Other/Mixed What happens in an FMS, and what will I gain from it?

[Smile-n-Nod]

If I have a Functional Movement Screen, what can I expect? What will occur during the screen and what will I gain from it?

 

[David Cho]

You'll be taken through a series of movements (hurdle lunge, push up, overhead squat, etc.) and scored based on your performance of them. From there, the examiner should prescribe you corrective exercise drills (if everything is pain-free) to help correct your deficits.

The idea behind FMS is to help screen for issues and provide you with a basic prescription to increase your body's resilience.

Of course, the best person to ask is probably Brett Jones.

 

[wespom9]

An FMS screen will look into your competency in movement patterns. Based on your results, the most glaring weakness (a "1" score) or any asymmetries from side to side (1-2, 3-1, 3-2) will work to be "corrected" (read: have better quality/competency of movement), while painful ("0" score) patterns can also be identified. By determining which patterns are adequate or inadequate, exercise selection can be specifically geared to challenge patterns you are competent in, determine which exercises would be contraindicated based on your score, as well as strengthening the weakest link.

An FMS score of 14 (seven scores of 2, with no asymmetries), as well as other tests, are starting to be shown to be predictive of non-contact injury risk.

You will gain insight into what is described above, and understand how your body moves. As well, you will learn (through re-test) if your training is at least maintaining your quality of movement, or if it is making you better or worse. This insight would probably the be most value, but remember it requires re-test. Test without re-test will be unsatisfying.

 

[bbg011]

Anyone here who can help with creating a corrective programme based on FMS results? I did a test on my self, noted some obvious problems but wouldn't have a clue how to fix that. I can't reach sufficient depth, my feet turn outwards and my hips shift to the right. Any help appreciated.

 

[wespom9]

I am a certified level II within the FMS organization. Please note that it's very difficult to perform a true FMS test on yourself. As well, I assume you are talking about your Deep Squat score, but note that without knowing the other scores it wouldn't be prudent to go right to your DS score to correct unless that is the lowest score/asymmetry.

If you know the "self screen" that Gray Cook described in his other (fantastic) book "Athletic Body in Balance", that would be more ideal to perform on yourself, and I would say what that tells you would be better than the FMS screen, unless you have an FMS practitioner to run one for you.

@bbg011 PM me if you would like more information.

 

[Oscar]

@Smile-n-Nod, Im also planning on having an FMS. I have noticed a few things on my movement patterns that dont look good. For instance, when I squat deep, my left foot turns outwards more than my right. I think many of these issues will come to light during an FMS.

I will not do it now as Im focusing on other things, but will do it shortly. If you do it let me know how it goes

 

[Daniele]

Hi everyone!
I am planning to get an FMS screening very soon.

I would like to understand this: I have several mobility issues I usually overcome with a 5/10 minutes Original Strenght resets and Flexible Steel routine I do early in the morning and right before training. Should I get the FMS after those resets or whitout them?

Thanks in advance

 

[Steve Freides]

@Brett Jones

-S-

 

[mprevost]

There are some differing opinions on the FMS:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/tyranny-fms-rob-shaul/

 

[Shahaf Levin]

There are some differing opinions on the FMS:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/tyranny-fms-rob-shaul/

I just read this article... IMO he missed the entire FMS idea, therefore implemented it poorly and had poor results.

I am not going into details, but his obssesion with prehab/rehab and focusing on mobility as the main focus of FMS just show that. Gray Cook goes against the prehab mentality in Movement and mobility is the focus only when it should be. Correctives are just that and by no means are the main part of training. OK, I went into some detail

 

[Shahaf Levin]

Hi everyone!
I am planning to get an FMS screening very soon.

I would like to understand this: I have several mobility issues I usually overcome with a 5/10 minutes Original Strenght resets and Flexible Steel routine I do early in the morning and right before training. Should I get the FMS after those resets or whitout them?

Thanks in advance

Come to a screen with no preparation. The purpose is to screen your steady-state patterns. OS/FS in this framework are correctives. Actually FMS pre and post OS/FS will validate that this is a proper movement prep for you by higher scores/less assymetry

 

[Bill Been]

I just read this article... IMO he missed the entire FMS idea, therefore implemented it poorly and had poor results.

I am not going into details, but his obssesion with prehab/rehab and focusing on mobility as the main focus of FMS just show that. Gray Cook goes against the prehab mentality in Movement and mobility is the focus only when it should be. Correctives are just that and by no means are the main part of training. OK, I went into some detail

If the author misunderstood how to apply FMS and therefore expected results FMS was not designed to deliver, perhaps you would tell us exactly what it is that FMS was designed for, what it can do -exactly.

Additionally, I’d be curious to hear your opinion on how the research papers he cites are inappropriate either for the point he’s making or to how FMS is properly used in a gym/practitioner setting.

I often hear that the research has missed the point of FMS or that it has refuted claims FMS has never made. So I’d love to narrow down exactly what claims FMS makes then stands behind.

 

[wespom9]

This one is for @Brett Jones to chime in on, but I will point out the following...

- The FMS site has been pretty clear that a composite score means nothing. No 1's or 0's are very different from three 3's, a 2 and three 1's. Greg Rose has a very nice video on this. Any research that uses the composite score only is missing out on that important note.
- they've been fairly clear that the FMS alone does not predict injury. If I remember right, the greatest risk of injury is prior injury. FMS scores combined with other factors can paint a clearer picture. It's only one part of the puzzle.
- FMS does not equal performance. Not in any course I attended did they state that.

 

[Bill Been]

This one is for @Brett Jones to chime in on, but I will point out the following...

- The FMS site has been pretty clear that a composite score means nothing. No 1's or 0's are very different from three 3's, a 2 and three 1's. Greg Rose has a very nice video on this. Any research that uses the composite score only is missing out on that important note.
- they've been fairly clear that the FMS alone does not predict injury. If I remember right, the greatest risk of injury is prior injury. FMS scores combined with other factors can paint a clearer picture. It's only one part of the puzzle.
- FMS does not equal performance. Not in any course I attended did they state that.

With respect - the researchers did not invent the composite score or its use. The composite score has been part of FMS. If it doesn't work for anything, I don't know why it exists.

By your admission, FMS does not predict injury. Previous injury history does.

And by your further admission, FMS does not predict performance.

So I renew my original, sincere, query: if the composite score means nothing, the screen does not predict injury in the absence of other evaluations, and the screen does not predict performance - what exactly is FMS claiming to do?

 

[North Coast Miller]

I have two questions -

Could you not improve your score by simply practicing the movements in the FMS?

Are there different batteries of FMS or is mostly the one?

 

[offwidth]

With respect - the researchers did not invent the composite score or its use. The composite score has been part of FMS. If it doesn't work for anything, I don't know why it exists.

By your admission, FMS does not predict injury. Previous injury history does.

And by your further admission, FMS does not predict performance.

So I renew my original, sincere, query: if the composite score means nothing, the screen does not predict injury in the absence of other evaluations, and the screen does not predict performance - what exactly is FMS claiming to do?

I think this is a fair question...

 

[wespom9]

With respect - the researchers did not invent the composite score or its use. The composite score has been part of FMS. If it doesn't work for anything, I don't know why it exists.

By your admission, FMS does not predict injury. Previous injury history does.

And by your further admission, FMS does not predict performance.

So I renew my original, sincere, query: if the composite score means nothing, the screen does not predict injury in the absence of other evaluations, and the screen does not predict performance - what exactly is FMS claiming to do?

I think it's just one piece of the puzzle. Different parts of the screen may have greater potential to be part of the injury prediction puzzle. Again, don't quote me here, but scoring a 1 or 0 in the Deep Squat as a pro golfer has been shown to be a risk factor. I have spoken to people who have data that says baseball players with large asymmetry in shoulder mobility and poor trunk control have higher incidence of blowing out their UCL and needing TJ surgery. In the baseball example, those two screens could help prevent elbow issues moreso than knowing a composite score could do.

It measures quality of movement and individual possesses, asking individuals to have a baseline pattern of movement ability before adding too much extra stress. For me, this is a helpful factor in determining exercise selection for my clients. In my view, it is one part of the answer to "how can I improve this person's fitness to meet their goals while simultaneously decreasing their risk of injury?"
On a purely anecdotal note - those who can minimize the amount of 1's or 0's in their FMS screen have much greater ease going about their daily activities. I speak mostly working at a gym that leans toward older adults.

Hope that helps. I think the FMS has somewhat of a "mystical" nature to it with many people. Unfortunately, it's not going to be a magic potion. I truly doubt we will ever be able to predict injury with any sort of competence, but then again mastery is an asymptote. We can always get closer.

@North Coast Miller I'm sure you could try, but trust me it is difficult. I will never "fake" a 3 on the rotary stability test. The demands of the test basically require the body to move with zero to minimal compensation. As soon as that occurs, most people can't fake their way through. I'm finding it a little tough to explain without a visual representation. As far as different "batteries", I apologize I don't know what you mean by that. There is a "full" screen and a "modified version", that replaces four of the screens with two different ones, but otherwise the screen is universal.

 

[Shahaf Levin]

If the author misunderstood how to apply FMS and therefore expected results FMS was not designed to deliver, perhaps you would tell us exactly what it is that FMS was designed for, what it can do -exactly.

Additionally, I’d be curious to hear your opinion on how the research papers he cites are inappropriate either for the point he’s making or to how FMS is properly used in a gym/practitioner setting.

I often hear that the research has missed the point of FMS or that it has refuted claims FMS has never made. So I’d love to narrow down exactly what claims FMS makes then stands behind.

@Bill Been, I will try to add to @wespom9 reply to the best of my ability and from my own point of view on FMS. This hopefuly will answer also @North Coast Miller and @offwidth questions.

I'll start with your first qeustion - what FMS was designed for and what it can do.
Let start with Functional Movement System. The system, as I undertsand it, is a framewok designed to view and develop human movement with emphasise on qualitive factors - meaning how well one moves as prior to how much/heavy/fast one moves - the FMS moto is Move well. move often .Move well means optimal movement patterns which, by defenition, are compensation free. The understanding(assumption?) is that individual with optimal movement patterns addapts better to training (training loads are more eustress than disstress), has a reduced risk for overuse injuries and generaly has a better ability to express movement. Gray Cook often uses the language analogy saying that quality of movement is basically your movment literacy. Allong these lines individuals with high language literacy will have easier time learning new material, will make less linguistic mistakes and is better equiped to express themselves in communication.

The approach to trainig is protect -> correct -> develop. qulaity first, load second. If a pattern shows injury - treat it, if(when) a pattern is (healthy) dysfunctional don't load that dysfucntion - correct it, if(when) the pattern is functional - load it (performance training). Correcting a pattern can be anything from some goblet squats (aka warmup or movement prep) up to some dedicated session of patterning, all depends on the individual.

Now that I think I have explained the framework of the system I hope I can make the Functional Movement Screen clear. Since the system is quality-of-movement-based it has to define a baseline to guage what quality is, much like deadlift/squat load are a baseline guages for strength. The screen categorize movement patterns to optimal/with compenstaion/dysfunctional with the additional "injured" for any painful pattern regradless of its expression. This serves as an entry to the protect-correct-develop scheme and to gauge progression regression in movement quality throughout training life. I agree that the numbers are somewhat misleading and that the composite score can be easily misused. In all FMS writings I have read the composite score itslef is mentioned to be usefull only when there are no zeros or ones (injuries or dysfunctions), some even mentions no assymetries, so if one decides to use a composite score with ones he can't blame FMS for not working. Back to the language analogy - the screen is a semestrial literacy exam to help teach a more appropriate syllabus next semester.

I hope that was exact enough, if not tell me what was not and I will do my best to fill in the gaps.

For your question regarding my opinion of the cited reserach papers and refuting claims the FMS never made... I haven't read he specific cited papers so I cannot offer any opinion. However, I have read some from around the web throughout the last year or two, and some conversation with a physical therapist and a physical education student that are both do not agree with FMS. The compostie score is a good example... people use it imcluding ones and zeros, not like the system works, or decide to ignore assymetires. And at least some of the times no certified FMS are invloved in the process. The PT that didn't like FMS never read any FMS material by FMS, let allone Movement ot taking part of a seminar, and claims that it can't solve all problems in the PT world - a claim that FMS has never made. The PE student says no objective baseline can exist and he can see diagnose movement better than any screen. He also never read any FMS material.

These papers/people are on the lines of papers that claim that deadlifts are bad for the back and squats are bad for the knees... To quote Dan John - squats don't hurt your knees, the way you squat hurt your knees.

This is my own answer and by no means represent the FMS organization. @Brett Jones - please correct any mistakes and inaccuracies I have written.

Some more questions been asked:

Could you not improve your score by simply practicing the movements in the FMS?

I assume that yes, to some extent, but it's probably just cheating yourslef - like studying for the test instead than for knowledge - the screen is a tool - it has no life on it own.

FMS does not predict performance.

True, FMS are developing the FCS (Fundamental Capicity Screen) as a tool-unbaised performance screen (tool-unbiased - deadlifts are biased towards barbell lifters). I must say that IMO as you go up the pyramid of skill and performance you get more specific and general/fundamental/etc. screens and tests are less relevant.

 

[North Coast Miller]

I don't have an opinion on this one way or the other except that anytime someone uses the word "functional" in a general sense my inclination is to stop paying much attention. Functional is as functional does, and many "functional" exercises look nothing like anything one might perform in their day-to-day (Oly lifts anybody?), including the overhead squat. Not to say they aren't good exercise, but so are many other movements not commonly looked upon as "functional" which also load movement patterns you will never use outside the gym.

If a person cannot move easily in their day to day would be much more indicative of postural imbalance than asking them to do a battery of unfamiliar movements (by definition not functional for them). Any unfamiliar movement patterns are going to reveal imbalance until they are learned, simply due to coordination asymmetries, this doesn't mean anything is fundamentally wrong.

I'd think you would need to have someone perform the screen a number of times to see how they do when familiarity is gained. If you still have issues then you could proceed with more confidence.

Admittedly it makes sense to gauge an individual's base fitness and mobility prior to a program, so in this respect I can see some utility for the novice or on request.

 

[mprevost]

To muddy the waters a bit, here is another movement screen system. This one does not require you to buy any equipment and is simple enough that I can't imagine needing a certification:

http://websites.sportstg.com/get_file.cgi?id=1454102

I have mixed feelings about these movement screens. My first introduction to the FMS was at the NSCA Tactical Strength and Conditioning Conference. The way it was presented there seemed to be a bit ahead of the evidence. It surprised me that they were recommending not allowing individuals to participate in group PT until they reached a certain FMS score. It seemed counterproductive and too much of a stretch.

However, I like to do some movement screening and I have found it to be very instructive. When I was doing lots of run gait analysis, I could predict what I was going to see when I watched an athlete run simply by having them do pushups and one legged squats. From those two alone I knew what to look for, and even which side of the body to watch. It helped complete the picture by addressing the "why" when I saw a run gait issue. After watching them run, I often did other movement screening like checking range of motion and stability, depending on what I saw. In other words, watching them run was not enough for me to complete the picture of why they had run gait issues. I found it instructive to do some additional screening.

I am naturally a skeptic and now that there is so much money to be made with the FMS (certifications, equipment) I am a bit cautious. I do believe there is some value to the FMS but how much? I don't really know.

Time will tell I guess. But I like that we are paying much more attention to movement.