The effect of static and dynamic core exercises on dynamic balance, spinal stability, and hip mobility in female office workers.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare the effect of static and dynamic core exercises in terms of dynamic balance, spinal stability, and hip mobility in female office workers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between May 2018 and June 2018, a total of 34 women (mean age 36.4±6.5 years; range, 28 to 54 years) who worked for a bank and exercised in the fitness center of the work place were recruited. The women were divided into two groups including 17 women in each as static and dynamic core groups and administered sessions of 20 to 30 min twice a week for six weeks. Both groups were tested for dynamic balance (Y-balance test), spinal stability (functional reach test), and hip mobility (active flexion and extension) before and after six weeks of exercise. RESULTS: A statistically significant improvement was found in both groups between the pre- and post-test results in terms of spinal stability, hip mobility, and dynamic balance (p<0.05). The only exception was the right and left leg anterior balance in the static core group. Dynamic core exercises seemed to be more effective than static core exercises in improving the right and left leg anterior balance. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of spinal stability, hip mobility, and dynamic balance according to the mean absolute change (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study results indicate that both types of exercises are effective in improving dynamic balance, spinal stability, and hip mobility in female office workers. Therefore, the expected benefits from core exercises are to enhance dynamic balance, spinal stability, and hip mobility. Female workers can perform both types of exercises safely and effectively.

Avoiding Systematic Errors in Isometric Squat-Related Studies without Pre-Familiarization by Using Sufficient Numbers of Trials.

There is no scientific evidence in the literature indicating that maximal isometric strength measures can be assessed within 3 trials. We questioned whether the results of isometric squat-related studies in which maximal isometric squat strength (MISS) testing was performed using limited numbers of trials without pre-familiarization might have included systematic errors, especially those resulting from acute learning effects. Forty resistance-trained male participants performed 8 isometric squat trials without pre-familiarization. The highest measures in the first "n" trials (3 ≤ n ≤ 8) of these 8 squats were regarded as MISS obtained using 6 different MISS test methods featuring different numbers of trials (The Best of n Trials Method [BnT]). When B3T and B8T were paired with other methods, high reliability was found between the paired methods in terms of intraclass correlation coefficients (0.93-0.98) and coefficients of variation (3.4-7.0%). The Wilcoxon's signed rank test indicated that MISS obtained using B3T and B8T were lower (p < 0.001) and higher (p < 0.001), respectively, than those obtained using other methods. The Bland-Altman method revealed a lack of agreement between any of the paired methods. Simulation studies illustrated that increasing the number of trials to 9-10 using a relatively large sample size (i.e., ≥ 24) could be an effective means of obtaining the actual MISS values of the participants. The common use of a limited number of trials in MISS tests without pre-familiarization appears to have no solid scientific base. Our findings suggest that the number of trials should be increased in commonly used MISS tests to avoid learning effect-related systematic errors.