Core Endurance Relationships With Athletic and Functional Performance in Inactive People

Abstract

Research regarding the relationship between core muscle endurance and performance is limited. The purpose of this study was to analyze the association between core/trunk endurance and athletic performance. Seventy-four healthy participants between 18 and 45 years old participated in this study (Age: 26.0 ± 6.5 years; Mass: 74.6 ± 12.8 kg; Height: 1.74 ± 0.08 m; BMI: 19.0 ± 6.8 kg/m 2). The core endurance was measured using the McGill protocol, consisting of the following tests: trunk flexion, back extension, and side-bridge. Functional performance was evaluated with push-ups, sit to stand, T-run test, countermovement jump (CMJ), Yo-Yo test, maximum dynamic strengthone repetition maximum (1RM) and muscle power on the bench press, pull row, and leg press. The regression results between the McGill protocol (proxy for core/trunk endurance) and the dependent variables were: 1RM pull row: r 2 = 0.109 with p = 0.046; RM bench press: r 2 = 0.149 with p = 0.012; RM leg press: r 2 = 0.144 with p = 0.013 and power pull row: r 2 = 0.151 with p = 0.016; power bench press: r 2 = 0.136 with p = 0.026; power leg press: r 2 = 0.122 with p = 0.013), push-ups: r 2 = 0.157 with p < 0.001, sit to stand: r 2 = 0.198 with p < 0,001), functional movement score: r 2 = 0.209 with p < 0.001). Nevertheless, core endurance scores were not able to predict jump ability (r 2 = 0.014, p = 0.807) or agility (T-test: 0.036 with p = 0.497). In conclusion, core endurance exerted no significant influence the agility and jump performance but influenced the ability to run intermittently, exert maximum power and strength in different actions (push, pull, and lift exercises) related to the better quality of movement (FMS).

The relationship between core muscle endurance and functional movement screen scores in females with lumbar hyperlordosis: a cross-sectional study

“…Since poor posture can affect joints, bony structures, and soft tissues, resulting in musculoskeletal disorder [18], therefore, it seems logical to use the FMS score as a postural assessment tool. Among several methods of core muscle assessment, the McGill test is the most reliable isometric test to evaluate core muscle endurance and stability [19] which is used in previous studies in a different age of people with different levels of physical activity [20][21][22]. As mentioned above, there seems to be a direct relationship between posture and lumbopelvic stability [8].…”

Is lumbopelvic motor control associated with dynamic stability during gait, strength, and endurance of core musculatures?: The STROBE study

“…The side plank exercise evaluates the endurance of abdominal muscles against constant resistance while maintaining the body posture. [ 4 , 33 , 34 ] The time required for the SCST is shorter (<10 seconds). Although both measures are used to evaluate core stability, the different processes and aims render the results incompatible.…”

“…Core stability has been described as the product of motor control and muscular capacity of the lumbopelvic-hip complex. [1][2][3][4][5] Many studies have reported that core stability is essential to reduce low back pain. [6][7][8][9][10] Therefore, core stability and core strength training are elements of rehabilitation programs.…”

The Effects of 12-week Online-delivered Isometric and Dynamic Core Stability Exercises on Functional Movement, Dynamic Postural Control, and Core Endurance in Healthy Young Adults

“…Core endurance refers to the ability to maintain a static posture or perform repetitive movements for a long period of time [7,8]. Improved core endurance can increase the time to maintain the core stable, which can increase the time to transmit or generate force from the trunk to the upper and lower extremities while performing sports or daily living activities [9]. Therefore, core strength and endurance are considered important factors in core stability.…”