1. Biomechanical Analysis of The Complete Core Conditioner
Corresponding Author: Brandon Hossack
Engineering and Human Performance Lab, University of Lethbridge
683 Heritage Boulevard West, T1K 7E6
1(403)619-1509
brandonhossack@gmail.com
BACKGROUND: Core stability competence has seen an increase in attention due to the
possible linkage between acute training effects, as well as long-term health benefits. A
substantial amount of core exercise machines have stated the advantage of training they may
provide, but innovative machines are on the rise.
OBJECTIVE: This study is to provide insight and scientific evidence as to whether or not the
Complete Core Conditioner will provide an increase in core exercise intensity for acute and/or
long-term health benefits.
METHODS: A sample of 9 university students were subjected to exercises involving flexion
and extension about the trunk both on and off of the Complete Core Conditioner. Data was
analyzed to determine whether the Complete Core Conditioner provided a workout of increased
intensity.
RESULTS: The Complete Core Conditioner provided subjects with an increase in range of
motion, but not in maximal velocity throughout each exercise.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the Complete Core Conditioner provided an increase in range of
motion suggesting a higher intensive workout, further research is needed to validate the
suggested increased effects of core stability exercise on this machine.
Keywords: Complete Core Conditioner, Core Exercise, Core Stability, Core Strength, Range of
Motion, Movement Velocity.

2. INTRODUCTION
Core exercise has become
increasingly popular for not only the acute
effects of strength maximization or
aesthetics but has also been associated with
improving athletic performance, injury
prevention, and the potential capacity for
alleviating low back pain [1]. Due to the rise
of public obsession with the linkage core
training has with bodily aesthetics, exercise
machines have been innovated to
incorporate the maximal amount of core
training in the shortest given time period of
exercise. Although this could be considered
as a significant driving factor in
technological advancements involving core
training, innovators have also considered the
benefits of core stability due to core exercise
with a more long-term approach. Helping
with postural control and movement
efficiency, satisfactory core stability and
coordination can prevent compensatory
movement patterns that often lead to strain
and overuse injuries [1]. The purpose of this
study was to determine whether or not the
Complete Core Conditioner would provide a
patient or exerciser with an increased
intensity of exercise when comparing similar
abdominal exercises to those commonly
performed on the floor to achieve this
standard in a more efficient manner.
Anatomically, the core is defined to
include not only the axial skeleton, but also
all soft tissue with proximal attachment
points to the axial skeleton itself [2]. Core
exercises are designed to innervate maximal
amounts of these muscles in a coordinated
manner to ensure that there is not an offset
of strength gains, leading to the possibility
of injury or future lower back pain (LBC).
The rectus abdominis, internal and external
obliques, and transverse abdominis are the
most common muscles incorporated with
concentric flexion of the trunk, and resisting
isometric or eccentric extension about the
hips [3]. For this reason, we tested the
Complete Core Conditioner through a series
of exercises primarily involving flexion and
extension of the trunk.
It has long been debated as to
whether core stability exercise is more
beneficial than general exercise for the
treatment of low back pain. Past research
has found through a meta-analysis that core
stability exercise is more effective in
decreasing acute pain and may improve
physical function in those with lower back
pain (Wang, Zheng, Yu, Bi, Lou, Liu, Cai,
Hua, Wu, Wei, Shen, 2012)[4]. This has
driven scientists and innovators to
developing an abdominal exercise machine
that targets core stability programs, but also
possesses the novelty of time efficiency. To
do so, exercise intensity must be increased
through each repetition of the exercise
program.
Full range of motion (ROM) should
be considered when applying core stability
exercises to a workout regimen. By
subjecting themselves to shortened ROM,
patients and exercisers are only maintaining,
or improving, partial segments of their
muscles. More specifically, the gains of
strength or stability are localized to the
ranges at which the muscles are being
activated throughout the particular exercise
repetition. This eventually leads to
instability within the core and limited
postural stability if not corrected early.
Utilizing a full ROM throughout a particular
exercise is essential, as it will provide
greater strength gains throughout the full
length of the muscle [5]. This leads to more
even distribution of strength, and does not
limit core stability and postural control in
various positions. Through an increased
range of motion the exerciser or patient will
find an increase in exercise intensity. There
is more work being performed within each

3. repetition, in turn, proving to be a more
efficient exercise for training or maintaining
strength. This study examines the extent to
which the CCC can improve or impede
range of motion through various core
stability exercises.
Movement velocity has also been
linked to exercise intensity. Recent literature
(Conceição, Fernandes, Lewis, Gonzaléz-
Badillo, Jimenéz-Reyes, 2015) found a
strong relationship between maximum
instantaneous movement velocity within an
exercise repetition and the %1RM among
participants in a study involving three lower
body exercises [6]. Using a linear regression
equation, an individual’s %1RM can be
accurately predicted from the movement
velocity incorporated with submaximal
loading. Through the correlation of
movement velocity and exercise intensity,
this study also uses the movement velocity
of subjects throughout exercise on the
Complete Core Conditioner and compares it
with that of similar exercise on a more
traditional, flat surface.
METHODS
Participants
Students from the University of Lethbridge
were recruited for this study and
compensated with participation marks that
would contribute to their cumulative grade
in their respective courses from which they
were introduced to the study. There were 23
males and females recruited, but only 9 of
them contributed data towards analysis for
this study. All subjects were students at the
University of Lethbridge and completed a
PAR-Q assessment to assess whether or not
the individual was capable in performing a
short bout of exercise. Each subject was able
to complete the warm-up, exercise bout, and
debrief in a half hour.
Experimental Procedures
To analyze the relationship of
exercise intensity of specific exercises
performed on the CCC and similar exercises
performed on the floor, a cross-sectional
study design was used.
Originally, researchers had designed
pilot tests involving self-designed exercises
that were tailored to both the CCC as well as
a flat surface such as a mat or the floor.
Subjects found some of the exercises too
difficult, or were unable to properly position
themselves on the CCC to accommodate the
exercise. Because of these pilot tests we
were better able to design exercises and
assess subjects through more basic core
stability movements on both the CCC as
well as the floor. Furthermore, the warm-up
for each of the subjects had not been
formerly established, so data collected from
inconsistent subject procedures were not
taken into account. The data obtained from
the pilot tests were not included in this
study.
Upon entering the lab in which the
CCC was located, subjects were introduced
to the researchers and familiarized with the
CCC itself. Full explanation was given as to
why the study was being conducted, and
questions were answered regarding the
machine or the study in general. Each of the
subjects was then introduced to the warm-up
consisting of a low intensity aerobic exercise
that provided the subject with movement
through extensive ranges of motion.
Subjects were randomized to
perform the exercises on the floor first,
followed by the same exercises on the CCC,
and vice versa. This was to ensure fatigue
was not reflected in the results and did not
influence movement behaviour in
accordance to the particular setting for each
exercise.
Including the most common
muscle(s) involving flexion and extension of
the trunk, we used three exercises commonly

4. used in core training on the floor or a flat
surface. These included a pronated leg raise
(figure 1), a supine crunch (figure 2), and a
supine leg crunch (figure 3). The latter of the
three utilized more lower body movement
than the supine crunch. Each subject was to
perform the three exercises on the floor as
well as the modified version on the CCC.
Again, randomized order was enforced,
although exercises involving either the CCC
or the floor were done together. The subject
was to complete 5 repetitions of each of the
three exercises beginning with the floor or
the CCC, and would continue to do the same
three exercises in the complimentary setting,
in sequential order. The pronated leg raise
was tested first, supine crunch second, and
the supine leg crunch last. Participants were
instructed how to properly complete each
exercise through demonstration of continual
repetitions. Constant supervision was
provided to ensure postural features were
maintained throughout each of the exercises
in order to establish continuity among
exercises for each of the subjects. If a
participant was to deviate from the given
exercise, verbal instructions were made
clear. For example, ‘bend your knees’
during the supine leg crunch, or ‘maintain a
90 degree angle at the knee joint’ during the
supine crunch.
Once three exercises had been
completed on the floor or the CCC, the
subject would switch settings and perform
the same three exercises. Verbal instructions
and further demonstrations were given
between each exercise. Subjects were
continually told to focus more on the
movement patterns of each exercise rather
than completing the repetitions as fast as
possible.
There were no exclusion criteria for
this study, however it was required to have
completed a PAR-Q assessment to ensure
safety throughout the testing.
Instrumentation
Once questions from the subjects had
been answered and each of them had been
introduced to the procedures of the study,
they were asked to complete a Physical
Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q)
assessment. This asked simple questions
relating to the physical capabilities of low to
moderate exercise, and whether it was safe
to do so for each of the participants. Prior to
being subjected to any form of exercise, the
subject’s completed PAR-Q assessment was
examined by the researcher to ensure safety
was controlled.
The subjects were then put through a
warm-up consisting of low intensity aerobic
exercise. The song titled ‘Head and
Shoulders, Knees and Toes’ from the album
titled PLAY; Action Songs for Kids was
played at low to medium volume. Each
subject was to follow along with the words
and touch the spoken body segment. This
was to emphasize the flexion and extension
of multiple joints while incorporating
submaximal ranges of motion and lightly
increasing heart rate.
The Complete Core Conditioner
provided the subjects with an opportunity to
execute each exercise with different postures
and varying grip points. Although these can
be manipulated for comfort, we ensured
handles were positioned in consistent
locations for each of the subjects.
Infrared cameras were used for
motion capture in the Engineering and
Human Performance Lab located within the
University of Lethbridge. Reflective markers
were attached by adhesive material to each
of the subject’s primary joints that would
undergo change in a core stability exercise.
These included the shoulder, elbow, wrist,
hip, knee and ankle on both sides of the
body. Vicon Motus software enabled
researchers to digitize the motion of each of
the markers and correctly label them with
each of the corresponding joints.

5. The exercises were performed on
the CCC, and on the floor covered by a thin
carpet comfortable enough for abdominal
exercises.
Data Collection
As the subjects performed each of
the exercises both on the CCC and on the
floor, infrared cameras would monitor the
displacement of each of the markers
distributed on each of the joints of the
subject. This was then digitized through the
Vicon Motus computer software program
and as previously stated, labelled with the
corresponding joint. Subjects that wore
flashy clothing prevented accurate
digitization and were not included within the
data analysis for this study.
To determine the range of motion of
each exercise, the joint undergoing the
highest resultant displacement was recorded.
For example, the supine leg crunch involved
moving the knees toward the chest, with
extremely little movement from the upper
body. Due to this, measuring the ankle
markers would be most beneficial in
determining not only the resultant
displacement, but also the maximal
movement velocity for the exercise. This
was consistent for the pronated leg raise, as
the lower body was the location for primary
movement. In contrast, the supine crunch
incorporated fixed ankles and knee joints
with an upper body movement to bring the
shoulders up from the ground, or furthest
eccentric position. To monitor the
movement of the supine crunch, resultant
displacement and maximal movement
velocity was recorded from the wrists of
each subject. At no point in time were the
subjects instructed to complete a repetition
as fast as possible, but were encouraged to
go about the repetition as if they were to be
exercising in a routine setting.
The absolute values for maximal
instantaneous velocity (metres per second)
was averaged from all frames captured by
the infrared cameras, and again averaged
between both the left and right of either the
wrists or ankles. The same was done for the
resultant displacement (metres).
Data Analysis
Originally, all the digitization data
were transferred to an excel spreadsheet.
Organization was done, and tables and
graphs were made in accordance to exercise
type and location (setting) of each exercise.
Using a repeated measures ANOVA
test, we combined the three exercises to
analyze the effect of two independent
variables on effectiveness of the Complete
Core Conditioner through range of motion
and movement velocity. The two
independent variables were the location
(setting) of the exercise and the exercise test
type. The location had two conditions: on
the floor, or on the CCC. The exercise test
type involved three different core stability
exercises: the pronated leg raise, the supine
crunch and the supine leg crunch.
Statistical Procedures
Both the resultant displacement was
recorded to analyze the range of motion in
accordance to each exercise as well as the
maximum movement velocity in an excel
spreadsheet. Through the repeated measure
ANOVA the range of motion was compared
between the exercise types on the CCC and
on the floor. The velocity data were
compiled in a similar fashion to directly
compare the differences between the
exercise on the CCC and the floor. An alpha
level of 0.05 was established for statistical
significance level.
RESULTS
There was no statistical difference in
maximum movement velocity (p>0.05)
amongst the exercises performed on the

6. floor and on the CCC. However, there was a
statistical difference (p<0.05) in resultant
displacement vectors amongst the exercises
performed on the floor and on the CCC. As
the subjects performed the exercises on the
floor and on the CCC, a greater range of
motion was found to be consistent with the
displacement of the primary moving joint
throughout exercises performed on the CCC.
CONCLUSION
The results obtained from this study
prove to highlight the effectiveness of the
CCC in increasing the range of motion
throughout three core stability exercises.
These exercises are the pronated leg raise,
supine crunch, and supine leg crunch.
Although maximum movement velocity was
also tested, there was no significant
difference between the primary moving
joints (ankles or wrists) amongst the
exercises performed on the floor vs. the
CCC.
In reference to previously established
notions, the increased range of motion
provided by the CCC helps to maximize
core stability by stretching the muscle
groups of the abdomen to maximal lengths.
Involving the rectus and transverse
abdominis and the internal and external
obliques, flexion and extension exercises
have been provided with larger resultant
displacements by utilizing the features of the
CCC.
Although there was a slight
difference in movement velocity, it can
possibly be attributed to the materials on
which the exercises were performed. For
example, the pronated leg raise was
performed on a flat surface with little to no
elastic qualities. As the subject performed
the pronated leg raise on the CCC, there may
have been additional movement velocity
recorded due to the elastic effects of the
Swiss ball. With this being said, there was
no significant difference found in maximum
movement velocity when comparing the
exercises performed on the floor and the
CCC.
This study suggests there to be an
increased exercise intensity provided from
the CCC through an increased range of
motion in accordance to core stability
exercises focusing on flexion and extension
of the trunk. The findings may correlate to
increasing core strengthening techniques,
but may also be implied to the possibility of
preventing acute low back pain and
correcting postural imbalances within the
core musculature.
Limitations
This particular study only utilized 9
subjects out of 23 that had originally signed
up to participate. This was due to lack of
knowledge on the CCC itself, and what
would be appropriate testing methods for
each of the participants. Further research
could use this research as a pilot study to
incorporate more subjects from the
beginning of testing.
Furthermore, more exercises
involving a variety of movements could be
incorporated into the testing method.
Although core stability involves more than
just flexion and extension [1], rotation can
be incorporated to assess a more appropriate
core stability program.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank Dr.
Jon Doan of the Engineering and Human
Performance Lab in the University of
Lethbridge for his time and lab setting for
this study, Mr. Stephane Simard for
providing insight throughout the study, the
students of the University of Lethbridge who
participated in the study, and the colleagues
that helped in various manners.
REFERENCES
[1] Akuthota, V., Ferreiro, A., Moore, T., & Fredericson, M. (2008). Core stability exercise
principles. Current sports medicine reports, 7(1), 39-44.
[2] Behm, D. G., Drinkwater, E. J., Willardson, J. M., & Cowley, P. M. (2010). The use of
instability to train the core musculature. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 35(1),
91-108.
[3] Escamilla, R. F., McTaggart, M. S., Fricklas, E. J., DeWitt, R., Kelleher, P., Taylor, M. K., ...
& Moorman III, C. T. (2006). An electromyographic analysis of commercial and common
abdominal exercises: implications for rehabilitation and training. Journal of Orthopaedic &
Sports Physical Therapy, 36(2), 45-57.
[4] Wang, X. Q., Zheng, J. J., Yu, Z. W., Bi, X., Lou, S. J., Liu, J., ... & Shen, H. M. (2012). A
meta-analysis of core stability exercise versus general exercise for chronic low back pain. PloS
one, 7(12), e52082.
[5] Drinkwater EJ, Moore NR, Bird SP. Effects of changing from full range of motion to partial
range of motion on squat kinetics. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2012 Apr
1;26(4):890-6.
[6] Conceição, F., Fernandes, J., Lewis, M., Gonzaléz-Badillo, J. J., & Jimenéz-Reyes, P. (2015).
Movement velocity as a measure of exercise intensity in three lower limb exercises. Journal of
sports sciences, 1-8.

8. FIGURE CAPTIONS
Figure 1. Pronated Leg Crunch, both on the CCC and on the floor.
Figure 2. Supine Crunch, both on the CCC and on the floor.
Figure 3. Supinated Leg Crunch, both on the CCC and on the floor.
Figure 4. Maximum movement velocity (metres/second) comparing exercises on the floor to the
exercises on the CCC; no significant difference (p>0.05)
Figure 5. Average resultant displacement (metres) comparing exercises on the floor to the
exercises on the CCC; significant difference (p<0.05)

9. FIGURES
Figure 1.
Figure 2.

10. Figure 3.
Figure 4.

11. Figure 5.