Evaluating the acute effect of osteopathic manipulative treatment on sprint performance in young adults

Methods

Group assignment

After the first sprint, the participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups as shown in Figure 1: (1) the OMT group; or (2) the sham therapeutic ultrasound (STU) group.

Figure 1:

A flowchart of the methodology.

Osteopathic manipulative treatment protocol

The participants assigned to the OMT group received 5 min of OMT focused on the lower extremities. Treatments were provided by a single osteopathic physician following a standardized protocol :

1. Direct Myofascial Release (MFR): 30 s per leg to the lower-leg region, followed by 30 s per leg to the thigh region with one hand on the lateral aspect of the calf or mid-thigh and the other on the medial aspect of the calf or mid-thigh, following the fascial creep until a release was palpated.

2. Muscle Energy Technique (MET): 30 s total per leg for each muscle group.

   1. Isometric Contraction; Isometric Relaxation: The physician passively moves the subject’s leg to the feather edge of the restrictive barrier. The subject was instructed to contract muscle against an isometric counterforce provided by the physician for 3–5 s. This is followed by 1–2 s of isometric relaxation and subsequent engagement of the new barrier. This is repeated until no further change is palpated.

      1. Hamstrings: The subject was supine with the hip passively flexed and the knee in full extension by the physician until it reached the feather edge of the direct barrier. The subject was instructed to bring their foot toward the table in order to contract the hamstring muscle group, as shown in Figure 2.

      2. Quadriceps: The setup involved a prone subject with the knee passively flexed to the feather edge of the restrictive barrier by the physician. The subject was then instructed to push their foot toward the table, thus contracting the quadriceps muscle group against an isometric counterforce, as shown in Figure 3.

   2. Innominate Dysfunction Treatment: The diagnosis of a single dysfunction utilizing palpation or motion testing, followed by 30 s of MET treatment utilizing the same isometric contraction and isometric relaxation technique. The treatment position varied based on the diagnosis.

Figure 2:

The setup for the hamstring muscle energy technique.

Figure 3:

The setup for the quadriceps muscle energy technique.

All treatments were performed with participants on a massage table.

Sham therapeutic ultrasound protocol

The participants assigned to the STU group received 5 min of sham ultrasound treatment. A diagnostic ultrasound wand was utilized without power, thus not emitting ultrasound waves. Ultrasound jelly was applied to the lower-extremity regions corresponding to the OMT protocol, and the wand was moved in a circular, rhythmic motion for the same duration as the OMT treatments.

Results

Thirty-one young adults aged 18 to 29 were analyzed in this study. Sixteen were randomized to the control ultrasound group, and the other 15 were randomized to the OMT group. The control group included 14 males and 2 females. The OMT group included 9 males and 6 females. Eight out of the 15 participants in the study group ran faster on the second sprint trial, whereas 7 out of the 16 participants in the control group ran faster in the second sprint trial, as shown in Table 1.

The average sprint time before the sham ultrasound treatment in the control group was 8.72 s. The average sprint time after the sham ultrasound treatment found a slight decrease to 8.6925 s with a t statistic of 0.466085 and a p value of 0.32393. The result is not significant at p<0.05.

The average sprint time before OMT treatment in the study group was 9.0513 s. The average sprint time after receiving OMT treatment found a slight decrease to 8.982 s. The treatment group had a t statistic of −0.812468 and a p value of 0.21506. The result was not significant at p<0.05. This leads to a rejection of the null hypothesis with no statistically significant difference between the pre-OMT and post-OMT sprint times.

The mean improvement in sprint time for the control group was 0.0275 s faster, while the mean improvement for the study group was 0.0693 s faster post-treatment, as shown in Table 2. An independent t-test gives a t statistic of 0.403 and a p value of 0.690 for the mean improvement groups. There is no statistically significant difference in improvement between the control and study groups, although the study group had a slightly greater mean improvement.

Discussion

This study investigated the effects of OMT, specifically METs and MFR, on sprinting performance in young adults. Although the results indicated improvements in sprint times following OMT, these changes were not statistically significant. These findings highlight both the potential utility of OMT as a performance-enhancing intervention and the need for further research to better understand its effects in athletic populations.

The observed trends in performance improvement align with the existing literature demonstrating the benefits of OMT in optimizing musculoskeletal function. For example, improvements in the self-reported measures of performance and range of motion among collegiate baseball players following OMT have been reported [1]. Similarly, it has been found that OMT targeting the lower limbs enhanced functional outcomes in young professional soccer players [2]. Although our findings did not reach statistical significance, they suggest that OMT may positively influence sprint performance, possibly through mechanisms related to neuromuscular coordination and biomechanical efficiency. Furthermore, no adverse effects were recorded during the study, indicating that a 5-min OMT protocol is a safe treatment option in the setting of multiple sprinting performances.

The absence of statistically significant results in this study may be attributed to several factors. First, the sample size was relatively small, which may have limited the statistical power to detect significant differences. This limitation is common in studies involving manual therapies and athletic populations, in which recruitment and logistical constraints often restrict sample sizes. Future research should aim to incorporate larger cohorts to improve the robustness of the statistical analyses.

Another consideration is the complex, multifactorial nature of sprint performance. Sprinting relies on a combination of strength, power, coordination, and technique, all of which are influenced by an athlete’s musculoskeletal and neuromuscular systems. Although OMT may contribute to optimizing certain aspects of performance, such as joint alignment and movement efficiency, its effects on other determinants, such as explosive power or anaerobic capacity, remain less clear. This underscores the importance of future studies exploring the specific mechanisms through which OMT may influence athletic outcomes.

Furthermore, the participants in this study were not trained athletes. Our research question focused on whether OMT could improve sprinting performance in athletes, yet our findings are based on recreationally active individuals. The conditioning and efficiency of competitive athletes differs significantly from the general population. As a result, the effects observed in this study may not fully reflect how OMT influences athletic performance in elite or trained cohorts. Future studies should assess OMT in athletic populations to more accurately evaluate its efficacy and potential application in competitive sports.

The findings also raise questions about the duration and frequency of OMT interventions necessary to achieve meaningful improvements in performance. Some studies have reported acute performance enhancements following a single OMT session, whereas others have suggested that cumulative effects may be more pronounced with repeated treatments [2], 6], 9]. Longitudinal studies examining the effects of OMT as part of an ongoing training program could provide valuable insights into its potential long-term benefits.

Despite these limitations, this study contributes to the growing body of evidence supporting the application of OMT in sports medicine. The observed improvements in sprint performance, even if not statistically significant, suggest that OMT may offer a noninvasive and holistic approach to enhancing athletic outcomes. This has the potential to be clinically significant, particularly in trained, high-performance athletes in a sport in which milliseconds can be the difference between winning and losing. Future studies should aim to see the impact OMT has on these high-level athletes to further evaluate its clinical application in professional sports. Moreover, the trend observed in the results aligns with findings that reported improvements in cycling sprint performance following lumbar spine manipulation, further supporting the potential role of manual therapies in sports performance optimization [5].

Conclusions

The present study was conducted with the goal of determining whether OMT could elucidate an acute benefit in sprinting performance in young adults. Although this study did not find statistically significant effects of OMT on sprinting performance, the observed improvements suggest a potential effect of OMT that warrants further investigation. Future research should focus on larger sample sizes and include both recreationally active and athletic populations to more clearly assess the role of OMT in enhancing performance. By addressing these gaps, we can better understand the role of OMT in optimizing athletic performance and its broader applications in sports medicine.