The Functional Movement Profile Of Mountain Ultramarathoners

Mountain ultramarathon running involves balance and coordination over varying terrain. The Functional Movement ScreenTM (FMS) is an easy-to-administer and reliable test of an athlete’s capability to complete movements relevant to athletic performance. Low FMS scores are associated with a higher risk of injury. Recreational runners have previously been described as having low FMS scores. However, the functional movement capabilities of ultramarathon runners have not been investigated. Given the increased popularity of ultramarathon running, it is necessary to assess the movement capabilities of ultramarathoners and determine if there is an injury risk or areas of improvement for training. PURPOSE: To describe the FMS capabilities of ultramarathon runners and the relationship of FMS scores to race completion. METHODS: Runners were examined before ultra-endurance races of 65 (n = 4), 80 (n = 7), 112 (n = 7), and 193 (n = 43) km. An FMS test was administered prior to the race, assessing on a scale of 0-3 the capability to complete seven basic athletic movements. A two-way ANOVA (race length and finisher/non-finisher) was conducted. RESULTS: Ultramarathon runners exhibited moderate overall FMS scores (15.9 ± 2.1 AU). No significant difference existed for total FMS between finishers (n = 41) and non-finishers (n = 20) (16.2 ± 2.0 vs. 15.3 ± 2.0 AU, respectively, p = 0.22). For subscores of the FMS, the squat score (Finishers = 2.0 ± 0.6, Non-Finishers =1.7 ± 0.7 AU) was the lowest score and involved significant compensation patterns or difficulties in balance. No significant differences were present between race distance and the total FMS score (40 km = 16.3 ± 0.3, 40 km = 15.9 ± 2.2, 100 km = 17.0 ± 0.9, 120 km =15.7 ± 2.1, p = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: Ultramarathon runners display moderate coordination and stability. Ultra-endurance mountain runners appear to have higher FMS scores compared to recreational runners perhaps as a result of more frequent training on uneven surfaces and technical terrain. Enhanced FMS scores do not appear to predict the capability to complete an ultramarathon. Training for improved squat mobility and stability may be warranted in ultramarathon runners. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC-RGPIN-2018-1502)

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Published
2024-09-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0001057480.38856.79
Primary Topic
Adventure Sports and Sensation Seeking
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Functional Movement Profile Of Mountain Ultramarathoners

Huiyu Jia, Darren E. R. Warburton, Alejandro Gaytán-González, Kai Kaufman et al.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Adventure Sports and Sensation Seeking
article

The Functional Movement Profile Of Mountain Ultramarathoners

Huiyu Jia, Darren E. R. Warburton, Alejandro Gaytán-González, Kai Kaufman, Shannon S. D. Bredin, Michael Souster, Ethan Schmitt
article en

Abstract

Mountain ultramarathon running involves balance and coordination over varying terrain. The Functional Movement ScreenTM (FMS) is an easy-to-administer and reliable test of an athlete’s capability to complete movements relevant to athletic performance. Low FMS scores are associated with a higher risk of injury. Recreational runners have previously been described as having low FMS scores. However, the functional movement capabilities of ultramarathon runners have not been investigated. Given the increased popularity of ultramarathon running, it is necessary to assess the movement capabilities of ultramarathoners and determine if there is an injury risk or areas of improvement for training. PURPOSE: To describe the FMS capabilities of ultramarathon runners and the relationship of FMS scores to race completion. METHODS: Runners were examined before ultra-endurance races of 65 (n = 4), 80 (n = 7), 112 (n = 7), and 193 (n = 43) km. An FMS test was administered prior to the race, assessing on a scale of 0-3 the capability to complete seven basic athletic movements. A two-way ANOVA (race length and finisher/non-finisher) was conducted. RESULTS: Ultramarathon runners exhibited moderate overall FMS scores (15.9 ± 2.1 AU). No significant difference existed for total FMS between finishers (n = 41) and non-finishers (n = 20) (16.2 ± 2.0 vs. 15.3 ± 2.0 AU, respectively, p = 0.22). For subscores of the FMS, the squat score (Finishers = 2.0 ± 0.6, Non-Finishers =1.7 ± 0.7 AU) was the lowest score and involved significant compensation patterns or difficulties in balance. No significant differences were present between race distance and the total FMS score (40 km = 16.3 ± 0.3, 40 km = 15.9 ± 2.2, 100 km = 17.0 ± 0.9, 120 km =15.7 ± 2.1, p = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: Ultramarathon runners display moderate coordination and stability. Ultra-endurance mountain runners appear to have higher FMS scores compared to recreational runners perhaps as a result of more frequent training on uneven surfaces and technical terrain. Enhanced FMS scores do not appear to predict the capability to complete an ultramarathon. Training for improved squat mobility and stability may be warranted in ultramarathon runners. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC-RGPIN-2018-1502)

Medicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseVol. 56(10S)
University of British Columbia (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 80%
Adventure Sports and Sensation Seeking
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.