Effects of FMS Functional Movement Training on Body Posture Control in College Female Aerobics Athletes

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4301087/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Effects of FMS Functional Movement Training on Body Posture Control in College Female Aerobics Athletes

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4301087/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Purpose

To investigate the effects of FMS functional movement training on aerobics gymnasts' body posture control ability, and to explore the application of FMS functional movement training on aerobics gymnasts' physical ability promotion.

Method

Forty female collegiate aerobic athletes aged 18 to 23 were randomly assigned to one of two groups: Control, Traditional Physical Training Group (T, N = 20), FMS Functional Movement Training Group (Intervention, Functional Training Group, F, N = 20). The control group used traditional physical training methods and the experimental group used FMS-based functional movement training methods. A 12-week functional movement training program was developed, and the experimental group received the intervention training 4 times a week for 40 minutes each time, and FMS scores, body autonomic control and sports performance were tested before and after the intervention.

Results

Compared with the pre-training, the five locomotor movements of deep squat, hurdle step, shoulder flexibility, trunk stability push-up and rotational stability in the FMS test of the subjects were significantly improved after the intervention of the traditional physical training group and the FMS functional movement training group (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in the Inline lunge test and the Active straight leg raise test (P>0.05); aerobic dynamic movement and static lower body postural control were significantly improved in the FMS functional movement training group (P<0.05); the FMS functional movement training group showed significant differences before and after the experiment in the competitive performance test.

Conclusion

FMS functional training can better promote aerobic athletes' body posture control and competitive performance during exercise, which is suitable for further application and promotion in the physical training of female aerobic collegiate athletes.

FMS functional movement training

Female university students

Aerobic gymnasts

Body posture control

In aerobics, human movement can be regarded as a series of postural data over time^[1], Aerobic movements include set manipulation, transition connection, ABCD four groups of difficulty (dynamic strength, static strength, jump and leap, balance and flexibility) related to the content. Body posture control ability is an important criterion for the expression of technical movements, the display of morphological artistic aesthetics and the evaluation of competition results^[2], Posture is defined as the combination of the position of the joints in relation to each movement of the body, and the ideal posture can be defined as the one in which the joints are subjected to the least stress and therefore use the least energy^[3].The FMS test is a valid, sensitive and reliable tool for functional assessment of athletic populations^{[4, 5, 6]}, and the FMS screening (Function Movement Screen (FMS)) consists of seven functional tasks involving movement patterns of the trunk, upper and lower limbs. Each task is scored according to ability, with a maximum score of 3 indicating good task performance (21 points indicates a full score)^[7].The FMS has a good effect on improving athletes' own deficiencies and difficult technical movements, and has the effect of screening for injury risk^[8].Functional training with the FMS has been shown to be effective in improving athletes' balance, injury prevention, stability and improving athletic performance^{[9, 10, 11]}. To improve FMS scores, training systems such as no-load training, kettlebells, core boards and cable machines, training forms such as TRX, Omnia, CrossFit and BOSU are recommended to develop muscular strength, bilateral symmetry, trunk stability and sports FMS scores ^{[12, 13]}.Several studies have shown that functional training has a significant effect on core stability and movement balance^[14], and that professional athletes in particular tend to have postural deficits or spinal curvature deficits in the sagittal and frontal planes^[15], and therefore in competition, As athletes often suffer from potential functional impairments that affect the perfect performance of difficult movements and movement techniques^[16], that only physically fit athletes can perform combinations of high technical specifications and standards and achieve excellent results^[17], and functional movement screening can accurately assess the functional deficiencies of athletes in the process of exercise and develop training program that match the characteristics of the body and specialty to compensate for the deficiencies in their own qualities. The body trunk position in the limbs of the core connection, a specific and detailed core stability training plays a significant role in improving balance and postural stability^[18]. However, the existing research is mainly in the importance of body posture of aerobic athletes, the traditional training methods to try, for professional athletes training experimental research and targeted evaluation of a training method of research is insufficient. Based on this, this paper applies FMS screening and functional movement training to the training of female college student aerobics athletes based on the research results of previous researchers, and explores the different training effects of body posture control ability under the dynamic and static training modes, with the aim of obtaining a training method that integrates pertinence, specialization and efficiency to achieve the purpose of improving athletes' competitive level, and at the same time, through the verification of experimental research, enriching this research. At the same time, the theoretical basis of this study is enriched through experimental verification.

2.1 Participants

Forty female college student aerobics athletes aged 18–23 were recruited as subjects for this study in the Athletic Training Laboratory of Zhengzhou University, Henan Province, China. The 40 subjects were randomly divided into 2 groups, 20 in each of the experimental group and the control group, all students participating in the experiment have signed an informed notice of the experiment. The information is shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Basic information of participants
Group	NO	Age(yr)	Height(cm)	Body weight(kg)	lung capacity (ml)
Intervention	20	21.05±1.15	166.45±5.45	56.23±5.02	4464.35±957.90
Control	20	21.71±0.15	165.30±4.09	55.10±6.18	4022.15±771.41
T		0.372	0.445	0.531	0.116
P		0.815	0.569	0.399	2.585

2.2 Experimental method

The experimental model process is shown in Fig. 1.The physical control of the athletes in both groups was assessed prior to training using the FMS test. The seven-movement test (deep squat, hurdle step, inline lunge, shoulder mobility, active straight leg raise, trunk stability push-up and rotary stability) developed by Gray Cook. The action demonstration is shown in Fig. 2.

The control group followed the traditional physical training components of postural control exercises, and the experimental group designed the athletes' FMS functional movement training program based on the assessment results. In conjunction with the FMS training model and the Aerobic Athlete Training System (AATS), a two-phase training program was developed over a 12-week period. Stage I(corrective training), lasted from 1 to 4 weeks and the training program as follows Table 2.

Table 2

FMS Functional Training Schedule Phase I (Corrective Training Phase)
No	Exercise Method	Deep squat	Hurdle step	Inline lunge		Shoulder mobility	Active straight leg raise	Trunk stability push-up	Rotary stability
1	Static steady state	Supine hip extension	Unilateral straight leg back bridge		Straddle hip external rotation control	Thoracic spine stretch	Supine leg raise control	Prone support	Unilateral support
2	Dynamic motion	Bulgarian split squat	Glute bridge hip lift	Squatslu-nges		Straight arm high five	Dead-lift	push-up	Dynamic anti rotation
2	Dynamic motion	Single leg squat loaded squats	Box step rotation	Kneel down on one knee and twist		reverse support bridge	Alternate kicks while lying on your back	Push-ups with one foot on a medicine ball	Single leg hip bridge abduction

Phase II as total movement (functional patterning),which ranges from week5 to week12. At the same time, the design concept of the training program is expressed in the increase in difficulty, also includes the process of moving from static stability to dynamic stability and then finally training the whole movement pattern. Training tools: Balance disc, Swiss ball, solid ball, foam shaft, massage stick. The training content is as follows Table 3.

Table 3

FMS Functional Training Schedule - Phase II (Elevation Training Phase)
No	Exercise Method	Exercise Parts	Exercise Content	Load	Equipment
1	Static steady state	Hip	Gluteal bridge	30S/group, total 4 groups	Swiss Balls
		Hip	Gluteal bridge - Military stance bent knee pose	30S/set, 4 sets	Foam Shaft
		Spine lumbar segment	Hand push-up bridge	30S/set, 4 sets	Solid Balls
		Spine lumbar segment	side bridge	30S/set, 4 sets	Balance Plate
		Shoulder	Press the bar against shoulders prone support	30S/set, 4 sets	Swiss Balls
2	Dynamic motion	Hip	Suction leg jumps	8reps/set, total 4 sets	Mats
		Hip	Lunge jump	8 reps/set, total 4 sets	Mats
		Spine Lumbar	Side parallel turning face high five	8 reps/set, total 4 sets	Cushion
		Spine Lumbar	Arc cross step	8 reps/set, total 4 sets	Balance Plate
		Shoulder	Aerobics arm routine	8 reps/set, total 4 sets	Mats
		Shoulder	push-up shoulder circle	8 reps/set, total 4 sets	Mats
Through the FMS screening score, respectively, the low-scoring items for athletes to train, in the training program from the hip, lumbar spine section, shoulder joints, respectively, three parts to carry out targeted training:

First of all, the hip part of the training content, the hip is an important part of body posture control, the hip can activate the muscles around the pelvis, and then improve the stability of the pelvis, the improvement of pelvic stability will naturally improve the stability of lower limb movement, laying the foundation for the transmission of lower limb power. In the training process, for the hip area training, gluteal bridge, gluteal bridge - military stance bent knee pose and other training methods were used. In the training load static support movements control in 30s for a group, dynamic exercises Suction Leg Jumps, Lunge Jump and other movements control in 10 times for a group, each time to carry out 4 groups, the interval of 60-90s. adopt the above training methods is mainly to improve the stability of the hip, and at the same time to increase the deep development of small muscle groups of the hip, to better improve the FMS score and body control ability.

Second, the spinal lumbar training content, the spinal lumbar section is the core of the relationship between the whole trunk strength, in the trunk strength of the spinal lumbar section relationship for the upper and lower power transmission, as well as control to provide a strong core control ability. Dancers are at an increased risk of low back pain (LBP) and lower extremity (LE) musculoskeletal injuries due to repetitive high velocity end range movements^[20].In the training process for the spinal lumbar segment, hand push-up bridge, side bridge, side parallel turning face high five, arc cross step and other exercises are used, and in the static support movement training load can be controlled in 30s for a group, and the dynamic support movement is controlled in 8 times for a group, 4 groups each time and the dynamic support movement is controlled in 8 times for a group, 4 groups each time and the dynamic support movement is controlled in 8 times for a group. The static supporting movements can be controlled at 30 seconds for one set, and the dynamic supporting movements can be controlled at 8 times for one set, 4 sets each time, with an interval of 30–90 seconds. Through the above methods to recognize the activation of the core pillar deep muscle groups, enhance the stability of the lumbar spine section, improve the lumbar spine section of the power center transmission and control ability.

Table 4

Training Schedule for control group
Week	Training content	Load	Equipment
1–2	Sit-ups	8 reps/4	Mats
	Push-up	10 reps/4	Mats
	Prone back raise	10 reps/4	Mats
	Supine alternating leg Raises	20 reps/4	Mats
	Squat	8 reps/4	Mats
3–6	Kick-high	10 reps/4	Mats
	Plank support	30 s/4	Mats
	Push-up	8 reps/4	Mats
	Roll-ups	12 reps/4	Mats
	Bobbi Jump	10 reps/4	Mats
7–10	Russian somersault	12 reps/4	Mats
	Push-up	8 reps/4	Mats
	Supine Straight Leg Raise	10 reps/4	Mats
	Knee lift	10 reps/4	Mats
	Calf raise	15 reps/4	Mats
11–12	Push-up	15 reps/4	Mats
	Roll-ups	20 reps/4	Mats
	Sidestep	10 reps/4	Mats
	Open and close squat	15 reps/4	Mats
	lunge	15 reps/4	Mats

Finally, the content of shoulder training, in functional movement training, the shoulder is the main part related to the control ability of the upper limbs, body posture control is the result of complex interactions between many systems and structures, and appropriate posture is necessary to initiate sustained movement of different parts (e.g. upper limbs) ^[21]. Shoulder training uses a combination of flexibility, mobility and strength training, bar shoulder presses, prone supports, aerobic arm combinations and overhead shoulder rounding. In the training load, static support movements are controlled in 30s as a group, dynamic support movements are controlled in 10s as a group, 4 groups are performed each time, with an interval of 30-90s.The experimental research is shown in Table 4.

2.3 Measuring instrument

A questionnaire was used to collect basic information on the athletes' age, height, weight and lung capacity. A 12-week training intervention was conducted from June 2023 to August 2023, with pre-intervention testing of FMS scores as the primary outcome and testing of baseline Y-jump times and competitive performance as secondary outcomes.

(1) Seven FMS tests. These included deep squat, hurdle step, inline lunge, shoulder flexibility, active straight leg raise, trunk stability push-up and rotational stability. The main equipment included: a set of FMS testers, a roll of yellow tape, a tape measure, a stopwatch and a test chart for each index.

(2) Posture control test. Test indexes and test requirements Lai Chung-ming, in his doctoral thesis "Comparative study of electromyography of stable and unstable exercises under different loads", proposed that postural control refers to an initiative of the body to maintain, achieve or restore the state of equilibrium at rest or in motion^[22]. The test of body postural control under the condition of static movement surface change was divided into three parts: ① reflecting the control ability of the subject's body postural stability in the sagittal and horizontal planes under the static condition, an eight-step prone bridge test was selected; ② reflecting the control ability of the subject's body postural stability in the frontal plane under the static condition, a five-step lateral bridge test was selected; and ③ reflecting the subject's abdomen of the torso region under the static condition, back and hip in the sagittal axis on the body posture stability control ability, selected six supine bridge test.

(3) The body posture control test under the conditions of dynamic movement surface change, mainly using the suction leg lift, T-type running and Y-type jumping, to examine the control ability of the unilateral lower limb of the aerobic athlete's body posture in the rapid and dynamic state. The experimental process is shown in Fig. 3.

(4) Aerobics competitive performance test. Four groups of difficulty combinations ABCD and single competition routines were used for comprehensive scoring, and the scoring rules were adopted from the FISA Scoring Rules for Competitive Aerobics for the 2022–2024 Cycle^[23].

2.4 Statistical analysis

The specific data of the completed index measurements before and after the experiment were recorded in an Excel table and processed by SPSS27.0, the data were tested by independent samples T-test, and the data before and after the experiment were tested by paired samples T-test for the experimental group and the control group, and the results of the tests were compared to analyse the influence of training on the body posture control ability of aerobic athletes.

3.1 Results of FMS test scores

The FMS test, or Functional Movement Screen, uses the Gray-Cook design for musculoskeletal movement testing. The FMS Functional Movement Test was chosen to assess the dynamic stability and flexibility of the shoulder, pelvic and trunk muscles during dynamically changing movements, mainly through seven components. Through 12 weeks of FMS Functional Movement Training and the effect on test results.

Table 5

Results of FMS test scores before and after the experiment (N = 40)
	Group	Deep squat	Hurdle Step	Inline lunge	Shoulder mobility	Active straight leg raise	Trunk stability push-up	Rotary stability
Intervention	pre-intervention	2.05 ± 0.76	2.10 ± 0.45	2.25 ± 0.44	1.70 ± 0.66	1.95 ± 0.22	1.75 ± 0.55	1.25 ± 0.44
Intervention	post-intervention	2.85 ± 0.37	2.8 ± 0.41	2.40 ± 0.50	2.90 ± 0.31	2.10 ± 0.31	2.65 ± 0.49	2.15 ± 0.58
Control	pre-intervention	2.35 ± 0.49	2.20 ± 0.60	2.05 ± 0.51	2.00 ± 0.65	1.85 ± 0.58	1.90 ± 0.64	1.35 ± 0.49
Control	post-intervention	2.55 ± 0.51	2.4 ± 0.6	2.20 ± 0.41	2.25 ± 0.44	2.00 ± 0.56	2.20 ± 0.56	1.65 ± 0.75
a	Intervention	0.000*	0.000*	0.107	0.000*	0.083	0.000*	0.000*
a	Control	0.163	0.214	0.263	0.056	0.267	0.034*	0.055
b	pre-intervention	0.146	0.466	0.194	0.154	0.481	0.432	0.503
b	post-intervention	0.039*	0.018*	0.176	0.000*	0.489	0.000*	0.024*

Mean ± SD (in-max).(Note: The above data are in units of (points), and two decimals are retained after rounding the average of the test data scores.)a:Within group before and after training significance.b:Significant differences between experimental and control groups.

As can be seen from Table 5: Comparison of the seven items in the FMS test between the experimental group and the control group before the experiment, the means of the experimental group and the control group were similar, and the P>0.05 of the data of the two groups was measured, and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups of subjects in the FMS test before the experiment, which was in accordance with the requirements of the experiment. After 12 weeks of FMS functional movement training intervention, the FMS scores of the experimental group had different degrees of improvement compared with the pre-experimental period, in which the deep squat, hurdle step, shoulder flexibility, trunk stability push-ups and rotational stability test reached a highly significant difference in five test indexes (P < 0. The FMS test scores of the athletes in the control group improved compared to the pre-training period, except for the Trunk stability push-up movement index, which reached a significant difference (P < 0.05), and the other six movement tests improved, but the difference was not significant. It can be seen that functional training according to the physical characteristics of the athletes can promote the effective improvement of the functional qualities of aerobic athletes, and can also reduce the functional obstacles of aerobic athletes in training and compensate for their own weaknesses.

3.2. Test results of postural control ability under static kinematic surface conditions

In order to facilitate the comparative analysis of the data before and after the experiment, the body posture control test under the condition of static kinematic surface change was conducted on 40 subjects before the experiment, and the body posture control test under the condition of static kinematic surface change was divided into the following: eight-step pitching bridge test, five-step side bridge test, and six-step slumping bridge test, and the results of the test were as shown in the Table 6.

Table 6

Results of eight-stage abdominal bridge, five-stage lateral bridge and six- stage back-bridge indexes between groups before and after the experiment (N = 40)
	Group	Prior to the intervention	After 12 weeks
Eight-stage abdominal bridge	Intervention	1.00 ± 0.73	3.75 ± 3.74*
Eight-stage abdominal bridge	Control	1.05 ± 1.10	1.15 ± 0.93
Five-stage lateral bridge (left)	Intervention	0.80 ± 0.89	2.85 ± 1.39*
Five-stage lateral bridge (left)	Control	0.90 ± 0.91	1.05 ± 0.83
Five-stage lateral Bridge (right)	Intervention	1.05 ± 1.15	2.95 ± 1.32*
Five-stage lateral Bridge (right)	Control	0.95 ± 0.76	1.05 ± 0.83
Six- stage back bridge (left)	Intervention	4.55 ± 2.04	7.50 ± 2.96*
Six- stage back bridge (left)	Control	4.10 ± 1.17	4.45 ± 1.15
Six- stage back bridge (right)	Intervention	5.00 ± 2.18	7.40 ± 2.56*
Six- stage back bridge (right)	Control	5.05 ± 1.19	5.00 ± 1.17

*There is a significant difference at the same time compared with the control group (P < .05).

As can be seen from Table 6: when testing the body posture control ability of the two groups of subjects under the condition of static movement surface change, P>0.05 in the three test indexes before the experiment, there is no difference between the two groups of subjects in terms of body posture control ability under the condition of static movement surface change before the experiment, which is in line with the experimental requirements. The test results of the body posture control ability of aerobic exercisers under the condition of static movement surface change between the experimental group and the control group after the experiment showed that there was a significant difference between the two groups after the experiment in the indices of eight-level plunge bridge, five-level side bridge (left), five-level side bridge (right), six-level elevation bridge (left) and six-level elevation bridge (right), with the effect of the experimental group being significantly better than that of the control group (P < 0. 05), and that the effect of aerobic athletes' body posture control ability was significantly better than that of the control group under the condition of static movement surface change (P < 0.05), with the effect of the experimental group being significantly better than that of the control group. The effect of improving the athletes' body posture control ability is obvious.

3.3. Test results of body posture control ability in dynamic movement situations

Three main components of the test of postural control in dynamic movement situations were used: the sucking leg lift, the T-run and the basic speed Y-jump.

Table 7

Test results of suction leg lift, T-run and basic pace Y-jump indices before and after the experiment (N = 40)
Group		Suction leg up step jump (left)	Sucking leg up step jump (right)	T-run	Basic pace Y-jump
Intervention	Pre-intervention	10.51 ± 2.3	11.5 ± 3.97	13.23 ± 1.56	21.65 ± 3.11
Intervention	Post-intervention	9.01 ± 3.7	9.5 ± 3.92	15.63 ± 1.47	22.01 ± 1.82
Control	Pre-intervention	10.51 ± 2.87	11.3 ± 3.28	13.9 ± 1.02	21.32 ± 2.3
Control	Post-intervention	10.44 ± 3.7	10.47 ± 3.92	14.07 ± 0.86	21.47 ± 1.26
a	Intervention	0.034*	0.020*	0.000**	0.453
a	Control	0.942	0.303	0.390	0.722
b	Pre-intervention	1.000	0.865	0.117	0.709
b	Post-intervention	0.531	0.665	0.000**	0.284

(Note: Test data in (s) for suction leg raise, T-run, and basic pace Y-jump.)a: Within group before and after training significance. b: Significant differences between experimental and control groups.

In the experimental group and the control group in the dynamic state of body posture control ability test data results, as can be seen from Table 7, in the suction leg lift (P = 0.034 * left, P = 0.020 * right) and T-type running two groups of data, before and after the experiment are P < 0.05, the difference between groups is significant, FMS functional training on the two performances on the role of a significant improvement. The intra-group and inter-group P>0.05 for the basic pace Y-type jump test, and the overall performance was improved, but the effect was not obvious. Therefore, FMS functional training is superior to traditional training methods in terms of posture control in the dynamic state of athletes.

3.4.Results of competitive performance test

Table 8

Results of competitive performance tests before and after the experiment (N = 40)
Group		Pre-experiment mean	Posterior mean	T	P
Within group	Intervention	59.65 ± 3.50	69.40 ± 5.56	-11.052	0.000*
Within group	Control	58.55 ± 2.78	59.25 ± 3.51	-1.260	0.223
Intergroup	Pre-intervention	---	---	1.101	0.278
Intergroup	Post-intervention	---	---	6.907	0.000*

From the Table 8 it can be seen that the athletes in the experimental group increased their competitive performance score from 59.65 to 69.40 after the functional movement training intervention, and the overall mean score of the athletes in the experimental group increased by 9.75 points, while the athletes in the control group who participated in traditional fitness training only increased their overall score by 0.7 points, from 58.55 to 59.25. When analysis by the two independent samples test, there was a significant difference (P < 0.001) in the athletic performance of the athletes in the two groups after training. A significant difference in athletic performance was observed (P < 0.001), indicating that athletes can effectively improve their athletic performance through targeted functional movement training.

From the test results, after the FMS functional movement training, the experimental group showed a significant improvement in the FMS test scores after the experiment, while the control group showed no significant difference in the total FMS test scores before and after the experiment. Analysis of the results of the comparison of FMS test data within the experimental group before and after the experiment showed that there was a significant difference in the improvement of the five scores of deep squat, hurdle step, shoulder flexibility, trunk stability push-up and rotational stability, whereas there was no significant change in the linear inline lunge and active straight leg raise. the use of the FMS to measure movement capacity and the development of intervention programs to improve movement patterns has become popular^[24]. A core stability training program improves functional movement patterns and dynamic postural control in collegiate athletes^[25]. There is an emerging trend in the strength and conditioning industry to identify and correct an athlete's faulty movement patterns prior to any substantial muscle strengthening, and for screening purposes, static posture may be easier and quicker to measure than dynamic posture, but the relationship between static posture and dynamic movement is not yet clear ^[26]. Improving core stability enables the control of trunk strength during movement^[27]. Trunk stability push up and rotational stability have been shown to have a positive effect on postural control. While the linear inline lunge requires flexibility not only at the hip, but also at the knee and ankle, this functional training design did not improve hip flexibility at the same time as it improved ankle and knee flexibility. Secondly, the inline lunge is also highly dependent on lower limb flexibility, so flexibility also limits lower limb range of motion.

There is an emerging trend in the strength and conditioning industry to identify and correct faulty movement patterns in athletes prior to any substantial muscle strengthening, and for screening purposes, static posture may be easier and quicker to measure than dynamic posture, but the relationship between static posture and dynamic movement is not clear ^[28]. Firstly, from the results of the static movement plane data, it can be seen that the athletes' body posture control ability had a positive effect and improved the core stability ability of the trunk position. Secondly, from the experimental results of aerobic athletes' body posture control ability under dynamic movement direction change, it can be seen that: after 12 weeks of trunk strength training, the FMS functional movement training under dynamic movement conditions can improve athletes' body posture control ability, and the process of T-type running and basic pace Y-type jumping requires the participation of more muscles, which increases the subject's response to spatial positioning and direction change and other. During the second stage of lifting training, training methods such as gluteal bridge, gluteal bridge - military step knee extension, overhead bridge - single leg raise, overhead bridge - single hand raise, balance disc - side bridge, Swiss ball - prone Y, Swiss ball - prone T, etc. were used. The results of the study showed that the stability of the trunk helped the students to increase the range of movement, with a more adequate display of strength, and a greater improvement in the range of movement of the step, the range of movement of the arms, etc., and the overall presentation of the routine was more graceful. The overall presentation of the routine was also more graceful and therefore received higher scores.

Functional Movement Screening (FMS) is widely used in physiotherapy rehabilitation and physical training for professional competitive sports^[29] and has a positive effect on the prevention of sports injuries in athletes^[30]. There are still some shortcomings in this study: firstly, the design of this functional training program, combined with the results of FMS scoring, focuses on improving the strength of the shoulder, lumbar and hip, as well as other small peripheral muscle groups of the athletes, which in turn improves the athlete's ability to control posture and better demonstrate the difficulty and artistic expression in the process of athleticism. Second, combined with the characteristics of aerobics project, and athletes lack of quality, the corrective training in the early stage to solve the general problem, for the individuality of the problem did not specifically formulate the training program. In addition, there is no research in the study for the stability of athletes' posture and athletes' sports injury prevention. Finally, this study is relatively short in time, mainly to solve the current problem of body posture control ability of aerobic athletes, according to the athlete's FMS low-scoring projects for collective training, training focus on better improving the body posture control ability. The design of training for individual athletes and the duration of the training effect were not addressed. It is recommended that in the future relevant demonstration process, further in-depth research around the functional training to improve the special characteristics and outstanding athletes personal training effect, etc., will be used to improve the training of aerobic athletes strength, speed, endurance, etc., through the experimental research to verify the other effects of FMS functional training and the role of FMS, and further improve and perfect the aerobic athletes training methods and means.

After 12 weeks of training, the total scores of the five movements of the FMS test of deep squat, hurdle step, shoulder flexibility, trunk stability push-ups and rotational stability of the subjects improved by 0.7–1.2 points (P < 0.05), and there was no significant difference in the inline lunge and active straight leg lift test (P > 0.05); the aerobic exercisers had significant improvement in the scores of body posture control in both dynamic movement and static state, but only the T-run had a significant effect. In terms of dynamic movement and static postural control ability, the static postural control ability score was significantly improved, and both FMS functional movement training and traditional physical training had the effect of improvement in the dynamic state, but only the effect of T-running was significant. In conclusion, the scores of the experimental group were significantly higher than those of the pre-experimental group and the control group, and the results of the FMS test showed obvious improvement, and the experimental group was better than the control group, which improved the stability, flexibility and body control ability of the athletes in the experimental group, therefore, the FMS functional training can better promote the body control ability of aerobic athletes and the control of their body posture in the process of movement, which is suitable for further training in It is suitable for further application and promotion in the physical training of female college student aerobic athletes.

Funding

This research was supported by the Output-oriented Research Funds of the Ministry of Education in 2022.(220607025203939).

Authors Contribution

Corresponding author: Jiang C.；Conceptualization, Jiang.C. and Lan.L.; methodology, Yanke C. and Jiang.C.; software and proofreading, Deng.P.; validation, Yanke C. and Qinghe.W.; formal analysis, Qinghe.W.; investigation, Lan.L.; resources, Jiang.C.; data curation, Lan.L.; writing—original draft preparation, J.C.; writing—review and editing, Deng.P. and Jiang.C.; visualization, Qinghe.W; supervision, Yanke C.; project administration, Lan.L.; funding acquisition, Jiang.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Data Availability

All data that support the findings of this study can be obtained from the corresponding author upon request.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Zhengzhou University (Protocol Code: 0603/2023 and date of approval: 6March 2023).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Kyonggi University.

BaopingXing,Huang Li, & Na Chen (2023). Research on aerobics action pose recognition based on deep learning. Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Computer Engineering, 0 (0), 0-0. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2671200.
Janeiro Valenciano, P., Emiliano Castan, V., Henrique Martins Monteiro, P., & Augusto Teixeira, L. (2024). Symmetric unipedal balance in quiet stance and dynamic tasks in older individuals. Brain research, 148850. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2024.148850.
Sibel Karacaoglu, & Fatma Çelik Kayapinar (2015). The Effect of Core Training on Posture. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 0 (0), 0-0. https://doi.org/10.5901/ajis.2015.v4n1s2p221.
Frohm, A., Heijne, A., Kowalski, J., Svensson, P., & Myklebust, G. (2012). A nine-test screening battery for athletes: a reliability study. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 22(3), 306–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01267.x
Onate, J. A., Dewey, T., Kollock, R. O., Thomas, K. S., Van Lunen, B. L., DeMaio, M., &Ringleb, S. I. (2012). Real-time intersession and interrater reliability of the functional movement screen. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 26(2), 408–415. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e318220e6fa.
Parenteau-G, E., Gaudreault, N., Chambers, S., Boisvert, C., Grenier, A., Gagné, G., &Balg, F. (2014). Functional movement screen test: a reliable screening test for young elite ice hockey players. Physical therapy in sport : official journal of the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Sports Medicine, 15(3), 169–175.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ptsp.2013.10.001.
Cook, G., Burton, L., Hoogenboom, B. J., & Voight, M. (2014). Functional movement screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function-part 2. International journal of sports physical therapy, 9(4), 549–563.
Parenteau-G, E., Gaudreault, N., Chambers, S., Boisvert, C., Grenier, A., Gagné, G., &Balg, F. (2014). Functional movement screen test: a reliable screening test for young elite ice hockey players. Physical therapy in sport : official journal of the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Sports Medicine, 15(3), 169–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ptsp.2013.10.001.
Majewska, J., Kołodziej-Lackorzyńska, G., Cyran-Grzebyk, B., Szymczyk, D., Kołodziej, K., &Wądołkowski, P. (2022). Effects of Core Stability Training on Functional Movement Patterns in Tennis Players. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(23), 16033. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192316033.
Suzuki, K., Akasaka, K., Otsudo, T., Sawada, Y., Hattori, H., Hasebe, Y., Mizoguchi, Y., Hall, T. M., & Yamamoto, M. (2021). Effects of functional movement screen training in high-school baseball players: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Medicine, 100(14), e25423. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000025423.
Karuc, J., Mišigoj-Duraković, M., Šarlija, M., Marković, G., Hadžić, V., Trošt-Bobić, T., & Sorić, M. (2021). Can Injuries Be Predicted by Functional Movement Screen in Adolescents? The Application of Machine Learning. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 35(4), 910–919. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003982.
Suzuki, K., Mizoguchi, Y., Kimura, F., Sawada, Y., & Akasaka, K. (2022). Efficacy of Injury Prevention Using Functional Movement Screen Training in High-School Baseball Players: Secondary Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 10(12), 2409. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10122409.
Olena Voichun,OleksandrBychkov,A. O. Tvelina, & O. V. Petrenko (2023). Implementation of Strength Fitness Components by Means of Functional Training. Intellectual archive, 12 (1), 0-0. https://doi.org/10.32370/ia_2023_03_10.
Sedaghati, P., Goudarzian, M., Ahmadabadi, S., & Tabatabai-Asl, S. M. (2022). The impact of a multicomponent-functional training with postural correction on functional balance in the elderly with a history of falling. Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 9(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40634-022-00459-x.
Anna Zwierzchowska,ElizaGaweł,AdamMaszczyk, & Robert Roczniok (2022). The importance of extrinsic and intrinsic compensatory mechanisms to body posture of competitive athletes a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, 12 (1), 0-0. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12979-8.
Wenying Xiong,Dongqin Huang, & Wei Xu (2021). Big Data and Deep Learning Model for FMS Score Prediction of Aerobics Athletes. Scientific Programming, 2021 (0), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/3370580.
& Lu Zhang (2022). Health Detection System for Sports Dancers during Training Based on an Image Processing Technology. Applied Bionics and Biomechanics, 2022 (0), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5824346.
Messina, G., Francavilla, V. C., Lima, F., Padua, E., Secolo, G., Secolo, I., Iovane, A., Parisi, M. C., & Di Corrado, D. (2024). Effects of Proprioceptive Insoles and Specific Core Training on Postural Stability for Preventing Injuries in Tennis. Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology, 9(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk9010034.
Gray Cook.(2011). Movement-Functional Movement Training System. Translated by Li Jun. Beijing: Beijing Sport University Press.
Courtney M. Butowicz,Clare E. Milner,DavidEbaugh,Sara Tomaszewski, & Sheri P. Silfies (2015). Relationships Among Injury History, Flexibility AndFms Score In College Dance Majors. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 47 (5S), 551-551. https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000478209.47618.c6.
Muhammed İhsan Kodak,AnılÖzüdoğru, & Ismail Ozsoy (2021). UPPER LIMB RELATED FACTORS IN DETERMINING POSTURAL CONTROL. KinesiologiaSlovenica, 27 (1), 121-134. https://doi.org/10.52165/kinsi.27.1.121-134.
Lai, Chung-ming. (2010). A Comparative Study of EMG of Stabilized and Unstabilized Exercises under Different Weights .Master'sThesis,Tsinghua University).http://134.175.232.43:8085/kcms2/article/abstract?
International Gymnastics Federation. 2022-2024 Competitive Aerobics Competition Rules [S]. Beijing: Chinese Aerobics Association, 2022.
Minthorn, L. M., Fayson, S. D., Stobierski, L. M., Welch, C. E., & Anderson, B. E. (2015). The Functional Movement Screen's Ability to Detect Changes in Movement Patterns After a Training Intervention. Journal of sport rehabilitation, 24(3), 322–326. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2013-0146.
Sajad Bagherian,KhodayarGhasempoor,Nader Rahnama, & Erik A. Wikstrom (2019). The Effect of Core Stability Training on Functional Movement Patterns in College Athletes. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 28 (5), 444-449. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2017-0107.
Matthew Kritz, & John Cronin (2008). Static Posture Assessment Screen of Athletes: Benefits and Considerations. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 30 (5), 18-27. https://doi.org/10.1519/ssc.0b013e318187e241.
Mustafa Ertuğrul Yaşa,TaskinOzkan,Nezehat Özgül Ünlüer,Seyda Toprak Celenay, & Ömer Anlar (2022). Core stability-based balance training and kinesio taping for balance, trunk control, fear of falling and walking capacity in patients with multiple sclerosis: A randomized single-blinded study. Multiple sclerosis and related disorders, 68 (0), 104178-104178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2022.104178.
Minthorn, L. M., Fayson, S. D., Stobierski, L. M., Welch, C. E., & Anderson, B. E. (2015). The Functional Movement Screen's Ability to Detect Changes in Movement Patterns After a Training Intervention. Journal of sport rehabilitation, 24(3), 322–326. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2013-0146.
Güler ATALAY, & Emre Serdar Atalay (2021). The Effect of Taekwondo Training on Children’s Functional Movement Screen (FMS) Scores and Athletic Performance Parameters. International journal of disabilities sports & health sciences, 4 (2), 80-85. https://doi.org/10.33438/ijdshs.900852.
Shojaedin, S. S., Letafatkar, A., Hadadnezhad, M., &Dehkhoda, M. R. (2014). Relationship between functional movement screening score and history of injury and identifying the predictive value of the FMS for injury. International journal of injury control and safety promotion, 21(4), 355–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2013.833942.

No competing interests reported.

Basicinformationofparticipants.xlsx

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Effects of FMS Functional Movement Training on Body Posture Control in College Female Aerobics Athletes

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Methods

2.1 Participants

2.2 Experimental method

2.3 Measuring instrument

2.4 Statistical analysis

3. Results

3.1 Results of FMS test scores

3.2. Test results of postural control ability under static kinematic surface conditions

3.3. Test results of body posture control ability in dynamic movement situations

3.4.Results of competitive performance test

4. Discussion

5. Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1