Pilates and balance for archers: Khan 2024 study

Thirty Indian archers competing at national level, all men aged 18 to 30, were randomly split into three groups of ten: the first did six weeks of Pilates plus balance exercises, the second the balance exercises only, and the third nothing beyond their usual training. Before and after, the authors measured control of the lumbopelvic region, with two floor tests and a pressure cuff, and the score over 12 arrows.

The score of the Pilates plus balance group went from 96.10 to 103.30, that of the balance group from 108.50 to 111.40 and that of the controls from 107.60 to 106.20. The comparison between groups was significant (p = 0.032, partial eta squared 0.159) and, according to the table of pairwise comparisons, the only difference was between Pilates plus balance and the controls. In the lumbopelvic tests a lower value means the pressure under the back changes less, so the pelvis stays steadier: the Pilates plus balance group dropped from 50.80 to 45.30 mmHg on the right knee lift test and from 46.90 to 43.30 on the left bent knee fall-out, while the controls got worse on some measures (from 56.00 to 61.00 on the left knee lift). The balance-only group did better than the controls on the two knee lift tests, but not on score. The right bent knee fall-out showed no difference between groups.

Randomisation was done by a researcher outside the study. Both intervention groups trained three times a week for six weeks. Balance work took 20 minutes a session, progressing from two feet to one foot and then to a heel-to-toe stance, with the eyes first open and then shut, first on the floor and then on a foam mat. The Pilates followed a protocol already used with Korean high school archers (Park and colleagues, 2016): floor exercises such as bridges, single leg stretch, quadruped work, swimming and swan dive, for about 50 minutes with warm-up and cool-down. The control group did no extra work.

Lumbopelvic control was measured with a pressure biofeedback unit (Stabilizer) placed under the lower back and inflated to 40 mmHg. In the Knee Lift Abdominal Test the athlete lies with knees bent, lifts one foot to 90 degrees of hip and knee flexion and holds for 4 to 6 seconds; in the Bent Knee Fall-Out a bent knee is lowered sideways to about 45 degrees. The largest pressure change is recorded, leg by leg. The score was the total of two ends of six arrows, with four minutes per end; distance, target face and bow type are not reported. The groups were compared with a one-way analysis of variance and LSD post hoc tests.

The main problem is the starting point: the Pilates plus balance group began about 12 points below the other two (96.10 against 108.50 and 107.60), and even after the programme it was still the lowest-scoring group. A group that starts lower has more room to improve and tends to drift back towards the mean even without any intervention; the analysis does not adjust for baseline, and the text does not make clear whether the ANOVA compares improvements or final values. A score over 12 arrows also varies a good deal from one test to the next. The groups did not start level on the lumbopelvic tests either: on the knee lift the Pilates plus balance group already had the best values before the programme (50.80 against 60.70 and 56.80 on the right), and on the right the controls improved too, from 56.80 to 51.60.

The workload was not matched: the Pilates plus balance group trained far longer than the others and the controls did nothing, so the effect of Pilates cannot be separated from that of more hours of work and attention. There is no Pilates-only group. There are inconsistencies too: the text says the Pilates plus balance group also outscored the balance group, but in the table that comparison has p = 0.54; in the table of characteristics height and weight are swapped (64 cm and 165 kg); and the sample size was calculated for a paired comparison, not for three groups. The authors admit that some participants, picked by draw, were not keen to take part. Discipline, distance and draw weight are not reported.

For an archer the study offers a hint about pelvic control and much less about score. The hint is that after six weeks of Pilates and balance work, added to shooting, values on the floor tests were better; but the advantage over the controls is clear on only one of the four tests, and the group already started ahead on some of them. Balance work alone also helped on two tests. On score the picture is weaker: the group that improved started well below the others, only 12 arrows were counted, and the comparison with the balance group does not hold up in the table.

So the study does not show that Pilates adds points, and it says nothing about Pilates on its own. Nor does it give any reason to avoid it: it is bodyweight work with light loads that fits easily into physical preparation. Whether a steadier pelvis in floor tests turns into a more consistent shot remains to be shown, with groups that start level and more arrows.