Core Strength And Athletic Performance After A Program Incorporating Slings In College Basketball Players

Context: Exercise training using slings to support and resist the body is used inphysical therapy and athletic training, but there is limited evidence of its effects ontrunk control or athletic performance.Objective: To determine the effects of an8-week training protocol using slings(Cable Kinetic Exercise) on core strength and athletic performance in basketballplayer college students.Design: Randomized controlled trial.Setting：University human movement research laboratory and indoor basketballstadium.Participants: Twenty college students from the same basketball class were included.Participants were randomly assigned into a training group (8men: age=22±1years,height=184±3cm, weight=74±4kg) or control group (8men: age=22±1years,height=184±8cm, weight=78±11kg).Intervention(s): Participants in the training group performed “core” strength exercise2times per week for8weeks in addition to their regular basketball training. Theprotocol consisted of exercises with slings to support and resist body movement(Cable Kinetic Training, CKT). Progression involved increased number of sets orresistance of the body movement. The control group continued regular basketballtraining.Main Outcome Measure(s):During the experiment, the core test and the athletic test would be done in pre-test,mid-test (after4weeks) and post-test (after8weeks). The details are as follows:(1) A standard set of "core" endurance test (McGill Protocol) was used to test theeffects of CKT training effects in the aspects of trunk strength, endurance and control,and record the three specific body posture maintenance time to evaluate the core torsomuscular endurance.(2) Basketball specific performance was tested by penalty shot, jump-and-reach,fixed-point shooting and layupover obstacles.a) Penalty shot: Follow the standard rules of penalty shot, give the opportunity of20free throws to record the number of which was successfully shot in.Three timeswastestedand the average of the outcome was recorded.b) Jump-and-reach: After a run-up and then take off to touch, the result was the heightof the touch minus the height of a subject plus arm length, and test a subject for threetimes and the average was recorded. c) Fixed-point shooting: Set6fixed-point (between2-point line and3-point line)onthe basketball playground; the subject followed the points in turns, it was testedfortwice and the averageof outcome was recorded.d) Lay-up over obstacles: The venue was set five obstacles, the subjects were asked tocomplete spinning move when passing obstacles, and conduct jump and shoot (mustbe shot in); the time was recorded. It was tested twice and the average was recorded.(3) Core explosive tests was done by the60s Sit-up test, which was to make thegreatest effort to complete the sit-ups in60seconds, it was tested twice and the bestresults was recorded.Results:(1)Training group: Of the core tests the training group improved their performanceof the flexor endurance test (FE)(interaction: Group x Time, p=0.006) at both the mid(post hoc: pre-post p<0.001) and post assessment (post-hoc: mid-post p<0.001)；extensor endurance test (EE)(interaction: Group x Time, p=0.024) at the mid(post-hoc: pre-mid p<0.05) and post assessment (post-hoc: pre-post p<0.001)；rightlateral endurance test (RLE)(interaction: Group x Time, p<0.001) at the mid (post-hoc:pre-mid p<0.05) and post assessment (post-hoc: pre-post p<0.001) and the60s sit-uptest (Sit-up)(interaction: Group x Time, p<0.001，post-hoc: pre-mid p<0.05, pre-postp<0.001). There was no improvement in the LLE (interaction: Group x Time, p<0.001,post-hoc: p>0.05).Of the athletic performance tests the Training group improved their performance ofpenalty shot (interaction: Time, p=0.03; post-hoc: pre-mid p<0.05) at mid assessmentand lay up over obstruction (interaction: Time, p<0.001; post-hoc: pre-mid p<0.001,mid-post p<0.001) at both the mid and post assessment.(2) Control group: Of the performance tests the Control group improved theirperformance of penalty shot (interaction: Time, p=0.027095; post-hoc: pre-midp<0.05) at mid assessment and lay up over obstruction (interaction: Time, p=0.000031;post-hoc: pre-mid p<0.001, mid-post p<0.001) at both the mid and post assessment.There was no improvement in any of the core tests (no interaction).(3)Experimental and control groups comparison: At the8-week assessment, theTraining group performed better than the Control group on the FE (interaction: time xgroup, p=0.006; post-hoc: training vs. control), RLE (interaction: time x group,p≤0.001; post-hoc: training vs. control p<0.05) and Sit-up60s tests (interaction: timex group, p=0.000227; post-hoc: training vs. control p<0.05).Conclusion:(1)Training using the CKT system improved flexor endurance, right lateral enduranceand60s sit-up after8training weeks for training group;(2) Training using the CKT system could improve flexor endurance, extensorendurance, right lateral endurance and60s sit-up in a comparatively short period oftime;(3)Training using the CKT system improves specific elements of athletes’ coreendurance performance but the relationship to improved performance is unclear.