Effectiveness of Modified Plank vs Conventional Plank on Core Muscle Endurance and Stability in Recreational Athletes: A Quasi-Experimental study

Abstract

Introduction: The core muscle plays a major role in providing stability. Several studies have been conducted to identify the activation of core muscle in variety of planking methods but the effects of modified planking in core strengthening program is vaguely studied.
Aim: This study aimed to compare the modified plank with conventional plank and to identify which mode of planking was more superior in training for endurance and dynamic stability of core muscle.
Materials and Methods: A quasi-experimental pre-test-post-test study design was conducted for a total duration of 6 weeks and 32 subjects were assigned into two groups: Experimental group (Body Saw Plank) and Control group (conventional plank). A pretest and post-test of core endurance and dynamic stability were measured by using McGill Torso Muscular Endurance Test and Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT). A paired sample t-test was used to identify a significant difference between pre-test result and posttest result within the same group. Furthermore, an independent t-test was used to determine the significant difference between the post-test on the subject’s core endurance and dynamic stability between the control group and experimental group.
Results: A total of 32 subjects were selected, with a mean age of 20.63±1.6, of which 14 were males and 18 were females, with mean height, mean weight and mean BMI were 164.70±7.74, 57.26±8.57 and 21.02±2.36 respectively. After 6 weeks of
intervention, there was a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test of McGill Torso Muscular Endurance Test. However, comparison of post-test between groups of the McGill Torso Muscular Endurance Test shows no significant difference. On the other hand, both groups also show significant differences between the pre-test and post-test on SEBT. However, comparison between the post-test of the control group and experimental group has no significant differences in normalised reach distance and composite score.
Conclusion: The findings proved that both body saw plank and conventional plank effectively enhances core muscle endurance and also dynamic stability equally.

Full text

Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2021 Jun, Vol-15(6): YC04-YC10
44
DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2021/48224.15043
Physiotherapy Section
Effectiveness of Modified Plank vs
Conventional Plank on Core Muscle
Endurance and Stability in Recreational
Athletes: A Quasi-Experimental study
Original Article
INTRODUCTION
In human body, the main working force is the core muscle; it
allows the proper distribution of forces with maximum output
and minimum compressive, translator or shearing forces at any
involved joints in the body. With proper stabilisation of the proximal
segments, it provides stability for distal muscle namely upper and
lower limb in reference to the core muscle [1]. The core muscles
have two major functions to perform that contribute towards
movement and stability. The stabiliser muscles are designed in
such a way that allows a prolonged period of use with a high
capacity of endurance. The combination of transverse abdominals
and multifidus work together prevents unwanted bending and
rotating at the spinal level [2]. When these muscles become weak,
they are unable to get activated thereby reducing the stability to
the spine, which in turn lead to an injury especially during sports.
Just like core stability, core endurance is equally important. In order
to achieve postural stability, endurance of the muscle is needed
during a long period of work [3]. During exercise, the longer the
period of work done, it will lead to fatigue of core muscle especially
in runner population, therefore there is a need in training core
endurance [4]. Even though a person is having stability but poor
core endurance, the person is prone to have a higher risk of injury
as they are unable to maintain good stability which increases the
unnecessary load to the spine and causes injury. When providing
core training, the targeted purpose is to enhance core endurance.
The core muscle plays a role in balance where it stiffens around
the lumbar region to support body load in a new position [4].
A recreational athlete can be defined as a person who is physically
active, but who does not train for competition at the same level of
intensity and focus as a competitive athlete [5]. He or she participates
in sports to be physically fit, socially involved, and mostly to have
fun. In the recreational athlete population, those with weak core
muscle endurance and stability are more prone to sustain injury
when performing the sports activity and have lesser balance control
than those with good core muscle [6]. One of the most disabling
injuries in recreationally active subjects is that involving the lumbar
spine [7]. Hence, the need to train these adults for core is important.
When the athletes exercise protocol was investigated, it was found
that curl up and sit up exercises added the compression forces
to the joint of the spine and due to the increase in compression,
the athletes faces low back pain [8]. To curb this problem, planking
exercise have been introduced to replace sit up or curl up exercises.
This exercise not only reduces the compressive forces on the joint, it
also has a greater muscle activation to strengthen the core muscle
and have been consider more superior than other exercises [8].
Planking or prone bridging is a type of body weight exercise and is
used for training core muscle strengthening. It is a popular fitness
exercise that has been advocated as beneficial both for rehabilitation
program as well as physical conditioning routines [9,10]. Theoretically,
enhanced core stability following planking allows the core musculature
KIRUTHIKA SELVAKUMAR1, MANOJ ABRAHAM MANOHARLAL2, PUAN NADIA SAFIRAH BINTI RUSLI3,
LOW WEI JING4, ILAYARAJA ALAGAI THIRUVEVENKADAM5,
Keywords: Body saw plank, Core endurance, Core strengthening, Dynamic balance
ABSTRACT
Introduction: The core muscle plays a major role in providing
stability. Several studies have been conducted to identify the
activation of core muscle in variety of planking methods but the
effects of modified planking in core strengthening program is
vaguely studied.
Aim: This study aimed to compare the modified plank with
conventional plank and to identify which mode of planking was
more superior in training for endurance and dynamic stability of
core muscle.
Materials and Methods: A quasi-experimental pre-test-post-test
study design was conducted for a total duration of 6 weeks and
32 subjects were assigned into two groups: Experimental group
(Body Saw Plank) and Control group (conventional plank). A pre-
test and post-test of core endurance and dynamic stability were
measured by using McGill Torso Muscular Endurance Test and Star
Excursion Balance Test (SEBT). A paired sample t-test was used to
identify a significant difference between pre-test result and post-
test result within the same group. Furthermore, an independent
t-test was used to determine the significant difference between the
post-test on the subject’s core endurance and dynamic stability
between the control group and experimental group.
Results: A total of 32 subjects were selected, with a mean age
of 20.63±1.6, of which 14 were males and 18 were females, with
mean height, mean weight and mean BMI were 164.70±7.74,
57.26±8.57 and 21.02±2.36 respectively. After 6 weeks of
intervention, there was a significant difference between the
pre-test and post-test of McGill Torso Muscular Endurance
Test. However, comparison of post-test between groups of the
McGill Torso Muscular Endurance Test shows no significant
difference. On the other hand, both groups also show significant
differences between the pre-test and post-test on SEBT.
However, comparison between the post-test of the control
group and experimental group has no significant differences in
normalised reach distance and composite score.
Conclusion: The findings proved that both body saw plank and
conventional plank effectively enhances core muscle endurance
and also dynamic stability equally.

www.jcdr.net Kiruthika Selvakumar et al., Effect of Plank on Core Muscle Endurance and Stability
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2021 Jun, Vol-15(6): YC04-YC10 55
Blinding: The participants were blinded before assignment to
intervention. The outcome accessor also has no knowledge on
the pre-test result. The method of blinding was used to eliminate
subjective bias towards this study.
Each potential study subjects were screened with Physical Activity
Readiness Questionnaires (PAR-Q+) to ensure whether they were
eligible for this study [19]. Every subject qualified for the study was
required to sign a consent form and a data protection act form. After
pertaining their consent, the subject’s height, weight and BMI was
calculated.
A total of 32 recreational athlete subjects were recruited and were
assigned to experimental group and control group. The subjects were
informed not to alter their daily routine during the whole course of the
study and not to take part in any core strengthening program which
may affect data finding. The subject’s core endurance and stability
data were measured by McGill Torso Muscular Endurance Test for core
endurance and dynamic balance was measured by SEBT. The McGill
Torso Muscular Endurance test consists of 4 major component which
measures the trunk flexor, both left and right trunk side flexor and trunk
extensor. On the day of the pre-testing to measure core endurance,
the McGill Torso Muscular Endurance Test was developed to measure
the subjects core endurance. The subjects were instructed to adopt a
position of crook lying, then propped up to 60° degree of trunk flexion
with arm crossed in front of their chest with back support. This was
the starting position for trunk flexor endurance test. Then, the support
was taken away and the stopwatch was initiated to record the duration
of hold in that position. The stopwatch was stop when the subjects
had any deviation in the spine, or the subject requested to stop the
test and the time of the stopwatch was record. Similarly, right and left
lateral flexion and extension was measured [20]. The SEBT Platform
is a 4-line platform which tests the dynamic balance of the subjects
[21]. It consists of one vertical line and one horizontal line. The other
two lines were 45° degree from the vertical line forming a star shape
appearance with each line intersecting each other. Prior to testing, the
subject’s limb length was recorded in order to find out the normalised
reach distance. The limb length was measured from the Anterior
Superior Iliac Spine (ASIS) to the Medial Malleolus of the same side.
Then, the subject was required to reach out with another leg along
the masking tape with measurement scale as far as possible without
losing their balance, perform a tap at the furthest distance possible and
return to the starting position. The reached distance was recorded and
a total of three trails was given to calculate the average distance reach.
Throughout the reach, the subject’s hand must remain at the waist.
The stance leg was allowed to be flex to achieve further range. The
subject was asked to stand barefooted and perform a single leg stance
on the centre point with both hands on the waist [21]. After pre-testing
data was collected, the subject started their 18 sessions of training.
They were informed to attend for a three day per week training session
for a total of six weeks. The protocol for both exercises adopted from
Trainability of Core Stiffness [22]. Following six weeks of intervention the
outcome measures were reassessed and subjected to analysis.
Interventions: The experimental group received a body saw
plank, left and right side plank, and bridging exercise, while the
control group received the conventional plank, left and right side
plank and bridging exercise. The training session begin with
simple stretches in four directions of the trunk, 15 seconds each
and the same stretches at the end of the training sessions. The
progression of each exercise was one repetition every week until
the 6th week. The procedure and number of repetitions for each
exercise was as follows:
1. Body Saw Planking
The subjects were required to maintain a rhythmic forward
backward motion in this position for a duration of 10 seconds and
rest for five seconds. A total of two repetition of three set was
performed. [Table/Fig-1, 2] shows the starting and ending position
of Body Saw Planking.
to resist applied external force and maintain postural control in
response to a perturbation. The enhanced core stability may therefore
translate into better functional performance [11]. Traditionally,
performance of the prone plank involves assuming a push-up position
with the forearms on the ground and the elbows positioned directly
beneath the glenohumeral joints, spaced shoulder width apart [11].
Lehman, Hoda, & Oliver showed that the prone plank elicited 29.5%,
26.6%, 44.6% and 4.98% of Maximum Voluntary Contraction (MVC)
the internal oblique, rectus abdominis, external oblique and erector
spinae musculature, respectively, in a group of resistance-trained
participants [12]. Even though planks can help to improve posture,
strengthen shoulder, neck and abs, it is possible that the prone plank
does not sufficiently challenge the neuromuscular system in highly
fit individuals, thereby limiting transfer to dynamic performance.
As a more challenging alternative, several strength coaches have
promoted modifying the traditional prone plank.
However, recent studies show that planking was being modified to
increase the efficiency in muscle activation by recruiting large group
of muscle to work together [13]. A study done recently concluded
that other forms of (modified) planking was effective in activating
the core muscles compared to traditional planking [14]. One type
of modification is the body saw, like the plank, is an isometric, anti-
extension core planking [15]. Body saw is superior to crunches
and planks because of few reasons. Firstly, they are adding in the
movement portion, so the exercise changes from static to dynamic.
Secondly, the body is forced to hold tension as the lever angle and
weight distribution changes, it reacts by increasing stiffness through
the core. Thirdly, when extra weight of force is added to an already
stiff core, the body super compensates by building muscles in those
areas [16]. Although the body saw plank has a lot of advantages,
it is understudied and not compared with conventional plank.
Therefore, this research aimed to identify the effectiveness of body
saw planking compared with the conventional planking on core
strengthening, endurance and balance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study was a single-blinded, experimental pre-test-post-test
study design carried out at Physiotherapy Center in Universiti Tunku
Abdul Rahman (UTAR), Sungai Long Campus, Malaysia. Data
were collected from 14 October 2019 to 29 November 2019 after
obtaining ethical approval (U/SERC/183/2019).
Inclusion Criteria
Individual who does one to three recreational sport in a week
aged between18-25 and with normal flexibility as measured using
Schober test [17,18] were included for the study. While performing
Schober test, the subject’s L5 spinous process was marked (first
line), and a second line was marked 10 cm above the first line and
the subject was instructed to flex forward and remeasured the
distance between two lines with fully flexed position.
Exclusion Criteria
Individual who has shoulder pain or weakness, low back surgery,
any injury for the past 6 months relating to muscle, previously
involved in core strengthening program and who was a professional
athlete were excluded from the study.
Sample size calculation: The sample size was calculated using
G Power 3.1 software. The statistical test used was t-test Repeated
measures, with in-between interaction with the effect size (f) 0.25, Power
of Study was 90% and the total sample size generated was 26 numbers
of participants and a 10% was added to the number of participants for
dropout rate, therefore the number of participants was 32.
Simple random sampling method was employed. The author generated
the random allocation sequence 1 and 2 placed in a box for participants
to draw out their groups. The participants were enrolled and assigned
to respective groups by the author through a draw lot method.

Kiruthika Selvakumar et al., Effect of Plank on Core Muscle Endurance and Stability www.jcdr.net
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2021 Jun, Vol-15(6): YC04-YC10
66
[Table/Fig-1]: Starting position: Body Saw Plank.
[Table/Fig-2]: Ending position: Body Saw Plank.
2. Left-sided planking
The subjects must maintain neutral spine position with pelvic, hip
in neutral and knee extended position. The subject must hold in
that position for a total of 10 seconds and five second rest for two
repetition and total of three sets of exercise. [Table/Fig-3] shows the
position of left-sided planking.
[Table/Fig-3]: Left-sided Planking.
3. Right-sided planking
The subjects must maintain neutral spine position with pelvic in
neutral, hip in neutral, knee extended position. The subject must
hold in that position for a total of 10 seconds and five seconds rest
for two repetition and total of three sets of exercise. [Table/Fig-4]
shows the position of right-sided planking.
[Table/Fig-4]: Right-sided Planking.
[Table/Fig-5]: Bridging.
treatment and were analysed for the primary outcome. There
was no dropout of subject or exclusion as all participant met the
requirement of this study [Table/Fig-7]. Recruitment of participants
was gathered within a period of one week starting from 14 October
2019 till 20 October 2019. The follow-up for each participant was
set at alternate day for training and three times per week. The trail
ended as the collection of data has been completed.
[Table/Fig-6]: Conventional Planking.
4. Bridging
The subjects had lift the pelvic straight up toward the ceiling until the
hip was in neutral position in relation to the pelvis and hold in that
position for 10 seconds and rest for five seconds. A total of three
sets with two repetition was performed in the first week. [Table/
Fig-5] shows the position of bridging.
5. Conventional Planking
The subjects were required to sustain a straight body from head to
toe and hold in that position for 10 seconds and rest for a duration of
five seconds before repeating the exercise. The amount of repetition
starts with two repetition for three sets. [Table/Fig-6] shows the
position of conventional Planking.
For each group, the number of participants who were assigned
according to their draw lot number has received the intended
[Table/Fig-7]: Consort flowchart
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
To organise, tabulate and calculate data, Microsoft Home and
Student version 2016, Microsoft Excel was used. A tool to analyse
the data collected which is Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) version 23.0 software was used. Descriptive
statistics was used to analyse demographic data of every subjects
at their base line. A paired sample t-test was used to identify
significant difference between pre-test result and post-test result
within the same group. Furthermore, an independent t-test was
used to determine the significant difference between post-test on
the subject’s core endurance and dynamic stability between control
group and experimental group. The level of significant difference,
the value of p was set at p<0.05.

www.jcdr.net Kiruthika Selvakumar et al., Effect of Plank on Core Muscle Endurance and Stability
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2021 Jun, Vol-15(6): YC04-YC10 77
RESULTS
Characteristics of subjects
There was no significant difference between both groups as all
characteristics have a significant difference of p-value more than
0.05 [Table/Fig-8]. Characteristic of subject and SEBT data were
normally distributed in which the p-value was >0.05. Moreover,
the McGill Torso Muscular Endurance test data was also normally
distributed with a p-value of >0.05 [Table/Fig-9].
Characteristic
(n=32)
CG (M±SD)
(n=16)
EG (M±SD)
(n=16)
Total (M±SD)
(n=32) p-value
Age (years) 20.94± 1.53 20.31± 1.66 20.63± 1.60 0.053
Gender Male:7
Female:9
Male:7
Female:9
Male:14
Female: 18 -
Height (cm) 163.09 ±7.25 166.31±8.23 164.70±7.74 0.119
Body Weight (kg) 56.46±9.97 58.06± 7.16 57.26±8.57 0.608
BMI 21.08±2.80 20.96±1.91 21.02±2.36 0.895
[Table/Fig-8]: Characteristics of subjects. n=number of participants.
M =Mean; SD =Standard Deviation; CG=Control group; EG=Experimental Group;
cm=centimeters; kg=kilograms; * indicates p-value<0.05 is considered statistically significant;
Shapiro-Wilk Test
Parameters Variables Position Statistic df Sig.
Age 0.935 32 0.053
Height 0.947 32 0.119
Weight 0.888 32 0.608
BMI 0.882 32 0.895
SEBT Left A 0.953 32 0.175
AM 0.992 32 0.996
M 0.980 32 0.812
PM 0.960 32 0.274
P 0.962 32 0.303
PL 0.970 32 0.509
L 0.946 32 0.108
AL 0.960 32 0.269
Right A 0.962 32 0.309
AM 0.975 32 0.635
M 0.959 32 0.265
PM 0.977 32 0.707
P 0.961 32 0.292
PL 0.983 32 0.890
L 0.967 32 0.688
AL 0.964 32 0.348
McGill Test Flx 0.859 32 0.106
Ext 0.885 32 0.627
(L) Flx 0.923 32 0.069
(R) Flx 0.896 32 0.060
[Table/Fig-9]: Normality of Data Distribution. BMI=Body Mass Index; A=Anterior;
AM=Antero-medial; M=Medial; PM=Postero-medial; P=Posterior; PL=Postero-later-
al; L=Lateral; AL=Antero- Lateral; Flx=Flexor; Ext=Extensor; (L) Flx=Left-side Flexor;
(R) Flx=Right-side Flexor; df=Degree of Freedom; Sig.=Significant Difference; *
SEBT=Star excursion balance test; indicates Sig. is <0.05
Test Experimental group Control group
McGill test Pre-test Post-test
p-
value Post-test Post-test
p-
value
Flexion 85.0±36.2 194.4±87.3 0.001* 92.2±54.4 216.6±94.0 0.001*
Extension 85.5±34.2 157.2±49.5 0.001* 94.0±24.9 140.0±47.3 0.002*
Left flexion 53.6±32.1 90.0±30.8 0.001* 51.3±30.9 80.4±34.5 0.001*
Right flexion 48.4±19.8 98.4±28.8 0.001* 49.2±20.6 91.2±37.1 0.001*
[Table/Fig-10]: Comparison of Pre and Post-test of core endurance within
experimental group and control group.
Paired sample t-test was used * indicates p-value<0.05 is considered statistically significant
Comparison of Pre and Post-test of Dynamic Balance of Right
LL within Group
From [Table/Fig-12], it was found that there was a significant difference
in anterior, antero-medial, medial, postero-medial, postero-lateral,
lateral reach direction as well as the composite score of reach
distance in experimental group. In control group, it was found
that there was a significant difference in anterior, medial, posterior,
postero-lateral, lateral and antero-lateral reach direction as well as
the composite score of reach distance.
Experimental group Control group
SEBT Pre-test Post-test p-value Pre-test Post-test p-value
A 86.8±8.6 91.3±7.9 0.660 86.0±11.5 92.0±8.6 0.058
AM 92.5±8.3 98.1±7.3 0.037* 91.6±9.7 95.4±9.0 0.120
M 91.7±9.9 99.0±8.3 0.004* 93.1±8.7 97.5±9.3 0.054
PM 96.9±8.4 106.8±9.1 0.001* 96.6±9.5 101.5±8.6 0.690
P 2.5±10.1 103.4±8.1 0.001* 94.9±12.6 103.1±9.5 0.015*
PL 86.2±11.0 93.8±9.7 0.044* 88.1±11.3 98.4±9.1 0.001*
L 76.8±7.3 84.8±8.1 0.001* 75.9±11.4 91.2±7.2 0.001*
AL 79.8±8.5 81.3±8.5 0.221 78.3±7.5 83.7±9.2 0.019*
Composite 87.9±6.5 94.7±6.5 0.001* 88.1±8.4 95.4±6.2 0.001*
[Table/Fig-11]: Comparison of Pre and Post-test of dynamic balance of left LL
within experimental group and control group.
Paired sample t-test was used; A=Anterior; AM=Antero-medial; M=Medial; PM=Postero-medial;
P=Posterior; PL=Postero-lateral; L=Lateral; AL=Antero- Lateral
Test Experimental group Control group
SEBT Pre-test Post-test p-value Pre-test Post-test p-value
A 87.1±7.5 93.5±7.2 0.003* 86.0±7.6 92.7±9.4 0.003*
AM 91.5±5.4 99.3±5.6 0.001* 91.9±8.7 95.9±9.7 0.070
M 94.2±7.0 102.3±8.8 0.001* 91.7±11.8 99.2±9.4 0.015*
PM 98.0±11.6 104.0±8.6 0.019* 95.2±12.0 100.9±10.3 0.078
P 96.8±12.5 99.1±7.0 0.373 97.5±11.3 102.8±7.8 0.013*
PL 90.1±11.6 95.8±9.3 0.007* 90.1±14.1 100.3±7.4 0.003*
L 74.6±10.3 86.8±10.0 0.001* 73.8±13.5 88.9±10.2 0.001*
AL 81.2±8.7 84.8±8.3 0.115 77.7±8.1 85.9±10.7 0.001*
Composite 89.2±7.4 95.7±5.7 0.001* 88.0±9.1 95.8±6.5 0.001*
[Table/Fig-12]: Comparison of Pre and Post-test of dynamic balance of right LL
within experimental group and control group.
Paired sample t-test was used; * indicates p-value<0.05 is considered statistically significant;
A=Anterior; AM=Antero-medial; M=Medial; PM=Postero- medial; P=Posterior; PL=Postero-
lateral; L=Lateral; AL=Antero- Lateral;
Comparison of Pre and Post-test of Core Endurance within
Group
From [Table/Fig-10], it was found that there was a significant
difference in all components of experimental and there was a
significant difference in all components proving that conventional
exercise was also able to improve core endurance.
Comparison of Pre and Post-test of Dynamic Balance of Left
Lower Limb (LL) within Group
From [Table/Fig-11], it was found that there was a significant difference
in antero-medial, medial, postero-medial, Posterior, postero-lateral
and lateral reach direction as well as the composite score of reach
distance in experimental group. In control group, it was found that
there was a significant difference in Posterior, posterior, postero-
lateral, lateral and antero-lateral reach direction as well as the
composite score of reach distance.
Comparison of Post-test of Core Endurance and Dynamic
Balance between Groups
From [Table/Fig-13], it was found that both control and experimental
group exhibits no significant difference in all the component of the
McGill Test with respect to p-value. This means that both group’s
exercise was able to improve core endurance and they were of the

Kiruthika Selvakumar et al., Effect of Plank on Core Muscle Endurance and Stability www.jcdr.net
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2021 Jun, Vol-15(6): YC04-YC10
88
same efficacy to improve core endurance. For dynamic balance on
Left LL, only the lateral reach direction has a significant difference
with the control group having more improvement than experimental
group. For dynamic balance on Right LL, both groups show no
significant difference in improving dynamic stability. This means that
both groups were able to improve dynamic stability of the right LL
but the efficacy of improvement was the same.
Mc Gill Test Post-test CG Post-test EG p-value
Flx 216.6±94.0 194.4±87.3 0.495
Ext 140.0±47.3 157.2±49.5 0.322
(L) Flx 80.4±34.5 90.0±30.8 0.415
(R) Flx 91.2±37.1 98.4±28.8 0.542
SEBT (L) Post-test CG Post-test EG p-value
A 92.0±8.6 91.3±7.9 0.806
AM 95.4±9.0 98.1±7.3 0.369
M 97.5±9.3 99.0±8.3 0.627
PM 101.5±8.6 106.8±9.1 0.153
P 103.1±9.5 103.4±8.1 0.926
PL 98.4±9.1 93.8±9.7 0.174
L 91.2±7.2 84.8±8.1 0.025*
AL 83.7±9.2 81.3±8.5 0.450
Composite 95.4±6.2 94.7±6.5 0.779
SEBT (R) Post-test CG Post-test EG p-value
A 92.7±9.4 93.5±7.2 0.793
AM 95.9±9.7 99.3±5.6 0.232
M 99.2±9.4 102.3±8.8 0.348
PM 100.9±10.3 104.0±8.6 0.369
P 102.8±7.8 99.1±7.0 0.172
PL 100.3±7.4 95.8±9.3 0.143
L 88.9±10.2 86.8±10.0 0.560
AL 85.9±10.7 84.8±8.3 0.756
Composite 95.8±6.5 95.7±5.7 0.956
[Table/Fig-13]: Comparison of post-test of core endurance and dynamic balance
between groups.
Independent t-test; * indicates p-value<0.05 is considered statistically significant; A=Anterior;
AM=Antero-medial; M=Medial; PM=Postero- medial; P=Posterior; PL=Postero-lateral; L=Lateral;
AL=Antero- Lateral; Flx=Flexor; Ext=Extensor; (L) Flx=Left-side Flexor; (R) Flx=Right-side Flexor
muscle whether ankle plantar flexor or dorsi flexor, this contraction
can cause an increase in muscle activation of the core [24]. This
may be the reason that conventional exercise performed could have
increase the core strengthening properties. It was probable that the
control group subjects may have activated the calf muscle during
the plank and further increases muscle activation of the core muscle,
whereas in experimental group calf muscle won’t be activated due
the static position of calf when sliding and simultaneously movement
in ankle is not allowed.
On the SEBT, both groups exhibited a significant improvement
with the pre-test and post-test analysis which means that both
body saw plank and conventional plank was able to improve
dynamic balance. However, comparison between both exercises
shows no significant difference (p-value>0.05) for all left and
right reach direction except for the lateral reach direction for the
left lower limb dynamic balance. Farzaneh HA et al., conducted
a study on the relationship between SEBT and lower extremity
strength, range of motion and anthropometric characteristic.
Their study proved that SEBT reach distance should be
analysed according to the normalised reach distance of the
subjects and the strength of the lower extremity should be taken
into consideration when testing [25]. Having a good lower limb
strength can facilitate to further reach distance of the SEBT test.
This is because the hip muscle strength also provides stability
for efficient lower extremity movement for optimal function. The
hip muscle co-contracted to eliminate the torque produced
during SEBT test and ultimately provided greater stability and
further reach distances [25].
Furthermore, other factors included postural-control strategy
which could have influence the reach distance of the subjects in
this study. During SEBT test, each subject would not have the
same level of inhibition throughout the movement of all the eight
directions in SEBT, therefore there is a possibility that the subjects
were able to move further or stop prematurely when performing the
test. Coughlan GH et al., conducted a study to compare selected
direction of SEBT and Y-balance test to determine whether there
is any difference between the reach distance on both tests. Result
shows that there was a difference in reach distance between
both tests where SEBT shows a more significant difference. The
author mentioned that the postural control strategy contributed
to the outcome obtained [26]. Moreover, Coughlan GH et al., also
mentioned that the toe-touch on the ground during the reach
distance could have influence the results. There was no definite
way of measuring the amount of pressure exerted on the toe
when touching the ground during SEBT test. The variation of force
applied to the ground by the subjects could lead to a temporary
balance support when reaching out towards the direction of the
test [26]. That being said, there is a possibility that the subject of
this study may have obtained support during the toe-touch period
during reach direction before returning to the starting position.
This could have influenced the result by obtaining further reach
distance, but balance was facilitated with the support of the
ground during the toe-touch period. There is a need to observe
the toe-touch during the test and ensure that the touch does not
exert too much force on the ground to gain support, if so, a re-trial
must be carried out.
Anat L and Patricia K conducted a study on association between
foot morphology and dynamic balance measures using SEBT.
They found that there was an association between foot
morphology and dynamic balance. Subjects who have lower
longitudinal arch than normal (Flat Foot) were able to reach a
further distance in SEBT test. This is because individual who
have a flat foot may lead to an increase range of motion or
ligament laxity to further reach in distance of the SEBT test
DISCUSSION
In comparison between both exercise on core endurance and
dynamic balance, it was found that both exercises were equally
effective when compared with each other. The gathered data was
inconsistent with study conducted by Cugliari G and Boccia G that
body saw plank was better than conventional plank in strengthening
the core muscle [23]. With the McGill Torso Muscular Endurance
Test, body saw plank and conventional plank was able to improve
core endurance significantly (p-value<0.05) but however comparison
of both exercises shows no significant difference to which exercise
had a better effect on core endurance. There were several factors
which led to the result were that during the body saw plank
intervention, the subjects reported that the body saw plank was
more physically demanding and tiresome with the rhythmic forward
and backward of the exercise. These results were in accordance
with study by Cugliari G and Boccia G (2017). They reported that
body saw plank has a higher muscular activation compared with
conventional plank. Due to the higher muscle activation, this have
led to the subjects having trouble performing the exercise during the
final set of the exercise which could have cause inadequate training
towards the core muscle [23]. On the other hand, compensation
could have led to higher increase in activation of core muscle with
conventional plank exercise. Choi JH et al., conducted a research
on trunk muscle activity with isometric contraction of the calf muscle
on plank exercise. When there is an isometric contraction of the calf

www.jcdr.net Kiruthika Selvakumar et al., Effect of Plank on Core Muscle Endurance and Stability
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2021 Jun, Vol-15(6): YC04-YC10 99
[27]. Another probable cause would be individual who have
flat foot have a broader base of support which led to better
balance. Therefore, there is a need to assess the foot type of the
subjects before conducting the SEBT test to prevent possible
biases or skewness in result. Last but not least, there is no
definite published guideline or protocol on how to properly be
administered the SEBT test which could have led to a variation
in interpretation and administration of the SEBT.
Limitation(s)
Firstly, a core training for six weeks was a short amount of training
for the core muscle. Hoppes CW et al., conducted a study on
the efficacy of an eight week intervention for core endurance and
muscular function and recommended that training duration for
core muscle should be eight weeks or more in order to obtain
a truly significant result [28]. Hence, it is highly recommended to
have core training with a minimum of eight weeks intervention.
Secondly, due to several subjects had fallen ill, the training was
abrupted and cause the subject to train inconsistently which could
have led to reduction of adherence towards training protocol.
Next, when performing conventional plank, ensure that there is
no activation of the calf muscle to prevent further activation of the
core muscle unless intended to. The strength, flexibility and foot
type of the lower limb must be taken into consideration prior to
conducting the SEBT test as it can affect the test result. There was
some confounding factor that might have led to have caused the
inconsistency with previous study. The confounding factors were
friction from doing sliding of body saw plank causing reduced
activation of core muscle, dynamic movement of body saw plank
was tough for some participants leading to ineffectiveness of
exercise.
CONCLUSION(S)
In conclusion, both body saw plank and conventional plank was
able to improve core endurance and dynamic balance among
recreational athletes. However, there was no significant difference
between both groups in core endurance. Furthermore, there was
no significant difference between both groups in dynamic balance.
With there being no significant difference between the two groups,
the hypothesis body saw plank was better than prone bridging
in improving core endurance and stability and prone bridging
was better than body saw plank in improving core endurance
and stability was rejected and the null hypothesis was accepted
as proven through data analysis. For enhancing core muscle
endurance and dynamic stability both exercises were able to
provide the same effect towards the core muscle and can be used
as part of core training protocol.
Acknowledgement
It was with deepest and greatest appreciation and a heartfelt
thanks to all the people involved in providing knowledge and
guidance throughout this research project. A special thanks
directed to my supervisor, co-supervisor, this research thesis
would not be possible without their constant encouragement,
patience and guidance towards this research with outmost
efforts.
A special thanks to Teo Boon Boon for providing a helping hand in
this research as an outcome assessor and ensuring the pre-test
and post-test was conducted in a smooth and fast manner. Also,
for assisting in the setup of this research. Furthermore, I would
also like to say my thanks and show my appreciation towards
Scientific and Ethical Review committee for their suggestion on
improving my research methods and allowing the conduct of this
research.
Moreover, it was with great pleasure to express my gratitude
towards each and every participant for their voluntary effort and
time for completion of data collection within the stipulated time.
Without them, the fulfilment of this research would not be possible.
Last but not least, my acknowledgement with utmost gratitude
towards my friends and family for their unwavering love and support
throughout the entire process of this study. Also, I would like to
thank my classmate for their idea in improving this research study
by providing countless amount of suggestions which lead to the
creation of this study.
REFERENCES
Akuthota V, Ferreiro A, Moore T, Fredericson M. Core stability exercise principles. [1]
Current Sports Medicine Reports. 2008;7(1):39-44.
Chung EJ, Kim JH, Lee BH. The effects of core stabilisation exercise on [2]
dynamic balance and gait function in stroke patients. J Phys Ther Sci.
2013;25(7):803-06.
Barati A, SafarCherati A, Aghayari A, Azizi F, Abbasi H. Evaluation of relationship [3]
between trunk muscle endurance and static balance in male students. Asian J
Sports Med. 2013;4(4):289-94.
Tong TK, Wu S, Nie J, Baker JS, Lin H. The occurrence of core muscle fatigue [4]
during high-intensity running exercise and its limitation to performance:
The role of respiratory work. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine.
2014;13(2):244-51.
Laquale K. Nutritional needs of the recreational athlete. Athl Ther Today. [5]
2009;14(1):12-15.
Sharma V, Kaur J. Effect of core strengthening with pelvic proprioceptive [6]
neuromuscular facilitation on trunk, balance, gait, and function in chronic stroke.
J Exerc Rehabil. 2017;13(2):200-05.
Biering-Sorensen F. Physical measurements as risk indicators for low-back [7]
trouble over a one-year period. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1984;9(2):106-19.
McGill S. Core training: Evidence translating to better performance and injury [8]
prevention. Strength and Conditioning Journal. 2010;32(3):33-46.
D’Amico J, Betlach M, Senkarik R, Smith R, Voight M. Return to golf following left [9]
total hip arthroplasty in a golfer who is right handed. N Am J Sports Phys Ther
[Internet]. 2007;2(4):251-61.
Hofstetter M-C, Mader U, Wyss T. Effects of a 7-week outdoor circuit tarining [10]
progra, on swiss army recruits. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(12):3418-25.
Schoenfeld BJ, Contreras B, Tiryaki-Sonmez G, Willardson JM, Fontana F. An [11]
electromyographic comparison of a modified version of the plank with a long
lever and posterior tilt versus the traditional plank exercise. Sport Biomech.
2014;13(3):296-306.
Lehman GJ, Hoda W, Oliver S. Trunk muscle activity during bridging exercises on [12]
and off a Swissball. Chiropr Osteopat. 2005;13(1):01-08.
Kahle NL, Gribble PA. Core stability training in dynamic balance testing among [13]
young, healthy adults. Athl Train ports Heal Care. 2009;1(2):65-73.
Youdas JW, Coleman KC, Holstad EE, Long SD, Veldkamp NL, Hollman JH. [14]
Magnitudes of muscle activation of spine stabilisers in healthy adults during
prone on elbow planking exercises with and without a fitness ball. Physiotherapy
Theory and Practice. 2018;34(3):212-22.
Dale P. Body Saw Exercise Guide_ Muscles Worked, How-To, Benefits, [15]
Variations, And Tips [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://fitnessvolt.com/
body-saw/
How to Build Core Strength W ith the Bodysaw [Internet]. 2016. Available from: [16]
https://www.stack.com/a/how-to-build-core-strength-with-the-bodysaw
Cidem M, Karacan I, Uludag M. Normal range of spinal mobility for healthy young [17]
adult Turkish men. Rheumatology International. 2012;32(8):2265-69.
Validation of the Turkish version of the quebec back pain disability scale for [18]
patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(6):E219-24.
Bredin SSD, Gledhill N, Jamnik VK, Warburton DER. PAR-Q+and ePARmed-X+: [19]
New risk stratification and physical activity clearance strategy for physicians and
patients alike. Can Fam Physician. 2013;59(3):273-77.
McGill SM, Childs A, Liebenson C. Endurance times for low back stabilisation [20]
exercises: Clinical targets for testing and training from a normal database. Arch
Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80(8):941-44.
Gribble. PA, Hertel. J. Considerations for normalising measures of the star [21]
excursion balance test. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 2003;7(2):89-100.
Lee B. Trainability of core stiffness: studies of core training methods on naive and [22]
savvy populations [Internet]. UWSPACE Waterloo’s Institutional Repository. 2013.
Available from: https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/8206/
Lee_Benjamin.pdf
Cugliari G, Boccia G. Core muscle activation in suspension training exercises. J [23]
Hum Kinet. 2017;56(1):61-71.
Choi JH, Kim DE, Cynn HS. Comparison of Trunk Muscle Activity Between [24]
Traditional Plank Exercise and Plank Exercise With Isometric Contraction of
Ankle Muscles in Subjects With Chronic Low Back Pain. Journal of strength and
conditioning research. 2019.
Hesari AF, Golpaigani M, Ortakand SM, Nodehi MA., Nikolaïdis PT. The [25]
relationship between star excursion balance test and lower extremity
strength, range of motion and anthropometric characteristics. Med Sportiva.
2012;17(1):24-8.

Kiruthika Selvakumar et al., Effect of Plank on Core Muscle Endurance and Stability www.jcdr.net
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2021 Jun, Vol-15(6): YC04-YC10
1010
Coughlan GF, Fullam K, Delahunt E, Gissane C, Caulfield BM. A comparison [26]
between performance on selected directions of the star excursion balance test
and the Y balance test. Journal of Athletic Training. 2012;47(4):366-71.
Anat L, Patricia K. The association between foot morphology and dynamic [27]
balance performance as measured by the star excursion balance test. J Exerc
Sport Orthop. 2015;2(3):01-07.
Hoppes CW, Sperier AD, Hopkins CF, Griffiths BD, Principe MF, Schnall BL, [28]
et al. The efficacy of an eight-week core stabilisation program on core muscle
function and endurance: a randomized trial. Int J Sports Phys Ther [Internet].
2016;11(4):507-19.
PARTICULARS OF CONTRIBUTORS:
1. Lecturer, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Physiotherapy, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Cheras, Selangor, Malaysia.
2. Professor and Principal, Department of Physiotherapy, KG College of Physiotherapy, (The Tamilnadu Dr MGR Medical University), Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.
3. Lecturer, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Physiotherapy, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Cheras, Selangor, Malaysia.
4. BPT Student, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Physiotherapy, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Cheras, Selangor, Malaysia.
5. Assistant Professor, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Physiotherapy, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Cheras, Selangor, Malaysia.
PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS: [Jain H et al.]
• Plagiarism X-checker: Dec 31, 2021
• Manual Googling: Mar 27, 2021
• iThenticate Software: May 29, 2021 (10%)
ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin
NAME, ADDRESS, E-MAIL ID OF THE CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Kiruthika Selvakumar,
A6-8-6 Green Acre Park Condo, Jalan Sungai Long,
Bandar Sungai Long, Cheras, Selangor, Malaysia.
E-mail: kiruthika@utar.edu.my
Date of Submission: Dec 22, 2020
Date of Peer Review: Jan 05, 2021
Date of Acceptance: May 05, 2021
Date of Publishing: Jun 01, 2021
AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes