Contemporary perspectives of core stability training for dynamic athletic performance: a survey of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners

Background Core stability training has grown in popularity over 25 years, initially for back pain prevention or therapy. Subsequently, it developed as a mode of exercise training for health, fitness and sport. The scientific basis for traditional core stability exercise has recently been questioned and challenged, especially in relation to dynamic athletic performance. Reviews have called for clarity on what constitutes anatomy and function of the core, especially in healthy and uninjured people. Clinical research suggests that traditional core stability training is inappropriate for development of fitness for heath and sports performance. However, commonly used methods of measuring core stability in research do not reflect functional nature of core stability in uninjured, healthy and athletic populations. Recent reviews have proposed a more dynamic, whole body approach to training core stabilization, and research has begun to measure and report efficacy of these modes training. The purpose of this study was to assess extent to which these developments have informed people currently working and participating in sport. Methods An online survey questionnaire was developed around common themes on core stability training as defined in the current scientific literature and circulated to a sample population of people working and participating in sport. Survey results were assessed against key elements of the current scientific debate. Results Perceptions on anatomy and function of the core were gathered from a representative cohort of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners (n = 241), along with their views on effectiveness of various current and traditional exercise training modes. Most popular method of testing and measuring core function was subjective assessment through observation (43%), while a quarter (22%) believed there was no effective method of measurement. Perceptions of people in sport reflect the scientific debate, and practitioners have adopted a more functional approach to core stability training. There was strong support for loaded, compound exercises performed upright, compared to moderate support for traditional core stability exercises. Half of the participants (50%) in the survey, however, still support a traditional isolation core stability training. Conclusion Perceptions in applied practice on core stability training for dynamic athletic performance are aligned to a large extent to the scientific literature. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Clark, David R. [verfasserIn] Lambert, Michael I. Hunter, Angus M.

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2018

Schlagwörter:	Core Stability Dynamic Trunk Athletic Performance Loaded Functional Compound Exercise

Anmerkung:	© The Author(s). 2018

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: Sports medicine - open - Berlin [u.a.] : Springer, 2015, 4(2018), 1 vom: 16. Juli
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:4 ; year:2018 ; number:1 ; day:16 ; month:07

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s40798-018-0150-3

Katalog-ID:	SPR037775952

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	SPR037775952
003	DE-627
005	20230519223540.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	201007s2018 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s40798-018-0150-3 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR037775952
035			\|a (SPR)s40798-018-0150-3-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	1		\|a Clark, David R. \|e verfasserin \|0 (orcid)0000-0002-6661-6137 \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Contemporary perspectives of core stability training for dynamic athletic performance: a survey of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners
264		1	\|c 2018
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
500			\|a © The Author(s). 2018
520			\|a Background Core stability training has grown in popularity over 25 years, initially for back pain prevention or therapy. Subsequently, it developed as a mode of exercise training for health, fitness and sport. The scientific basis for traditional core stability exercise has recently been questioned and challenged, especially in relation to dynamic athletic performance. Reviews have called for clarity on what constitutes anatomy and function of the core, especially in healthy and uninjured people. Clinical research suggests that traditional core stability training is inappropriate for development of fitness for heath and sports performance. However, commonly used methods of measuring core stability in research do not reflect functional nature of core stability in uninjured, healthy and athletic populations. Recent reviews have proposed a more dynamic, whole body approach to training core stabilization, and research has begun to measure and report efficacy of these modes training. The purpose of this study was to assess extent to which these developments have informed people currently working and participating in sport. Methods An online survey questionnaire was developed around common themes on core stability training as defined in the current scientific literature and circulated to a sample population of people working and participating in sport. Survey results were assessed against key elements of the current scientific debate. Results Perceptions on anatomy and function of the core were gathered from a representative cohort of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners (n = 241), along with their views on effectiveness of various current and traditional exercise training modes. Most popular method of testing and measuring core function was subjective assessment through observation (43%), while a quarter (22%) believed there was no effective method of measurement. Perceptions of people in sport reflect the scientific debate, and practitioners have adopted a more functional approach to core stability training. There was strong support for loaded, compound exercises performed upright, compared to moderate support for traditional core stability exercises. Half of the participants (50%) in the survey, however, still support a traditional isolation core stability training. Conclusion Perceptions in applied practice on core stability training for dynamic athletic performance are aligned to a large extent to the scientific literature.
650		4	\|a Core \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Stability \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Dynamic \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Trunk \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Athletic \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Performance \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Loaded \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Functional \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Compound \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Exercise \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Lambert, Michael I. \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Hunter, Angus M. \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t Sports medicine - open \|d Berlin [u.a.] : Springer, 2015 \|g 4(2018), 1 vom: 16. Juli \|w (DE-627)818042605 \|w (DE-600)2809942-4 \|x 2198-9761 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:4 \|g year:2018 \|g number:1 \|g day:16 \|g month:07
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40798-018-0150-3 \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4335
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 4 \|j 2018 \|e 1 \|b 16 \|c 07

Indexfelder

author_variant	d r c dr drc m i l mi mil a m h am amh
matchkey_str	article:21989761:2018----::otmoayesetvsfoetblttannfryaiaheipromnesreoaheecahspr
hierarchy_sort_str	2018
publishDate	2018
allfields	10.1186/s40798-018-0150-3 doi (DE-627)SPR037775952 (SPR)s40798-018-0150-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Clark, David R. verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-6661-6137 aut Contemporary perspectives of core stability training for dynamic athletic performance: a survey of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2018 Background Core stability training has grown in popularity over 25 years, initially for back pain prevention or therapy. Subsequently, it developed as a mode of exercise training for health, fitness and sport. The scientific basis for traditional core stability exercise has recently been questioned and challenged, especially in relation to dynamic athletic performance. Reviews have called for clarity on what constitutes anatomy and function of the core, especially in healthy and uninjured people. Clinical research suggests that traditional core stability training is inappropriate for development of fitness for heath and sports performance. However, commonly used methods of measuring core stability in research do not reflect functional nature of core stability in uninjured, healthy and athletic populations. Recent reviews have proposed a more dynamic, whole body approach to training core stabilization, and research has begun to measure and report efficacy of these modes training. The purpose of this study was to assess extent to which these developments have informed people currently working and participating in sport. Methods An online survey questionnaire was developed around common themes on core stability training as defined in the current scientific literature and circulated to a sample population of people working and participating in sport. Survey results were assessed against key elements of the current scientific debate. Results Perceptions on anatomy and function of the core were gathered from a representative cohort of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners (n = 241), along with their views on effectiveness of various current and traditional exercise training modes. Most popular method of testing and measuring core function was subjective assessment through observation (43%), while a quarter (22%) believed there was no effective method of measurement. Perceptions of people in sport reflect the scientific debate, and practitioners have adopted a more functional approach to core stability training. There was strong support for loaded, compound exercises performed upright, compared to moderate support for traditional core stability exercises. Half of the participants (50%) in the survey, however, still support a traditional isolation core stability training. Conclusion Perceptions in applied practice on core stability training for dynamic athletic performance are aligned to a large extent to the scientific literature. Core (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stability (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dynamic (dpeaa)DE-He213 Trunk (dpeaa)DE-He213 Athletic (dpeaa)DE-He213 Performance (dpeaa)DE-He213 Loaded (dpeaa)DE-He213 Functional (dpeaa)DE-He213 Compound (dpeaa)DE-He213 Exercise (dpeaa)DE-He213 Lambert, Michael I. aut Hunter, Angus M. aut Enthalten in Sports medicine - open Berlin [u.a.] : Springer, 2015 4(2018), 1 vom: 16. Juli (DE-627)818042605 (DE-600)2809942-4 2198-9761 nnns volume:4 year:2018 number:1 day:16 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40798-018-0150-3 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 4 2018 1 16 07
spelling	10.1186/s40798-018-0150-3 doi (DE-627)SPR037775952 (SPR)s40798-018-0150-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Clark, David R. verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-6661-6137 aut Contemporary perspectives of core stability training for dynamic athletic performance: a survey of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2018 Background Core stability training has grown in popularity over 25 years, initially for back pain prevention or therapy. Subsequently, it developed as a mode of exercise training for health, fitness and sport. The scientific basis for traditional core stability exercise has recently been questioned and challenged, especially in relation to dynamic athletic performance. Reviews have called for clarity on what constitutes anatomy and function of the core, especially in healthy and uninjured people. Clinical research suggests that traditional core stability training is inappropriate for development of fitness for heath and sports performance. However, commonly used methods of measuring core stability in research do not reflect functional nature of core stability in uninjured, healthy and athletic populations. Recent reviews have proposed a more dynamic, whole body approach to training core stabilization, and research has begun to measure and report efficacy of these modes training. The purpose of this study was to assess extent to which these developments have informed people currently working and participating in sport. Methods An online survey questionnaire was developed around common themes on core stability training as defined in the current scientific literature and circulated to a sample population of people working and participating in sport. Survey results were assessed against key elements of the current scientific debate. Results Perceptions on anatomy and function of the core were gathered from a representative cohort of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners (n = 241), along with their views on effectiveness of various current and traditional exercise training modes. Most popular method of testing and measuring core function was subjective assessment through observation (43%), while a quarter (22%) believed there was no effective method of measurement. Perceptions of people in sport reflect the scientific debate, and practitioners have adopted a more functional approach to core stability training. There was strong support for loaded, compound exercises performed upright, compared to moderate support for traditional core stability exercises. Half of the participants (50%) in the survey, however, still support a traditional isolation core stability training. Conclusion Perceptions in applied practice on core stability training for dynamic athletic performance are aligned to a large extent to the scientific literature. Core (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stability (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dynamic (dpeaa)DE-He213 Trunk (dpeaa)DE-He213 Athletic (dpeaa)DE-He213 Performance (dpeaa)DE-He213 Loaded (dpeaa)DE-He213 Functional (dpeaa)DE-He213 Compound (dpeaa)DE-He213 Exercise (dpeaa)DE-He213 Lambert, Michael I. aut Hunter, Angus M. aut Enthalten in Sports medicine - open Berlin [u.a.] : Springer, 2015 4(2018), 1 vom: 16. Juli (DE-627)818042605 (DE-600)2809942-4 2198-9761 nnns volume:4 year:2018 number:1 day:16 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40798-018-0150-3 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 4 2018 1 16 07
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s40798-018-0150-3 doi (DE-627)SPR037775952 (SPR)s40798-018-0150-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Clark, David R. verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-6661-6137 aut Contemporary perspectives of core stability training for dynamic athletic performance: a survey of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2018 Background Core stability training has grown in popularity over 25 years, initially for back pain prevention or therapy. Subsequently, it developed as a mode of exercise training for health, fitness and sport. The scientific basis for traditional core stability exercise has recently been questioned and challenged, especially in relation to dynamic athletic performance. Reviews have called for clarity on what constitutes anatomy and function of the core, especially in healthy and uninjured people. Clinical research suggests that traditional core stability training is inappropriate for development of fitness for heath and sports performance. However, commonly used methods of measuring core stability in research do not reflect functional nature of core stability in uninjured, healthy and athletic populations. Recent reviews have proposed a more dynamic, whole body approach to training core stabilization, and research has begun to measure and report efficacy of these modes training. The purpose of this study was to assess extent to which these developments have informed people currently working and participating in sport. Methods An online survey questionnaire was developed around common themes on core stability training as defined in the current scientific literature and circulated to a sample population of people working and participating in sport. Survey results were assessed against key elements of the current scientific debate. Results Perceptions on anatomy and function of the core were gathered from a representative cohort of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners (n = 241), along with their views on effectiveness of various current and traditional exercise training modes. Most popular method of testing and measuring core function was subjective assessment through observation (43%), while a quarter (22%) believed there was no effective method of measurement. Perceptions of people in sport reflect the scientific debate, and practitioners have adopted a more functional approach to core stability training. There was strong support for loaded, compound exercises performed upright, compared to moderate support for traditional core stability exercises. Half of the participants (50%) in the survey, however, still support a traditional isolation core stability training. Conclusion Perceptions in applied practice on core stability training for dynamic athletic performance are aligned to a large extent to the scientific literature. Core (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stability (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dynamic (dpeaa)DE-He213 Trunk (dpeaa)DE-He213 Athletic (dpeaa)DE-He213 Performance (dpeaa)DE-He213 Loaded (dpeaa)DE-He213 Functional (dpeaa)DE-He213 Compound (dpeaa)DE-He213 Exercise (dpeaa)DE-He213 Lambert, Michael I. aut Hunter, Angus M. aut Enthalten in Sports medicine - open Berlin [u.a.] : Springer, 2015 4(2018), 1 vom: 16. Juli (DE-627)818042605 (DE-600)2809942-4 2198-9761 nnns volume:4 year:2018 number:1 day:16 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40798-018-0150-3 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 4 2018 1 16 07
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s40798-018-0150-3 doi (DE-627)SPR037775952 (SPR)s40798-018-0150-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Clark, David R. verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-6661-6137 aut Contemporary perspectives of core stability training for dynamic athletic performance: a survey of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2018 Background Core stability training has grown in popularity over 25 years, initially for back pain prevention or therapy. Subsequently, it developed as a mode of exercise training for health, fitness and sport. The scientific basis for traditional core stability exercise has recently been questioned and challenged, especially in relation to dynamic athletic performance. Reviews have called for clarity on what constitutes anatomy and function of the core, especially in healthy and uninjured people. Clinical research suggests that traditional core stability training is inappropriate for development of fitness for heath and sports performance. However, commonly used methods of measuring core stability in research do not reflect functional nature of core stability in uninjured, healthy and athletic populations. Recent reviews have proposed a more dynamic, whole body approach to training core stabilization, and research has begun to measure and report efficacy of these modes training. The purpose of this study was to assess extent to which these developments have informed people currently working and participating in sport. Methods An online survey questionnaire was developed around common themes on core stability training as defined in the current scientific literature and circulated to a sample population of people working and participating in sport. Survey results were assessed against key elements of the current scientific debate. Results Perceptions on anatomy and function of the core were gathered from a representative cohort of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners (n = 241), along with their views on effectiveness of various current and traditional exercise training modes. Most popular method of testing and measuring core function was subjective assessment through observation (43%), while a quarter (22%) believed there was no effective method of measurement. Perceptions of people in sport reflect the scientific debate, and practitioners have adopted a more functional approach to core stability training. There was strong support for loaded, compound exercises performed upright, compared to moderate support for traditional core stability exercises. Half of the participants (50%) in the survey, however, still support a traditional isolation core stability training. Conclusion Perceptions in applied practice on core stability training for dynamic athletic performance are aligned to a large extent to the scientific literature. Core (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stability (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dynamic (dpeaa)DE-He213 Trunk (dpeaa)DE-He213 Athletic (dpeaa)DE-He213 Performance (dpeaa)DE-He213 Loaded (dpeaa)DE-He213 Functional (dpeaa)DE-He213 Compound (dpeaa)DE-He213 Exercise (dpeaa)DE-He213 Lambert, Michael I. aut Hunter, Angus M. aut Enthalten in Sports medicine - open Berlin [u.a.] : Springer, 2015 4(2018), 1 vom: 16. Juli (DE-627)818042605 (DE-600)2809942-4 2198-9761 nnns volume:4 year:2018 number:1 day:16 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40798-018-0150-3 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 4 2018 1 16 07
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s40798-018-0150-3 doi (DE-627)SPR037775952 (SPR)s40798-018-0150-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Clark, David R. verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-6661-6137 aut Contemporary perspectives of core stability training for dynamic athletic performance: a survey of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2018 Background Core stability training has grown in popularity over 25 years, initially for back pain prevention or therapy. Subsequently, it developed as a mode of exercise training for health, fitness and sport. The scientific basis for traditional core stability exercise has recently been questioned and challenged, especially in relation to dynamic athletic performance. Reviews have called for clarity on what constitutes anatomy and function of the core, especially in healthy and uninjured people. Clinical research suggests that traditional core stability training is inappropriate for development of fitness for heath and sports performance. However, commonly used methods of measuring core stability in research do not reflect functional nature of core stability in uninjured, healthy and athletic populations. Recent reviews have proposed a more dynamic, whole body approach to training core stabilization, and research has begun to measure and report efficacy of these modes training. The purpose of this study was to assess extent to which these developments have informed people currently working and participating in sport. Methods An online survey questionnaire was developed around common themes on core stability training as defined in the current scientific literature and circulated to a sample population of people working and participating in sport. Survey results were assessed against key elements of the current scientific debate. Results Perceptions on anatomy and function of the core were gathered from a representative cohort of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners (n = 241), along with their views on effectiveness of various current and traditional exercise training modes. Most popular method of testing and measuring core function was subjective assessment through observation (43%), while a quarter (22%) believed there was no effective method of measurement. Perceptions of people in sport reflect the scientific debate, and practitioners have adopted a more functional approach to core stability training. There was strong support for loaded, compound exercises performed upright, compared to moderate support for traditional core stability exercises. Half of the participants (50%) in the survey, however, still support a traditional isolation core stability training. Conclusion Perceptions in applied practice on core stability training for dynamic athletic performance are aligned to a large extent to the scientific literature. Core (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stability (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dynamic (dpeaa)DE-He213 Trunk (dpeaa)DE-He213 Athletic (dpeaa)DE-He213 Performance (dpeaa)DE-He213 Loaded (dpeaa)DE-He213 Functional (dpeaa)DE-He213 Compound (dpeaa)DE-He213 Exercise (dpeaa)DE-He213 Lambert, Michael I. aut Hunter, Angus M. aut Enthalten in Sports medicine - open Berlin [u.a.] : Springer, 2015 4(2018), 1 vom: 16. Juli (DE-627)818042605 (DE-600)2809942-4 2198-9761 nnns volume:4 year:2018 number:1 day:16 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40798-018-0150-3 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 4 2018 1 16 07
language	English
source	Enthalten in Sports medicine - open 4(2018), 1 vom: 16. Juli volume:4 year:2018 number:1 day:16 month:07
sourceStr	Enthalten in Sports medicine - open 4(2018), 1 vom: 16. Juli volume:4 year:2018 number:1 day:16 month:07
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Core Stability Dynamic Trunk Athletic Performance Loaded Functional Compound Exercise
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Sports medicine - open
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Clark, David R. @@aut@@ Lambert, Michael I. @@aut@@ Hunter, Angus M. @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2018-07-16T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	818042605
id	SPR037775952
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR037775952</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519223540.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2018 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s40798-018-0150-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR037775952</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s40798-018-0150-3-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Clark, David R.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-6661-6137</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Contemporary perspectives of core stability training for dynamic athletic performance: a survey of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s). 2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Core stability training has grown in popularity over 25 years, initially for back pain prevention or therapy. Subsequently, it developed as a mode of exercise training for health, fitness and sport. The scientific basis for traditional core stability exercise has recently been questioned and challenged, especially in relation to dynamic athletic performance. Reviews have called for clarity on what constitutes anatomy and function of the core, especially in healthy and uninjured people. Clinical research suggests that traditional core stability training is inappropriate for development of fitness for heath and sports performance. However, commonly used methods of measuring core stability in research do not reflect functional nature of core stability in uninjured, healthy and athletic populations. Recent reviews have proposed a more dynamic, whole body approach to training core stabilization, and research has begun to measure and report efficacy of these modes training. The purpose of this study was to assess extent to which these developments have informed people currently working and participating in sport. Methods An online survey questionnaire was developed around common themes on core stability training as defined in the current scientific literature and circulated to a sample population of people working and participating in sport. Survey results were assessed against key elements of the current scientific debate. Results Perceptions on anatomy and function of the core were gathered from a representative cohort of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners (n = 241), along with their views on effectiveness of various current and traditional exercise training modes. Most popular method of testing and measuring core function was subjective assessment through observation (43%), while a quarter (22%) believed there was no effective method of measurement. Perceptions of people in sport reflect the scientific debate, and practitioners have adopted a more functional approach to core stability training. There was strong support for loaded, compound exercises performed upright, compared to moderate support for traditional core stability exercises. Half of the participants (50%) in the survey, however, still support a traditional isolation core stability training. Conclusion Perceptions in applied practice on core stability training for dynamic athletic performance are aligned to a large extent to the scientific literature.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Core</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Stability</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Dynamic</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Trunk</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Athletic</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Performance</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Loaded</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Functional</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Compound</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Exercise</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lambert, Michael I.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hunter, Angus M.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Sports medicine - open</subfield><subfield code="d">Berlin [u.a.] : Springer, 2015</subfield><subfield code="g">4(2018), 1 vom: 16. Juli</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)818042605</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2809942-4</subfield><subfield code="x">2198-9761</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:4</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:16</subfield><subfield code="g">month:07</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40798-018-0150-3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">4</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">16</subfield><subfield code="c">07</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Clark, David R.
spellingShingle	Clark, David R. misc Core misc Stability misc Dynamic misc Trunk misc Athletic misc Performance misc Loaded misc Functional misc Compound misc Exercise Contemporary perspectives of core stability training for dynamic athletic performance: a survey of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners
authorStr	Clark, David R.
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)818042605
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	2198-9761
topic_title	Contemporary perspectives of core stability training for dynamic athletic performance: a survey of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners Core (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stability (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dynamic (dpeaa)DE-He213 Trunk (dpeaa)DE-He213 Athletic (dpeaa)DE-He213 Performance (dpeaa)DE-He213 Loaded (dpeaa)DE-He213 Functional (dpeaa)DE-He213 Compound (dpeaa)DE-He213 Exercise (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	misc Core misc Stability misc Dynamic misc Trunk misc Athletic misc Performance misc Loaded misc Functional misc Compound misc Exercise
topic_unstemmed	misc Core misc Stability misc Dynamic misc Trunk misc Athletic misc Performance misc Loaded misc Functional misc Compound misc Exercise
topic_browse	misc Core misc Stability misc Dynamic misc Trunk misc Athletic misc Performance misc Loaded misc Functional misc Compound misc Exercise
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Sports medicine - open
hierarchy_parent_id	818042605
hierarchy_top_title	Sports medicine - open
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)818042605 (DE-600)2809942-4
title	Contemporary perspectives of core stability training for dynamic athletic performance: a survey of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR037775952 (SPR)s40798-018-0150-3-e
title_full	Contemporary perspectives of core stability training for dynamic athletic performance: a survey of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners
author_sort	Clark, David R.
journal	Sports medicine - open
journalStr	Sports medicine - open
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2018
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Clark, David R. Lambert, Michael I. Hunter, Angus M.
container_volume	4
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Clark, David R.
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s40798-018-0150-3
normlink	(ORCID)0000-0002-6661-6137
normlink_prefix_str_mv	(orcid)0000-0002-6661-6137
title_sort	contemporary perspectives of core stability training for dynamic athletic performance: a survey of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners
title_auth	Contemporary perspectives of core stability training for dynamic athletic performance: a survey of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners
abstract	Background Core stability training has grown in popularity over 25 years, initially for back pain prevention or therapy. Subsequently, it developed as a mode of exercise training for health, fitness and sport. The scientific basis for traditional core stability exercise has recently been questioned and challenged, especially in relation to dynamic athletic performance. Reviews have called for clarity on what constitutes anatomy and function of the core, especially in healthy and uninjured people. Clinical research suggests that traditional core stability training is inappropriate for development of fitness for heath and sports performance. However, commonly used methods of measuring core stability in research do not reflect functional nature of core stability in uninjured, healthy and athletic populations. Recent reviews have proposed a more dynamic, whole body approach to training core stabilization, and research has begun to measure and report efficacy of these modes training. The purpose of this study was to assess extent to which these developments have informed people currently working and participating in sport. Methods An online survey questionnaire was developed around common themes on core stability training as defined in the current scientific literature and circulated to a sample population of people working and participating in sport. Survey results were assessed against key elements of the current scientific debate. Results Perceptions on anatomy and function of the core were gathered from a representative cohort of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners (n = 241), along with their views on effectiveness of various current and traditional exercise training modes. Most popular method of testing and measuring core function was subjective assessment through observation (43%), while a quarter (22%) believed there was no effective method of measurement. Perceptions of people in sport reflect the scientific debate, and practitioners have adopted a more functional approach to core stability training. There was strong support for loaded, compound exercises performed upright, compared to moderate support for traditional core stability exercises. Half of the participants (50%) in the survey, however, still support a traditional isolation core stability training. Conclusion Perceptions in applied practice on core stability training for dynamic athletic performance are aligned to a large extent to the scientific literature. © The Author(s). 2018
abstractGer	Background Core stability training has grown in popularity over 25 years, initially for back pain prevention or therapy. Subsequently, it developed as a mode of exercise training for health, fitness and sport. The scientific basis for traditional core stability exercise has recently been questioned and challenged, especially in relation to dynamic athletic performance. Reviews have called for clarity on what constitutes anatomy and function of the core, especially in healthy and uninjured people. Clinical research suggests that traditional core stability training is inappropriate for development of fitness for heath and sports performance. However, commonly used methods of measuring core stability in research do not reflect functional nature of core stability in uninjured, healthy and athletic populations. Recent reviews have proposed a more dynamic, whole body approach to training core stabilization, and research has begun to measure and report efficacy of these modes training. The purpose of this study was to assess extent to which these developments have informed people currently working and participating in sport. Methods An online survey questionnaire was developed around common themes on core stability training as defined in the current scientific literature and circulated to a sample population of people working and participating in sport. Survey results were assessed against key elements of the current scientific debate. Results Perceptions on anatomy and function of the core were gathered from a representative cohort of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners (n = 241), along with their views on effectiveness of various current and traditional exercise training modes. Most popular method of testing and measuring core function was subjective assessment through observation (43%), while a quarter (22%) believed there was no effective method of measurement. Perceptions of people in sport reflect the scientific debate, and practitioners have adopted a more functional approach to core stability training. There was strong support for loaded, compound exercises performed upright, compared to moderate support for traditional core stability exercises. Half of the participants (50%) in the survey, however, still support a traditional isolation core stability training. Conclusion Perceptions in applied practice on core stability training for dynamic athletic performance are aligned to a large extent to the scientific literature. © The Author(s). 2018
abstract_unstemmed	Background Core stability training has grown in popularity over 25 years, initially for back pain prevention or therapy. Subsequently, it developed as a mode of exercise training for health, fitness and sport. The scientific basis for traditional core stability exercise has recently been questioned and challenged, especially in relation to dynamic athletic performance. Reviews have called for clarity on what constitutes anatomy and function of the core, especially in healthy and uninjured people. Clinical research suggests that traditional core stability training is inappropriate for development of fitness for heath and sports performance. However, commonly used methods of measuring core stability in research do not reflect functional nature of core stability in uninjured, healthy and athletic populations. Recent reviews have proposed a more dynamic, whole body approach to training core stabilization, and research has begun to measure and report efficacy of these modes training. The purpose of this study was to assess extent to which these developments have informed people currently working and participating in sport. Methods An online survey questionnaire was developed around common themes on core stability training as defined in the current scientific literature and circulated to a sample population of people working and participating in sport. Survey results were assessed against key elements of the current scientific debate. Results Perceptions on anatomy and function of the core were gathered from a representative cohort of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners (n = 241), along with their views on effectiveness of various current and traditional exercise training modes. Most popular method of testing and measuring core function was subjective assessment through observation (43%), while a quarter (22%) believed there was no effective method of measurement. Perceptions of people in sport reflect the scientific debate, and practitioners have adopted a more functional approach to core stability training. There was strong support for loaded, compound exercises performed upright, compared to moderate support for traditional core stability exercises. Half of the participants (50%) in the survey, however, still support a traditional isolation core stability training. Conclusion Perceptions in applied practice on core stability training for dynamic athletic performance are aligned to a large extent to the scientific literature. © The Author(s). 2018
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Contemporary perspectives of core stability training for dynamic athletic performance: a survey of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40798-018-0150-3
remote_bool	true
author2	Lambert, Michael I. Hunter, Angus M.
author2Str	Lambert, Michael I. Hunter, Angus M.
ppnlink	818042605
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s40798-018-0150-3
up_date	2024-07-03T14:20:37.667Z
_version_	1803567956155695104
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR037775952</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519223540.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2018 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s40798-018-0150-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR037775952</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s40798-018-0150-3-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Clark, David R.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-6661-6137</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Contemporary perspectives of core stability training for dynamic athletic performance: a survey of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s). 2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Core stability training has grown in popularity over 25 years, initially for back pain prevention or therapy. Subsequently, it developed as a mode of exercise training for health, fitness and sport. The scientific basis for traditional core stability exercise has recently been questioned and challenged, especially in relation to dynamic athletic performance. Reviews have called for clarity on what constitutes anatomy and function of the core, especially in healthy and uninjured people. Clinical research suggests that traditional core stability training is inappropriate for development of fitness for heath and sports performance. However, commonly used methods of measuring core stability in research do not reflect functional nature of core stability in uninjured, healthy and athletic populations. Recent reviews have proposed a more dynamic, whole body approach to training core stabilization, and research has begun to measure and report efficacy of these modes training. The purpose of this study was to assess extent to which these developments have informed people currently working and participating in sport. Methods An online survey questionnaire was developed around common themes on core stability training as defined in the current scientific literature and circulated to a sample population of people working and participating in sport. Survey results were assessed against key elements of the current scientific debate. Results Perceptions on anatomy and function of the core were gathered from a representative cohort of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners (n = 241), along with their views on effectiveness of various current and traditional exercise training modes. Most popular method of testing and measuring core function was subjective assessment through observation (43%), while a quarter (22%) believed there was no effective method of measurement. Perceptions of people in sport reflect the scientific debate, and practitioners have adopted a more functional approach to core stability training. There was strong support for loaded, compound exercises performed upright, compared to moderate support for traditional core stability exercises. Half of the participants (50%) in the survey, however, still support a traditional isolation core stability training. Conclusion Perceptions in applied practice on core stability training for dynamic athletic performance are aligned to a large extent to the scientific literature.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Core</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Stability</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Dynamic</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Trunk</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Athletic</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Performance</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Loaded</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Functional</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Compound</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Exercise</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lambert, Michael I.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hunter, Angus M.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Sports medicine - open</subfield><subfield code="d">Berlin [u.a.] : Springer, 2015</subfield><subfield code="g">4(2018), 1 vom: 16. Juli</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)818042605</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2809942-4</subfield><subfield code="x">2198-9761</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:4</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:16</subfield><subfield code="g">month:07</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40798-018-0150-3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">4</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">16</subfield><subfield code="c">07</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.40088

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Contemporary perspectives of core stability training for dynamic athletic performance: a survey of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?