Monday, May 18, 2009
10K Lean Eating Challenge with Precision Nutrition.
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Folks who read b2d may know i'm a fan/adherent of Precision Nutrition (see reviews listed to the right of this post) - along with folks here i respect a lot: RD Georgie Fea and Z Master Trainer Mike T Nelson.
Just FYI: 10k Prize for sensible eating transformation?
Well, ok, i'm not much of a contest person, but goals can be powerful motivation. So John Berardi of PN is running his body transformation challenge again via a special coaching program called Lean Eating. The new lean eating program will open May 26.
if you're interested in leaning up, possibly winning 10k from a *sensible* body transformation, and getting some one on one time with Berardi's lean eating team, signing up for the new Lean Eating Challenge, *may* be the most cost effective way to get that Work with a Trainer's edge to move towards your goal.
For more info, here's a video explaining the challenge
Worst case, 6 months of super nutrition training and support - customized for you.
I mention this because last year, the program actually sold out pretty much the moment it was announced, so this time, they're taking names for the program on i think a first come first served basis.
So if you're interested in this kind of hands on help, by all means put in your name while you consider further, but especially if you know someone you think may benefit from some support and training, well thar ya go.
again, just fyi...
all the best,
mc
in yet another airport lounge... Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Just FYI: 10k Prize for sensible eating transformation?
Well, ok, i'm not much of a contest person, but goals can be powerful motivation. So John Berardi of PN is running his body transformation challenge again via a special coaching program called Lean Eating. The new lean eating program will open May 26.
if you're interested in leaning up, possibly winning 10k from a *sensible* body transformation, and getting some one on one time with Berardi's lean eating team, signing up for the new Lean Eating Challenge, *may* be the most cost effective way to get that Work with a Trainer's edge to move towards your goal.
For more info, here's a video explaining the challenge
Worst case, 6 months of super nutrition training and support - customized for you.
I mention this because last year, the program actually sold out pretty much the moment it was announced, so this time, they're taking names for the program on i think a first come first served basis.
So if you're interested in this kind of hands on help, by all means put in your name while you consider further, but especially if you know someone you think may benefit from some support and training, well thar ya go.
again, just fyi...
all the best,
mc
in yet another airport lounge... Tweet Follow @begin2dig
PDF
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Myth Busting: Women are afraid of "bulking up" in working out - not!
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
After reading a variety of posts on forums asserting that women are afraid of bulking up, i've been running a survey this past week of gals who do workout in whatever form they define "workout" to see if actual women hold these views - or if this assertion is just one more urban legend.
(update 1, below)
so far there have been 28 respondents to the following 3 positions:
1. i adjust my workouts deliberately to avoid muscular "bulk"
2. i adjust my workouts at least some of the time deliberately to achieve some "bulk"
3. i don't think about "bulk" at all when i do my workouts
Responses
1. only 1 person
2. 11 gals
3. 16 gals
So, 40% picked that they DO go for bulk deliberately at least some of the time, while a whopping 57% (who also commented that they lift heavy) don't think about bulk one way or the other when they design their programs they "just want to get strong," or fast, and only 3% said they are concerned to make sure they won't induce bulk from their workouts.
That's a pretty significant inversion of the assumptions that have been expressed like some kind of truth about women's attitudes towards working out.
I'll update after another week if the numbers start to change, but i hope from this tiny sample at least some assumptions about "women" and their views of working out might get updated in folks' heads.
UPDATE 1:
response so far from a few of the gentlemen of good will who have seen this:
Update 2: (may 31, 09)
Since the results haven't changed for a week, here's the latest numbers on the the straw poll survey: of 52 respondents, 88% either don't care or from time to time deliberately do try to "bulk"
Fascinating again.
Tweet Follow @begin2dig
(update 1, below)
so far there have been 28 respondents to the following 3 positions:
1. i adjust my workouts deliberately to avoid muscular "bulk"
2. i adjust my workouts at least some of the time deliberately to achieve some "bulk"
3. i don't think about "bulk" at all when i do my workouts
Responses
1. only 1 person
2. 11 gals
3. 16 gals
So, 40% picked that they DO go for bulk deliberately at least some of the time, while a whopping 57% (who also commented that they lift heavy) don't think about bulk one way or the other when they design their programs they "just want to get strong," or fast, and only 3% said they are concerned to make sure they won't induce bulk from their workouts.That's a pretty significant inversion of the assumptions that have been expressed like some kind of truth about women's attitudes towards working out.
I'll update after another week if the numbers start to change, but i hope from this tiny sample at least some assumptions about "women" and their views of working out might get updated in folks' heads.
UPDATE 1:
response so far from a few of the gentlemen of good will who have seen this:
- must be a special group of women i surveyed, like just uni athletes or "women who know better" or "non advanced women athletes" or not the women a fellow sees in the gym who aren't "working out to their potential."
- These fellers make general statements about "women" of some class/group/category despite citing resources - but a sort of implicit reference to "common knowledge" which seems to be more persuasive than the actual data presented here (and by their own female peers).
- They resonate with the other 97% of women who participated in the survey - they either don't care themselves about adding visible muscle or not, or are into getting some muscle mass.
- These women have not generalized to knowledge of other women or "women" as a general class beyond knowledge of themselves or peers with whom they've deliberately discussed the matter.
Update 2: (may 31, 09)
Since the results haven't changed for a week, here's the latest numbers on the the straw poll survey: of 52 respondents, 88% either don't care or from time to time deliberately do try to "bulk"
Fascinating again.
Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Monday, May 4, 2009
A Movement Assessment: what is it and why should i have one?
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Getting rid of the Parts Model of Human Pain and Performance.
Folks on various health forums will often post "i have a weak knee; what exersises can i do to strengthen it?" or "my hamstrings are tight and it's affecting my deadlift; what can i do to loosen them up?" or "my shoulder keeps bugging me; what's good for shoulder rehab?"
All of these questions, it seems, tend to consider the site of the problem to be the source of the problem.
Folks who reply often share that perspective with proposals like "sore shoulder - here's a great book/dvd/blog on shoulder rehab." or "tight hamstrings? foam roll 'em out. it's great. do that anytime before you deadlift that'll loosen 'em right up."
But what if the site of the problem isn't the source of the problem?
Then all we are providing are classic band aid solutions where the problem will just keep coming back. We know about this in any kind of mechanical situation: the car engine is leaking oil.
If all we do is keep pouring in oil to top it up, we're not dealing with the problem. The problem may require a simple tweak on a part we're not familiar with, or it may need some more serious work. We don't know; we don't have the expertise. So we get an assessment of what the problem is, and what it will take to fix it.
We know enough to do this for a mechanical machine, and yet when it comes to our far more complex organism - our bio-electrical-mechano-organic selves, we seem to take a far cheaper attitude. Perhaps because we're so resliant; perhaps because the trad. medical establishment has let us down. And how successful - in the long term - is our tire patch/band aid approach?
Avoid Frankensteining Body Work
Here's another analogy: Pavel Tsatsouline famously decries the "frankenstien monster" approach to strength/body building that treats muscles in isolation. Frankensteining the body referring to assembling parts that are shown off as parts rather than integrated elements. Many of us have experienced the benefits of compound movement work to create powerful integrated, athletic strength and power.
Ok, so why then why then when we have a tweak, a pain, a weakness, do we suddenly move exactly to that body part, isolationist, frankensteining approach for how to make ourselves better?
Alternatives to the Parts Model approach to
Perceived Human Performance Problems
A movement assessment sees pain as a symptom only and respects the complexity of the body. As a result it may indeed be less interested in causes for a particular expression of the Whole Body saying HELP, and more interested in looking at and addressing movement patterns. A finding that's shocked and delighted me is how much improved movement/addressing movement reduces pain - many many varieties of pain.
Isn't that what Doctors Do?
Now, you might say well heck isn't that what a physio or a chiro does or even a doctor does?
The answer is yes and no: yes, if that physio or manual therapist of whatever stripe is hip to the notion of movement and how everything is connected in the body, possibly; if that physio person hears you say "i have sore shoulder" and goes right to assessing your shoulder - like site = source, then more likely no. The last time i went to see a doctor about a sore back i was prescribed muscle relaxants. Perhaps you have similar experiences?
The Movement Approach Difference:
Seeing a Whole Body in Motion; not bunches of parts.
While we tend to think of ourselves as a sore back, weak knee, tight hamstring. Or as strong biceps, weak shoulders, great back, our bodies are not so isolationist. The connections througout are rich and legion. Joints and muscles are connected with all sorts of tissue in all sorts of ways throughout the body such that "anything can affect anything." Really. Take a look at a book like Anatomy Trains for an incredible illustration of this point. A headache may be more tied to a tightness in the foot than a pain in the neck, as it were.
One of the best ways to see this interconnection manifest itself, it seems, is when we do what our bodies are designed to do: move.
When the body is in movement, it calls into play so many inter-related parts that when watched
via a skilled assessor or via a good screen, show off just how well our highly integrated systems are working together - or not - and provide clues of what may need to be addressed to get us moving optimally. Consider walking: we are not only moving limbs and counterbalancing tensions; we're balancing and orienting ourselves in space. Our central nervous system is, as Z practitioners (overview of zhealth)and others learn, "always on" too, always connecting all systems. I've written before about the power of the arthrokinetic reflex and how a crinked neck cuts strength in a deadlift.
The emphasis is on movement. Address the movement and other good things follow.
UPDATE: what are examples of what happens in a screen (motivated by question on DD)
Movement assessments say "let me see you move" - and based on watching you move, a certified screener/assessor can see where there are weaknesses/problems in that pattern. They then have a set of corrective strategies that map to tackling that issue. They work through these with you and retest that sore point (where the symptom is tweaking) to check for improvement, and iterate to narrow down on the best set for you.
So you may come in with a sore shoulder, and be asked for a history of your health, and then, in Z someone may say "let me see you walk" - to check for those patterns.
The issue doesn't have to be pain; it may be a plateau in a lift, or problem with part of a move. same thing. Let's look at how you move, assess, drill, retest that move that's your concern.
Here's another example for an assessment that you can step through:
on the Functional Movement Screen site, there's an overview that describes/shows the 7 screens of that assessment.
You go through each screen, each side of your body and get scored. Based on those scores, the person screening you suggests drills to address any asymmetry (differences in left/right side performance) or weakness. The foundational principle of the FMS is first address asymmetries, then improve performance.
In ZHealth (and here's an overview), there's a variety of assessments, but the fundamental one is to watch you walk. Given that, you may be given mobility drills (like those in the Rphase DVD) to address what's found.
Can i Just Screen Myself?
yes and no.
It's tricky because it's hard to see yourself from vary many angles. i can watch myself walk forward, but need a video to watch me from behind, which is really important. so ya maybe with video, if you know what you're looking for.
That said, Gray Cook's Atheletic Body in Balance had a shorter version of what was to become the FMS for this kind of self-assessment - better perhaps than a kick in the head.
More recently, Gray and Brett and Mark's work on the TGU in the Kalos Sthenos DVD has been proposed as "a screen" - in fact we've been talking about how the TGU compares with the FMS. SO if you rigorously checked yourself against the spec of the TGU on the DVD, at each of the 7 parts of that move, you could get a very good idea of where your weak link may be - Brett would be quick to say though that that may only show you where your weak link is in the TGU - we're not clear yet how well it generalizes as a diagnostic.
What one could do is say
One more point for consideration on the self-check - this is exactly what a lot of us do when checking out our own form in a mirror for the swing or the snatch, right? but if you've had the pleasure of being observed by someone trained to teach these moves, they'll see one little thing we might miss, tweak that and in two minutes it's as if we've gone to movement heaven.
So yes, it's very good to get body awareness, and in particular movement awareness. This is what something like the ZHealth Rphase/Neural WarmUp vids help build and what the KS DVD helps build from slightly different perspectives.
The benefit of then going to a certified trainer to have the assessment is like going to an RKC to watch your hard style swing or snatch to tweak it, or to an ikff ckt for your GS. Another pair of eyes; another depth of experience.
Isn't this an expensive luxury? I just have a tight hamstring...
That's a good question.
Let's qualify a tight hamstring first and then expensive.
In keeping with the view of our body as an integrated system - and not just a machine with replaceable parts, a tight hamstring could be caused by just about anything. Indeed, to quote Eric Cobb of ZHealth, anything can cause anything. What if it's just a signifier of something in your shoulder or foot that if it isn't addressed, that hamstring issue will keep coming back, and perhaps bring some of its friends and pump up the volume. The arthrokinetic reflex is just one example of how something happening in one part of our system has profound consequences *through out* the system.
So, if you take away one thing from this post i hope it's that a pain signal or perception of weakness may be a signal of a systems issue, and checking the system (in this case with a movement screen) is a good way to address that signal.
Note i'm not saying that we have to check the system to find the CAUSE of the problem - who knows what the cause is, and is that important? What we can do is check for what's happening in the movement, address that, and see the positive effects.
Now as to expense, it's unfortunate that movement assessment isn't part of medical insurance. But until it is, yes it's a choice as to how you spend your hard earned cash.
A qualified/certified trainer may well cost you as much as going to see a chiro or related therapist for an assessment. As with other disciplines/services, you get what you pay for, so a question may be:
Likewise, seeing a pro movement specialist and trainer for 30-60mins can give your performance a huge boost that well pays for itself in terms of time taken to make these strides (and ability to make them without pain).
And there's other options:
with the CK-FMS (overview of cert), folks need to do a case study: they need someone they can see usually at least twice to assess and follow up. Search for a ck-fms in training and offer to be their case study. Some folks will also trade services for services, or have student rates. So ask. Packages are a great way to get even more value from your session. More on this next.
Optimizing the Benefit of a Screen: buyer's market.
There are a ton of personal trainers available - all dying to train YOU.
A growing number of smart trainers are adding movement assessment certifications to their tool box. You can look around for trainers that have such qualifications to go with your training - and you can check out what you think of those screens.
The RKC has hooked up with Gray Cook and Brett Jones to extend the Functional Movement Screen Certification to the CK-FMS. This cert material goes well beyond what's offered at an FMS cert, and is only available to RKC's - so with a CK-FMS, you have a top hard style kettlebell trainer and someone who knows how to run the FMS and who has done at least one deep case study on how to apply this approach from diagnostic to corrective strategies for that client.
Likewise, you'll find an increasing number of RKC's (and others) who (also) have Z-Health training. That trainer has a range of movement assessment tools and strategies available to them, too.
Both the FMS and ZHealth sites list certified trainers at least by location if not by name as well. It's relatively straight forward to check for someone who looks good via google and see what all their qualifications are, along with that particular cert, and see if that person looks like a match for your intersts.
What i like about the ZHealth listing for instance, is that you'll find physio's, rolfers, chiropracters, at least one MD, who care about fitness training, and have done advanced level Z certification, too. So what's your comfort level? if you want someone with a medical background also trained in movement assessment, you have choices.
So whether you're looking for kettlebell trainers or certified strength and conditioning coaches, or physical therapists, or chiropractors to help you with your fitness performance and health and well being, really the choice is yours. One of my most popular requests is for a movement assessment combined with a kettlebell movement check/tune up. I love that. It's a great package and a great way to optimize your training dollar/pound/euro/etc.
What does a movement assessment get someone, really?
In the FMS, Gray Cook talks about identifying your weakest link in order to address this link so as not to build function or strength on top of dysfunction.
In Z-Health, Eric Cobb talks about efficient, pain free movement.
The motivation in each case is similar:
- when you take away "the site is the source of the problem" perspective, you start to see a body in motion - not a collection of parts that can be assessed in isolation, but complex connected interrelated components.
From this perspective, the bod's really complicated: anything can cause anything. So an optimal way to look at the body is not at one part that may be saying something (on behalf of everything else), but at a whole organism in motion. The pragmatic consequence is a movement assessment that:
So if you have a tweak or a perceived weakness in a limb or have hit a plateau, consider these as signals not just to poke at a part, but as a call from your body to look at your whole self, and a great way to look at your whole physiological self is when it's in movement.
Guaranteed if you do this for yourself you'll be happier and healthier for it. And you'll find most trainers do offer guarantees of satisfaction, too. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Folks on various health forums will often post "i have a weak knee; what exersises can i do to strengthen it?" or "my hamstrings are tight and it's affecting my deadlift; what can i do to loosen them up?" or "my shoulder keeps bugging me; what's good for shoulder rehab?"
All of these questions, it seems, tend to consider the site of the problem to be the source of the problem.
Folks who reply often share that perspective with proposals like "sore shoulder - here's a great book/dvd/blog on shoulder rehab." or "tight hamstrings? foam roll 'em out. it's great. do that anytime before you deadlift that'll loosen 'em right up."
But what if the site of the problem isn't the source of the problem?
Then all we are providing are classic band aid solutions where the problem will just keep coming back. We know about this in any kind of mechanical situation: the car engine is leaking oil.
If all we do is keep pouring in oil to top it up, we're not dealing with the problem. The problem may require a simple tweak on a part we're not familiar with, or it may need some more serious work. We don't know; we don't have the expertise. So we get an assessment of what the problem is, and what it will take to fix it.
We know enough to do this for a mechanical machine, and yet when it comes to our far more complex organism - our bio-electrical-mechano-organic selves, we seem to take a far cheaper attitude. Perhaps because we're so resliant; perhaps because the trad. medical establishment has let us down. And how successful - in the long term - is our tire patch/band aid approach?
Avoid Frankensteining Body Work
Here's another analogy: Pavel Tsatsouline famously decries the "frankenstien monster" approach to strength/body building that treats muscles in isolation. Frankensteining the body referring to assembling parts that are shown off as parts rather than integrated elements. Many of us have experienced the benefits of compound movement work to create powerful integrated, athletic strength and power.
Ok, so why then why then when we have a tweak, a pain, a weakness, do we suddenly move exactly to that body part, isolationist, frankensteining approach for how to make ourselves better?
Alternatives to the Parts Model approach to
Perceived Human Performance Problems
A movement assessment sees pain as a symptom only and respects the complexity of the body. As a result it may indeed be less interested in causes for a particular expression of the Whole Body saying HELP, and more interested in looking at and addressing movement patterns. A finding that's shocked and delighted me is how much improved movement/addressing movement reduces pain - many many varieties of pain.
Isn't that what Doctors Do?
Now, you might say well heck isn't that what a physio or a chiro does or even a doctor does?
The answer is yes and no: yes, if that physio or manual therapist of whatever stripe is hip to the notion of movement and how everything is connected in the body, possibly; if that physio person hears you say "i have sore shoulder" and goes right to assessing your shoulder - like site = source, then more likely no. The last time i went to see a doctor about a sore back i was prescribed muscle relaxants. Perhaps you have similar experiences?
The Movement Approach Difference:
Seeing a Whole Body in Motion; not bunches of parts.
While we tend to think of ourselves as a sore back, weak knee, tight hamstring. Or as strong biceps, weak shoulders, great back, our bodies are not so isolationist. The connections througout are rich and legion. Joints and muscles are connected with all sorts of tissue in all sorts of ways throughout the body such that "anything can affect anything." Really. Take a look at a book like Anatomy Trains for an incredible illustration of this point. A headache may be more tied to a tightness in the foot than a pain in the neck, as it were.
One of the best ways to see this interconnection manifest itself, it seems, is when we do what our bodies are designed to do: move.
When the body is in movement, it calls into play so many inter-related parts that when watched
via a skilled assessor or via a good screen, show off just how well our highly integrated systems are working together - or not - and provide clues of what may need to be addressed to get us moving optimally. Consider walking: we are not only moving limbs and counterbalancing tensions; we're balancing and orienting ourselves in space. Our central nervous system is, as Z practitioners (overview of zhealth)and others learn, "always on" too, always connecting all systems. I've written before about the power of the arthrokinetic reflex and how a crinked neck cuts strength in a deadlift.The emphasis is on movement. Address the movement and other good things follow.
UPDATE: what are examples of what happens in a screen (motivated by question on DD)
Movement assessments say "let me see you move" - and based on watching you move, a certified screener/assessor can see where there are weaknesses/problems in that pattern. They then have a set of corrective strategies that map to tackling that issue. They work through these with you and retest that sore point (where the symptom is tweaking) to check for improvement, and iterate to narrow down on the best set for you.
So you may come in with a sore shoulder, and be asked for a history of your health, and then, in Z someone may say "let me see you walk" - to check for those patterns.
The issue doesn't have to be pain; it may be a plateau in a lift, or problem with part of a move. same thing. Let's look at how you move, assess, drill, retest that move that's your concern.
Here's another example for an assessment that you can step through:
on the Functional Movement Screen site, there's an overview that describes/shows the 7 screens of that assessment.
You go through each screen, each side of your body and get scored. Based on those scores, the person screening you suggests drills to address any asymmetry (differences in left/right side performance) or weakness. The foundational principle of the FMS is first address asymmetries, then improve performance.
In ZHealth (and here's an overview), there's a variety of assessments, but the fundamental one is to watch you walk. Given that, you may be given mobility drills (like those in the Rphase DVD) to address what's found.
Can i Just Screen Myself?
yes and no.
It's tricky because it's hard to see yourself from vary many angles. i can watch myself walk forward, but need a video to watch me from behind, which is really important. so ya maybe with video, if you know what you're looking for.
That said, Gray Cook's Atheletic Body in Balance had a shorter version of what was to become the FMS for this kind of self-assessment - better perhaps than a kick in the head.
More recently, Gray and Brett and Mark's work on the TGU in the Kalos Sthenos DVD has been proposed as "a screen" - in fact we've been talking about how the TGU compares with the FMS. SO if you rigorously checked yourself against the spec of the TGU on the DVD, at each of the 7 parts of that move, you could get a very good idea of where your weak link may be - Brett would be quick to say though that that may only show you where your weak link is in the TGU - we're not clear yet how well it generalizes as a diagnostic.
What one could do is say
- hmm my shoulder's bugging me,
- i'm going to do the ahtletic body in balance screen on myself and see what comes back,
- and even if it doesn't show a shoulder issue, i'm going to run the pattern for whatever comes back in my test
- do the corrective drills for the weak bits,
- and retest my shoulder, see if it feels better.
One more point for consideration on the self-check - this is exactly what a lot of us do when checking out our own form in a mirror for the swing or the snatch, right? but if you've had the pleasure of being observed by someone trained to teach these moves, they'll see one little thing we might miss, tweak that and in two minutes it's as if we've gone to movement heaven.
So yes, it's very good to get body awareness, and in particular movement awareness. This is what something like the ZHealth Rphase/Neural WarmUp vids help build and what the KS DVD helps build from slightly different perspectives.
The benefit of then going to a certified trainer to have the assessment is like going to an RKC to watch your hard style swing or snatch to tweak it, or to an ikff ckt for your GS. Another pair of eyes; another depth of experience.
Isn't this an expensive luxury? I just have a tight hamstring...
That's a good question.
Let's qualify a tight hamstring first and then expensive.
In keeping with the view of our body as an integrated system - and not just a machine with replaceable parts, a tight hamstring could be caused by just about anything. Indeed, to quote Eric Cobb of ZHealth, anything can cause anything. What if it's just a signifier of something in your shoulder or foot that if it isn't addressed, that hamstring issue will keep coming back, and perhaps bring some of its friends and pump up the volume. The arthrokinetic reflex is just one example of how something happening in one part of our system has profound consequences *through out* the system.
So, if you take away one thing from this post i hope it's that a pain signal or perception of weakness may be a signal of a systems issue, and checking the system (in this case with a movement screen) is a good way to address that signal.
Note i'm not saying that we have to check the system to find the CAUSE of the problem - who knows what the cause is, and is that important? What we can do is check for what's happening in the movement, address that, and see the positive effects.
Now as to expense, it's unfortunate that movement assessment isn't part of medical insurance. But until it is, yes it's a choice as to how you spend your hard earned cash.
A qualified/certified trainer may well cost you as much as going to see a chiro or related therapist for an assessment. As with other disciplines/services, you get what you pay for, so a question may be:
- What is your pain free movement worth?
- What is a strategy that will help reduce the likelihood of the next injury worth?
- What's your ability to train optimally worth?
- or simply to get through the day without sore shoulders and/or a headache worth?
Likewise, seeing a pro movement specialist and trainer for 30-60mins can give your performance a huge boost that well pays for itself in terms of time taken to make these strides (and ability to make them without pain).
And there's other options:
with the CK-FMS (overview of cert), folks need to do a case study: they need someone they can see usually at least twice to assess and follow up. Search for a ck-fms in training and offer to be their case study. Some folks will also trade services for services, or have student rates. So ask. Packages are a great way to get even more value from your session. More on this next.
Optimizing the Benefit of a Screen: buyer's market.
There are a ton of personal trainers available - all dying to train YOU.
A growing number of smart trainers are adding movement assessment certifications to their tool box. You can look around for trainers that have such qualifications to go with your training - and you can check out what you think of those screens.
The RKC has hooked up with Gray Cook and Brett Jones to extend the Functional Movement Screen Certification to the CK-FMS. This cert material goes well beyond what's offered at an FMS cert, and is only available to RKC's - so with a CK-FMS, you have a top hard style kettlebell trainer and someone who knows how to run the FMS and who has done at least one deep case study on how to apply this approach from diagnostic to corrective strategies for that client.
Likewise, you'll find an increasing number of RKC's (and others) who (also) have Z-Health training. That trainer has a range of movement assessment tools and strategies available to them, too.
Both the FMS and ZHealth sites list certified trainers at least by location if not by name as well. It's relatively straight forward to check for someone who looks good via google and see what all their qualifications are, along with that particular cert, and see if that person looks like a match for your intersts.
What i like about the ZHealth listing for instance, is that you'll find physio's, rolfers, chiropracters, at least one MD, who care about fitness training, and have done advanced level Z certification, too. So what's your comfort level? if you want someone with a medical background also trained in movement assessment, you have choices.
So whether you're looking for kettlebell trainers or certified strength and conditioning coaches, or physical therapists, or chiropractors to help you with your fitness performance and health and well being, really the choice is yours. One of my most popular requests is for a movement assessment combined with a kettlebell movement check/tune up. I love that. It's a great package and a great way to optimize your training dollar/pound/euro/etc.
What does a movement assessment get someone, really?
In the FMS, Gray Cook talks about identifying your weakest link in order to address this link so as not to build function or strength on top of dysfunction.
In Z-Health, Eric Cobb talks about efficient, pain free movement.
The motivation in each case is similar:
- when you take away "the site is the source of the problem" perspective, you start to see a body in motion - not a collection of parts that can be assessed in isolation, but complex connected interrelated components.
From this perspective, the bod's really complicated: anything can cause anything. So an optimal way to look at the body is not at one part that may be saying something (on behalf of everything else), but at a whole organism in motion. The pragmatic consequence is a movement assessment that:
- looks at you as a whole person who moves, and seeing that whole person move, help assess and improve that movement so that it's at its best. The usual consequence of this is improved overall performance and reduced pain.
- provides you with strategies to address any movement issues to help improve your movement performance, and again the results of this are better overall movement; less pain; reduced risk of injury.
So if you have a tweak or a perceived weakness in a limb or have hit a plateau, consider these as signals not just to poke at a part, but as a call from your body to look at your whole self, and a great way to look at your whole physiological self is when it's in movement.
Guaranteed if you do this for yourself you'll be happier and healthier for it. And you'll find most trainers do offer guarantees of satisfaction, too. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Thursday, April 30, 2009
b2d: in transition - sorry for any weirdness
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Just a quick note that begin2dig.blogspot.com is about to become begin2dig.com
Apparently at the moment this is in "transition" - and i've noticed a few weirdnesses -
eg some links seem to direct just to the main page and not the specific URL
and the Folks Who Grok B2D
list of wonderful subscribers doesn't show up UNLESS you now go to "begin2dig.com" or "www.begin2dig.com"
apparently this is all temporary.
So thanks to folks who have just visited or folks who subscribe - if you're not exactly where you think you should be in the b2d blog, please hang in there. apparently all will be well in 48-72 hours.
best
mc Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Apparently at the moment this is in "transition" - and i've noticed a few weirdnesses -
eg some links seem to direct just to the main page and not the specific URL
and the Folks Who Grok B2D
list of wonderful subscribers doesn't show up UNLESS you now go to "begin2dig.com" or "www.begin2dig.com"
apparently this is all temporary.
So thanks to folks who have just visited or folks who subscribe - if you're not exactly where you think you should be in the b2d blog, please hang in there. apparently all will be well in 48-72 hours.
best
mc Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Turkish Get Up a Good Cheap Movement Screen? Then whither the FMS?
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Last week i wrote about questions that have come up around the RKC/gray cook way of teaching the turkish get up, in particular the high hip bridge. In Gray Cook's thoughts on this, motivated by Anthony Diluglio's challenge as to its efficacy and safety, Cook claims that the "speed bumped" TGU is a great diagnostic tool. This week, i'd like to come back to the Turkish Get Up (the TGU) as a diagnostic move, and at least set some terms to open up the question diagnostic of what, beyond itself? And if what, why need any other movement screen, like say the FMS? In a sense, this post is an experiment in testing "logical conclusions" of an idea.
My rationale for this query is that folks, including athletic groups, with whom i'm working, are asking about comparisons among screens, and wanting to get the most bang for their buck. If the TGU is a great diagnostic, what more is needed?
see UPDATE I below; Update II below
Indeed, i've suggested to Brett Jones myself, based on the case study i did for my ck-fms certification, that the TGU could replace the FMS as a screen - what if anything does it miss from the screen? Haven't quite had a final answer on that one, and didn't push it - more of a witty observation - but we're gonna come back to that question here.
One of the things the kalos-sthenos DVD on the TGU by Cook, Jones and manual by Cheng gives to practitioners/coaches is to say if you see problems with any of these positions in the TGU, here's the corrective strategies to fix these issues and enable better mobility and stability not just in the TGU, but beyond. From the manual:
Doesn't that sound excellent (aside from the split infinitive)? Even cheaper than the FMS, the turkish getup DVD set lets a coach see where performance asymmetries may be in their athlete, and then fixing these addresses those issues. The assertion is, address these issues in this move, and you have great carry over to other moves. Again, from the manual:
Quince to Granny Smith or Apples to Oranges: FMS and TGU
But if we set the mixed research results aside for a moment, and just agree with the assertion that a movement screen is a good thing, then let's take this back to the KS TGU as screen. Is the TGU unique its ability to act as a screen compared with any other isolateral moves? Perhaps not (consider the 7 moves of the FMS including the squat, push up and lunge variant), but it's hard to think off the top of my head what other movement focuses on one side of the body at a time and moves from supine to standing, upper body focus to lower body focus.
And it seems it's that particularity that's being claimed for the TGU: while the FMS isolates in its moves particular issues, one at a time, the TGU seems to get most of 'em in each part of one excercise, hence my query as to what's in the FMS that isn't caught in the TGU - or is there a vice versa?
Seven tests in the FMS; seven moves in the TGU. Do they map at all? Anything left out? How is the FMS sufficient or insufficient in comparison to the TGU, or vice versa?
Here's a quick check list from the FMS sheet on the FMS site paralleled with the TGU bits.
Test one: squat
Test two: hurdle step
Test Three: inline lunge
Of any of the tests, perhaps the closest match is in the inline lunge with the genuflecting part of the TGU. It's not inline, but you do have to get up and down gracefully with a weight overhead while laterally moving the trunk up from flexion back to neutral with the arm overhead. Lots of stability stuff. dorsiflexion, too.
Test Four - Shoulder Mobility
Test Five: active straight leg raise
Test six: Trunk Stability Push Up
Well i dunno what to say about this one. It seems the closest thing to the push up/ trunk stability is again the high hip bridge - that's the only part of the move as far as i can tell where the upper and lower parts of the body are working together - similar to a yoga table - with one arm and one leg for balance. Likewise getting up on the elbow with a bell overhead and keepint that post leg out straight and not coming up from the ground - that's pretty core activated, too.
Test Seven: Rotary Stability (elbow knee touch over a board, same side elbow to same side knee)
Now this is just a first pass comparison, and the mappings mayn't be as good as they could be, so i'd be pleased to hear about refining/correcting what's proposed.
FMS /TGU close but no cigar? How close? How Far?
After the above excercise comes the obvious question: what are we missing in the TGU: Gray Cook to say whether the comparisons between TGU and FMS are sufficiently strong to be powerful? Consider what's missing with the TGU as given in the DVD: a scoring system on both sides of the move. That one might argue is a critical part to the bullet proofness of the FMS. THere are strict criteria for scoring how well a move is performed on both right and left. it's 0,1,2 or 3 and each of these have meanings. Each of the FMS neatly unpacks each set of issues. But so what? the TGU gets just about all of them and possibly some that the FMS doesn't get.
Eg, where is the psoas/glutes connection of the high hip bridge caught in the FMS? is that better amplified in the TGU than the push up since the push up is all about trunk stabilizers?
TGU cheap FMS?
So we come back to the assertion of the TGU as a cheap screen: we've seen - by my very rough calculations - that the TGU does seem to map pretty well to what's exposed in the FMS. So the next part of the screen equation would be: if you can apply the checks at each phase of the TGU, and correct them, your athlete will be in a better place for other activities, as asserted in the TGU manual - not just for doing a better TGU.
How do we test that?
What's the test for the benefit of being able to do a hard style TGU? where's the check to see if there's been good transference as claimed? It makes sense that there should be, but how do i evaluate this, and attribute it back to the TGU work rather than anything else?
While the KS dvd focuses on improving the TGU, i'd be curious to see in a DVD someone with crap shoulder range of motion who throws a football or poor hip mobility who likes to golf, see how they test on the TGU (if those issues show up there), do TGU work and see how their swing mobility improves in the golf stroke for instance.
Why is that testing of transference important? well, we're spending a lot of energy talking about the benefit of this new "speed bumped" TGU *as* a diagnostic, and it looks like there's a pretty good case to be made for it against the FMS when *used* as a diagnostic rather than as an execercise - and that should mean it works as a diagnostic for other issues that if fixed in this TGU context will benefit other contexts. How do we prove the correlation?
So, while working on fixing the TGU looks great, and why not? there seem to be two questions:
Coda: Teaching the TGU - correct move or corrective movement?
An intriguing consequence of developing the TGU-as-diagnostic is that the TGU is still a core move of the RKC Level 1 certification. It will be interesting to see how movement assessment moves into the RKC rather than simply teaching correct posture in a move. Which makes me come back to diluglio's critique of what he was seeing in his classes of people perhaps *attempting* to get the high hip bridge and not getting it - what diluglio models of what he's seeing is not a high hip bridge. The glutes and psoas do not seem all planked up and engaged.
So what's going on? Were there a bunch of similarly weak hip bridges in front of Anthony? or something else?
And if there are weaknesses in client performance - assuming folks doing this form went to an RKC (as the book/dvd wasn't yet out) where will RKC's get the training they need to deliver the corrective strategies to support rehabbing this move? Right now, i understand that the ck-fms will be going through the corrective strategies this year from the KS TGU manual. It will also be interesting to see how this work influences the teaching of TGU teaching, as it were, in the RKC.
And finally: the non-jock
If everyone who moves is an "athlete" does the TGU help all "athletes"? It seems we're talking about totally able bodied folks here who are interested enough to do a TGU and who can perform a TGU.
I work with clients who have mobility/stability issues, and who cannot complete a successful bodyweight TGU. Does this mean that their mobility cannot be assessed until their strength improves? Isn't that rather self-defeating? how address that building up of potential dysfunction ontop of strength if movement isn't assessed from the outset? It seems the TGU or the FMS become more niche instruments than initially anticipated. I think we forget sometimes how fortunate we are in our strength skills.
Summary
In this article i've attempted to ask the question what really is the TGU as diagnostic diagnosing?
But as with any curriculum, its practitioners advance the field by asking (hopefully good) questions - before their clients/students do - and if the answers are wanting, well that's something to address. Likewise knowledge of multiple techniques helps enhance the view.
SO as you can see i don't entirely have complete answers to the questions i've raised, but hope there'll be some good informed discussion. This is less a complete statement than a working paper.
mc
Update 1,
i asked Brett Jones in particular if he would cogitate on this comparison and look at a reply. He posted today as well on his blog with a pretty detailed comparison. Instead of going from the FMS to the TGU, he's gone from the TGU to the FMS
I'm looking forward to stepping through the response. Thanks Brett. In particular his summary comparison between the TGU and the FMS:
Update II - Cpt Brett.
Have to thank Brett for taking the time to go over the FMS/TGU variants the way he has. Indeed, he's said in fact that he will also check out my question about what gets missed that the FMS would catch *that is meaningful* that the TGU misses.
Right now, we can certainly agree that the FMS has more going on in it. See Brett's careful analysis above, and i'd check out his blog post too.
But it seems that we're still *hypothesizing* that of course because the FMS tests more stuff more, it's better, more precise. More precise right now yes, but maybe less is also more, or maybe it's not? I'm still wondering what that "precision" from the FMS gets most of us. Is it an 80/20 thing?
When i did Z health R phase certification (review), i remember Mike T Nelson saying that the learning in the R phase cert would help *solve* the issues of 80% of the people i'd see. That's pretty durn good for a foundational cert. Is the TGU a kind of similar screen? An 80% (or more) of the FMS?
Brett talks passionately about being able to draw on the right tool for the client. His own background in Z, FMS, his uni education, all testify to how he's built a robust and rich tool box.
I guess i'm thinking - as someone whose invested in the FMS too - that i'd like to be able to say with some certainty, when is the FMS a *better* tool than the TGU? For which client?
Looking forward to more FMS/TGU comparison reports.
My rationale for this query is that folks, including athletic groups, with whom i'm working, are asking about comparisons among screens, and wanting to get the most bang for their buck. If the TGU is a great diagnostic, what more is needed?
see UPDATE I below; Update II below
One of the things the kalos-sthenos DVD on the TGU by Cook, Jones and manual by Cheng gives to practitioners/coaches is to say if you see problems with any of these positions in the TGU, here's the corrective strategies to fix these issues and enable better mobility and stability not just in the TGU, but beyond. From the manual:
For the fitness and medical professional, the TGU serves as a fundamental movement primer, a corrective exercise, a conditioning system, and a movement screen. It is a useful tool to both detect and address movement pattern asymmetries and weaknesses.
Doesn't that sound excellent (aside from the split infinitive)? Even cheaper than the FMS, the turkish getup DVD set lets a coach see where performance asymmetries may be in their athlete, and then fixing these addresses those issues. The assertion is, address these issues in this move, and you have great carry over to other moves. Again, from the manual:
Clinically, there's no shortage of patients who've made major breakthroughs with challenging rotator cuff problems thanks to the Turkish Get Up)...Any athlete who serves a tennis ball, spikes a volleyball, swings a golf club, or pitches a barseball will certainly appreciate the kind of coordinated strength that the TGU develops.I would love to see some work that showed those claims can be directly attributed to work with the TGU, but it sounds reasonable, so let's go with it for a moment, and look at at least Cook's rationale for the functional movement screen: that just by reducing asymmetries in the screen (left side in something better than the right or just different than the right) reduces injury. At least in the NFL and for firefighters. Other sports, some researchers have suggested, not so much - so far - at least with the data that's been collected, showing no statistical improvement.
Quince to Granny Smith or Apples to Oranges: FMS and TGU
But if we set the mixed research results aside for a moment, and just agree with the assertion that a movement screen is a good thing, then let's take this back to the KS TGU as screen. Is the TGU unique its ability to act as a screen compared with any other isolateral moves? Perhaps not (consider the 7 moves of the FMS including the squat, push up and lunge variant), but it's hard to think off the top of my head what other movement focuses on one side of the body at a time and moves from supine to standing, upper body focus to lower body focus.
And it seems it's that particularity that's being claimed for the TGU: while the FMS isolates in its moves particular issues, one at a time, the TGU seems to get most of 'em in each part of one excercise, hence my query as to what's in the FMS that isn't caught in the TGU - or is there a vice versa?
Seven tests in the FMS; seven moves in the TGU. Do they map at all? Anything left out? How is the FMS sufficient or insufficient in comparison to the TGU, or vice versa?
Here's a quick check list from the FMS sheet on the FMS site paralleled with the TGU bits.
Test one: squat
The ability to perform the deep squat requires appropriate pelvic rhythm, closed-kinetic chain dorsifl exion of the ankles, flexion of the knees and hips and extension of the thoracic spine, as well as fl exion and abduction of the shoulders.Ok, what part of the TGU maps to flexion of the knees and hips and extension of the thoracic spine and flexion and abduction of the shoulders? Well one side at a time, in the upper body part of the TGU, thoracic spine mobility and shoulder flexion and abduction are present. Indeed a corrective drill in the TGU is to do "thoracic glides" when up on the elbow and the weight is overhead. The ankles may well be tested when going to stand up or come back down.
Test two: hurdle step
Where in the TGU is any part of the above checked? Well the high hip bridge certainly tests a kind of stance leg hip extension; the ability to keep the knee up and in good position could come back to dorsiflexion of the ankle and flexion of the knee and hip. ok. and balance, well that's throughout the movement, tho not as taxed as in the hurdle step.Performing the hurdle step test requires stanceleg stability of the ankle, knee and hip as well as maximal closed-kinetic chain extension of the hip. The hurdle step also requires step-leg open-kinetic chain dorsiflexion of the ankle and flexion of the knee and hip. In addition, the subject must also display adequate balance because the test imposes a need for dynamic stability.
Test Three: inline lunge
This test assesses torso, shoulder, hip and ankle mobility and stability, quadriceps flexibility and knee stability. The ability to perform the in-line lunge test requires stance-leg stability of the ankle, knee and hip as well as apparent closed kineticchain hip abduction. The in-line lunge also requires step-leg mobility of the hip, ankle dorsifl exion and rectus femoris flexibility. The subject must also display adequate stability due to the rotational stress imposed.
Of any of the tests, perhaps the closest match is in the inline lunge with the genuflecting part of the TGU. It's not inline, but you do have to get up and down gracefully with a weight overhead while laterally moving the trunk up from flexion back to neutral with the arm overhead. Lots of stability stuff. dorsiflexion, too.Test Four - Shoulder Mobility
The ability to perform the shoulder mobility test requires shoulder mobility in a combination of motions including abduction/external rotation, flexion/extension and adduction/internal rotation. It also requires scapular and thoracic spine mobility.It seems that the entire TGU is a test of shoulder mobility. How one might assess asymmetries is interesting to watch the position of the bell relative to the shoulder throughout the move.
Test Five: active straight leg raise
Hip mobility is shown again in keeping the knee from valgus collapse on the way up, and in the high hip bridge, as well as in the uprightness of posture while moving from high hip bridge up to upright kneeling, ready to step up. It's also shown in the ability to keep the leg out stiff without it having to leverage up (leave the ground) when getting up.The ability to perform the active straight-leg raise test requires functional hamstring flexibility, which is the flexibility that is available during training and competition. This is different from passive flexibility, which is more commonly assessed. The subject is also required to demonstrate adequate hip mobility of the opposite leg as well as lower abdominal stability.
Test six: Trunk Stability Push Up
The ability to perform the trunk stability push-up requires symmetric trunk stability in the sagittal plane during a symmetric upper extremity movement.
Well i dunno what to say about this one. It seems the closest thing to the push up/ trunk stability is again the high hip bridge - that's the only part of the move as far as i can tell where the upper and lower parts of the body are working together - similar to a yoga table - with one arm and one leg for balance. Likewise getting up on the elbow with a bell overhead and keepint that post leg out straight and not coming up from the ground - that's pretty core activated, too.
Test Seven: Rotary Stability (elbow knee touch over a board, same side elbow to same side knee)
The ability to perform the rotary stability test requires asymmetric trunk stability in both sagittal and transverse planes during asymmetric upper and lower extremity movement.This test too is a bit of a question mark since the tgu is isolateral but diagonal throughout. But again, if that high hip bridge is working its magic, shouldn't folks with a strong high hip bridge on both sides test well here?
Now this is just a first pass comparison, and the mappings mayn't be as good as they could be, so i'd be pleased to hear about refining/correcting what's proposed.
FMS /TGU close but no cigar? How close? How Far?
After the above excercise comes the obvious question: what are we missing in the TGU: Gray Cook to say whether the comparisons between TGU and FMS are sufficiently strong to be powerful? Consider what's missing with the TGU as given in the DVD: a scoring system on both sides of the move. That one might argue is a critical part to the bullet proofness of the FMS. THere are strict criteria for scoring how well a move is performed on both right and left. it's 0,1,2 or 3 and each of these have meanings. Each of the FMS neatly unpacks each set of issues. But so what? the TGU gets just about all of them and possibly some that the FMS doesn't get.
Eg, where is the psoas/glutes connection of the high hip bridge caught in the FMS? is that better amplified in the TGU than the push up since the push up is all about trunk stabilizers?
TGU cheap FMS?
So we come back to the assertion of the TGU as a cheap screen: we've seen - by my very rough calculations - that the TGU does seem to map pretty well to what's exposed in the FMS. So the next part of the screen equation would be: if you can apply the checks at each phase of the TGU, and correct them, your athlete will be in a better place for other activities, as asserted in the TGU manual - not just for doing a better TGU.
How do we test that?
What's the test for the benefit of being able to do a hard style TGU? where's the check to see if there's been good transference as claimed? It makes sense that there should be, but how do i evaluate this, and attribute it back to the TGU work rather than anything else?
While the KS dvd focuses on improving the TGU, i'd be curious to see in a DVD someone with crap shoulder range of motion who throws a football or poor hip mobility who likes to golf, see how they test on the TGU (if those issues show up there), do TGU work and see how their swing mobility improves in the golf stroke for instance.
Why is that testing of transference important? well, we're spending a lot of energy talking about the benefit of this new "speed bumped" TGU *as* a diagnostic, and it looks like there's a pretty good case to be made for it against the FMS when *used* as a diagnostic rather than as an execercise - and that should mean it works as a diagnostic for other issues that if fixed in this TGU context will benefit other contexts. How do we prove the correlation?
So, while working on fixing the TGU looks great, and why not? there seem to be two questions:
- If the TGU is a super diagnostic, why bother with the FMS? What's missing in the TGU-as-screen that is not in the FMS? Beyond the scoring system (couldn't that be adapted), what are we missing?
- Do the TGU fixes have transference?
Coda: Teaching the TGU - correct move or corrective movement?
An intriguing consequence of developing the TGU-as-diagnostic is that the TGU is still a core move of the RKC Level 1 certification. It will be interesting to see how movement assessment moves into the RKC rather than simply teaching correct posture in a move. Which makes me come back to diluglio's critique of what he was seeing in his classes of people perhaps *attempting* to get the high hip bridge and not getting it - what diluglio models of what he's seeing is not a high hip bridge. The glutes and psoas do not seem all planked up and engaged.
So what's going on? Were there a bunch of similarly weak hip bridges in front of Anthony? or something else?
And if there are weaknesses in client performance - assuming folks doing this form went to an RKC (as the book/dvd wasn't yet out) where will RKC's get the training they need to deliver the corrective strategies to support rehabbing this move? Right now, i understand that the ck-fms will be going through the corrective strategies this year from the KS TGU manual. It will also be interesting to see how this work influences the teaching of TGU teaching, as it were, in the RKC.
And finally: the non-jock
If everyone who moves is an "athlete" does the TGU help all "athletes"? It seems we're talking about totally able bodied folks here who are interested enough to do a TGU and who can perform a TGU.
I work with clients who have mobility/stability issues, and who cannot complete a successful bodyweight TGU. Does this mean that their mobility cannot be assessed until their strength improves? Isn't that rather self-defeating? how address that building up of potential dysfunction ontop of strength if movement isn't assessed from the outset? It seems the TGU or the FMS become more niche instruments than initially anticipated. I think we forget sometimes how fortunate we are in our strength skills.
Summary
In this article i've attempted to ask the question what really is the TGU as diagnostic diagnosing?
- If it's a "movement screen" and "corrective exercise" and "diagnostic" - what's it actually showing?
- If it's hitting all the same bells and whistles as the FMS - or 90% of them - whither the FMS beyond a score card?
- And if the FMS is far more clear than the TGU of what then can be read from the TGU that is transferable to other activities?
- And what about clients for whom a deep squat or tgu is still the impossible dream?
But as with any curriculum, its practitioners advance the field by asking (hopefully good) questions - before their clients/students do - and if the answers are wanting, well that's something to address. Likewise knowledge of multiple techniques helps enhance the view.
SO as you can see i don't entirely have complete answers to the questions i've raised, but hope there'll be some good informed discussion. This is less a complete statement than a working paper.
mc
Update 1,
i asked Brett Jones in particular if he would cogitate on this comparison and look at a reply. He posted today as well on his blog with a pretty detailed comparison. Instead of going from the FMS to the TGU, he's gone from the TGU to the FMS
I'm looking forward to stepping through the response. Thanks Brett. In particular his summary comparison between the TGU and the FMS:
- FMS tests stability (called coordination by some) in symmetrical stance, asymmetrical stance and single leg stance. Get-up only gets asymmetrical (and that doesn't ask for the same crossing of midline).
- FMS tests mobility of the hip, knee, ankle and shoulder - in multiple positions - the Get-up does this to an extent but not the same and not in the symmetrical and single leg stances.
- FMS tests reflexive core stabilization in the Trunk Stability Push-up - the Get-up doen't really get this. the Punch to Elbow is more rotary in nature but does have some reflexive stabilization in it but as I said it is more rotary in nature.
- FMS tests Shoulder Mobility with a specific reach incorporating Thoracic extension, Shoulder abduction/external rotation and flexion and Shoulder addcution/internal rotation and extension. While the Get-up assesses shoulder mobility and thoracic mobility it misses some of the specific positions of the SM test but does incorporate moving the body around a stabile shoulder - unique to the Get-up.
- FMS tests split you in to Right and Left halves in 5 of the tests looking for asymmetry - The Get-up does this to an extent and within the moves of the Get-up and the tie-ins as mentioned.
- Any exercise that is performed on the right and then left side can be a chance for evaluation of symmetry.
- FMS tests (once all 7 are performed) allow you to quickly identify the Weak Link and provides corrections for those weak link (s). The Get-up can find a weak link but it may just be specific to the Get-up and not as targeted as the FMS identified weak link.
Update II - Cpt Brett.
Have to thank Brett for taking the time to go over the FMS/TGU variants the way he has. Indeed, he's said in fact that he will also check out my question about what gets missed that the FMS would catch *that is meaningful* that the TGU misses.
Right now, we can certainly agree that the FMS has more going on in it. See Brett's careful analysis above, and i'd check out his blog post too.
But it seems that we're still *hypothesizing* that of course because the FMS tests more stuff more, it's better, more precise. More precise right now yes, but maybe less is also more, or maybe it's not? I'm still wondering what that "precision" from the FMS gets most of us. Is it an 80/20 thing?
When i did Z health R phase certification (review), i remember Mike T Nelson saying that the learning in the R phase cert would help *solve* the issues of 80% of the people i'd see. That's pretty durn good for a foundational cert. Is the TGU a kind of similar screen? An 80% (or more) of the FMS?
Brett talks passionately about being able to draw on the right tool for the client. His own background in Z, FMS, his uni education, all testify to how he's built a robust and rich tool box.
I guess i'm thinking - as someone whose invested in the FMS too - that i'd like to be able to say with some certainty, when is the FMS a *better* tool than the TGU? For which client?
Looking forward to more FMS/TGU comparison reports.
----------------------------------------------------
Tweet
Follow @begin2dig
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
COACHING with dr. m.c. 
