Search for a command to run...
<b>Background</b>: Self-myofascial release (SMFR) is a treatment whose main benefits are enhanced recovery and increased flexibility without impairing athletic performance. Previous research has often targeted the posterior myofascial chain (superficial back line, SBL), which runs from the plantar fascia to the posterior cranium and is commonly linked to hamstring-related outcomes. However, its potential influence on knee extensor force production remains unclear and would likely be indirect. Many SMFR tools have entered the market in recent years, with Auramat<sup>®</sup> being one of them, yet it has not been investigated to date. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the effects of Auramat<sup>®</sup> (AUR) on posterior-chain flexibility and knee extensor (KE) function and to compare them with those of a traditional warm-up (TW). <b>Methods</b>: This study was a randomised, counterbalanced, cross-over design where 20 recreationally active participants (12 males, 8 females; age = 27.20 ± 4.98 years) attended the laboratory 3 times over a 2-week period. The first week consisted of a familiarisation session during which participants performed several tests. In the second week, the groups that were randomly assigned at AUR or TW conditions performed the two intervention protocols separated by 48 h. The pre-post ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC), straight leg raise test (SLRT) and rate of force development (RFD) were measured. All tests were performed on the dominant limb. <b>Results</b>: There was no significant difference in RFD and MVIC for conditions (<i>p</i> = 0.91), time (<i>p</i> = 0.24), or condition × time (<i>p</i> = 0.41). Both conditions improved posterior chain flexibility (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.01) with a larger effect in TW (<i>d</i> = 2.03; ↑ 7.81%) compared to the AUR condition (<i>d</i> = 0.89; ↑ 3.69%). RPE for TW showed significant higher RPE values compared to the AUR condition (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.01; ES = 2.32; TW = 4.3 ± 1.45 vs. AUR = 1.55 ± 0.82). <b>Conclusions</b>: Both SMFR with AUR and TW increased flexibility without any significant reduction in KE force production. Practitioners may use TW in a session where the aim is an increase in flexibility and AUR when the time is limited and the increase in fatigue can be relevant, due to the lower RPE reported. In any case, these results should be taken with caution since even the AUR was more time-efficient; the findings are preliminary owing to the small sample and absence of a control condition.