## 3 Results
### Distribution of Foot Load in Static Conditions
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multirow{2}{*}{**Measurement**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Experimental**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Control**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**ES \({}^{\bullet}\)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(p^{\bullet}\)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**ES \({}^{\bullet}\)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**ES \({}^{\bullet}\)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(p^{\bullet}\)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**ES \({}^{\bullet}\)**} \\  & & **Group** & & & & & & & & \\  & & **Mean** \(\pm\) SD & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Flexion (\({}^{\circ}\))} & 1 & 52.80 \(\pm\) 8.64 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.155} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.245} & 56.52 \(\pm\) 12.12 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.375} & 56.52 \(\pm\) 12.12 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.353} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)0.146} & 0.621 & 0.353 \\  & 2 & 55.12 \(\pm\) 10.23 & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Extension (\({}^{\circ}\))} & 1 & 56.72 \(\pm\) 13.44 & \multirow{2}{*}{**0.002**} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.295} & 59.12 \(\pm\) 12.45 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.972} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)0.036} & 0.911 & 0.185 \\  & 2 & 60.72 \(\pm\) 13.71 & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Sidebend to the right (\({}^{\circ}\))} & 1 & 41.04 \(\pm\) 6.71 & \multirow{2}{*}{**0.001**} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.464} & 42.96 \(\pm\) 7.44 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.834} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)0.095} & 0.773 & 0.271 \\  & 2 & 44.28 \(\pm\) 7.25 & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Sidebend to the left (\({}^{\circ}\))} & 1 & 41.36 \(\pm\) 7.06 & \multirow{2}{*}{**<0.001**} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.625} & 43.12 \(\pm\) 7.77 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.909} & 0.076 & 0.837 & 0.237 \\  & 2 & 45.68 \(\pm\) 6.77 & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Rotation to the right (\({}^{\circ}\))} & 1 & 68.80 \(\pm\) 4.83 & \multirow{2}{*}{**0.002**} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.646} & 69.00 \(\pm\) 9.09 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.952} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)0.050} & 1.000 & 0.027 \\  & 2 & 72.00 \(\pm\) 5.07 & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Rotation to the left (\({}^{\circ}\))} & 1 & 68.40 \(\pm\) 6.48 & \multirow{2}{*}{**<0.001**} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.690} & 69.40 \(\pm\) 7.91 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.990} & 0.033 & 0.957 & 0.138 \\  & 2 & 72.88 \(\pm\) 6.51 & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{SD—standard deviation; \(p^{\bullet}\)—between groups; ES \({}^{\bullet}\)—effect size (Cohen’s d) within each group; ES \({}^{\bullet}\)—effect size ([PERSON]’s d) between study groups.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Cervical spine mobility. area and an increase in forefoot load were noted in the second measurement, but these changes were also not statistically significant (Table 4). In the experimental group, after the soft tissue therapy was applied, a decrease in rearfoot load was observed in both the left and right limbs, as well as a decrease in the surface area of the left rearfoot. A higher value in the second measurement was obtained in the area of the surface of the right rearfoot. In the control group, a decrease in the values of all assessed variables in the area of the rearfoot was noted. However, the changes observed in both groups were not statistically significant. The data are presented in Table 5.  
Analyzing the load on the entire foot in the experimental group, no statistically significant changes were observed after the soft tissue therapy was applied. In the control group, changes in the majority of the assessed variables were also not statistically significant, except for the plantar angle in the right foot, which significantly increased in the second measurement (\(p<0.05\)).