# Influence of Thoracolumbar Mobility on Running Performance: A Comparative Study
## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **RTY** & **RSM** & **Sedentary** & \\
**Parameter** & **(\(n\) = 35)** & **(\(n\) = 35)** & **Individuals (\(n\) = 35)** & \(p\) \\  & **X \(\pm\) SD** & **X \(\pm\) SD** & **X \(\pm\) SD** & \\ \hline Amount of water consumed & 2.47 \(\pm\) 0.83 a  & 2.10 \(\pm\) 1.26 b  & 1.49 \(\pm\) 0.55 b  & \(<\)0.001 1  \\ (last 12 h) (lt) & & & & \\ Weekly training distance (km) & 46.31 \(\pm\) 7.35 a  & 16.60 \(\pm\) 3.72 b  & - & \(<\)0.001 2  \\ Weekly training time (h) & 6.11 \(\pm\) 0.78 a  & 2.40 \(\pm\) 0.50 b  & - & \(<\)0.001 2  \\ Number of training days per week & 3.87 \(\pm\) 0.72 a  & 2.80 \(\pm\) 0.76 b  & - & \(<\)0.001 2  \\ \hline  & & & \\ \end{tabular}  
* Kruskal–Wallis test;  
* Mann–Whitney U test;
* Different letters in the columns indicate significant differences between groups (\(p\) < 0.05); [FOOTNOTE:] \(X\) \(\pm\) SD: Mean \(\pm\) Standard deviation, l: Liters, km: kilometers, h: Hours, RTY: running for the last two years, RSM: running for the last six months.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Information on the amount of water consumed is specific to the training. 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. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Group**} \\ \cline{2-5}
**Parameter** & **RTY** & **RSM** & **Sedentary** & \(p\) \\  & **(\(n\) = 35)** & **(\(n\) = 35)** & **(\(n\) = 35)** & \\  & **(X \(\pm\) SD)** & **(X \(\pm\) SD)** & **(X \(\pm\) SD)** & \\ \hline Modified Schober test (lumbar flexibility, cm) & 6.84 \(\pm\) 0.93 b  & 7.80 \(\pm\) 1.31 a  & 6.34 \(\pm\) 1.60 b  & \(<\)0.001 1  \\ \hline Trunk D lateral flexion (flexibility, cm) & 21.03 \(\pm\) 3.70 a  & 18.80 \(\pm\) 2.17 b  & 19.14 \(\pm\) 5.36 ab  & 0.044 1  \\ Trunk ND lateral flexion (flexibility, cm) & 21.96 \(\pm\) 3.47 a  & 19.26 \(\pm\) 1.71 b  & 19.11 \(\pm\) 4.16 b  & \(<\)0.001 1  \\ Trunk D rotation (flexibility, cm) & 11.30 \(\pm\) 3.31 & 12.20 \(\pm\) 4.46 & 12.66 \(\pm\) 2.59 & 0.269  \\ Trunk ND rotation (flexibility, cm) & 11.43 \(\pm\) 3.35 & 12.20 \(\pm\) 3.48 & 13.60 \(\pm\) 4.40 & 0.055 1  \\ Trunk extension (flexibility, cm) & 15.50 \(\pm\) 6.22 & 15.00 \(\pm\) 3.46 & 17.11 \(\pm\) 5.90 & 0.328  \\ \hline TLFlength test D & 167.91 \(\pm\) 4.34 a  & 164.04 \(\pm\) 14.58 ab  & 160.92 \(\pm\) 11.21 b  & 0.031  \\ TLF length test D & 168.11 \(\pm\) 3.40 a  & 167.32 \(\pm\) 9.00 a  & 161.78 \(\pm\) 10.61 b  & 0.003 1  \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Analysis of variance; 2 Kruskal-Wallis test; 3, b: Different letters in the coums indicate significant differences between groups (\(p\) < 0.05). X \(\pm\) SD: mean \(\pm\) 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.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: The measurements of LD mechanical properties. The detailed results for trunk ROM (extension, flexion, D/ND lateral flexion) and lumbar extensor shortness are presented in Table 5.