Enhancing Body Balance and Performance in Elite Archery Athletes: The Impact of Atlasprofilax Intervention on Suboccipital Myofascia

Abstract

BACKGROUND High-performance athletes, such as archers, require optimal proprioception and balance. Subclinical or underestimated metabolic and pathomechanic alterations in the suboccipital myofascia could lead to loss of performance in balance and proprioception. Therapeutic optimization of myofascia and its complex structures through noninvasive stimulation by mechanotransductive vibropressure could be a preliminary key factor in high-performance athletes for high-performance sport. CASE REPORT This study was conducted with 6 athletes from the Brazilian Olympic archery team to evaluate the impact of the Atlasprofilax intervention on body balance. The results were measured using a standardized medical stabilometric platform, which assessed static balance and proprioception capacity. One athlete underwent the intervention before the entire team was tested for balance and reflexes in their archery performance. The study found that the intervened athlete showed improved balance and reflexes, as indicated by superior scores in the risk of fall assessment and fall index. The results suggest the potential for the Atlasprofilax intervention to improve body balance and proprioception in high-performance athletes. CONCLUSIONS A single intervention using the Atlasprofilax method in 1 of 6 Olympic archers resulted in significant improvement in balance and proprioception when compared with that of the non-intervened athletes. This preliminary evidence suggests that the Atlasprofilax intervention on the suboccipital myofascia may have a positive impact on enhancing balance and performance in elite athletes by improving proprioception.

Figure 1.

Center of gravity (CG) and base of support model in the sport of archery. (Source: Fita Coachs Manual. International Archery Federation).

Figure 2.

Health care professional trained in the Atlasprofilax method applying the intervention on a Brazilian patient.

Figure 3.

Athlete performing the balance test on an Advance Mechanical Technology Inc board, with 6-plate sensors on dynamic and computerized platforms.

Figure 4.

Primary endpoint: risk of fall according to the balance test. The closer to the XY axis (abscissa and ordinate), the greater the body balance. Athlete 5 obtained the best score, as shown in the figure.

Figure 5.

Secondary endpoint (fall index). This figure shows the scores obtained in the fall index. The final aggregated results are shown in Table 2. NO – head straight with eyes open; NC – head straight with eyes closed; PO – standing on elastic pads with eyes open; PC – standing on elastic pads with eyes closed; HR – head right with eyes closed; HL – head up with eyes closed; HB – head up with eyes closed; HF – head down with eyes closed; F1 – low frequency; 0.01–0.1 Hz, linked to visual control, typically dominating normal steady and undisturbed posture; ST, stability index); F2–F4 – medium-low frequency: 0.1-0.5 Hz, sensitive to vestibular stress and disturbances; F5–F6 – medium-high frequency: 0.5–1.0 Hz, reflect somatosensory activity in the lower extremities and spine); F7–F8 – high frequency: 1.0 Hz and above, often induced by dysfunctions in the central nervous system; W.D/WDI – weight distribution index as measured for weight distribution over the platforms; SYN L/R – load left/right distribution; SYN TDES HEEL anterior/posterior load distribution.

Figure 6.

Individual scores obtained in the fall index. The graph shows the individual scores of the 6 athletes, with an average (mean) risk fall score of 8 (red dashed line). Athlete 5, who underwent the intervention, was the only athlete who achieved a score of zero, far from the average of the rest of the athletes, who obtained scores equal or higher than the mean of 8 points (scores between 8 and 12 for the athletes who did not undergo the Atlasprofilax intervention).