An Analysis Of Core Stability Static Training And Balance Improvement - Dissertation Example

? Health Sciences and Medicine AN ANALYSIS OF CORE STABILITY STATIC TRAINING AND BALANCE IMPROVEMENT I.D. Supervisor’s ACKNOWLEDGEMENT After several wakeful nights I have spent in endeavouring to accomplish this undertaking, I was able to finish it at last… Somehow, I cannot overlook all those persons who openhandedly provided their aid in the fulfilment of this study. First of all, the participants who took part in this study and shared their time despite their hectic schedules for without all of you, this study would not be possible and complete… For my peers and friends who graciously showed their moral support and encouragement, which gave me the inspiration and motivation I needed to finish this study… To my supervisor, (state the name), for his or her (choose whichever applies) constant support and for sharing his or her (choose whichever applies) expertise and advices for the achievement of this venture… Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my family for their financial support and back-up, for without them this study would not be feasible. TO ALL OF YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH! The Researcher TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: The Problem and its Background Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….7 Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………………………………..8 Hypothesis…………………………………………………………………………………8 Scope and Limitation of the Study…………………………………………………………9 Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature and Studies Definition of Core Stability……………………………………………………………….10 An Overview of the Human Body.......................................................................................12 The Benefits of Core Training...........................................................................................15 Balance and Neuromuscular Stability Training.................................................................16 Stability Training Progressions..........................................................................................17 Related Studies...................................................................................................................18 Chapter 3: Methodology Research Participants........................................................................................................21 Research Instrumentation..................................................................................................21 Data Gathering Procedure................................................................................................22 Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................22 Chapter 4: Results and Discussion.................................................................................................24 Chapter 5: Summary of Findings and Conclusion.........................................................................31 References Appendices LIST OF TABLES Table 1. The Tabulated Results of the First Group........................................................................25 Table 2. The Tabulated Results of the Second Group....................................................................27 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The Number of Participants in each group.....................................................................24 Figure 2. The Number of Individuals in the First Group who were able to double their time in the Post-Test.........................................................................................................................................27 Figure 3. The Percentage of the Results of the Second Group.......................................................29 Figure 4. The Number of Individuals in each group who were able to improve and double their Post-Test Time................................................................................................................................30 ABSTRACT The core can be described as the lumbo-pelvic-hip complex. Core training is the means necessary to provide stability, neuromuscular control and support to the joints and spine. Core Stability is the ability of an individual to maintain the ideal alignment of the neck, spine, scapulae and pelvis while performing an exercise or sport skill. To maintain proper postural alignment, the strength of the core muscle groups such as the erector spinae and abdominal prime movers and stabilizers need to be developed through core strengthening exercises. This study focuses on analyzing the impact of core stability static training towards balance improvement in an individual. The researcher of this study utilized thirty participants who were randomly assigned to two groups: the first group was asked to participate in a five-week home-based core training exercise program while the second group did not perform anything. All of the participants in both groups were then asked to perform a pre-test and post-test of a single leg stance test to determine their balance time. The minimum time required in performing such test was thirty seconds. The results obtained in this study showed that core stability static training exercises indeed play a crucial role in improving balance. CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND Introduction The core can be described as the lumbo-pelvic-hip complex according to Kettles et al. (2006). Core training as emphasized by Kettles et al. (2006) is a means to provide stability, neuromuscular control and support to the joints and spine. Moreover, static and dynamic training of these stabilizing muscles should be the groundwork of any exercise program. Core stability has received considerable attention with regards to functional training in sports (Abt et al., 2007). Core stability as defined by Heyward (2006) is the ability to maintain the ideal alignment of the neck, spine, scapulae and pelvis while performing an exercise or sport skill. To maintain proper postural alignment, the strength of the core muscle groups such as the erector spinae and abdominal prime movers and stabilizers need to be developed through core strengthening exercises (Heyward, 2006). Because core stability is dynamic, changing with body position during exercise, isolated core strengthening does not automatically increase core stability unless it is accompanied by motor skill training as stressed by Heyward (2006). The stabilization of the core or mid-section as illustrated by Lawrence (2007) transpires when an individual can maintain a fixed position of the torso while performing particular activities or movements of the limbs. Lawrence (2007) also gave emphasis that good core stability permits a person to maintain a rigid mid-section without other forces such as gravity influencing the preferred movement. Some of the advantages related with core stability training as enumerated by Lawrence (2007) encompass a variety of positive outcomes such as improved posture, lessened risk or instances for injuries, enhanced agility and improved ability to change direction, improved balance and coordination and enhanced power and speed. This study endeavours to explore the concepts of Core Stability Static Training and how it facilitates improvement in balance particularly in the middle age group with ages ranging from forty to sixty years old (40-60 years old). Specifically, this study will tackle the findings of a balance test or a single leg stance test involving a variety of participants. Statement of the Problem Specifically, this study entitled, “An Analysis of Core Stability Static Training and Balance Improvement”, sought answers to the following inquiries: 1. What is Core Stability Static Training? 2. What are the impacts of Core Stability Static Training to the group of middle aged individuals involved in the study? 3. What is the influence of Core Stability Static Training in improving balance? 4. Is there a significant difference in balance improvement between the individuals who participated in the 5-week course training and with those individuals who did not perform anything? Hypothesis There is a significant difference in balance improvement between the individuals who participated in the 5-week course training and with those individuals who did not perform anything. Scope and Limitation of the Study This study was conducted to investigate if by working on core muscles with home-based core stability training can actually improve balance in a variety of individuals. The researcher noted the time it took participants to perform the balance test before and after the 5 weeks core stability training in comparison with those who did not perform any core stability exercises at all. Although, the core stability static training was proven to provide a variety of benefits to the individual, this study focused only on how such method can help in developing and enhancing a person’s balance. CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE This chapter offers literature that supports the topic of this study. The researcher utilized a variety of concepts that are associated with the topic to provide a better understanding and insight of the study. The Definition of Core Stability The term core has been utilized to pertain to the trunk or more particularly the lumbo-pelvic region of the body (Willardson, 2007). The stability of the lumbo-pelvic region is essential to provide groundwork for movement of the upper and lower extremities, to support loads and to protect the spinal cord and nerve roots (Willardson, 2007). Core stability as emphasized by Willardson (2007) is the capability of the stabilizing system to maintain the intervertebral neutral zones within physiological boundaries. Achieving core stability is not just a matter of targeting a few muscles; sufficient stability is a moving target that persistently changes as a function of the three dimensional torques necessary to support postures (O’Toole et al., 2011). Moreover, O’Toole et al. (2011) added that it involves achieving the rigidity essential in tolerating unexpected loads, preparing for moving swiftly, and ensuring sufficient stiffness in any degree of freedom of the joint that may be compromised from injury. The core or the trunk is stabilized by the abdominal musculature and the deep and superficial muscle groups of the spine, providing stable foundation for the movement of the extremities; in addition to this, the strength of the abdominal muscles is critical in maintaining optimal alignment of the trunk and pelvis in standing (Hebestreit, 2008; Lima et al., 2003). Dynamic lumbar muscular stabilization has become the most popular means of enhancing proprioception and strengthening the lower back, which assists control of intersegmental spinal motion and load on the spinal elements (Hebestreit, 2008). The stabilizing system has been divided into three subsystems namely, the passive subsystem, the active subsystem and the neural subsystem (Willardson, 2007). The passive subsystem includes the spinal ligaments and facet articulations between adjacent vertebrae, which permits the lumbar spine to support a limited load at approximately 10 kilograms that is far less than the body mass (Willardson, 2007). Therefore, the active muscle subsystem is essential to allow support of body mass including the additional loads associated with resistance exercises and dynamic activities (Willardson, 2007). The active muscle subsystem is classified into global and local groups grounded on their primary functions in stabilizing the core (Willardson, 2007). The global group encompasses the large, superficial muscles that transfer force between the thoracic cage and pelvis and act to increase intra-abdominal pressure while the local group includes the small, deep muscles that control intersegmental motion between adjacent vertebrae (Willardson, 2007). The core muscles can be compared to guy wires, with tension being controlled by the neural subsystem and as tension rises within these muscles, compressive forces amplify between the lumbar vertebrae; this toughens the lumbar spine to improve stability (Willardson, 2007). The neural subsystem has the daunting task of persistently monitoring and adjusting muscle forces based on feedback provided by muscle spindles, Golgi tendon organs and spinal ligaments; however, the requirements for stability can change instantaneously, established on postural adjustments or external loads accepted by the body (Willardson, 2007). Moreover, the neural subsystem must work concurrently to guarantee sufficient stability but also permit preferred joint movements to happen (Willardson, 2007). An Overview of the Human Body Obtaining insight on specific parts of the body is crucial in understanding the concepts regarding core stability static training. Hence, certain parts of the human body will be tackled in this study. The Spine The spine as described by Lawrence (2007) serves three main purposes within the human body such as those of support, protection and mobility. Specifically, it supports the skull at the top and acts like a frame, giving the ribs, pelvis and limbs a structural base to attach to (Lawrence, 2007). In conjunction with the ribs, it functions as protection for the heart and lungs and for all the organs in the abdomen and chest cavity; more significantly, it encloses the spinal cord, which carries the nerves from the brain to the organs, limbs and tissues (Lawrence, 2007). Finally, Lawrence (2007) highlighted that it provides the movement for the trunk, permitting rotation and flexion forwards, backwards and to the side. Lawrence (2007) illustrated the spine as consisting of 33 bones called vertebrae that is subdivided into seven cervical vertebrae or the C1-C7, 12 thoracic vertebrae or T1-T12, five lumbar vertebrae or L1-L5, five sacral vertebrae which are fused together to form the sacrum and four coccygeal vertebrae which are fused to form the coccyx or commonly termed as the tailbone. The vertebrae are said to be stacked on top of each other, forming an S-bend, and are connected by bony projections known as facet joints, which allow movement of the vertebrae; hence, permitting the spine to bend and twist (Lawrence, 2007). Lawrence (2007) stressed that the cervical vertebrae have increased mobility to tolerate multi-directional movements of the neck, whereas the lumbar vertebrae are broader and thicker as they have to cope with stronger forces from many of the larger muscles that are connected to them. Furthermore, according to Lawrence (2007), the lumbar vertebrae permit flexion and extension, while the thoracic vertebrae tolerate more twisting and rotational movement. The muscles of the lower back intersect the pelvis and help secure the spine to the pelvis as cited by Lawrence (2007). Conversely, the gluteal muscles assist hip and leg alignment, and create the force necessary to walk and run (Lawrence, 2007). Each vertebra is separated by a disc, which functions like a cushion aiding to dispel forces across its centre as stated by Lawrence (2007). Likewise, it also enables partial mobility between the vertebrae permitting an individual to twist and bend (Lawrence, 2007). The Core Muscles According to Lawrence (2007), a muscle can only contract and pull, it can never push; the fibres within each muscle overlap and pull together to create a force, which in turn pulls on the tendons and limbs. The core muscle system has been classified and subdivided into two units namely, the inner unit or local musculature system and the outer unit or the global muscular system as stated by Kettles et al. (2006). The inner unit encompasses muscles that primarily provide joint stabilization; likewise, these inherent muscles are not accountable for any particular movement but offer stability during joint movement (Kettles et al., 2006). On the other hand, Kettles et al. (2006) mentioned that the outer unit muscles chiefly function in performing movements of the trunk and limbs and offer support to the spine. The inner unit or the local musculature system consists of the multifidus, transverse abdominis, internal oblique and lumbar transversospinalis; whereas, the outer unit or the global musculature system include the rectus abdominis, gluteus maximus, erector spinae, adductors, quadrates lumborum, hamstring, external oblique and quadriceps (Kettles et al., 2006). The transverse abdominis plays the major role among the inner unit muscles and is activated prior to all movement and in conjunction with the inner unit musculature, helps to stabilize the spine, permitting the movement from the limbs (Lawrence, 2007; Allison et al., 2008). Furthermore, according to Willardson (2007), the transverse abdominis is the first muscle activated during unexpected and self-loading of the trunk and during upper and lower extremity movements, regardless of the direction of the movement. Conversely, the main function for the outer unit muscles is to instigate movement although some do have a stabilization role (Lawrence, 2007). Both aforementioned muscle groups should be developed to supply maximum and efficient movement according to Kettles et al. (2006). Furthermore, Kettles et al. (2006) had given emphasis that if the core muscles are functioning optimally, then strength, endurance, power and neuromuscular control are effectively employed. On the contrary, if the extremity muscles are strong and the core is weak, then inefficient movement will transpire all throughout the kinetic chain (Kettles et al., 2006). It is vital to strengthen the inner unit before enhancing the outer unit for the reason that if the inner unit is not sufficiently strengthened, then the muscles of the outer unit will compensate and take over as the primary stabilizers (Kettles et al., 2006). This circumstance can result to core dysfunction, which eventually may lead to injury according to Kettles et al. (2006). Likewise, exercising with an unstable core, or over trained superficial muscles and poor posture, produces further muscular imbalance and faulty movement patterns as emphasized by Kettles et al. (2006). Inner unit exercises tend to be more isometric such as the draw-in manoeuvre and prone hip extension while outer unit exercises are more dynamic such as a ball crunch (Kettles et al., 2006). The Benefits of Core Training Improving core stability can have a major knock-on effect such as it can enhance an individual’s power, agility and balance in sport (Nesser et al., 2008); strength and endurance gains in the core muscles can aid in improving a person’s posture and are often fundamental in surpassing injuries to the lower back and spine (Johnson et al., 2007); likewise, correct bracing schemes can help an individual achieve a flatter stomach, not by a reduction in fat, but rather it is attributed to the conditioning of the transverse muscle and other deep abdominal muscles, which when combined with good posture, has a flattening effect on the trunk (Lawrence, 2007; Nakasato, 2011). Improvements in core stability have been associated with improved sports performance and are extensively utilized in rehabilitation and injury prevention programs (Winterstein, 2009; Thompson et al., 2007). Beyond just core strength, core endurance seems to be related with injury protection as well, particularly in the protective nature linked with lumbar spine injury (Winterstein, 2009; Leetun et al., 2004). Bridging programs, unstable surfaces, Swiss balls and foam rolls are typically employed to promote core stability as emphasized by Winterstein (2009). In addition, it is not exceptional to manipulate traditional strength exercises specifically address core stability such as dumb bell exercises while seated on a Swiss ball (Marshall & Murphy, 2005), squat style movements on a balance board surface (Winterstein, 2009; Carter et al., 2006). Core muscle system training needs to be integrated in all methods of strength training such as traditional, functional and sport-specific movements; it also improves functional performance for individuals of all ages (Kettles et al., 2006; Scott, 2008). Moreover, it enhances postural alignment including static and dynamic control, decreases risk of injury and develops functional strength (Kettles et al., 2006; Prentice & Voight, 2001). Core strength training generates greater maximal power, which in turn results to more efficient utilization of the peripheral muscles like the shoulders, arms and legs (Myer et al., 2005); likewise, this kind of training is specifically necessary for athletes (Kettles et al., 2006; Fredericson & Moore, 2005). Furthermore, Kettles et al. (2006) highlighted that increased core strength improves body control, balance, overall power and neuromuscular efficiency, allowing athletes to safely and effectively execute the needed movements in their sports. Conversely, many sport-related injuries are caused by poor mechanics of movement according to Kettles et al. (2006). Core training has been effective and valuable in the area of rehabilitation, which can also be utilized as a form of injury prevention, including prevention of various lower extremity and lumbo-pelvic-hip complex dysfunctions (Kettles et al., 2006; Borghuis et al., 2008). Balance and Neuromuscular Stability Training Balance and neuromuscular stability training is a must in any functional exercise program as given emphasis by Kettles et al. (2006). According to Kettles et al. (2006), balance and stability may simply be defined as the body’s capability to maintain a preferred position whether static or dynamic. Kettles et al. (2006) also suggested that training the central nervous system is essential for balance and stabilization improvements. Kinaesthetic and proprioceptive awareness is the capacity of the nervous system to determine where all body parts are situated in space at any point in time (Kettles et al., 2006; Zazulak et al., 2007). Thus, improper kinetic chain function negatively influences balance, stability, kinaesthesia and proprioception (Kettles et al., 2006; Laskowski et al., 1997). In addition to this, individuals who may be training particularly for power, speed, agility or hypertrophy should encompass balance and stability training in their workouts; likewise, balance and stabilization are required components for all types of movements, both static and dynamic (Kettles et al. 2006). Stability Training Progressions Balance and Stability Training should frequently commence in a stable environment like on the floor before progressing to unstable environments such as a balance board (Kettles et al., 2006). In the performance of any exercise, safety should always be taken into consideration whether the training is performed in a stable or unstable environment; the individual should be able to perform every exercise in a controlled and proficient manner (Kettles et al., 2006; Jeffreys, 2002). Being in control as emphasized by Kettles et al. (2006) means being able to efficiently sustain a static or dynamic position safely and effectively; hence, if an individual cannot be in control during an exercise in a stable environment, then an unstable environment is not suitable. Kettles et al. (2006) added that stable and unstable environments can be manipulated, adjusted and altered for proper progression. Progressions differ for both lower and upper body exercises; in addition, balance and stability progressions should involve all three planes of motion starting with the progress from sagittal, to the frontal, to the transverse and to a blend of all the three planes, when appropriate, each balance and stability training progression should encompass multiplanar movements prior to advancement (Kettles et al., 2006). The lower-body balance and stability training progression commences from the utilization of two legs followed by two legs in a stationary position, one leg in a squatting position, two legs in an unstable environment and one leg in an unstable environment; whereas, the upper-body balance and stability training progression usually starts with the utilization of two arms, after that the employment of two arms is used then one arm, one arm with torso rotation, all the preceding on one leg in a stable environment then followed by two arms in an unstable environment, next would be the utilization of alternate arms in an unstable environment then one arm in an unstable environment and lastly, all the preceding on one leg in an unstable environment (Kettles et al., 2006). Related Studies In a study conducted by Wilson et al. (2005) entitled, Core Stability and Its Relationship to Lower Extremity Function and Injury, core stability is said to provide several benefits to the musculoskeletal system from maintaining low back health to preventing knee ligament injury. As a result, the acquisition and maintenance of core stability is of great interest to physical therapists, athletic trainers, and musculoskeletal researchers (Wilson et al., 2005). Core stability as defined by Wilson et al. (2005) is the ability of the lumbo-pelvic-hip complex to prevent buckling and to return to equilibrium after perturbation. Although static elements such as bone and soft tissue contribute to some degree, core stability is predominantly maintained by the dynamic function of muscular elements (Wilson et al., 2005). There is a clear relationship between trunk muscle activity and lower extremity movement; moreover, current evidence suggests that decreased core stability may predispose to injury and that appropriate training may reduce injury (Wilson et al., 2005). Core stability can be tested using isometric, isokinetic, and isoinertial methods as cited by Wilson et al. (2005). Appropriate intervention may result in decreased rates of back and lower extremity injury as determined by Wilson et al. (2005). In another study by Behm and Anderson (2006) entitled, The Role of Instability with Resistance Training, it was highlighted that instability can decrease the externally-measured force output of a muscle while maintaining high muscle activation wherein the high muscle activation of the limbs and trunk when unstable can be attributed to the increased stabilization functions. Moreover, the increased stress linked with instability has been hypothesized to promote greater neuromuscular adaptations such as decreased contractions, improved coordination and confidence in performing a skill (Behm & Anderson, 2006). Furthermore, it was also emphasized by Behm and Anderson (2006) that high muscle activation with less stress on joints and muscles could also be beneficial for general musculoskeletal health and rehabilitation. However, the lower force output may be hazardous to absolute strength gains when performing resistance training (Behm & Anderson, 2006). Behm and Anderson (2006) finally proposed that when implementing a resistance training program for musculoskeletal health or rehabilitation, both stable and unstable exercises should be included to ensure an emphasis on both higher force or stable and balance or unstable stressors to the neuromuscular system. The study of Sato and Mokha (2009) aimed to determine the effects of six weeks of core strength training or CST on ground reaction forces or GRFs, stability of the lower extremity and overall running performance in recreational and competitive runners since few scientific studies have been conducted to identify the effectiveness of CST on improving athletic performance. The authors conducted a screening process of 28 healthy adults who volunteered for the said study and were then divided randomly into two groups composing of 14 members each. A test redesign was employed to assess the differences between CST which is utilized in the experimental group and no CST which is employed in the control group on GRF measures, lower-extremity stability scores and running performance (Sato & Mokha, 2009). The GRF variables were determined by calculating peak impact active vertical GRFs or vGRFs and duration of the 2 horizontal GRFs or hGRFs as measured while running across a force plate; likewise, lower-extremity stability was assessed using the Star Excursion Balance Test (Sato & Mokha, 2009). Conversely, the running performance was determined by a 5000-m run time measured on outdoor tracks; moreover, in the study conducted, six mixed-design analyses of variance were used to identify the influence of CST on each dependent variable where twenty subjects were able to complete the study (Sato & Mokha, 2009). A significant interaction transpired with the CST group showing faster times in the 5000-m run after 6 weeks; however, CST did not significantly influence GRF variables and lower-leg stability and it was concluded that core strength training may be an effective training method for enhancing performance in runners (Sato & Mokha, 2009). CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY This chapter presents the research participants, research instrumentation, data gathering procedure and analysis of data. Research Participants There were thirty participants in this study which consists of both male and female. The said participants belong to the middle age group comprising of persons aging forty to sixty years old (40-60 years old). They were randomly assigned into two groups during the time of the study. The first group performed an exercise program which encompasses a five (5) week home-based core training exercises program that was performed twice a week for fifteen (15) minutes. The individuals who were assigned to the second group on the other hand, did not perform anything. To determine the comparison between the two groups, all of the participants were asked to perform a pre- and post single leg stance tests to obtain information regarding balance improvement. Research Instrumentation The researcher utilized descriptive research and analysis as a means of determining the significant difference in balance improvement between the individuals who participated in the five week core training exercises program and those who did not perform anything. A balance test specifically a single leg stance test was utilized before and after the five week core training exercises program performed by the first group. Likewise, the individuals belonging to the second group who did not perform any type of such exercise program were also asked to do the same. There were thirty (30) participants in total. The aforementioned tests were conducted to determine how long the participants were able to stand in one leg. The minimum time needed to do this test was thirty (30) seconds. Furthermore, a par-q questionnaire was employed to check if the subjects do not have any problems or medical conditions that would hinder them in performing the said exercise program like those individuals with heart disease would not be able to participate appropriately as deemed necessary by the study. Data Gathering Procedure The researcher after asking permission from the thirty (30) participants through the means of a letter, distributed the par-q questionnaire to determine if there are any health conditions that the participants possess that could affect the results of the study. This was done in order to achieve accuracy and precision of data; likewise, to take note of any contributing factors that would influence the findings of the study. The participants were observed closely during the time of the study. The time it took for the participants to be able to stand on one leg was recorded in a table to be looked into and to be interpreted by the researcher. Data Analysis The researcher utilized the following formula to be able to interpret the results derived from the study. 1. Percentage Distribution Percentage was utilized to determine the number of participants who showed improvement in balance when the second test (post test) was performed. It was also used to determine the number of participants who were able to perform the single leg stance test greater than the minimum amount of time required which is thirty (30) seconds. Moreover, it was also utilized to compare the results between the individuals who belong specifically to two different groups to know which group performed better in the said tests. Percentage was computed using the formula: P=f/N X 100 Where f is the frequency of the participants who showed improvement in the post test; who were able to perform the single leg stance test greater than the minimum time required and the number of individuals who were able to perform better in comparison with the groups they belong to and N equals the total number of participants. CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The data gathered from the thirty (30) participants who took part in this study were tabulated and presented in this chapter. The results of the pre- and post tests were analyzed to determine which group was able to perform better during the performance of the single leg stance test or balance test. The Number of Participants in each group The participants of this study were thirty (30) individuals who belong to the middle age group with ages ranging from forty to sixty (40-60) years old. The said individuals were randomly assigned to two (2) groups. The first group were asked to perform a five (5) week home-based core training exercises program which was implemented twice a week for fifteen (15) minutes. On the contrary, the individuals who comprised the second group did not perform anything during the course of the study. Figure 1. The Number of Participants in each Group The thirty (30) participants were randomly assigned to two groups. The first group who were asked to participate in a five (5) week home-based core training exercises program consists of fifteen (15) individuals; whereas, the second group who did not perform anything also included fifteen (15) individuals. The same number of individuals was utilized to promote impartiality in the responses obtained and to avoid prejudice. Table 1. The Tabulated Results of the First Group Pre-Test Time Post-Test Time Difference Description Participant 1 90.3 sec. 182 sec. 91.7 sec. Improved Participant 2 84.8 sec. 322.1 sec. 237.3 sec. Improved Participant 3 21.8 sec. 262.1 sec. 240.3 sec. Improved Participant 4 110.3 sec. 310.3 sec. 200 sec. Improved Participant 5 143.4 sec. 263.2 sec. 119.8 sec. Improved Participant 6 42.3 sec. 212.1 sec. 169.8 sec. Improved Participant 7 34.5 sec. 273.2 sec. 238.7 sec. Improved Participant 8 185.2 sec. 390.2 sec. 205 sec. Improved Participant 9 33.4 sec. 235.1 sec. 201.7 sec. Improved Participant 10 82.3 sec. 252.1 sec. 169.8 sec. Improved Participant 11 15 sec. 235.2 sec. 220.2 sec. Improved Participant 12 28 sec. 259.4 sec. 231.4 sec. Improved Participant 13 36.8 sec. 210.2 sec. 173.4 sec. Improved Participant 14 29 sec. 190.6 sec. 161.6 sec. Improved Participant 15 80.4 sec. 252.4 sec. 172 sec. Improved Table 1 shows the tabulated results of the time each member of the first group was able to perform the single leg stance test or balance test before and after they have completed the five (5) week core training exercises program. The principle of core stability has gained wide acceptance in training for the prevention of injury and as a treatment modality for rehabilitation of various musculoskeletal conditions in particular of the lower back (Lederman, 2010). Core stability is crucial for proper load balance within the spine, pelvis and kinetic chain (Akuthota et al., 2008). The so-called core is the group of trunk muscles that surround the spine and abdominal viscera; abdominal, gluteal, hip girdle, paraspinal and other muscles work in concert to offer spinal stability (Akuthota et al., 2008); Bambury et al., 2004). Core stability and its motor control have been shown to be imperative for initiation of functional limb movements as needed in athletics (Akuthota et al., 2008; Leonard et al., 2005); sports medicine practitioners utilize core strengthening techniques to improve performance and prevent injury (Akuthota et al., 2008). Testing core body strength helps the participant and the instructor to understand what developmental level the individual currently hold in terms of muscular coordination and strength (Collins, 2008). Assessing, identifying and recording core-body strength with various drills provides the appropriate feedback for designing appropriate training sessions relative to the person’s ability level (Collins, 2008). As further emphasized by Collins (2008), core testing can provide direction and motivation for the participant and vital feedback for the instructor. During the pre-test, four (4) of the participants were unable to meet the required minimum time which is thirty (30) seconds to perform the single leg stance test or balance test. However, it is evident that during the post test, aside from the fact that all the participants were able to meet the required minimum time in performing the single leg stance test or balance test, all of them showed great improvement in balance as exhibited by the differences of their pre-test and post-test time. Moreover, all of the participants presented that they were able to beat their pre-test time and all of the participants were able to double the length of their pre-test time as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2. The Number of Participants in the First Group who were able to double their time in the Post Test As previously mentioned, all of the participants in the first group which consists of fifteen (15) individuals were able to improve their balance after completing the five (5) week home-based core training exercises program. It is also apparent that all the members of the first group were able to double their post-test time as shown by a percentage of one hundred percent (100%). Table 2. The Tabulated Results of the Second Group Pre-Test Time Post-Test Time Difference Description Participant 1 75.2 sec. 69.3 sec. -5.9 sec. Failed Participant 2 65.6 sec. 69.3 sec. 3.7 sec. Improved Participant 3 125.4 sec. 127.2 sec. 1.8 sec. Improved Participant 4 132.3 sec. 134.4 sec. 2.1 sec. Improved Participant 5 29.8 sec. 29 sec. -0.8 sec. Failed Participant 6 59.5 sec. 61.3 sec. 1.8 sec. Improved Participant 7 33.1 sec. 33.9 sec. 0.8 sec. Improved Participant 8 24 sec. 182.1 sec. 158.1 sec. Improved Participant 9 128.2 sec. 131.4 sec. 3.2 sec. Improved Participant 10 41.9 sec. Not Performed Not Applicable Not Applicable Participant 11 258.2 sec. 258.9 sec. 0.7 sec. Improved Participant 12 93.4 sec. 94.2 sec. 0.8 sec. Improved Participant 13 125.5 sec. 130.1 sec. 4.6 sec. Improved Participant 14 303.1 sec. 320.1 sec. 17 sec. Improved Participant 15 52 sec. 122.8 sec. 70.8 sec. Improved Table 2 presents the pre-test and post-test time of every member of the second group who did not perform any type of core training exercise. Core stability exercise can be defined loosely as the restoration or augmentation of the ability of the neuromuscular system to control and protect the spine from injury or reinjury (Hodges, 2003). The term is variously used to describe a spectrum of exercise approaches that have the common goal to improve lumbopelvic control, with diverse rationales; in general, strategies can be divided into two main groups: those that aim to restore the coordination and control of the trunk muscles to improve control of the lumbar spine and pelvis and those that to restore the capacity that is the strength and endurance of the trunk muscles to meet the demands of control (Hodges, 2003; Barr et al., 2005). It is evident that not all of the participants were able to improve their post-test time in performing the single leg stance test. The group consists of fifteen (15) individuals: twelve (12) members were able to improve their post-test time, while two (2) members failed to improve their post-test time. One (1) member of the group was also unable to perform the post-test due to a reason that the researcher of this study will not be able to divulge as deemed by the terms of confidentiality of the results. It is also obvious that only two (2) members were able to double their post-test time and the rest only improved their post-test time by a matter of a few seconds. Furthermore, a one (1) participant failed to meet the required minimum time in performing the single leg stance test which is thirty (30) seconds. The percentage of the derived results for the second group is presented in Figure 3. Figure 3. The Percentage of the Results of the Second Group As previously mentioned, not all of the members of the second group were able to improve their post-test time as evidenced by the result of eleven (11) participants or 68% of the total number of members in the second group. Two (2) members of the group or 13% failed to improve their post-test time in doing the balance test. Whereas, only one (2) members were able to improve and double the post-test time as shown by a percentage of 13%. The comparison of the results of the two groups in terms of the number of individuals who were able to improve and at the same time, double their post-test time is presented in Figure 4. Figure 4. The Number of Individuals in each group who were able to improve and double their Post-Test Time Figure 4 showed that only seventeen (17) participants out of the total number of participants for both groups which is thirty (30) were able to improve and double their post-test time. It is also apparent that the members of the Group 1 performed better compared to the members of Group 2 as shown by 88% of the number of individuals who improved and doubled their post-test time in performing the single leg stance test belong to the first group and only 12% belong to the second group. The most predominant literature regarding balance has emphasized the physiological mechanisms controlling stability (Anderson & Behm, 2005). Balance is achieved through an interaction of central anticipatory and reflexive actions as well as the active and passive restraints imposed by the muscular system (Anderson & Behm, 2005). CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION This chapter presents the summary of the results of the study and the conclusion based on the findings derived from the study. Summary of Findings The following results were obtained from the study: 1. Fifteen (15) participants belong to Group 1 who performed a five-week core training exercises program whereas fifteen (15) participants belong to Group 2 who did not perform anything to be able to provide comparison with the same number of participants and avoid bias in obtaining the results. 2. In the results derived from the study, it is evident that all of the members of the first group were able to improve and double their Post-Test time in performing the single leg stance test garnering a percentage of 100% while only two (2) members of the second group was able to do this obtaining only 13%. 3. Two (2) members of Group 2 failed to improve their post-test time in the execution of the balance test with a percentage of 13%. 4. One (1) member of the second group even failed to meet the minimum required amount of time in performing the single leg stance test which is thirty (30) seconds. 5. Based on the results obtained, there is a significant difference in balance improvement between the group who participated in the five-week home-based core training exercises program and the group who did not perform anything. Conclusions Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were derived: 1. The researcher noted that in the pre-test, not all the members of both groups were able to meet the minimum required amount of time which could be grounded on a variety of factors such as age and health. 2. There is a significant difference in balance improvement between the two groups as shown in the post-test time. Hence, the researcher concluded that an individual who engages in core stability training exercises will remarkably improve their balance. References Abt, J.P., Smoliga, J.M., Brick, M.J., Jolly, J.T., Lephart, S.M. and Fu, F.H. (2007) Relationship between Cycling Mechanics and Core Stability. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21 (4), p. 1300-1304. Akuthota, V., Ferreiro, A., Moore, T. and Fredericson, M. (2008) Core Stability Exercise Principles. Current Sports Medicine Reports, 7 (1), p. 39-44. Allison, G.T., Morris, S.L. and Lay, B. (2008) Feedforward Responses of Transversus Abdominis are Directionally Specific and Act Asymmetrically: Implications for Core Stability Theories. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 38 (5), p. 228-237. Anderson, K. and Behm, D.G. (2005) The Impact of Instability Resistance Training on Balance and Stability. Sports Medicine, 35 (11), p. 43-53. Bambury, A., Behm, D.G., Cahill, F. and Power, K. (2004) Effect of Acute Static Stretching on Force, Balance, Reaction Time and Movement Time. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36 (8), p. 1397-1402. Barr, K.P., Griggs, M. and Cadby, T. (2005) Lumbar Stabilization: Core Concepts and Literature, Part 1. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84 (6), p. 473-480. Behm, D.G. and Anderson, K.G. (2006) The Role of Instability with Resistance Training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20 (3), p. 716-722. Borghuis, J., Hof, A.L. and Lemmink, K. (2008) The Importance of Sensory-Motor Control in Providing Core Stability: Implications for Measurement and Training. Sports Medicine, 38 (11), p. 893-916. Carter, J.M., Beam, W.C., McMahan, S.G., Barr, M.L. and Brown, L.E. (2006) The Effects of Stability Ball Training on Spinal Stability in Sedentary Individuals. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20 (2), p. 245-455. Collins, P. (2008) Core Strength. United Kingdom: Meyer & Meyer Verlag. Fredericson, M. and Moore, T. (2005) Muscular Balance, Core Stability and Injury Prevention for Middle- and Long-Distance Runners. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America, 16, p. 669-689. Hebestreit, H. (2008) The Young Athlete. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Heyward, V.H. (2006) Advanced Fitness Assessment and Exercise Prescription. United States of America: Human Kinetics. Hodges, P.W. (2003) Core Stability Exercise in chronic low back pain. Orthopedic Clinics of North America, 34, p. 245-254. Jeffreys, I. (2002) Developing a Progressive Core Stability Program. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 24 (5), p. 65-66. Johnson, E.G., Larsen, A., Ozawa, H., Wilson, C.A. and Kennedy, K.L. (2007) The effects of Pilates-based experience on dynamic balance in healthy adults. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, 11 (3), p. 238-242. Kettles, M., Cole, C.L. and Wright, B.S. (2006) Women’s Health and Fitness Guide. United States of America: Human Kinetics. Laskowski, E.R., Aney, K.N. and Smith, J. (1997) Refining Rehabilitation with Proprioception Training: Expediting Return to Play. The Physician and Sports Medicine, 25 (10). Lawrence, M. (2007) Complete Guide to Core Stability. London: A&C Black Publishers Ltd. Lederman, E. (2010) The Myth of Core Stability. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, 14 (1), p. 84-98. Leetun, D.T., Ireland, M.L., Willson, J.D., Ballantyne, B.T. and Davis, I.M. (2004) Core Stability Measures as Risk Factors for Lower Extremity Injury in Athletes. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36 (6), p. 926-934. Leonard, A.M., Behm, D.G., Young, W.B., Bonsey, W.A. and MacKinnon, S.N. (2005) Trunk Muscle Electromyographic Activity with Unstable and Unilateral Exercises. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19 (1), p. 193-201. Lima, L.M.C., Reynolds, K.L., Winter, C., Paolone, V. and 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 (4), p. 721-25. Marshall, P.W. and Murphy, B.A. (2005) Core Stability Exercises on and off a Swiss Ball. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86 (2), p. 242-249. Myer, G.D., Ford, K.R., Palumbo, J.P. and Hewett, T.E. (2005) Neuromuscular Training improves performance and lower-extremity biomechanics in female athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19 (1), p. 51-60. Nakasato, Y. (2011) Geriatric Rheumatology: A Comprehensive Approach. New York, United States of America: Springer Science+Business Media. Nesser, T.W., Huxel, K.C., Tincher, J.L. and Okada, T. (2008) The Relationship between Core Stability and Performance in Division I Football Players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22 (6), p. 1750-1754. O’Toole, F.W., Gormley, J. and Hussey, J. (2011) Exercise Therapy in the Management of Musculoskeletal Disorders. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Prentice, W.E. and Voight, M.L. (2001) Techniques in Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation. United States of America: McGraw-Hill. Sato, K. and Mokha, M. (2009) Does Core Strength Training Influence Running Kinetics, Lower-Extremity Stability and 5000-m Performance in Runners?, 23 (1), p. 133-140. Scott, S. (2008) Able Bodies Balance Training. United States of America: Human Kinetics. Thompson, C.J., Cobb, K.M. and Blackwell, J. (2007) Functional Training Improves Club Head Speed and Functional Fitness in Older Golfers. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21 (1), p. 131-137. Willardson, J.M. (2007) Core Stability Training: Applications to Sports Conditioning Programs. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21 (3), p. 979-985. Wilson, J.D., Dougherty, C.P., Ireland, M.L. and Davis, I.M. (2005) Core Stability and Its Relationship to Lower Extremity Function and Injury. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 13 (5), p. 316-325. Winterstein, A.P. (2009) Athletic Training Student Primer: A Foundation for Success. United States of America: SLACK Incorporated. Zazulak, B.T., Hewett, T.E., Reeves, P., Goldberg, B. and Cholewicki, J. (2007) Deficits in Neuromuscular Control of the Trunk Predict Knee Injury Risk: A Prospective Biomechanical-Epidemiologic Study. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 35 (7), p. 1123-1130. Appendices Read More