Effects of Eight Weeks of TRX and CXWORX Exercises on Trunk Muscle Strength, Core Endurance, and Dynamic Balance of Female College Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: Core stability and strengthening core stability muscles have become one of the new topics in the field of sports medicine. The present study aims to compare the effects of eight weeks of TRX and CXWORX exercises on core endurance, trunk muscle strength, and dynamic balance of female college students. Methods: This quasi-experiment study was conducted on 30 young healthy female college students. They were randomly divided into two experimental groups of TRX (n=10), CXWORX (n=10) and one control group (n=10). In the pre-test phase, trunk muscle strength was evaluated by sit-up test, dynamic balance by Y-balance test, and core endurance by McGill core endurance test. Then, experimental groups performed eight weeks of selected training program, 3 sessions per week, while the control group was asked to do their daily activities. After intervention, the three groups underwent post-test assessments. Shapiro-Wilk test was used to investigate the normality of data distribution, and repeated measured ANOVA was used to compare data. The significance level was set at P≤0.05. Results: Both TRX and CXWORX had a positive effect on the participants’ trunk muscle strength, core endurance, and dynamic balance such that their mean scores increased after training. The TRX group performed better than the CXWORX group in all study variables (P≤0.05), except for the Y balance at the anterior direction. Conclusion: Both TRX and CXWORX exercises have positive effects on the trunk muscle strength, core endurance, and dynamic balance of female college students, where the effect of TRX was greater. Therefore, occupational therapists and trainers are recommended to use both exercises, especially TRX to improve core muscle strength and endurance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".