A major emphasis of research over the past decade is the introduction of various modes of instability in resistance training and the application as a training modality for athletes as well as health and fitness enthusiasts, although its use as a rehabilitative tool has received less attention. Historically, physical therapists were using balls before World War II (consequently, the term physioballs). German and Swiss (consequently, the term Swiss balls) physical therapists were especially active in using balls for sports training and therapy. These applications have continued to the present day. For example, the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology position stand (13) on the use of instability to train the core musculature states the following: “Individuals who are involved with rehabilitation, health-related fitness pursuits or cannot access or are less interested in the training stresses associated with ground based free weight lifts, can also receive beneficial resistance training adaptations with instability devices and exercises to achieve functional health benefits.” Instability exercises and devices have been defined as promoting postural disequilibrium or imbalance as postural sway projects the center of mass beyond the device's area of support or in other cases, reaction forces can change the center of pressure because of surface distortions (e.g., low-density foam cushion, sand) (14).
Research has indicated that introducing greater levels of instability or dynamic lumbar stabilization during resistance training tends to decrease force output albeit with high muscle activation (14); this might not be considered optimal for athletic conditioning (13) but could be more relevant for rehabilitation purposes. The progressive introduction of greater instability during resistance exercises might have application in the prevention and treatment of common ailments, such as low back pain (LBP), and limb and joint injuries (25,34).
Specific training practices aimed at targeting the stabilizing action of the spinal muscles are an important consideration in the rehabilitation of LBP (1). For example, a strong trunk provides a solid foundation for the torques generated by the limbs when performing daily and athletic activities. Increased strength of the low back musculature is not necessarily associated with the prevention of LBP (78-80). However, it may provide some protection when greater forces are needed during performance of athletic skills or certain occupational tasks (19-21). Conversely, decreased muscular endurance of the low back musculature (77,81) and impaired coordination (3,46,49) is strongly associated with LBP. Furthermore, the coordinated activation of the core musculature is critical to ensure sufficient spinal stability at different time points throughout a movement task. A recent study by Hubley-Kozey et al. (54) demonstrated variations in activation sequences among muscles of the abdominal wall during a supine bilateral leg raising task. Greater consistency in the muscle activation sequence was noted among individuals who were better able to control lumbar-pelvic motion (lordosis versus anterior pelvic tilt monitored with reflexive tape on the iliac crest by video camera), especially during phases of the task in which the hips and knees were extended, creating greater resistive torque.
The purpose of this review is to examine the instability resistance training literature to determine the appropriateness and role of this training modality as a rehabilitation tool. The bulk of the literature has investigated the acute and chronic responses to instability training with healthy uninjured individuals. It is our objective to evaluate and translate these findings for the purposes of injury prevention and rehabilitation. With these objectives in mind, this review article will begin by defining core muscle stability; illustrate few studies that have examined prevention of injuries using instability; examine the effects of instability on core and limb muscle activation, motor control, force, and power; and then based on this literature, provide clinical recommendations.
DEFINITION OF CORE MUSCLE STABILITY
Many published articles espouse the advantage of progressively increasing the level of instability for resistance exercises that involve the core musculature (7,11,14,15). Willson et al. (106) defined the core as the lumbopelvic hip complex, consisting of the lumbar spine, pelvis, and hip joints and the active and passive tissues that produce or restrict motion of these segments. Although this definition may be appropriate from a rehabilitation perspective, Behm et al. (14) provided a more expansive definition such that the anatomical core was defined as the axial skeleton and all soft tissues with a proximal attachment originating on the axial skeleton, regardless of whether the soft tissue terminates on the axial or appendicular skeleton (upper and lower extremities). These soft tissues can act to generate motion (concentric action) or resist motion (eccentric and isometric actions). This broader definition illustrates the potential interconnection between the stabilizing capacity of the core musculature and injuries that may occur distally in the extremities. The prevention of LBP and, in some cases, limb and joint injuries can be based on the ability of the core muscles to stabilize the vertebral system (1,25).
Panjabi (83,84) divided the stabilizing system into 3 distinct subsystems: the passive subsystem, the active muscle subsystem, and the active neural subsystem. The passive subsystem consists of the vertebral ligaments, thoracolumbar fascia, intervertebral discs, and facet joints. Although the vertebral ligaments are equipped with proprioceptors that relay sensory feedback to the central nervous system (52,59,83), the passive subsystem has limited potential to stabilize the vertebral column. In vitro experiments have demonstrated that the osteoligamentous lumbar spine buckled under compressive loading of approximately 90 N (i.e., 9.2 kg) (83), whereas the mass of the body in a standing position exceeds 10,000 N during dynamic lifting tasks (27). The ability to withstand these large forces is dependent on additional stabilization provided by the active muscle subsystem.
Tension development within the active muscle system is provided by the abdominal (e.g., transversus abdominis, internal obliques) and paraspinal (e.g., multifidus) muscles, which increase the stiffness of the spine to enhance stability. These muscles function in transferring torques and angular momentum during the performance of integrated kinetic chain activities involving the limbs, such as throwing or kicking (31,64,104). The active neural subsystem controls the recruitment of the core musculature via feed-forward and feedback mechanisms. Feed-forward mechanisms are pre-planned motor programs in preparation for movement, whereas feedback mechanisms are used to fine tune motor programs as skills are performed with greater efficiency over time. The goal of instability exercises is to place demands on both the spinal feed-forward and feedback systems to reprogram them for healthy functioning.
PREVENTION OF INJURIES TO THE EXTREMITIES
Impaired neuromuscular control of the core muscles and/or core muscle weakness can predispose individuals not only to low back injuries but also to lower extremity injuries (37,55,57,68,79,80,86). These associations support the adoption of core muscle training programs for injury prevention. The rehabilitation literature has reported the successful application of balance training to reduce the incidence of ankle sprains in a group of volleyball players (101). This decrease in ankle injury incidence may be related to the improved discrimination of ankle inversion movements found with wobble board training (102). Similarly, the use of tai chi has been reported to improve knee joint proprioception (97) and functional balance (39) in elderly individuals. The utilization of unstable devices has been shown to be effective in decreasing the incidence of LBP and increasing the sensory efficiency of soft tissues that stabilize the knee and ankle joints (22,25,100). The combination of resistance training and balance stressors may be an efficient means of improving balance and strength that is important for preventing sports-related injuries and recuperating individuals who cannot withstand heavier loads or high resistance.
INSTABILITY EFFECTS ON CORE MUSCLE ACTIVATION
Reeves et al. (88) explained that training the core musculature improves the robustness of the stabilizing system, potentially protecting against low back injuries. A recent study by Durall et al. (34) indicated that there were no new incidences of LBP reported in collegiate gymnasts who participated in a 10-week core muscle training program that incorporated progressive manual loading of the side bridge and prone back extension exercises in addition to their normal trunk flexion exercises. As described in the previous section, training the core musculature can also help prevent joint injuries distally in the upper and lower extremities. It has been proposed that the demands of lifting while supported on an unstable surface will elicit an increase in core muscle activation to maintain postural equilibrium during performance of a given exercise (43). Thus, exercises that can improve the coordination (3,6,18,22) and extent (25,29) of core muscle activation potentially enhance the prevention and rehabilitation of LBP and accompanying extremity injuries.
However, it must be remembered that spinal stabilization strategies are task specific; thus, the ideal approach in rehabilitation and athletic training settings is to incorporate a variety of exercises that require different muscle activation sequences. Keogh et al. (62) examined whether endurance performance for common trunk stability exercises (trunk flexion, side bridge, and prone bridge) could distinguish differences in strength for a dumbbell shoulder press on a stable bench versus a Swiss ball. Subjects were divided into groups based on the ratio of strength on the Swiss ball relative to the stable bench; those with higher ratios exhibited similar dumbbell shoulder press strength on each surface. Surprisingly, the findings indicated that there was little relationship between performance on the trunk stability exercises and the percentage strength on the Swiss ball relative to the stable bench. The authors concluded that core stability exhibits relatively high levels of task specificity and that performance in common core stabilizing drills may not enhance performance in more dynamic multijoint activities.
A greater extent of core muscle activation has been demonstrated when performing exercises while supported on unstable surfaces versus performing the same exercises under stable conditions (5,8,100). Increased core muscle activation can be achieved whether the instability is derived from a platform (e.g., inflatable discs or balls) or an unstable apparatus moved by the limbs (e.g., chains, partially filled jugs of water). For example, performing chest presses (40) while lying on an unstable ball or push-ups with hands placed on a ball result in an increased core activation (53) compared with a stable bench or floor, respectively. Increased abdominal muscle activity was reported when performing push-ups, squats (72), and chest presses (74), respectively, on a physioball compared with the stable ground or bench. Anderson and Behm (7) had subjects perform squats on a Smith machine (bar guided by rails), on a stable floor, and on inflatable discs. They reported that higher degrees of instability (inflatable discs>squat>Smith machine) when performing a squat resulted in approximately 20-30% greater activation of the spinal stabilizing muscles (upper and lower erector spinae). Instability devices may provide lower loading for the extremities, yet elicit higher core muscle activation (14).
Conversely, Freeman et al. (38) reported that ballistic dynamic push-ups required greater muscle activation of core muscles and spinal loading (shear forces on vertebral column) as compared with the modest increases in spinal loading when push-ups were performed on basketballs. Recent studies by Kohler et al. (65) and Uribe et al. (99) reported little differences in core or limb muscle activation for resistance exercises performed on unstable surfaces as compared with stable surfaces. Kohler et al. (65) assessed the activation of several muscles (i.e., medial deltoid, triceps brachii, rectus abdominis, external oblique abdominis, upper erector spinae) during performance of a barbell shoulder press on a stable bench or a Swiss ball with a 10 repetition maximum (RM) load (relative to each surface). The results indicated that for the medial deltoid and triceps brachii, the shoulder press performed on a bench elicited 4.2% and 14.3% greater activation, respectively, than when performed on a Swiss ball. For the rectus abdominis and external oblique abdominis, the shoulder press performed on a bench elicited 21.2% and 18.7% greater activation, respectively, than when performed on a Swiss ball. Conversely, for the upper erector spinae, the barbell shoulder press on a Swiss ball elicited 15.6% greater activity than when performed on a bench.
Similarly, Uribe et al. (99) assessed the activation of the pectoralis major, anterior deltoid, and rectus abdominis during performance of a dumbbell chest press and shoulder press on a bench or Swiss ball with 80% of a 1RM load (relative to a stable surface). The results indicated no significant differences between surfaces for the muscles assessed during both exercises. For chest press and shoulder press exercises, the Swiss ball does not appear to sufficiently challenge the maintenance of postural equilibrium to significantly alter core or limb muscle activity from when these exercises are performed on a stable bench.
However, a potential disadvantage of performing resistance exercises on unstable surfaces is that ultimately the external loading might be limited relative to ground-based free weight training. Marshall and Desai (73) stated, “When compared with relatively basic to teach and perform resistance exercises such as shoulder extensions, squats, and deadlifts, the use of a Swiss ball seems redundant. Additionally, the benefit of conventional resistance training is that increasing the external load will increase the activity of muscle groups of interest, while allowing for periodization and progression of the training dose over time, whereas a Swiss ball based program appears to require more complex and difficult movements for ongoing progression” (pp. 1543-1544). Furthermore, both Hamlyn et al. (44) and Nuzzo et al. (82) demonstrated that squats and deadlifts produced greater activation of the erector spinae muscles versus unstable calisthenic exercises such as the superman exercise and side bridge. The amount of external resistance that can safely be lifted and controlled on an unstable surface (i.e., hemispherical physioball) is ultimately limited relative to a ground-based condition. Willardson et al. (105) reported significantly higher muscle activity for the rectus abdominis during the overhead press and transversus abdominis/internal oblique abdominis during the overhead press and biceps curl when lifting with 75% of 1RM on stable ground versus lifting with 50% of 1RM on a hemispherical physioball. Conversely, there were no significant differences in muscle activity for the external oblique abdominis and erector spinae for the squat, deadlift, overhead press, and biceps curl when lifting with 75% of 1RM on stable ground or with 50% of 1RM on a hemispherical physioball. The intent of this experiment was to determine whether the unstable surface would compensate for less resistance relative to the ground-based condition with greater resistance; instability did not in this case. A ground-based condition with equal resistance (50% 1RM) for the control condition resulted in greater activity of the transversus abdominis/internal obliques (although not significant) versus the unstable condition. This result further indicates that the unstable surface was not necessary. Overall, Willardson et al. (105) did not demonstrate any advantage in using a hemispherical physioball for training the core musculature.
The clinical significance of these findings is that although competitive athletes with performance-based goals may be able to achieve greater core muscle activation with higher-load ground-based free weight exercises, physical therapists and individuals training for health and rehabilitation may choose to achieve high core muscle activation with lower loads while supported on unstable surfaces or using relatively unstable implements. Typically, individuals with LBP experience impairments in the coordination or motor control of core musculature (18,46,49). Although certain ground-based free weight exercises, such as squat and deadlifts, can provide greater core muscle activation, they also necessitate higher levels of intermuscle coordination. If intermuscle coordination is impaired with chronic LBP, a healthy alternative may be the high activation that can be achieved with lower-resistance unstable exercises that involve bracing (i.e., cocontraction) of the abdominal musculature. Jorgensen et al. (58) demonstrated moderate to high activation levels (i.e., 60-80% maximal voluntary contraction) of the rectus abdominis, external oblique abdominis, erector spinae, and trapezius in untrained women who performed progressively more difficult versions of the supine bridge, quadruped, side bridge, and prone plank. These findings suggest that for untrained individuals, the utilization of body mass and manipulation of resistive torque via postural adjustments can sufficiently load the core musculature to increase strength and localize muscular endurance.
Long-term instability training in sedentary individuals may improve spinal stability. Carter et al. (25) had previously sedentary individuals train on physioballs twice a week for 10 weeks. After training, these subjects scored significantly better on a static back endurance and side bridge test as compared with controls. However, the control group used in this study remained sedentary rather than being compared with traditional training. Cosio-Lima et al. (29) illustrated greater gains in torso balance and trunk electromyographic (EMG) activity after 5 weeks of physioball training compared with traditional floor exercises in women. Untrained individuals involved in 7 (63) or 8 weeks (94) of either traditional stable or instability resistance training found no differences in force, static balance, or functional performance between the groups. However, all measures improved over time for both the unstable and stable trained groups. In the study by Sparkes and Behm (94), there was a trend (P = 0.08) for the unstable group to increase unstable forces to a greater extent. Hence, traditional resistance training techniques provided similar results in these 2 studies.
INSTABILITY EFFECTS ON LIMB MUSCLE ACTIVATION
Exercises performed on unstable surfaces can increase not only core muscle activation but also limb muscle activation and cocontractions. Triceps and deltoid muscle activity were increased when push-ups and chest presses (60% of 1RM) were performed under unstable (push-ups on a ball; chest press lying on a ball) versus stable conditions (72,74). Both the short and long heads of the biceps can function as anterior stabilizers of the glenohumeral joint and their roles in stabilization increases as joint stability decreases (56). There is typically also a decrease in force output in conjunction with the high limb muscle activation (14), emphasizing the switch from muscle mobilizing to stabilizing functions (5).
Generally, cocontractile activity increases when training on unstable support surfaces (12). The role of the antagonist in this case may have been to control the position of the limb when producing force. Antagonist activity has been reported to be greater when uncertainty exists in the required task (32,71). Increased antagonist activity may also be present to increase joint stiffness (61) and hence stability (51). Furthermore, cocontractions are prevalent for joint protection (9). This role for joint protection was reported as early as 1965 (17) and is essential in protecting the joints from excessive forces (10,98).
Although increased antagonist activity could be used for protection, to improve motor control, balance (35), and mechanical impedance (opposition to a disruptive force) (51), it would also contribute to a greater decrement in force during unstable conditions by providing greater resistance to the intended motion. However, continued training may result in lower coactivation levels during lifting activities (23). More research is needed to determine if the use of unstable surfaces to improve balance and stability and decrease movement uncertainty might decrease cocontractions, which in terms of energy conservation may improve movement efficiency.
It should be noted that the instability-induced higher muscle activation and cocontractions while exerting lower force, which could be an advantage for rehabilitating injuries such as sprains and strains, might not be as appropriate for some other conditions such as arthritis. Based on the assumption of linear or near-linear force-EMG relations (4), the high muscle activation should produce similar amounts of internal force production. In conjunction with instability-induced greater cocontractions, internal muscle and joint tension may remain high, which could lead to pain with an arthritic joint. Furthermore, as the arthritic joint may be stiff or hypomobile, greater stability is likely not to be recommended. Hence, caution should be used if recommending this type of training in a rehabilitation setting because internal muscle tension may remain high. This is an area for future research.
INSTABILITY EFFECTS ON MOTOR CONTROL
Appropriate coordination or motor control of the core muscles may be as or more important than the extent of muscle activation. Akuthota and Nadler (3) stated that motor relearning may be more important than strengthening in patients with LBP. There are many studies that report motor control deficits of the core muscles in patients with LBP (18,46,49,89). Deep trunk stabilizers, such as the transversus abdominis and multifidus, respond with anticipatory postural adjustments (APAs) to movements of the upper or lower limbs (31,45-50). In healthy individuals, the activation of stabilizing muscles precedes the instant of force application when unstable (66,93). Individuals with LBP tend to display delays or disruptions in this protective APA. These delays can occur in other muscles as well. For example, the rectus abdominis and erector spinae were delayed during rapid shoulder (46) and hip (49) flexion in a group of subjects with chronic LBP compared with those in the healthy controls. A delayed reflex response of trunk muscles is reported to be a risk factor for low back injuries in athletes (107). Other motor control difficulties can also arise with LBP. Radebold et al. (87) found that the antagonist muscle group was delayed in contracting, whereas the agonist was delayed in relaxing during quick trunk flexion and extension in a group of subjects with chronic LBP. Chronic LBP has also been associated with early or over recruitment of certain stabilizing muscles. Ferguson et al. (36) found that the erector spinae contracted earlier and longer during lifting tasks in a group of subjects with chronic LBP compared with that in healthy controls. Thus, exercises that can reprogram appropriate anticipatory and concomitant postural adjustments would be important for the prevention and rehabilitation of LBP. These responses would include an appropriate anticipatory response by dorsal (e.g., multifidus, erector spinae) and ventral (e.g., transversus abdominis, internal obliques) trunk stabilizing muscles but also include the appropriate motor coordination to deactivate these muscles upon completion of the movement.
The anticipatory contraction to prestiffen joints before movement is not unique to the spine and has been shown in peripheral joints as well (28). The contraction of the upper trapezius, biceps, and rotator cuff of the shoulder (28) has been shown to anticipate movement in healthy subjects. Therefore, instability training of the upper body may help to improve stability of the shoulder joint.
Anderson and Behm (6) commented that resistance training in general can not only increase muscular strength but also improve the coordination of synergistic and antagonist muscle activity, leading to improved stability. Training on unstable surfaces has been reported to promote APAs (41). Repeated exposures to unstable surfaces allow for modification and knowledge of the surface resulting in proactive (70) or feed-forward (85) adjustments. Joint stability exercises, balance training, and perturbation training can significantly improve neuromuscular control (22). Furthermore, the sensitivity of afferent feedback pathways can be improved with balance and motor skill training (18), resulting in quicker onset times of stabilizing muscles (6). For example, a back extensor rehabilitation training program of 2-week duration reduced reaction times in patients with LBP to a similar time as healthy controls (103). Instability training may promote agonist-antagonist cocontractions with shorter latency periods that allow for rapid stiffening and protection of joint complexes (14). However, increased antagonist activity may also contribute negatively to strength and power development by opposing the intended direction of motion (33). Drinkwater et al. (33) found decreases in power, velocity, and range of motion when performing a squat under unstable versus stable conditions. This may partially help explain why isolated training for core musculature may be useful in rehabilitation programs but less consistently effective in sports conditioning programs (13,14,104). Thus, it seems apparent that instability resistance training and balance training in a rehabilitation program can improve the extent of core muscle activation and the coordination or motor control of the core stabilizers. Traditional resistance training can accomplish the same muscle activation goals but may necessitate the use of greater resistances.
EFFECTS OF INSTABILITY ON FORCE AND POWER
Whereas the reported impairments of force and power under conditions of instability may limit athletic strength, power, and hypertrophy training (13), it may be more advantageous with rehabilitation exercises. Instability-induced decreases in force output have been documented during leg extension (↓70%) (12), plantar flexion (↓20%) (12), and isometric chest press (↓60%) (5). However, during the isometric chest press, there was no significant difference for the limb and chest muscles' activity between the unstable versus stable conditions. The similar extent of muscle activation accompanied by decreased force with instability suggested that the muscles' ability to apply external force was transferred into greater stabilizing functions (greater emphasis on isometric contractions) (5). Using unstable implements, muscular force and power decreased 20-40% (66,67). Although isometric force production appears to be reduced, maximal dynamic barbell bench press strength on the physioball compared with a stable flat bench is not affected (30,42). Thus, there seems to be some evidence that dynamic resistance training, which usually does not involve maximal contractions, does not experience the same extent of force decrement as maximal isometric contractions. Hence, it may be possible during rehabilitation to use lower resistances while still ensuring relatively high muscle activation around the recuperating joint or limb.
A stiffening strategy, which may be adopted when individuals are presented with a threat of instability (24), can adversely affect the magnitude and rate of voluntary movements (2). Kornecki and Zschorlich (67) demonstrated that muscular stabilization of the joint caused approximately 30% decrement in force, velocity, and power during unstable pushing movements compared with stable. Performing squats under unstable conditions resulted in decreased force, power, range of motion, rate of force development, and velocity (33,75). Although this motor control characteristic would not be optimal for developing maximal strength and power in athletes (13), the slower and more deliberate movements when unstable would be more similar to the rate of movement typically used in the earlier stages of rehabilitation (95).
The use of unstable devices may provide benefits in rehabilitation type settings to restore normal function of the core musculature among injured individuals. Resistance exercises performed on unstable devices train the agonists and increases activation of the core musculature. For example, performing a dumbbell chest press while bridged on a physioball simultaneously trains the prime movers for this lift (e.g., pectoralis major, anterior portion of the deltoid, and triceps brachii) and increases activation of the core musculature (e.g., erector spinae, gluteus maximus, hamstrings group). First, the lower force (5,12,92) and power output for the agonists (33) in association with relatively high muscle activation may decrease the resistive torques experienced by the soft tissues but still provides activation of a large spectrum of the muscle fibers. Second, the instability-induced lower resistance may facilitate a greater emphasis on endurance work (14) during the rehabilitation process.
Further modifications, in addition to unstable surfaces may be instituted with limb resistance training exercises to emphasize the core musculature. Traditional resistance exercises are more often bilateral using either a barbell or a pair of dumbbells. Conversely, numerous activities of daily living, occupational tasks, and sport actions are unilateral (e.g., racquet sports, baseball) (76), and thus, unilateral exercises may be more beneficial because they adhere to the principle of training specificity (91). Behm et al. (15) reported greater upper lumbar and lumbosacral erector spinae activation during the unilateral shoulder press and greater lower abdominal stabilizer activity during the unilateral chest press. Rather than implementing an unstable base, unilateral resisted actions would provide a disruptive torque to the body, thus providing another type of unstable condition. Therefore, an effective strategy to stimulate the spinal stabilizers while training the upper limbs would be to use one dumbbell during the action (16,92). Unilateral contractions can also stimulate neural activity in the contralateral but inactive limb, referred to as cross education (60). Therefore, by training the contralateral healthy limb, the injured limb may maintain greater strength, while also stimulating activation of the core muscles.
For back health, it is unnecessary to load the vertebrae with excessive loads as maximum stiffness of a vertebral joint can be achieved with contractions as low as 25% of maximal voluntary contraction (31). Furthermore, the efficiency of the multifidus, a deep stabilizer, can be improved with training loads of 30-40% of maximal voluntary contraction (26). Thus, lower loads with higher repetitions should theoretically provide sufficient training stresses for the prevention or rehabilitation of low back problems. Furthermore, the inherent characteristics of the core musculature may determine the volume necessary to elicit adaptations. For example, aerobic-type muscle fibers (type I) comprise the majority (>80%) of the erector spinae (69), multifidus, and longissimus thoracis (96) muscles in healthy men and women. The combination of exercises with low force requirements and core muscles with high fatigue resistance may necessitate a high volume to induce sufficient fatigue for a training effect. High volume, even with relatively low force, will gradually increase the muscle fiber recruitment by inducing fatigue of the lower threshold motor units, thereby recruiting higher threshold motor units (90). Because muscle activation tends to be higher when the same exercises are performed under unstable conditions (6,7,11,12-15), the volume of repetitions should be lower when back-specific exercises are performed under unstable versus stable conditions. Therefore, based on the relatively high proportion of type I fibers, the core musculature might respond particularly well to multiple sets that involve high repetitions (e.g., >15 per set) (13).
Considering the potential benefits of coactivation in joint injury prevention and treatment and in balance, there are implications for instability training in rehabilitation. However, the routine use of instability resistance training may have a consequence of reduced force output because of the resistive forces from coactivation. For example, a barbell squat load that an athlete perceives as maximal on an unstable platform likely decreases well below the 85% 1RM recommendation for strength development on a stable platform. Therefore, a therapist in a rehabilitation setting may routinely recommend instability training because high-load lifting is usually avoided but high muscle activation and coordination are maintained.
1. Abenhaim L, Rossignol M, Valat JP, Nordin M, Avouac B, Blotman F, Charlot J, Dreiser L, Legrand E, Rozenberg S, and Vautravers P. The role of activity in the therapeutic management of back pain. Report of the International Paris Task Force on Pain. Spine
25: 1S-33S, 2000.
2. Adkin AL, Frank JS, Carpenter MG, and Peysar GW. Fear of falling modifies anticipatory postural control. Exp Brain Res
143: 160-170, 2002.
3. Akuthota V and Nadler SF. Core strengthening. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
85: S86-S92, 2004.
4. Alkner BA, Tesch PA, and Berg HE. Quadriceps EMG/force relationship in knee extension and leg press. Med Sci Sports Exerc
32: 459-463, 2000.
5. Anderson K and Behm D. Maintenance of EMG activity and loss of force output with instability. J Strength Cond Res
18: 637-640, 2004.
6. Anderson K and Behm DG. The impact of instability resistance training on balance
and stability. Sports Med
35: 43-53, 2005.
7. Anderson K and Behm DG. Trunk muscle activity increases with unstable squat movements. Can J Appl Physiol
30: 33-45, 2005.
8. Arjmand N and Shirazi-Adl A. Biomechanics of changes in lumbar posture in static lifting. Spine
30: 2637-2648, 2005.
9. Baratta R, Solomonow M, Zhou BH, Letson D, Chuinard R, and D'Ambrosia R. Muscular coactivation: The role of the antagonist musculature in maintaining knee stability. Am Sports Med
16: 113-122, 1988.
10. Behm DG. Debilitation to adaptation. J Strength Cond Res
7: 65-75, 1993.
11. Behm DG and Anderson K. The role of instability with resistance training. J Strength Cond Res
20: 716-722, 2006.
12. Behm DG, Anderson K, and Curnew RS. Muscle force and activation under stable and unstable conditions. J Strength Cond Res
16: 416-422, 2002.
13. Behm DG, Drinkwater EJ, Willardson JM, and Cowley PM. Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology Position Stand: The use of instability to train the core in athletic and non-athletic conditioning. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab
35: 11-14, 2010.
14. Behm DG, Drinkwater EJ, Willardson JM, and Cowley PM. The use of instability to train the core musculature. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab
35: 5-23, 2010.
15. Behm DG, Leonard A, Young W, Bonsey A, and MacKinnon S. Trunk muscle EMG activity with unstable and unilateral exercises. J Strength Cond Res
19: 193-201, 2005.
16. Behm DG, Power KE, and Drinkwater EJ. Muscle activation is enhanced with multi- and uni-articular bilateral versus unilateral contractions. Can J Appl Physiol
28: 38-52, 2003.
17. Bierman W and Ralston HJ. Electromyographic study during passive and active flexion and extension of the knee of the normal human subject. Arch Physical Med
110: 71-75, 1965.
18. Borghuis J, Hof AL, and Lemmink KA. The importance of sensory-motor control in providing core stability: Implications for measurement and training. Sports Med
38: 893-916, 2008.
19. Cady LD, Bischoff DP, and O'Connell ER. Strength and fitness and subsequent back injuries
in fire fighters. J Occup Med
21: 269-272, 1979.
20. Cairns MC, Foster NE, and Wright C. Randomized controlled trial of specific spinal stabilization exercises and conventional physiotherapy for recurrent low back pain
31: E670-E681, 2006.
21. Caldwell JS, Mcnair PJ, and Williams M. The effects of repetitive motion on lumbar flexion and erector spinae muscle activity in rowers. Clin Biomech
18: 704-711, 2003.
22. Caraffa A, Cerulli G, Projetti M, Aisa G, and Rizzo A. Prevention of anterior cruciate ligament injuries
in soccer. A prospective controlled study of proprioceptive training. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc
4: 19-21, 1996.
23. Carolan B and Cafarelli E. Adaptations in coactivation after isometric resistance training. J Appl Physiol
73: 911-917, 1992.
24. Carpenter MG, Frank JS, Silcher CP, and Peysar GW. The influence of postural threat on the control of upright stance. Exp Brain Res
138: 210-218, 2001.
25. Carter JM, Beam WC, McMahan SG, Barr ML, and Brown LE. The effects of stability ball training on spinal stability in sedentary individuals. J Strength Cond Res
20: 429-435, 2006.
26. Cholewicki J and McGill SM. Mechanical stability of the in vivo lumbar spine: Implications for injury and chronic low back pain
. Clin Biomech
11: 1-15, 1996.
27. Cholewicki J, McGill SM, and Norman RW. Lumbar spine loads during the lifting of extremely heavy weights. Med Sci Sports Exerc
23: 1179-1186, 1991.
28. Comerford MJ and Mottram SL. Functional stability re-training: Principles and strategies for managing mechanical dysfunction. Man Ther
6: 3-14, 2001.
29. Cosio-Lima LM, Reynolds KL, Winter C, Paolone V, and Jones MT. Effects of physioball and conventional floor exercises on early phase adaptations in back and abdominal core stability and balance
in women. J Strength Cond Res
17: 721-725, 2003.
30. Cowley PM, Swensen T, and Sforzo GA. Efficacy of instability resistance training. Int J Sports Med
28: 829-835, 2007.
31. Cresswell AG and Thorstensson A. Changes in intra-abdominal pressure, trunk muscle activation and force during isokinetic lifting and lowering. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol
68: 315-321, 1994.
32. De Luca CJ and Mambrito B. Voluntary control of motor units in human antagonist muscles: Coactivation and reciprocal activation. J Neurophysiol
58: 525-542, 1987.
33. Drinkwater E, Pritchett E, and Behm DG. Effect of instability and resistance on unintentional squat lifting kinetics. Int J Sports Physiol Perform
2: 400-413, 2007.
34. Durall CJ, Udermann BE, Johansen DR, Gibson B, Reineke DM, and Reuteman P. The effects of preseason trunk muscle training on low-back pain occurrence in women collegiate gymnasts. J Strength Cond Res
23: 86-92, 2009.
35. Engelhorn R. Agonist and antagonist muscle EMG activity pattern changes with skill acquisition. Res Q Exerc Sport
54: 315-323, 1983.
36. Ferguson SA, Marras WS, Burr DL, Davis KG, and Gupta P. Differences in motor recruitment and resulting kinematics between low back pain
patients and asymptomatic participants during lifting exertions. Clin Biomech
19: 992-999, 2004.
37. Fredericson M, Cookingham CL, Chaudhari AM, Dowdell BC, Oestreicher N, and Sahrmann SA. Hip abductor weakness in distance runners with iliotibial band syndrome. Clin J Sport Med
10: 169-175, 2000.
38. Freeman S, Karpowicz A, Gray J, and McGill S. Quantifying muscle patterns and spine load during various forms of the push-up. Med Sci Sports Exerc
38: 570-577, 2006.
39. Fuzhong L, Harmer P, Fisher KJ, and MCauley E. Tai chi: Improving functional balance
and predicting subsequent falls in older persons. Med Sci Sports Exerc
36: 2046-2052, 2004.
40. Gaetz M, Norwood J, and Anderson G. EMG activity of trunk stabilizers during stable/unstable bench press. Can J Appl Physiol
29: S48, 2004.
41. Gantchev GN and Dimitrova DM. Anticipatory postural adjustments associated with arm movements during balancing on unstable support surface. Int J Psychophysiol
22: 117-122, 1996.
42. Goodman CA, Pearce AJ, Nicholes CJ, Gatt BM, and Fairweather IH. No difference in 1 RM strength and muscle activation during the barbell chest press on a stable and unstable surface. J Strength Cond Res
22: 88-94, 2008.
43. Grenier SG, Vera-Garcia FJ, and McGill SM. Abdominal response during curl-ups on both stable and labile surfaces. Phys Therapy
86: 564-569, 2000.
44. Hamlyn N, Behm DG, and Young WB. Trunk muscle activation during dynamic weight training exercises and isometric instability activities. J Strength Cond Res
21: 1108-1112, 2007.
45. Hodges PW, Cresswell AG, and Thorstensson A. Preparatory trunk motion accompanies rapid upper limb movement. Exp Brain Res
124: 69-79, 1999.
46. Hodges PW and Richardson CA. Inefficient muscular stabilization of the lumbar spine associated with low back pain
21: 2640-2650, 1996.
47. Hodges PW and Richardson CA. Feedforward contraction of transverse abdominis is not influenced by the direction of arm movement. Exp Brain Res
114: 362-370, 1997.
48. Hodges PW and Richardson CA. Relationship between limb movement speed and associated contraction of the trunk muscles. Ergonomics
40: 1220-1230, 1997.
49. Hodges PW and Richardson CA. Delayed postural contraction of transversus abdominis in low back pain
associated with movement of the lower limb. J Spinal Disord
11: 46-56, 1998.
50. Hodges PW and Richardson CA. Transverse abdominis and the superficial abdominal muscles are controlled independently in a postural task. Neurosci Lett
265: 91-94, 1999.
51. Hogan N. Adaptive control of mechanical impedance by coactivation of antagonist muscles. IEEE Trans Autom Control
29: 681-690, 1984.
52. Holm S, Indahl A, and Solomonow M. Sensorimotor control of the spine. J Electromyogr Kinesiol
12: 219-234, 2002.
53. Holtzmann M, Gaetz M, and Anderson G. EMG activity of trunk stabilizers during stable and unstable push-ups. Can J Appl Physiol
29: S55, 2004.
54. Hubley-Kozey CL, Hatfield GL, and Davidson KC. Temporal coactivation of abdominal muscles during dynamic stability exercises. J Strength Cond Res
24: 1246-1255, 2010.
55. Ireland ML, Willson JD, Ballantyne BT, and Davis IM. Hip strength in females with and without patellofemoral pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
33: 671-676, 2003.
56. Itoi E, Kuechle D, Newman S, Morrey B, and An K. Stabilizing function of the biceps in stable and unstable shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg
75: 546-550, 1993.
57. Jacobs CA, Uhl TL, Mattacola CG, Shapiro R, and Rayens WS. Hip abductor function and lower extremity landing kinematics: Sex differences. J Athletic Train
42: 76-83, 2007.
58. Jorgensen MB, Andersen LL, Kirk N, Pedersen MT, Sogaard K, and Holtermann A. Muscle activity during functional coordination training: Implications for strength gain and rehabilitation. J Strength Cond Res
59. Kang YM, Choi WS, and Pickar JG. Electrophysiologic evidence for an intersegmental reflex pathway between lumbar paraspinal tissues. Spine
27: E56-E63, 2002.
60. Kannus P, Alosa D, Cook L, Johnson RJ, Renström P, Pope M, Beynnon B, Nichols C, and Kaplan M. Effect of one-legged exercise on the strength, power and endurance of the contralateral leg. A randomized, controlled study using isometric and concentric isokinetic training. Eur J Appl Physiol
64: 117-126, 1992.
61. Karst GM and Hasan Z. Antagonist muscle activity during human forearm movements under varying kinematic and loading conditions. Exp Brain Res
67: 391-401, 1987.
62. Keogh JW, Aickin SE, and Oldham AR. Can common measures of core stability distinguish performance in a shoulder pressing task under stable and unstable conditions? J Strength Cond Res
24: 422-429, 2010.
63. Kibele A and Behm DG. Seven weeks of instability and traditional resistance training effects on strength, balance
and functional performance. J Strength Cond Res
23: 2443-2450, 2009.
64. Kibler WB, Press J, and Sciascia A. The role of core stability in athletic function. Sports Med
36: 189-198, 2006.
65. Kohler JM, Flanagan SP, and Whiting WC. Muscle activation patterns while lifting stable and unstable loads on stable and unstable surfaces. J Strength Cond Res
24: 313-321, 2010.
66. Kornecki S, Kebel A, and Siemienski A. Muscular cooperation during joint stabilization, as reflected by EMG. Eur J Appl Physiol
85: 453-461, 2001.
67. Kornecki S and Zschorlich V. The nature of stabilizing functions of skeletal muscles. J Biomech
27: 215-225, 1994.
68. Leetun DT, Ireland ML, Willson JD, Ballantyne BT, and Davis IM. Core stability measures as risk factors for lower extremity injury in athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc
36: 926-934, 2004.
69. Mannion AF, Dumas GA, Cooper RG, Espinosa FJ, Faris MW, and Stevenson JM. Muscle fiber size and type distribution in thoracic and lumbar regions of erector spinae in healthy subjects without low back pain
: Normal values and sex differences. J Anatomy
190: 505-513, 1997.
70. Marigold DS and Patla AE. Strategies for dynamic stability during locomotion on a slippery surface: Effects of prior experience and knowledge. J Neurophysiol
88: 339-353, 2002.
71. Marsden CD, Obeso JA, and Rothwell JC. The function of the antagonist muscle during fast limb movements in man. J Physiol
335: 1-13, 1983.
72. Marshall P and Murphy B. Changes in muscle activity and perceived exertion during exercises performed on a Swiss ball. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab
31: 376-383, 2006.
73. Marshall PW and Desai I. Electromyographic analysis of upper body, lower body, and abdominal muscles during advanced Swiss ball exercises. J Strength Cond Res
24: 1537-1545, 2010.
74. Marshall PW and Murphy BA. Increased deltoid and abdominal muscle activity during Swiss ball bench press. J Strength Cond Res
20: 745-750, 2006.
75. McBride J, Cormie P, and Deane R. Isometric squat force output and muscle activity in stable and unstable conditions. J Strength Cond Res
20: 915-918, 2006.
76. McCurdy K and Conner C. Unilateral support resistance training incorporating the hip and knee. Strength Cond J
25(2): 45-51, 2003.
77. McGill SM. Low back stability: From formal description to issues for performance and rehabilitation. Exerc Sport Sci Rev
29: 26-31, 2001.
78. Nadler SF, Malanga GA, Bartoli LA, Feinberg JH, Prybicen M, and Deprince M. Hip muscle imbalance and low back pain
in athletes: Influence of core strengthening. Med Sci Sports Exerc
34: 9-16, 2002.
79. Nadler SF, Malanga GA, Deprince M, Stitik TP, and Feinberg JH. The relationship between lower extremity injury, low back pain
, and hip muscle strength in male and female collegiate athletes. Clin J Sport Med
10: 89-97, 2000.
80. Nadler SF, Malanga GA, Feinberg JH, Prybicien M, Stitik TP, and Deprince M. Relationship between hip muscle imbalance and occurrence of low back pain
in collegiate athletes: A prospective study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil
80: 572-577, 2001.
81. Nourbakhsh MR and Arab AM. Relationship between mechanical factors and incidence of low back pain
. J Orthoped Sports Physical Ther
32: 447-460, 2002.
82. Nuzzo JL, McCaulley GO, Cormie P, Cavill MJ, and Mcbride JM. Trunk muscle activity during stability ball and free weight exercises. J Strength Cond Res
22: 95-102, 2008.
83. Panjabi MM. The stabilizing system of the spine. Part I. Function, dysfunction, adaptation, and enhancement. J Spinal Disord
5: 383-389, 1992.
84. Panjabi MM. The stabilizing system of the spine. Part II. Neutral zone and instability hypothesis. J Spinal Disord
5: 390-396, 1992.
85. Pavol MJ and Pai Y-C. Feedforward adaptations are used to compensate for a potential loss of balance
. Exp Brain Res
145: 528-538, 2002.
86. Pollard CD, Sigward SM, and Powers CM. Gender differences in hip joint kinematics and kinetics during side-step cutting maneuver. Clin J Sport Med
17: 38-42, 2007.
87. Radebold A, Cholewicki J, Polzhofer GK, and Greene HS. Impaired postural control of the lumbar spine is associated with delayed muscle response times in patients with chronic idiopathic low back pain
26: 724-730, 2001.
88. Reeves NP, Narendra KS, and Cholewicki J. Spine stability: The six blind men and the elephant. Clin Biomech
22: 266-274, 2007.
89. Richardson C, Jull G, Hodges PW, and Hides JA. Therapeutic Exercise for Spinal Segmental Stabilization in Low Back Pain
. London, United Kingdom: Churchill Livingstone, 1999. pp. 81-90.
90. Sale DG. Influence of Exercise and Training on Motor Unit Activation
. Windsor, Canada: Human Kinetics Publishers, 1987. pp. 95-151.
91. Sale DG. Neural adaptation to resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc
20: 135-145, 1988.
92. Santana JC, Vera-Garcia FJ, and McGill SM. A kinetic and electromyographic comparison of the standing cable press and bench press. J Strength Cond Res
21: 1271-1279, 2007.
93. Slijper H and Latash M. The effects of instability and additional hand support on anticipatory postural adjustments in leg, trunk, and arm muscles during standing. Exp Brain Res
135: 81-93, 2000.
94. Sparkes R and Behm DG. Training adaptations associated with an 8 week instability resistance training program with recreationally active individuals. J Strength Cond Res
24: 1931-1941, 2010.
95. St-Pierre DMM, LaForest S, Paradis S, Leroux M, Charron J, Racette D, and Dalzell M. Isokinetic rehabilitation after arthroscopic meniscectomy. Eur J Appl Physiol
64: 437-443, 1992.
96. Thorstensson A and Carlson H. Fibre types in human lumbar back muscles. Acta Physiol Scand
131: 195-202, 1987.
97. Tsang W and Hui-Chan C. Effects of tai chi on joint proprioception and stability limits in elderly subjects. Med Sci Sports Exerc
35: 1962-1971, 2003.
98. Tyler AE and Hutton RS. Was Sherrington right about co-contractions? Brain Res
370: 171-175, 1986.
99. Uribe BP, Coburn JW, Brown LE, Judelson DA, Khamoui AV, and Nguyen D. Muscle activation when performing the chest press and shoulder press on a stable bench vs. a Swiss ball. J Strength Cond Res
24: 1028-1033, 2010.
100. Vera-Garcia FJ, Elvira JL, Brown SH, and McGill SM. Effects of abdominal stabilization maneuvers on the control of spine motion and stability against sudden trunk perturbations. J Electromyogr Kinesiol
17: 556-567, 2007.
101. Verhagen EA, van TM, van der Beek AJ, Bouter LM, and van MW. An economic evaluation of a proprioceptive balance
board training programme for the prevention of ankle sprains in volleyball. Br J Sports Med
39: 111-115, 2005.
102. Waddington G, Seward H, Wrigley T, Lacey N, and Adams R. Comparing wobble board and jump-landing training effects on knee and ankle movement discrimination. J Sci Med Sport
3: 449-459, 2000.
103. Wilder DG, Aleksiev AR, Magnusson ML, Pope MH, Spratt KF, and Goel VK. Muscular response to sudden load. A tool to evaluate fatigue and rehabilitation. Spine
21: 2628-2639, 1996.
104. Willardson JM. Core stability training: Applications to sports conditioning programs. J Strength Cond Res
21: 979-985, 2007.
105. Willardson JM, Fontana FE, and Bressel E. Effect of surface stability on core muscle activity for dynamic resistance exercises. Int J Sports Physiol Perform
4: 97-109, 2009.
106. Willson JD, Dougherty CP, Ireland ML, and Davis IM. Core stability and its relationship to lower extremity function and injury. J Am Acad Orthop Surg
13: 316-325, 2005.
107. Zazulak BT, Hewett TE, Reeves NP, Goldberg B, and Cholewicki J. Deficits in neuromuscular control of the trunk predict knee injury risk: A prospective biomechanical-epidemiologic study. Am J Sports Med
35: 1123-1130, 2007.