• Stretches and Mobility Drills to Prepare for the Snatch and Overhead Squat: Video Demonstrations
• Joint by Joint Approach for Fixing Your Squat
• Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Squatting and More – Podcast

Another topic that I’ve been meaning to write about for some time now is getting into the correct position for the snatch, or more specifically the set-up for the snatch and the first pull.

For a quick refresher, the first pull begins with the weight on the floor and ends when the bar reaches just above your knee cap.

In the set-up for the snatch and during the first pull a couple things need to occur to be efficient and stay injury free.

1) Neutral Spine throughout the lift

Now most of us know that keeping your spine in a neutral position (i.e.: flat back) is not only going to make us lift heavier weights, but is going to keep our backs much less prone to injury.

This is a central theme in the text “Low Back Disorders” by Dr. Stuart McGill.  As our lower back rounds (flexes) the stress on the discs within our spine increases substantially.   For most this is a no brainer.  Lifting with a flexed spine creates a great situation for a disc herniation, not something anyone really desires.  For a novice lifter, hammering the idea of moving from the hips and keeping the spine in a neutral position is paramount.

As simple as this may seem, many people can’t seem to get this right, especially in the set-up for the snatch.  Several common compensations I see are:

A Rounded Upper Back (Thoracic Spine):

A Rounded Lower Back:

A Combination of the Two:

Although lifting like an angry cat appears like it would be fun I strongly advise against it

2) A Relatively Straight Bar Path

Having the correct bar path is vitally important for getting good at the snatch.   The closer the bar is to the body, the more power we can put into the bar and the lower the stress on your spine.  Unfortunately this is also very difficult for many people.

When people aren’t getting their bar path down they end up doing one of several things:

• Jumping forward to catch the bar
• Landing with the weight forward resulting in a rounded upper back and possibly lifting the heels off the ground.  Sometimes coaches mistake this problem as weakness in the upper back and a fault of not keeping the elbows up, when in reality if we fixed the starting position and the bar path, things might start cleaning up nicely.

A lot of times people can start in a good position but it all starts falling apart once the bar starts moving.  What I very commonly see is that people can not maintain a neutral spine and keep their knees and hips back far enough so that the bar can travel upwards in a straight path.  It ends up looking something like this:

See how the bar doesn’t travel in the straight line?  The dowel bangs right up against the knees.  This isn’t efficient.  Sounds like we need to tell our client to keep their knees back some.

Now when cued to keep their knees back it starts to look like this:

Now there goes your spine…

They just can’t seem to get it right.  Very frustrating isn’t it?

As a coach it’s extremely important to give your athlete the correct cues and progress that athlete properly over time.  We all know this.  Most clients will naturally over time learn the correct positions and progress without much difficulty.  This article isn’t intended to teach correct snatch technique.  There are plenty of great tutorials out there with individuals far smarter and more experienced then I.  Here’s a good one from Glenn Pendlay if you’re looking.

Part 2, Part 3

Well, what happens when you cue the absolute crap out of a client and they still can’t seem to get in the correct positions?  You’ve spent several sessions trying to master these positions with an unloaded bar or PVC pipe and you just don’t seem to be making any progress?  Their back still rounds and they can’t seem to get the bar path down.

This is where I start to begin to think that there is a mobility problem present.   In reality it takes a tremendous amount of flexibility to get into the correct positions to snatch.

Sidenote: A lack of strength and stability can also lead to these same issues and I’ll touch on this later on in the series.  I’m specifically referring to a client who can’t get into the right position  even with an unloaded bar or PVC pipe after extensive cueing.  For an article explaining how stability and strength can be causing poor exercise technique read this.

So what structures can be holding me back?

1. Posterior Hip Capsule
2. Hamstrings and Gastrocnemius (calf)
3. Nerves

Each one of these structures can decrease our ability to get into the correct positions of the snatch.  More specifically, I’m talking about the snatch set-up and during the first pull, up until the bar passes the knee.  This part of the lift requires a tremendous amount of flexibility.  As described earlier, if this part of the lift is messed up, its going to throw off the rest of the lift.

If we’re tight in these areas it’s going to cause those compensations we discussed earlier.  Since we don’t have the required mobility in the above listed structures, we’re going to get the mobility somewhere else in the body in order to finish the lift, and it’s going to look ugly, and possibly be fatal…  Just kidding, but you might really wrench your back in the process and you definitely aren’t maximizing your strength.

In the next parts of the series we’ll address the best strategies to mobilize these structures.  Then once you’re good and limber, we’ll hammer away at better technique utilizing that new mobility.

World’s tightest hamstrings,

Dan Pope

P.S. If you enjoyed this article then sign up for the newsletter to receive the FREE guide - 10 Idiot Proof Principles to Crossfit Performance and Injury Prevention as well as to keep up to date with new information as it comes out via weekly emails.

• 2:20 The nonsense stops, enter today’s topic
• 3:10 What is patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS)?
• 6:00 Taping as a treatment, what does the research say?
• 8:20 Why PFPS is a bit of a catch all term.
• 9:25 Why do we care about the hip? Chris Powers Research
• 16:50 What the research says about your foot and knee pain
• 20:20 How to correct foot position for knee health
• 22:45 Does a comprehensive program addressing the foot, knee and hip reduce knee pain?
• 25:40 Clinical prediction rule for lumbar manipulation and decreased knee pain
• 26:20 Clinical prediction rule for orthotic success
• 27:40 Are deep squats bad for my knees?
• 32:40 Will decreased ankle flexibility cause knee damage?
• 34:15 Should I keep my knees behind my toes when squatting?
• 36:10 Common rehab exercises for PFPS
• 40:05 Knee health take-aways
• 44:27 Why does my knee pop when I squat? Is this bad?

—<The Podcast is located at the end of this post>—

Supplemental Reading

What you need to know about the foot, hip and core to prevent knee pain

6 Common Causes of Knee Pain and How to Fix Them

References:

If you guys are interested in the research articles we used please drop us a line, we’d be happy to point you in the right direction.

P.S. If you guys enjoy the podcast then head over to iTunes and give us a positive review, it greatly helps.  Also, sign up for the newsletter on the top right hand side of the page to receive the FREE guide:

10 Idiot Proof Principles to Crossfit Performance and Injury Prevention

as well as weekly email updates of new articles, videos, rants and ramblings from the mind of yours truly,

Dan Pope

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3

I wanted this portion of the series to serve as brainstorming for both therapists, coaches and trainers.  Where can we use the FMS and maybe where shouldn’t we be using the FMS?  Let’s put some thought into how we can best implement this tool!  Please if you have any comments or thoughts submit them to the comments section below.

To recap, What populations have been studied with the FMS and its relationship with injury risk?

• Firefighters
• Military
• Professional Football Players
• DII Collegiate female athletes

The FMS has been shown to be a significant predictor of injury in all of these populations

Key Notes:

• The FMS shows low sensitivity and high specificity throughout the studies.
• What constitutes an injury was not standardized throughout the studies
• FMS scores did not correlate with athletes who had had ACL reconstruction surgery.  ACL patients scored higher then average.
• Targeted programs will improve FMS scores but there is no gold standard treatment.  Keep in mind that in 1 study the control group improved.
• To the best of my knowledge no studies have shown that improving FMS scores with a targeted program decreases injury risk
• To the best of my knowledge there has been no study to determine if low FMS scores will correlate with increased injury risk in the general fitness population
• Individuals with higher FMS scores (18+) in the military population were more likely to get injured
• FMS scores did not predict overuse injuries in the military population
• FMS scores were no better then PT (physical fitness test) test scores in the military population for assessing injury risk

How does the FMS fit into our physical therapy program?

1.  Valuable information about how our patients move:  I often find that in the clinic we can become pretty transfixed on the joint/muscle that gets injured.  Sure, we might check the joints above and below and maybe check a few functional movements but that is usually the end of it (Sorry if this isn’t your practice).  Generally, people get hurt because of the way they move (or don’t move) and the postures they assume on a daily basis.

Trainers and coaches watch their athletes move on a daily basis.  They  get the chance to assess movement efficiency through a wider degree of activity.  Although the FMS was designed to work in individuals without pain I’d make the argument that it may be even more effective in the injured population.  In this regard you may be better getting at the root cause of the injury.  I feel like you get a nice snap shot of how patients move if you can quickly run them through a larger degree of functional activity, similar to the way the FMS does.

2. Return to Sport: The FMS was originally designed to be a screen but ended up being a good tool to rule in the risk of injury.   If you have an athlete on your hands who scores poorly on the FMS, you can be pretty sure that this person is setting himself up for injury when he/she gets back on the field.  Keep in mind that neuromuscular control programs have become the bees knees when it comes to injury prevention.  In my mind this means that we should really be looking to assess movement and then make changes in the way we move to prevent injury.

Side Note: I’ve heard surgeons recommend using the FMS as a return to sport criteria for ACL rehab candidates.  I definitely don’t feel this is a bad idea but remember the research showing that ACL reconstruction patients actually had higher FMS scores then their fellow team mates.  This may give the false impression that these athletes are ready to return to play.  However, the FMS may be picking up this athlete’s risk of other injuries.

How does the FMS fit into our coaching and personal training program?

1. When to refer out:  When should an individual work with a trainer and when should they be sent to a therapist?  If they have pain, send them to a therapist.  The FMS provides clearing tests and an array of basic movement to determine if your client has pain anywhere.

2. Which exercises NOT to perform: This may be getting beyond the scope of this article but the FMS was partly designed to determine which types of activities should be avoided in certain individuals.  For example: Let’s say your client has a terrible range of motion asymmetry from left to right in their shoulders.  It may be a wise decision to hold off on barbell overhead press until this issue is resolved.  This asymmetry may have been otherwise missed if the athlete was given the go ahead to start pressing from the get-go.

3. Continuity of Care:  A therapist can only do so much before insurance runs up and a patient must be discharged and sent on their way.  This doesn’t mean the athlete is injury proof and ready to return to sport or fitness.  If an FMS can be performed by the therapist then an athlete can be sent to  a coach/personal trainer/athletic trainer where their care can be continued, then we’re probably going to improve our outcomes.

Th re-injury rate for ACL patients is very high.  This makes for a lot of unhappy patients and their parents.  We can help to prevent these injuries and we should be employing strategies to do just that.  I hear a lot of blame going to the therapists for this.  In reality, this is a team approach and in my opinion more coaches and trainers should be making this a priority.

4. As a beginning screen/assessment: I can’t really stress this enough.  Whether you do a screen at the start of working with your clients or you evaluate as they progress through their routine and modify accordingly, some type of evaluation should be performed.  The FMS can help fit the bill as an introductory assessment.

What I’d like to see in the future:

• More research in different sport populations.  I’d also love to see how the FMS scores correlate with common injuries seen in the physical therapy clinic.  What types of injuries does the FMS predict?  What types of injuries can’t it predict?
• More research in the fitness population:  To the FMS’s credit, there is currently quite a bit of normative data for FMS scores in the young active and middle aged populations.  However, it would be very nice to see some research to see whether a low score in the FMS is related to increased risk of injury in the general fitness population, or even just the general population.
• FMS and Crossfit:  I work in a crossfit gym and would like to know whether or not improving the FMS in this population decreases risk of injury.  I guess I should be the one doing this work!
• Does improving FMS scores with a targeted program reduce risk of injury?  To me this is really the elephant in the room.  Does improving FMS scores decrease risk of injury?
• Is the FMS as effective or more effective then other screens to determine risk of injury?
• If we add the Y-balance test or other risk assessment tools into our assessment are we better able to predict injury?  It seems as if this is where the FMS leaders are going.

Well I’m spent, that was a long and arduous article series.  Hopefully you came out with a better understanding of this tool from the series, I certainly did.  Please if you have any thoughts or comments post them below.  I want to hear everyone else’s thoughts on the matter.  How do you guy guys use the FMS?

FMS score off the charts,

Dan Pope

P.S. If you enjoyed this article then sign up for the newsletter to receive the FREE guide - 10 Idiot Proof Principles to Crossfit Performance and Injury Prevention as well as to keep up to date with new information as it comes out via weekly emails.

REFERENCES:

1. Bhk FP, Koehle MS. Normative Data for the Functional Movement Screen in middle-aged adults. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 May 3.

2. Butler RJ, Contreras M, Burton LC, Plisky PJ, Kiesel KB. Modifiable Risk Factors Predict injuries in Firefighters during Training Academies. Work. in press.

3. Chorba RS, Chorba DJ, Bouillon LE, Overmyer CA, Landis JA. Use of a functional movement screening tool to determine injury risk in female collegiate athletes. N Am J Sports Phys Ther. 2010 Jun;5(2):47- 54.

4. Cowen VS. Functional fitness improvements after a worksite-based yoga initiative. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2010;14:50-4.

5. Frost DM, Beach TA, Callaghan JP, McGill SM. Using the Functional Movement ScreenTM to evaluate the effectiveness of training. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Jun;26(6):1620-30.

6. Gribble P, Brigle J, Pietrosimone B, Pfile K, Webster K. Intrarater Reliability of the Functional Movement Screen. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 May 15.

7. Kiesel KB, Plisky PJ, Butler RJ. Functional movement test scores improve following a standardized off-season intervention program in professional football players. Scand J Sci Med Sports. 2011; 287- 292.

8. Kiesel K, Plisky PJ, Voight M. Can serious injury in professional football be predicted by a preseason Functional Movement Screen? N Am J Sports Phys Ther. 2007; 2(3):76-81.

9. Kiesel KB, Plisky PJ, Butler RJ. Fundamental movement limitations and asymmetries relate to injury risk in professional football players. in review.

10. O’Connor FG, Deuster PA, Davis J, Pappas CG, Knapik JJ. Functional movement screening: predicting injuries in officer candidates. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Dec;43(12):2224-30.

11. Onate JA, Dewey T, Kollock RO, Thomas KS, Van Lunen BL, DeMaio M, Ringleb SI. Real-time intersession and interrater reliability of the functional movement screen. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Feb;26(2):408-15.

12. Parchmann CJ, McBride JM. Relationship between functional movement screen and athletic performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2011 Dec;25(12):3378-8.

13. Schneiders AG, Davidsson A, Hörman E, Sullivan SJ. Functional movement screen normative values in a young, active population. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2011 Jun;6(2):75-82.

14. Smith CA, Chimera NJ, Wright N, Warren M. Interrater and Intrarater Reliability of the Functional Movement Screen. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Jun 11.

15. Teyhen DS, Shaffer SW, Lorenson CL, Halfpap JP, Donofry DF, Walker MJ, Dugan JL, Childs JD. The Functional Movement Screen: a reliability study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012 Jun;42(6):530-40.

Make sure you check out the back and front flips mixed in there,

Dan Pope

P.S. If you enjoyed this video then sign up for the newsletter to receive the FREE guide - 10 Idiot Proof Principles to Crossfit Performance and Injury Prevention as well as to keep up to date with new information as it comes out via weekly emails.

• Chronic knee pain after several years of athletics
• Back pain and thruster help
• Conditioning for the Navy SEALS
• Upper back rounding during front squats
• Posture and shoulder pain

MWod ankle mobility drills

Sorry for all of the clicking!  This is my first podcast on the new computer so I’m not proficient yet!  Thanks for listening!  If you enjoyed this and want to hear more then head over to iTunes and leave a review!  It helps us tremendously.

P.S. If you enjoyed this podcast then sign up for the newsletter to receive the FREE guide - 10 Idiot Proof Principles to Crossfit Performance and Injury Prevention as well as to keep up to date with new information as it comes out via weekly emails.

• Part 1
• Part 2

Now that we can identify at risk populations the next question becomes, can we utilize a specific corrective exercise routine to improve FMS scores?  Here’s the research:

• n = 62 professional american football players
• 7 week program
• Program contained specific mobility and stability exercises
• 41 players initially had asymmetry, down to 31 by the end of 7 weeks.
• The best predictor of poor FMS improvements over the course of the program a was low deep squat score initially.
• The corrective exercise program did significantly improve FMS score

Does a training program improve FMS scores above a control group?

• With the evidence available we can’t say with much certainty that performing corrective exercises will improve FMS scores above a control group.  On top of that we don’t really know of the best ways to improve FMS.  Are the improvements in FMS scores due to a given training program or simply based on performing the FMS several times and knowing how to improve your test score.

And now maybe the most important question…

Does an improvement in FMS score correlate with decreased injury risk?

In other words, we know low FMS scores put you more at risk for injury.  We also know that we can improve FMS scores.  However, does an improvement in FMS score create a decreased risk of injury?  Or does an improvement in FMS score solely represent an improvement in the ability to perform the FMS test and get a higher score?

Currently there is no evidence showing that improving performance on the FMS correlates to decreased injury risk.  We don’t know if these corrective exercise programs are actually going to do what they are proposed to do.  Hopefully we see some research in this area soon.  In my mind this is the most important variable to study.  Does an intervention aimed at improving FMS scores actually decrease injury risk? or are we just spinning our wheels by trying to apply these injury prevention programs?

That’s it for now.  In the next part we’ll summarize the key points.  I also want to apply a bit of brainstorming and figure out how the FMS fits and doesn’t fit into our coaching and clinical practice.

I’ve been doing bird dogs the entire time I was writing this article,

Dan Pope

P.S. If you enjoyed this article then sign up for the newsletter to receive the FREE guide - 10 Idiot Proof Principles to Crossfit Performance and Injury Prevention as well as to keep up to date with new information as it comes out via weekly emails.

REFERENCES:

1. Bhk FP, Koehle MS. Normative Data for the Functional Movement Screen in middle-aged adults. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 May 3.

2. Butler RJ, Contreras M, Burton LC, Plisky PJ, Kiesel KB. Modifiable Risk Factors Predict injuries in Firefighters during Training Academies. Work. in press.

3. Chorba RS, Chorba DJ, Bouillon LE, Overmyer CA, Landis JA. Use of a functional movement screening tool to determine injury risk in female collegiate athletes. N Am J Sports Phys Ther. 2010 Jun;5(2):47- 54.

4. Cowen VS. Functional fitness improvements after a worksite-based yoga initiative. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2010;14:50-4.

5. Frost DM, Beach TA, Callaghan JP, McGill SM. Using the Functional Movement ScreenTM to evaluate the effectiveness of training. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Jun;26(6):1620-30.

6. Gribble P, Brigle J, Pietrosimone B, Pfile K, Webster K. Intrarater Reliability of the Functional Movement Screen. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 May 15.

7. Kiesel KB, Plisky PJ, Butler RJ. Functional movement test scores improve following a standardized off-season intervention program in professional football players. Scand J Sci Med Sports. 2011; 287- 292.

8. Kiesel K, Plisky PJ, Voight M. Can serious injury in professional football be predicted by a preseason Functional Movement Screen? N Am J Sports Phys Ther. 2007; 2(3):76-81.

9. Kiesel KB, Plisky PJ, Butler RJ. Fundamental movement limitations and asymmetries relate to injury risk in professional football players. in review.

10. O’Connor FG, Deuster PA, Davis J, Pappas CG, Knapik JJ. Functional movement screening: predicting injuries in officer candidates. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Dec;43(12):2224-30.

11. Onate JA, Dewey T, Kollock RO, Thomas KS, Van Lunen BL, DeMaio M, Ringleb SI. Real-time intersession and interrater reliability of the functional movement screen. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Feb;26(2):408-15.

12. Parchmann CJ, McBride JM. Relationship between functional movement screen and athletic performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2011 Dec;25(12):3378-8.

13. Schneiders AG, Davidsson A, Hörman E, Sullivan SJ. Functional movement screen normative values in a young, active population. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2011 Jun;6(2):75-82.

14. Smith CA, Chimera NJ, Wright N, Warren M. Interrater and Intrarater Reliability of the Functional Movement Screen. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Jun 11.

15. Teyhen DS, Shaffer SW, Lorenson CL, Halfpap JP, Donofry DF, Walker MJ, Dugan JL, Childs JD. The Functional Movement Screen: a reliability study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012 Jun;42(6):530-40.

Here’s a recent cochrane review published in American Family Physician that tries to give some recommendations for fat intake in order to decrease your risk of heart attack and stroke.

Before going on, it’s important to note that this study is part of a cochrane review.  Cochrane reviews are commonly referred to as the highest standard in evidence based research.  Read more about cochrane reviews HERE:  Now on to the good stuff…

Dietary Fat Modification and the Risk of Future Cardiovascular Events and Mortality

Question: Will reducing or modifying dietary fat intake modify mortality (risk of dying from all causes) or risk of future cardiovascular events (nonfatal myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, peripheral vascular disease, and coronary bypass surgery or angioplasty)?

Answers:

• Reducing or modifying a patient’s dietary fat intake did not lower the rates of either total or cardiovascular-related mortality when compared with usual or control diets.  ie: Regardless of how much fat you eat, it won’t modify your chance of dying either from cardiovascular issues or any other cause.
• Reducing the intake of total or saturated fats (by substituting mono or polyunsaturated fats instead) decreased the risk of cardiovascular events by 22 percent in those patients who were able to sustain the modified diet for at least two years.  In other words you might have fewer cardiac problems if you follow this diet for two years but it won’t change your total lifespan.
• Replacing saturated fat with a protein or a carbohydrate (i.e., a low-fat diet) did not decrease the risk of cardiovascular events or total mortality.

Considerations:

• The benefits to cardiovascular risk associated with a reduced- or modified-fat diet were significant only in the analysis that included studies that involved either a more comprehensive dietary plan or care intervention. This suggests that altering dietary fat intake alone may be insufficient to bring about cardiovascular benefits.  
• In my mind this is a red flag and represents a selection bias.  How can you attribute the change in cardiovascular events to the change in fat when there are other new variables introduced (ie: Calorie restriction, exercise, modifying food types, sugar and refined flour modifications)?   I don’t think we can definitively implicate the replacement of saturated fats with polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats with decreased risk of cardiac events based on this research.  In my opinion this is not a fair assumption and I’m glad that this journal mentioned this.  Hopefully this is not overlooked by clinicians.  I’d like to see another review that did not include these studies.

Interesting side notes:

• Replacing saturated fat in the diet from meat with saturated fat from dairy may decrease your risk of cardiovascular disease.  Pass the cheese please.
• Some of the authors believe that future dietary recommendations may need to promote types of foods rather than regulating the intake of particular nutrients.  This is a step in the right direction in my opinion.
• American Family Physician continues to promote a low-fat or modified fat diet (mostly unsaturated fats), even after admitting that the articles did not control for additional variables.
• In the end diet must be combined with physical activity in order to see the reduction in risk that we want.

About to go eat a block of cheese with olives,

Dan Pope

References:  All from the cochrane database, feel free to read them and let me know if you find anything else interesting!

To wrap up: When attempting to determine risk of injury, which populations are the FMS appropriate for?

• Sports population: In DII female collegiate athletes and in 1 american professional football team the FMS has shown to be a predictor of injury
• Military and firefighting population:  Several research studies support the FMS as a predictive test for injuries.
• Fitness Population? Injury prediction ability of the FMS in the general fitness community is currently not supported by the literature.  Keep in mind that a lack of evidence does not mean a lack of effectiveness.  This research has not yet been undertaken.  I personally believe that the FMS is promising and will yield similar results in an active fitness population.  I would definitely like to see some research in this population given that the FMS is marketing itself to the fitness community.  Until then we really have no high quality evidence in this area.

To Recap:

• The FMS has been shown to be predictive of injury in 1 professional football team, DII female winter sports teams and the military and fire fighting populations.
• What constitutes an injury varies from study to study.
• An FMS score of 14 or lower appears to be the cut-off point for risk of injury.
• Specificity = High – The FMS has shown promising results for ruling in risk of injury
• Sensitivity = Low – On the flip side of the coin the FMS has not been shown to be an effective means of ruling out injury.  This goes against the objective of a good “screen.”
• A low FMS score did not correlate with a previous ACL injury or previous incidence of injury in general in the female collegiate winter sports population.   *Previous injury is the greatest predictor of future injury.  In theory low FMS scores should correlate with previous injury since this is an at risk population.
• Low FMS scores did not correlate with increased overuse injuries in the military population.
• Scores greater then 18 correlated with increased incidence of injury in the military population (marine officers).  Strange finding…
• FMS was not shown to be a better predictor of injury compared to the standard military PT test.

Ultimately, understanding what this evidence is showing us is absolutely pivotal in how we apply the FMS to our patients and clients.  It gives us guidance about where it fits into our practice and maybe more importantly where it doesn’t fit or where there is possibly a better test.

In part 3 we’ll go over some additional aspects of the FMS including whether or not functional movement screen correlates with athletic performance, what is the best way to improve FMS scores and whether or not improving someone’s FMS score actually decreases their risk of injury.

Find Part 3 HERE:

Gray Cook for President,

Dan Pope

P.S. If you enjoyed this article then sign up for the newsletter to receive the FREE guide - 10 Idiot Proof Principles to Crossfit Performance and Injury Prevention as well as to keep up to date with new information as it comes out via weekly emails.

REFERENCES:

1. Bhk FP, Koehle MS. Normative Data for the Functional Movement Screen in middle-aged adults. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 May 3.

2. Butler RJ, Contreras M, Burton LC, Plisky PJ, Kiesel KB. Modifiable Risk Factors Predict injuries in Firefighters during Training Academies. Work. in press.

3. Chorba RS, Chorba DJ, Bouillon LE, Overmyer CA, Landis JA. Use of a functional movement screening tool to determine injury risk in female collegiate athletes. N Am J Sports Phys Ther. 2010 Jun;5(2):47- 54.

4. Cowen VS. Functional fitness improvements after a worksite-based yoga initiative. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2010;14:50-4.

5. Frost DM, Beach TA, Callaghan JP, McGill SM. Using the Functional Movement ScreenTM to evaluate the effectiveness of training. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Jun;26(6):1620-30.

6. Gribble P, Brigle J, Pietrosimone B, Pfile K, Webster K. Intrarater Reliability of the Functional Movement Screen. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 May 15.

7. Kiesel KB, Plisky PJ, Butler RJ. Functional movement test scores improve following a standardized off-season intervention program in professional football players. Scand J Sci Med Sports. 2011; 287- 292.

8. Kiesel K, Plisky PJ, Voight M. Can serious injury in professional football be predicted by a preseason Functional Movement Screen? N Am J Sports Phys Ther. 2007; 2(3):76-81.

9. Kiesel KB, Plisky PJ, Butler RJ. Fundamental movement limitations and asymmetries relate to injury risk in professional football players. in review.

10. O’Connor FG, Deuster PA, Davis J, Pappas CG, Knapik JJ. Functional movement screening: predicting injuries in officer candidates. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Dec;43(12):2224-30.

11. Onate JA, Dewey T, Kollock RO, Thomas KS, Van Lunen BL, DeMaio M, Ringleb SI. Real-time intersession and interrater reliability of the functional movement screen. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Feb;26(2):408-15.

12. Parchmann CJ, McBride JM. Relationship between functional movement screen and athletic performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2011 Dec;25(12):3378-8.

13. Schneiders AG, Davidsson A, Hörman E, Sullivan SJ. Functional movement screen normative values in a young, active population. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2011 Jun;6(2):75-82.

14. Smith CA, Chimera NJ, Wright N, Warren M. Interrater and Intrarater Reliability of the Functional Movement Screen. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Jun 11.

15. Teyhen DS, Shaffer SW, Lorenson CL, Halfpap JP, Donofry DF, Walker MJ, Dugan JL, Childs JD. The Functional Movement Screen: a reliability study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012 Jun;42(6):530-40.

• How a Doctor of Chiropractic runs his gym
• Adding on ramp/introductory classes to decrease risk of injury and improve client movement
• How Brian integrates his patients back into his fitness program
• Novel assessment and screening ideas
• Cues to keep your crossfit clients safe
• Brian’s thoughts on kipping pull-ups and box jumps
• Which exercises Brian doesn’t like
• Programming for injury prevention

Brian’s gym - http://www.crossfitsteelecreek.com

Premiere Health and Rehab Solutions - http://www.crossfitsteelecreek.com/about-us/premier-health-rehab-solutions/