clinicians and trainers can cue the focus and activity in this region during the movement which should also help enhance recruitment and inform patient/client about twofold benefits of training core this way.”
Why aren't there many studies that have larger samples, such as 50-100 or more participants in each group (experimental and control)? And how could clinicians and even personal trainers apply such research when many of their patients and clients are not from the same sample population?
“Sample sizes are small for many reasons. [It boils] down to money and time,” Martuscello remarked. “I am sure many researchers would love to have included larger sample sizes with the precise populations they are interested in understanding, but all of these come at a cost, which is always an uphill battle.
Martuscello also pointed out my question about applying research into practice. “Personally, I think it is one of the most important things to consider when reading research studies to see if they are relevant. Many studies use convenience samples or conducted with college kids which may limit generalizability. With that said, college kids are people too, and although the results in the study may show a significant effect, it may be relevant for others but just not as impact full.
“On a practical note, my philosophy has always been real world experimentation. Just because a study has strong results or effect sizes, I still like to test the research in the real world. Does it work on me? Does it work on others? I call it calibrating research to the real world. As we do this, we can experience what works, and scrap what doesn’t (even if ‘study’ says it does) and develop our ‘research filters’ for sizing up research and applying it. Remember, what works for researchers may not work for practitioners/clinicians and vice versus. So experiment, revise, update.”
References:
1. Huxel Bliven KC, Anderson BE. Core Stability Training for Injury Prevention. Sports Health. 2013;5(6):514-522. doi:10.1177/1941738113481200.
2. Panjabi MM. The stabilizing system of the spine. Part I. Function, dysfunction, adaptation, and enhancement. J Spinal Disord. 1992;5: 383-389.
3. Panjabi MM. The stabilizing system of the spine. Part II. Neutral zone and instability hypothesis. J Spinal Disord. 1992;5:390-396.
4. Saragiotto BT, Maher C, Yamato TP, Costa LOP, Menezes Costa LC, Ostelo RWJG, Macedo LG. Motor control exercise for chronic non-specific low-back pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD012004. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012004
5. Macedo LG, Saragiotto BT, Yamato TP, Costa LOP, Menezes Costa LC, Ostelo RWJG, Maher C. Motor control exercise for acute non-specific low back pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD012085. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012085
6. Smith BE, Littlewood C, May S. An update of stabilisation exercises for low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2014;15:416. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-416.
7. Martuscello JM, Nuzzo JL, Ashley CD, Campbell BI, Orriola JJ, Mayer JM. Systematic review of core muscle activity during physical fitness exercises. J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Jun;27(6):1684-98. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318291b8da.
8. Reed CA, Ford KR, Myer GD, Hewett TE. The Effects of Isolated and Integrated “Core Stability” Training on Athletic Performance Measures: A Systematic Review. Sports medicine (Auckland, NZ). 2012;42(8):697-706. doi:10.2165/11633450-000000000-00000.
Photo: The Lazy Artist
28 massage & fitness magazine