Manuscript builder

Participants. A total of 8 active adults (mean age = 64.9 ± 6.5 years; 4 women, 50%) were enrolled in this randomized controlled trial. Eligibility criteria included age 50 years or older and independent completion of standardized functional tests. Exclusion criteria included active malignancy, uncontrolled cardiovascular disease, and cognitive impairment precluding informed consent. All participants provided written informed consent under a protocol approved by the Institutional Review Board. Randomization. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to Group A (control, n = 4) or Group B (intervention, n = 4) using computer-generated block randomization. Assessors were blinded to group allocation during outcome measurement. Interventions. Group A received a progressive exercise prescription based on American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) guidelines (Riebe et al., 2018), delivered over 12 weeks with two supervised sessions per week. Group B received the identical exercise prescription plus a soft tissue intervention protocol consisting of fascial manipulation (Stecco & Stecco, 2009), medical massage techniques derived from Turchaninov's Science of Massage Institute protocols (Turchaninov, 2019), neuromuscular therapy, and myofascial release, delivered by a Certified Medical Massage Practitioner. Sessions were 60 minutes in duration. Outcome measures. The primary outcome was the Constraint-based Assessment for Prescription, Readiness, and Adaptation Model (CAPRAM) composite readiness score, computed as the mean of seven normalized (0–100) physiological domain scores: Mobility (digital inclinometry), Tissue Tolerance (Visual Analog Scale), Force Production (hand dynamometry), Recovery Capacity (RESTQ-Sport), Motor Control (Functional Movement Screen), Autonomic Regulation (heart rate variability rMSSD via Polar H10), and Neural Function (Vibration Perception Threshold via Biothesiometer, measured bilaterally at the hallux, first metatarsal head, medial malleolus, and tibial crest per neuropathy research conventions). Secondary outcomes included visual analog pain scale, joint range of motion, grip strength, exercise adherence, and validated quality-of-life measures. Assessments were conducted at baseline, weeks 4, 8, and 12 (post-intervention), and 3-month follow-up. Theoretical framework. The CAPRAM model integrates the Cuban and Soviet tradition of Lechebnaya Fizkultura (therapeutic physical culture; Popov, 1988) with the contemporary ACSM/AMA Exercise is Medicine® framework, positioning both fascial-manipulation techniques and progressive exercise loading as targeted interventions to restore sensorimotor function in active adults across the peak decades of adulthood. The neuromechanical loop hypothesized (life exposures → fascial remodeling → sensorimotor signal drift → movement-economy drift → intervention → restored capacity) draws on fascia research by Schleip (2003) and Stecco (2015). Statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics are presented as mean ± SD for continuous variables and n (%) for categorical variables. Between-groups effect sizes were computed as Hedges' g (bias-corrected Cohen's d). Longitudinal analyses used linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts for participants and fixed effects for time, group, and their interaction. Analyses were conducted in R (lme4 package) and SPSS (MIXED procedure). Statistical significance was set at α = .05.

Participant flow. Of 8 adults enrolled and randomized (Group A: n = 4; Group B: n = 4), none discontinued during the intervention period and 8 completed the full protocol through Week 12 (see Figure 1: CONSORT diagram). Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups (Table 1). Primary outcome. At the primary endpoint (Week 12), the CAPRAM composite readiness score demonstrated group differences favoring the intervention arm. Large between-groups effect sizes (Hedges' g ≥ 0.8) were observed for Neural Function (g = +3.77), Tissue Tolerance (g = +2.78), Autonomic Regulation (g = +2.72), Recovery Capacity (g = +2.12), Force Production (g = +1.83), Mobility (g = +1.57), and Motor Control (g = +0.95). The largest between-groups difference was observed for Neural Function (Hedges' g = +3.77, very large). Secondary outcomes. All seven CAPRAM domains showed within-group improvements from baseline to Week 12 in both study arms. Group B exhibited larger mean improvements in Neural Function (Vibration Perception Threshold) than Group A, consistent with the a priori hypothesis that soft tissue manipulation would enhance peripheral sensorimotor function beyond exercise alone (see Table 2 and Figures 2–3). Adverse events. No serious adverse events were reported during the intervention period. Minor adverse events (transient post-session soreness) were self-limiting and did not require modification of the protocol. Note: Report generated automatically from live database on September 17, 2026. Formal p-values, mixed-effects interaction terms, and 95% confidence intervals should be computed in R or SPSS using the exported long-format CSV.