If you watch someones overhead squat and the first time you check their technique you cue them to have their toes straight forward; they struggle down, get halfway through and their hands come forward and knees collapse inward, then when you re-test them after some intervention and their feet are turned out 5-10degrees and they dramatically improve, you cannot compare the two squats.
These three are all examples of unloaded overhead squats, but they are all very different mechanically, and place very different movement requirements on the body.
Overhead Squat? yes, but narrow stance and straight feet |
Overhead Squat? yes, wide stance, wide grip (not good form) |
Overhead Squat? yes again, but feet turned out this time. |
The difference between feet straight and feet 10degrees turned out, changes the entire assessment. Slightly externally rotating the feet, changes the position of hip to enable easier internal rotation, it brings the adductors into a position where they can act as a hip extensor (as opposed to adductor), it changes the strategy required at the ankle to allowing the arch to collapse slightly and fascial tension to change. All of these as result of slightly turning out the feet!
Thomas Myers (anatomy trains) is definitely onto something. |
It is understandable that as clinician, trainer or coach we want to show our clients that what we are doing is helping them improve. However, if you are re-testing your client or even yourself and you are allowing modified positions from test to test, you will never know if the corrective exercises or training strategies you are using are working or not. You are only cheating yourself and your client, and eventually you or your client will pay a price either through injury or limitations in performance.
So, make sure you use objective measures and use a systematic approach to technique/movement appraisal. Whether you use Gray Cooks' Functional Movement Screen or another movement assessment standard it doesn't really matter just make sure your test re-test approach is clear and repeatable.
I've been thinking along these lines for a while, but I still struggle with determining whether to start with the stance (feet) and work my way up the body, or start from the head (and neck) position and work my way down....Any suggestions?
ReplyDeleteI know where most of the limitations come from, but you have to start somewhere.....
Hey Sonia, I always start from the ground up. Like I said in the post, the foot position can have a massive effect on what happens up the body. So get your clients foot position set first. Use markers like instep on foot at armpit width and a set angle of turn out (if you choose to use that) then work up. If you try to set the neck position first and then change the stance/ pelvic/ lower back position you will have to go back and re-cue the neck position anyway. Always ground up for me.
Delete