Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Comparison of Intervention Programs to Improve Trunk Stability for Active Females.

BACKGROUND: Current literature illustrates a disparity in trunk stability push up performance (TSPU), as measured by the Functional Movement Screen (FMSTM), in females throughout the lifespan when compared to their male counterparts.

HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a novel exercise approach to a trunk stability (NEATS) program compared to a standard Pilates program on TSPU performance in active females aged 18-45 years. It was hypothesized that subjects in the NEATS program would have greater improvements on outcomes related to trunk stability than subjects in the Pilates program.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial.

METHODS: All subjects were tested at baseline on Beighton criteria, the FMSTM, Y-Balance Test Upper Quarter and Lower Quarter, and grip strength by an evaluator blinded to group allocation. Subjects were randomized into the NEATS (n=17) or the Pilates group (n=19). The intervention period lasted eight weeks, with exercise progression at weeks two, four, and six.

RESULTS: The main outcome was between-group pass rates on the TSPU. At posttest, 41% (n=7) of the NEATS group and 42% (n=8) of the Pilates group passed the TSPU, though there was no difference between groups (p=0.97). Significant differences were noted on the TSPU (Pilates, NEATS p=0.01) and composite scores (Pilates p=0.01; NEATS p=0.03). No within-group improvements were noted on the individual scores of the FMSTM (p=0.05-0.66). Within-group differences were noted on the posterolateral reach on the Y-Balance Test Lower Quarter (p=0.03) in the Pilates group. Between-group posttest continuous measures were not significantly different (p=0.17-0.96).

CONCLUSION: Improvements in trunk stability were comparable between the multi-planar NEATS program and a standard Pilates program suggesting that both can be used to improve trunk stability performance in active females.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app