Summary

The purpose of this study was to deter-mine the effects of Rolfing on running economy, the amount of energy required to run at a given velocity. Running economy is considered an important factor in distance running performance, improvement of which may be a key to improving performance. The hypothesis of this study was that Rolfing might have the potential to affect the elastic proper-ties of fascia, which might affect the contribution of the series elastic component of muscle and connective tissue to the act of running. 1 It was further speculated that, if the series elastic contribution to running is affected, then running mechanics might be altered as well. Running mechanics have been shown to be associated with running economy by several investigators. 2 Therefore, if running mechanics can be altered by Rolfing, the running economy might be affected. In addition, if the amount of energy required to perform a given amount of work is altered, the perception of effort at that work level should also be affected.

Eighteen well-trained men with 10-kilometer race times ranging from 28.50minutes to 39.08 minutes with randomly divided into three groups:

1. a passive control group which received no treatment (CG).

2. an active control group which receive ten full-body Sports Massages from a licensed practitioner (MG).

3. an experimental treatment group which received a standardized series often Rolfing therapy sessions from the Advanced Certified Rolfers at the offices of Owen Marcus and Associates, Scottsdale, Arizona (RG).

Each subject participated in seven laboratory testing sessions, consisting off our pretreatment visits and three post treatment visits all testing was performed at the Exercise and Sport Re-search Institute at Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, in accordance with institutional review board guidelines.

Pre-treatment Sessions

1. An accommodation run to become familiar with treadmill running and the requirements of the study.

2. A VO2 max test to determine maxi-mal aerobic capacity.

3. Assessment of running economy at three velocities of running measurement of general flexibility (sit-and-reach test), and filming of the subject at 10- kilometer race-pace for quan-ti6cation of running mechanics.
4. Repeat of Session 3 to account for day to day variability within subjects.

Post treatment Sessions

1. A VO2 max test to substantiate that state of fitness had not changed over the course of the treatment period.

2. Running economy assessment, measurement of general flexibility, and filming at race-pace.

3. Repeat of Post-treatment Session 2.

Following the pre-treatment sessions, the subjects continued their normal training programs for 15 weeks while the MG and RG subjects under went their respective treatments. At the end of the treatment period, all of the subjects participated in the post-treatment testing.

The dependent variables of interest were:

1. running economy measured at three different velocities of running.

2. subject’s rating of perceived exertion of those three velocities.

3. low-back/hip/hamstring flexibility.

4. three biomechanical variables associated with running economy (stride or step length, plantar flexion angle at toe-off and the angle of the lower leg or shank at foot-contact).

After statistical analysis of the results of the study, it was determined that there were no significant differences in any of the measures which could be attributed to subjects in the Rolf Group (RG) stated the belief that the treatment had helped their running in one or more ways. Benefits they cited included relief from chronic, nagging injuries, a more fluid running style, and a heightened sense of body awareness contributing to better running form, especially when fatigued. In contrast, the subjects who under went the Sports Massage therapy did not report benefits to their running, and in fact stated that the time spent was more of an inconvenience than it was worth.

In light of these observations, several explanations for the lack of statistically significant findings are offered. it has been suggested that faster runners are relatively uneconomical at running velocities slower than race-pace. With the wide range of abilities in this subject pool, the (28.50 to39.08 minutes) the test velocities may have been too slow for the faster runners, as all subjects were assessed for running economy at the same standardized running speeds. Assessment of running economy at individual training and race paces might be a more valid means of quantifying this variable in future investigations.

Also, many of the current subjects were highly elite runners and were probably very economical to start with. Finding statistically significant changes in economy in this population would require substantial differences from pre- to post-treatment. Screening subjects by rating their levels of running economy might prove valuable in further studies.

Finally, the small number of subjects included in the study made it difficult to attain significant findings or make definitive statements regarding the effects of Rolfing on the variables of interest. A larger subject pool, including the above design changes, might shed light on the effects of Rolfing on running economy and running mechanics.

References

1 Alexander, R. and H. Bennet-Clark, 1977. “Storage of elastic strain energy in muscle and other tissue”. Nature 265:114-117.

2 Frederick, E.C., 1985. “Synthesis, experimentation, and the biomechanics of economical movement”. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 17:44-47.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Rolf Institute of Boulder, Colorado for their financial assistance in the administration of this investigation. We also wish to thank Owen Marcus and Associates of Scottsdale, Arizona for their initiative, interest, time and expert administration of the Rolfing therapy during the course of this study.The Effects of Rolfing on Running Economy and Running Mechanics