How can you call something a functional movement screen when
most of the movements are in positions that are at low levels of function for
any athletic body? We need to always keep in mind that we have three movement
constants the body, the ground, and gravity. In movement assessment we want to
see the effect of gravity on the body and how the body effectively uses the
ground to be able to stabilize, produce, and reduce force. Screening using artificial
movements in a sterile environment is of little or no value.
As a coach I want to know what an athlete can do, where I
can start them on a progression on a continuum of function in their training.
Every athlete at every level has “deficiencies,” are those really deficiencies
or are they in the eye of the beholder. The perceived deficiencies must be
evaluated in the context of the athletes training background, development age
and the actual sport. Each athlete has a movement signature, a fingerprint that
defines him or her as an individual in regard to their movement patterns, to
change that is very difficult and of questionable necessity. We also need to
remember when we are screening movement that the body is asymmetrical, to seek
symmetry is unrealistic. Proportionality right to left and front to back is a
more realistic and practical goal.
I have different movements that I use to evaluate my
athletes depending on the sport and their developmental age. No seven tests
will fit all athletes; one size does not fit all. Also remember that Testing =
Training and Training = Testing. Every training session includes fundamental movements
that I use for ongoing evaluation against a baseline. The bottom line is to
develop a screen that works for you in your situation that gives you actionable
information that you can translate into an improved training program.
Brady
I am assuming you are talking about the FMS. I agree with you about training athletes but what about the general population? How would you screen someone who is a de-condiitoned?
Dave
Amen. We have the same guys doing FMS who work with an NFL team with the highest or near to, injury rate in the League each year???
Bob
Atlanta Falcons use the FMS, and have one of the lowest injury rates in the league.
MrK
Vern, I respect you tremendously, and I learn a lot from your posts, books, etc. However,your constant rants about the FMS is just senseless. You obviously don’t find it helpful to you and your athletes – that’s fine. If it does not work for you, then don’t use it. Gray Cook never said that EVERYONE has to accept and use the FMS.
With that said, you are constantly talking about learning and growing. I ask you: Have you even given the FMS a fair try with your athletes? Have you actually taken, say 100 of your athletes, screened them, applied corrective techniques, etc.? If you have, then I respect your thoughts and comments about the FMS. If you haven’t, then I am perplexed to how you can knock something that you’ve never tried.
JS
I would say FMS is tool just as any other… but sticking to it as it is a religion is a complete nonsense. just as it is nonsense to see those trx sessions, kettlebell sessions… these are all tools – not goals…
MrK
Of course “sticking to it like it’s a religon” is foolish. Gray Cook himself said that the FMS is not the end all, be all solution for screening athletes. He said that it’s “just a tool”.
With that said, keep in mind that the FMS is being used by MANY well-respected, “real world” coaches who work with elite athletes. Groups such as Mark Verstegen and Athletes Performance. On top of that, there are several legit scientific studies that has demonstrated positive benefits of using the FMS. So the FMS is being tested both in the scientific world and in the “real world”.
JF
Just an FYI. I trained an athlete for 5 years who could not pass ANY of the FMS tests. He could not stand on one leg and hold the other in a 90 degree flexed position for even 2 seconds. Not a lick of static balance. Yet he was completely injury free for the time I trained him. The interesting point is that he was the 2nd ranked high hurdler in the US and fourth ranked hurdler in the world. Vern does have a point in this regard…dynamic and static balnce have very little correlatation in movement. The body is rarely under unilateral support for more than .25 seconds unless exerting leverage when in motion. The FMS screen utilizes primarily static, slow mmotion tests and therefore does not replicate many athletic movements. It’s validity, therefore could be questioned for movement associated injuries.