With the announcement of our January “Movement Workshop”
here in Minot, ND, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking and having a lot of
discussions about assessing movement quality and where it “fits” in the
strength and conditioning world. Assessments aren’t new to the world of
strength and conditioning. Every coach I’ve ever encountered has their own
battery of assessments that they put their athletes through before getting into
the bulk of their training. I think we all pretty much agree on certain
standards: vertical jump tests help us assess vertical power development,
standing broad jumps give us a standard for horizontal power development, and
60/40-yard dashes can assist in monitoring speed development. Assessments
like these have been around forever and are mainstays for a reason. They give
us valuable feedback that helps us audit our programs and ourselves.
I think we all understand the value of monitoring and assessments,
but for some reason are still quick to ignore or write off the application and
analysis of a simple movement screen. I’ve been using pre-training screens and
assessments now for 3 or 4 years to drive individualized programming for my athletes.
I’m not afraid to admit that when I first started I didn’t really know how to best
use all the information I was collecting. I hope that 10 years from now, I’ll
say the same thing about how I use the information today. What I did/do know, however,
is that some of the best strength and conditioning coaches in the world were/are
using screens like the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) to facilitate
consistent progress with fewer setbacks with their athletes and clients.
In my opinion, getting people in the strength and
conditioning world to buy into the idea of collecting standardized movement
scores gets hung up because of a couple of reasons. I’m hoping, with this blog,
to address these reasons and explain how I think we can turn them from obstacles
into a driving force for progress in our human performance community.
Reason #1: When
you collect standardized scores that aren’t a direct reflection of strength,
power or speed development, people assume you are trying to be a clinician.
This for me has been one of my biggest setbacks since
collecting standardized movement scores. I think a lot of the clinicians I work
in congruence with feel like a strength coach that is committing a fraction of
his/her time and energy to collecting scores not directly related to strength
and power is trying to do their job. I’m hoping to give some insight to how
that can’t be further from the truth.
When I collect an FMS score, I am doing nothing other than assessing neuromuscular function. Neuromuscular
function in essence is just the
patterns that the brain accesses when it conducts the human structure (muscles
pulling on bones) to move. Assessment
tools like the FMS have given us a means to apply a standardized score to neuromuscular function. That’s it.
When we collect the numbers, we are able to seek out certain dysfunctions in
the neuromuscular system. When we compare scores bilaterally (one side to the
other), we are able to seek out asymmetries in the neuromuscular system that
might eventually lead to structural imbalances and, eventually, to pain and/or
injury.
If an athlete reports pain or injury to me as a strength
coach, I refer them to a clinician. It is not in my scope of practice or my interest
to treat pain or injury. I do believe, however, that assessing the function of
the neuromuscular system and treating any dysfunctions or asymmetries in its
function pays incredibly high dividends down the road to preventing that injury
and pain from returning. Also, training around pain and discomfort is a far cry
from treating pain and discomfort. If an athlete has knee pain or shoulder
pain, they get referred, but that doesn’t mean we can’t find something for that
athlete to work on. I think often times, when a strength coach TRAINS AROUND pain; it can seem as if
we’re trying to TREAT pain. This is
one reason that communication between coach and clinician is so valuable.
I think of the
Functional Movement Model like this:
If you have a leak in your roof, your first action is what?
Well, put a bucket under the leak to catch the water so the floor doesn’t get
soaking wet, of course. I liken this method to a clinician assessing and
treating the site in which pain is presenting. Your knee hurts, why wouldn’t we
look at your knee, right? This is logical thinking, but even though we’ve kept
the leak from destroying our brand new carpet, we’ve done nothing to actually
fix the cause (the leaky roof) of the problem (our floor getting wet). When we
look at the way a person is moving with standardized scoring it can give us
valuable insight into not only where the water (pain) is coming from, but also
how large the leak (neuromuscular dysfunction) might actually be. What we’re
trying to do with standardized movement scoring isn’t to clean up the water,
but to keep the roof from leaking before it ever has a chance to make a mess.
I understand that strength and conditioning coaches
collecting information that doesn’t directly reflect power and strength
development can have some clinicians a bit nervous, but please try and understand
that by doing so, I’m not trying to do your job, I’m trying to make your job
easier.
Reason #2:
Strength and Conditioning coaches don’t understand how the scores can positively
affect their programming.
I attended a Functional Movement Systems weekend
certification course about 4 years ago, and it was the first time I was ever
introduced to pre-training movement assessment and screening. I left
Minneapolis that weekend with my head spinning like a top. I had just spent 72
hours amongst an array of human performance professionals: athletic trainers,
chiropractors, physical therapists, personal trainers, strength and
conditioning and CrossFit coaches, etc. and had no idea what the hell had
happened. Sprinkle in that my weekend roommate was one of the most well read, hardest
working, brilliant young human performance minds I’ve ever met and I left the
state of Minnesota feeling pretty insignificant. It took me a long while to
understand, even though they reiterated the point multiple times, that
collecting standardized scores for the neuromuscular system is just ONE TOOL IN YOUR TOOLBOX.
Since that weekend, I have adopted the system to allow me to
individualize training for all of my athletes while avoiding set backs and
chronic pains as best I can, but it doesn’t mean every stimulus I apply is just
to create more efficient movement. I haven’t lost site of my purpose with my
athletes. Bigger, faster, stronger will always be my job. I just refuse to
chase any of those three attributes at the cost of proper function and physical
health. I’m hoping this week I can give you a better idea of how you as a
strength and conditioning professional can still get more strength, power, and
speed out of your athletes while still following the principles of the movement
system.
I’d like to discuss how the collection of scores leads me to
certain implements to assist exercises, the use of exercise regressions, and
the omittance of certain exercises entirely.
The ideas and methods that I am going to share are a
collection of such from literature I have read from other strength and
conditioning coaches, physical therapists, athletic trainers, and
chiropractors. I have used the information, research, and experiences they have
shared, to affect my programming in what I believe to be a positive way. I want
you, as a reader, to understand that even though I have developed my own method
of applying the information I collect (and I encourage you to experiment with
your own ideas/methods) I’m not going to take any credit for coming up with
them. Any information that is shared that you think might be valuable is
because I stand on the shoulders of giants that have paved the way for young
coaches like myself to share how they’ve affected my professional development
in a positive manner.
Furthermore, I’m not recommending the functional movement
model as a replacement to your
assessment methods. I’m recommending it as a valuable addition to your assessment methods. I use it strictly as a red flag system that can alert you to
possible problems before they ever arise. You can still turn your athletes into
beasts, I’m just hoping this gives you insight into how to create beasts that compete
free of pain and injury.
Later in the week I’ll try and illustrate exactly how I use
standardized movement scores to drive my programming, and hope that by now, I
have some of you interested. For those of you who are planning on attending our
“Movement Workshop” January 27th – 29th, 2017: I would
encourage you to start researching different methods of movement assessment.
The functional movement systems has pretty much established
itself as the gold standard in assessment of movement patterns and would be a
great place to start.
Here is the website: http://www.functionalmovement.com/fms
I’m also hoping that this can give people a better idea as
to what we’re trying to accomplish by hosting workshops in our community. Local
human performance students and professionals gathering consistently to discuss
and share ideas is something we don’t yet have here in Minot. We’re hoping to
change that and bridge the gap in the process. Ultimately, if we can work
better together, the human performance students, our athletes, and our clients
will be the beneficiaries. I think we all know and understand that, but now
it’s time to act.
As Always, Thank you for taking the time to read,
Caleb Heilman
No comments:
Post a Comment