-
Key Points:
-
The increase in muscle tone affects mobility in the associated region;
-
Sedentary individuals exhibit a higher rate and degree of muscle stiffness compared to trained individuals;
-
Lumbar mobility may be adversely affected by increased years of experience and training intensity;
-
Additionally, a numerical increase in elasticity values indicates reduced elasticity, which is more prominent in sedentary individuals.
1. Introduction
Running is a fundamental motor skill, and motor control strategies may evolve over time. The level of experience can influence coordination patterns and their variability. Greater years of running experience can contribute to the development of coordination patterns that reduce the cumulative load on the musculoskeletal system and allow for flexibility in response to changing task demands. Coordination refers to the organization of multiple degrees of freedom—such as muscles, joints, and joint movements—into a unified control unit. During the process of motor skill specialization, established movement patterns (e.g., joint movements and muscle engagement levels) may undergo changes [1,2]. A study suggested that the gluteus medius functions to control the downward acceleration of the body’s center of mass after foot contact and subsequently elevate the contralateral pelvis. This action occurs at the lumbopelvic junction. During the late stance phase, the lumbar spine exhibits lateral flexion toward the contralateral leg relative to the pelvis. Simultaneously, it works to limit trunk extension (in the sagittal plane) and actively rotate the thorax relative to the pelvis. This active rotation results in greater thoracic motion compared to the pelvis [3,4].
Previous studies have identified consistent patterns of pelvic, lumbar, and thoracic movements among runners with varying levels of experience [5]. Based on these findings, it is recommended that runners focus on thoracic angles during technical development and training to optimize mid-distance running mechanics [6,7,8]. The position and mobility of the thorax and upper extremities have been shown to vary among athletes with differing running intensities. Dysfunction in the lumbar spine has been identified as a contributing factor to lower extremity injuries in runners, and such injuries are thought to be associated with specific kinematic parameters of the lumbopelvic–hip complex [8,9].
Constraints in spinal mobility are often attributed to muscles, ligaments, tendons, and neurological control mechanisms. However, studies are highlighting the critical role of fascia in joint movement, neurological regulation of motion, and energy transfer between joints. The thoracolumbar fascia is a large, connective tissue structure located in the lower back and extends across the back. It helps support and stabilize the spine, muscles, and organs. Think of it as a tough, fibrous sheet that covers and connects the muscles in the lower back, extending from the thoracic (upper) spine down to the lumbar (lower) spine. It plays a role in movement, posture, and helps transmit forces when you bend, twist, or lift objects [10,11,12,13]. The thoracolumbar fascia (TLF) plays a vital role in load transmission between the trunk and extremities and in maintaining lumbosacral stability. Through its connection with the latissimus dorsi muscle, the TLF facilitates energy transfer during contralateral limb movements, playing a significant role in lumbosacral function, especially during walking and running [14,15]. The LD is a large, flat muscle located on the dorso-lateral aspect of the torso. The muscle originates from the T7–T12 vertebrae, TLF, iliac crest, the lower 3rd–4th ribs, and the inferior angle of the scapula. The latissimus dorsi facilitates horizontal abduction, extension, and internal rotation of the shoulder joint. It also plays a synergistic role with the lumbar vertebrae in extension and lateral flexion movements. Gracovetsky’s research further emphasizes the spine’s role as an energy generator, with potential energy stored in connective tissues during tension and released to enhance movement efficiency during gait [16].
A study has demonstrated that participants were required to have engaged in regular running for at least six months per year, with both groups reporting running for over 10 months annually. This approach ensured that participants consistently developed specific movement patterns over their running years [17]. Furthermore, existing literature suggests that as running experience increases, learned running patterns become more refined, leading to adaptations in mobility, ROM, and neuromuscular control. Stable lower-extremity movement patterns have been shown to develop within two years of consistent running experience, contributing to specialized biomechanical adjustments. We hypothesize that differences in running experience and sedentary behavior lead to distinct adaptations in thoracolumbar mobility, influencing muscle tone, stiffness, elasticity, and overall ROM. Our study aims to investigatewhether sustained running participation may lead to notable changes in thoracolumbar mobility, thereby affecting spinal flexibility, segmental coordination, and kinematic efficiency across individuals with varying running experience levels.
2. Methods and Materials
Study Design: This study employed a cross-sectional design to investigate the parameters that influence thoracolumbar mobility. All assessments were conducted using a questionnaire specifically developed for this study. Three independent groups were evaluated once to assess their current status. Following this, the three groups will be compared. This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with registration number NCT06269224).
Participants: This study included 105 male individuals, divided into three groups: those who had been running for the last two years, those who had been running for the last six months, and sedentary individuals. Participants were recreational runners aged 30 to 45 years who ran between fifteen to fifty km weekly; one group consisted of thirty-five runners who had been running for the last two years and the second group consisted of thirty-five runners who had been running for the last six months. The participants included were recreational runners recruited from different running groups in Ankara/Turkey. The inclusion criteria for this study consisted of three groups: (a) recreational runners who were recruited from various running groups in Ankara, Turkey, (b) individuals who had been running regularly for the past two years, and (c) a group of thirty-five sedentary individuals, identified using the Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire [18]. Exclusion criteria encompassed a history of lower extremity or lumbar-related surgery and skeletal abnormalities (i.e., scoliosis and spontaneous/congenital fusion) in the last year and a body mass index (BMI) exceeding the normal threshold of 24.5 kg/m2. All participants signed informed consent, and our institutional ethical committee approved the study (GO 22/727), which was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki.
Runners were excluded if they had skeletal abnormalities (i.e., scoliosis or spontaneous/congenital fusion) or other functional limitations when performing functional, occupational, sports or recreational activities in the past 6 months.
Sample size: The sample size calculation was performed using G*Power software version 3.1 [19]. The sample size calculations were based on the effect of the modified Schober test [20]. Considering a medium effect size of 0.31, an alpha level of 0.05, and a power of 0.80, the minimum required sample size for the study was determined to be 105 participants (n = 35 per group).
Procedures: All participants underwent demographic data collection and physical examinations. Weekly training distances (km), durations (h), and daily water consumption rates (lt) were recorded. The percentage of individuals experiencing lower extremity injuries and lower back pain within the running for the last six months group was calculated.
Outcomes:
Trunk Flexibility: The measurement of trunk flexibility (rotation, lateral flexion, and extension) was performed using a measuring tape. For trunk rotation, the participant stood facing the wall, bringing the front of their body close to the wall, with the anterior part of the pelvis fixed against it. While rotating the torso, the distance between the acromion and the wall was measured. Lateral flexion was assessed by measuring the distance from a fixed point to the lateral edge of the body as it bends to the side. Extension was evaluated by measuring the distance between key anatomical points as the participant bends backward. The distance from the sternal notch to the wall was measured and recorded in centimeters (cm) [21].
Trunk ROM: The ROM values were evaluated using a goniometer. The measurement of trunk flexion, lateral flexion, and extension was performed using a goniometer. For trunk flexion, the participant bent forward, and the goniometer was placed at the lumbar spine or hip joint to measure the angle between the torso and the thighs. Lateral flexion was measured when the participant bent sideways; the goniometer was placed at the back of the trunk, with one arm aligned with the spine and the other with the midpoint of the iliac crests to measure the angle. For extension, the participant bent backward, and the goniometer followed the imaginary line of the lumbar vertebrae and aligns with the greater trochanter (°) [21].
Lumbar Extensor Tightness: Lumbar extensor tightness was evaluated by having a physiotherapist push the participant’s legs towards their chest. The distance between the knees and the chest was measured with a tape measure and recorded in centimeters (cm) [21,22].
The TLF length test with a goiometric platform (TLF flexibility): During the assessment, the participant’s posterior superior iliac spine and pelvis were stabilized by a physiotherapist. Verbal instructions were given to ensure that the arms followed the trunk rotation. The degree of trunk rotation was recorded by marking the goniometric platform with a wooden pencil held between the hands, which were clasped in front of the body with 90° shoulder flexion following the rotation. Rotation measurements were performed three times in the same direction, and the values were recorded. The same evaluation method was repeated for both right and left trunk rotation [15] (Figure 1).
Modified Schober Test: Lumbar spine flexibility was measured by means of the Schober test. A mark was placed at the midpoint of the line connecting the superior iliac posterior spine (SIPS), with additional marks 10 cm above and 5 cm below this midpoint. The distance between the points served as a reference for the measurements: the participants, from standing in an upright position, performed a full flexion of the lumbar spine. A distance of less than 5 cm indicated decreased lumbar flexibility [23] (Figure 2).
Myoton [Myoton-3 myotonometer (Müomeetria AS, Estonia, EU; ICC: 0.80–0.93)]: The device assesses three biomechanical tissue parameters: muscle tone (Hz), elasticity and stiffness (N/m). These parameters provide insights into muscle function and mechanical behavior. Muscle tone reflects passive muscle tension in a relaxed state, derived from its viscoelastic properties. A higher oscillation frequency indicates greater muscle tone, with typical relaxed values between 11 and 16 Hz, which increase during contraction [24,25]. Elasticity represents the tissue’s ability to regain its shape after deformation. A lower oscillation reduction indicates better elasticity, while higher values suggest reduced elasticity and greater energy dissipation. Normal values range from 1.0 to 1.2 [25]. Stiffness measures resistance to shape deformation by external forces. A higher stiffness implies greater force requirements and increased movement energy expenditure. At rest, stiffness values range between 150 and 300 N/m and rise with muscle contraction [23]. Higher values indicated increased muscle tone and stiffness and reduced elasticity [26,27]. Participants lay prone with a thin rolled towel under their foreheads and their arms positioned in 180° flexion for a fifteen-minute rest period. A point 5 cm below the lower tip of the scapula along the imaginary line of the LD was marked. After the rest period, the myotonometer probe was positioned at a 90° angle to the skin at the marked point, and measurements were taken ten times at one-second intervals. The average values were recorded [28,29] (Figure 3).
All analyses were performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0 software package. Descriptive statistics of demographic variables for the included participants were calculated. Before conducting significance tests, all variables were assessed for normality using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and for homogeneity of variances using Levene’s test. For variables meeting parametric test assumptions, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate differences between groups, with Tukey’s test employed as a post-hoc analysis. For variables not meeting parametric test assumptions, the Kruskal–Wallis test was utilized, with multiple Dunn tests performed as post-hoc analyses. Differences between groups in weekly training distance, duration, and frequency were determined using the Mann–Whitney U test. Additionally, the relationships between study groups, dominant side, and lower extremity injury status in the past six months were analyzed using chi-square tests. The significance level for all statistical analyses was set at p < 0.05 [19].
3. Results
One hundred and five participants were included in our study, with thirty-five individuals in each recreational runners group participating in our study (Table 1 and Table 2).
Muscle tone was significantly lower in the running for the last six months group compared to both the running for the last two years and sedentary groups on both the dominant and non-dominant sides (p = 0.037, p < 0.001). Stiffness values were also higher in sedentary individuals than in both running groups on both sides (p < 0.001). Additionally, elasticity in the dominant-side LD was highest in sedentary individuals compared to both running groups, indicating reduced elastic properties (p < 0.001). On the non-dominant side, elasticity values were higher in sedentary individuals compared to runners with two years of experience, and higher in the six-month running group compared to the two-year running group (p = 0.002). The measurements of LD mechanical properties are presented in Table 3.
Regarding lumbar mobility, the modified Schober test revealed significantly higher values in the six-month running group compared to both the sedentary group and two-year running group (p < 0.001), suggesting decreased lumbar flexibility in less-experienced runners. In contrast, lumbar extensor shortening was greatest in the two-year running group, followed by sedentary individuals, with the six-month running group showing the least shortening (p = 0.003), indicating better flexibility in the latter.
For trunk flexibility, no significant differences were observed in trunk rotation (dominant and non-dominant sides) or trunk extension between groups. However, in dominant-side lateral flexion, post-hoc comparisons showed that the two-year running group had greater values than sedentary individuals, who in turn exhibited higher values than the six-month running group (p = 0.044). On the non-dominant side, the two-year running group demonstrated significantly greater lateral flexion compared to both the six-month runners and sedentary individuals (p < 0.001).
Thoracic mobility measurements also revealed significant group differences on both sides. On the dominant side, values followed the pattern two-year runners > six-month runners > sedentary individuals, while on the non-dominant side, both two-year runners and six-month runners exhibited greater mobility than the sedentary group (p = 0.031, p = 0.003).
For trunk ROM, dominant-side lateral flexion was highest in the two-year running group, followed by the six-month running group, and lowest in sedentary individuals (p = 0.001), whereas the non-dominant side differences were not significant (p = 0.186). In flexion, the six-month running group showed higher values than both the two-year running and sedentary groups, while in extension, the two-year running group exhibited the greatest flexibility, followed by the six-month runners, with the sedentary group having the lowest values (p < 0.001 for both comparisons). The detailed results for the modified Schober test, thoracolumbar fascia (TLF) flexibility, and trunk flexibility (including right/left lateral flexion, right/left rotation, and extension) are presented in Table 4.
The detailed results for trunk ROM (extension, flexion, D/ND lateral flexion) and lumbar extensor shortness are presented in Table 5.
4. Discussion
Our study reveals that experienced distance runners who have been running for the last two years exhibit numerically higher flexibility and ROM values. From a muscular mechanics perspective, LD tone was found to be higher, while stiffness and elasticity levels were lower. Lateral flexion flexibility parameters were higher in runners who had been running for the last two years; lateral flexion ROM (dominant side) was also greater. This suggests that lumbar lateral flexion movement, a key component of running mechanics, correlates with experience and running distance. However, further research is needed to substantiate these findings [3,4].
4.1. Thoracolumbar Mobility and Lumbar Region Shortness: Relationship with ROM
In runners with a running history of the last six months, certain values such as nondominant LD elasticity, nondominant TL flexibility, modified Schober test results, and trunk flexion ROM were found to be higher compared to sedentary individuals. Furthermore, reduced sagittal plane hip motion during the swing phase and a smaller ankle plantarflexion angle during ground contact explained 79% of the variance in personal best performance. Slower middle-distance runners demonstrated initial ground contact with a more plantarflexed ankle and a forward-leaning trunk. The increased lumbar mobility (as per the modified Schober test) and trunk flexion ROM in the running for the last six months group may result from repetitive patterns associated with their running style. Previous research has also highlighted the role of thoracic mobility in improving performance [6].
ROM, defined as the maximum distance a joint can move, is a critical parameter for musculoskeletal health. International guidelines emphasize the importance of regular exercise to preserve or restore physiological function [30,31,32]. Soft tissue flexibility is also recognized as a key determinant of ROM [33]. Additionally, connective tissue, particularly the deep fascia, affects ROM in two primary ways. First, it is intricately connected to the underlying muscles along its entire length, and changes in its mechanical properties (e.g., stiffness) can restrict muscle extensibility and, consequently, ROM [34]. Second, fascial tissues, which link muscles across joints, can directly limit ROM due to increased stiffness [35]. Our findings align with this, demonstrating a positive correlation between LD stiffness and TL flexibility.
No significant differences in trunk rotation ROM were observed between groups, nor were there differences in trunk rotation flexibility across the groups.
4.2. Relationship Between Thoracolumbar Mobility and ROM: LD Mechanical Properties
Larger-scale studies are required to gain a more comprehensive understanding of thoracic and trunk mobility. Few studies have investigated the coordination between the pelvis and thorax during running, and none have included the lumbar segment [36]. Coordination between the pelvis and spine facilitates arm movements, which are essential for balance and angular momentum [37]. Electromyography studies suggest that lumbar extensor muscles are active during foot contact and early stance phases [38]. In our study, lumbar extensor tightness correlated with trunk extensor ROM, with the highest values observed in the two-year running group and the lowest values in sedentary participants. Flexibility is a recognized determinant of ROM [33,34]. However, foot strike patterns were not considered in this study. Previous research suggests that changes in lumbar spine ROM, particularly lumbar lordosis, are associated with increased low back pain. However, the impact of transitioning from rearfoot strike (RFS) to forefoot strike (FFS) on lumbar lordosis or low back pain remains unexplored. A study examining this transition found no statistically significant differences in lumbar extension or flexion between FFS and RFS. There was a significant difference between the two patterns in terms of perceived comfort, with RFS perceived as more comfortable and better at attenuating shock. There is a need for further research into foot strike patterns and their effects on thoracolumbar mobility and lumbar flexibility [39].
Regarding thoracic mobility, lateral trunk flexion flexibility on both dominant and nondominant sides was greater in the running for the last two years group compared to both sedentary and running for the last six months groups. Dominant-side lateral trunk flexion ROM was highest in the two-year running group and lowest in sedentary individuals. This suggests that the regular performance of thoracic rotations and lateral flexions in sports may enhance muscle extensibility [40]. However, no significant differences were observed in trunk extensor flexibility across groups.
4.3. Differences Between Mechanical Properties of Muscles of Runners and Sedentary People
Gleim and McHugh (1997) emphasized that decreased flexibility is associated with improved running and walking economy. However, they also noted that increased stiffness could enhance force production, indicating that the optimal level of flexibility may vary depending on the sport and specific movements. While increased flexibility is generally associated with a reduced risk of injury, this relationship is complex and may differ depending on the sport and individual biomechanics. Both reduced and excessive mobility can affect injury risk, and a balanced approach to flexibility and strength training is recommended to optimize performance and minimize injury risk in runners [41,42].
The results indicate that tone values in both the dominant and nondominant latissimus dorsi muscles are higher in the two-year running group and sedentary individuals compared to the six-month running group. Training intensity correlates with motor neuron activity, which is linked to increased muscle tone. The higher tone in the two-year running group supports the relationship with years of experience. Stiffness in the latissimus dorsi was significantly higher in both dominant and nondominant sides in the two-year and six-month running groups compared to sedentary individuals. However, no significant differences were found between the two running groups. Previous studies have shown that stiffness increases more rapidly in sedentary individuals, while athletes experience a slower progression. This phenomenon may be due to reduced sliding motion between fibers in sedentary individuals, which limits flexibility [43,44,45]. LD elasticity was found to be higher in sedentary individuals compared to the two-year and six-month running groups, indicating reduced elasticity. This finding aligns with research suggesting that increased extracellular matrix density and thickened connective tissue reduce fascial mobility in sedentary individuals [46,47,48].
4.4. Relationship Between Thoracolumbar Mobility and Fluid Amount
Runners with two years of experience consume significantly more water in the last 12 h compared to those with six months of running experience or sedentary individuals. While muscle tone is higher in runners, fluid intake was not directly linked to tissue stiffness or elasticity. Studies suggest that proper hydration may help reduce injury risk by improving tissue flexibility. The interaction between muscle contraction proteins and water, along with their tendency to form regular structures, emphasizes the connection between hydration and muscle function. Fluid flow may alter muscle mechanics and performance. Moreover, intracellular water content in lean mass (including the muscle) may influence muscle strength, elasticity, functional capacity and frailty. However, further studies are needed to confirm this hypothesis. Further research is needed to investigate the effects of hydration on muscle function and performance [49,50].
Thoracolumbar mobility may decrease in highly trained runners (with two years of experience) due to the intensity of their training regimens. Similarly, sedentary individuals also exhibit reduced TL mobility. Interestingly, TL mobility appears to be optimal in runners with six months of experience, who typically train less intensely. These findings suggest that both intensive training and sedentary lifestyles can adversely affect lumbar mobility, while moderate training levels may be beneficial. Furthermore, trunk extension and lumbar extensor flexibility were better in the two-year running group, indicating the influence of training intensity and years of running experience on trunk ROM.
Based on these observations, we recommend diversifying exercise programs to include stretching, mobility, and muscular mechanical properties. This approach may help mitigate the increased muscle tone, reduced lumbar mobility, and decreased trunk flexion ROM observed in the two-year running group. Such interventions could not only improve performance but also reduce the risk of musculoskeletal issues associated with running mechanics.
5. Limitations
There are some limitations of this study. One is that we assessed the strength parameter while evaluating viscoelastic properties such as tone, elasticity, and stiffness of the LD muscle. Second, we could not inquire about the exercises conducted apart from running. When including runners in the running experience group, participants with similar levels and training volumes were generally selected (usually from the same recreational running team). However, cross-training activities could have been examined in more detail.
6. Conclusions
Our findings indicate that muscle tone was highest in the two-year running group and lowest in the six-month runners. While an increase in tone is expected in trained individuals, the sedentary group exhibited greater stiffness and reduced elasticity, consistent with prior research suggesting a rapid decline in mechanical properties in inactive individuals.
Thoracolumbar (TL) flexibility, as assessed by the TL mobility test, was significantly higher in both running groups compared to sedentary individuals, reinforcing the positive impact of regular running on spinal mobility. However, trunk rotation flexibility and overall trunk ROM did not show significant differences between groups, except for lateral flexion, where the two-year running group exhibited greater mobility than sedentary individuals, who in turn had better flexibility than the six-month runners.
These findings suggest that while prolonged running experience may enhance thoracolumbar mobility and muscle tone, short-term running does not always confer the same mechanical benefits. Furthermore, the observed stiffness and reduced elasticity in sedentary individuals highlight the detrimental effects of inactivity on spinal and muscular health.
Conceptualization, K.S. and V.B.T.; methodology, K.S.; software, K.S.; validation, K.S. and V.B.T.; formal analysis, K.S. and V.B.T.; investigation, K.S.; resources and data curation, K.S.; writing—original draft preparation—review and editing, K.S.; visualization, V.B.T. and K.S.; project administration, V.B.T.; funding acquisition, K.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Ethics Approval and Consent: The study was approved by ‘Non-invasive Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Hacettepe University’ (Project no: GO 22/727. Evaluation date: 05.07.22, Decision no: 20222/12-63. Clinical Trial No: NCT06269224). An ‘Informed Consent Form’ was signed and participation approval was obtained from all participants. The standards are in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the individuals who will publish this paper.
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
The experiments comply with the current laws of the country in which they were performed. The authors have no conflict of interest to declare. The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author, who organized the study.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
| LD | Latissimus Dorsi |
| ROM | Range of motion |
| TL | Thoracolumbar |
| TLF | Thoracolumbar fascia |
| RSM | Running for the last 6 months |
| RTY | Running for the last two years |
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Physical characteristics of the subjects, mean ± SD.
| Parameter | Group | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RTY | RSM | Sedentary Individuals (n = 35) | ||
| Age (year) | 39.83 ± 4.02 a | 40.60 ± 6.06 a | 34.46 ± 4.46 b | <0.001 1 |
| Height (m) | 1.70 ± 0.07 ab | 1.68 ± 0.04 b | 1.73 ± 0.09 a | 0.004 1 |
| Body weight (kg) | 68.51 ± 9.73 a | 61.40 ± 6.34 b | 65.34 ± 14.25 ab | 0.022 1 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.64 ± 2.52 a | 21.91 ± 2.54 b | 21.60 ± 3.04 b | 0.004 1 |
1 Analysis of variance; a, b: Different letters in the rows indicate significant differences between groups (p < 0.05).; BMI (kg/m2): Body mass index (kilogram/meter2), X ± SD: mean ± Standard deviation, kg: kilogram, m: meter, RTY: running for the last two years, RSM: running for the last six months.
Information on the amount of water consumed is specific to the training.
| Parameter | RTY | RSM | Sedentary Individuals (n = 35) | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amount of water consumed (last 12 h) (lt) | 2.47 ± 0.83 a | 2.10 ± 1.26 b | 1.49 ± 0.55 b | <0.001 1 |
| Weekly training distance (km) | 46.31 ± 7.35 a | 16.60 ± 3.72 b | - | <0.001 2 |
| Weekly training time (h) | 6.11 ± 0.78 a | 2.40 ± 0.50 b | - | <0.001 2 |
| Number of training days per week | 3.87 ± 0.72 a | 2.80 ± 0.76 b | - | <0.001 2 |
1 Kruskal–Wallis test; 2 Mann–Whitney U test; a, b: Different letters in the columns indicate significant differences between groups (p < 0.05).; X ± SD: Mean ± Standard deviation, lt: Liters, km: kilometers, h: Hours, RTY: running for the last two years, RSM: running for the last six months.
The measurements of LD mechanical properties.
| Parameter | Group | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RTY | RSM | Sedentary Individuals | ||
| Tone D | 15.19 ± 1.91 a | 13.79 ± 1.88 b | 15.19 ± 3.65 a | 0.037 1 |
| Elasticity D | 1.61 ± 0.39 b | 1.70 ± 0.29 b | 1.94 ± 0.37 a | 0.001 1 |
| Stiffness D | 271.81 ± 40.36 b | 260.24 ± 57.68 b | 314.91 ± 63.36 a | <0.001 1 |
| Tone ND | 15.89 ± 2.50 a | 13.20 ± 2.33 b | 18.06 ± 5.71 a | <0.001 2 |
| Elasticity ND | 1.69 ± 0.27 b | 1.88 ± 0.43 ab | 2.06 ± 0.54 a | 0.002 1 |
| Stiffness ND LD | 295.92 ± 55.34 a | 235.92 ± 34.47 b | 314.89 ± 59.73 a | <0.001 1 |
1 Analysis of variance; 2 Kruskal–Wallis test; a, b: Different letters in the columns indicate significant differences between groups (p < 0.05). LD: Latissimus Dorsi muscle, X ± SD: mean ± Standard deviation, D: Dominant, ND: Nondominant, RTY: running for the last two years, RSM: running for the last six months, Hz: Hertz, N/m: Newton/meter.
Modified Schober test, trunk flexibility tests, TLF length test with a goniometric platform (TLF flexibility).
| Parameter | Group | p | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RTY | RSM | Sedantary | ||||
| Modified Schober test (lumbar flexibility, cm) | 6.84 ± 0.93 b | 7.80 ± 1.31 a | 6.34 ± 1.60 b | <0.001 1 | ||
| Trunk D lateral flexion (flexibility, cm) | 21.03 ± 3. 70 a | 18.80 ± 2.17 b | 19.14 ± 5.36 ab | 0.044 1 | ||
| Trunk ND lateral flexion (flexibility, cm) | 21.96 ± 3.47 a | 19.26 ± 1.71 b | 19.11 ± 4.16 b | <0.001 1 | ||
| Trunk D rotation (flexibility, cm) | 11.30 ± 3.31 | 12.20 ± 4.46 | 12.66 ± 2.59 | 0.269 1 | ||
| Trunk ND rotation (flexibility, cm) | 11.43 ± 3.35 | 12.20 ± 3.48 | 13.60 ± 4.40 | 0.055 1 | ||
| Trunk extension (flexibility, cm) | 15.50 ± 6.22 | 15.00 ± 3.46 | 17.11 ± 5.90 | 0.328 2 | ||
| TLFlength test D | 167.91 ± 4.34 a | 164.04 ± 14.58 ab | 160.92 ± 11.21 b | 0.031 1 | ||
| TLF length test ND | 168.11 ± 3.40 a | 167.32 ± 9.00 a | 161.78 ± 10.61 b | 0.003 1 | ||
1 Analysis of variance; 2 Kruskal–Wallis test; a, b: Different letters in the rows indicate significant differences between groups (p < 0.05). X ± SD: mean ± Standard deviation, D: Dominant, ND: Nondominant, RTY: running for the last two years, RSM: running for the last six months, °: degree, cm: centimeter.
Trunk ROM and lumbar extensor shortness.
| Parameter | Group | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RTY | RSM | Sedantary | ||
| Lumbal extensor shortness (cm) | 20.74 ± 12.56 a | 11.60 ± 7.22 b | 13.71 ± 4.26 ab | 0.003 1 |
| D lateral flexion (ROM, °) | 18.31 ± 2.44 a | 17.80 ± 6.37 ab | 16.00 ± 2.70 b | 0.010 2 |
| ND lateral flexion (ROM, °) | 18.33 ± 4.22 | 19.00 ± 6.42 | 16.80 ± 4.38 | 0.186 1 |
| Flexion (ROM, °) | 85.69 ± 28.86 b | 106.20 ± 9.95 a | 76.26 ± 31.39 c | <0.001 2 |
| Extension (ROM, °) | 22.26 ± 7.20 a | 18.00 ± 4.80 b | 14.91 ± 6.10 c | <0.001 2 |
1 Analysis of variance; 2 Kruskal–Wallis test; a–c: Different letters in the rows indicate significant differences between groups (p < 0.05). X ± SD: mean ± Standard deviation, D: Dominant, ND: Nondominant, RTY: running for the last two years, RSM: running for the last six months, °: degree, cm: centimeter.
References
1. Hafer, J.F.; Peacock, J.; Zernicke, R.F.; Agresta, C.E. Segment Coordination Variability Differs by Years of Running Experience. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.; 2019; 51, pp. 1438-1443. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001913]
2. Müller, H.; Sternad, D. Motor learning: Changes in the structure of variability in a redundant task. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol.; 2009; 629, pp. 439-456. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-77064-2_23] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19227514]
3. Gazendam, M.G.; Hof, A.L. Averaged EMG profiles in jogging and running at different speeds. Gait Posture; 2007; 25, pp. 604-614. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.06.013]
4. Willson, J.D.; Petrowitz, I.; Butler, R.J.; Kernozek, T.W. Male and female gluteal muscle activity and lower extremity kinematics during running. Clin. Biomech.; 2012; 27, pp. 1052-1057. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2012.08.008] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22948078]
5. Preece, S.J.; Mason, D.; Bramah, C. The coordinated movement of the spine and pelvis during running. Hum. Mov. Sci.; 2016; 45, pp. 110-118. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2015.11.014] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26618444]
6. Trowell, D.; Phillips, E.; Saunders, P.; Bonacci, J. The relationship between performance and biomechanics in middle-distance runners. Sports Biomech.; 2021; 20, pp. 974-984. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2019.1630478]
7. Belyaev, R.I.; Kuznetsov, A.N.; Prilepskaya, N.E. How the even-toed ungulate vertebral column works: Comparison of intervertebral mobility in 33 genera. J. Anat.; 2021; 239, pp. 1370-1399. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joa.13521]
8. Schache, A.G.; Blanch, P.D.; Rath, D.A.; Wrigley, T.V.; Bennell, K.L. Are anthropometric and kinematic parameters of the lumbo-pelvic-hip complex related to running injuries?. Res. Sports Med.; 2005; 13, pp. 127-147. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15438620590956133]
9. Schache, A.G.; Blanch, P.; Rath, D.; Wrigley, T.; Bennell, K. Three-dimensional angular kinematics of the lumbar spine and pelvis during running. Hum. Mov. Sci.; 2002; 21, pp. 273-293. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9457(02)00080-5]
10. Willard, F.H.; Vleeming, A.; Schuenke, M.D.; Danneels, L.; Schleip, R. The thoracolumbar fascia: Anatomy, function and clinical considerations. J. Anat.; 2012; 221, pp. 507-536. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2012.01511.x]
11. Vleeming, A.; Pool-Goudzwaard, A.L.; Stoeckart, R.; van Wingerden, J.P.; Snijders, C.J. The posterior layer of the thoracolumbar fascia. Its function in load transfer from spine to legs. Spine; 1995; 20, pp. 753-758. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199504000-00001] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7701385]
12. Huijing, P. Muscular force transmission: A unified, dual or multiple system? A review and some explorative experimental results. Arch. Physiol. Biochem.; 1999; 107, pp. 292-311. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1076/13813455199908107041QFT292]
13. Stecco, C.; Stern, R.; Porzionato, A.; Macchi, V.; Masiero, S.; Stecco, A.; De Caro, R. Hyaluronan within fascia in the etiology of myofascial pain. Surg. Radiol. Anat.; 2011; 33, pp. 891-896. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00276-011-0876-9] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21964857]
14. Bhatt, C.R.; Prajapati, B.; Patil, D.S.; Patel, V.D.; Singh, B.G.; Mehta, C.D. Variation in the insertion of the latissimus dorsi & its clinical importance. J. Orthop.; 2013; 10, pp. 25-28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2013.01.002]
15. Sarioglu, K.; Pekyavas, N.O. A Comparison Between People With and Without Subacromial Impingement Syndrome and a New Method for Measuring Thoracolumbar Fascia Flexibility. J. Chiropr. Med.; 2021; 20, pp. 9-15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2021.01.003]
16. Gracovetsky, S.; Farfan, H.; Helleur, C. The abdominal mechanism. Spine; 1985; 10, pp. 317-324. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198505000-00005]
17. van der Worp, H.; Vrielink, J.W.; Bredeweg, S.W. Do runners who suffer injuries have higher vertical ground reaction forces than those who remain injury-free? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Sports Med.; 2016; 50, pp. 450-457. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-094924] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26729857]
18. Kara Kaya, B.; Zengin Alpözgen, A. Sağlıklı Yetişkinler için Sedanter Davranış Anketinin Türkçe Kültürel Adaptasyonu ve Güvenirliği. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilim. Enstitüsü Derg.; 2021; 8, pp. 683-690. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.34087/cbusbed.931301]
19. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Lang, A.G.; Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods; 2007; 39, pp. 175-191. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146]
20. Taheri, N.; Becker, L.; Reitmaier, S.; Muellner, M.; Schömig, F.; Pumberger, M.; Schmidt, H. Schober test is not a valid assessment tool for lumbar mobility. Sci. Rep.; 2024; 14, 5451. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-54787-2]
21. Norkin, C.C.; White, D.J. Measurement of Joint Motion: A Guide to Goniometry; 5th ed. McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2016; Available online: https://fadavispt.mhmedical.com/book.aspx?bookID=2124 (accessed on 17 February 2025).
22. Johnson, M.; Mulcahey, M.J. Interrater Reliability of Spine Range of Motion Measurement Using a Tape Measure and Goniometer. J. Chiropr. Med.; 2021; 20, pp. 138-147. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2021.09.003]
23. Gill, K.; Krag, M.H.; Johnson, G.B.; Haugh, L.D.; Pope, M.H. Repeatability of four clinical methods for assessment of lumbar spinal motion. Spine; 1988; 13, pp. 50-53. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198801000-00012] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3381139]
24. Masi, A.T.; Hannon, J.C. Human resting muscle tone (HRMT): Narrative introduction and modern concepts. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther.; 2008; 12, pp. 320-332. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2008.05.007]
25. Chuang, L.L.; Wu, C.Y.; Lin, K.C.; Lur, S.Y. Quantitative mechanical properties of the relaxed biceps and triceps brachii muscles in patients with subacute stroke: A reliability study of the myoton-3 myometer. Stroke Res. Treat.; 2012; 2012, 617694. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/617694] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22619740]
26. Bizzini, M.; Mannion, A.F. Reliability of a new, hand-held device for assessing skeletal muscle stiffness. Clin. Biomech.; 2003; 18, pp. 459-461. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0268-0033(03)00042-1] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12763442]
27. Orner, S.; Kratzer, W.; Schmidberger, J.; Grüner, B. Quantitative tissue parameters of Achilles tendon and plantar fascia in healthy subjects using a handheld myotonometer. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther.; 2018; 22, pp. 105-111. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2017.06.015]
28. Agyapong-Badu, S.; Warner, M.; Samuel, D.; Stokes, M. Measurement of ageing effects on muscle tone and mechanical properties of rectus femoris and biceps brachii in healthy males and females using a novel hand-held myometric device. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr.; 2016; 62, pp. 59-67. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2015.09.011]
29. Uysal, Ö.; Delioğlu, K.; Firat, T. The effects of hamstring training methods on muscle viscoelastic properties in healthy young individuals. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports; 2021; 31, pp. 371-379. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sms.13856]
30. Nelson, M.E.; Rejeski, W.J.; Blair, S.N.; Duncan, P.W.; Judge, J.O.; King, A.C.; Macera, C.A.; Castaneda-Sceppa, C. Physical activity and public health in older adults: Recommendation from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Circulation; 2007; 116, pp. 1094-1105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1249/mss.0b013e3180616aa2]
31. Paterson, D.H.; Jones, G.R.; Rice, C.L. Ageing and physical activity: Evidence to develop exercise recommendations for older adults. Can. J. Public. Health; 2007; 98, (Suppl. 2), pp. S69-S108.
32. Wilke, J.; Macchi, V.; De Caro, R.; Stecco, C. Fascia thickness, aging and flexibility: Is there an association?. J. Anat.; 2019; 234, pp. 43-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joa.12902] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30417344]
33. Nordez, A.; Gross, R.; Andrade, R.; Le Sant, G.; Freitas, S.; Ellis, R.; McNair, P.J.; Hug, F. Non-Muscular Structures Can Limit the Maximal Joint Range of Motion during Stretching. Sports Med.; 2017; 47, pp. 1925-1929. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0703-5]
34. Yucesoy, C.A. Epimuscular myofascial force transmission implies novel principles for muscular mechanics. Exerc. Sport. Sci. Rev.; 2010; 38, pp. 128-134. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JES.0b013e3181e372ef]
35. Wilke, J.; Krause, F.; Vogt, L.; Banzer, W. What Is Evidence-Based About Myofascial Chains: A Systematic Review. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil.; 2016; 97, pp. 454-461. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2015.07.023]
36. Seay, J.F.; Van Emmerik, R.E.; Hamill, J. Low back pain status affects pelvis-trunk coordination and variability during walking and running. Clin. Biomech.; 2011; 26, pp. 572-578. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2010.11.012] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21536356]
37. Pontzer, H.; Holloway, J.H.t.; Raichlen, D.A.; Lieberman, D.E. Control and function of arm swing in human walking and running. J. Exp. Biol.; 2009; 212, pp. 523-534. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1242/jeb.024927] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19181900]
38. Thorstensson, A.; Carlson, H.; Zomlefer, M.R.; Nilsson, J. Lumbar back muscle activity in relation to trunk movements during locomotion in man. Acta Physiol. Scand.; 1982; 116, pp. 13-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-1716.1982.tb10593.x]
39. Delgado, T.L.; Kubera-Shelton, E.; Robb, R.R.; Hickman, R.; Wallmann, H.W.; Dufek, J.S. Effects of foot strike on low back posture, shock attenuation, and comfort in running. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.; 2013; 45, pp. 490-496. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182781b2c]
40. Weppler, C.H.; Magnusson, S.P. Increasing muscle extensibility: A matter of increasing length or modifying sensation?. Phys. Ther.; 2010; 90, pp. 438-449. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20090012]
41. Gleim, G.W.; McHugh, M.P. Flexibility and its effects on sports injury and performance. Sports Med.; 1997; 24, pp. 289-299. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2165/00007256-199724050-00001]
42. Witvrouw, E.; Mahieu, N.; Danneels, L.; McNair, P. Stretching and injury prevention: An obscure relationship. Sports Med.; 2004; 34, pp. 443-449. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200434070-00003] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15233597]
43. Gavronski, G.; Veraksits, A.; Vasar, E.; Maaroos, J. Evaluation of viscoelastic parameters of the skeletal muscles in junior triathletes. Physiol. Meas.; 2007; 28, pp. 625-637. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0967-3334/28/6/002] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17664617]
44. Järvinen, T.A.; Józsa, L.; Kannus, P.; Järvinen, T.L.; Järvinen, M. Organization and distribution of intramuscular connective tissue in normal and immobilized skeletal muscles. An immunohistochemical, polarization and scanning electron microscopic study. J. Muscle Res. Cell Motil.; 2002; 23, pp. 245-254. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1020904518336]
45. Soares, H.R.; Pinheiro, A.R.; Crasto, C.; Barbosa, P.; Dias, N.; de Carvalho, P. Diagnostic ultrasound assessment of deep fascia sliding mobility in vivo: A scoping review—Part 1: Thoracolumbar and abdominal fasciae. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther.; 2021; 27, pp. 92-102. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2020.12.027] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34391319]
46. Schleip, R.; Jäger, H.; Klingler, W. What is ’fascia’? A review of different nomenclatures. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther.; 2012; 16, pp. 496-502. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2012.08.001]
47. Carvalhais, V.O.; Ocarino Jde, M.; Araújo, V.L.; Souza, T.R.; Silva, P.L.; Fonseca, S.T. Myofascial force transmission between the latissimus dorsi and gluteus maximus muscles: An in vivo experiment. J. Biomech.; 2013; 46, pp. 1003-1007. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.11.044]
48. Chaitow, L. Somatic dysfunction and fascia’s gliding-potential. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther.; 2014; 18, pp. 1-3. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2013.11.019]
49. Lorenzo, I.; Serra-Prat, M.; Yébenes, J.C. The Role of Water Homeostasis in Muscle Function and Frailty: A Review. Nutrients; 2019; 11, 1857. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu11081857]
50. Grazi, E. Water and muscle contraction. Int. J. Mol. Sci.; 2008; 9, pp. 1435-1452. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms9081435]
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
