turn will be beneficial to 
performance and mobility. In previous studies, 
common techniques, such as dry needling,6 
ischemic bands,7 Graston,8 deep tissue massage,9 
and FR1 have been shown to improve 
performance and mobility.  

Body Tempering (BT) is a new, noninvasive tool 
used to accelerate sport activity performance and 
recovery by combating soft tissue restrictions 
similar to the effects of FR.10 Although the effects 

mailto:nrori95@yahoo.com
https://doi.org/10.31622/2021/0005.01.3


Body Tempering and its Effect on Ankle Dorsiflexion and Power 
 

 

13 
Copyright © by Indiana State University                                                                                Clinical Practice in Athletic Training  
All rights reserved. ISSN Online 2577-8188                                                                              Volume 5 – Issue 1 – April 2022 

 
 

of BT have been compared to FR, there is minimal 
research on the modality because it is so new. The 
manual provided at The Body Tempering™ 
certification course states, “While Body 
Tempering does not have a body of literature to 
directly support it as a specific method, its 
biomechanical effects are very similar to 
spinal/joint mobilizations, FR, Instrument Assisted 
Soft Tissue Mobilization, and soft tissue 
mobilization.”10 BT is performed using a heavy 
metal cylinder placed on the respective muscle(s), 
which is then passively rolled along the length of 
that muscle.10 BT’s main technique, Dynamic 
Tempering, refers to having a clinician roll out the 
muscle in a manner similar to FR but the device is 
laid on top of the body, allowing the body to 
relax instead of having activated musculature like 
when a patient completes FR their self.10 With the 
use of the weighted cylinder and passive 
movement, it is stated in the manual that trigger 
points and myofascial adhesions cannot hold up to 
the BT cylinder like they could with less aggressive 
methods such as FR.10  

Despite BT’s increasing popularity with athletes in 
the NFL, NCAA, and Crossfit, there is minimal 
research available to support its use to improve 
performance and ROM compared to other MFR 
techniques.10 Therefore, the purpose of this study 
was to examine the BT MFR technique’s 
effectiveness in improving mobility and power. 
The secondary purpose was to examine the 
effects of the BT MFR technique compared to FR 
and a control session (warm-up only). 

PARTICIPANTS 

Twenty participants completed the study (10 
males: 23.20 ± 3.68 years, 179.07 ± 9.06 cm, 
86.86 ± 10.66 kg; 10 females: 22.80 ± 1.48 
years, 161.8 ± 5.75 cm, 64.37 ± 6.12 kg). 
Inclusion criteria included male and female 
recreational athletes, defined as someone who 
exercises at the CDC recommended levels of 2-3 

hrs/week on average, between ages 18-35 
years old.11 Participants were excluded if they 
had the following: a current lower extremity 
orthopedic injury, a lower extremity orthopedic 
injury in the previous six months, osteoporosis with 
or without unexplained non-traumatic fracture, 
lymphatic/fluid retention disorders, impaired 
sensation, COPD/lung pathology, blood 
pressure/cardiac issues, or rashes/skin 
deformities including but not limited to open 
wounds.10  

Participants were recruited through email, posters, 
and word of mouth. This study was approved by 
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the XXX 
and all participants provided consent prior to 
participating in the study.  

OUTCOME MEASURES 

Instruments and Measurements 

Pre-Participation Demographic Questionnaire 

Before participating, each participant completed 
a questionnaire providing their age, gender, self-
reported height and weight, and previous injury 
history.  

Weight Bearing Lunge Test 

Participants were in a lunge position (knee on 
ground) facing a wall without shoes with the test 
foot and knee perpendicular to a wall.12 While 
maintaining this position, participants performed a 
lunge in which the knee was flexed with the goal 
of making contact between the anterior knee and 
the wall while keeping the heel firmly planted on 
the floor. Valgus and varus collapse were not 
specifically controlled for, but the PI observed the 
knees throughout the test to ensure proper motion. 
The participants continued to move their foot back 
slowly until their heel could no longer stay in 
contact with the ground at the same time their 
knee was touching the wall. 13 According to 
Bennell et al. (1998), the weight bearing lunge 



Body Tempering and its Effect on Ankle Dorsiflexion and Power 
 

 

14 
Copyright © by Indiana State University                                                                                Clinical Practice in Athletic Training  
All rights reserved. ISSN Online 2577-8188                                                                              Volume 5 – Issue 1 – April 2022 

 
 

test has intra-rater intraclass correlation 
coefficients (ICC) ranged from 0.97 to 0.98 and 
the inter-rater ICC value was 0.99.12 For assessing 
ankle dorsiflexion these results have excellent 
reliability. 

Broad Jump 

A tape measure was laid out on the floor and 
participants started with their toe on the starting 
mark. The contralateral leg was positioned with 
the hip and knee angles at approximating 90 
degrees of flexion and their hands were placed 
on their hips. A single maximal hop was executed 
without swinging the contralateral leg or removing 
the hands from the hips. The participants were 
encouraged to achieve maximal horizontal 
distance and to land on the same foot without 
simultaneously placing the opposite foot down for 
support. Once their landing foot touched down, 
however, they were free to extend the opposite 
leg to avoid falling.14 For double-leg jumps, 
participants were allowed to use a counter 
movement jump technique and participants were 
asked to jump out as far as possible each time. 
They were to hold the position until the 
investigator told them to move. Measurements 
were taken from the back of the heel closest to the 
starting point and were measured to the closest 
half centimeter. If the participant did not stabilize 
after their jump, they were asked to repeat the 
attempt. 

The broad jump is used to measure power output, 
specifically horizontal power output. The ALPHA 
Health‐Related Fitness Test Battery protocol was 
followed when administering the test.15 Markovic 
et al. (2004) concluded that double CMJ 
(horizontal) is the most reliable and valid field test 
for the estimation of explosive power of the lower 
limbs in physically active men.16 The single leg 
horizontal distance test has a high test-retest 
reliability, with ICC values between 0.88 to 
0.96.17 

Statistical Analysis 

Data analysis for this study included descriptive 
statistics that were calculated for the 
demographic information and dependent 
variables. Comparisons were made between the 
baseline measurements performed before each 
session and the measurements performed after 
each intervention, as well as between the 
measurements assessed after each intervention. 
These comparisons were performed using a 
paired-samples T-test with an alpha set to < 0.05. 
IBM SPSS statistics package 26 was utilized for 
the analysis. 

INTERVENTION 

Body Tempering Roller  

The BT roller (Forge; Watkinsville, GA) is a large 
metal cylinder (22.68 kg) used to apply pressure 
to the identified muscle tissue (Figure 1).18 

 

Figure 1. BT device used in the study. In this study, a 10 lb. 
plate was added to each side of the device to make the total 
weight 50 lbs. (the device itself weighs 30 lbs.). 

Foam Roller 

The participants used a 15.24 cm x 91.44 cm 
polyethylene foam roller (Power Systems, high-
density foam rollers, Knoxville, TN). The foam 
roller was a high-density, pre-molded piece of 
foam in the shape of a cylinder.19   



Body Tempering and its Effect on Ankle Dorsiflexion and Power 
 

 

15 
Copyright © by Indiana State University                                                                                Clinical Practice in Athletic Training  
All rights reserved. ISSN Online 2577-8188                                                                              Volume 5 – Issue 1 – April 2022 

 
 

Procedures 

This study consisted of two separate 
interventions/sessions, with at least one-week in-
between each. The same procedures were 
followed at each session, and the only thing that 
changed was the intervention device that was 
used (i.e., BT-session one and FR-session two, or 
vice versa) 

Participants arrived on the first day and 
completed the consent form and demographic 
questionnaire. Once they agreed to participate, 
participants were randomly assigned to initially 
participate in either the BT group or the FR group. 
Each participant began with a general warm up 
on a bike, pedaling at 60 rpm at a self-selected 
resistance for 3-4 minutes.20 Participants then 
engaged in a 5 min standardized warmup 
consisting of dynamic mobility (e.g., walking knee 
lift and lunge walk) and calisthenics (e.g., skipping 
and jumping jacks) exercises (Table 1).21 After 
completing the warmup, participants rested for 2 
minutes before participating in three baseline 
measurements of active dorsiflexion (ADF) ROM 
on each ankle. This was assessed using the weight-
bearing lunge test with the participant self-
selecting which ankle was assessed first. Unilateral 
and bilateral broad jump were assessed next, to 
examine power. Single-leg (unilateral) jumps 
were performed before the double-leg 

(bilateral), with each participant self-selecting to 
start on the right or left.  

 

Depending on the group each participant was 
assigned to either a 30 second BT treatment or a 
30 second FR treatment was, then, applied to the 
triceps surae muscle group.2,21-23 The treatment 
was performed at a pace of one pass every 2 
seconds (4 seconds for a complete cycle).10,24 
Participants reported for a second session at least 
one week after the first in order to complete the 
other intervention. All treatments were held at 
approximately the same time of day and 
participants were instructed to maintain their 
normal exercise routine. The PI attended each 
treatment session and performed all BT 
interventions. During the BT intervention, 
participants laid prone on a soft surface (Figure 
2).25 The PI rolled a cylinder proximally and 
distally on both triceps surae muscle group, 
simultaneously, for approximately 30 
seconds.1,2,10,26,27 Those participating in the FR 
intervention rolled both triceps surae muscle group 
at the same time for 30 seconds at the same 
tempo as the BT group.24 After the treatment 
period, each participant rested for 1 min and then 
the PI reassessed the double- and single-leg 
broad jump and ankle dorsiflexion.  

 

Figure 2. Application of BT Device 

Table 1. Standardized warm-up  

Exercises Sets Yards 
Jog 1 30 
Backpedal 1 30 
Skip 1 30 
Quad Stretch Walk/Knee 
Hug Walk 

1 15/15 

Fwd Lunge/Bkwd Lunge 1 15/15 
Shuffle Right/Left 1 15/15 
RDL Walk/Straight Leg 
March 

1 15/15 

High Knees/ Butt Kickers 1 15/15 
Carioca Right/Left 1 15/15 
Sprint 1 30 



Body Tempering and its Effect on Ankle Dorsiflexion and Power 
 

 

16 
Copyright © by Indiana State University                                                                                Clinical Practice in Athletic Training  
All rights reserved. ISSN Online 2577-8188                                                                              Volume 5 – Issue 1 – April 2022 

 
 

The participants tested both the broad jump 
(double and single legs) and ankle dorsiflexion 
three times,28 and the best score and the averages 
were recorded.  

RESULTS  

Paired sample t-tests were used to compare post-
intervention and baseline measurements, as well 
as BT to FR. Detailed results can be found in 
Tables 2-5. Statistically significant differences (p 
≤ .05) were found between pre- and post-FR 
single leg jump averages for the left leg (Pre: 
93.22 ± 23.32 cm, Post: 96.77 ± 20.54 cm; p = 
.046) and the right leg (Pre: 92.28 ± 22.81 cm, 
Post: 99.38 ± 22.52 cm; p = .007). Statistically 
significant differences were also found between 
pre- and post-BT single leg jump averages for the 
left leg (Pre: 94.53 ± 21.65 cm, Post: 100.27 ± 
19.79 cm; p = .03) and the right leg (Pre: 94.22 
± 20.74 cm, Post: 99.83 ± 19.48 cm; p = .036). 
Average ROM was only found to be statistically 
significantly different for BT on the right leg (Pre: 
8.32 ± 3.08 cm, Post: 8.80 ± 3.20 cm; p = .035), 
which 19 of the 20 participants indicated was 
their dominant leg. There were no statistically 
significant differences in power or ROM when 
comparing the BT to FR interventions. 

DISCUSSION  

The purpose of this study was to determine the 
effect of BT on ankle dorsiflexion and power. The 
secondary purpose was to compare the effects of 
BT to traditional FR. The results of our study 
showed statistically significant improvement in the 
unilateral jump on the left and right leg after both 
BT and FR. These results are important for those 
who participate in many sports that require a 
participant to have single leg explosiveness to 
accomplish a task successfully, including running, 
throwing, and jumping. That explosiveness is 
known as the word power. With power being 
defined as work over time,29 the quicker the 
athlete can move a certain distance, the more 

powerful they are. The ability for the athlete to 
produce more power could lead to greater 
success in their competitive arena, thus making 
these results intriguing for the athlete.  

Although our study resulted in statistically 
significant differences in single-leg jumps, no 
statistically significant differences were found 
between the results of the baseline measurements 
and either intervention for the double-leg jump. 
Aligning with the double-leg results from our 
study, in a systematic review assessing effects of 
self-MFR, Beardsley et al. (2015) found all but 
two of the reviewed documents to show no 
changes in double leg performance measures 
after a session of self-MFR.22 It has been shown in 
research that the mechanical output per leg is less 
in two-leg jumps than in one-leg jumps, and thus 
has been given the name bilateral deficit.30 This 
same effect can be seen in our study as the 
patients saw statistically significant increase in 
their single leg jump, but there was no statistically 
significant changes when looking at the double-
leg jump.  

In terms of ADF ROM, only the pre-intervention to 
post-intervention of BT on the right limb showed 
statistically significant difference. In the 
MacDonald et al. (2013) study, they found an 
increase in ROM in both limbs two and ten minutes 
after completing the treatment session after 
rolling both limbs individually.1 Our results may 
have been different due to rolling both limbs at 
the same time. In the Skarabot et al. (2015) study, 
they assessed FR by itself, and compared it to FR 
plus a static stretching intervention. FR by itself 
resulted in no increase in ROM, while the 
combination showed a statistically significant 
increase.23  

Nineteen of the twenty participants in our study 
stated that the right leg was their dominant leg. 
The lack of ROM on the dominant leg due to 
increased usage may have allowed for greater 
improvement compared to the less used non- 



Body Tempering and its Effect on Ankle Dorsiflexion and Power 
 

 

17 
Copyright © by Indiana State University                                                                                Clinical Practice in Athletic Training  
All rights reserved. ISSN Online 2577-8188                                                                              Volume 5 – Issue 1 – April 2022 

 
 

  

Table 2: Pre- and Post-Measurements for Average Jumping Distance (mean + SD) 

Intervention    Pre-Measurement 
(cm) 

Post-Measurement 
(cm) p-value 

 Foam Rolling 

Left 
Avg 93.22± 23.32 96.77 ± 20.54 0.046* 

Longest 101.35 ± 24.90  102.35 ± 20.42 0.628 

Right 
Avg 92.28± 22.81 99.38 ± 22.53 0.007* 

Longest 99.45 ± 22.962 103.60 ± 22.86 0.137 

Both 
Avg 184.77 ± 33.92 180.98 ± 35.17 0.464 

Longest 189.50 ± 34.32 186.73 ± 36.27 0.586 

Body Tempering 

Left 
Avg 94.53 ± 21.65 100.27 ± 19.79 0.030* 

Longest 101.13 ± 21.42 105.98 ± 21.25 0.069 

Right 
Avg 94.22 ± 20.74 99.83 ± 19.48 0.036* 

Longest 101.53 ± 20.49 105.78 ± 17.72 0.130 

Both 
Avg 187.38 ± 34.28 186.41 ± 36.24 0.497 

Longest 192.78 ± 34.31 191.63 ± 35.55 0.489 
*=significant finding (P < 0.05) 

Table 3: Post Intervention measurement comparison (FR and BT) (mean + SD) 
Intervention   FR (cm) BT (cm) p-value 

Avg Jump 
Distance 

Left 96.767 ± 20.540 100.267 ± 19.790 0.293 
Right 99.375 ± 22.525 99.833 ± 19.481 0.894 
Both 180.975 ± 35.165 186.408 ± 36.242 0.362 

Longest Jump 
Distance 

Left 102.350 ± 20.415 105.975 ± 21.249 0.334 
Right 103.600 ± 22.857 105.775 ± 17.720 0.533 
Both 186.725 ± 36.274 191.625 ± 35.554 0.414 

 

Table 4: Pre- and Post-Measurements for ROM (mean + SD) 
Intervention   Pre-Measurement (cm) Post-Measurement (cm) p-value 

 Foam Rolling Left 8.567 ± 3.122 8.833 ± 2.974 0.069 
Right 8.325 ± 3.011 8.725 ± 2.909 0.073 

 Body Tempering Left 8.517 ± 2.918 8.930 ± 3.113 0.079 
Right 8.321 ± 3.078 8.800 ± 3.201 0.035* 

*=significant finding (P < 0.05) 
 

Table 5: Post Intervention ROM comparison (FR and BT) (mean + SD) 
Intervention   FR (cm) BT (cm) p-value 

ROM Left 8.833 ± 2.974 8.930 ± 3.113 0.791 
Right 8.725 ± 2.909 8.800 ± 3.201 0.825 

 

 



Body Tempering and its Effect on Ankle Dorsiflexion and Power 
 

 

18 
Copyright © by Indiana State University                                                                                Clinical Practice in Athletic Training  
All rights reserved. ISSN Online 2577-8188                                                                              Volume 5 – Issue 1 – April 2022 

 
 

dominant leg. In a previous study on frequency of 
injury in soccer athletes, it was shown there was no 
difference in ROM between either leg, but the 
dominant (shooting leg) was more likely to get 
injured.31 Because this leg is more dynamic in use, 
it is injured more often. During the injury process, 
tissue goes through a remodeling phase which can 
be extremely prolonged, and even when finished, 
it might not heal correctly or align the best 
possible way.32 The participants could have had 
previous injuries, past the six month criteria, that 
affected the tissue in their dominant leg. This tissue 
healing could have caused an underlying deficit 
that the BT device aided upon intervention. 
Because the non-dominant side was uninjured and 
there was no underlying deficit there was no 
improvement that could be seen whether that was 
with the BT or the FR.  

FR the calves consists of a lot of upper body and 
core strength, as the participant needs to hold 
themselves in a proper position throughout the 
duration of the treatment. This ability, or lack 
thereof, can change the amount of force the 
participant has on the intended tissue. Because this 
study was completed on the general population 
and not athletes, many of the participants 
struggled to complete a treatment session for 30 
seconds due to lack of strength. This lack of ability 
to hold oneself up to provide force into the calf 
could have caused a lack of change in the tissue 
when FR. This would explain why ADF ROM was 
statistically significantly different in the dominant 
leg while BT, but not while FR.  

A potential limitation of this study is that the 
weight used for the BT device was not able to be 
adjusted because we were testing with just fifty 
pounds. It is stated in the BT manual that a high 
pain level should be achieved to see benefits.10 To 
ensure consistency in the study, we used one 
weight the entire time. Changing the weights out 
based on individual pain scale might have elicited 
different results. A second potential limitation of 

this study is the participants ability FR ability, and 
therefore force applied, was linked to their 
strength and being able to hold themselves up. 
Many of these participants did not have the 
strength to hold themselves up and complete a 30 
second treatment session, causing a lack of force 
into the foam roller, and therefore affecting the 
results. A third potential limitation is the sample 
size. While the power of the study was met, this is 
still considered a small number of participants. 
Including more participants would increase the 
strength of this study. A fourth, and final, limitation 
is that only the triceps surae group had the 
intervention completed on it. Jumping was tested 
during this study and jumping requires more than 
just the triceps surae group (i.e., quadriceps, 
hamstrings, hip flexors, and extensors). If all the 
lower extremity musculature was worked on, then 
the jumping data could have been different. 
Future studies should focus on the number of 
treatments per session. Only one treatment was 
completed per session, and the participants 
expressed that they did not feel much different 
before or after the intervention. Increasing the 
number of treatments per session could elicit a 
greater benefit or even a benefit that was not 
seen during the singular treatment. In the study, 
participants, also, often mentioned, “oh, it’s 
already done.” This indicated that the length of 
the treatment might change outcomes for the 
athlete and is something that can be focused on. 
Throughout the literature on FR there is varying 
lengths of treatment that are executed, usually 
thirty seconds to two minutes.22  While there are a 
few studies that show changes under thirty 
seconds, there is a general consensus that one 
should spend thirty seconds of treatment time 
when FR.2,22,23 After two minutes there seemed to 
be detrimental effects in one study.21  While this 
study looked at thirty second treatment lengths 
there is time to play with while still staying under 
that two min period. Using that lengthened time 
period is something that can be examined to see 
if greater effects are seen when BT. Throughout 



Body Tempering and its Effect on Ankle Dorsiflexion and Power 
 

 

19 
Copyright © by Indiana State University                                                                                Clinical Practice in Athletic Training  
All rights reserved. ISSN Online 2577-8188                                                                              Volume 5 – Issue 1 – April 2022 

 
 

the study, pain was assessed during treatment for 
safety purposes, but led to another idea. One 
participant said BT was significantly more painful 
than it was for the other participants; they then 
stated they felt a lot better and “looser” in their 
calves (which the others did not state). The 
individual data for this participant made 
significant improvements from pre intervention to 
post intervention for BT; comparing it to FR makes 
it even more apparent. Assessing the difference in 
pain level between the amount of weight on the 
BT device might elicit an interesting connection 
between pain and benefit for the athlete. 

CONCLUSION/CLINICAL APPLICATION  

Athletes, coaches, and clinicians should understand 
the effects these treatments will have and 
determine if they will benefit the subsequent 
performance individually. In this study, BT and FR 
both showed an improvement in power 
development in individual legs, but not when the 
double leg jump was completed. Single-leg 
power is used when competing in many athletic 
events (throwing, jumping, running) and applying 
BT or FR pre-contest could increase muscle 
performance needed during activity. Both 
techniques were comparative in the effects on 
power and dorsiflexion ROM, thus showing while 
both techniques worked, one may not be better 
than the other. Using this information, athletes 
preparing for power-type movements could 
benefit from BT or FR. Although an increase in 
power was noted in both techniques, only an 
increase in ADF ROM was recorded in the R leg 
while BT. While there was some benefit to ROM, 
it is inconclusive whether it would have a real 
benefit to the athlete pre-activity. With the 
aforementioned stated, BT is a passive technique 
and could be more appealing to the athlete than 
FR (active technique), thus motivating them to 
complete these myofascial activation activities. 
Giving the athlete another option to incorporate 
into their routine could lead to their success and 

good health, which in the end is what all clinicians 
and coaches want to see for the individual. On top 
of that, there were no detrimental effects noted in 
this study, leaving the athlete the freedom to use 
these techniques before activity, without fear of 
harm to their subsequent performance. 

REFERENCES 

1. MacDonald GZ, Penney MD, Mullaley ME, et 
al. An acute bout of self-myofascial release 
increases range of motion without a 
subsequent decrease in muscle activation or 
force. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(3):812-
821 
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182
5c2bc1.  

2. Kalichman L, David CB. Effect of self-
myofascial release on myofascial pain, 
muscle flexibility, and strength: a narrative 
review. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2017;21(2):446-
451. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2016.11.00
6.  

3. Proske U, Morgan DL, Gregory JE. 
Thixotropy in skeletal muscle and in muscle 
spindles: a review. Prog Neurobiol. 
1993;41(6):705-721. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-
0082(93)90032-n.  

4. Abels KM. The impact of foam rolling on 
explosive strength and excitability of the 
motor neuron pool. University of Texas 
Libraries: Kinesiology and Health Education, 
University of Texas at Austin; 2013; 
Available from: 
https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2
152/22507.  

5. Rickards LD. The effectiveness of non-
invasive treatments for active myofascial 
trigger point pain: a systematic review of the 
literature. Int J Osteopath Med. 
2006;9(4):120-136. 

https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31825c2bc1
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31825c2bc1
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2016.11.006
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2016.11.006
https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-0082(93)90032-n
https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-0082(93)90032-n
https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/22507
https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/22507


Body Tempering and its Effect on Ankle Dorsiflexion and Power 
 

 

20 
Copyright © by Indiana State University                                                                                Clinical Practice in Athletic Training  
All rights reserved. ISSN Online 2577-8188                                                                              Volume 5 – Issue 1 – April 2022 

 
 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2006.07.00
7.  

6. Dar G, Hicks G. The immediate effect of dry 
needling on multifidus muscles' function in 
healthy individuals. J Back Musculoskelt R. 
2016;29(2):273-278. 
https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-150624.  

7. Ross S, Kandassamy G. The effects of ‘tack 
and floss’ active joint mobilisation on ankle 
dorsiflexion range of motion using voodoo 
floss Bands. J Phys Ther. 2017. 
https://research.edgehill.ac.uk/ws/portalfile
s/portal/20215134/The+Effects+of+%E2
%80%98Tack+and+Floss%E2%80%99+Ac
tive+Joint+Mobilisation+on+Ankle+Dorsifle
xion+Range+of+Motion+using+Voodoo+Fl
oss+Bands.pdf.  

8. Boyer S, Novack J, Madsen L, Kingma J, 
Schrader J, Docherty C. The immediate 
effects of graston technique© on hamstring 
flexibility compared to a control. J Athl Train. 
2017;52(6):S94.  
https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-
52.6.s1.  

9. Brooks CP, Woodruff LD, Wright LL, 
Donatelli R. The immediate effects of manual 
massage on power-grip performance after 
maximal exercise in healthy adults. J Altern 
Complement Med. 2005;11(6):1093-1101. 
https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2005.11.109
3.  

10. Thompson D. The Body Tempering Manual. In: 
BodyTempering.com; 2017. 

11. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 
Physical Activity Recommendations for 
Different Age Groups. CDC. 
https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics
/age-chart.html. Published 2020. Updated 
03/01/2020. Accessed 10/2020, 2020. 

12. 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. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0004-
9514(14)60377-9.  

13. Hoch MC, McKeon PO. Normative range of 
weight-bearing lunge test performance 
asymmetry in healthy adults. Man Ther. 
2011;16(5):516. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2011.02.01
2.  

14. Juris PM, Phillips EM, Dalpe C, Edwards C, 
Gotlin RS, Kane DJ. A dynamic test of lower 
extremity function following anterior cruciate 
ligament reconstruction and rehabilitation. J 
Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1997;26(4):184-
191 
https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.1997.26.4.1
84.  

15. Ruiz JR, Castro-Piñero J, España-Romero V, 
et al. Field-based fitness assessment in young 
people: the ALPHA health-related fitness test 
battery for children and adolescents. BJSM. 
2011;45(6):518-524 
https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2010.07534
1.  

16. Markovic G, Dizdar D, Jukic I, Cardinale M. 
Reliability and factorial validity of squat 
and countermovement jump tests. J Strength 
Cond Res. 2004;18(3):551-555. 
https://doi.org/10.1519/1533-
4287(2004)18<551:RAFVOS>2.0.CO;2.  

17. Swearingen J, Lawrence E, Stevens J, Jackson 
C, Waggy C, Davis DS. Correlation of single 
leg vertical jump, single leg hop for distance, 
and single leg hop for time. Phys Ther Sport. 
2011;12(4):194-198. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ptsp.2011.06.00
1.  

18. Forge T. 2020 September 25, 2019 [cited 
May 23, 2020]; Available from: 
https://www.instagram.com/p/B21ab6UnCt
S/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link.  

19. Cheatham SW, Kolber MJ, Cain M, Lee M. 
The effects of self‐myofascial release using a 
foam roll or roller massager on joint range 
of motion, muscle recovery, and 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2006.07.007
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2006.07.007
https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-150624
https://research.edgehill.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/20215134/The+Effects+of+%E2%80%98Tack+and+Floss%E2%80%99+Active+Joint+Mobilisation+on+Ankle+Dorsiflexion+Range+of+Motion+using+Voodoo+Floss+Bands.pdf
https://research.edgehill.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/20215134/The+Effects+of+%E2%80%98Tack+and+Floss%E2%80%99+Active+Joint+Mobilisation+on+Ankle+Dorsiflexion+Range+of+Motion+using+Voodoo+Floss+Bands.pdf
https://research.edgehill.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/20215134/The+Effects+of+%E2%80%98Tack+and+Floss%E2%80%99+Active+Joint+Mobilisation+on+Ankle+Dorsiflexion+Range+of+Motion+using+Voodoo+Floss+Bands.pdf
https://research.edgehill.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/20215134/The+Effects+of+%E2%80%98Tack+and+Floss%E2%80%99+Active+Joint+Mobilisation+on+Ankle+Dorsiflexion+Range+of+Motion+using+Voodoo+Floss+Bands.pdf
https://research.edgehill.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/20215134/The+Effects+of+%E2%80%98Tack+and+Floss%E2%80%99+Active+Joint+Mobilisation+on+Ankle+Dorsiflexion+Range+of+Motion+using+Voodoo+Floss+Bands.pdf
https://research.edgehill.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/20215134/The+Effects+of+%E2%80%98Tack+and+Floss%E2%80%99+Active+Joint+Mobilisation+on+Ankle+Dorsiflexion+Range+of+Motion+using+Voodoo+Floss+Bands.pdf
https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-52.6.s1
https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-52.6.s1
https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2005.11.1093
https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2005.11.1093
https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/age-chart.html
https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/age-chart.html
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0004-9514(14)60377-9
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0004-9514(14)60377-9
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2011.02.012
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2011.02.012
https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.1997.26.4.184
https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.1997.26.4.184
https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2010.075341
https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2010.075341
https://doi.org/10.1519/1533-4287(2004)18%3c551:RAFVOS%3e2.0.CO;2
https://doi.org/10.1519/1533-4287(2004)18%3c551:RAFVOS%3e2.0.CO;2
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ptsp.2011.06.001
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ptsp.2011.06.001
https://www.instagram.com/p/B21ab6UnCtS/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
https://www.instagram.com/p/B21ab6UnCtS/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link


Body Tempering and its Effect on Ankle Dorsiflexion and Power 
 

 

21 
Copyright © by Indiana State University                                                                                Clinical Practice in Athletic Training  
All rights reserved. ISSN Online 2577-8188                                                                              Volume 5 – Issue 1 – April 2022 

 
 

performance: a systematic review. Int J 
Sports Phys Ther. 2015;10(6):827. 
https://doi.org/PMC4637917.  

20. Attia A, Hachana Y, Chaabène H, et al. 
Reliability and validity of a 20-s alternative 
to the Wingate anaerobic test in team sport 
male athletes. PloS one. 
2014;9(12):e114444. 
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114
444.  

21. Phillips J, Diggin D, King DL, Sforzo GAJJos, 
research c. Effect of varying self-myofascial 
release duration on subsequent athletic 
performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2018. 
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000
002751.  

22. Beardsley C, Škarabot J. Effects of self-
myofascial release: a systematic review. J 
Bodyw Mov Ther 2015;19(4):747-758. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2015.08.00
7.  

23. Škarabot J, Beardsley C, Štirn I. Comparing 
the effects of self‐myofascial release with 
static stretching on ankle range‐of‐motion in 
adolescent athletes. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 
2015;10(2):203. 
https://doi.org/PMC4387728.  

24. Grabow L, Young JD, Alcock LR, et al. Higher 
quadriceps roller massage forces do not 
amplify range-of-motion increases nor 
impair strength and jump performance. J 
Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(11):3059-
3069. 
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000
001906.  

25. Forge T. 2020 June 14, 2019 [cited May 
23, 2020]; Available from: 
https://www.instagram.com/p/BytJn1eHAr4
/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link.  

26. Peacock CA, Krein DD, Antonio J, Sanders 
GJ, Silver TA, Colas M. Comparing acute 
bouts of sagittal plane progression foam 
rolling vs. frontal plane progression foam 
rolling. J Strength Cond Res. 

2015;29(8):2310-2315. 
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000
000867.  

27. Richman ED, Tyo BM, Nicks CR. Combined 
effects of self-myofascial release and 
dynamic stretching on range of motion, jump, 
sprint, and agility performance. J Strength 
Cond Res. 2019; 33(7):1795-1803 
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000
002676.  

28. Horiuchi M, Endo J, Sato T, Okita K. Jump 
training with blood flow restriction has no 
effect on jump performance. Biol Sport. 
2018;35(4):343 
https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2018.78
053.  

29. Newton RU, Kraemer WJ. Developing 
explosive muscular power: Implications for a 
mixed methods training strategy. Strength 
Cond J. 1994;16(5):20-31. 
http://www.hydra-
gym.com/research/RSH_DevelopingExplosiv
eMuscluarPowerwithMixedMethodsofTraining
.pdf.  

30. Bobbert MF, de Graaf WW, Jonk JN, Casius 
LR. Explanation of the bilateral deficit in 
human vertical squat jumping. J Appl Physiol. 
2006;100(2):493-499 
https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.0063
7.2005.  

31. Ekstrand J, Gillquist J. The frequency of 
muscle tightness and injuries in soccer 
players. Am J Sports Med. 1982;10(2):75-
78. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546582010
00202.  

32. Velnar T, Bailey T, Smrkolj V. The wound 
healing process: an overview of the cellular 
and molecular mechanisms. Int J Med Res. 
2009;37(5):1528-1542 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473230009037
00531.  

 

https://doi.org/PMC4637917
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114444
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114444
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002751
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002751
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2015.08.007
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2015.08.007
https://doi.org/PMC4387728
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001906
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001906
https://www.instagram.com/p/BytJn1eHAr4/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
https://www.instagram.com/p/BytJn1eHAr4/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000867
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000867
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002676
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002676
https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2018.78053
https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2018.78053
http://www.hydra-gym.com/research/RSH_DevelopingExplosiveMuscluarPowerwithMixedMethodsofTraining.pdf
http://www.hydra-gym.com/research/RSH_DevelopingExplosiveMuscluarPowerwithMixedMethodsofTraining.pdf
http://www.hydra-gym.com/research/RSH_DevelopingExplosiveMuscluarPowerwithMixedMethodsofTraining.pdf
http://www.hydra-gym.com/research/RSH_DevelopingExplosiveMuscluarPowerwithMixedMethodsofTraining.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00637.2005
https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00637.2005
https://doi.org/10.1177/036354658201000202
https://doi.org/10.1177/036354658201000202
https://doi.org/10.1177/147323000903700531
https://doi.org/10.1177/147323000903700531

	ABSTRACT

