Effect of Lumbar Spine Manipulation on Asymptomatic Cyclist Sprint Performance and Hip Flexibility

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to measure the impact of midlumbar spinal manipulation on asymptomatic cyclist sprint performance and hip flexibility. Methods: Twelve cyclists were equally randomized into an AB:BA crossover study design after baseline testing. Six participants were in the AB group, and 6 were in the BA group. The study involved 1 week of rest in between each of the 3 tested conditions: baseline testing (no intervention prior to testing), condition A (bilateral midlumbar spine manipulation prior to testing), and condition B (sham acupuncture prior to testing, as a control). Testing was blinded and involved a sit-and-reach test followed by a 0.5-km cycle ergometer sprint test against 4-kp resistance. Outcome measures were sit-and-reach distance, time to complete 0.5 km, maximum heart rate, and rating of perceived exertion. An additional 8 cyclists were recruited and used as a second set of controls that engaged in 3 testing sessions without any intervention to track test acclimation. An analysis of variance was used to compare dependent variables under each of the 3 conditions for the experimental group and control group #1, and a repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to analyze test acclimation in control group #2. Results: Lumbar spine manipulation did not demonstrate statistically significant between-group changes in sit-and-reach (P = .765), 0.5-km sprint performance time (P = .877), maximum exercise heart rate (P = .944), or rating of perceived exertion (P = .875). Conclusions: The findings of this preliminary study showed that midlumbar spinal manipulation did not improve hip flexibility or cyclist power output of asymptomatic participants compared with an acupuncture sham and no-treatment control groups.

The effects of spinal manipulation on performance-related outcomes in healthy asymptomatic adult population: a systematic review of best evidence

“…In addition, Ward [47] showed that mid-lumbar SMT had no significant effect on other exercise science measures, including rate of perceived exertion (RPE) during the Bruce treadmill test, calculated VO 2 max, or blood lactate concentration [47]. This was further supported by Olson et al [42] where they reported no significant effect of bilateral mid-lumbar SMT on RPE during a 500 m cycle ergometer sprint [42]. In the fourth study, Da Silva et al [33] examined the effect of cervical, thoracic, combination SMT (cervical and thoracic) and extremity mobilization (placebo group) on maximum inspiratory pressure (MIP), maximum expiratory pressure (MEP) and total lung capacity (TLC) in healthy University students [33].…”

“…Four studies reported on adverse events [30, 36, 40, 44]. Four studies reported on physiological outcomes [30, 33, 42, 47], 16 studies reported on biomechanical outcomes [13, 14, 31, 34–46], three of which also reported on sport-specific outcomes [40, 42, 45], and one additional study reported on performance variables for specific sports [32, 42].…”

“…Four studies investigated the effect of SMT on physiological outcomes in asymptomatic subjects [30, 33, 42, 47] (Table 1). There was no significant effect of thoracic SMT on resting heart rate (HR) or HR variability and no effect of lumbar SMT on exercising HR [30, 42, 47]. In addition, Ward [47] showed that mid-lumbar SMT had no significant effect on other exercise science measures, including rate of perceived exertion (RPE) during the Bruce treadmill test, calculated VO 2 max, or blood lactate concentration [47].…”

“…n = 20Immediately post intervention weekly.Trial distance of 3 full swing maneuvers with driver club (average of 3 distances in meters).Mean differences between groups (Group 2-Group 1):Immediately post-intervention week 1: 9.82 m (−3.58, 23.22)Immediately post-intervention week 2: 11.04 m (− 0.05, 22.13)Immediately post-intervention week 3: 4.39 m (− 5.54, 14.32)Immediately post-intervention week 4: 7.73 m (− 1.48, 16.94) Humphries et al 2013 [40]Asymptomatic male recreational basketball players, completing at least 5/10 free throws; 16–37 years; Texas, USA; n = 24; RCT pilot study.Left cervical SMT at C5/C6. n = 12Sham: Activator set to zero force n = 12Immediately after SMT.Dominant handgrip isometric strength (kg) and free throw completion (20 free throws) (% completed).Adverse events.Handgrip strength between SMT-placebo:1.2 kg (−4.46, 6.86)Free throw accuracy between SMT-placebo:2.4% (0.656, 4.14)No adverse events. Olson et al, 2014 [42]Asymptomatic cyclists; 29–43 years; Texas; n = 20; Blinded, randomized, crossover, controlled study, 1 week between interventions.Condition A: bilateral HVLA side-posture SMT mammillary push at L3 with 15 min wait. n = 6Condition B: 15 min bilateral sham acupuncture to arbitrary points on or near GB-34, SP-6, CV-6, Shenmen.…”

Effects of Cervical Rotatory Manipulation (CRM) on Carotid Atherosclerosis Plaque in Vulnerability: A Histological and Immunohistochemical Study Using Animal Model

“…Spine manipulation, one of the complementary and alternative therapies, has been increasingly popular worldwide. It has been proved effective in the treatment of many diseases [1–3]. In particular, for patients with neck pain or cervical disorder, cervical spine manipulation therapy (CSM) was considered as one of the major treatments, gradually [4, 5].…”