Controversial issues: #1 Recent FMS research

Recent things that have come up provided the motivation for the next three blogs:

1. The published ahead of print Parchmann and McBride FMS article
2. The recent interaction between Dr. Mike Stone and Mike Boyle
3. The University of Oklahoma exercise science professor(s) accused of questionable practice in research

#1. The FMS (Functional Movement Screen / Functional Movement Systems) method of assessment has gained huge popularity over the past 10 years. Very little research, however, has been done on this kind of screening and so whenever something comes up it certainly creates discussion. Below is the published ahead of print abstract:


RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FUNCTIONAL MOVEMENT SCREEN AND ATHLETIC PERFORMANCE

Christopher J. Parchmann and Jeffrey M. McBride

Appalachian State University, Department of Health, Leisure & Exercise Science, Neuromuscular & Biomechanics Laboratory, Boone, NC 28607

Tests such as the functional movement screen (FMS) and maximal strength (1RM) have been theorized to assist in predicting athletic performance capabilities. Some data exists concerning 1RM and athletic performance but very limited data exists concerning the potential ability of FMS to assess athletic performance. The purpose of this investigation was to determine if FMS scores or 1RM are related to athletic performance, specifically in Division I golfers in terms of sprint times, vertical jump height, agility T-test times and club head velocity. Twenty- five NCAA Division I golfers (15 men, age = 20.0±1.2 yrs, height = 176.8±5.6 cm, body mass = 76.5±13.4 kg, squat 1RM = 97.1±21.0 kg) (10 women, age = 20.5±0.8 yrs, height = 167.0±5.6 cm, body mass = 70.7±21.5 kg, squat 1RM = 50.3±16.6) performed a FMS, 1RM testing and field tests common in assessing athletic performance. Athletic performance tests included 10 m and 20 m sprint time, vertical jump height, agility T-test time, and club head velocity. Strength testing included a 1RM back squat. Data for 1RM testing was normalized to body mass for comparisons. Correlations were determined between FMS, 1RM’s and athletic performance tests using Pearson product correlation coefficients (p ≤ 0.05). No significant correlations existed between FMS and 10m sprint time (r = -0.136), 20m sprint time (r = -0.107), vertical jump height (r = 0.249), agility T-test time (r = -0.146) and club head velocity (r = -0.064). 1RM in the squat was significantly correlated to 10m sprint time (r = -0.812), 20m sprint time (r = -0.872), vertical jump height (r = 0.869), agility T-test time (r = -0.758) and club head velocity (r = 0.805). The lack of relationship suggests that FMS is not an adequate field test and does not relate to any aspect of athletic performance. Based on the data from this investigation 1RM squat strength appears to be a good indicator of athletic performance.

Key Words: strength, power, sprint, jump

Having read the full version of this research article, there are certainly some things that are less than ideal. The fact that the subjects are golfers performing test that may not be familiar with or important for success (agility and spring testing) being a primary issue. This said - the findings are really not surprising and it shouldn't have taken so long for this kind of research to have been done.

One could argue that the purpose of the FMS is to guage injury risk factors and not as a performance test, therefore nullifying the point of this research. This could be a valid argument when the FMS was first proposed (focusing, I believe, on the injury-side of things), but the use of this "tool" has now seemingly extended far beyond what may be appropriate. It seems now in common lore that the functional movement screen (or similarly packaged system) should be used as the primary assessment of performance, in addition to predict susceptibility to afflictions such as ACL injuries, hamstring strains, the common cold, and ingrown toenails. How on earth did we ever let our athletes get up out of bed, walk, run, or play hop-scotch before without checking that they scored above 14/21?

The (S&C) world truly has gone crazy if it is to put so much faith in a testing battery that does not incorporate the jump ability, force production, RFD, change of direction, acceleration, etc., much less relate to any of these CRUCIAL (game winning) factors.

I am not saying that these systems are without a place. What I am saying is that we need to ground ourselves and realize what they can and cannot show us. We also need far more (good) research on this to truly know. This research will be the evidence to help us make better decisions. The above abstract is a step in the right direction, but obviously has limitations.

It would be very interesting to implement an extensive testing battery (including FMS) over the course of a whole year with athletes from numerous sports, and look at the incidence of injury and how this relates to these scores. We currently have this in place (without the FMS part) here at ETSU, and have evidence on how our tests relate to performance, and change in performance. Interestingly of late we have been analyzing our injury numbers and the signs are very promising that we have been impacting this as well as performance. Hopefully we can get something of this ilk rolling here.

Force has a massive impact on every athletic movement that our athletes perform, and ultimately helps them to win. That said, we are not of the belief that force is the ONLY thing. Managing fatigue and moving correctly is important.

Every movement in the weight room and on the field can effectively be a screen of it's own if the coach or sport scientist is educated and experienced. Of course this approach, along with a well-researched testing battery is harder to be packaged and sold as a product, and therefore may not ever be popular in certain circles, whether it works or not.

Discussion is welcome. Here is part 2. Part 3 to come.