Effects of an 8-week unstable core training on trunk muscle strength and sprint performance among kayakers


Abstract

Background: Unstable core training (UCT), widely used in various sports to enhance trunk muscle strength and sprint performance, results in significantly greater gains in both outcomes compared to traditional core training (TCT). The study aimed to examine the impact of UCT performed on unstable surfaces (BOSU balls and Swiss balls) versus TCT performed on stable surfaces (floor and bench) on trunk muscle strength and sprint performance among flatwater sprint kayakers.

Method: A randomized controlled trial was conducted, recruiting 60 eligible kayakers aged 14 -19 years from the Ganzhou training base, China. Participants were randomly assigned to the UTC group and the TCT group. Both groups completed an 8-week core training program consisting of 1-hour sessions, 3 times/week. The difference is that the core training exercises of the UTC group were performed on unstable surfaces, while the TCT group performed them on stable surfaces. Trunk stability strength was assessed using the abdomen, back, and side bridge tests, while trunk dynamic strength was measured using the 1-minute sit-up, 1-minute back extension, and 1-minute trunk rotation tests. Sprint performance was evaluated using the 200m single flatwater sprint time test. Statistical analyses were conducted via MANOVA, with the significance level set at p < 0.05 .

Results: The results of the analysis for between-group effects demonstrated statistically significant improvements in all dependent variables for the post-test in between UTC and TCT groups. These differences included trunk stability strength in terms of abdomen ( p < 0.001, η² = 0. 228), back (p < 0.001, η² = 0.2 85 ), left side (p < 0.001, η² = 0. 280 ), and right side (p < 0.001, η² = 0.2 91 ); trunk dynamic strength in terms of flexion (p < 0.001, η² = 0. 243 ), extension (p < 0.001, η² = 0. 212 ), left rotation (p < 0.001, η² = 0. 182 ), and right rotation (p < 0.001, η² = 0. 303 ); as well as sprint performance in terms of 200m single flatwater sprint time (p < 0.001, η² = 0. 739 ).

Conclusion: The findings suggest that UTC may lead to greater improvements in trunk muscle strength and sprint performance compared with TCT over an 8-week intervention among young male Chinese kayakers. However, given methodological limitations ( field-based strength tests and manual timing ), results should be interpreted cautiously and require confirmation with more precise measurement methods in future research.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].