Core Endurance in University-Level Fast Bowlers: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective Fast bowling in cricket involves repetitive, high-velocity trunk movements that increase lumbar spine stress, making core endurance critical for spinal stability, bowling efficiency, and injury prevention. This study aimed to assess core endurance and lateral asymmetries in university-level fast bowlers. Methods Forty-two healthy male university fast bowlers (mean age: 20.19 ± 1.50 years), including 39 right-arm (92.9%) and three left-arm (7.1%) bowlers, who trained ≥3 times per week, participated in the study. The McGill Torso Endurance Test was employed to evaluate flexor, extensor, and lateral core endurance. Hold times were recorded, and descriptive statistics with paired and independent t-tests analyzed asymmetries. Results Mean core endurance times were 103.86 ± 23.91 seconds (flexor), 56.66 ± 11.94 seconds (extensor), 92.49 ± 26.79 seconds (right plank), and 79.56 ± 23.19 seconds (left plank). Compared to McGill norms (144 seconds, flexor; 146 seconds, extensor), participants showed reduced endurance, especially posteriorly. A significant lateral asymmetry was found, with 38 bowlers (90.5%) exhibiting longer hold times on the dominant side (mean difference = 12.92 seconds; p<0.001). Right-arm bowlers had greater right-side endurance, while the numerically smaller left-arm subgroup showed an opposite trend, though the differences were not statistically significant under unequal variance assumptions. Conclusions University-level fast bowlers demonstrated notable deficits in core endurance and significant side-to-side asymmetry favoring the dominant side, likely reflecting sport-specific adaptations. These findings underscore the need for targeted core conditioning, including unilateral training, to enhance spinal stability, reduce injury risk, and support bowling performance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".