IJSPT

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

EFFECTS OF TWO TYPES OF TRUNK EXERCISES ON

BALANCE AND ATHLETIC PERFORMANCE IN
YOUTH SOCCER PLAYERS
Atsushi Imai, PhD1
Koji Kaneoka, MD, PhD2
Yu Okubo, PT, PhD3
Hitoshi Shiraki4

ABSTRACT
Purpose/Background: Many athletes perform trunk stabilization exercises (SE) and conventional trunk
exercises (CE) to enhance trunk stability and strength. However, evidence regarding the specific training
effects of SE and CE is lacking and there have been no studies for youth athletes. Therefore, the purpose
of this study was to investigate the training effects of SE and CE on balance and athletic performance in
youth soccer players.
Methods: Twenty-seven male youth soccer players were assigned randomly to either an SE group (n = 13)
or CE group (n = 14). Data from nineteen players who completed all training sessions were used for statistical analyses (SE, n = 10; CE, n = 9). Before and after the 12-week intervention program, pre- and posttesting comprised of a static balance test, Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT), Coopers test, sprint, the Step
50, vertical jump, and rebound jump were performed. After pre-testing, players performed the SE or CE
program three times per week for 12 weeks. A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA was used to assess the
changes over time, and differences between the groups. Within-group changes from pre-testing to post-testing were determined using paired t-tests. Statistical significance was inferred from p < 0.05.
Results: There were significant group-by-time interactions for posterolateral (p = 0.022) and posteromedial
(p < 0.001) directions of the SEBT. Paired t-tests revealed significant improvements of the posterolateral and
posteromedial directions in the SE group. Although other measurements did not find group-by-time interactions, within-group changes were detected indicating significant improvements in the static balance test,
Coopers test, and rebound jump in the only SE group (p < 0.05). Vertical jump and sprint were improved
significantly in both groups (p < 0.05), but the Step 50 was not improved in either group (p > 0.05).
Conclusions: Results suggested that the SE has specific training effects that enhance static and dynamic
balance, Coopers test, and rebound jump.
Levels of Evidence: 3b
Keywords: core training, stabilization exercise, trunk muscle, trunk stability

Mejiro University, Iwatsuki, Saitama, Japan.

2
Waseda University, Tokorozawa, Saitama, Japan.
3
Saitama Medical University, Iruma, Saitama, Japan.
4
University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Atsushi Imai
320 Ukiya, Iwatsuki, Saitama 339-8501, Japan
Email: [email protected]

The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 9, Number 1 | February 2014 | Page 47

INTRODUCTION
The trunk, which is defined for the purpose of this
study as the region of the low back and pelvis, has
important roles including the transfer of energy and
the connection of movements between the lower
and upper body.1,2 Within the trunk, there are many
muscles. These muscles are classified into local and
global muscles depending on their anatomical orientation and function.3 Local muscles, which have
more direct or indirect attachments to the lumbar
vertebrae, are associated with the segmental stability of the lumbar spine.3 Global muscles, those that
attach to the hips and pelvis, are related to torque
production and to transfer of load between the thoracic cage and the pelvis.3 The interdependency of
the osseoligamentous structures, trunk muscles,
and neural control of the muscles is needed for optimal trunk stability.4 Particularly, coordination and
co-contraction of these local and global muscles are
important.5 Thus, trunk stability is considered the
ability to control the position and motion of trunk
during dynamic loading and movement conditions.6
Various trunk exercises are often performed for improving strength and stability of the trunk. One type of trunk
exercises, described as conventional trunk exercises
(CE) include repeated flexion and extension of spine,
such as sit-ups or back extensions, have been widely
performed for improving trunk strength.7 Another
type of trunk exercises, described as trunk stabilization
exercises (SE), which keep the lumbar spine in a neutral position and adjust functional postures with minimal accompanying trunk movements, such as the side
bridge or back bridge, are commonly performed. The
aim of SE is to restore and improve the coordination
and control of the trunk muscles in order to enhance
trunk stability.8 Previous authors have demonstrated
that SE is effective in not only rehabilitating and preventing the low back pain,9,10,11 but also for improving
balance12 and athletic performance.13 Moreover, it has
been also reported that the warm-up program including SE reduced the incidence of anterior cruciate ligament injury.14 Thus, the number of people who are
interested in using SE as the training for improving
athletic performance and for preventing injuries of
low back and lower extremities is increasing.
Several researchers have examined the effects of
trunk exercises on balance and athletic performance

in healthy adults or collegiate athletes. They examined trunk exercise programs with combinations of SE
and CE or only SE or only CE in order to investigate
their effects.12,15,16 Sato and Mokha15 found that trunk
strengthening exercises improved the 5,000 meter run
time of healthy adults. Butcher et al13 showed that SE
improved the vertical jump in athletes. Additionally,
Kahle et al12 reported that SE improved dynamic balance in the healthy adults. Although several studies
that investigated the training effects of trunk exercises
have been reported, there have been few studies comparing the training effects of the SE and CE. Parkhouse
and Ball17 have reported that static balance of university students was improved by SE but not by CE. Childs
et al18,19 reported that effects on musculoskeletal injuries and abdominal strength were similar between SE
and CE groups in the soldiers 18 to 35 years of age.
The effects of training on performance are variable, and are likely based upon the principle of the
specific adaptation to imposed demands.20 Thus, it
would follow that training effects of SE would be
different from those of CE. However, the beneficial
aspects of each trunk exercise remain unclear due to
lack of evidence. Moreover, the subjects of previous
studies were university students, soldiers, or healthy
adults, the study for the young sports players has
not been reported.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the training effects of SE and CE on athletic performance and balance in youth soccer players. The
authors hypothesized that SE would improve balance and CE would improve athletic performance
involving dynamic motions of the trunk.
METHODS
Participants
Twenty-seven youth male soccer players participated
in this study. They were members of the same high
school soccer club and were participating in soccer
practice and games six times per week at the time
of the investigation. Players were excluded from the
study if they reported low back pain or had sustained
a lower extremity injury that required treatment or
which might have inhibited performance within
the previous 12 months. Each player was randomly
assigned to either the SE group (n = 13) or the CE
group (n = 14). Nineteen of the original twenty-seven

The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 9, Number 1 | February 2014 | Page 48

Table 1. Demographic data of participants

exercise programs, they were instructed not to do

other additional physical training on an individual
basis. Post-testing was conducted in the same way as
the pre-testing after the 12-week intervention period.
Measurements and Procedures

players completed all tests and training program for

the study. Six players (two from the SE group, and
four from the CE group) dropped out because they
experienced injuries unrelated to this study. Two
other excluded players data were not included in
analysis (one from the SE group, and one from the
CE group) because they were not compliant with the
training program and testing procedures. Data from
nineteen players (ten from the SE group, nine from
the CE group) were used for final statistical analysis.
Demographic data are presented in Table 1. All players and their parents signed on informed consent
and agreed with the study in advance. This study
was approved by the Ethics Committee at the University of Tsukuba.
Procedures
This study was comprised of three steps: 1) pre-testing, 2) training interventions for 12 weeks, and 3)
post-testing. The study was conducted during the preseason. Pre- and post-testing were both conducted on
two separate days after a non-soccer-training day. On
the first day, the sprint, vertical jump, rebound jump,
and static balance tests were performed. On the second day, the measurements of dynamic balance, agility, and aerobic endurance were performed.
Prior to pre-testing, preparation session involving the
demonstrations and practice of the testing was held
once for all participants to achieve familiarization
with the testing procedures. Players performed the
SE or CE program three times per week for 12 weeks
after pre-testing. Intervention programs were taught
by the researchers demonstrations. The coach monitored the attendance at the intervention program. All
participants performed the same soccer practice and
typical minimal physical training during the period
of this study. During the period of performing trunk

Static balance test

To assess the static balance, the participants performed a single-leg stance with eyes closed for 20 seconds while on the platform of a foot pressure recorder
(Gravicorder GS-7; Anima Corp., Tokyo). Data was
measured by recording the total length of the center
of pressure (LNG). Participants were instructed to
perform single-leg stance using their dominant leg,
placing both hands on their hips. The dominant leg
was defined as the leg that was used to stand on the
ground when kicking a ball. When a participant failed
to maintain the single-leg stance or opened their eyes,
the test was discarded and then repeated after a short
rest. The measurement was performed twice and the
better score of LNG was selected for analysis.
Dynamic balance test
The Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT) was used to
assess dynamic balance because this test is simple
and economical and demonstrated good reliability
in previous studies.21,22 While maintaining a singleleg stance with hands on the hips, participants were
instructed to reach the end of the line along a grid in
the anterior, posteromedial, and posterolateral directions with the opposite leg as far as they could. Six
practices and three test trials were performed on a
dominant leg in each direction.23 The order of reaching directions was randomized. The test was discarded
and then repeated in same way if a participant failed to
maintain unilateral stance, lifted or moved the standing foot from the grid, or failed to return the reach foot
to the starting position. The longest reach distance in
each direction was recorded. For an accurate analysis, the data of reach distance was normalized by leg
length to exclude the influence of the leg length. The
leg length were measured from the most distal end of
the anterior superior iliac spine to the most distal end
of the lateral malleolus on each limb.22
Coopers test
In general, the Coopers test is used to determine
aerobic endurance ability because VO2max and run-

The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 9, Number 1 | February 2014 | Page 49

Sprint
The 30-meter sprint test was used to determine
quickness and speed. The sprint time for 30 m was
measured using photocell (Speedtrap; Fitness Apollo
Japan, Co., Ltd., Tokyo) positioned at the starting
and finishing lines at a height of 1 m. Participants
started from a standing position, placing their forward foot 0.5 m behind the sensor. The measurement of the time was performed twice. The faster
time was selected for additional analysis.

Figure 1. The location and order of the Step 50: Participants

start at A, and then sprint to B. They next go to A around C
with a crossover step. Another sprint is towards B again, then
go to A around D using a crossover step. From A, they sprint
to B one more time, then back to A with a back pedaling. A
nal sprint to E ends one set.

Vertical jump
Explosive strength and power ability was assessed
using a vertical countermovement jump test which
is simple and popular. Participants performed a vertical countermovement jump with arm swing on a
mat switch (Multi Jump Tester; DKH Inc., Tokyo).
They were instructed to jump for maximum height
in the vertical jump. The jump height was calculated
using the following equation:
Jump height = (g Flight time2) 81

ning economy are related to this test.24,25 Participants

were instructed to run as many laps as possible on
an outdoor track during 12 minutes. The examiner
counted the laps completed during the 12-minute
test period, while calling out the time elapsed at 3,
6, 9, and 12 minutes. A measuring wheel was used to
determine the fraction of the last lap completed by
each participant. This distance was added to the distance determined by the number of laps completed
to give the total distance covered during the test.26
Agility test
The Step 50 was used as a measure of agility because
this test is comprised of various movements required
for playing soccer. This test is comprised of 50 meters
of running including change of direction and various
steps, such as the crossover step and back-pedaling.
The location of the marker and order of movements
are presented in Figure 1. The time of the step 50
was measured from the signal of the start to the passing of the goal gate using a photocell (Speedtrap; Fitness Apollo Japan, Co., Ltd., Tokyo) positioned on
both sides of the goal line at a height of 1 m. Each
participant performed the test twice, with a minimum 3-minute rest between trials to avoid fatigue.
The faster time was selected for analysis.

In this equation, g denotes the acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s2).27

The mat switch system measured the flight time as
the time between the takeoff and subsequent ground
contact. Therefore, participants were instructed not
to bend the knee at ground contact. The measurement of the vertical jump was performed twice, of
which the higher value of jump height was selected
for analyses.
Rebound jump
The rebound jump (RJ) was used to assess ability
of explosive power produced over repetitive jumps.
This test is related to quick movements with a
shorter ground contact time. Participants performed
the rebound jump, which was to repeat the vertical jump six times, using a countermovement arm
swing while on the mat switch (Multi Jump Tester;
DKH Inc., Tokyo). Participants were instructed to
shorten contact time to the greatest extent and jump
as high as possible. The RJ-index was calculated on
the basis of the jump height and the contact time
(jumping height / contact time).28 The measurement
of rebound jump was performed twice. The higher
RJ-index was selected for additional analyses.

The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 9, Number 1 | February 2014 | Page 50

Figure 2. Trunk stabilization exercises: (A) Front plank, (B) Back bridge, (C) Quadruped exercise, (D) Side bridge.

Training program
Training programs were conducted three times
per week for 12 weeks. The session of the SE and
CE were performed at the final practice session of
the day. All sessions were directed and supervised
by the coach, who has qualifications as a certified
strength & conditioning specialist (CSCS). The SE
program was composed of four exercises that were
the front plank, quadruped exercise, back bridge, and
side bridge (Figure 2). Participants were instructed
to maintain a neutral position of spine and to hold
the posture of each exercise during set time (Table
2). The CE program was composed of four exercises
that were the situp1, situp2, back extension1,
and back extension2 (Figure 3). Participants were
instructed to perform the maximum repetitions as
many as they could during the set time for these
exercises (Table 3). The intensity and volume of
each trunk exercise were progressed gradually.
Trunk stabilization exercises
For the front plank, participants were instructed to
maintain a prone position that supported the body
by forearms and toes. In the next stage, they raised
one arm, one leg, or one arm and opposite leg from
a prone position and maintained the raising position. The quadruped exercise was performed in the
quadruped position, progressing to raising the right
arm and left leg or left arm and right leg. The side

bridge was performed in a side lying position by supporting the body with the elbow and foot. For the
back bridge, participants began by lying supine with
their feet flat on the ground, knees bent at 90 and
hands folded across the chest. They raised the pelvis to achieve and to maintain a neutral hip flexion
angle. In the next stage, they raised one leg from the
floor, extended the knee straight, and maintained
this posture.
Conventional trunk exercises
Situp1 was performed the standard situp, knees
bent at 90, and hands folded across the chest. In
the next stage, participants were supine position,
the hips bent 60 off the floor; legs straight. They
raised the upper body until hands touched toes. Sit
up2 was performed the sit-up with trunk rotation.
Participants were instructed to raise, bend, rotate
the upper body to the left or right until the elbow
touched the opposite thigh, and returned to the starting position. This was performed alternating on the
right and left sides. In the next stage, participants
were in the supine position with hands interlocked
behind the head, the right knee bent at 90, the right
foot rested on the floor, and the left leg crossed over
the right leg. They were instructed to raise and rotate
the upper body until the right elbow touched the
left knee from this starting position. They repeated
on the one side during the set time. Opposite side

The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 9, Number 1 | February 2014 | Page 51

Table 2. The program for trunk stabilization exercise group

Figure 3. Conventional trunk exercises: (A) Sit-up-1, (B) Sit-up-2, (C) Back extension-1, (D) Back extension-2.
The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 9, Number 1 | February 2014 | Page 52

Table 3. The program for conventional trunk exercise group

was performed in the same way after finishing the

side. For the Back extension1, participants raised
the upper body and lower extremities off the floor
simultaneously from a prone position, and downed
to the prone position. For the Back extension2, participants raised one arm and opposite leg simultaneously from the prone position, and returned to the
starting position. This movement was alternately
repeated during the set time.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using software
(SPSS for Mac ver. 19; SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA).
All data were presented as mean standard deviation. Normality and equal variance assumptions
were checked using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test
and Levene test, respectively. Statistical significance
was inferred from p < 0.05. Baseline data of characteristics, balance, and athletic performance between

groups were compared using an independent t-test. A

two-way (group time) repeated-measures ANOVA
with a mixed-model design was used to assess the over
time changes and between-group difference. Paired ttests were used to determine within-group changes
from pre-test to post-test. Effect sizes (ESs) were calculated using Cohens d for comparing pre-test and
post-test results. Effect sizes were interpreted as small
(0.210.50), medium (0.510.80), or large (>0.81).
RESULTS
Baseline
Results of balance and athletic performance tests are
presented in Table 4. There were no significant differences between SE and CE groups at the baseline
for demographic characteristics, balance, and athletic performance (all p > 0.05), except for the Step
50 (p = 0.029).

The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 9, Number 1 | February 2014 | Page 53

Table 4. Summary results of all tests performed.

Static and dynamic balance

ANOVA showed significant group-by-time interactions for the posterolateral (F = 6.350, p = 0.022)
and posteromedial (F = 18.612, p < 0.001) directions of the SEBT. Paired t-tests revealed significant
improvement of the posterolateral (p = 0.011; ES
= 0.65) and posteromedial (p = 0.001; ES = 0.77)
directions in the SE group but no improvement in
the CE group (p > 0.05). For the anterior direction
of the SEBT, no significant group-by-time interaction
and the improvement between pre- and post-tests
were observed. Although the LNG data did not show
the significant group-by-time interaction (F = 1.712,

p = 0.208), paired t-tests revealed significant improvement between pre-test and post-test in the only SE
group (p = 0.015; ES = 1.07).
Athletic performance
There were no significant group-by-time interactions
of all athletic performance data. For within-group
change from pre-test to post-test, significant improvements were revealed in the Coopers test (p = 0.002;
ES = 0.70) and rebound jump (p = 0.009; ES = 0.31)
in the SE group, but were not observed in the CE
group (all p > 0.05). Also, vertical jump and sprint
improved significantly in both the SE and CE groups

The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 9, Number 1 | February 2014 | Page 54

(all p < 0.01), but significant improvement of the Step

50 was not observed in either group (all p > 0.05).
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to investigate the
influence of SE and CE on balance and athletic performance in youth soccer players. Results showed
improvements in static and dynamic balance, Coopers test, and rebound jump in the only SE group,
and in vertical jump and sprint in both groups. These
results suggested that training effects on balance and
athletic performance differ between SE and CE.
Static and dynamic balance
The results of the present study demonstrated that
static balance was improved by the SE program but
not by the CE program. This result was consistent
with the study conducted by Parkhouse and Ball.17 In
addition, it has been reported that SE improved the
static balance immediately.29 Thus, it is possible that
SE are useful for improving static balance. Moreover
the SE group showed a significant improvement in
the posteromedial and posterolateral directions but
not in the anterior reach direction of the SEBT. This
result concurred with the study of Filipa et al2 that
investigated the effect of neuromuscular training
with a focus on trunk stability. Hoch et al30 indicated
that the range of motion of the dorsiflexion of the
foot has a large effect on the anterior direction of
the SEBT. Thus, it was suggested that the anterior
direction may be less affected by trunk exercises. On
the other hand, previous studies have shown that SE
improved the posteromedial and posterolateral directions of the SEBT.12,22 These directions of the SEBT
require control of the position of the trunk because
participants must lean their trunk forward in order
to maintain and adjust balance.31 The current findings indicated that the SE is effective in improving
the posterolateral and posteromedial directions of
the SEBT.
Athletic performance
The SE group showed significant improvement
in the rebound jump. During landing, the trunk
receives a large impact after ground contact because
of the occurrence of large ground reaction forces.32,33
Thus, abdominal muscles must activate in order to
stabilize the trunk and to control the trunk position

before ground contact in preparation for landing.34,35

After ground contact, low back muscles work to control the position of the trunk and to shift the direction from the descending to the ascending motion.35
These previous studies suggested that trunk stability and appropriate coordination of trunk muscles
are important to perform a jump following landing.
In the present study, therefore, the enhancement
of the rebound jump could be due to the improvement in the control of the position and motion of the
trunk against landing impact.
The Coopers test significantly improved in the only
SE group. Maximal oxygen consumption and running economy are important factors for this test.24,25
Stanton et al.36 reported that the maximal oxygen consumption and running economy were not improved
by trunk exercises using a Swiss ball. However, they
did not measure the time of the running trial. Sato
and Mokha15 reported that combined trunk exercises
of SE and CE was improved the time of 5,000 m running trial. Although there is lack of scientific evidence
suggesting why SE leads to improvements in the Coopers test, it was suggested that SE might be effective
in enhancing performance in long distance running.
Sprint and vertical jump improved in both groups.
Butcher et al13 reported that vertical jump was
improved by short term SE due not to an increase of
strength, but rather to improvement of neuromuscular control and coordination. Thus, although vertical
jump was improved in both groups, its mechanisms
for improving could differ between SE and CE. On the
other hand, it has also been reported that trunk exercises did not improve the sprint and vertical jump.17
Therefore, improvements in vertical jump and sprint
might be due to other factors, such as the increase in
the strength of lower extremities, the influences of
soccer practice, and growth and development.
In the present study, neither group improved in the
agility test. This result supported the findings of previous studies.2,6 Jamison et al2 found that SE did not
improve any of their included agility tests, such as
the three-cone test and 20-yd short shuttle test. In
addition, Mills et al6 reported that the SE statistically
improved the T-test, but this improvement is misleading because there was no association between trunk
stability tests and the measure of agility. Therefore,

The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 9, Number 1 | February 2014 | Page 55

it was suggested that trunk exercises could not be

very effective for developing agility.
Practical application
The results of the current study demonstrated that
the SE program is effective in improving static and
dynamic balance, aerobic performance, and explosive power. These results would be useful information in order to plan trunk exercise programs using
the SE. In this study, the SE program comprised of
the front plank, quadruped exercises, back bridge,
and side bridge was performed three times per week
for 12 weeks. Previous studies have showed that a
6-week SE program improved balance, but did not
improve athletic performance.17 On the other hand;
this results of this study demonstrated not only the
improvements in balance but also the improvements in athletic performance, such as the Coopers
test and rebound jump. Therefore, the period of 12
weeks might be necessary for improving both balance and athletic performance. Moreover, although
previous studies used the combination of the SE and
CE, results of this study suggested that the SE produce superior benefits to CE, including improving
balance and athletic performance in youth athletes.
Limitations
Some limitations exist in this study. Firstly, this
study had no control group, who did not participate
in trunk exercises. Therefore, we were unable to
ascertain whether trunk exercises increased sprint
and vertical jump capability. Secondly, this study
was performed with a small sample size and the target was limited to male youth soccer players, thus
limiting the generalizability of the results. In addition, this study showed a disproportionate number
of dropouts, particularly from the CE group. These
factors would diminish the impact of the statistically
significant differences found between the SE and CE
groups. Thirdly, the improvement mechanisms of
improvements in athletic performance and balance
have not been ascertained yet because the authors
assessed the effect of trunk exercises using only field
tests. Further confirmation is necessary in larger
and more diverse populations including women
and aging people in order to generalize the results
of this study. Moreover, studies that investigate the
biomechanics and physiology of the outcome mea-

sures are needed in the future, in order to clarify the

improvement mechanisms of the outcomes relating
to athletic performance.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the results of the present study investigating the training effects of the 12 weeks of SE or
CE, revealed that SE are effective in improving static
and dynamic balance, Coopers test, and the rebound
jump. Athletes who performed both types of exercises improved performance in the sprint and vertical
jump tests. These results suggest that enhancements
of balance, Coopers test, and rebound jump occur
after participation in the SE program.
REFERENCES
1. Hedrick A. Training the trunk for improved athletic
performance. Strength Cond J. 2000;22(3):50-61.
2. Jamison ST, McNeilan RJ, Young GS, et al.
Randomized controlled trial of the effects of a trunk
stabilization program on trunk control and knee
loading. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(10):1924-1934.
3. Bergmark A. Stability of the lumbar spine. A study in
mechanical engineering. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl.
1989;230:1-54.
4. Panjabi M. The stabilizing system of the spine. Part I.
Function, dysfunction, adaptation, and
enhancement. J Spinal Disord. 1992;5(4):383-389.
5. Akuthota V, Ferreiro A, Moore T, et al. Core stability
exercise principles. Curr Sports Med Rep.
2008;7(1):39-44.
6. Mills JD, Taunton JE, Mills WA. The effect of a 10week training regimen on lumbo-pelvic stability and
athletic performance in female athletes: A
randomized-controlled trial. Phys Ther Sport.
2005;6(2):60-66.
7. Thomas TR, Ridder MB. Resistance exercise program
effects on abdominal function and physique. J Sports
Med Phys Fitness. 1989;29(1):45-48.
8. Hodges PW. Core stability exercise in chronic low
back pain. Orthop Clin N Am. 2003;34(2):245-254.
9. Durall CJ, Udermann BE, Johansen DR, et al. The
effects of preseason trunk muscle training on lowback pain occurrence in women collegiate gymnasts.
J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(1):86-92.
10. Harringe ML, Nordgren JS, Arvidsson I, et al. Low
back pain in young female gymnasts and the effect
of specic segmental muscle control exercises of the
lumbar spine: a prospective controlled intervention
study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc.
2007;15(10):1264-1271.

The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 9, Number 1 | February 2014 | Page 56

11. Hides JA, Jull GA, Richardson CA. Long-term effects

of specic stabilization exercises for rst-episode low
back pain. Spine. 2001;26(11):E243-248.
12. Kahle NL, Gribble PA. Core stability training in
dynamic balance testing among young, healthy
adults. Athletic Training and Sports Health Care.
2009;1(2):65-73.
13. Butcher SJ, Craven BR, Chilibeck PD, et al. The effect
of trunk stability training on vertical takeoff velocity.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37(5):223-231.
14. Waldn M, Atroshi I, Magnusson H, et al. Prevention
of acute knee injuries in adolescent female football
players: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ.
2012;344:e3042.doi:10.1136/bmj.e3
15. Sato K, Mokha M. Does core strength training
inuence running kinetics, lower-extremity stability,
and 5000-M performance in runners? J Strength Cond
Res. 2009;23(1):133-140.
16. Sharma A, Geovinson SG, Singh Sandhu J. Effects of
a nine-week core strengthening exercise program on
vertical jump performances and static balance in
volleyball players with trunk instability. J Sports Med
Phys Fitness. 2012;52(6):606-615.
17. Parkhouse KL, Ball N. Inuence of dynamic versus
static core exercises on performance in eld based
tness tests. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2011;15(4):517-524.
18. Childs JD, Teyhen DS, Benedict TM, et al. Effects of
sit-up training versus core stabilization exercises on
sit-up performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2009;41(11):2072-2083.
19. Childs JD, Teyhen DS, Casey PR, et al. Effects of
traditional sit-up training versus core stabilization
exercises on short-term musculoskeletal injuries in
US Army soldiers: a cluster randomized trial. Phys
Ther. 2010;90(10):1404-1412.
20. Pearson D, Faigenbaum A, Conley M, et al. The
National Strength and Conditioning Associations
Basic Guidelines for the Resistance Training of
Athletes. Strength Cond J. 2000;22(4):14-27.
21. Plisky PJ, Rauh MJ, Kaminski TW, et al. Star
Excursion Balance Test as a predictor of lower
extremity injury in high school basketball players.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006;36(12):911-919.
22. Filipa A, Byrnes R, Paterno MV, et al. Neuromuscular
training improves performance on the star excursion
balance test in young female athletes. J Orthop Sports
Phys Ther. 2010;40(9):551-558.
23. Robinson RH, Gribble PA. Support for a reduction in
the number of trials needed for the star excursion
balance test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(2):364370.

24. Bassett DR Jr, Howley ET. Limiting factors for

maximum oxygen uptake and determinants of
endurance performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2000;32(1):70-84.
25. Paavolainen L, Hakkinen K, Hmlinen I, et al.
Explosive-strength training improves 5-km running
time by improving running economy and muscle
power. J Appl Physiol. 1999;86(5):1527-1533.
26. Penry JT, Wilcox AR, Yun J. Validity and reliability
analysis of Coopers 12-minute run and the
multistage shuttle run in healthy adults. J Strength
Cond Res. 2011;25(3):597-605.
27. Tauchi K, Endo T, Ogata M, et al. The characteristics
of jump ability in elite adolescent athletes and
healthy males: the development of
countermovement and rebound jump ability.
International journal of sport and health science.
2008;6:78-84.
28. Miura K, Yamamoto M, Tamaki H, et al.
Determinants of the abilities to jump higher and
shorten the contact time in a running 1-legged
vertical jump in basketball. J Strength Cond Res.
2010;24(1):2016.
29. Kaji A, Sasagawa S, Kubo T, et al. Transient effect of
core stability exercises on postural sway during quiet
standing. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(2):382-388.
30. Hoch MC, Staton GS, McKeon PO. Dorsiexion range
of motion signicantly inuences dynamic balance.
J Sci Med Sport. 2011;14(1):90-92.
31. Earl JE, Hertel J. Lower-extremity muscle activation
during the star excursion balance tests. J Sport
Rehabil. 2001;10(2):93-104.
32. Pain MT, Challis JH. The inuence of soft tissue
movement on ground reaction forces, joint torques
and joint reaction forces in drop landings. J Biomech.
2006;39(1):119-124.
33. Ambegaonkar JP, Shultz SJ, Perrin DH. A subsequent
movement alters lower extremity muscle activity
and kinetics in drop jumps vs. drop landings.
J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(10):2781-2788.
34. Kulas AS, Schmitz RJ, Shultz SJ, et al. Sex-specic
abdominal activation strategies during landing. J Athl
Train. 2006;41(4):381-386.
35. Iida Y, Kanehisa H, Inaba Y, et al. Role of the
coordinated activities of trunk and lower limb
muscles during the landing-to-jump movement. Eur
J Appl Physiol. 2012;112(6):2223-2232.
36. Stanton R, Reaburn PR, Humphries B. The effect of
short-term Swiss ball training on core stability and
running economy. J Strength Cond Res.
2004;18(3):522-528.

The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 9, Number 1 | February 2014 | Page 57