Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies (2011) 15, 517e524

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/jbmt

EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGY RESEARCH

Influence of dynamic versus static core exercises

on performance in field based fitness tests
Kelly L. Parkhouse, BSc, ASCC a, Nick Ball, PhD, ASCC, CSCS b,*

a
Department of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Portsmouth, UK
b
National Institute of Sports Studies, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia

Received 5 July 2010; received in revised form 16 November 2010; accepted 30 November 2010

KEYWORDS Summary Minimal evidence supports the claim that core stability training transfers into
Lumbopelvic; improved performance and the most effective training method to perform core exercises is
Stability ball; still unknown. The purpose of the study was to compare the effects of a 6 week unstable static
Performance versus unstable dynamic core training program, on field based fitness tests. A static (n Z 6)
and dynamic (n Z 6) training group performed two 45 min sessions per week for six weeks.
Seven performance tests, consisting of three core (plank; double leg lowering; back exten-
sions), one static (standing stork) and three dynamic (overhead medicine ball throw; vertical
jump; 20 m sprint), were administered pre- and post training. Between group differences were
assessed using a repeated measures MANOVA (P < 0.05). Both training groups improved in each
of the core tests (P < 0.05). Neither training group demonstrated improvement in the dynamic
field based tests (medicine ball throw, vertical jump height and 20 m sprint) (P > 0.05). Find-
ings indicate that both types of training improved specific measures of core stability but did
not transfer into any sport-related skill.
Crown Copyright ª 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction Rutherford and Jones, 1986; Vera-Garcia et al., 2000), power

Core stability training on unstable surfaces is commonplace
in both healthcare and conditioning settings. Proponents of
unstable training argue that such training enhances neuro-
muscular pathways (Beache and Earle, 2000; Hedrick, 2000),
leading to greater strength (Behm et al., 2005; Gamble, 2007;
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ61 (0) 2 6201 2419; fax: þ61 (0) 2
6201 5615.
E-mail address: Nick.ball@canberra.edu.au (N. Ball).
(Jeffreys, 2002) and balance (Anderson and Behm, 2005;
Goodman, 2003; Lehman et al., 2005). Generally, findings
have indicated that as the degree of instability increases, the
degree of core muscle activity increases proportionally
(Anderson and Behm, 2005; Behm et al., 2005; Marshall and
Murphy, 2005; Murphy and Wilson, 1996; Vera-Garcia et al.,
2000). For this reason, resistance exercises performed on
unstable surfaces have been emphasized as most effective for
the development of core stability (Boyle, 2004; Chek, 1999).
Kibler et al. (2006) defined core stability as ‘the ability to
control the position and motion of the trunk over the pelvis,

1360-8592/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright ª 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbmt.2010.12.001
518
thereby allowing optimum production, transfer and control
of force and motion to the terminal segment in integrated
athletic kinetic chain activities’. The role of core muscles in
movement is varied according to the dynamics and postural
demands of a given activity (Brown, 2006; Rogers, 2006). The
core region can be divided into local and global groups (based
on location and attachment site) (Johnson, 2002). Local
muscles consist of small, deep muscles that control inter-
segmental motion between adjacent vertebrae (Johnson,
2002) and act as ‘stabilizers’ (Carter et al., 2006). Global
muscles are large, superficial muscles that transfer force
between the thoracic cage and pelvis and play a role in
creating movement (Carter et al., 2006). As the core is
central to most kinetic chains in sports movements, control of
core strength, balance and motion will maximize the kinetic
chains of upper and lower extremity function (Kibler et al.,
2006), resulting in more efficient, stronger and powerful
movements (Hedrick, 2000; McCurdy et al., 2005). Hence,
there is an assumption that an improved core will increase
one’s ability to run, jump, throw, strike and swing.
There are two primary types of core training; static and
dynamic training. Static training involves the joint and
muscle either working against an immovable force (maximal
muscle action) or being held in a static position while opposed
by resistance (sub-maximal muscle action) (Siff, 2004).
Actions within a wide variety of sports require isometric
strength; for example, climbing, mountain biking, Judo,
wrestling, gymnastics and horseback riding (Stone et al.,
2003). Dynamic strength is the ability to exert a muscle
force concentrically or eccentrically repeatedly or continu-
ously over time. Due to the body’s functional design, during
dynamic movement there is more dependence on core
musculature than just skeletal rigidity as in a static situation;
as the purpose of movement is to resist a force that changes
its plane of motion (Siff, 2004). The surface the core exercise
is performed on can also be varied to attempt to stimulate
increased core activation through increased proprioceptive
demands compared to floor based exercises (Cosio-Lima
et al., 2003). Dynamic exercises performed on unstable
surfaces are unable to reproduce the force and power
outputs found when performing the same exercise on a stable
surface (Anderson and Behm, 2005; Carter et al., 2006;
McGill, 2001; Scibek et al., 2001) thus questioning the use
of performing conventional exercises on unstable surfaces to
enhance the transfer of training effect for the prescribed
movement. However the transfer of training effect of
dynamic core exercises into dynamic movements has not
been investigated.
There is disagreement amongst coaches about which type
of strength is preferably developed for optimal performance
(Plamondon et al., 1999; Stone et al., 2003). Past research
has shown a positive transfer of training effect of dynamic
exercises to dynamic tasks and static exercise to static tasks
for non-core musculature (O’Shea and O’Shea, 1989). Several
investigators also suggest that isometric forceetime char-
acteristics are poorly correlated with dynamic performance
(Haff et al., 2005; Murphy and Wilson, 1996). This indicates
a limited transfer of training of static core exercises to
dynamic performance.
The use of field based fitness tests is an easy and conve-
nient assessment method to allow coaches and users to track
and monitor progress following an intervention (Winter
K.L. Parkhouse, N. Ball
et al., 2007). The assessment of further neuromuscular and
kinetic adaptations or transfer would require the use of
specific technology such as electromyography (Winter et al.,
2007), linear encoders (Harris et al., 2010) and force plat-
forms (Winter et al., 2007) which are not freely available.
The purpose of the study was to compare the effects of a 6-
week unstable static versus unstable dynamic core stability
training program on core strength and other performance
variables. Based on the principle of specificity, we predict
a positive transfer of training effect of dynamic core exercise
to the dynamic based tasks and a positive transfer of training
effect of static core exercise to the static based tasks.
Methods
Experimental approach to the problem
This study involved a two group, two factor design to address
whether a static or dynamic core stability ball intervention
improved core and field based performance tests. Factor one
was test, which had two levels: pre- and post testing. Factor
two was training, which also had two levels: static or
dynamic group. Dependent variables included 3 measure-
ments of core performance (a static plank and double leg
lowering test and a dynamic back extension test), 3 dynamic
performance tests for speed (20 m sprint), lower body power
(vertical jump), upper body power (overhead medicine ball
throw) and a static balance test (standing stork).
Participants
A group of 12 participants (6 male: 21.2  3.3 years;
174.5  6.3 cm; 78.7  3.7 kg, 6 female: 20.6  1.7 years;
172.6  4.7 cm; 67.7  2.3 kg) volunteered for the study.
Informed consent was obtained and health history question-
naires were completed. All participants competed in Univer-
sity level sport >8 h per week and reported no history of acute
or chronic low back injury prior to this experiment. All
participants had prior experience of core stability exercises
but had never undertaken a prescribed core stability program.
Participants were asked to refrain from any other form of core
specific exercises during the training period. Before
commencement, the University Ethics review board approved
the study. Participants were randomly assigned to either the
static or dynamic core stability training group ensuring an
equal gender split in each group.
Testing procedures
Participants were instructed on how to perform each test
and were allowed a familiarization period. Participants
recorded their assessed test no less than 3 min following
the familiarization period. Sufficient rest of at least 10 min
was given between each test. Participants were told to put
in maximal effort throughout each test whilst maintaining
the correct position of the lumbar spine, with correct
technique overseen by a qualified strength and conditioning
coach. The battery of seven tests were completed 1 week
prior to the training interventions and repeated one week
after the training interventions. All tests were randomised
for each participant to minimize learning effects.
Influence of dynamic versus static core exercises on performance in field based fitness tests
Static core tests
Plank
Participants were required to lie face down on a mat with
their forearms and toes on the floor. On command, partic-
ipants were asked to raise their hips off the floor to form
a straight line from the shoulders to the heels, with
a neutral back. Tests commenced once the correct position
was assumed and discontinued when the position changed.
A demonstration was shown and teaching points empha-
sized. The test was timed (s) using a stopwatch.
Double leg lowering
Participants laid with their back on a mat and knees to
chest. After contracting the core region, they slowly slid
both legs out into a straight position, with feet remaining
5 cm off the floor at all times. Participants were instructed
to keep a neutral back for the duration of the test. Tests
were discontinued when the body position changed or when
legs became less than 180 to the body. The test was timed
(s) using a stopwatch.
Dynamic core test
Back extensions
Participants were required to lay face down with hands at
the temples. The number of repetitions performed was
recorded in 2 min. They were encouraged to avoid lifting the
feet off the floor to avoid the gluteus maximus aiding the
lower back. A back extensor endurance test was used rather
than a common curl-up test because there is only very low
correlation of curl-up tests with core strength and endur-
ance (Knudson, 2001), whereas back extensor tests give
a better indication of lumbo-pelvic stability and strength.
Static field based test
Standing stork (balance)
Participants stood with hands on hips and were instructed
to lift 1 leg and place the sole of the foot on the inner thigh
of the other leg. On command, participants raised the heel
of the straight leg to stand on the toes. Participants were
required to balance for as long as possible without the heel
of the foot touching the ground, or the other foot moving
away from the knee. The test was repeated on the other
leg. The test was timed (s) using a stopwatch.
Dynamic field based tests
Overhead medicine ball throw (upper body power)
Participants were required to kneel with the back erect,
facing the throwing direction with their knees just behind
the start line. With a 4 kg medicine ball grasped in both
hands, participants were instructed to bring the ball back
over the head and in 1 motion, throw the ball forwards and
upwards with maximal power. It was emphasized that the
spine must not be rotated and the favored arm must not
be used to throw the arm. Stockbrugger and colleagues
(Stockbrugger and Haennel, 2001) have shown this test to be
a valid and reliable test for assessing explosive core and
upper body power.
519
Vertical jump (lower body power)
Vertical jump height was taken from a static position with
both feet together. Participants were instructed to place
both hands on their hips and upon a verbal signal self-
selected their depth for the countermovement jump.
Participants were required to jump vertically as high as they
could. The jump height was recorded (cm) using a vertical
jump meter (Takei, Japan).
20 m sprint (speed)
A straight 20 m line was measured and marked with cones.
Light gates (Brower, UK) were positioned at both 0 m and
20 m. Participants were asked to start with their feet behind
the start cone and to perform the task maximally. On the
commands ‘take your marks’ and then ‘go’ participants
were asked to sprint towards and the time gates at the 20 m
mark. Time (s) was recorded from the timing gates.
Training procedure
Each training group was required to attend two 45 min
training sessions per week with a three day gap between
each session. Three days prior to the commencement of the
first training session, participants completed a familiariza-
tion session to ensure they were comfortable with the
procedures and to minimize any learning effects. During this
they practiced the concepts of ‘drawing in’ (neutralizing the
spine and working the transverse abdominis and multifidus),
correct postural control, the importance of breathing
(Carter et al., 2006; Gamble, 2007) and stability ball balance
(Goodman, 2003). Each participant was given a ball that was
in accordance to their height. The size of the ball was
conducive to achieving >90 angle at both the hip and knee
(Goodman, 2003). The stability balls were 55, 65 or 75 cm in
diameter. At the start of each training session, participants
completed a thorough 10 min warm-up which included
exercises such as jogging, skipping, but kicks and side step-
ping, followed by static stretching and specific lumbo-pelvic
mobility exercises to reduce injury risk and lower back pain.
Stretching was also completed upon completion of each
session. All participants in both training groups completed 6
exercises per session. Overload was provided in the forms of
increased duration and frequency (sets, reps, time under
tension), increasing the complexity of exercises (adding
opposite limb movements), increasing the lever arm of the
exercises, altering the base of support and increased loading
(external weights) (Gamble, 2007) (see Tables 1 and 2). The
static group used a duration of 20 s or more when using sub-
maximal loads (such as body weight) and 8e10 s with
external resistance. The dynamic group performed 16 or
more repetitions when using sub-maximal loads and 8e12
repetitions with external resistance. Exercises are based on
previous references for core exercise prescription and were
considered safe and effective (Cissik, 2002; Goodman, 2003;
Hedrick, 2000; Lehman et al., 2005; Plamondon et al., 1999;
Stanton et al., 2004; Vera-Garcia et al., 2000).
Statistical analyses
On the completion of data collection, statistical analyses
comprised of descriptive statistics to identify means and
standard deviations for each variable of interest. The initial
520 K.L. Parkhouse, N. Ball

Table 1 Static core stability program. Exercise, frequency, duration and applied progression and overload for each week.
Exercise Side planka Shoulder bridge Full plank Birddoga Diagonal Reverse
cruncha hyper-
extension
Week 1 Time e secs 25 (2) 30 (2) 25 (2) 30 (2) 20 (2) 15 (2)
(sets)
Instruction On elbow, Arms to side, Knees dropped, 1 leg only Hands on Hands by
Top arm by feet wide, knees on elbows knees side
side bent
Week 2 Time e secs 35 (2) 45 (2) 35 (2) 40 (2) 30 (2) 25 (2)
(sets)
Progression Increase Forearms up, Increase time Increase time Increase Increase
time increase time time time
Week 3 Time e secs 25 (2) 35 (2) 35 (2) 30 (2) 25 (2) 35 (2)
(sets)
Progression Top arm 1 leg straight On elbows, Opposite Hands on Arms on
in air legs straight arm & leg chest chest
Week 4 Time e secs 25 (2) 35 (2) 45 (2) 40 (2) 35 (2) 45 (2)
(sets)
Progression Bottom arm on Both legs straight, Increase time Increase time Increase Increase
hand, top arm heels on ball time time
by side
Week 5 Time e secs 35 (2) 40 (2) 40 (2) 30 (2) 30 (2) 30 (2)
(sets)
Progression Increase time Arms off floor, On hands with Both arms Hands by Hands by
increase time legs straight and 1 leg temples temples
Week 6 Time e secs 35 (2) 40 (2) 45 (2) 40 (2) 40 (2) 40 (2)
(sets)
Progression Top arm in air Lift 1 leg off Increase time Increase time Increase Increase
the ball time time
a
Z each side.

data was analyzed and it determined that data was para- on each parameter measured. Independent variables were
metric. Therefore, A 2  2 (static, dynamic  test time) gender, age and training type. Mauchly’s test of sphericity
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with repeated revealed that my data remained normally distributed across
measures was performed to determine the effect of training all time points (P > 0.05). Where a main effect was observed,

Table 2 Dynamic core stability program. Exercise, frequency, duration and applied progression and overload for each week.
Exercise Jack knife Russian twista Reverse Lateral rolla Hip crossovera Reverse crunch
hyper-
extension
Week 1 Reps (sets) 8 (2) 8 (2) 25 (2) 8 (2) 8 (2) 20 (2)
Instruction Hands wide, Hands together, Arms by side Wide feet Arms by side Arms on knees
knees on ball wide feet
Week 2 Reps (sets) 12 (2) 10 (2) 35 (2) 12 (2) 10 (2) 30 (2)
Progression Increase reps Increase reps Increase reps Increase reps Increase reps Increase reps
Week 3 Reps (sets) 12 (2) 10 (2) 35 (2) 12 (2) 12 (2) 25 (2)
Progression Hands narrow Narrow feet Hands on chest Narrow feet Increase reps Arms on chest
Week 4 Reps (sets) 8 (2) 12 (2) 45 (2) 8 (2) 8 (2) 35 (2)
Progression Toes on ball Increase reps Increase reps Increase reps Elbows up, hands Increase reps
on chest
Week 5 Reps (sets) 12 (2) 10 (2) 40 (2) 10 (2) 10 (2) 30 (2)
Progression Increase reps Add weight Arms in front Lift 1 leg Increase reps Hands by
plate temples
Week 6 Reps (sets) 16 (2) 12 (2) 45 (2) 12 (2) 12 (2) 40 (2)
Progression Increase reps Increase reps Increase reps Increase reps Increase reps Increase reps
a
Z each side.
Influence of dynamic versus static core exercises on performance in field based fitness tests 521

a least significant difference (LSD) post hoc analysis was
conducted to identify the source of the difference (P < 0.05).
Further analysis of the data was carried out using Pearson’s
correlation coefficient which identified inter-relationships
between all test variables. All statistical analysis was carried
out using SPSS for windows version 14. Intra-subject reli-
ability was based on the vertical jump scores with an intra-
class correlation coefficient of 0.95 obtained.
Results
Static/dynamic core and field based tests
Table 3 presents the results of each core and field based test
for both training groups before and after 6 weeks of training.
The mean scores of the dynamic core training group were
improved at the post-test in six out of the seven functional
tests; however the mean scores of the static core training
group only showed improvement in five out of seven tests.
Both groups improved in all core based tests (Static Group e
Plank: F (1 10) Z 11.755, P Z 0.000; Double leg lowering:
F (1 10) Z 1.04, P Z 0.000; Back Extension: F (1 10) Z 97.5,
P Z 0.006; Dynamic Group e Plank: F (1 10) Z 81.8, P Z 0.000;
Double leg lowering: F (1 10) Z 40.1, P Z 0.000; Back Exten-
sion: F (1 10) Z 16.64, P Z 0.002). Post Hoc LSD found the
dynamic training group to show greater improvements than
the static group in all 3 core tests (P < 0.05).
No improvements were found in any of the dynamic tests
for both static and dynamic groups (P > 0.05). However,
standing stork scores increased in the static group post
training (F1 10 Z 1.16, P Z 0.000) (Fig. 1).
For the static training group, Pearson’s Correlation
coefficient found strong positive relationships between the
plank/double leg lowering test (0.817), plank/vertical jump
height (0.821), and standing stork/double leg lowering test
(0.820). Very strong negative relationships were found for
the plank/20 m sprint test (0.927), and double leg
lowering/20m sprint test (0.822). The dynamic training
group was found to have strong positive relationships
between the plank/20 m sprint test (0.942), and moder-
ately strong positive relationships between medicine ball
throw/back extensions (0.805) and between 20 m sprint/
vertical jump height (0.794).
Discussion
The purpose of the study was to compare the effects of a 6
week core stability training program with exercises per-
formed on an unstable surface on field based performance
tests. This study suggests that 6 weeks of both static and

Table 3 Static and dynamic core and field based test results after 6 weeks of training for both static and dynamic training
groups (means  SD). Static indicates the group that performed a static core training program; Dynamic indicates that the group
performed a dynamic core training program.
n Pre Post % Difference p
Static core tests
Plank (sec)
Static 6 59.0  4.69 64.0  4.6 8.5% **
Dynamic 6 51.76  4.43 63.8  5.04 23.3% **
Double leg lowering (sec)
Static 6 25.65  2.62 28.18  3.78 9.9% **
Dynamic 6 24.68  2.45 35.43  2.58 43.6% **
Dynamic core tests
Back extension (reps)
Static 6 67.00  4.34 77.80  2.64 14.9% *
Dynamic 6 65.60  2.16 70.10  1.94 45.8% *
Static field based tests
Standing stork (sec)
Static 6 3.98  0.17 6.55  0.44 64.5% **
Dynamic 6 4.42  0.43 4.80  0.48 8.6% NS
Dynamic field based tests
Vertical jump (cm)
Dynamic 6 33.4  1.92 32.7  2.16 0.9% NS
Static 6 32.9  1.36 34.7  1.75 6.1% NS
20 m Sprint (sec)
Static 6 5.56  0.48 5.50  0.30 1.1% NS
Dynamic 6 5.51  0.31 5.59  0.41 1.4% NS
Medicine ball throw (m)
Static 6 3.48  0.36 3.58  0.26 2.9% NS
Dynamic 6 3.53  0.22 3.5  0.22 0.8% NS
NS Z P > 0.05.
* Z P < 0.01.
* Z P < 0.001.
522
Figure 1 Mean pre- and post training standing stork scores
for both groups (N Z 12).
dynamic type core training improves core performance
(P < 0.05). However, no transfer of training effect to the
dynamic tests was shown (P > 0.05). This is the first empirical
study to examine the effect of static versus dynamic core
stability ball training on physical performance. While core
stability ball training remains a popular adjunct to training
for many athletes and anecdotal evidence supports its
widespread use, results of this study appear to be consistent
with previous research which has found no transfer of training
effect (Nesser et al., 2008; Scibek et al., 2001; Tse et al.,
2005).
The static training group had a significant transfer into
the balance test, which accepts part of our hypothesis and
is similar to previous research. Rutherford and Jones
(Rutherford and Jones, 1986) found that early adaptations in
short term static core training resulted in greater gains in
torso balance. Supporters of instability training propose the
neuromuscular system is challenged to a greater extent and
increases proprioceptive demands (Rutherford and Jones,
1986). The unstable nature of the ball forces one to make
postural adjustments to increase co-ordination, which
require activation of the appropriate core musculature to
stabilize the lumbar spine. The deep postural muscles of the
trunk have a primary purpose to ensure this lumbar stabili-
zation and to maintain the body’s centre of gravity within its
base of support to minimize loss of balance (Anderson and
Behm, 2005). However, although static core training has
proved effective in a measure of static balance, more sports
specific research may be needed to clarify this transfer.
No improvements were found in the overhead medicine
ball throw, 20 m sprint and vertical jump height scores post
both static and dynamic training. These results provide no
support for the proposal of a more enhanced and efficient
transfer of energy due to an enhanced core. Therefore we
reject part of our hypothesis in that dynamic exercise will
demonstrate a positive transfer of training effect to dynamic
tasks. This is in agreement with Scibek and colleagues (Scibek
et al., 2001) who looked at the effect of Swiss ball core
stability training on subsequent swim performance. Their
results showed enhanced core strength in static exercises
K.L. Parkhouse, N. Ball
however no improvements in swim performance. Further-
more Nesser and colleagues (Nesser et al., 2008) showed no
correlation of core strength to strength and power measures
in collegiate athletes. This indicates that power performance
may not be affected by core strength refuting previous
claims. However core training has been shown to improve
5,000 m run times (Sato and Mokha, 2009) indicating that core
training modalities may have a better transfer to more
endurance based events in the resistance of fatigue and
maintenance of posture (Brumitt, 2004). Stanton and
colleagues (Stanton et al., 2004) showed no improvement in
running economy, however did not include a timed measure
for the run trials performed. These studies and the current
study’s findings support the notion that core training
emphasizes local muscle adaptation and core strength
without concomitant improvements in power based physical
performance.
Although the outcomes appear clear, it must be high-
lighted that only 12 participants were used in the study. We
suggest that any future studies in this area should include
a much larger sample size to ensure sound reliability of
results. Furthermore, the transfer of training effect of the
dynamic core exercises to the dynamic movements may
have required a longer duration training program or an
increased frequency of sessions. Early phase adaptations
including increased stability, neuromuscular activity and
proprioceptor activity have been shown after 5 weeks of
training doing abdominal and one lower back exercise per
day (Cosio-Lima et al., 2003), however these improvements
were shown mainly in neuromuscular changes opposed to
strength changes as measured by isokinetic testing. Thus
the neuromuscular control and co-ordination trained by
core dynamic exercises may only improve muscular
recruitment in the initial phases opposed to the trans-
ferring into an external measure. Thus the benefits of the
core training program here for the dynamic exercise may
not be transfer into performance measures but may
potentially improve kinematic and kinetic measures.
Alongside program duration the nature of the exercise used
may be changed for athletes with free weight exercises
using moderate levels of instability may be more suitable to
maintain specificity (Behm et al., 2010).
The concept of specificity suggests that quick, explosive
dynamic performance variables are likely to be improved
by similar type training actions. To train improved speed
of force application more importance is placed on per-
forming the exercise powerfully compared to the selection
of the exercise movement (Behm and Sale, 1993). Although
dynamic exercises were performed by the dynamic training
group, explosive power and high rates of force development
were not emphasized and subsequently not transferred over.
A lower repetition range with emphasis on increased speed
of movement whilst maintaining lumbo-pelvic stability may
have seen a better transfer into the sprint, jump and throw
tests as the core would be trained in a similar manner to its
use within these tests. The loading measures used in this
study may not have been sufficient to improve core muscle
function during dynamic exercises. Hibbs and colleagues
(Hibbs et al., 2008) suggested that the cores are trained
more for everyday requirements (low loads, slow move-
ments) opposed to an athlete requirement of high load and
resistive movements. The population group in this study
Influence of dynamic versus static core exercises on performance in field based fitness tests
indicated a better use of their core strength in static
movements compared to the high force dynamic field tests.
In summary, the results of this study suggest that 6 weeks
of stability ball training doesn’t improve dynamic field
based performance tests based on the sample size used. The
benefits of core training may reside in long term athlete
development programmes whereby appropriate posture and
core strength may transfer into improved co-ordination and
exercise performance. Increases in training duration and
speed of movement in dynamic core exercises may provide
a more specific stimulus of the core for transfer into
dynamic field based movements, however this warrants
further investigation.
Practical applications
The current study shows that both static and dynamic core
stability exercises trained over a 6-week period are able to
effectively increase the core strength of participants.
These strength benefits do not transfer into improved
dynamic performance in sprinting, throwing and jumping.
The study indicates that short term training may only
improve core strength by reducing fatigue in the core
musculature and allowing the athlete more neuromuscular
control during balance. A program that incorporates both
static and dynamic exercises may provide these benefits if
the dynamic exercises are then performed with increased
velocity. This may improve the transfer of training effect
into dynamic performance. It must be understood that the
findings may only be applicable to the population under
investigation and the effects on elite athletes is unknown.
However due to the assumed improved core strength and
physicality of elite performers it can be assumed that their
scope for adaptation is smaller than the current pop-
ulation and thus non-significant finding for core transfer
into dynamic performance can be reasonably assumed.
Findings do not discourage the use of core stability ball
training; instead, they suggest that specificity on the rate
of force development, speed and power of each core
exercise may be needed to transfer into sporting
performance.
Acknowledgements
Sincere thanks to all the participants who devoted their
time and effort to this study.
References
Anderson, K., Behm, D.G., 2005. The impact of instability resistance
training on balance and stability. Sports Medicine 35, 43e53.
Behm, D.G., Sale, D.G., 1993. Intended rather than actual move-
ment velocity determines velocity-specific training response.
Journal of Applied Physiology 74, 359e368.
Behm, D.G., Leonard, A.M., Young, W.B., Bonsey, W.A.,
MacKinnon, S.N., 2005. Trunk muscle electromyographic activity
with unstable and unilateral exercises. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research 19, 193e201.
Behm, D.G., Drinkwater, E.J., Willardson, J.M., Cowley, P.M.,
2010. The use of instability to train the core musculature.
Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism 35, 91e108.
523
Beache, T.R., Earle, R.W., 2000. Essentials of Strength Training and
Conditioning. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL.
Boyle, M., 2004. Functional Training for Sports. Human Kinetics,
Champaign, IL.
Brown, T.D., 2006. Getting to the core of the matter. Strength and
Conditioning Journal 28, 50e53.
Brumitt, J., 2004. The missing component to core training:
endurance. NSCA Performance Training Journal 3, 233e239.
Carter, J.M., Beam, W.C., McMahan, S.G., Barr, M.L., Brown, L.E.,
2006. The effects of stability ball training on spinal stability in
sedentary individuals. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research 20, 429e435.
Chek, P., 1999. Swiss ball exercises for swimming, soccer &
basketball. Sports Coach 21, 12e13.
Cissik, J.M., 2002. Programming abdominal training, part 1.
Strength and Conditioning Journal 24 (1), 9e15.
Cosio-Lima, L.M., Reynolds, K.L., Winter, C., Paolone, V.,
Jones, M.T., 2003. Effects of physioball and conventional floor
exercises on early phase adaptations in back and abdominal
core stability and balance in women. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research 17, 721e725.
Gamble, P., 2007. An integrated approach to training core stability.
Strength and Conditioning Journal 29, 58e68.
Goodman, P.J., 2003. The core of the workout should be on the
ball. NSCA Performance Training Journal 2, 34e38.
Haff, G.G., Carlock, J.M., Hartman, M.J., Kilgore, J.L., Kawamori, N.,
Jackson, J.R., Morris, R.T., Sands, W.T., Stone, M.H., 2005. Force-
time curve characteristics of dynamic and isometric muscle
actions of elite women olympic weightlifters. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research 19, 741e748.
Harris, N.K., Cronin, J., Taylor, K., Jidovtseff, B., Sheppard, J.,
2010. Understanding position transducer technology for
strength and conditioning practioners. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research 32 (4), 66e79.
Hedrick, A., 2000. Training the trunk for improved athletic
performance. Strength and Conditioning Journal 22, 50e61.
Hibbs, A.E., Thompson, K.G., French, D., Wrigley, A., Spears, I.,
2008. Optimizing performance by improving core stability and
core strength. Sports Medicine 38, 995e1008.
Jeffreys, I., 2002. Developing a progressive core stability program.
Strength and Conditioning Journal 24, 65e66.
Johnson, P., 2002. Training the trunk in the athlete. Strength and
Conditioning Journal 24, 52e59.
Kibler, W.B., Press, J., Sciascia, A., 2006. The role of core stability
in athletic function. Sports Medicine 36, 189e198.
Knudson, D., 2001. The validity of recent curl-up tests in young
adults. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 15,
81e85.
Lehman, G.L., Gordon, T., Langley, J., Pemrose, P., Tregaskis, S.,
2005. Replacing a Swiss ball for an exercise bench causes vari-
able changes in trunk muscle activity during upper limb strength
exercises. Dynamic Medicine 4. doi:10.1186/1476-5918-4-6.
Marshall, P.W., Murphy, B.A., 2005. Core stability exercises on and
off a Swiss ball. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
86, 242e249. doi:10.1016/japmr.2004.05.004.
McCurdy, K.W., Langford, G.A., Doscher, M.W., Wiley, L.P.,
Mallard, K.G., 2005. The effects of short-term unilateral and
bilateral lower-body resistance training on measures of strength
and power. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 19, 9e15.
McGill, S.M., 2001. Low back stability: from formal description to
issues for performance and rehabilitation. Exercise and Sport
Science Reviews 29, 26e31.
Murphy, A.J., Wilson, G.J., 1996. Poor correlations between
isometric tests and dynamic performance: relationship to muscle
activation. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occu-
pational Physiology 73, 353e357. doi:10.1007/BF.0242.5498.
Nesser, T.W., Huxel, K.C., Tincher, J.L., Okada, T., 2008. The
relationship between core stability and performance in division
524
I football players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research 22, 1750e1754.
O’Shea, K.L., O’Shea, J.P., 1989. Functional isometric weight
training: its effect on dynamic and static strength. Journal of
Applied Sport Science Research 3, 30e33.
Plamondon, A., Marceau, C., Stainton, S., Desjardins, P., 1999.
Toward a better prescription of the prone back extension
exercise to strengthen the back muscles. Scandinavian Journal
of Medicine and Science in Sports 9, 226e232.
Rogers, R.G., 2006. Research-based rehabilitation for the lower
back. Strength and Conditioning Journal 28, 30e35.
Rutherford, O.M., Jones, D.A., 1986. The role of learning and
coordination in strength training. European Journal of Applied
Physiology 55, 100e105.
Sato, K., Mokha, M., 2009. Does core strength training influence running
kinetics, lower extremity stability and 5000-M performance in
runners? Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 23, 133e140.
Scibek, J.S., Guskiewicz, K.M., Prentice, W.E., Mays, S., Davis, J.M.,
2001. The effect of core stabilization training on functional
performance in swimming. Master’s Thesis, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Siff, M.C., 2004. Supertraining. Supertraining Institute, Denver.
K.L. Parkhouse, N. Ball
Stanton, R., Reaburn, P.R., Humpries, B., 2004. The effect of
short-term Swiss ball training on core stability and running
economy. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 18,
522e528.
Stockbrugger, B.A., Haennel, R.G., 2001. Validity and reliability of
a medicine ball explosive power test. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research 15, 431e438.
Stone, M.H., Sanborn, K., O’Bryant, H.S., Hartman, M.,
Stone, M.E., Proulx, C., Ward, B., Hruby, J., 2003. Maximum
strength-power-performance relationships in collegiate
throwers. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 17,
739e745.
Tse, M.A., McManus, A.M., Masters, R.S., 2005. Development and
validation of a core endurance intervention program: implica-
tions for performance in college-age rowers. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research 19, 547e552.
Vera-Garcia, F.J., Grenier, S.G., McGill, S.M., 2000. Abdominal
muscle response during curl-ups on both stable and labile
surfaces. Physical Therapy 80, 564e569.
Winter, E.M., Jones, A.M., Davison, R., Bromley, P.D., Mercer, T.,
2007. Sport and Exercise Physiology Testing Guidelines: Exercise
and Clinical Testing. Routledge, USA.