Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30303973›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Effects of ten weeks dynamic or isometric core training on climbing performance among highly trained climbers.

Atle Hole Saeterbakken, Einar Loken, Suzanne Scott, Espen Hermans, Vegard Albert Vereide, Vidar Andersen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Physical performance testing in climbing-A systematic review.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Comparison of Grip Strength in Recreational Climbers and Non-Climbing Athletes-A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Atle Hole SaeterbakkenWestern Norway University, Faculty of Education, Arts and Sports, Department of Sport, Food and Natural Sciences, Campus Sogndal, Sogndal, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-5592-6551
Einar LokenWestern Norway University, Faculty of Education, Arts and Sports, Department of Sport, Food and Natural Sciences, Campus Sogndal, Sogndal, Norway.
Suzanne ScottUniversity of Exeter, Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Espen HermansWestern Norway University, Faculty of Education, Arts and Sports, Department of Sport, Food and Natural Sciences, Campus Sogndal, Sogndal, Norway.
Vegard Albert VereideWestern Norway University, Faculty of Education, Arts and Sports, Department of Sport, Food and Natural Sciences, Campus Sogndal, Sogndal, Norway.
Vidar AndersenWestern Norway University, Faculty of Education, Arts and Sports, Department of Sport, Food and Natural Sciences, Campus Sogndal, Sogndal, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This is the first study to compare the effects of isometric vs. dynamic core training and characterize core-training adaptations using climbing-specific performance and core strength tests in elite climbers. The aim of the study was to compare the effects of attending a progressive core-training program on climbing performance. 19 advanced and elite climbers (7.3±5.6 years climbing experience, red point skill grade 19 IRCRA) were randomized into a dynamic (DCT) or isometric (ICT) core training group and trained twice weekly for ten weeks. The climbers were tested using two climbing-specific core tests (body lock-off and body-lift) and four non-specific core strength tests-one dynamic (superman) and three isometric (trunk flexion and trunk rotation left and right). Between group comparisons showed no differences between the groups at post-test (p = 0.328-0.824) and neither group demonstrated greater improvement compared with the other (p = 0.300-0.926). The ICT group demonstrated 10.8% and 29.6% improvement in trunk flexion and body-lift (p = 0.029-0.037 with no improvement in body lock-off and rotation (p = 0.101-0.343). The DCT group demonstrated 5.0-14.9% improvement in the core strength tests (p = 0.012-0.043), a non-significant 33.8% improvement in body-lift (p = 0.100) and no improvement in body lock-off (p = 0.943). In conclusion, none of the training groups demonstrated greater improvement than the other and both dynamic and isometric core training improved climbing-specific test performance. Dynamic training was slightly more favorable although not significantly superior to isometric core training in improving core strength.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleFingersHand StrengthHumansMaleMountaineeringMuscle, SkeletalOxygen ConsumptionPhysical Endurance

Identifiers

PMID30303973
PMCPMC6179192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.