Athletic Body in Balance

[KPj]

oh, then i misunderstood you, maybe cause of the language barrier. i thought you aim to train deeper squats, sorry.

Yes, basically, there's a difference between squat the movement and squat the exercise. The exercise should suit whatever your goals are and the movement should be maintained (assuming you have it... Improved if you don't or it could be better).

sometimes this movemet stuff is taken to far

Like, it'd be cool to have that flexibility to be able ot do an overhead squat. I dont
So what?

I mean really. Does that indicate I have some condition to be concerned ?

I get that one should not load up their {vulnerable body part here} but that aside, all this testing to see what we can do.. blah.

In what way is it taken too far?

"All" that testing in my case takes about 10 minutes during an initial consultation with a new client who, before hand, I know nothing about but I'm expected to get them fitter, stronger, help them get pain free or lose fat, or a combination of all. They don't get hooked up to machines and poked and prodded like lab rats.

Also, in this case Ken is doing a self movement screen. This is a little more involved. A new member in my gym will get screened and I tell them it's just to make sure I don't hurt them and can tailor their program specifically too them. I don't follow up with a whole list of problems they have. So I agree you shouldn't have the mindset of "i have this or that condition". You should just focus on what you can do and getting better.

If I gave you a car and told you to go out on the race track with it, would you feel more comfortable having someone that knows what they're doing check it over first? Or just as comfortable diving straight in and going for it. Sure, a car can have some little imperfections and still make it round and put on a good show but, you don't want any major issues. What if the tyres on one side are really bald, tracking is out, you're not firing on all cylinders, but you just go out and race anyway? Either something will blow or you'll have a less than stellar time on the track.

How do we do the same with ourselves?

I didn't buy into this as much until I started training people. However, when someone is paying for your time and that time is going to involve making them fitter or stronger, which is by effect placing more demand on the system, then I want some way of measuring and controlling risk. That's all movement screening is. Movement is the system that we build performance on. I want to know if Joe Blogs will get hurt if I make him do heavy deadlifts or not before i've even written his program.

There's loads of ways to measure risk and whatever way you choose to do so is down to you. The key is to measure it. Or not...

KPj

[KPj]

Catching up on some reading and seen this

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_art ... squat_deep" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

KPj

[Oscar_Actuary]

too far in the respect if you can do a full back squat with proper form, do Squats. If you cant pass some other test that requires more mobility, thne dont do an exercise that would require that position

So, I'm agreeing that the test to see what a client should avoid loading up on makes good sense. But the concern or effort to progress towards total body mobility perfection seems a fixation that is getting more weight than it should, imo.

Some day some contortionist will write a book and you'll all wish we could fit into 2' x 2' x 2' box.

[Proper Knob]

too far in the respect if you can do a full back squat with proper form, do Squats. If you cant pass some other test that requires more mobility, thne dont do an exercise that would require that position

It's an overhead squat, which is hardly a contortionist position. I don't understand your objection to 'more mobility'.

[Oscar_Actuary]

It's an overhead squat, which is hardly a contortionist position. I don't understand your objection to 'more mobility'.

No objection to more mobility.
Some minor objection to worrying about it.

Like
Patient: Doc, it hurts when I move my arm like this
Doc: Then dont move your arm like that.

As long as you can do your daily stuff and move well enough to get the exercises you want (need), and keep yourself in balance, who cares if you cant OH Squat, or Lunge, or fit in a box.
I"m not saying that if you lack decent mobility that you should not be concerned and try to fix it, but soem of these tests (like J.Doc failing so many) - I've seen him Squat. For an old fart he's great. Who cares if he wont win at twister?

[Proper Knob]

No objection to more mobility. Some minor objection to worrying about it.

I don't think anybody is 'worrying' about it. If the Doc can back squat with good form i don't see any objections for him to try and progress that mobility into an overhead squat. It's not as if it's going to be detrimental to him. He's suffering from back pain at the moment, working on his hip mobility will no doubt be good for that issue.

[KPj]

If you cant pass some other test that requires more mobility, thne dont do an exercise that would require that position

This is exactly the point in movement screening.

I"m not saying that if you lack decent mobility that you should not be concerned and try to fix it, but soem of these tests (like J.Doc failing so many) - I've seen him Squat. For an old fart he's great. Who cares if he wont win at twister?

I think the info I got from the good Docs screen meant squatting was ok.

Also, he is probably a good example of why I went down this route. Someone who has a good program, trains with good form, seems quite sensible (not taking unnecessary risks) but for some reason ends up with niggles or pain. For me, that answer has been movement - building strength on top of dysfunction. A screen normally reveals some issues, and resolving those issues normally makes things better.

None of this is set in stone and the research side of this stuff is at a very early stage, so in my case i'm stating it as more opinion than fact. I really believe in this and see it working every single week - I believe in it because I see it working and, as far as I know, there isn't any more effective method with the alternative being "shooting in the dark".

It also allows me to morally say I can deal with painful clients because I have this screen to weed out pain or major dysfunction, when there's pain I refer to my physio (in most cases). When they get to the physio, I have already removed the things he doesn't want the client to do in the gym, and I've already proposed to work on the things he wants improved - and he doesn't even know what the FMS is. So I can work with an injured client and actually help their medical treatment before they've even started it because of how I screen people, and I am not a physio and I don't treat injury, I am just able to remove the risk of making it worse and recognise (and if pain free, address) the underlying dysfunction that may at least contribute to the problem.

KPj

[Jungledoc]

As long as you can do your daily stuff and move well enough to get the exercises you want (need), and keep yourself in balance, who cares if you cant OH Squat, or Lunge, or fit in a box.

That's all anyone is really saying. When you CAN'T do what you need or want to do without pain or stiffness or other dysfunction, and you want to figure out why, the movement screens are a big help. They aren't a bid deal. Like KPj says, they only take a few minutes, and give you a place to be working on improved mobility and function.

I"m not saying that if you lack decent mobility that you should not be concerned and try to fix it, but soem of these tests (like J.Doc failing so many) - I've seen him Squat. For an old fart he's great. Who cares if he wont win at twister?

You really missed the point of my reasons for doing the SMS. Yeah, I've been squatting and DLing, and a bunch of stuff, and thanks for saying I'm great, but in some ways I've been making myself worse. I'm pretty sore a lot of the time, and stiff as well. The screen just helped me find a starting point to change for the better.

[KPj]

For what it's worth, I do get where Oscar is coming from. Actually one of my pet hates is when trainers or lifters get too "corrective". I think you should pretty much always be training hard. Your training session shouldn't look like a physiotherapy session.

Sometimes I train people with the sole purpose of getting out of pain (in conjunction with my physio). So this is a "corrective" program. If you could see the session you would have no idea. Dynamic warm up, some big lifts, normally in some kind of circuit. I cringe to myself at the "lower back pain" specialists in my gym, who still have the same clients with back pain, still in back pain, spending a paid hour with them doing some stretches and movements. I get the majority of my "pain" clients out of pain within in a month, or 4 sessions. Probably helps that I train them in conjunction with treatment from an actual medical professional.

"i train with so and so because I get a really bad back".

I never hear, "I train with so and so because I USED TO HAVE a really bad back". The majority of my clients used to have some kind of injury or niggle.

I sell myself short in a sense because none of my sessions look "corrective" so not many people put that label on me, and I refuse to go down the route of these ridiculous "lower back pain specialist" courses. I think they're morally corrupt, an insult to the medical profession, and an embarrassment to the fitness industry, which in all fairness lost it's dignity years ago anyway.

My point is a good training program IS corrective. There's no need to differentiate between the 2 of them. In fact, to do so is to imply that by not doing a "corrective" program, that you're doing a, I don't know, "destructive" program? Goals - to injure oneself.

Anyway, rant over. A long way to say that I may create the wrong impression because I often answer posts about dysfunction or movement but my training from the outset looks nothing like what a "corrective" program should look like.

KPj

[JasonJones]

Oscar's point is one of my main gripes with "specialists" at gyms. Why are you spending 3 days a week mobilizing for squats if you're not going to do any?

I use the FMS but I'm not a big fan of the corrections within* with the exception of the ASLR. I AM a big fan of Kelly Starret's approach: spend 5-10 minutes a day working on your business, and then lift to the best of your ability. If you can't do that, you don't need the gym, you need a doctor.

(or "what KPj said")

--------
*my copy of ABIB got stolen before I could get far in it so I'm not familiar with those corrections.

[KPj]

Oscar's point is one of my main gripes with "specialists" at gyms. Why are you spending 3 days a week mobilizing for squats if you're not going to do any?

I do understand this because I used to think it but it's actually a misunderstanding (or use?) of the FMS.

I use the FMS but I'm not a big fan of the corrections within* with the exception of the ASLR. I AM a big fan of Kelly Starret's approach: spend 5-10 minutes a day working on your business, and then lift to the best of your ability. If you can't do that, you don't need the gym, you need a doctor.

I'm not familiar with Kelly Starrets approach although I'm aware of the name (makes-mental-note-to-find-out-more). However this is slightly puzzling because what you wrote is what's supposed to happen.... At least as far as i'm aware. If anything, half the advantage is being able to have very non-athletic clients train hard whilst improving movement quality and ultimately staying pain free.

I don't use all the correctives (which continue to evolve) because I had my own spin on it before I really knew what it was and results were good so I never came away from certain approaches I was already using. Most FMS people I come across put their own spin on it. FMS just provides the information, it's up to you what to do with it. As long as you are actually monitoring. FMS correctives are more of a guide, you don't break the rules if you use your own correctives. If you test to get a baseline, re test and see improvement (IF you need to improve, of course), then you are following the rules regardless of how you got there.

The other "rules" are quite clear with regards to when a trainer should refer out. In fact I think this is one of the best things about it as I think far too many trainers over step the boundaries into the realm of medical professionals. However, right now there are no boundaries, which is largely why it happens. It's a difficult thing to define, and I think FMS does as good a job as i've seen. If you're already a medical professional then you also have the option of learning the SFMA, which is the route you go down when the basic FMS exposes pain (if you are a clinician already, if not then you refer out to one and let them control it).

KPj

[KenDowns]

I don't use all the correctives (which continue to evolve) because I had my own spin on it before I really knew what it was and results were good so I never came away from certain approaches I was already using. Most FMS people I come across put their own spin on it. FMS just provides the information, it's up to you what to do with it. As long as you are actually monitoring. FMS correctives are more of a guide, you don't break the rules if you use your own correctives. If you test to get a baseline, re test and see improvement (IF you need to improve, of course), then you are following the rules regardless of how you got there.

You've got several important points here.

The FMS is not a competitive sport. We're not trying to max out our numbers. It gives you a way to compare yourself to others and mark your mobility improvements. The book points out repeatedly that you are in it to improve, and failure to make perfect form is just measure of status, not a reason to stop. If you can get the feet more parallel on a deep squat this week then you have improved. You will probably feel the increased mobility when you go do the heavy lifting.

That's what I seem to be getting out of it anyway.

[JasonJones]

I do understand this because I used to think it but it's actually a misunderstanding (or use?) of the FMS.

I should have been more clear that I do not mean to conflate the FMS and my statement about "specialists". The two are not connected, and I personally love the FMS. Most "specialists" have some kind of cockamamie certificate. I myself have a "spinal injury management" certificate, an "upper body post-rehabilitation" certificate a "lower body post-rehabilitation" certificate and an "advanced strength training" certificate; they're not worth the paper they're printed on, but I need continuing education credits to renew my training certificate and they look good to prospective employers.

Kelly Starrett's approach is mostly soft tissue work with lacrosse balls and joint distraction.

[Jungledoc]

...Kelly Starret's approach: spend 5-10 minutes a day working on your business, and then lift to the best of your ability....

Isn't this exactly what Cook says?

[JasonJones]

...Kelly Starret's approach: spend 5-10 minutes a day working on your business, and then lift to the best of your ability....

Isn't this exactly what Cook says?

I'm talking about the specific corrective exercises in the FMS manual as opposed to Starret's corrective exercises.

My post really wasn't as clear as I thought it was.