4.2 Article

The effect of a 10-week training regimen on lumbo-pelvic stability and athletic performance in female athletes: A randomized-controlled trial

期刊

PHYSICAL THERAPY IN SPORT
卷 6, 期 2, 页码 60-66

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2005.02.006

关键词

stabilizer pressure biofeedback unit; lumbo-pelvic stability; abdominal muscle training

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate a 10-week training program for improved lumbo-pelvic stability (LPS), and to investigate the impact of improved LPS on athletic performance. Design: Randomized-control led study. Setting: Testing was done at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Training was at colleges and universities in the immediate vicinity to Vancouver, Canada. Participants: Thirty female varsity volleyball and basketball players aged 18-23 yrs were randomly assigned to treatment (T), pseudo-treatment (PT), or control (C). Main outcome measures: For LPS the participants lied supine and the position of the pelvis and lumbar spine was monitored using a stabilizer Pressure Biofeedback Unit (TM) (PBU) while load was progressively added by movements of the lower limbs. T-test, Sargent's, and Bass' tests assessed agility, leg power, and balance, respectively. Results: Non-parametric Friedman, Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney techniques detected LPS improvement in T (2.8 +/- 1.5) and PT (2.3 +/- 1.4). Repeated measures ANOVA detected improvement in the agility (8.8 +/- 0.7 s) and leg power (32.3 +/- 4.5 cm) of T, and in the static balance ability of all three groups. Regression using Spearman's rho revealed no significant correlations between the post-test scores for LPS and athletic performance, or between pre- to post-test changes in LPS was improved following training in the T and PT groups. While improvements in agility and leg power were limited to only the T group, there was no association between improvements in LPS and improvements in athletic performance. Conclusion: The PBU may be an important tool in identifying lumbo-pelvic instability, however, its use is not recommended in the evaluation of treatment efficacy. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据