카카오톡채널
search for




 

Comparison of Effects of Static Core Training and Additional Dynamic Core Training in Young Adults: An Experimental Study
Phys Ther Rehabil Sci 2023;12:56-61
Published online March 30, 2023
© 2023 Korean Academy of Physical Therapy Rehabilitation Science.

Namjeong Choa , and Hyunjoong Kimb*

aDepartment of Physical Therapy, Kyungbuk College
bDepartment of Physical Therapy, Gwangju Health University
Correspondence to: Hyunjoong Kim (ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6538-3872)
Department of Physical Therapy, Gwangju Health University 73, Bungmun-daero 419, Gwangju, Republic of Korea
Tel: +82-10-8005-1460 Fax: +82-62-958-7785 E-mail: doong18324@gmail.com
Received March 6, 2023; Revised March 17, 2023; Accepted March 30, 2023.
cc This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Objective: Core training is a key exercise for conditioning and fitness programs, injury prevention, and more. This study aimed to find out the effect of adding dynamic core training, which is frequently prescribed in clinical practice, on dynamic balance and muscle activity compared to conventional static core training.
Design: An experimental study
Methods: This study is an experimental pilot study of prospective parallel design. Six healthy young adults were allocated to static core training group (SCG; crunch and plank) and blended group (BG; crunch, plank, and dead bug exercise) for two weeks to perform core training. Dynamic balance and muscle activity (erector spinae, rectus abdominis) were measured for all participants before and after core training.
Results: All six healthy young adults enrolled completed the study. No significant difference was found before and after 6 sessions of core training in each group (P>0.05). Likewise, no significant difference was found in the results of the difference comparison between groups (P>0.05).
Conclusions: In conclusion, in this experimental study, no difference was found when dynamic core training was added. Although the results before and after core training did not show improvement in dynamic balance and muscle activity, a randomized controlled trial is needed considering the results of previous studies and the limitations of this experimental study.
Keywords : Muscle activity, Exercise, Postural balance, Core stability
Introduction

Core training is a key element in conditioning and fitness programs for athletes and non-athletes [1, 2]. Core training is important primarily for the purpose of performance improvement and injury prevention [3], because it provides stability around the trunk by providing a stable base for the distal extremity [4].

The core muscles consist of the diaphragm, abdominal external oblique, abdominal internal oblique, transverse abdominis, and pelvic floor muscles [5]. The most representative and traditional static core exercises are crunches and planks, also called stabilization exercises [6, 7]. In addition to static core training, dynamic core training is presented in various ways, and dead bug exercise (DBE) is an dynamic core training that is frequently prescribed as an alternative to crunch exercise [8]. Similarly, In physical therapy clinics, DBE is prescribed as an essential exercise for core stability and strength for patients with low back pain [9].

Core training is a key component of conditioning and fitness programs for athletes and non-athletes [1, 2]. Core training is important primarily for performance improvement and injury prevention [3]. This is because it provides stability around the torso by providing a stable base to the distal extremity [4].

The core muscles consist of the diaphragm, external and internal obliques of the abdomen, transverse abdominis, and pelvic floor muscles [5]. The most representative and traditional static core exercises are crunches and planks, also referred to as stabilization exercises [6, 7]. In addition to static core training, dynamic core training is presented in various ways, and dead bug exercise (DBE) is a dynamic core training that is frequently prescribed as an alternative to crunch exercise [8]. Similarly, physical therapy clinics prescribe DBE as an essential exercise for strengthening core stability and muscle strength for patients with low back pain [9].

Studies on the advantages of combining dynamic core training with existing core training in the clinical field are insufficient. Therefore, in order to verify the effect of blended core training, dynamic balance and muscle activity were compared and analyzed.

Methods

Study design

This study is a prospective parallel design experimental pilot study. The study was conducted until September 2022 and was conducted after planning the protocol in advance.

Participants

In this study, young healthy adults from a university were recruited. Eligibility criteria are healthy adults without back pain or other pathological problems within the last three months [10]. Before participating in the experiment, the purpose and procedure of the study were directly explained to the participants according to the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki, and information on risks and inconveniences that could occur during the experiment and risk prevention measures were provided.

Intervention

Participants received a two-week intervention after baseline measurement. Intervention was performed three times a week, eight minutes of stabilization exercise per session. The static core training group (SCG) performed crunch and plank, and the blended group (BG) with dynamic core training performed crunch, plank, and DBE.

Static core training group

For the crunch, after bending the knee at 45° on the supine, fix the foot on the floor, pull the chin toward the chest, place the hand on the opposite shoulder, contract the abdominal muscle, and lift the trunk to the inferior angle of scapula. Returning to the original position while feeling the contraction of the muscles is counted as one round. Each motion was repeated 10 times for 30 seconds, and a one-minute break was provided to the subjects between measurements, and this was considered as one session (Figure 1)[11].

The plank exercise was performed by bending the elbow joint at 90° in the push-up position and maintaining the posture of supporting the floor with the forearm for 30 seconds (Figure 2)[12].

Blended group

In the blended group, DBE was additionally performed. DBE begins with the knee bent on the supine, the legs and arms lifted toward the ceiling, and the waist fixed to the floor after taking the starting position. Lower one lower extremity and the opposite upper extremity together toward the floor, then return to the original position. Then, lower the upper and lower extremity on the opposite side that were not lowered toward the floor in the same way [3, 9]. The crossing of the arms and legs was set to be once every three seconds, and 10 times was set as one set. A one-minute rest period was provided for each set to prevent muscle fatigue (Figure 3).

Outcomes

Muscle activity

In this study, surface electromyography (4D-MT V2.0, Relive, Republic of Korea) was used to measure muscle activity [13]. After wiping the attachment site (erector spinae, upper rectus abdominis, and lower rectus abdominis) with an alcohol pad, surface electrodes (2225H, Hurev, Republic of Korea) were attached and measured. In the mechanical characteristics, the maximum muscle activity value measured during exercise was confirmed and recorded.

Dynamic balance

In this study, dynamic balance ability was confirmed using a dynamic balance measuring instrument (Good Balance®, Metier, Finland) [14]. The task was performed by placing both feet on the triangular platform and moving the trunk in the direction indicated by the computer, and the results were derived through this. The inter-rater reliability of the measuring instrument was reported to be 0.69 to 0.93 [15].

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis in this study was performed using SPSS 29.0 version (IBM Corp., USA). Descriptive statistics were used for the general characteristics of the participants, and the Mann-Whitney U test was used to examine differences between groups. In addition, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to find out the change within the group. The statistical significance level was set at 0.05.

Results

Six participants were registered according to the eligibility criteria. The general characteristics (age, height, and weight) of SCG and BG are as follows. SCG: 22.67±1.53 years, BG: 22.00±2.65 years; SCG: 161.33±6.81 cm, BG: 160.67±14.36; SCG: 53.67±4.51 kg, BG: 62.00±18.74 kg.

Table 1 shows the results of dynamic balance and muscle activity in the SCG and BG. No significant difference was found before and after 6 sessions of core training in each group (P>0.05). Likewise, no significant difference was found in the results of the difference comparison between groups (P>0.05).

Discussion

In this experimental study, core training, which is essential as stabilization training for functional and performance improvement and injury prevention, was compared. For the effect on dynamic balance and muscle activity in healthy young adults, static core training (crunch exercise, plank exercise) traditionally prescribed in the field and dynamic core training combined with DBE, which is additionally widely used in clinical practice, were compared.

As for the results of dynamic balance and muscle activity, no significant difference was found between before and after each group and between groups (P>0.05). Although no significant difference was found before and after core training, when the mean difference was interpreted, both dynamic balance and muscle activity showed positive improvements. This confirmed that the average difference in BG rather than SCG improved in dynamic balance and increased muscle activity (Table 1).

These results are consistent with the results reported in a systematic review and meta-analysis that improvement in dynamic balance through core training had a moderate effect size (effect size=0.634) [16]. Also, in muscle activity, a significant increase in trunk muscles was reported after core training [17]. Furthermore, a meta-analysis of 21 studies also reported that core training greatly contributes to performance improvement [18]. In the results of this study, no significant improvement was found after core training, but previous studies reported so far have demonstrated the effect in a number of results. It is considered that the reason why there was no significant difference between the groups was rather that each group showed equal improvement. The slight predominance of the BG in the mean difference of the measured variables could be interpreted as the effect of the DBE. However, in a study of muscle activity through DBE, it was reported that the rectus femoris was more active than the abdominal muscles [9]. The results of these preceding studies are considered to require additional analysis.

This experimental study was designed with a small number of participants and low intensity training for comparison of core training, but had the following limitations. First, the generalizability of the effect is limited due to the small number of participants and non-parametric tests; Second, when trying to verify the effect of exercise, a period of at least six weeks was required, so two weeks was a relatively short period; Third, in this study, only dynamic balance and muscle activity were confirmed through core training, but many other outcome measures related to function were measured.

Conclusion

In conclusion, no difference was found between static core training and additional dynamic core training. Even in the results before and after core training, improvement in dynamic balance and muscle activity was not shown, but a randomized controlled trial considering the results of previous studies and the limitations of this experimental study is required.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures
Fig. 1. Crunch exercise. a: start position, b: Lift to superior angle of scapula.
Fig. 2. Plank exercise.
Fig. 3. Dead bug exercise. a: start position, b: limbs crossed.
Tables

Table 1

Comparison between groups before and after core training (n=6)

SCG BG Δ
Dynamic balance
Distance (mm) Baselines 1486.56±297.79 1125.02±486.90 -422.67±324.99
Pos-test 962.37±325.32 803.86±199.09
Z (P) -1.604 (0.109) -1.069 (0.285) -0.655 (0.513)
AP (mm) Baselines 1356.59±591.62 777.85±372.75 -523.67±551.33
Pos-test 597.30±216.84 489.79±111.22
Z (P) -1.604 (0.109) -1.604 (0.109) -1.091 (0.275)
ML (mm) Baselines 1559.59±745.32 947.17±624.47 -719.14±703.10
Pos-test 581.60±190.24 486.87±145.17
Z (P) 1.604 (0.109) -1.069 (0.285) -0.655 (0.513)
Time (sec) Baselines 21.77±3.97 18.45±3.02 -0.32±9.23
Pos-test 16.89±2.00 22.68±7.94
Z (P) 1.069 (0.285) -0.535 (0.593) -1.528 (0.127)
Muscle activity
URA (µV) Baselines 8.72±0.977 5.97±2.57 2.87±2.91
Pos-test 11.14±0.98 9.30±5.51
Z (P) -1.604 (0.109) -1.604 (0.109) -0.218 (0.827)
LRA (µV) Baselines 6.44±1.46 3.93±1.47 1.79±1.45
Pos-test 8.99±2.33 4.97±2.36
Z (P) -1.604 (0.109) -1.069 (0.285) -1.091 (0.275)
ES (µV) Baselines 4.09±0.62 3.45±1.78 1.14±2.31
Pos-test 3.73±0.76 6.11±3.10
Z (P) -0.535 (0.593) -1.604 (0.109) -1.528 (0.127)

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.

AP: anterior-posterior, BG: blended group, ES: erector spinae, LRA: lower rectus abdominis, ML: medial-lateral, SCG: static core training group, URA: upper rectus abdominis.


References
  1. Gibson N, Williams M, Maitland C, McCunn R. A framework for progressing and regressing core training within athletic and general populations. Strength Cond J. 2017;39:45-50.
    CrossRef
  2. McGill S. Core training: Evidence translating to better performance and injury prevention. Strength Cond J. 2010;32:33-46.
    CrossRef
  3. Mullane M, Turner A, Bishop C. Exercise technique: The dead bug. Strength Cond J. 2019;41: 114-20.
    CrossRef
  4. Tobey K, Mike J. Single-leg glute bridge. Strength Cond J. 2018;40:110-4.
    CrossRef
  5. Huxel Bliven KC, Anderson BE. Core stability training for injury prevention. Sports Health. 2013;5:514-22.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  6. Oliver GD, Dwelly PM, Sarantis ND, Helmer RA, Bonacci JA. Muscle activation of different core exercises. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24:3069-74.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Januarshah Z. Pengaruh Latihan Core Stability Statis (Plank dan Side Plank) dan Core Stability Dinamis (Side Lying Hip Abduction dan Oblique Crunch) Tterhadap Keseimbangan. J Phys Educ Sport. 2016;3.
  8. Ikele CN, Ikele IT, Ojukwu CP, Ngwoke EO, Katchy UA, Okemuo AJ, et al. Comparative analysis of the effects of abdominal crunch exercise and dead bug exercise on core stability of young adults. Niger J Med. 2020;29:676-9.
    CrossRef
  9. Scavo TM, Cooklin RC, Faria EN, Johnson ML, Sternlicht E. Efficacy of Electromyography and the Dead Bug Exercise. Student Scholar Symposium Abstracts and Posters; May 10; Chapman University, CS, USA2017. p. 239.
  10. Chuter VH, de Jonge XA, Thompson BM, Callister R. The efficacy of a supervised and a home-based core strengthening programme in adults with poor core stability: a three-arm randomised controlled trial. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49:395-9.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Gottschall JS, Mills J, Hastings B. Integration core exercises elicit greater muscle activation than isolation exercises. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27:590-6.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Calatayud J, Casaña J, Martín F, Jakobsen MD, Colado JC, Andersen LL. Progression of core stability exercises based on the extent of muscle activity. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;96:694-9.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Arinci Incel N, Genç H, Erdem HR, Yorgancioglu ZR. Muscle imbalance in hallux valgus: an electromyographic study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 82:345-9.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Hohtari-Kivimäki U, Salminen M, Vahlberg T, Kivelä S-L. Short Berg Balance Scale—correlation to static and dynamic balance and applicability among the aged. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2012; 24:42-6.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  15. Ha H, Cho K, Lee W. Reliability of the good balance system(®) for postural sway measurement in poststroke patients. J Phys Ther Sci. 2014;26:121-4.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  16. Barrio ED, Ramirez-Campillo R, Garcia de Alcaraz Serrano A, RaquelHernandez-García R. Effects of core training on dynamic balance stability: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports Sci. 2022;40:1815-23.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Imai A, Kaneoka K, Okubo Y, Shiina I, Tatsumura M, Izumi S, et al. Trunk muscle activity during lumbar stabilization exercises on both a stable and unstable surface. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010; 40:369-75.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Rodríguez-Perea Á, Reyes-Ferrada W, Jerez-Mayorga D, Ríos LC, Van den Tillar R, Ríos IC, et al. Core training and performance: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Biol Sport. 2023;40:975-92.
    CrossRef

 

Full Text(PDF) Free

Cited By Articles
  • CrossRef (0)
  • Authorship and ethical issues