Comments on: Research Review – Core strength: A New Model for Injury Prediction and Prevention

By: Mark Young Training Systems » » FMS Interview with Dr. Robert Butler

Mark Young Training Systems » » FMS Interview with Dr. Robert Butler — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:16:52 +0000

[...] Core strength: A New Model for Injury Prediction and Prevention [...]

By: Bret Contreras » Good Reads for the Week

Bret Contreras » Good Reads for the Week — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:10:31 +0000

[...] this article Mark Young discusses some flaws in the research in an study involving the [...]

By: markyoung

markyoung — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:15:31 +0000

I have yet to read the review by Hoover. Coming soon though. Great thoughts Chi!

By: Chi

Chi — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:20:05 +0000

I don’t think the problem is the sensitivity and increasing the resolution to 100, will only give you an illusion of accuracy. I see a couple of problems.

1. It does not seem to matter how you pass the 14 points. If that’s true, you implicitly state that every movement has the same impact on injury. That is (statistically) unlikely.

2. Most of the individual movements have not been validated or just for real specific situations. I know it’s a screen not an assessment, but it is the foundation of the 14 points

In the review by Hoover 2008, the FMS could not predict anything for recreational half marathon runners. When they tried to correlate the individual movements, only the Hurdlestep had a specificity of around 8%, which is nothing.

Again, I like the principles behind the screen, but insuring the safety of your athletes, based on a screen with a lot of unanswered questions, may turn out to be a costly illusion.

By: markyoung

markyoung — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 01:35:37 +0000

I’d never thought of that analogy. Great point! I think the FMS is a useful screen, but I’m not sure I put as much stock in the numbers as I do the qualitative element. That said, I’ve heard mention of a study where they made the score on the FMS out of 100 instead of 21 so it is more sensitive to variations of normal/dysfunction.

By: Chi

Chi — Sun, 12 Sep 2010 21:57:19 +0000

Mark,

I’m not sure why this just popped up on my RSS reader, but I’m glad it did. I agree with you 100%. I think this review is specifically important, because it is the most referenced pro FMS study besides the Kiesel 2007 study.

I really like the principles behind FMS, but the scoring system, always reminds of the metabolic syndrome (ATP III), where a score of 3 out of 5, is more than the sum of parts. You suddenly have the metabolic syndrome. Some studies seem to confirm that, but when you really look at all the studies, the metabolic syndrome is pretty much dead. That does not mean that blood pressure or glucose levels aren’t important, but the scoring system might not be. The same may be true for the FMS.

We need critical voices, to make sure we are serving our clients the best way we can. So, thanks Mark.

By: Good Reads for the Week « Bret's Blog

Good Reads for the Week « Bret's Blog — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 08:36:50 +0000

[...] this article Mark Young discusses some flaws in the research in an study involving the [...]

By: markyoung

markyoung — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 18:18:22 +0000

Thanks for the encouragement Mark!

I’ll definitely do my best to stay on top of the research and present it in the most unbiased way in which I am capable (of course we all have biases).

By: markyoung

markyoung — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 18:16:28 +0000

Patrick,

If my understanding is correct, the FMS is a screening tool designed to predict injury. In that sense, I guess that since it was able to predict injury when a pass/fail criteria was established it did what it was supposed to do. Of course, I would argue that this doesn’t really matter if age could be used to predict the same thing, but the FMS did technically do its job.

By: Mark Fisher

Mark Fisher — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:02:47 +0000

I’m all for the FMS and focusing on improving quality of movement. But at the end of the day, I think we should still be able to be objective about studies providing evidence for its efficacy (or lack thereof). Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence of course, but I appreciate your endless willingness to dissect studies that have been misinterpreted to support conventional wisdom, even if it means rocking the boat a bit. Pleeeeease keep up the great work Mark!