REF-1786 · Wu et al., 2026 · Sports Biomechanics, 1-19 · Paper · PubMed

In amateur golfers, 8 weeks of supervised anti-movement core training three times a week raised peak X-factor velocity and peak thorax rotation velocity in the swing, which traditional core training did not significantly change, while both raised clubhead speed

One three-arm randomised trial of unreported size, on golf-swing mechanics, not on any endurance outcome

Main caveat: Sample size, arm sizes, exercise content, magnitudes and control-group results are not in the abstract.
limited, mixed evidenceMeasured on recreational to trained athletesRead from the abstract only

Wu and colleagues randomised amateur golfers to anti-movement core training (exercises that resist trunk motion, described as multi-planar), traditional core training, or no added training for 8 weeks, with supervised sessions three times a week. Before and after, they recorded external-oblique EMG and 3D thorax and pelvis motion during the golf swing.

The anti-movement group showed a phase-specific pattern of abdominal co-activation, more during the takeaway and backswing and a quick drop in early downswing, which differed significantly from the traditional group.

Both training groups increased clubhead speed, but only the anti-movement group significantly increased peak X-factor velocity (the speed of separation between thorax and pelvis rotation) and peak thorax rotational velocity; pelvic rotational velocity did not change.

The authors suggest multi-planar anti-movement exercises as a useful way to improve trunk coordination and swing performance in amateur golfers.

Participants

Amateur golfers; number, sex, age, handicap and training background are not in the abstract.

Protocol

EXP: anti-movement core training (multi-planar); TCP: traditional core training; CON: no added training. The exercises, sets, reps and session length are not in the abstract.
8 weeks, supervised, three sessions a week for both training groups.
Measures before and after: external-oblique surface EMG with antagonist co-activation by swing phase; 3D kinematics of thorax and pelvis; clubhead speed.

Key Results

OutcomeEXP (anti-movement)TCP (traditional)Between groups
External-oblique co-activationup in takeaway and backswing, rapid drop in early downswingnot describedEXP differed from TCP (p < 0.05)
Clubhead speedimprovedimproveddifference not reported in the abstract
Peak X-factor velocityincreased (p < 0.05)no significant increaseauthors conclude greater gains after EXP; no test given
Peak thorax rotational velocityincreased (p < 0.05)no significant increaseauthors conclude greater gains after EXP; no test given
Pelvic rotational velocityunchangedunchanged—
No magnitudes, effect sizes or control-group results are given in the abstract.

Practical Application

For a golfer, anti-movement core work went with faster trunk rotation in the swing than traditional core work, but clubhead speed, the performance result, rose with both. One trial of unreported size in amateur golfers, read from its abstract.
What it cannot tell a cyclist or runner: nothing here measured endurance performance, economy, holding a position on the bike, or injury. The base still has no core-training trial with an endurance-performance outcome (SYNTH-83), and this paper does not change that.
It is not the head-to-head trial [SYNTH-107] lacks. That guide notes that no trial ranks the Pallof press against other named trunk exercises on strength, endurance, performance or injury; this one compares two categories of core training on golf-swing mechanics, and the abstract names no exercises.
Inference, not tested here: for an endurance athlete who keeps a short core block, an anti-rotation exercise is a reasonable choice beside a hold, as SYNTH-107 already advises on practice grounds; this golf trial does not add evidence that it makes anyone faster on a bike or run.

Limitations

Sample size, arm sizes, exercise content, magnitudes and control-group results are not in the abstract; the between-group difference in clubhead speed is not reported.
Co-activation from surface EMG is a marker; the kinematic gains are swing mechanics, not ball or score outcomes.
Amateur golfers only; a rotational, single-effort skill far from endurance sport.
Blinding, dropouts and the control group's activity are not described in the abstract.
Written from the abstract and the PubMed record; full text not read.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

a three-arm parallel RCT whose abstract gives no sample size, no exercise list and no magnitudes, so the per-arm size cannot be checked (key methods missing); the co-activation result is an EMG marker