$9 Flat Rate Shipping for all domestic orders.
Offer ends August 31
I agree that the 2 are very similar – both strive to simplify the knowledge of how the human body works.
FMS just uses a slightly more structured approach where you can actually use metrics to track progress.
I don’t know a whole lot about FMS – but my guess is that a blended approach between the 2 would be optimal for people with medium deficiencies that are wanting to focus on form and full ROM in a crossfit environment. Kelly’s is probably best for athletes that are already most of the way there. FMS could really benefit those couch potatoes that are just getting off their asses with TONS of mobility, muscular imbalance, and functional issues.
I am certified in both FMS level 1 and 2. As Thor says, it is a nicely systematized approach to teasing out imbalances in the body and level 2 is the set of correctives that are used from the screen. so level 1 was fine but the meat of the FMS is really in level 2 and i would encourage you to go get certified in that.
Thanks for the responses. David do you use the FMS alongside Kelly’s mobility techniques with your clients? I really want to do the level 2 but i am from the UK so currently the FMS guys only come here once a year. Saving up for level 2 now. I think it would be good to work out which movements in CrossFit relate to the 7 screens. That way you could say to an athlete at the moment your Deep squat pattern is not good enough for you to do overhead squats, therefore when the are programmed you should scale to front squats? Not a great example but do you get what i mean?
I think that FMS is a great measure of general physical capability and teases out imbalances very well. I also think it is a great way to take:
1) someone who is new to CF or new to fitness and take them to a level of physical readiness.
2) take someone who was injured and rehab them back to a level of readiness.
3) balance out an athlete, either new or experienced, who discovers they have a lot of imbalances between their left and right sides.
So in those applications, FMS gives you a very systematized way of doing that, and also not as a clinician but as a coach. Their roadmap is easy to follow and is excellent and easy to implement. FMS also helps you prioritize which problem to fix first so that helps as well. It turns out that the correctives may also magically address other issues you found during the screen, while fixing the first problem you started with!
I believe FMS has been in development a lot longer than MWOD has been around and IMHO therefore is more complete. MWOD’s mobility techniques are more numerous than as described in FMS. That doesn’t mean that FMS practitioners don’t know MWOD mobility techniques. Many already do. It’s just nice that Kstarr took them public with the help of the internet.
But IMHO I think that MWOD’s current content and messages are missing the stability pieces of athlete preparedness. It is true that if you mobilize, you can often get an athlete’s body to magically turn on correctly. However, there are many cases that after mobilization, the athlete still really isn’t ready to build fitness and strength on top of dysfunction, as Gray Cook likes to put it. And mobilizing more isn’t going to help or be optimal in the achieving the end goal. FMS provides a systematic way to do that.
So here is where FMS can be very additive to MWOD. You determine if FMS is necessary or desired. You start with mobility using FMS as a guide and enhance with MWOD techniques. You then move to static stability with FMS correctives, and then onwards to dynamic stability. then the athlete is (more) prepared to do whatever they want to do.
Where MWOD is more proficient is preparing you for Olympic lifting ala Category 1 thru 3 movements. FMS IMHO is more a general preparedness whereas a lot of MWOD is gearing towards CF and Olympic lifting preparedness.
In answer to your example, FMS’s deep squat (and its other tests) test to the extremes of an athlete’s potential to really make imbalances and problems glaring. so FMS’s deep squat has your feet at shoulder width and arms at a specific width as setup by a bar held overhead. But just because you can’t do a good FMS Deep Squat doesn’t mean you can’t do an overhead press and achieve the deep squat position. For example, I can now get to deep squat position and with a bar overhead, but my arms need to be way wide and my stance is slightly wider than shoulder width – this still means i would not get a 3 on the FMS since the FMS is specific on testing setup.
Thus there could be many cases where MWOD test and retests of the archetypal shapes would be more valid than using FMS. But to give a counter example, just because I use MWOD techniques and now can achieve an overhead arms position without movement in my ribcage, doesn’t mean i have enough stability in my shoulders to suspend any kind of weight overhead safely, or in a dynamic situation. You’d have to test and build up for that after you achieve the position through mobilizing.
How you guys deal in CF classes using FMS, alot about this method is “dont do this” and “do that” , so basically like pointed by David Shen, in this methodology if you can do OHS , and not clear shoulder, you can do overheadpress until you clear it ; or maybe in lunge stance . My point is you lost the WOD for your clients , many things some clients wont be able to do, other clients will do other things , and sorry but most of this clients need 80% attetion minimum for right movement pattern FMS engaged ; and sorry gray cook , but i could see many changes you said will happen in 4 weeks , not better than regular classes with the same clients ; and he said “injury prediction”but a lot of paper about FMS , said exactly opposition like 50/50 chances.
. So what i will do in 1hour with a group of 20 clients ? using FMS .