I agree Mel - there is such an emphasis on bilateral mobility in so many
tests - as if an inequality in mobility is a problem.
Certainly in many sports like golf and tennis one would not expect (or
desire) equal bilateral mobility but I bet if one of these 'functional'
tests pick up an inequality in mobility between left and right it is
viewed as a 'problem' and addressed (possibly to the detriment of the
athlete).
In fact I doubt many sports require bilateral equality in mobility,
strength or co-ordination. I would go further and say that much
apparent immobility may be functional in many sports.
This is a problem with many patients we see nowadays where they become
obsessed with the fact they have been told they have a 'long' leg, a
'dropped' shoulder or a 'scoliosis' and they associate all their
problems with this inequality when often these things are Red Herrings.
I don't know if you have seen these pictures where they take a
photograph of a human face and 'flip' one side to the other so you see a
completely symmetrical face - it looks really creepy. We are just not
made to be symmetrical.
Maybe this is a throwback to the 'mechanical' context of much of the
study of human movement. Machines are so often made to have bilateral
symmetry and if your car had more steerage to the right than the left it
would be a problem so this logic has been transposed to the
biomechanical realm as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This whole mind-set may well reflect the difference in opinion we have
had before regarding Transversus Abdominus work where most
physiotherapists work only with people who have clear dysfunctions which
are causing them symptoms as opposed to a lot of the work you criticise
where non-symptomatic people are being told to do dynamic core stability
work because it will prevent problems - I am not aware of any research
that bears this out - and I am uncomfortable with many 'fitness
trainers' messages regarding core stability work.
Good to have you back on the list Mel.
In message <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask] writes
>The April 2002 issue of Training & Conditioning magazine featured an article
>("Weak Links" p29) which promoted the use of seven tests reputed to validly
>identify "functional" weaknesses in several key areas of athletic
>performance. The reader is referred to the following website for details of
>these tests:
>
>http://www.functionalmovement.com/
>
>This is how this website is introduced:
>
>" Functional Movement Screen is a company that has developed practical and
>applied screening and training tools in the areas of sports medicine and
>strength and conditioning. Up until recently, the sports medicine
>professional's approach to injury prevention has been the pre-participation
>physical. Likewise the strength and conditioning coach uses assessments of
>strength, speed and power to determine quantitative performance potential.
>The diverse approaches of these two disciplines, however, leaves a gap
>regarding the quality of movement as it relates to the efficiency in which an
>athlete performs. Also left uncovered are the underlying movement problems
>and musculo-skeletal anomalies that only inhibit maximal performance
>potential, but may lead to increased tendency of non-contact injuries.
>Functional Movement Screen TM has developed a tool to help in the
>identification and correction of such movement dysfunctions as well as
>maximize the training efficiency and efficacy of athletes.
>
>The tool is the Functional Movement Screen . "
>
>This "Screen" offers these tests:
>
>1. The Deep Squat - to assess bilateral, symmetrical, mobility of the hips,
>knees, and ankles. The dowel held overhead assesses bilateral, symmetrical
>mobility of the shoulders as well as the thoracic spine.
>
>[The athlete modelling the overhead squat with a dowel shows that this test
>can also be an even better test of shoulder mobility in one plane - he would
>never be able to hold even half bodymass overhead in that position. His neck
>was also thrust far forward and his lumbar spine appeared to rather rounded,
>so that this test was quite revealing about this specific athlete! MCS]
>
>2. The Hurdle Step - to assess bilateral mobility and stability of the hips,
>knees, and ankles.
>
>3. The In-Line Lunge -to assess bilateral mobility and stability, as well as
>ankle and knee stability.
>
>4. The Shoulder Mobility Screen - to assess bilateral shoulder range of
>motion combining internal rotation with adduction and external rotation with
>abduction.
>
>[This requires one to try to grip the hands behind one's back with one arm
>going over the one shoulder and the
>opposite arm trying to reach it from below. This test does not take into
>account the fact that its outcome depends very heavily on relative length of
>arm and forearm and often has little to do with "shoulder mobility" (which
>after all has to be measured in several different directions. MCS]
>
>5. The Active Straight Leg Raise test - to assess active hamstring and
>gastroc/soleus flexibility, while maintaining a stable pelvis.
>
>6. The Trunk Stability Push-Up - to assess trunk stability in the sagittal
>plane while a symmetrical upper extremity motion is performed.
>
>7. The Rotational Stability test - to assess multi-planar stability while a
>combined upper and lower extremity motion is performed.
>
>[Here one is required to kneel down and balance on one knee and the arm of
>the same side, etc. How this is meant to assess dynamic stability in
>athletic action is not discussed or validated. MCS]
>
>---------
>
>Since the entire website refers to "Functional Movement", we can safely
>assume that its methods are meant to apply to *movement* in sport, and more
>specifically, the "functional" movements involved in all sports. Is it not
>curious, then, that all of the screening tests are entirely static and
>involve no dynamic movement whatsoever? Moreover, some of these tests are
>carried out in postures which are not "functionally" specific to many sports.
>
>These tests are also offered without any apparent scientific analysis or
>studies which show exactly why and how these tests correlate strongly with
>functional movement in a wide variety of sports. As they stand, these tests
>appear to have been devised on the sole basis of personal opinion. While the
>authors are to be complimented in attempting to devise some additional field
>tests to evaluate important motor qualities and abilities in sport, they fall
>far short of their target by relying solely on limited static tests of
>minimal or no proven validity.
>
>My analysis barely scratches the surface of these tests, but I trust that it
>sets the stage for others to attempt a more thorough job. So - over to any
>other analysts!
>
>Dr Mel C Siff
>Denver, USA
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/
--
John Spencer
|
