Core Stability and Performance 21

Journal of Exercise Physiologyonline

(JEPonline )
Volume 12 Number 2 April 2009

Managing Editor Fitness and Training

Tommy Boone, PhD, MPH
Editor-in-Chief
Jon K. Linderman, PhD
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CORE STRENGTH AND
Review Board PERFORMANCE IN DIVISION I FEMALE SOCCER
Todd Astorino, PhD PLAYERS
Julien Baker, PhD
Tommy Boone, PhD
Larry Birnbaum, PhD THOMAS W. NESSER, WILLIAM L. LEE
Lance Dalleck, PhD
Dan Drury, DPE Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Department of Physical Education, Indiana
Hermann Engals, PhD State University, Terre Haute, USA
Eric Goulet, PhD
Robert Gotshall, PhD
ABSTRACT
M. Knight-Maloney, PhD
Len Kravitz, PhD
James Laskin, PhD Nesser TW, Lee WL. The relationship between core strength and
Derek Marks, PhD performance in Division I female soccer players. JEPonline 2009;
Cristine Mermier, PhD 12(2):21-28. To identify relationships between core stability and various
Daryl Parker, PhD
Robert Robergs, PhD
strength and power variables in division I female soccer players. 16
Brent Ruby, PhD NCAA division I female soccer players (height 163.6 cm ± 5.2 cm,
Jason Siegler, PhD weight 60.7 kg ± 7.5 kg) completed strength and performance testing
Greg Tardie, PhD prior to off-season conditioning. Subjects were tested on two strength
Chantal Vella, PhD variables (1RM bench press, and 1RM squat), three performance
Lesley White, PhD
Ben Zhou, PhD
variables (countermovement vertical jump, 40 yard sprint, and a 10 yard
shuttle run), and core strength (back extension, trunk flexion, and left
Official Research Journal and right bridge). No significant correlations were identified between
of the American Society of core strength and strength and power. The results of this study suggest
Exercise Physiologists core strength is not related to strength and power. Core strength does
(ASEP)
not contribute significantly to strength and power and should not be the
ISSN 1097-9751 focus of any strength and conditioning program with the intent to
improve sport performance.

Key Words: Training, Athlete , Core Stability

 Core Stability and Performance 22

INTRODUCTION

It is believed that a strong core allows an athlete the full transfer of forces generated with the lower
extremities, through the torso, and to the upper extremities and sometimes an implement (1, 3, 8). A
weak core is believed to interrupt the transfer of energy, resulting in reduced sport performance and
risk of injury to a weak or underdeveloped muscle group. For this reason, there is an assumption that
an increase in core strength will result in increased sport performance. Therefore, training the core
has become popular among strength coaches and personal trainers as a means to improve
performance and reduce the chance for injury despite the lack of research to support such findings.

Researchers have identified the importance of a strong core in relation to back pain and rehabilitation
(2, 4, 5, 12, 13, 19, 20), and developed tools used to measure core strength and stability (6, 9, 13).
While the importance of the core and methods of training and assessing it have been largely
publicized, few studies have been completed which quantitatively demonstrate core strength’s role in
strength and performance. Scibek et al. (15) tested swimming performance and core strength in high
school level swimmers. Tse et al. (18) tested rowing performance and core strength in college aged
rowers, and Stanton et al. (16) reviewed running performance and economy, and core strength in
high school aged touch football and basketball athletes. Groups from each study completed core
training and groups that underwent training experienced improvements in core strength (based on
their measurement criteria of core strength) but did not show improvements in swimming, rowing or
running performance, respectively. Nesser et al. (10) compared core strength to a number of sport
performance variables in division I football players and found weak to moderate correlations.
Explanations for the lack of significant relationships in these studies include inconsistent methods
used to measure core strength with the performance variables, the population tested, or there is no
relationship.

According to previous research, strong relationships between core strength/stability and sport
performance have not been established in male athletes. To date, female athletes, specifically
Division I soccer players, have not been tested. Since the sport of soccer incorporates the core
musculature through running, and kicking, it is hypothesized that relationships exist between core
strength/stability and performance in this population. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to
identify a relationship between core strength and various performance variables in a group of
collegiate soccer players. For this study, core strength is defined as an individual’s ability to stabilize
the torso from the hips to the shoulders for the purpose of force production, control and transfer to
one or more extremities.

METHODS
Subjects
Sixteen NCAA Division I female soccer players (height 163.6 ± 5.2 cm, weight 60.7 ± 7.5 kg)
completed strength and performance testing prior to the start of off-season conditioning. Any
individual that was injured or missed a day of testing was not included in this study. All participants
signed an informed consent. This study was approved by the University Institutional Review Board.

Procedures
A Vertec vertical height measuring device (MF Athletic Corp, Cranston, RI) was used to measure the
counter movement vertical jump (CMJ), a Speedtrap II wireless timing system (Brower Timing
Systems, Draper, UT) was used to measure the 40 yard sprint times, a hand held stopwatch was
used to measure the shuttle run and core muscle endurance times. All strength tests were completed
on Legend strength equipment (Maynardville , TN). Height was measured on a Seca 214 portable
stadiometer (Hanover, MD). Weight was measured on a Transcell TI 500E digital scale (Wheeling,
 Core Stability and Performance 23

IL).

Subjects reported for two test sessions over a period of two days, with 24 hours rest between the two
sessions. The first test session included study familiarization followed by data collection for core
strength, 20 yd and 40 yd sprint, shuttle run, and CMJ. The 1RM back squat and 1RM bench press
were completed during the second session. Prior to testing on each day, subjects warmed-up as a
team by completing a series of dynamic exercises and were allowed time to familiarized themselves
with the testing procedures and ask questions. These performance tests, except the core strength
tests, were part of the team’s regular strength and power testing completed at various points
throughout the training year.

Measurements
Counter Movement Vertical Jump
Reach height was measured on all participants prior to vertical jump testing. Subjects stood flatfooted
and reached as high as possible with one arm. The highest point reached on the Vertec was
considered reach height. Individuals were allowed an arm swing down and up while jumping off both
feet and reaching as high as possible with one arm to displace the highest possible vane on the
Vertec. CMJ was calculated as the distance from the initial reach and the highest point reached
during the jump. Individuals were allowed three attempts with a 3-5 minutes rest between attempts.
The best of the three attempts was used for data analysis.

Shuttle run
The shuttle run was used to determined agility performance. A distance of 10 yards was measured
with a line at the 5 yard point. Participants straddled the middle line and ran to their left to the end of
the 10 yard marker, then to their right to the opposite 10 yard marks, and back to the middle 5 yard
point. Time began with initial movement and ended when the individual crossed the 5 yard point a
second time covering a total distance of 20 yards. Two timers were used with the average of the two
recorded to the 0.01 second. Individuals were allowed three attempts with a 3-5 minutes rest between
attempts. The best of the three attempts was used for data analysis.

40 yard sprint
A 40 yard sprint was used to determine quickness. Individuals started in a three point stance with
their fingers on a touch and release starter for the electronic timer. As soon as the athlete released
pressure from the touch pad, the timer began. A speed trap II electronic timer was used to measure
time for the 40 yard sprint to the nearest 0.01 second. Individuals were allowed three attempts with a
3-5 minutes rest between attempts. The best of the three attempts was used for data analysis.

One repetition maximum bench press and squat

Individuals started each lift with 50 percent of their previous 1RM and increased weight by 10-20 kg
until their 1RM was determined. All participants attempted to achieve their 1RM within five sets. All
lifts were observed by the head strength coach to determine if it was an acceptable lift (i.e. proper
depth, technique, etc.). Values are reported as absolute strength and relative to bodyweight
(bench/kg and squat/kg).

Core testing
The protocol established by McGill (7) was used to determine muscle endurance of the torso
stabilizer muscles. The protocol consists of four tests that measure all aspects of the torso via
isometric muscle endurance: trunk flexor test, ICC (3,1) = .98, trunk extensor test, ICC (3,1) = .93,
and left and right lateral musculature test, ICC (3,1) = .95(10). Subjects were allowed to practice
each position. To prevent fatigue, they were not allowed to hold any one position for more than five
 Core Stability and Performance 24

seconds. A handheld stopwatch was used to measure the length of time participants were able to
hold each isometric position. Individuals were given a minimum of five minutes rest between each
test. In relation to movement, all aspects of the core work as a single unit. Thus each of the individual
core tests was totaled to produce a single “total core” value.

Trunk flexor test

The flexor endurance test begins with the person in a sit-up position with the back resting against a jig
angled at 60 degrees from the floor. Both knees and hips are flexed 90 degrees, the arms are folded
across the chest with the hands placed on the opposite shoulder, and the feet are secured. To begin,
the jig is pulled back 10 cm and the person holds the isometric posture as long as possible. Failure is
determined when any part of the person’s back touches the jig.

Trunk extensor test Table 1. Physical, Core and Performance Variables

The back extensors are tested with the
upper body cantilevered out over the Height (cm) 163.6 ± 5.2
end of the test bench and with the Weight (kg) 60.7 ± 7.5
Trunk Flexion (sec) 216 ± 83.4
pelvis, knees, and hips secured. The Back Extension (sec) 182.0 ± 70.4
upper limbs are held across the chest Right Flexion (sec) 128.7 ± 56.8
with the hands resting on the opposite Left Flexion (sec) 122.7 ± 36.2
shoulders. Failure occurs when the Total Core (sec) 649.3 ± 150.0
upper body drops below the horizontal 40 m (sec) 5.8 ± 0.4
position. Shuttle (sec) 5.3 ± 0.3
CMJ (cm) 53.1 ± 9.4
Lateral musculature test Squat (kg) 75.8 ± 14.0
Squat/kg 1.3 ± 0.2
The lateral musculature is tested with Bench (kg) 41.5 ± 6.4
the person lying in the full side-bridge Bench/kg 0.7 ± 0.1
position (e.g., left and right side
individually). Legs are extended, and the top foot is placed in front of the lower foot for support.
Subjects support themselves on one elbow and on their feet while lifting their hips off the floor to
create a straight line from head to toe. The uninvolved arm is held across the chest with the hand
placed on the opposite shoulder. Failure occurs when the person loses the straight-back posture
and/or the hip returns to the ground.

Statistical Analyses
Descriptive statistics were performed
Table 2. Total core strength and performance correlations(r) and on all data. After determining normal
2
coefficient of determination (r )
distribution of the test variables,
Test Total Core
multiple bivariate correlations
20 m (sec) .326 (.10)
40 m (sec) -.367 (.13) represented by the Pearson
Shuttle (sec) -.424 (.18) correlation coefficient were used to
CMJ (cm) -.276 (.08) identify relationships between test
Squat (kg) -.139 (.02) variables. Statistical significance was
Squat/kg .099 (.01)
set at P = 0.05. SPSS 14.0 software
Bench (kg) -.099 (.01)
Bench/kg .298 (.09) (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) was used for
all analyses.
 Core Stability and Performance 25

RESULTS
No significant correlations 1000.0
were identified between core 0

strength/stability and the

strength and performance 900.0
0
measures. Core and
performance variables are
800.0
listed in Table 1. 0

Total Core (sec)

Total core strength and 700.0
0
performance correlations and
coefficients are given in Table
2. To review the functional 600.0
0
form of some of the data
points, scatterplots between 500.0
total core and the shuttle run, 0

and 40 yd sprint have been

created (Figures 1 and 2, 400.0
0
respectively).
300.0
DISCUSSION 0

4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0

An underlying belief suggests 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

that optimal core strength is

Shuttle Run (sec)
imperative for peak strength
and performance in sport. Figure 1. Scatter plot relationship between total core fatigue
However, through research, and the shuttle run.
relationships between these
variables are weak to moderate in male athletes and have not been established in female athletes.
This study examined whether core stability is related to strength and performance in female athletes
that train specifically for strength and athletic performance. Overall, our results found no significant
relationships between core strength and strength, and athletic performance variables. There are two
possible reasons for these results: 1) The tests used to measure core strength are not specific to
strength and athletic performance, and/or 2) Core strength does not play a role in strength and
athletic performance.

The current study incorporated McGill’s core stability tests. These tests were designed to measure
muscle endurance of the core musculature. Muscles that can sustain prolonged contractions (i.e.
muscle endurance) are less likely to fatigue and can thus continue to provide support to the torso
over time, reducing the chance of injury or to maintain sport performance. Therefore, greater (i.e.
longer) core muscle endurance should correspond with a greater capacity to do work. Since the core
strength tests used in the study had reported reliability coefficients of ≥ .97, we believe that McGill’s
assessment of core strength is accurate (9).

Taking into consideration the reliability and validity of McGill’s core stability tests, one possible reason
for the weak correlations between core strength, and strength and athletic performance is the
specificity of the tests. All of the performance measures in this study were one repetition, quick,
explosive movements lasting less than 10 seconds. As previously mentioned, McGill’s measurement
of the core musculature is an isometric muscle contraction and a test of muscle endurance. An
 Core Stability and Performance 26

accurate comparison of these two tests cannot be made since the strength and power tests involve
primarily fast twitch muscle fibers, maximum force production, and the ATP-PC energy system, while
the core strength/stability tests focus more on slow twitch muscle fibers, submaximal muscle
contractions, and anaerobic glycolysis.

The second possible explanation is core strength does not significantly contribute to strength and
athletic performance. Our results were similar to Tse et al. (18), who also used McGill’s tests to
measure core muscle
endurance and, then,
1000.00 compared core strength
with performance
variables in ro wers. As
900.00
previously mentioned,
subjects who completed
800.00 core training and
showed improvements
in core muscle
Total Core (sec)

700.00
endurance (McGill’s
test) did not show
600.00
improvements in their
performance variables,
which included one-
500.00 time measurements of
power and a 2000m
time trial on a rowing
400.00
ergometer. It is
interesting to note that
300.00 despite the improved
performance on the
5.40 5.70 6.00
40 Yd Sprint (sec)
6.30 6.60 core tests, there were
no improvements on
Figure 2. Scatter plot relationship between Total Core
fatigue and 40 Yard Sprint.

the 2000m time trial which involves the muscle of the torso and is a test of muscle endurance. The
one difference is that the core tests are static muscle endurance while the 2000m rowing ergometer
trial is a measure of dynamic muscle endurance.

With sport movement, the entire core is functioning as a unit so it was expected correlations would
have been identified as seen by Nesser et al. (10). However, this was not the case. A limitation to this
study was the small N. Had a greater number of subjects been available for testing, significant
correlations may have been found, yet, e ven so, the correlations likely would have been weak.

Despite the fact significant correlations were not identified between core strength and athletic
performance, it does not warrant neglect of the core. At the same time, it appears the core is no
more important than any other body part.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the current and previous research, it is believed core training is necessary for
 Core Stability and Performance 27

optimal sport performance and should not be dismissed. However, it should not be the emphasis of
any resistance training program. The core is one part of the body thus it is should not be the focus of
any training program taking time away from other body parts which may lead to a muscle imbalance
and possible injury.

Determination of the role of core strength/stability requires additional research and sport specific
means of determining its effectiveness. One general test may be sufficient to determine an
individual’s base core stability/strength values, but a true understanding of the core’s role to whole
body movements for sport performance is yet to be determined and likely requires sport specific
testing.

Address for correspondence: Nesser, TW , PhD., Department of Physical Education, Indiana State
University, Terre Haute, IN, USA, 47885. Phone (812)237-2901; FAX: (812)237-4338; Email.
[email protected].

REFERENCES

1. Behm DG, Leonard AM, Young WB, Bonsey WAC, Mackinnon SN. Trunk muscle
electromyographic activity with unstable and unilateral exercises. J Strength Cond Res
2005; 19:193-201.

2. Cholewicki J, McGill SM. Mechanical stability of the in vivo lumbar spine: Implications for
injury and chronic low back pain. Clin Biomech 1996; 11:1 -15.

3. Cissik JM. Programming abdominal training, part one. Strength Cond J 2002; 24(1):9-15.

4. Duncan RA, McNair PJ. Factors contribution to low back pain in rowers. Br J Sports Med
2000; 34:321-322.

5. Hodges PW, Richardson CA. Inefficient muscular stabilization of the lumbar spine associated
with low back pain: A motor control evaluation of transversus abdominis. Spine 1996;
21:2640-2650.

6. Liemohn WP, Baumgartner TA, Gagnon LH. Measuring core stability. J Strength Cond Res
2005; 19(3):583-586.

7. McGill, SM. Low Back Disorders. Evidence -Based Prevention and Rehabilitation.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 2002.

8. McGill SM, Ultimate Back Fitness and Performance . Ontario, Canada: Wabuno, 2004.

9. McGill SM, Childs A, Liebenson C. Endurance times for low back stabilization exercises:
Clinical targets for testing and training from a normal database. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
1999; 80:941-944.

10. Nesser TW, Huxel KC, Tincher JL, Okada T. The relationship between core stability and
performance in Division I football players. J Strength Cond Res 2008; 22(6):1750-1754.
 Core Stability and Performance 28

11. Portney LG , Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research Applications to Practice.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc. 2000.

12. O’Sullivan PB, Twomey LT, Allison GT. Evaluation of specific stabilizing exercises in the
treatment of chronic low back pain with radiologic diagnosis of spondylolysis or
spondylolisthesis. Spine 1997; 22:2959-2967.

13. Richardson CA, Snijders C, Hides JA, Damen L, Pas MS, Storm J. The relation between the
transversus abdominis muscles, sacroiliac joint mechanics, and low back pain, Spine 2002;
27:399-405.

14. Sahrmann S. Treatment and Diagnosis of Movement Impairment Syndromes. St. Louis,
MO. Mosby. 2002.

15. Scibek JS, Guskiewicz KM, Prentice WE, Mays S, Davis JM. The effect of core
stabilization training on functional performance in swimming. Master’s Thesis,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 2001.

16. Stanton R. Reaburn PR, Humphries B. The effect of short-term Swiss ball training on core
stability and running economy. J Strength Cond Res 2004; 18(3):522-528.

17. Thompson CJ, Myers Cobb K, Blackwell J. Functional training improves club head speed and
functional fitness in older golfers. J Strength Cond Res 2007; 21(1):131-137.

18. Tse MA , McManus AM, Masters RSW. Development and validation of a core endurance
intervention program: Implications for performance in college-age rowers. J Strength Cond
Res 2005; 19(3):547-552.

19. Whitaker J. Abdominal ultrasound imaging of pelvic floor muscle function in individuals with
low back pain. J Man Manipulative Ther 2004; 12:44-49.

20. Wilson JD, Dougherty CP, Ireland ML, Davis IM. Core stability and its relationship to lower
extremity function and injury. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2005; 13:316-325.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in JEPonline are those of the authors and are not attributable to JEPonline,
the editorial staff or ASEP.