Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Strength Cond Res. 2014 Jul;28(7):1920-7. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000336.

Responsiveness of the double limb lowering test and lower abdominal muscle progression to core stabilization exercise programs in healthy adults: a pilot study.

Author information

1
1School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida; 2Department of Kinesiology, Pennsylvania State University; and 3Department of Kinesiology, University of Connecticut.

Abstract

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most prevalent and expensive health care problems in the United States. Studies suggest that stabilization exercise may be effective in the management of people with LBP. To accurately assess the effect of stabilization programs on muscle performance, clinicians need an objective measure that is both valid and reliable. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the double limb lowering test (DLLT) and lower abdominal muscle progression (LAMP) can detect a change in abdominal muscle performance after stabilization exercises. Eleven healthy participants (4 men and 7 women) were randomly assigned to either a specific stabilization exercise (SSE) or general stabilization exercise (GSE) group and were evaluated by the DLLT and LAMP before, during, and at the end of 8 weeks of training. Subjects attended exercise sessions twice per week over 8 weeks. No significant difference in pretest performance existed between the 2 groups. No significant difference was detected with the DLLT for either the SSE or GSE over time or when groups were combined. The LAMP detected a significant difference for the combined groups and GSE but not SSE over time. These data indicate that the LAMP is sensitive to change after a spinal stabilization program, whereas the DLLT does not detect a change after these programs. Furthermore, the GSE was more effective in producing these changes. Additional testing of these assessments is necessary to further validate these tests and to identify specific populations for which these tests may be most appropriate.

PMID:
24343322
DOI:
10.1519/JSC.0000000000000336
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Lippincott Williams & Wilkins - Ovid Insights
    Loading ...
    Support Center