The question behind the research
Core training features in many golf conditioning programmes. But does including it actually increase clubhead speed, and is golf-swing-like exercise better than general training?
A systematic review and meta-analysis published in Life on 25 September 2026 examined this question. Authors Hsing-Hui Liu, Long-Huei Lin, Ting-Yu Lin, Wei-Ting Wu and Ke-Vin Chang combined nine controlled trials involving 220 golfers. Eight were randomised trials and one was non-randomised. The training programmes lasted six to twelve weeks and involved golfers ranging from recreational players to competitive athletes.
An important qualification: only one trial tested core training in isolation. The other eight combined it with upper-body or lower-body conditioning, or both. As a result, the review cannot isolate the abdominal or trunk work as the sole reason for the overall outcome.
The effect was real in the pooled analysis, but small
Across the studies, core-inclusive training had a small, statistically significant pooled effect on clubhead speed versus control conditions: Hedges’ g = 0.290, 95% confidence interval 0.031–0.549, p = 0.028.
Hedges’ g is a standardised effect size. It is not a gain of 0.29 metres per second, nor does it tell any individual golfer how much extra carry to expect.
The researchers then separated programmes containing golf-specific swing-simulated core training (GSCT) from programmes without those movements. The estimated effect was g = 0.451 for GSCT and g = 0.148 for non-GSCT programmes. The first figure looks larger, but the difference between the subgroups was not statistically significant (p = 0.252). It would therefore be inaccurate to claim that swing-simulation exercises have been proven superior.
The apparent statistical significance of the GSCT subgroup also disappeared in a sensitivity check that removed one trial with an unusually large effect. This makes a sweeping training prescription especially difficult to justify.
A sensible way to use the findings
The evidence supports considering structured physical conditioning as part of golf preparation, not choosing a single supposedly magic drill.
Establish a baseline. Using the same driver and launch monitor, record clubhead speed across a set of normal swings. Keep the typical range of readings rather than only the fastest swing, and note the ball, environment and session conditions.
Train with appropriate supervision. A qualified coach can select a gradual programme that accounts for trunk stability, controlled rotation and wider physical conditioning. The trials used varying routines, so the tracking approach outlined here is an editorial suggestion, not a protocol whose effectiveness was independently established by this review. Players managing pain or injuries should seek relevant clinical guidance.
Retest under comparable conditions. After a period of consistent training, repeat the measurement. Also track strike quality, start direction and dispersion. Higher clubhead speed does not automatically mean more accurate approach shots or lower scores.
Why caution matters
The authors rated the certainty of evidence as low for the overall clubhead-speed effect and very low for the GSCT subgroup. Of the eight randomised trials, only one had a low overall risk of bias; reporting limitations affected much of the remaining evidence. The relatively small individual trials also restrict certainty.
Most importantly, the review focused on clubhead speed. It did not establish that a particular core exercise reliably increases carry distance, fairway accuracy or scoring performance. Those claims would require direct evidence on those outcomes.
The takeaway
A consistent fitness programme that includes core work may help golf performance, but the average observed advantage was modest. Exercise selection should follow individual assessment and measurable feedback rather than promises of guaranteed extra yards.
Research: H.-H. Liu et al., Life, 25 September 2026. DOI: 10.3390/life16101609.
