Regression: Perform the exercise without a stability ball, and keep your knees at 90 degrees as you lower. Focus: Core stability and hip strength How to Perform: Position the body into a forearm plank with the feet touching. Begin alternating lateral toe taps, where the right foot pushes away from the body, touches the floor and then returns to center.
Repeat with the left leg. Complete a set of 10 reps on each leg. Use a BOSU to make the exercise more challenging. Regression: Perform a static forearm plank with feet hip-distance apart. Focus: Core strength and shoulder stability How to Perform: Position the body into a forearm side plank.
Both legs should be extended. Lift the top arm over the chest and then rotate with your rib cage to draw the hand underneath the ribs. Repeat this motion for 10 to 12 repetitions and then perform on the other side.
Regression: Perform the exercise in modified side plank with your bottom shin on the floor. Focus: Posterior strength How to Perform: Hold a set a dumbbells and stand tall with feet hip-distance apart. Lift the right foot off the floor; hinge the pelvis to glide over the top of the left leg. The head and the foot should counterbalance each other.
The lowest hinging point should be when the body is parallel to the floor. Keep the pelvis as neutral as possible. Complete 12 repetitions on each leg. Regression : Perform the exercise without dumbbells or complete a deadlift with both feet on the floor. Master the science of nutrition and the art of behavior change coaching. Stay connected with us to get the latest health and fitness news, innovative workouts, healthy recipes and wellness tips.
Don't miss out! Save now. Be in a class of your own. Ends soon! They then performed a number of functional movement tests to see if higher levels of core strength helped in these tests, which consisted of:. The results showed that while there was some moderate to weak correlation between core strength and functional movement ability, this was not significant, suggesting that core stability is not a strong predictor of functional performance.
Although training for core and functional movement are important to include in a fitness program, especially for injury prevention, they should not be the primary emphasis of any training program.
However, not all the studies carried out have produced negative results. For example, a study on 41 female athletes showed that six weeks of plyometric, core strengthening, balance, resistance, and speed training reduced the risk of knee injury 7. Meanwhile, core training consisting of multifidus, transversus abdominis and pelvic floor exercises resulted in an improvement in multifidus muscle strength in Australian cricketers and a subsequent decrease in back pain 8.
Also, a study on the effects of abdominal stabilisation manoeuvres on spinal stability found that performing the abdominal bracing manoeuvre prior to an external perturbation to the trunk was effective in reducing spinal motion 9. Core endurance is a crucial component in core training because improved endurance helps support the core muscles to maintaining an efficient trunk position. Research suggests that core endurance is important to spinal stability during prolonged exercise.
To test this theory, a newly published study has examined the effects of an 8-week core training programme on core endurance and running economy in college athletes Running economy is a measure of how efficiently the energy expended by the running muscles is converted into forwards motion.
All things being equal, improved running economy means that less energy is required to sustain a given running speed — ie a given level of workload becomes less fatiguing. The participants were assessed before and after the training program for measures of core strength, static balance and running economy using a 4-stage treadmill incremental running test. The key finding was that the core trained runners not only exhibited better core strength and static balance, they also used less oxygen in the later stages of the running test, which indicated improved running economy.
This study suggests that while core training might not help functional strength, it could help improve running kinematics, leading to improved economy — an obvious benefit to any sportsman or women whose sport involves significant amounts of running! Several reviews have questioned and challenged core stability training CST for prevention and treatment of back pain [ 9 , 10 , 11 ] and for improvement of function and performance in healthy and athletic populations [ 1 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 12 , 13 , 14 ].
There is a view [ 1 , 7 ] that CST in its current form evolved from clinical research [ 15 ] in the s. The application of a clinical exercise approach in healthy and athletic populations has been criticised, primarily on the basis that teaching an isolated muscle pattern in uninjured athletes is unfounded [ 6 , 10 , 16 ]. Despite this, CST as an intervention spread to all exercise disciplines across clinical, fitness and sports performance settings with significant commercial interest and support [ 14 ].
Most review articles on this topic recognised that the application of traditional CST in healthy and athletic groups lack scientific justification [ 3 , 7 , 14 , 17 ].
This resulted in a body of research investigating CST in healthy populations [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ] along with aforementioned review articles [ 1 , 6 , 7 , 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Reviewers have noted that research cannot progress this topic effectively until there is a standardised agreement on the anatomical structure and function of the core [ 1 , 6 , 7 ]. A further limitation reported by most reviewers is the absence of a valid and reliable test of core function [ 1 , 12 ].
As a result most research on the topic is methodologically limited [ 12 , 13 ] and therefore ineffective in confirming or challenging the concept and practice of CST for health and performance.
A case has been made in the literature for a more functional definition of anatomy of the core, applicable to healthy and athletic populations [ 1 , 8 ]. Similarly, it is proposed that the description of core function is revised to encompass normal healthy and athletic human movement [ 8 ]. Several comprehensive reviews over the last decade have examined the research on the effectiveness of various CST methods for athletic performance [ 1 , 6 , 7 , 12 , 13 , 14 ].
Reviews covered the variations in CST including instability training, trunk rotation exercises, functional training and exercise intensity. Martuscello et al. The categories were traditional core exercise sit-ups , core stability exercises isometric plank , ball or device exercises stability ball , free weight exercise squat and deadlift and noncore free weight exercise upper body.
In a recent study conducted in an applied performance sport setting, Spencer et al. The classification incorporated static and dynamic exercises that were either functional or non-functional according to spinal displacement across four physical outcomes: mobility, motor control, work capacity and strength.
Both studies [ 2 , 6 ] clarify the range and nature of core stability exercises used in the literature and practice; however, there is concern that many core stability intervention studies are diluted by other exercises and activities preventing a clear assessment of impact of CST [ 7 , 12 , 13 ].
Furthermore, in athletic populations, a reductionist approach or selective activation to improve integrated function is unsubstantiated [ 1 , 2 , 7 , 12 ]. The proposed protection against injury and improved athletic performance from CST has been the subject of many research studies and review papers.
Silfies et al. The authors questioned whether performance in core stability tests reflected physical or athletic capability and level of conditioning, rather than solely core stabilization.
Tests included the isometric front and side bridge, single-leg raise [ 10 ], star excursion test [ 11 ] and closed kinetic chain upper extremity stability test [ 12 ].
A systematic review conducted by Prieske et al. However, increases in trunk muscle strength only had a small effect on physical fitness and athletic performance measures in trained individuals.
CST compared to alternative physical training methods in trained individuals had little impact on trunk muscle strength, physical fitness and athletic performance measures. Both studies strongly suggest that high levels of general fitness are associated with better performance in CS tests and therefore a lower risk of injury and better athletic performance test scores [ 3 , 12 ]. Separating the core into smaller local and larger global muscles has little bearing on core stability for dynamic movement in healthy people.
The role the core plays in stabilising the body is dynamic and responsive to many postural challenges that occur in normal movement and complex, reactive environment of sport [ 14 ]. The concepts of core strength and core stability have been reviewed the literature [ 1 , 5 , 23 ].
Whether these are separate attributes [ 5 ] or whether core strength is required for core stability [ 23 ] remain unresolved questions [ 1 ]. In this context, core stability is an integrated, functional motor task [ 7 , 24 ] and training should reflect this according to movement patterns [ 14 , 24 ], forces [ 7 , 24 ] and torque and velocity [ 8 , 24 ].
A limitation identified by Prieske et al. Trunk muscle strength in most studies was measured by timed isometric test prone bridge which, firstly, does not reflect force and velocity of movement of dynamic athletic activity [ 12 ]. Secondly, CST programmes in many of the studies incorporated prone plank or similar isometric exercises in the exercise intervention, which rendered timed isometric prone plank an inappropriate test of trunk muscle strength in these cases.
Most reviews conclude there is not a valid method of measuring the effect of CST on trunk muscle strength within the context of improving dynamic athletic performance [ 1 , 13 , 14 , 17 , 25 , 26 ].
As a result, many researchers have resorted to using conventional performance tests such as countermovement jump and sprint tests [ 12 , 13 , 27 ]. Hence, these do not represent training overload in preparation for activities that characterise most sports and athletic events. Researchers have begun to investigate trunk muscle activation in a number of dynamic, loaded free weight exercises to determine their suitability for the development of dynamic trunk strength and stability [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ].
Surface electromyography methodology shows there is good evidence that loaded exercises performed in a standing position are an effective method of overloading the trunk stabilization system in a dynamic manner. While several reviewers recognise this development [ 6 , 7 , 14 ], it is best summarised by Wirth et al.
The flawed foundations of CST for dynamic athletic performance have been exposed in the scientific literature. Research is underway to better understand the most effective training methods for the development of trunk stability. The aim of this survey is to assess the current perspectives of CST in the applied sports setting to determine how well scientific literature informs these opinions. Our hypothesis is that opinions of those who work and participate in sport will reflect scientific debate on key core stability training topics.
The online survey questionnaire Additional file 1 was developed around common themes on core stability as defined in the current scientific literature. The questionnaire comprised four sections: anatomy of the core, function of the core, methods of measuring core function and methods of training the core.
The survey concluded with general questions about the application of core strength training for dynamic athletic performance. The survey question on the anatomy of the core is based on definitions in the literature. We used the definition of local and global stabilization of intersegmental spine proposed by Bergmark [ 38 ]; the passive spinal column, active spinal muscles and neural control unit as described by Panjabi [ 39 ]; axial skeleton between pelvic and shoulder girdle including rib cage, spinal column and associated muscle and nerves proposed by Behm et al.
Categories of exercises and selection criteria for CST used in the survey question were drawn from published studies that investigated muscle activation using these manipulations. The question around core strength and core stability were based on reviews of this topic [ 1 , 7 ]. The questionnaire was modified according to feedback from the pilot survey. Approval for the study was granted by the local research ethics committee in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration [ 40 ].
All recipients were asked to share the survey with all their contacts that met the criteria of working or participating in sport. Data presented in Figs. Reported support for a series of statements relating to core stability and core strength. CI: confidence interval. Responses to a series of questions on the effectiveness of selected categories of exercise in developing core stability for dynamic athletic performance.
Responses to which criteria should inform exercise selection for the development of core stability for dynamic athletic performance. Responses to a series of statements relating to ground-based loaded free barbell exercises and trunk muscle activation.
The online survey was completed by respondents from a range of disciplines involved in sport Table 1. There were no differences between group responses and total cohort, so data are presented and discussed for the total cohort. Respondents reported to have been working in their specific discipline for an average of 8 years range 0—36 years. Respondents were asked to identify the most effective method of measuring core stability in a healthy, uninjured person.
The majority believed that core strength is required for stability mean 1. Most participants disagreed with the statement that core strength was required for athletic performance, but not everyday life mean 3.
The exercise categories deemed most effective in developing core stability for dynamic athletic performance were Fig. Conversely, support was moderate to low for traditional core stability exercises, namely suspended compound exercises mean 2.
Participants identified two exercise categories that were more ineffective than effective; abdominal bracing mean 3. Correct movement pattern mean 1. Most were either undecided or disagreed on the importance of velocity of movement mean 2. Most participants agreed that increases in external load in standing barbell exercises would increase trunk muscle activation mean 2.
Equally important in this form of resistance training was correct postural control mean 2. Slow controlled movement mean 2.
Finally, results for the general questions on the application of core stability exercises are presented on Table 3. Core stability training for healthy and athletic populations has been scrutinised and challenged in recent years in scientific literature [ 6 , 7 , 10 , 13 , 41 , 42 , 43 ].
Descriptions of the core by anatomic structures are entirely dependent on the chosen definition of core function [ 1 ]. The original narrow definition presented in early research focussed on the spinal region between the diaphragm and pelvis [ 44 ].
This approach identified muscular and neural dysfunction associated with back pain. Hence, core function was isolated to this region and proposed training intervention isolated the involved muscles. This approach did not transfer to healthy individuals and athletes where core function is obviously at the centre of dynamic movement characterised by force and velocity through the length of the body [ 10 ].
Consequently, constituent anatomy of the core is described in the literature to reflect, i. Our survey results suggest this shift has permeated applied sports setting; half of the respondents agreed with this definition of the core while a quarter identified with the original description, i. Surveys have been used effectively to assess nutrition knowledge [ 46 ] and understanding of scientific training principles [ 47 ] in the workplace.
Most had an industry-specific qualification and on average were well experienced mean 8 years in their discipline. The cohort is therefore representative of people working and participating in sport. Furthermore, they were reasonably well informed, indicating survey results that represent unbiased perceptions of the wider population. Our survey investigated perceptions around core stability and core strength Fig.
The majority believed that core strength is required for stability and far fewer agreed that these were separate attributes. In a comprehensive review Hibbs et al. These researchers reviewed studies that investigated core stability in response to loaded resistance exercises and traditional core stability exercises. A later systematic review proposed a five-level core exercise classification system that progressed from traditional core exercises to noncore free weight exercises [ 6 ]. Both these reviews suggest that the concept of strength in the term core strength relates to the overarching nature of the exercise, rather than the impact on or adaptation in the core stabilization system.
While core strength and core stability may well be viewed by some in our survey as separate entities, this has yet to be demonstrated scientifically [ 1 ]. The selection of exercises used to develop core stability for healthy function can range from low load, minimal range of movement, abdominal bracing exercises to dynamic, loaded resistance exercises [ 6 ]. Research has not been able to identify and describe adaptations that occur in muscles responsible for stabilising the core as a consequence of different exercise modes [ 1 , 12 ].
It is recognised though that effective core stability is the control of movement, including high force and high velocity movement, generated by interaction between axial and appendicular skeletons [ 5 , 7 , 8 ]. Most survey responses disagreed with the statement that core strength was required for athletic performance, but not everyday life. This demonstrated alignment with the principle that core stability underpins both healthy function and dynamic athletic performance. In effect core strength and core stability are synonyms and are used accordingly in the literature [ 1 , 5 , 23 ].
This is reflected in the survey question seeking to determine whether core stability and strength are separate attributes. In our survey questions that assessed support for exercise categories most effective in developing core stability for dynamic athletic performance, there was clearly more support for functional, loaded exercises Fig. Squats and Olympic lifts and farmers walk that engage the full kinetic chain.
Conversely support was moderate to low for traditional, non-functional core stability exercises, namely suspended compound exercises, isometric plank, hanging leg raise, and instability abdominal exercises.
0コメント