Neuroathletic training & performance

Neuroathletic training and osteopathy: what a worse retest reveals

Tino Both · 18 Aug 2026 · 12 min read

An eye exercise sounds suitable. Immediately afterwards, however, single-leg standing becomes less steady, head movement more uncomfortable or shoulder movement smaller. Was the exercise wrong? Not necessarily. The worse retest initially provides precise information: this stimulus, in this form and dose, does not currently suit the tested aim.

The most important answer firstA worse retest should not be ignored or “trained away”. First check whether baseline test, stimulus and retest were truly identical and the response reproducible. If confirmed, the stimulus is not prescribed indiscriminately. NeuroFI can then specifically differentiate which functional connection non-physiologically inhibits the stable indicator muscle, which solution removes the response and whether the original stimulus remains stable after integration.

From a jointly authored professional articleTogether with Dr med. Philip Eckardt, I described this approach in the article “Neuroathletic Training and Neurofunctional Integration — Two Approaches That Combine Ideally”. Published in Osteopathie Welt 03/26, with kind permission from Fulton Akademie.

Why a worse retest can be so informative

A clear worsening helps the next decision, just as improvement does.

Neuroathletic training is often associated with unusual exercises: moving the eyes, turning the head, stimulating balance, activating the tongue or working with colours. Its core, however, is not an exercise's unusual nature. What matters is what a precisely defined stimulus does to a previously selected function.

First choose a baseline marker. This may be single-leg standing, head or shoulder movement, a forward bend, reaction task, gaze-stability test or a specifically reproducible symptom. Then introduce one stimulus and reassess the same marker under conditions as similar as possible.

The retest improvesThe stimulus is an interesting candidate. Now assess whether change repeats, which variation and dose suit, and whether it transfers to the relevant everyday or sports function.

The retest stays unchangedThis version initially does not clearly change the chosen marker. Rather than collecting arbitrarily many exercises, adjust exactly one variable: side, direction, speed, position, repetitions or stimulus type.

The retest worsensMovement becomes smaller, standing less steady, precision lower or symptoms more pronounced. This is no invitation to train the stimulus harder. It indicates the need to confirm the specific response and examine the notable connection more closely.

A sentence from the article captures it“Every intervention is only a stimulus.” The system's response shows whether it suits the current aim and which next step makes sense.

Where neuroathletic training and osteopathy meet

Manual, sensory and motor inputs must be processed by the same nervous system.

Osteopathic manual work and neuroathletic training begin from different perspectives. Osteopathy can manually examine and influence tissues, joints, mobility, tension and functional connections. Neuroathletic training focuses especially on sensory information, movement control and which dosed stimulus changes a defined output.

The shared bridge is the retest. A manual technique, eye movement, vestibular stimulus or proprioceptive task each supplies information. The chosen marker then shows whether function changes in the desired direction. Different professional perspectives are thus aligned to the same testable question rather than set against each other.

Important contextThe osteopathic context comes from the article jointly published with Dr med. Philip Eckardt. My own work in Vilshofen is Applied Neurofunction, NeuroFI and neuroathletic training; I do not present myself as an osteopath or doctor.

Why the same stimulus affects people differently

Input is only the beginning; what matters is its processing and translation into movement in the particular context.

Visual, vestibular and proprioceptive information is continually weighted for posture and movement. Skin contact, joint position, breathing, expectation, speed and the specific task also change context. The same eye or head movement may therefore improve standing in one person, remain neutral in another and temporarily worsen stability in a third.

This does not mean the nervous system responds arbitrarily. The test demand may be too large, unsuitable for the target task or paired with a functional connection the system currently does not organise physiologically. Here, a worse retest narrows the search.

Example: head movement and balanceSingle-leg standing is stable with a still head. After a few horizontal head movements, it becomes markedly less steady. We do not automatically claim the balance organ is the cause. First control speed, range, gaze target, direction and side. If worsening remains reproducible under the same condition, the connection becomes a specific NeuroFI assessment route.

A worse retest must first be confirmed

One wobbly attempt is not yet a robust finding.

People vary. Attention, fatigue, breathing, learning and test order may change the result. Simplify and repeat the condition. The baseline marker must be clear, safe and sufficiently stable. Stimulus and retest remain brief, and only one variable changes between attempts.

Four checks before interpretation• Was the baseline test stable and repeatable before the stimulus?
• Were position, direction, speed and task retained in the retest?
• Can the same stimulus reproduce worsening?
• Does worsening disappear when the stimulus is removed or clearly simplified?

Differentiate further only once the pattern stays clear. The retest answers a deliberately narrow question: does this stimulus change the previously defined marker now? This information guides the next assessment step.

How NeuroFI proceeds after a negative response

NeuroFI examines and integrates the notable functional connection rather than simply finding another exercise.

1. Choose a stable indicator muscleFirst determine a painlessly and reproducibly testable muscle. If direct testing in the problem area causes pain, protective tension or another non-physiological response, that area is not used. The indicator should reliably reflect the subsequent question.

2. Introduce the precise stimulusDraw the nervous system's attention to the exact notable connection. Combine a reference area or target output and the function being examined, for example shoulder plus eye movement, ankle plus head movement or balance plus a particular visual condition.

3. Test the indicator muscle under the stimulusIf the previously stable muscle stays physiologically strong, this particular question initially shows no notable response. If it becomes reproducibly non-physiologically weak under the defined stimulus, a functional disturbance in that specific connection appears within NeuroFI.

4. Find a suitable solutionSystematically examine possible solution levels. The appropriate solution understandably removes inhibition: stimulus → weak. Stimulus plus solution → strong. Repeat this alternating pattern before integration.

5. Integrate the solutionStimulus and solution are connected neurofunctionally. Afterwards, the original stimulus must test stably without additional solution contact: stimulus → strong. This completes the specific NeuroFI testing sequence.

6. Reassess the actual outputFinally repeat both the indicator muscle and baseline function: single-leg standing, gait, shoulder or head movement, mobility, precision or the specified symptom pattern. This shows whether integration transfers to the relevant function.

The crucial differenceNeuroathletic training seeks, among other things, stimuli that improve output and can then be trained at an appropriate dose. NeuroFI begins where a precisely examined connection non-physiologically inhibits the stable indicator muscle. The solution is integrated, rather than just briefly added, and checked again against the original stimulus.

A practical example from the published article

An immediate positive retest can identify a training candidate.

In the article, Dr med. Philip Eckardt and I describe a man with persistent coordination, gait and stability difficulties after a neurosurgical history. Several global and oculomotor tests showed notable findings. Targeted convergence and divergence work immediately improved single-leg standing.

This observation did not lead to a blanket claim that the eyes were “the cause”. It identified a specific visual training candidate. Eye function, breathing and movement control were then deliberately included in the subsequent approach. This is the usefulness of a good retest: translating a complex starting situation into testable next steps.

What follows successful integration?

Integration and training serve different purposes and can usefully follow each other.

If the originally notable stimulus remains stable after NeuroFI integration, reassess actual movement. If target output improves too, select an appropriate training stimulus. It should be active, adjustable in dose and repeatable in everyday life or sport.

For example, a visual stimulus may then be combined with walking, balance or a sports task. Head movement may progress from small and slow to more dynamic and task-specific. Quality, tolerance and transfer must keep pace. Integration creates a changed starting point; training develops capacity and skill from it.

A positive retest is a starting point, not an endpointThe immediate effect helps selection. Later retests and progress show whether change holds under repetition, greater load and daily life.

Useful observations you can make yourself

Observe context without provoking severe symptoms.

Helpful questions• Which specific movement or task should improve?
• Does it become easier, unchanged or harder after an exercise?
• Does change occur only on a particular side or in a direction?
• Does dose matter: speed, repetitions or range?
• Does the pattern change with gaze shifts, head movement, firm ground or closed eyes?
• Does the effect remain after a brief pause?

Wobbly single-leg standing with closed eyes or rapid head movements are not useful self-tests for everyone. Safe surroundings, a handrail and a well-tolerated starting position come first. This article does not provide a muscle test for self-diagnosis; NeuroFI depends on a properly calibrated indicator and precise test question.

When worsening needs medical assessment

New or pronounced neurological signs are not a training signal.

Please stop provoking symptomsSudden paralysis or marked weakness, new speech or vision disturbances, severe unfamiliar headaches, persistent intense dizziness, altered consciousness, acute hearing loss, inability to walk or symptoms after significant trauma warrant medical assessment. Functional testing begins only once acute risks have been sufficiently assessed.

NeuroFI and neuroathletic training in Vilshofen

A non-specific response becomes a precise, testable working question.

In my practice in Vilshofen an der Donau, I begin with the problem that actually needs to change in daily life or sport. We choose a safe baseline marker and examine a few suitable groups of stimuli. A positive re-test may lead directly to a training option with an appropriate dose. A reproducibly worse re-test is examined further from a neurofunctional perspective rather than ignored.

Within NeuroFI, the notable connection is made more precise through a stable indicator muscle, a suitable solution found and integrated. The original stimulus and actual baseline function must then be reassessed. This creates an understandable route from the specific problem to individual integration and subsequent training, rather than a standard programme.

Does an exercise repeatedly worsen your baseline test?In a free initial telephone consultation we can clarify which function you want to change, what has been examined and whether a neurofunctional assessment route suits your concern.

Common questions about worse retests, neuroathletic training and NeuroFI

Brief answers to key follow-up questions.

What is a worse retest in neuroathletic training?The defined marker becomes measurably or perceptibly worse after a defined stimulus, for example reduced mobility, stability or precision, or stronger symptoms. The response is first confirmed under identical conditions.

Can a neuroathletic exercise intensify symptoms?Yes. An unsuitable or excessive stimulus can temporarily worsen a marker. The exercise is then stopped or simplified, rather than interpreting the negative response as necessary training.

Does a worse retest mean the exercise is fundamentally wrong?No. Initially, only this version at this moment is unhelpful for this marker. Direction, side, speed, dose and starting position may change the response. If confirmed, assess the connection specifically further.

What does NeuroFI do after a negative response?NeuroFI links the precise stimulus to a stable indicator muscle. With reproducible non-physiological inhibition, seek a solution that normalises the test. After integration, the original stimulus alone must stay strong; the functional retest follows.

Is NeuroFI the same as osteopathy?No. NeuroFI is an independent neurofunctional integration methodology. The published article shows how it may complement neuroathletic and osteopathic manual perspectives. My own service in Vilshofen is not osteopathic treatment.

When does a positive stimulus become an exercise?When relevant output improves reproducibly, dose is tolerated and the person can safely perform the stimulus. Then check repetition, course and transfer to daily life or sport.

Conclusion: a worse retest is not the end of the approach

It shows where indiscriminate continued training ends and precise differentiation begins.

Neuroathletic training and osteopathic manual work can use very different stimuli. Their connection is the question of how a defined function changes afterwards. A positive retest supplies a candidate, a neutral one leads to adjustment and a reproducibly worse one opens a targeted assessment route.

NeuroFI pursues this route: stable indicator muscle, precise stimulus, reproducible inhibition, suitable solution, integration and identical retest. Only then assess whether actual movement or symptoms change too. “This exercise ought to fit” becomes a testable individual decision.