Several days ago I was directed to a recently published article examining the relationship between the functional movement screen and athletic performance. Upon first glance of the abstract, I immediately became perplexed as to the objective of this study. The first line states, "Tests such as the functional movement screen (FMS)...have been theorized to assist in predicting athletic performance capabilities." Having intensively been through most of the Functional Movement Systems' educational system, I am confused as to where the authors of this study extracted such theory.
Most of you who have attended their courses and/or have read their material will know that the FMS is a tool for injury risk prediction. However, many individuals see this tool as something more than its true intention and as such, utilize their (incorrect) assumptions as a guiding framework to discredit such system. A reality that unfortunately, puts the FMS in a difficult place.
One common argument, in particular, is the research. That such published research supporting the FMS has been performed by individuals with an allegiance to the company. While not entirely true, I personally see this as a benefit. Reason being is that some of the research discrediting the screen has possessed fundamental flaws in their objectives.
Now take my case for example. I, myself, am certified with the company and would argue that I have a relatively good understanding of their system. Should the results of my work (for or against) then be automatically discredited because I know the system quite well?
If so, that would be too bad for swimming and ice hockey because I see more of a flaw in this type of thinking than in the system itself.
Leave a Reply.