Search

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., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Using exercise to enhance physical fitness may have little impact on performers' movement patterns beyond the gym environment. This study examined the fitness and movement adaptations exhibited by firefighters in response to 2 training methodologies. Fifty-two firefighters were assigned to a movement-guided fitness (MOV), conventional fitness (FIT), or control (CON) group. Before and after 12 weeks of training, participants performed a fitness evaluation and laboratory-based test. Three-dimensional lumbar spine and frontal plane knee kinematics were quantified. Five whole-body tasks not included in the interventions were used to evaluate the transfer of training. FIT and MOV groups exhibited significant improvements in all aspects of fitness; however, only MOV exhibited improvements in spine and frontal plane knee motion control when performing each transfer task (effect sizes [ESs] of 0.2-1.5). FIT exhibited less controlled spine and frontal plane knee motions while squatting, lunging, pushing, and pulling (ES: 0.2-0.7). More MOV participants (43%) exhibited only positive posttraining changes (i.e., improved control), in comparison with FIT (30%) and CON (23%). Fewer negative posttraining changes were also noted (19, 25, and 36% for MOV, FIT, and CON). These findings suggest that placing an emphasis on how participants move while exercising may be an effective training strategy to elicit behavioral changes beyond the gym environment. For occupational athletes such as firefighters, soldiers, and police officers, this implies that exercise programs designed with a movement-oriented approach to periodization could have a direct impact on their safety and effectiveness by engraining desirable movement patterns that transfer to occupational tasks.

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of wearing a resistance band around the distal thigh on frontal plane knee mechanics during bodyweight squat and jumping exercises. Three closed-kinetic-chain exercises were examined, including: (1) bodyweight squat, (2) countermovement jump, and (3) squat jump. For each exercise, three experimental conditions were tested: (1) control condition with no band; (2) light-tension band applied around the distal thighs; and (3) medium-tension band applied around the distal thighs. Two dependent measures were used for analyses: (1) knee width normalized to ankle width and (2) peak external knee moment. In the absence of any feedback, application of the resistance bands failed to promote 'neutral' knee alignment when squatting and jumping. The stiffest resistance band resulted in significantly lower (p = 0.002) peak-width index values during the ascent phase of the countermovement jump. Additionally, the use of the medium-tension band resulted in significantly larger (p = 0.002) peak knee abduction moments compared to the no bands condition during the descent portion of the bodyweight squat and countermovement jump exercises. These findings conflict with previous clinical case reports on the proprioceptive response induced by resistance bands.

The Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS) has demonstrated some efficacy in the prediction of injuries and is thus used by many practitioners to make recommendations for exercise. However, questions remain regarding its utility as a means to evaluate the effectiveness of training. Sixty firefighters volunteered to participate, and their FMS scores were examined before and after 12 weeks of training. Individuals were graded on how they chose to perform rather than how they could perform. The participants were assigned to 1 of 3 groups: intervention 1, intervention 2, or control. The 2 intervention groups received three 1.5-hour training sessions each week and differed in the emphasis that was placed on movement quality. Sagittal and frontal plane videos were used to grade the FMS with 3 methods: the standard 0-3 scale, a 100-point scale that weighted specific compensations (research standard), and a modified 100-point scale whereby grades were assigned based on the total number of compensations present. There were no significant differences in the total FMS scores for any group posttraining. However, the scores of 85% of the firefighters who did not receive training did change. The 100-point scale methods resulted in more FMS score changes posttraining, but the between-group interactions were identical to those found with the standard scoring method. The control group's scores were not consistent pretraining and posttraining; thus, the influence of each intervention could not be evaluated. Currently, the FMS might provide a momentary impression of general movement quality, although further efforts would likely assist in the development of better ways to implement the test, interpret the results, and generate reliable scores.

Push-up exercises are normally performed to challenge muscles that span upper extremity joints. However, it is also recognized that push-ups provide an effective abdominal muscle challenge, especially when the hands are in contact with a labile support surface. The purpose of this study was to compare trunk muscle activation levels and resultant intervertebral joint (IVJ) loading when standard and suspended push-ups were performed, and to quantify and compare the contribution of trunk muscles to IVJ rotational stiffness in both exercises. Eleven recreationally trained male volunteers performed sets of standard and suspended push-ups. Upper body kinematic, kinetic, and EMG data were collected and input into a 3D biomechanical model of the lumbar torso to quantify lumbar IVJ loading and the contributions of trunk muscles to IVJ rotational stiffness. When performing suspended push-ups, muscles of the abdominal wall and the latissimus dorsi were activated to levels that were significantly greater than those elicited when performing standard push-ups (p<.05). As a direct result of these increased activation levels, model-predicted muscle forces increased and consequently led to significantly greater mean (p=.0008) and peak (p=.0012) lumbar IVJ compressive forces when performing suspended push-ups. Also directly resulting from the increased activation levels of the abdominal muscles and the latissimus dorsi during suspended push-ups was increased muscular contribution to lumbar IVJ rotational stiffness (p<.05). In comparison to the standard version of the exercise, suspended push-ups appear to provide a superior abdominal muscle challenge. However, for individuals unable to tolerate high lumbar IVJ compressive loads, potential benefits gained by incorporating suspended push-ups into their resistance training regimen may be outweighed by the risk of overloading low-back tissues.

The goal of this study was to quantify the relative contributions of each muscle group surrounding the spine to vertebral joint rotational stiffness (VJRS) during the push-up exercise. Upper-body kinematics, three-dimensional hand forces and lumbar spine postures, and 14 channels (bilaterally from rectus abdominis, external oblique, internal oblique, latissimus dorsi, thoracic erector spinae, lumbar erector spinae, and multifidus) of trunk electromyographic (EMG) activity were collected from 11 males and used as inputs to a biomechanical model that determined the individual contributions of 10 muscle groups surrounding the lumbar spine to VJRS at five lumbar vertebral joints (L1-L2 to L5-S1). On average, the abdominal muscles contributed 64.32 +/- 8.50%, 86.55 +/- 1.13%, and 83.84 +/- 1.95% to VJRS about the flexion/extension, lateral bend, and axial twist axes, respectively. Rectus abdominis contributed 43.16 +/- 3.44% to VJRS about the flexion/extension axis at each lumbar joint, and external oblique and internal oblique, respectively contributed 52.61 +/- 7.73% and 62.13 +/- 8.71% to VJRS about the lateral bend and axial twist axes, respectively, at all lumbar joints with the exception of L5-S1. Owing to changes in moment arm length, the external oblique and internal oblique, respectively contributed 55.89% and 50.01% to VJRS about the axial twist and lateral bend axes at L5-S1. Transversus abdominis, multifidus, and the spine extensors contributed minimally to VJRS during the push-up exercise. The push-up challenges the abdominal musculature to maintain VJRS. The orientation of the abdominal muscles suggests that each muscle primarily controls the rotational stiffness about a single axis.