Here are the printed notes for the workshop, I will add the table and the videos in the next blog! Thank you to all of you who attended, and all of you who are reading this anyway!

When you see a professional sports player produce a powerful skill, they seem to need hardly any loading period, muscle lengthening seems to be brief, but the resultant force production is massive. Unfortunately, by contrast, although a poor technique often has the same amount of movement or loading, the results are a production of significantly less force.

A good technique performed averagely, would be one that requires a lot of loading to produce force. This could display good sequencing, but will be less rapid than a good technique performed well.

A bad technique would be one that is poorly sequenced. Often this can produce some force and so athletes can cover up these sequences in most sub maximal environments, and so it would be difficult to see if they were moving well or not. Adding a requirement for more force would change a good movement into one that looks more average, and turn
a bad movement into a bail out (an alternative movement or sequence that is not usual for the skill being performed). Walking for most individuals is easy, and so they have the same ability as an athlete in a practised skill to hide a bad movement well.

Due to this, FASTER looks for movements that could possibly be deemed good or bad, and then test with more pressure. This is rather than presuming the movement is good and measuring the average movement. When we programme at FASTER, the initial matrix we do to balance the body is where we tackle left /right symmetry, and then in the main programme we go after average movements for performance. A traditional physiotherapy assessment would presume that the average movement is weak and work on that first.

The final pieces to building an assessment are the order and the system. As we look for movements on a holistic level and then break them down motion by motion at the joints, it is fair to say that we build our assessment in a way that involves a test, a technique to resolve a lack of range, or prove there is no lack of range, and then we would test again. Often, if you improve the loading of the system then the next unload can look different.

We also work through the planes of motion, choosing the plane of motion that is most difficult to see, and working to the plane that offers most motion to look at. In most cases this means, Frontal plane first, Transverse plane second and Sagittal plane last. With regards to this, we also choose the direction of load first, and then unload second.
If we cannot see an obvious difference in the client performing the function they want to improve, then we add in a drive to motion that means the client has to find more in the plane we are testing than normal, to try and tease out a left/ right difference. Finally if the client is still hiding their motion, then we assess again in a functional range of motion test, where we take a movement close to the function they perform, make it more stable and ask for more range from the joint.