[quote author="Craig Pickering" date="1320548250"]Isn’t the FMS used as a test to ascertain injury susceptibility through faulty movement patterns and/or movement inhibition?
If so, testing the effectiveness of the FMS on performance enhancement isn’t valid – it isn’t supposed to improve performance, rather identify potential injury issues. Once these issues have been identified, they can then be rectified.
I have never really payed much attention to the FMS except in passing, so I may be way off.
Valid argument but isn’t strength or lack of it a cause of injury? If I had weak gluteus or hamstrings isn’t that a part of the screening process? What we have learned is that successful golfers are more explosive in the legs, not have the ability to do well in 7 tests. Look at the article on the second part of the blog entry. What do you think about that study?
How do we define functional?[/quote]
There is no evidence in the study cited to suggest ‘successful golfers are more explosive in the legs’. This type of study simply shows a significant difference between male and female golfers for the variables tested (sprint,agility & jump capacity). When the combined group data (male & female) is plotted on a scatter graph you get a predictable significant correlation and then it is used to conclude that ‘1RM squat determination as a very important assessment tool as a component for determination of athletic performance’ – please!!
I am always amazed when this type of study gets published in a peer-reviewed journal. As Craig mentioned the FMS was never designed to predict performance – so what was the rationale for the study?