Research: What We’ve Learned and Where We’re Going
by Jeff Bramhall
The question I’ve heard consistently since day one of RPR is “what kind of studies do you have supporting RPR?” It’s a question I fully understand. Most of the people in our field have backgrounds in science, are rightly skeptical of things that challenge what they’ve learned, and need to have a solid reasoning behind anything that goes into their programs.
In this article, I’m going to draw a distinction between the two primary ways people ask the studies question. From there, we’ll look at the studies which have been done and what we can learn from them. Finally, we’ll go back to the first principles and think about the cost/benefit analysis that make sense to do as you approach the implementation of RPR (or really, anything different from what you’ve already done).
Who’s Asking and What Do They Want to Know?
When asking about studies or research, I try to draw distinction among three groups. Are they genuinely interested in what’s been measured? Are they looking for context to for what they’ve seen or felt? Further to that, why are they looking for research? Is there a fear that they’re going to make the wrong decision? Do they not want to be the first person to do something different? Do they trust themselves? Understanding what someone’s actually asking, rather than what they have a language for, is an important skill which is drastically undervalued.
People tend to break down into three general groups: nerds who feel stuff, people who are afraid of being wrong, and people who want to show you how smart they are.
The bulk of the people who are out there really trying to find ways to be better and are willing to try something that seems weird fall into that first group: nerds who feel stuff. To be 100% clear, not everyone that falls into this camp is on board with RPR. But everyone who does implement RPR and cares about research falls into this camp. For them, showing a study of a small cohort of high school athletes, college baseball players, or college cheerleaders gets their motor running. They read something like that and see the possibilities that making a small change to what they do would look like. I’ll hazard a guess that you’re in this camp. Beware though, because people in this camp can sometimes edge into the world of cults. Make sure you hold onto some of that nerd as you feel things!
The people who are afraid of being wrong will often ask about studies simply because they’re not interested and they’re either too polite (or scared) to directly say it. A lot of times these folks work in an environment that is heavily regulated or where their employment is governed by the whims of several other people from whom they feel totally disconnected. Thanks to this culture of fear there is simply no incentive to try something different. With no incentive or power to change, learning something new is either a waste of time or threatening. The waste of time is because it’s knowledge that will be left unapplied. The threatening because if they find something better which they can’t use, they can’t honestly say that they’re doing the best they can with what they know right now. That feeling is awful. If you find yourself in this camp, have faith in yourself and trust what you feel. If you’re in an environment that is trying to subjugate what you believe to be right to what is accepted, know that there are other jobs and any job that will dehumanize you will never fulfill you.
The third group are the ones who ask questions just to show off how smart they are. They’re the same people who will make sure to mention that foam rolling and massage are placebos - regardless of whether someone feels better after. “Sharing their knowledge” is important to them, regardless of how another’s experience is devalued. They’re like crabs in a bucket. They’re the same folks who seem to think that science is about finite truths, rather than disproving hypotheses. Three words for when I run into someone like this: thank u, next.
What Have We Seen?
So far, we’ve crossed paths with a few studies carried out in small environments that I’ll share here. I know of at least one other that’s happening currently at a larger scale and will bring that up when it’s published. I’ll acknowledge three things before diving in. One, the sample size is small in each group. Two, the results aren’t mind-blowing. Three, none of these have been peer-reviewed. I’m not concerned!
Ryan Garrow; Merrimack College
As far as I know, the first study of the effect of RPR was conducted by Ryan Garrow, then a grad student at Merrimack College. He looked at the effect of RPR on MC's baseball team, measured by Functional Movement Screen (FMS) composite scores. Here’s the paper and presentation.
What did he find? The baseline FMS score for each group was about 14. Immediately after using RPR, the test group’s composite FMS scores rose to about 17, while the control group maintained at 14. Granted, composite FMS score isn’t terribly useful. If there’s higher incidence of injury at or below 14, and you can immediately move someone up from 14, this seems pretty useful!
Here’s a great quote: "Each athlete in this study reported feeling better and more prepared to move after the initial RPR treatment on themselves."
Elisa Baeron; Michigan State University
Elisa’s study was exciting for me because it looked at a population that we haven’t focused on at all: cheerleaders. In the wake of Netflix's Cheer, there’s finally some understanding of the intensity of the athleticism in that sport. Here’s her paper looking at the effect of RPR on lower body range of motion.
What did she find? There were a small number of statistically significant changes, but consistently across the test group’s ROM changed positively. The charts showing consistent improvement across pages 8-10 of the paper are telling.
Here’s a great quote: "When looking at significant changes in ROM, only five out of the 12 muscle groups indicated to be statistically significant. However, when looking at the raw data, ROM increased in almost all participants and muscles groups. Even a slight change in ROM can lead to impactful changes in the human body, especially in respect to performance and injury"
Kevin Slowik, Nathaniel Farrell, James Sackett; Cornerstone University & Jarod Burton, Brady M. Volmering; DAC Baseball
This is particularly interesting because it’s the first study with multiple participants to aggregate movement data using surface EMG. In other words, Ryan and Elisa both looked at people at rest, these folks looked at movement at high intensity. Since we’re all chasing performance, we may as well look at bodies in motion! Here’s the paper.
What did they find? The didn’t find a difference in feeling, they didn’t find a difference in speed. However, what they DID find was a difference in hamstring recruitment. Over ten yards, it’s not surprising that they differences weren’t large.
In chatting with Jarod about their findings, he put it really nicely: “Statistical significance is one thing, but if you’re working with a high level athlete and you can find a way to make a positive change, that can be the difference between winning and losing."
There’s three studies quantifying the effect of RPR. The through-line between each is simple: you can do a few minutes of breathing and rubbing and improve your starting point. As professionals working to enhance the performance of our clients and athletes, why wouldn’t we take those low-hanging fruit?
Back to First Principles
As a coach, your two duties are to give your athletes the best conditions possible to achieve their potential as it is today and to raise their ceiling so they can achieve a greater potential tomorrow. That means constantly questioning what’s worked to get you where you are and looking to what the people at the bleeding edge of your industry are doing. It means choosing to stay out of the fray of shaming other coaches and instead seeing where better is.
Here’s the three questions anything that should be the gatekeepers for adding anything to your program:
Will this save (or at least not cost) time?
Can it do harm?
Does it yield results?
In the case of RPR, if you can make a significant positive change (#3) by having the athletes breathe and rub themselves for a couple minutes rather than doing some of the stretching or soft tissue work they already do (#1) with no chance that they’re going to hurt themselves, or worse actively put themselves in a position where they are more injury prone through pre-training static stretching (#2), you would be crazy not to.
We’re always interested in seeing the results of other people. If you’ve got the space and capacity to quantify what you’re seeing, please do! There’s a world of people anxious to share in the success but this is a bridge they need help to cross. Quantifiable social proof like those three studies above give people the confidence that they’re on the right track.