A Comparative Study of Muscle Energy Technique and Dynamic  
Stretching on Calf Muscle Group for Speed and Physical Endurance  
on Healthy Sprint Runners in School Level  
Ragul J1; Navjyoti Gupta2; Balaji Gandhi3  
1LECTURER, Nargund college of physiotherapy  
2Ass.proffessor, Janardhan rai nagar rajastan Vidyapeeth Dep. of. physiotherapy  
3Principal; Nargund college of physiotherapy  
Received: 06 December 2025; Accepted: 13 December 2025; Published: 20 December 2025  
ABSTRACT  
Backgroud: Athletes of all ages and skill levels use running as a popular form of exercise all over the world.  
The calf muscle complex is primarily responsible for propulsion during running gait. The gastrocnemius appears  
to be vulnerable to injury because of the strong stresses generated in this muscle during the push-off phase of  
running. According to reports, up to 30% of running-related injuries occur in the calf muscle region each year.  
Furthermore, lower leg soreness, gastrocnemius pain or strain, calf pain, calf spasm, and Achilles tendon injuries  
have all been reported as symptoms of calf injuries.  
Aims of The Study: Aim of the study is to evaluate the effect of MET and Dynamic Stretching on calf muscle  
group for speed and physical endurance on healthy sprint runners in school level  
Methods: Thirty-two subjects were divided into two groups. Group-A received Muscle energy technique (n=16)  
and Group-B trained with Dynamic stretching (n=16). Both groups received training of 5 sessions per week for  
6 weeks. Outcomes were assessed by Bruce treadmill test and 40-yard sprint test before and after treatment.  
Results: The study shows statistically significant improvement (p<0.05) in both groups for all the outcomes.  
After 6 weeks of training period, the group trained with muscle energy technique scored significantly higher in  
improving the endurance and speed than the group trained with dynamic stretching when the pre & post test  
values of Bruce treadmill Test and 40 yard sprint test were statistically analyzed using an independent ‘t’ test.  
Conclusions: Muscle energy technique was found to be much effective in improving the endurance and speed  
of sprint runners with improving flexibility of calf muscles than dynamic stretching technique.  
Key Words: Muscle Energy Technique, Dynamic Stretching, Endurance, Speed, Flexibility, Calf muscles;  
Bruce Treadmill Test, 40 Yard Sprint Test.  
INTRODUCTION  
Running is a sustainable long term method of cardiovascular training.1 The health benefits of running include a  
reduction in obesity, cardiovascular disease and type II diabetes.2, 3 Running is generally described as either  
sprinting or endurance (distance) running.5 Sprint running races are short-distance races in which athletes try to  
run at their maximum speed throughout the entire distance of the race.6 As the speed of the athlete increases  
while running, the body needs to repeatedly produce force in the lower limbs at a rapid rate.6  
Runners with the best economy while running have a higher energy storage capacity in the triceps surae  
musculotendinous unit than those with poor economy.7 Tendon stretch and recoil reduce the amount of active  
muscle contraction required and stretch shortening cycles can occur at much higher velocities than those  
Page 1758  
controlled by active contraction alone.8 This may be linked to the decreased range of gastrocnemius reported by  
Craib MW, 1996.9 There is also evidence that increased leg stiffness is associated with an increase in velocity  
and smaller stride lengths.10  
MET have the ability to relax overactive muscles or stretch tight muscles and their associated fascial components  
when connective tissue or viscoelastic changes have occurred. When using MET, it is important to relax/inhibit  
the neuromuscular component before attempting to stretch the involved musculature. Two fundamental  
neurophysiologic principles accounts for neuromuscular inhibition that occurs with MET. The first principle is  
neurophysiologic of MET is post contraction inhibition (autogenic inhibition). After a muscle contracts it is  
automatically in a relaxed state for brief latent period. The second neurophysiologic principle that MET uses are  
the principle of reciprocal inhibition.11  
Sprinters need muscle flexibility to improve their performance and lack of flexibility may lead to injuries. Muscle  
energy technique (MET) is the one which lengthens the muscle, increases the ROM and relaxes over active  
muscles or stretch tight muscles.12  
Dynamic stretching (DS) has been recommended as an alternative to static stretching to increase muscle  
flexibility, it involves moving the limb from its neutral position to the end range, where the muscles are at their  
greatest length, and then moving the limb back to its original position. This dynamic action is carried out in a  
smooth, controlled manner and is repeated for a specified time period. The effect of DS protocols on muscle  
performance had been investigated, which generally has a positive relationship.12,13  
METHODOLOGY  
Study Design  
: Comparative study design  
: Random sampling  
Sample Design  
Sample Size : Total number of subjects 32, each group contains equal number of both Female & Male. i.e. [  
16 male and female]  
Group A –MUSCLE ENERGY TECHNIQUE (n= 16)  
Group B – DYNAMIC STRETCHING (n= 16)  
Duration of the study: The duration required to complete the study was  
Data collection – 5 sessions per week for 6 weeks  
Statistical analysis – Before and after treatment subjects were asked to come for data collection  
Study centre : Astra Multi Speciality Hospital, Department of Physiotherapy, (Bangalore)  
Selection Criteria  
Inclusion Criteria:  
Age: 10-12 years  
Any gender  
Subjects willing to participate  
Only sprint runners  
Page 1759  
Exclusion Criteria  
Distance runners  
Inadequate strength in lower limbs or any vestibular or balance disorders  
Subjects with open wounds, bruises and lacerations, recent fractures or incomplete bony union, and  
varicose veins.  
Outcome Measures  
For Endurance: Bruce Treadmill test14  
For Speed: 40-yard sprint test15  
Procedure  
Pre to post test comparative study design with two groups. The study was conducted through Astra Multi  
Specialty Hospital, Department of Physiotherapy, Bangalore, Karnataka. Total subjects were 32 with 16 in each  
group both male and female sprint runners were included based on selection criteria. The duration of exercise  
protocol given for 5 sessions per week for 6 weeks. After fulfilling the inclusion criteria and obtaining informed  
consent subjects was recruited for this study. Group A subjects received Muscle energy technique and Group  
B received Dynamic stretching. A pre test was done for each subject before stating exercises using Bruce  
treadmill test and 40 yard sprint test  
Flow Chart for the Procedure of the Study:  
Page 1760  
Group A (Muscle Energy Technique)  
Figure: 1  
Group B (Dynamic Stretching)  
Figure: 2 (Brace Calf Stretch)  
DATA ANALYSIS  
INTER-GROUP ANALYSIS  
Comparing the effects of Treatment A and B in terms of change in the value of Bruce Treadmill Test.  
Page 1761  
30  
25  
20  
15  
10  
5
27.28  
18.08  
Group A  
Group B  
0
BRUCE TREADMILL TEST  
Graph: 1 (Bruce Treadmill Test)  
Comparing the effects of Treatment A and B in terms of change in the value of 40 Yard Sprint Test.  
4.5  
3.88  
4
3.5  
3
2.38  
2.5  
Group A  
2
Group B  
1.5  
1
0.5  
0
40 YARD SPRINT TEST  
Graph: 2 (40 Yard Sprint Test)  
RESULT  
GRAPH 1 concluded that there is significant difference between two treatments (A and B) in terms of average  
improvement in BRUCE TREADMILL TEST (t = 1.9027, p = 0.033359<0.05). In addition, the mean  
improvement in the value of Bruce Treadmill Test by Group A (27.28) is much greater than that of Group B  
(18.08). Hence concluded that Group A treatment (MET) is significantly effective than Group B treatment  
(Dynamic Stretch) in terms of mean improvement in the value Bruce Treadmill Test.  
GRAPH 2 concluded that there no significant difference between two treatments (A and B) in terms of average  
improvement in 40 YARD SPRINT TEST (t = 1.50157, p = 0.71831>0.05). In addition, the mean improvement  
in the value of 40 Yard Sprint Test by Group A (3.88) is not much greater than that of Group B (2.38). Hence  
concluded that Group A treatment (MET) and Group B treatment (Dynamic Stretch) are equally effective  
in terms of mean improvement in the value 40 Yard Sprint Test.  
DISCUSSION  
The present study showed that both Group A and Group B were shown to be equally effective in improving  
endurance and speed. There is a significant improvement in Bruce Treadmill Test and 40 Yard Sprint Test.  
Page 1762  
However, the inter-group analysis showed that Group A treatment is significantly effective than Group B  
treatment in terms of improvement in values of a measure namely Bruce Treadmill Test and 40 Yard Sprint Test.  
Flexibility exercises are used to increase the length of musculotendinous unit. The term flexibility exercise is  
often used synonymously with stretching exercises. Flexibility training has been shown to improve joint range  
of motion and prevent exercise induced muscle injury.  
Hence, in this study, Group A (Muscle Energy Technique) shows significant difference in Bruce Treadmill Test  
and 40 Yard Sprint Test. Thus, the study showed better improvement in endurance and speed over the duration  
of 6 weeks.  
LIMITATIONS & FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS  
Limitations:  
Study sample size is small  
Samples were healthy individuals  
Short follow up period  
Recommendations:  
Study can be conducted on a large population  
Study can be conducted with long term follow up  
Other age groups can be involved  
Distance runners can be involved  
Other questionnaire can be included  
CONCLUSION  
In this study, both Group A and Group B were shown to be equally effective in improving the endurance and  
speed with sprint runners in school level. Comparing MET and Dynamic Stretching, Group A (MET) provides  
better improvement in endurance and speed than Group B (Dynamic Stretching).  
REFERENCES  
1. Koplan JP, Rothenberg RB, Jones EL. The natural history of exercise: a 10 year follow-up of a cohort of  
runners. Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc. 1995;27:1180–4.  
2. Ryan MB, MacLean CL, Taunton E. A review of anthropometric, biomechanical, neuromuscular and  
training related factors associated with injury in runners. Int. Sport. J. 2006;7(2):120–37.  
3. Van Gent RN, Siem D, Van Middelkoop M, Van Os AG, Bierma-Zienstra SM, Koes BW. Incidence and  
determinants of lower extremity running injuries in long distance runners: a systematic review. Sport.  
Med. 2007;(January 2006):469–81.  
4. Fredericson M, Misra AK. Epidemiology and aetiology of marathon running injuries. Sport. Med. 2007  
Jan;37(4-5):437–9.  
5. Bramble DM, Lieberman DE. Endurance running and the evolution of Homo. Nature.  
2004;432(November):345–52  
6. Bonacci J, Chapman A, Blanch P, Vicenzino B. Neuromuscular adaptations to training, injury and passive  
interventions: implications for running economy. Sport. Med. 2009 Jan;39(11):903–21.  
Page 1763  
7. Arampatzis A, De Monte G, Karamanidis K, Morey-Klapsing G, Stafilidis S, Bruggemann G-P. Influence  
of the muscle–tendon unit’s mechanical and morphological properties on running economy. J. Exp. Biol.  
2006;209:3345–57.  
8. Karamanidis K, Arampatzis A. Mechanical and morphological properties of different muscletendon units  
in the lower extremity and running mechanics: effect of aging and physical activity. J. Exp. Biol. 2005  
Oct;208:3907–23  
9. Craib MW, Mitchell VA, Fields KB, Cooper TR, Hopewell R, Morgan DW. The association between  
flexibility and running economy in sub-elite male distance runners. Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc.  
1996;28(6):737–43.  
10. Arampatzis A, Bru G-P, Metzler V. The effect of speed on leg stiffness and joint kinetics in human  
running. J. Biomech. 1999;32:1349–53.  
11. William E.Printice, Michael I.Voight. Techniques in musculoskeletal rehabilitation. Chapter14 page  
no215,216,217. McGraw-Hill, 2001.  
12. O’Sullivan, K., Murray, E. and David, S.: The effect of warm-up, static stretching and dynamic stretching  
on hamstring flexibility in previously injured subjects. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders; 10: 37, 2009  
13. Iain, F. and Ruth, A.: The acute effects of combined static and dynamic stretch protocols on fifty meter  
sprint performance in track-andfield athletes. Journal of strength and conditioning research; 21(3): 784-  
787, 2007  
14. Monique H. M. et al. (2010). "Exercise testing of pre-school children using the Bruce treadmill protocol:  
New reference values for the original Bruce treadmill protocol in healthy children aged 4 and 5 years  
old." European Journal of Applied Physiology, 110(6), 1135-1140.  
15. Smith, C. E., et al. (2014). "The effects of a post-activation potentiation warm-up on subsequent sprint  
performance." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 28(3), 705-712.  
Page 1764