Sajeel Chaudhry

1

Factors to consider in deducing the efficacy of unstable surface training in sporting
movements and its effectiveness amongst the athletic population by Sajeel Chaudhry

This literature investigate the factors to consider in deducing the efficacy of the use unstable
devices to enhance athletic performance where the trunk muscle play an important role in
transferring torques and angular momentum during the movement (Kibler, Press & Sciasscia,
2006). Thus modes of how the musculature around the trunk achieves core stability &
strength shall be explored along with the trunks optimum functionality, and whether unstable
surface training has any significant impact on improving athletic performance.
The use of unstable surfaces dates back to the 1920s (Bhem, Drinkwater, Willardson &
Cowley, 2010a) as neuromuscular training was receiving much attention (Sherrington, 1910).
Consequently physiotherapists introduced the use of an unstable surface such as the Swiss
ball to promote instability in the core musculature which would require the core to produce a
greater stabilising mechanism. Various types of unstable surfaces such as wobble boards,
BOSU, inflatable discs, foam tubes and suspended ropes have been introduced to the
physiotherapy and physical conditioning industry over the years. This is predominantly due
to the research being conducted in the injury prevention and rehabilitation sector, with spinal
stability and lower back pain receiving much importance in examining the ability of the
spinal stabilising system to resist disturbance from its mode of equilibrium (Axler & MGill,
1997; Leetun et al., 2004; McGill, 1988; McGill & Norman, 1985; Hodge & Richardson,
1997; Nuzzo et al., 2008; Rasmussen et al., 2009). Unstable surfaces have also channelled
into the rehab and injury prevention of other anatomical parts of the body such as the ankle
and knee increasing joint proprioception and functional balance (Hrysomallis, 2007;
Soderman, Werner, Pietila, Engstrom & Alfredson, 2000; Verhagen et al., 2004). Unstable
surfaces have now become popular amongst the athletic population in training the trunk
Sajeel Chaudhry

2

region in order to enhance performance, by allowing greater force production in the distal
segments via a strong and stable foundation of the core (Willardson, 2007).
The core of the body has been identified as the lumbopelvic region of the human body which
consists of the spine, hips, pelvis and abdominal structures (Bergmark, 1989; McGill, 2001;
Panjabi, 1992; Willardson, 2007, Kibler, 2006). The muscles of the trunk and pelvis are
associated with the stability of the spine and pelvis, which acts a foundation for the
movement of the upper and lower limbs and in supporting forces or loads which maybe
exerted by or upon the body. This lumbopelvic stability is also required for the prevention of
injury to the spinal cords and nerves (Panjabi, 1992). Thus the core plays an important role in
closed kinetic chain activities where core strength, balance and control of motion maximise
and make upper and lower limb movement more efficient (Kibler, 2006).
In order to understand how the core is stabilised, Punjabi (1992) presented a conceptual
stabilising mechanism which comprised of three subsystems, though mechanistically separate
are functionally interdependent. This consists of the passive subsystem, the active subsystem
and the neural subsystem. The passive subsystem consists of vertebrae, joint capsules,
vertebral discs, facet articulations and spinal ligaments. In a neutral spine the spinal ligaments
do not provide any significant stability, and only engage in reactive forces when the spine and
individual vertebrae reach end range of the motion. Thus predominantly these components of
the passive subsystem act as sensory feedback to the brain for measuring motion and
vertebral position of the spine. The active subsystem consists of the muscles and tendons that
surround the spine and responsible for generating and transmitting force and providing the
required stability to the spine. The neural subsystem comprises of the sensors that relay
information about the level of spinal stability in order for the active subsystem to adjust
muscle tension for the required level of stability.
Sajeel Chaudhry

3

The core musculature plays an important role in closed kinetic chain activities such as a
throwing activities where torques and angular momentum are transferred from the lower
limbs to the pelvic girdle, the trunk and then to the upper extremity sequentially. Any
weakness in the core musculature may result in the transfer of the torque and angular
momentum resulting in a low velocity throw and cause of injury due to overuse, since in a
throwing action the shoulder may attempt to compensate by producing more torque (Behm et
al., 2010). Thus training the active subsystem of the core is essential in increasing strength of
the core musculature. According to Behm (1995) an increase in muscle cross sectional area
and neuromuscular coordination both contribute towards improvements in strength. However
according to Rutherford and Jones (1986) an enhanced coordination of the agonists,
antagonists, synergists and stabiliser muscles provide the neural adaptation as opposed to an
increase in recruitment of motor units. Thus an unstable surface would provide the stimuli for
an increased proprioception and hence improved coordination of the core musculature.
The functionality of the core musculature is another important aspect to consider when
forming an understanding of the efficacy of unstable surfaces in training the core for sporting
movements. Many closed kinetic chain activities such as overhead throwing of a ball are
multi planar, thus the spine needs to be stabilised in the saggittal, frontal and transverse plane.
Activating a single muscle to perform abdominal bracing may not be considered functionally
viable to stabilise the spine (Mcgill et al. 2009) since it stiffens the spine at the expense of
spinal loading. MGill (2009) suggests that a single muscle should not be activated to its 100%
maximum voluntary contraction during a multi planar movement as this would cause an
imbalance in the three axis of the spine, causing instability. However if an activity was being
performed in a single plane, maximum muscle contraction would not be contraindicated.
Thus strength training of the core muscles in isolation may not help stabilise the spine
Sajeel Chaudhry

4

functionally for a sports movement and hence muscle activation of the core must be
coordinated and not isolated (Cholewicki et al. 2000).
In order to understand the active system of the trunk, Bergmark (1989) proposed a
mechanical model of the stability of the lumbar spine. The study showed that the mechanical
model of the system was statically indeterminate in equilibrium, and thus this highly complex
system required constant nervous control of the muscle forces being applied to stabilise the
spine, though this study was modelled around an upright posture with an external load being
carried on the shoulders. Similarly McGill et al. (2003) suggests that stability of the core is
dynamic and is constantly changing to meet postural adjustments and reactions to external
forces. Hence the contribution of each muscle of the core changes as the body goes through
motion or during a particular task. In order to form a functional anatomy of the active muscle
subsystem Bergmark (1989) classified the active muscle subsystem into global and local
muscles. The global muscles (rectus abdominis, transverse adominis, external oblique,
internal oblique, illicostalis thoracic portion) are large superficial muscles that have origins at
the pelvis and insertions at the thoracic cage, and hence are regarded as being responsible for
the transfer of force between the pelvis and thoracic cage. The local muscles (multifidi, psoas
major, quadratus lumborum, diaphragm, internal oblique, illiocastalis and longissimus of the
lumbar portion) have origins and insertions at the lumbar vertebrae, and hence are responsible
for the segmental stability of the lumbar spine for postural adjustment during rest and during
movement. The global and local muscles are activated simultaneously and show similar
activity patterns (Aroksoki, Valta, Airaksinen & Kankaanpa, 2001; Kavick, Grener, McGill,
2004) during various exercises and movements to stabilise the spine. This suggests that
training selection should achieve co activation of the global and local muscles in order to
Sajeel Chaudhry

5

stabilise the spine to provide a stable platform for force transfer and to prevent dysfunction of
the subsystems proposed by Punjabi (1992).
One particular global muscle that has received major attention in regards to acting as a major
stabiliser of the pelvis and spine is the transverse abdominis. Cresswell and Thorstensson
(1994) suggested that the transverse abdominis was primarily responsible for the increase in
intra abdominal pressure which improves the stability of the trunk by stiffening the whole
thoracic segment and hence the trunk acts as a rigid cylinder. Their study also showed that
the transverse abdominis was the first muscle that was activated during voluntary and
unexpected loading of the trunk and its activation was bilaterally symmetrical. Similar studies
by Hodges and Richardson (1997), Hodges(1999); Cresswell and Thorstensson(1993)
showed that the transverse abdominis is activated regardless of the direction of the
movement of the trunk, acceleration or deceleration, position of the centre of mass of a body
or the acting forces on the spine and hence is responsible for the stabilising the spine. A delay
in the activation of the transverse abdominis could be results of dysfunction of motor control.
However studies by Allison and Morris (2008) shows that the activation of the transverse
abdominis is specific to the direction of limb movement and the activation is not bilaterally
symmetrical. Though the experiment was performed on subjects using simple movements of
the upper extremity such as the arm raise, the findings suggest that the theory that the
transverse abdominis acts a primary and bilateral stabiliser in anticipation of a movement
should be revisited and that a delayed onset of the transverse abdominis may not necessarily
be due to a loss of motor function but is dependent upon movement of the trunk and the
dynamic postural adjustment of the spine. McGill(2001) showed that a single muscle such as
the transverse abdominis cannot be characterised as a prime stabiliser and that all muscles of
Sajeel Chaudhry

6

the torso are important and the importance of them acting as a prime stabiliser is entirely
dependent on the activity performed by the body.
So far the literature has identified modes of stabilising the spine, or core stability, and
providing a stable platform in order to be able to move and transfer force to the terminal
segments from the trunk. Though this is essential, another factor to consider is the ability of
the core musculature to produce or withstand force within the athletic population. For this
reason Faries and Greenwood (2007) have defined two independent characteristics of the
core. These are core stability and core strength. Core strength is the ability of the core
musculature to produce force via intra abdominal pressure and contractile forces.
Subsequently core stability and core strength both require different types of training
modalities. This is essentially due to the different functionalities between local and global
muscles, with local muscles responsible for the stability of the spine and global muscles
responsible for the production of force. As a result the muscle characteristics of local and
global muscles are listed in Table 1. (Faries & Greenwood, 2007).
Table 1. Characteristics of local and global muscles
Local Muscles Global Muscles
Deeply Placed Superficial
Slow twitch nature Fast twitch nature
Active in endurance activities Active in power activities
Lengthen Shorten and tighten
Activated at low resistance levels (<30-40%
MVC)
Activated at high resistance levels (>30-40%
MVC)
MVC= Maximal Voluntary Contraction

Sajeel Chaudhry

7

By taking into account the function and characteristics of local and global muscles of the
core, Comeford and Mottram (2001) have been able to make recommendations to the type of
loading required to recruit the two types of muscles. Local muscles require low load
threshold training and global muscles require high load threshold training. Their study also
stated that any imbalance in the way that muscles are recruited may lead to the dysfunction of
the trunk region and consequently injury. Thus the amount of load and duration are important
factors in how the motor units of the muscle are recruited in order to train the core for
stability or strength. An inappropriate recruitment of the core musculature with insufficient
strength and endurance training can be associated with the dynamic instability of the spine
(OSullivan, Twomey & Allison, 1997). In order to induce strength benefits an activation of
>60% Maximum voluntary Contraction is suggested and <25% Maximum voluntary
contraction (MVC) for endurance benefits (Vezina & Huley-Cozey, 2000). However these
suggestions were only made in relation to recording MVC of three low load core exercises
(pelvic tilt, abdominal hollowing and level 1 trunk stability test), which are prescribed in the
treatment of low back pain by Richardson, Jull, Hodges an Hides (1999), in an experiment to
deduce whether these activation levels could deduce any strength benefits. The experiment
also targeted a few muscles such as the upper and lower rectus abdominis, external obliques,
multifidi and erector spinae since surface electromyography was being used. Also the
experiment lacked any stability test in the transverse plane which is often the movement in
athletic activities.
Thus in light of the studies, the points highlighted in Table 2. should be considered in order to
deduce whether unstable surfaces can prove to be beneficial in training the core to facilitate
improved performance in sporting movements.

Sajeel Chaudhry

8


Table 2. Factors to consider with unstable surface training
Be able to target the three subsystems simultaneously as laid out by Punjabi (1992) by
providing enough stimuli for the effective proprioception and dynamic stability needs
Co activation of the global and local muscles is required (however no literature states
what is classified as co activation in terms of % MVC between local and global
muscles)
No muscle of the trunk should be activated to 100% of maximum voluntary
contraction
No muscle of the trunk should be activated in isolation
The training should be multi planar and not isolated to each of the three orthopaedic
axis
Global muscles require high load threshold training for strength adaptation whereas
local muscles require low load threshold training for stability adaptation. Thus
training should focus on the correct type of recruitment of motor units

Imai et al. (2010) conducted an experiment to establish whether there was a difference in
muscle activity on unstable surfaces as opposed to a stable surface. Nine male subjects were
used with no athletic background or history of injury. Surface electrodes were placed to
measure activity of the global muscles (rectus abdominis, transverse abdominis and external
obliques) and local muscles (erector spinae and lumbar mulitfidus) to record
electromyography (EMG) data. Five exercises (elbow-toe, hand-knee, curl up, side bridge
and back bridge) were selected and performed on both a stable and unstable surface for
comparison. The EMG data was normalised for each of the muscle sites using a maximum
voluntary contraction (MVC) for 3 seconds. For the curl up, hand knee and back bridge a
BOSU was used and for the side bridge an additional dyna disc. Whereas for the elbow tow, a
Sajeel Chaudhry

9

swiss ball and dyna disc were used. The exercises are shown in Appendix A. The results of
the muscle activity in %MVC for each of the exercises is displayed in Table 3.
Table 3. Mean muscle activity (% MVC) of unstable vs. (stable) surface exercise
RA(R) RA(L) EO(R) EO(L) TrA(R) TrA(L) ES(R) ES(L) MF(R) MF(L)
A 57(35)* 43(24)* 74(56)* 78(57)* 23(17)* 23(16)* 8(7)* 8(7)* 5(4) 3(2)*
B 13(13) 9(9) 28(27) 22(21) 11(9) 9(8) 26(25) 27(28) 37(43) 38(32)
C 14(13)* 9(8)* 43(33)* 48(35)* 42(32) 15(13) 32(22) 22(14) 25(22) 23(32)
D 23(21)* 10(7)* 98(82) 21(20) 23(37) 10(11) 23(24) 7(6) 10(12) 3(4)
E 50(45) 47(43) 83(40)* 75(40)* 17(34) 16(30) 8(8) 8(8) 3(8) 3(2)
Values in () represent stable surface muscle activity.
Abbreviations: EO, external obliques; ES, erector spinae; L, left side; MF, lumbar multifidus; R, right
side; RA, rectus abdominis; TrA, transversus abdominis. *Significant difference between the stable and
unstable conditions (P<.05).

Co activation of the global and local muscles was achieved on both stable and unstable
surfaces. There was a significant difference between the mean values of all muscle activity
during the elbow toe exercise, and the global muscles were within an activation range of
>60% MVC for strength adaptation. The local muscles were also within an activation range
of <25% MVC for stability adaptations. There was no significant difference between the back
bridge exercise and the global muscles never achieved an activation range of >60% MVC
with local muscles achieving >25% MVC which may not efficiently give stability adaptation.
The remaining 3 exercises did not really have any significant difference between the means
of stable vs. unstable exercises. However the local muscles were within the stability training
activation zone with only a few global muscles within strength activation zone of %MVC.
This may be due to the fact that these exercises have been chosen for core stabilisation even
though the literature has not specifically distinguished the co activation of global and local
Sajeel Chaudhry

10

muscles which should be for strength and stability respectively. Thus these exercises almost
independently either target strength or stability. Also the experiment lacks multi planar
exercises thus its effectiveness in sporting activity cannot be fully deduced although the
elbow toe exercise on an unstable surface gives a balanced adaptation towards strength and
stability training of the core.
Escamilla et al. (2010) performed a laboratory study to test the ability of a swiss ball in
activating the core musculature. Nine male and nine female subjects were used from a non
athletic background with no injury with no prior experience of using a swiss ball however
were all experienced in performing the bent knee sit up and crunch. Surface electrodes were
placed to measure activity of the global muscles (upper and lower rectus abdominis and
external obliques) and local muscles (internal oblique and lumbar paraspinal) to record
electromyography (EMG) data. Eight swiss ball exercises were selected shown in Appendix
B (roll out, pike, knee up, skier, hip extension right, hip extension left, decline push up and
sitting march). The EMG data was normalised for each of the muscle sites using a maximum
voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) for 3 seconds and the data is presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Mean (SD) of %MVIC for each muscle and exercise
Upper RA Lower RA EO IO LP
Roll out

63 (30)

53 (23)

46 (18)

46 (21)

6 (2)
Pike

47 (18)

55 (16)

84 (37)

56 (22)

8 (3)
Knee up

32 (15)

35 (14)

64 (39)

41 (16)

6 (3)
Skier

38 (17)

33 (8)

73 (40)

47 (18)

6 (3)
Sajeel Chaudhry

11

Hip Ext. Right

43 (21)

44 (11)

56 (32)

40 (26)

7 (3)
Hip Ext. Left

41 (24)

39 (19)

39 (19)

45 (25)

6 (3)
Decline push up

38 (20)

37 (16)

36 (24)

33 (18)

6 (2)
Sitting march

7 (6)

7 (6)

14 (6)
16 (11)

5 (2)
Abbreviations: RA, rectus abdominas; EO, external obliques; IO, internal obliques; LP,
lumbar paraspinal

With all of the eight swiss ball exercises co activation of the global and local muscles was
achieved with no muscle achieving 100% MVC. With the activation levels of the global
muscles for strength the pike seems to be a particular exercise of significance on the swiss
ball since it also incorporates movement in the transverse plane. However the internal oblique
which is a local muscle achieved much higher activation levels compared to the lumbar
paraspinal. Hence the efficacy of a swiss ball with these exercises to provide strength and
stability recruitment simultaneously is questionable since activation levels of the local muscle
is >25% MVC which may cause a dysfunction of the core whilst adapting to the muscle
recruitment. With global muscles achieving 60% MVC the swiss ball provides strength
benefits with these exercises performed. The sitting march on the other hand only provides
stability benefits to the local muscle with the global muscles not targeting strength gains.
Table 5. Provides a summary of the muscle activation levels relative to the exercise.
Table 5. Relative muscle recruitment
>60% MVIC 41-60%MVIC 21-40%MVIC 0-20%MVIC
Upper RA

Roll-out

Crunch, pike, hip
extension

Bent-knee sit-up,
skier, decline
push-up, knee-up

Sitting march
right
Sajeel Chaudhry

12

Lower RA

Pike, roll-out, hip
extension

Hip extension,
crunch, decline
push-up, knee-up,
skier, bent-knee
sit-up

Sitting march
right
EO

Pike, skier,
knee-up

Hip extension,
roll-out

Hip extension,
decline push-up,
bent-knee sit-up,
crunch

Sitting march
right
IO

Pike, skier, roll-out,
hip extension,
knee-up

Hip extension,
decline push-up,
crunch, bent-knee
sit-up

Sitting march
right
LP

Pike, roll-out, hip
extension,
crunch, decline
push-up, knee-
up, skier, bent-
knee sit-up,
sitting march
right
Abbreviations: RA, rectus abdominas; EO, external obliques; IO, internal obliques; LP,
lumbar paraspinal

Closed kinetic chain sports such as a baseball pitch and the tennis serve have a unilateral
action, and for training specificity unilateral exercises may prove to be more beneficial. By
providing a unilateral resisted action, the trunk is further de stabilised due to torque being
applied to the body (Behm, Leonard, Young, Boney & MacKinnon, 2005). However
resistance training exercises are predominantly bilateral whether performed on a stable or
unstable surface. Thus Behm et al. (2005) conducted an experiment to compare the core
muscle activity on stable and unstable surfaces in trunk strengthening and resistance
exercises. Six men and five women were chosen who were actively engaged with resistance
training on stable and unstable devices. The resistance exercises were performed unilaterally
and bilaterally as it was hypothesised that unilateral resistance exercises would activate the
trunk muscles more than bilateral resistance exercises. Six trunk exercises (Bridge, pelvic tilt,
Sajeel Chaudhry

13

alternate arm and leg extension, parallel hold, side bridge and superman) were selected which
were performed on the floor and a swiss ball. Two resistance exercises (chest press and
shoulder press) were performed bilaterally and unilaterally on a bench and a swiss ball.
Surface electrodes were placed over the upper lumbar erector spinae (positioned to measure
activity to emphasize more as a global muscle), lumbosacral erector spinae (positioned to
measure activity to emphasize more as a local muscle) and lower abdominal (positioned to
measure activity to emphasize more as a global muscle). The results of the muscle activity
was displayed as a ratio as the muscle sites were normalised to a 3 second maximum
voluntary isometric contraction test (Upper lumbar erector spine and lumbo sacral erector
spinae were referenced to as back extension; Lower abdominal was referenced as abdominal
hollowing).
For the upper lumbar erector spinae, there was no significant difference between the stable
and unstable surface muscle activity, whilst performing the six trunk exercises. However the
superman exercise had significantly greater activation than the bridge (51.3% of superman),
pelvic tilt (48.0%), alternate arm and leg extension left (49.1%), parallel hold (12.3%), side
bridge right (30.8%), and side bridge left (51.9%). The shoulder press had no significant
difference between the stable and unstable muscle activity. However the unilateral shoulder
press had greater activation over the bilateral (91.1% of unilateral right arm; 66.6% of
unilateral left arm). During the chest press, significantly greater activation was observed in
the unstable surface (37.7%). The unilateral chest press had greater activation over the
bilateral (71.7% of unilateral).

Sajeel Chaudhry

14

For the lumbosacral erector spinae, there was significantly greater activation (4.7%) of
unstable surface muscle activity compared to stable activity whilst performing the six trunk
exercises. The superman exercise had significantly greater activation than the bridge (84.6%
of the superman), pelvic tilt (50.3%,), alternate arm and leg extension right (65.6%), alternate
arm and leg extension left (62.7%), parallel hold (12.5%), side bridge right (34.5%), and side
bridge left (61.0%). The shoulder press had no significant difference between the stable and
unstable muscle activity. However the unilateral shoulder press had greater activation over
the bilateral (86.3% of unilateral right arm; 33.3% of unilateral left arm). ). During the chest
press significantly greater activation was observed between in the unstable surface (54.3%).
The unilateral chest press had greater activation over the bilateral (50% of unilateral right
arm; 66.6% of unilateral right arm).
For the lower abdominal, there was significantly greater activation (27.9%) of unstable
surface muscle activity compared to stable activity whilst performing the six trunk exercises.
The side bridge exercise had significantly greater activation than the bridge (30.6% of side
bridge), pelvic tilt (33.8%). alternate arm and leg extension right (46.5%), alternate arm and
leg extension left (25%), parallel bold (37.3%), side bridge right (48.2%), and superman
(13.9%). The shoulder press had no significant difference between the stable and unstable
muscle activity nor any different between unilateral and bilateral shoulder press. During the
chest press significantly greater activation was observed between in the unstable surface
(37.8%). The unilateral chest press had greater activation over the bilateral (24% of unilateral
right arm; 33.2% of unilateral right arm).
The results indicate that co activation does exist between the local and global muscles and
that unstable surfaces provide more of a stimuli, though the electromyography sites werent
accurately placed. However the results do not accurately depict the individual muscles sites
Sajeel Chaudhry

15

activation levels relative to the normalisation test, hence it is unclear what activation levels
they achieve i.e. strength or stability. The experiment does suggest that incorporating
unilateral limb movement may provide more stimuli for strength adaptation of the global
muscles and add specificity training benefits.
Similar studies show that performing resistance exercises on unstable surfaces provide
increased activation of the core musculature as compared to stable platforms (Marshall and
Murphy, 2006; Anderson and Behm, 2005). However performing exercises and movements
may not provide sufficient training specificity. According to Hamlyn, Behm & Young (2007)
activating the trunk musculature from a supine or prone position whether on stable or
unstable surfaces may not provide training specificity since most sports and daily activities
are performed in an upright an erect position. Neither does the training action replicate the
muscular action or velocities experienced in a closed kinetic chain movement. Thus Hamlyn
et al. (2007) performed an experiment to examine the activation of the trunk muscles during
dynamic weight training exercises such as the squat and deadlift and isometric instability
exercises such as the superman and sidebridge on a swiss ball. Electromyography activity
was measured from the lower adominal (LA), external obliques (EO), upper lumbar erector
spinae (ULES) and lumbar sacral erector spinae (LSES) muscle groups. The results showed
that performing an 80% 1 RM squat exceeded the LSES activity by 65.5% and 53.1%
compared to the superman and sidebridge respectively. Performing an 80% 1 RM deadlift
exceeded the ULES activity by 69.3% and 68.6% compared to the superman and sidebridge
respectively. However there was no significant change in the EO or LA activity. The results
show that stability muscles of the trunk achieve greater activation whereas the global muscles
achieve relatively the same activation. Thus performing upright, resisted, dynamic exercises
Sajeel Chaudhry

16

can provide higher trunk muscle activation and provide greater training specificity as opposed
to unstable surfaces.
The studies discussed so far, mainly comprised of relatively untrained subjects compared to
well trained subjects in resistance exercises. A study by Wahl and Behm (2008) showed that
unstable devices did not provide an increase in muscle activation in the lumbosacral erector
spinae (LES) or lower abdominals compared to stable surfaces in highly resistance trained
individuals, suggesting that resistance training with free weights provides sufficient trunk
muscle activation and that unstable surfaces are unable to provide further stimulus to trained
individuals.
Studies using the intervention of unstable surfaces to improve athletic performance have
shown no concrete evidence on well trained subjects either. A 6 week swiss ball training
programme had a positive impact on the core stability test score, however had no impact on
the running economy, posture, vertical and horizontal ground reaction forces of the subjects
(Stanton, Reaburn & Humphries, 2004; Sato & Mokha, 2009). Similarly a swiss ball training
programme for trained swimmers did not have any significant improvement in vertical jump
heights, medicine ball throws and 100 yard swim time compared to the control group
(Schibek, Guskiewicz, Prentice, Mays & Davis, 2001). However in relatively untrained
subjects various studies have shown that unstable surface training has been able to improve
performance in terms of vertical jump heights, take off velocity and balance (Behm et al.,
2010a).
In conclusion unstable surface training is able to target the points highlighted in Table 2. but
not necessarily simultaneously or in a multi planar action. Unstable surfaces do target the
local and global muscles but predominantly either target local or global muscles
Sajeel Chaudhry

17

independently, in terms of activation levels. Neither have the studies made any
recommendations on the duration or type of movement to be used. For instance local muscles
are slow twitch fibres hence longer durations with low stimulus are required, whereas with
global muscles on and off type muscle activation with high stimulus is required. The
evidence of transfer of training effect into the athletic population isnt substantial either.
Since S&C coaches tend to work with trained athletes the efficacy of unstable surfaces in
providing further adaptation and improvement is not clear and it is suggested that the
improvements in the trunk stability are skills specific and traditional free weights training
provides sufficient core training (Willardson, 2007). Further more if athletic performance is
the target then movements such as the squat, deadlifts, pulls, cleans and snatches should be
used which are multi joint exercises targeting force, power and velocity profiles (Behm et al.,
2005). However unstable surface training can be beneficial as part of a periodised training
program where the training goal is embedded within the mesocycles and the requirement can
be switched to target either strength or endurance of the trunk region (Willardson, 2007). This
can be achieved if an S&C coach is aware of the activation levels for local and global
muscles along with the exercises that activate these muscles independently for strength and
endurance adaptations. Further research into synthesising exercises on unstable devices that
provide specific adaptations of endurance and strength would be highly beneficial. Despite
these training recommendations ultimately the best way of improving stability and force
transfer in a sporting movement is to practise the sport itself on the same surface as the sport
(Willardon, Behm et al., 2005).



Sajeel Chaudhry

18

References
Allison, G.T., Morris, S.L., and Lay, B. (2008). Feedforward responses of transversus abdominis are
directionally specific and act asymmetrically: implications for core stability theories. Journal
of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy.38(5):228-37.
Arokoski, J.P., Valta, T., Airaksinen, O., and Kankaanpaa, M. (2001). Back and abdominal muscle
function during stabilization exercises. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
82:1089-1098.
Anderson, K., and Behm, D.G. (2005). Trunk muscle activity increases with unstable squat
movements. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology. 30(1): 3345.
Axler, C.T., and McGill, S.M. (1997). Low back loads over a variety of abdominal exercises:
searching for the safest abdominal challenge. Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise.29:804-811.
Behm, D.G.(1995) Neuromuscular implications and applications of resistance training. Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research. 9:264-274.
Behm, D.G., Drinkwater, E.J., Willardson, J.M., and Cowley, P.M. (2010a). The use of instability to
train the core musculature. Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism. 35(1): 91108.
Behm, D.G., Drinkwater, E.J., Willardson, J.M., and Cowley, P.M. (2010b). The use of instability to
train the core in athletic and nonathletic conditioning. Applied Physiology, Nutrition and
Metabolism. 35(1): 109112.
Sajeel Chaudhry

19

Behm, D.G., Leonard, A.M., Young, W.B., Bonsey, W.A., and MacKinnon, S.N.(2005). Trunk
muscle electromyographic activity with unstable and unilateral exercises. Journal of Strength
& Conditioning Research. 19(1):193-201.
Bergmark, A. (1989). Stability of the lumbar spine: A study in mechanical engineering. Acta
Orthopaedica Scandinavica. 230(Suppl.):20-24.
Comerford, M.J., and Mottram, S.L. (2001). Movement and stability dysfunction-contempary
developments. Manual Therapy, 6(1), 15-26.
Cresswell, A.G., and Thorstensson, A. (1993). Change in intra-abdominal pressure, trunk muscle
activation and force during isokinetic lifting and lowering. European Journal of Applied
Physiology. 68(4):315-21.
Cresswell, A.G., Oddsson,L., and Thorstensson, A. (1994). The influence of sudden perturbations on
trunk muscle activity and intra-abdominal pressure while standing. Experimental Brain
Research. 98:336-341.
Cholewicki, J., Simons, A., and Radebold, A. (2000). Effects of external trunk loads on lumbar spine
stability. Journal of Biomechanics, 33, 13771385.
Escamilla, R.F., Lewis, C., Bell, D, Bramblet, G., Daffron, J, Lambert, S., Pecson, A., Imamura, R.,
Paulos, L., and Andrews, J.R. (2010). Core muscle activation during Swiss ball and
traditional abdominal exercises. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy.
40(5):265-76.
Faries,M.D. and Greenwood, M. (2007). Core Training: Stabilizing the Confusion. Strength and
conditioning Journal. 29(2), 10-15.
Sajeel Chaudhry

20

Hamlyn, N., Behm, DG., and Young, W.B.(2007). Trunk muscle activation during dynamic weight-
training exercises and isometric instability activities. Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research. 21(4):1108-12.
Hodges, P.W (1999). Is there a role for transversus abdominis in lumbo-pelvic stability? Manual
Therapy. 4(2), 74-86.
Hodges, P.W., and Richardson, C.A. (1997). Contraction of the abdominal muscles associated with
movement of the lower limb. Physical Therapy. 77(2): 132142.
Hodges, P.W., and Richardson, C.A. (1997).Feedforward contraction of transversus abdominis is not
influenced by the direction of arm movement. Experimental Brain Research. 114: 362-370.
Hrysomallis, C. (2007) Relationship between balance ability, training and sports injury risk. Sports
Medicine. volume 37, Issue 6, pp 547-556.
Imai, A., Kaneoka, K., Okubo, Y., Shiina, I., Tatsumura, M., Izumi, S., and Shiraki H.(2010). Trunk
muscle activity during lumbar stabilization exercises on both a stable and unstable surface.
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 40(6):369-75.

Kavcic, N., Greniek, S., and Mcgill, S.M.(2004). Determining the stabilizing role of individual torso
muscles during rehabilitation exercises. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1254-1265.

Kibler, W.B., Press, J., and Sciascia, A. (2006). The role of core stability in athletic function. Sports
Medicine. 36(3): 189198.

Sajeel Chaudhry

21

Leetun, D.T., Ireland, M.L., Willson, J.D, Ballantyne, B.T., and Davis, I.M. (2004). Core stability
measures as risk factors for lower extremity injury in athletes. Medicine & Science in Sports
& Exercise. 36:926-934.
Marshall, P., and Murphy, B. (2006). Changes in muscle activity and perceived exertion during
exercises performed on a swiss ball. Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism. 31(4):
376383.
McGill, S.M. (1988). Estimation of force and extensor moment contributions of the disc and
ligaments at L4-L5. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 13(12): 13951402.
McGill, S.M. (2001). Low back stability: from formal description to issues for performance and
rehabilitation. Exercises and Sport Sciences Reviews. 29(1):26-31.
McGill, S.M., and Norman, R.W. (1985). Dynamically and statically determined low back moments
during lifting. Journal of Biomechanics. 18(12): 877885.
McGill, S.M., Karpowicz, A., Fenwick, C.M., and Brown, S.H.(2009). Exercises for the torso
performed in a standing posture: spine and hip motion and motor patterns and spine load.
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 23(2):455-64.
Nuzzo, J.L., McCaulley, G.O., Cormie, P., Cavill, M.J., and McBride, J.M. (2008). Trunk muscle
activity during stability ball and free weight exercises. Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research. 22:95-102.
O'Sullivan, P.B., Twomey, L., Allison, G.T. (1997). Dysfunction of the neuro-muscular System in
the presence of low back painimplications for physical therapy management. Journal of
Manual & Manipulative Therapy. Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 20-26(7).
Sajeel Chaudhry

22

Panjabi, M.M. (1992) The stabilizing system of the spine: Function, dysfunction, adaptation, and
enhancement. Journal of Spinal Disorders. 5:383-389.
Rasmussen, B.E., Ang, B., Arvidsson, I., and Nilsson, W. L. (2009). Graded exercise for recurrent
low-back pain: a randomized, controlled trial with 6-, 12-, and 36-month follow-ups. Spine
(Phila Pa 1976). 34(3):221-8.
Richardson, C., Jull, G., Hodges, P., and Hides, J. (1999). Therapeutic exercises for spinal segmental
stabilization in low back pain. Toronto: Churchill Livingstone.
Rutherford, C.M., and Jones, D.A.(1986) The role of learning and coordination in strength training.
European Journal of Applied Physiology. 55:100-105.
Sato, K., and Mokha, M. (2009) Does core strength training influence running kinetics,
lowerextremity stability, and 5000-m performance in runners? Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research. 23: 133140.
Schibek, J.S., Guskiewicz, K.M., Prentice, W.E., Mays, S., and Davis, J.M. (2001). The effect of
core stabilization training on functional performance in swimming. Masters thesis,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Sherrington, C.S. (1910). Flexion-reflex of the limb, crossed extension- reflex, and reflex stepping
and standing. Journal of Physiology. 40(12): 28121
Sderman, K., Werner, S., Pietil, T., Engstrm, B, and Alfredson, H.(2000). Balance board training:
prevention of traumatic injuries of the lower extremities in female soccer players? A
prospective randomized intervention study. Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy.
8(6):356-63.
Sajeel Chaudhry

23

Stanton, R., Reaburn, P.R., and Humphries, B.(2004) The effect of short-term Swiss ball training on
core stability and running economy. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 18:522-
528.
Vezina, M.J., and Hubley-Kozey, C.L.(2000) Muscle activation in therapeutic exercises to improve
trunk stability. Archives of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation. 81 (10): 1370-9
Verhagen, E, Van der Beek, A., Twisk, J., Bouter, L., Bahr, R., and Van Mechelen, W. (2004). The
effect of a proprioceptive balance board training program for the prevention of ankle sprains:
a prospective controlled trial. American Journal of Sports Medicine. 32(6):1385-93.
Willardson, J.M. (2007). Core stability training: applications to sports conditioning programs.
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 21(3):979985.
Sajeel Chaudhry

24

APPENDIX A

Sajeel Chaudhry

25

APPENDIX B


Start position for the pike, knee up, skier, decline push up and hip extensions

End position for the pike
Sajeel Chaudhry

26


End position for the knee up

End position for the skier

Sajeel Chaudhry

27


End position for the decline push up

End position for the hip extension
Sajeel Chaudhry

28


Start position for the roll out

End position for the roll out
Sajeel Chaudhry

29


Sitting march