Effects Of Isolated And Integrated Core Stability Training In Fast Bowlers
Trial statusRecruiting
Trial phaseNot applicable
Trial typeInterventional
Biological sexMale
Age18-28
SponsorSehat Medical Complex
About this trial
The objective of this study will be to compare the effects of isolated and integrated core stability training on power, balance and performance in fast bowlers.
Eligibility criteria
This trial accepts healthy volunteersQualifiers
• Age group: 18 to 28 years. Individuals younger than 18 needed parental consent, and those older than 30 faced a higher likelihood of degeneration in the thoracic and lumbar spine region
No history of lower back pain
Gender: Male. Considering the differences in anatomy and physiology between males and females, it was deemed advantageous to concentrate solely on one gender to ensure continued homogeneity
They had actively participated in Action Cricket within one of the intermediate leagues for a minimum of six months
Disqualifiers
Athletes with physical disability and major health problems.
Not willing to participate.
Patients with MSK disorders.
Female athletes will not be included because of anatomical and physiological differences.
Trial design
Design model
Parallel
Treatments tested in this trial
Isolated Core Stability Program
Other interventionThe control group consists of basic core exercises which include the activation of transversusabdominins and multifidus muscles and progressive strengethening of these muscles in all positions using swiss balls and floor mats. All exercises were done for at least 3 sets of 15 repetitions to build proper core stability.
Integrated Core Stability Program
Other interventionAn individualized protocol was designed for these cricketers targeting static and dynamic core stability, with integration of balance, endurance and power component. Tranversusabdominis and multifidus strengthening is combined with upper extremity motions to work on the fast bowling action i.e throwing of the players. At the same time lower extremity balance and strengthening is also included to ensure the high speed of sprint.
Treatment groups
28 Participants
are divided into 2 treatment groupsGroup A: Isolated Core Stability ProgramOther 1 intervention
Group B: Integrated Core Stability ProgramExperimental treatment 1 intervention
Trial outcomes
Primary outcomes
1
Seated Medicine Ball Throw Test (SMBT):
The seated medicine ball throw (SMBT) serves as a field test designed to evaluate upper-body muscular power by gauging the maximum distance an individual can propel a medicine ball from a seated position. This assessment is cost-effective and easier to integrate into a field test battery compared to alternative methods for evaluating upper body power. Demonstrating validity and reliability, participants engage in the SMBT by throwing a 2 kg medicine ball with a 19.5 cm diameter while positioned on the floor, with the upper torso against the wall and legs extended, maintaining a trunk angle of 90°.
Time frame
12 weeks2
Sit Up Test (SUT)
The participant assumes a supine position on the floor, with knees flexed at a 90° angle, hands positioned beside their head, and elbows directed straight forward. A proper execution of the sit-up involved touching the elbows to the knees and then returning to the starting position, ensuring that the shoulders made contact with the floor. The number of repetitions completed was documented to quantify the level of endurance achieved in each trial. Exhaustion, defined as the inability to execute another repetition, marked the conclusion of the test. The Sit-Up Test (SUT), characterized by its simplicity of administration and low costs, proved to be an effective tool for assessing muscle endurance
Time frame
12 weeks3
Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT):
The SEBT was initially outlined with the individual positioned at the center of eight lines forming an eight-pointed star, each with a 45° separation. Subsequent studies demonstrated that this approach could be streamlined with just three lines, referred to as anterior (ANT), posteromedial (PM), and posterolateral (PL), based on the stance foot. This simplified version, commonly known in the literature as the mSEBT, is now frequently employed, though not consistently. The adoption of the mSEBT helps save testing time by eliminating redundant testing directions while upholding the consistency and reliability observed in the original SEBT. Typically, the average of the three directions is calculated to generate a composite score (COMP)
Time frame
12 weeksSponsors and contacts
Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.
Source ClinicalTrials.gov