David M Frost1, Tyson A C Beach2, Troy L Campbell3, Jack P Callaghan4, Stuart M McGill5. 1. Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto, 55 Harbord Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 2W6, Canada. Electronic address: d.frost@utoronto.ca. 2. Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto, 55 Harbord Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 2W6, Canada. Electronic address: tyson.beach@utoronto.ca. 3. Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada. 4. Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada. Electronic address: callagha@uwaterloo.ca. 5. Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada. Electronic address: mcgill@uwaterloo.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether objective measures of spine and frontal plane knee motion exhibited during Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS) task performance changed following a movement-guided fitness (MOV) and conventional fitness (FIT) exercise intervention. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled experiment. Before and after 12 weeks of exercise, participants' kinematics were quantified while performing the FMS and a series of general whole-body movement tasks. SETTING: Biomechanics laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-two firefighters were assigned toMOV, FIT, or a control (CON) group. OUTCOME MEASURES: Peak lumbar spine flexion/extension, lateral bend and axial twist, and frontal plane knee motion. RESULTS: The post-training kinematic changes exhibited by trainees while performing the FMS tasks were similar in magnitude (effect size < 0.8) to those exhibited by CON. However, when performing the battery of general whole-body movement tasks, only MOV showed significant improvements in spine and frontal plane knee motion control (effect size > 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Whether graded qualitatively, or quantitatively via kinematic analyses, the FMS may not be a viable tool to detect movement-based exercise adaptations. Amendments to the FMS tasks and/or scoring method are needed before it can be used for reasons beyond appraising the ability to move freely, symmetrically, and without pain.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether objective measures of spine and frontal plane knee motion exhibited during Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS) task performance changed following a movement-guided fitness (MOV) and conventional fitness (FIT) exercise intervention. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled experiment. Before and after 12 weeks of exercise, participants' kinematics were quantified while performing the FMS and a series of general whole-body movement tasks. SETTING: Biomechanics laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-two firefighters were assigned to MOV, FIT, or a control (CON) group. OUTCOME MEASURES: Peak lumbar spine flexion/extension, lateral bend and axial twist, and frontal plane knee motion. RESULTS: The post-training kinematic changes exhibited by trainees while performing the FMS tasks were similar in magnitude (effect size < 0.8) to those exhibited by CON. However, when performing the battery of general whole-body movement tasks, only MOV showed significant improvements in spine and frontal plane knee motion control (effect size > 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Whether graded qualitatively, or quantitatively via kinematic analyses, the FMS may not be a viable tool to detect movement-based exercise adaptations. Amendments to the FMS tasks and/or scoring method are needed before it can be used for reasons beyond appraising the ability to move freely, symmetrically, and without pain.