Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Functional Movement Screen & Science.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Functional Movement Screen & Science.

    Here is the discussion I am having with one of the FMS presenters Brett Johns. It is amazing how he thinks FMS was and is always right. And guess what, it is the science and evidence based approach which was or is wrong. How silly we all were. It was just this simple.

    http://kbforum.dragondoor.com/kettle...lt-fms-gh.html

    And it always falls back to have you tried it?
    Anoop Balachandran
    EXERCISE BIOLOGY - The Science of Exercise & Nutrition

  • #2
    What a thankless job.
    Any question of paradigms or of underlying evidence is equivalent to stating the approach is worthless. Riiiight.

    Another reason why its so hard to find a place like Soma to discuss things where people know how to think.
    Good luck Anoop.
    Jason Silvernail DPT, DSc, FAAOMPT
    Board-Certified in Orthopedic Physical Therapy
    Fellowship-Trained in Orthopedic Manual Therapy

    Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist


    The views expressed in this entry are those of the author alone and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the US Government.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks Jason.

      What is more pathetic or frustrating is how people have no freakin clue about how anecdotal evidence and expert opinion is more often wrong than right and that's why an evidence based approach evolved. And I see this in every forum.

      And the only guy who does research on FMS and see favorable results ( and very few mind you) is the guy who gets paid for his FMS work and is on the FMS website. That's fishy right there.
      Anoop Balachandran
      EXERCISE BIOLOGY - The Science of Exercise & Nutrition

      Comment


      • #4
        Just caught this. I haven't read it but thought some may be interested.

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2...?dopt=Abstract
        "The views expressed here are my own and do not reflect the views of my employer."

        Comment


        • #5
          There is another study in J of Cond Res which shows FMS is reliable on healthy subjects. It is good that these studies are being done. I think the hard part will be to show the validity of the screen especially for the lay person.
          Anoop Balachandran
          EXERCISE BIOLOGY - The Science of Exercise & Nutrition

          Comment


          • #6
            Good luck with that ANOOP. I've done some research and looking into FMS and the fact is quite simple; it's got applicability for a very small subset of the population however it essentially has yet to prove valuable at predicting.... ANYTHING.

            And for those who understand the science of the human body....it will never have actual clinical applications the way the FMS crew think it will.

            But from reading the posts over there....most seem incapable of thinking...period.

            I once talked to an FMS guy who wanted to conduct "research" on the navy by sending a crew out to sea after the FMS and subsequent corrective exercises and compare injury rates to a ship that recieved no screen and exercise program.

            When asked about control groups...he looked at me like I had two heads. Not once seeming to understand that in order for the "research" to be valid in any capacity....he would have to do an FMS on everyone and sending a control group away with sham corrective exercises.

            From what I've seen from the FMS crew...this is typical of the oversights that appear in the research they conduct.
            Last edited by proud; 27-12-2010, 07:41 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              The FMS is supposedly a part of what the Army's new Soldier Athlete Program is about. I went to a training course for the program and found far too many people far too credulous about it for my liking.

              You can say that for people who have to actually do similar movements that the FMS makes sense.
              You can say it's popular. You can say it's an attempt to improve movement ability and subsequent function with an organized systematic approach. You can say its better than a lot of other options such as posture exercises or individual muscle flexibility tests. You can say it's a cool sportslike thing to do right now. You can say it's reliable between testers.

              You can't say it has a proven predictive ability across several groups, because that hasn't been demonstrated. You can't say it's the best way or even a good way to enhance performance or reduce injuries because that hasn't been demonstrated. You can't say it is worth the time energy and effort in screening and in training testers relative to savings in medical care and missed work/sports time because that hasn't been demonstrated.

              I don't really have a problem with FMS, but let's understand what we can and can't say at this point.
              That would be a good start.
              Last edited by Jason Silvernail; 28-12-2010, 01:23 PM.
              Jason Silvernail DPT, DSc, FAAOMPT
              Board-Certified in Orthopedic Physical Therapy
              Fellowship-Trained in Orthopedic Manual Therapy

              Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist


              The views expressed in this entry are those of the author alone and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the US Government.

              Comment


              • #8
                As Michael Shermer said in his article on the challenges to Shakespeare's authenticity (Scientific American, August 2009):

                "...reasonable doubt should not cost an author his claim, at least not if we treat history as a science instead of as a legal debate. In science, a reigning theory is presumed provisionally true and continues to hold sway unless and until a challenging theory explains the current data as well and also accounts for anomalies that the prevailing one cannot."

                As one reviewer noted: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”

                Perhaps this should apply to the FMS situation.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Like Jason, I think the FMS has potential. But as the old coaching phrase goes, potential means you haven't done anything yet. Proponents of FMS need to decide what they want. Is it a means for benchmarking progress or a screening tool for asymptomatic populations? The research seems to be high on its potential for the latter but I just don't see it. The 2007 article published in the North American Journal of Sports Medicine which tauted the FMS as a true screen was pretty weak.

                  I've been told that the Houston Rockets have all but abandoned traditional models of conditioning in favor of "functional" training methods aimed at appeasing FMS scores.

                  Rehab and strength and contitioning specialists seem eager to embrace fads, I wonder why basic principles of conditioning and motor control aren't as trendy. There's got to be a way of packaging that message without it getting lost in the transition. Looks like so far we see and hear more from the folks who get lost.
                  Rod Henderson, PT, ScD, OCS
                  It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into. — Jonathan Swift

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Mel Siff had this to say about FMS back in 2003 on his Supertraining forum. I've put in bold a couple of key concepts. Mel actually went through all seven of the sceening tests, and offered his concerns/questions on six of those. The only one he didn't comment on was the In Line Lunge.

                    "Since the entire website refers to "Functional Movement", we can safelyassume that its methods are meant to apply to *movement* in sport, and more specifically, the "functional" compound movements involved in all sports. Is it not curious, then, that all of the screening tests are entirely static or slow, and involve little or no dynamic, multiarticular"functional" or sporting movement whatsoever (the overhead squat offers a start but is not adequately utilised)? Moreover, some of these tests are carried out in postures which are not "functionally" specific or related to many sports.

                    These tests do not address the compensatory movement strategies which every individual uses to carry out a given physical movement, probably because most "experts" have led the authors, therapists and the general public to believe
                    that the traditional view that any compensatory
                    movement or muscle action strategies are always a sign of imbalance or pathology.

                    If I, for one, did not teach lifters or athletes how to optimise their specific" idiosyncratic" movement strategies, I don't think that many of them could ever survive, prosper or progress safely and consistently in their respective events. For example, if a novice lifter cannot do the squat or overhead squat with feet shoulder width apart without the butt raising a little, then I allow him/her to take a wider foot stance and to use that butt raise less and less as time goes along. Before long, without any special exercises, stretches or postural alignment toys, that lifter becomes able to move the feet closer and lift with a more erect spine and less butt raising.

                    Sometimes you will come across a lifter or lineman who simply cannot adopt an entirely or largely erect squatting posture, so, if one accepts this and allows them to use their back muscles more powerfully, they will still become excellent athletes who rarely become injured (except by accident, possibly). If you study lifts by the great Russian weightlifter, Vardanian (222.5 kg jerk at 82kg bodymass), you will note how at least one top lifter managed to lift excellently with a far less erect trunk during the pull. There are many similar examples (some even among post polio persons and amputees).

                    These tests are also offered without any scientific analysis or studies which show exactly why and how these tests correlate strongly with functional
                    movement in a wide variety of sports. As they stand, these tests appear to have been devised on the sole basis of personal opinion and several old traditional tests. While the authors are to be complimented in attempting to devise some additional field tests to evaluate important motor qualities and abilities in sport, they fall very far short of their target by relying solely on limited static or slow tests of minimal or no proven validity.

                    My analysis barely scratches the surface of these tests, but I trust that it sets the stage for others to attempt a more thorough job."

                    Some of his comments on working with lifters (optimise their specific" idiosyncratic" movement strategies), remind me of ideomotion.
                    Last edited by Ken Jakalski; 28-12-2010, 12:37 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ken Jakalski View Post
                      These tests do not address the compensatory movement strategies which every individual uses to carry out a given physical movement, probably because most "experts" have led the authors, therapists and the general public to believethat the traditional view that any compensatorymovement or muscle action strategies are always a sign of imbalance or pathology.
                      I frequently hear this being referred to as "cheating."
                      "I did a small amount of web-based research, and what I found is disturbing"--Bob Morris

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Great post Ken. Some coaches dumb down / normalize / reduce movements into stereotypical patterns to the point of actually suppresing the athlete's ability to obtain what we are really after - virtuosity. I have always taught athletes to find their "groove" with squats and other basic lifts. It used to just seem right, but I think ideomotion provides a perfect explanation for why athletes enjoyed it so much. There were certain parameters to be met, but the athlete was tasked to find their own pattern - the groove that got them the best result.

                        Regarding the FMS as a predictive tool. I wonder if we just have to accept the fact that a percentage of a given population pushing itself to the margins of its ability will inevitably sustain an injury. Increased mental, physical, situational preparedness is more likely to improve performance, self-efficacy, and enjoyment, but unlikely to result in substantial reductions in injury rates.
                        Rod Henderson, PT, ScD, OCS
                        It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into. — Jonathan Swift

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The problem with FMS they make far too many claims that what the evidence shows.

                          I think the evidence that it is a good screen for NFL players has some evidence , though it is not of great quality. I still don't understand how he got away publishing it without having disclaimer that he works for FMS and get paid! But considering the money at stake, the time commitment and that not many screens I can think of, I think it can be useful for elite level football players. If I use some plausibility approach, we can extend it to other high impact sports too.

                          But most of the people who come to these seminars are personal trainers and I don't see any sensible reason to waste the clients time correcting the FMS score. And most of his talk is directed towards the lay person.

                          And as Jason it is a totally different hypothesis to screen people for injury and to tell if you fix the FMS screen, it will prevent injury too.

                          SFMA for pain is totally based on the wrong model of pain.

                          If anyone is interested, here is research review on FM by Dr. Kyle. Might sound like an i infomercial though. http://www.movementbook.com/chapters.../chapter2.html

                          Here is a recent 2010 interview with Sahrmann and Gray cook: http://www.sportsrehabexpert.com/public/320print.cfm
                          Anoop Balachandran
                          EXERCISE BIOLOGY - The Science of Exercise & Nutrition

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            How about this:

                            The body is full of fractals, like the earth.

                            We can't predict earthquakes either.
                            Barrett L. Dorko

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Barrett Dorko View Post
                              We can't predict earthquakes either.
                              Or I could have just said that...
                              Rod Henderson, PT, ScD, OCS
                              It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into. — Jonathan Swift

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X