There are many corrective exercise experts who extol the virtues of the overhead squat as an assessment of functional and healthy movement. For example, the overhead squat is one of several moves that comprise the popular Functional Movement Screen developed by Gray Cook.
The overhead squat (“OHS”) is certainly an interesting movement. To do it, you squat all the way down while keeping the feet flat on the ground and supporting a bar directly overhead. So you are basically combining a full squat with an overhead reach.
There are many articles on the internet that set forth the proper form for the OHS, and also identify various common faults. Many of these claim that a specific defect in some aspect of the OHS reveals a general functional problem. For example, if some body part off goes off course in one direction or another, this is interpreted as weakness in one muscle, or tightness in another, or an inability to perform some fundamental movement pattern. Corrective exercises are often prescribed to correct the errors, on the assumption that this will lead to an improvement in general movement skill.
I am open to the idea that a skilled trainer can learn something about a client’s movement patterns by watching him perform an overhead squat. But this would also be true for a wide variety of other movements. Which raises the question: is there anything especially useful about using the overhead squat as an assessment tool? It may have some virtues, but in my opinion it also has some drawbacks that I will discuss below.
Tennis anyone?
Most people will never perform an OHS until a trainer tells them to do one. Therefore, if you watch someone perform an OHS and rate their relative performance, a good percentage of your rating is a simple reflection of how many times they have practiced the movement in the past.
When I asked Eric Cobb (the creator of Z-Health) his opinion of using the OHS as an assessment of general movement ability, he said that’s like using a tennis serve to test coordination. Well said. Of course it would not make any sense to look at a client’s’ tennis serve and then start drawing conclusions about their general function and the relative tightness and weakness of particular muscle groups. Although the serve could be used as an assessment of specific and specialized skills, it would not be a fair test of fundamental movement patterns. The OHS is certainly more simple than a tennis serve, but it should be noted that it is also a very specific skill that does not come naturally.
It ain’t natural
Unlike squatting or reaching overhead, squatting while reaching overhead is not something that humans are designed to do without specific practice.
The purpose of squatting down is to get the pelvis, hands and eyes closer to the ground, to inspect something, pick something up, or just rest. This is a very basic human function built on the primal pattern of full body flexion. Toddlers don’t need to be taught how to squat, and they all squat perfectly before age two.
Reaching overhead is also a very primal movement which involves almost the exact opposite pattern. In this case, the pattern is extension – all the extensors in the body shorten and the legs straighten to create length.
Is there any real life functional purpose to squatting down to the ground and reaching up at the same time? Outside of the gym, no. The movements of squatting and reaching up work at cross purposes to each other, and I can’t think of any real world movement that would combine them. Holding up a low ceiling? This is simply not a movement that comes up in real life.
And as such, we are not well designed to do it in the absence of specific practice. The key to proper execution of the OHS is maintaining chest extension while squatting. The reason this is difficult is that activation of the squatting pattern in the lower body will mechanically and neurologically encourage the upper back and shoulders to round forward. Reaching overhead requires the opposite pattern in the upper body, which is easy while standing (big surprise) but takes practice to learn while in a squat.
I should emphasize that none of this means that the OHS is a bad exercise or that it can’t be performed safely and effectively. But I do think it suggests that the OHS is a poor way to assess someone’s general movement patterns. Chances are, the faults you find in the OHS are due more to a lack of specific skills as opposed to a lack of good general movement patterns.
Of course, a perceptive trainer will pull relevant information from any movement a client makes, including the OHS. But the movements which are more likely to be revealing are the ones that clients have done hundreds of thousands of times and are truly ingrained, such as walking, breathing, getting up and down from a chair, etc. These movements may not allow us to create simple templates or algorithms to match specific faults to specific corrections, but let’s face it, the body is more complicated than that anyway.
What do you think? Have you found a good use for the OHS? Let me know in the comments.
“a perceptive trainer will pull relevant information from any movement a client makes”
That comment is right on point, and is the reason why there’s nothing “wrong” with the FMS, but also why it’s completely unnecessary to spend money on the kits, seminars and certifications. At least, it shouldn’t be necessary for any competent trainer.
A more relevant assessment for a client or athlete is to have them perform the movements they need to do. If you’re not an Olympic lifter, I can’t think of any need to ever perform an OHS. It’s a nice lift for the advanced trainee, though, and adds to their movement repertoire.
Ben,
Thanks for the comments. I agree.
And yes, I left that out, one of the best moves to have a client do is the moves they need to improve their function. Great point.
Todd, I do agree with the gist of your argument!
).
As an ex professional cabler however, I believe I may have some insight into the usefulness of the OHS.
In my case it was a natural movement solution at the time, for when I needed to reach up in confined spaces … and I’ve done it too many times to bear thinking about
I really like your work … and enjoy your X’mas break (if you’re having one).
Krisno,
Wow, a functional use, thanks for commenting! Now it occurs to me that similar movements might be useful in other tight spots like a cave or in a tree.
Thanks again.
I agree with you. I practiced a lot of stuff one can find on internet to get better at OHS (from classical stretching to foam roalling while pulling on an elastic band with the ankles taped…), with no success at all.
Then using a “muscle snatch” drill, I realized I could get in a solid catch position without any trouble (not a matter of weight as I tried the same 10-50kg range with both).
I came back to OHS… and I’m still struggling
I think the “muscle snatch” drill activates the tightness in my upper back erectors and as you said: “The key to proper execution of the OHS is maintaining chest extension while squatting.”
Arg! Too bad they use the OHS to assess the movement quality…
BTW, we often read “oh you can see a guy how can DL 250kg, squat 200kg, press 100kg… but make them try the OHS dans they’ll strugle with 50kg!”
Wow… so cool… such an exercise for real men!
Now make the same sentence with a swiss ball exercise and you get murdered on teh interweb.
Hi Todd,
A fascinating piece, thanks.
The perfect time for me to read this actually as I am planning to do the FMS certification course next month. I could never quite understand the rationale behind that test but thought that perhaps there was some reasoning that I would discover once I did the certification. I will certainly be heading into the course now with an open mind; thank you
Warm regards
Jen
Todd,
I tend to think of the OHS and the FMS in general as a screen that intentionally sets the bar very high. If someone can complete an OHS reasonably well, it very likely they won’t have issues with anything else in a squat position either. Statistically, it is a sensitive test, but it is not specific. In that way, the comparison to a tennis serve by Eric Cobb is probably more apt than he intended it to be. If someone who has not practiced a tennis serve can perform one reasonably well, they definitely do not have a coordination problem (side note: I think Cobb and Cook are essentially competing for the same con-ed dollars with different spins on similar global approaches, so critiques of each other’s systems should probably be taken with a grain of salt).
There’s a lot out there that seems to make the FMS seem like it provides all the answers, so this post is great to remind us that it doesn’t. Its been studied for reliability, and scores below a certain threshold are related to injury risk, but we don’t know if changing the score lowers risk. So I think its just a good tool for screening to help you decide what movements area or skills may or may need need further attention or assessment, but not the be all-end all of creating a movement profile.
Cody
Todd,
Although I agree with assessing daily functional movement patterns, I disagree with validity of the OHSA. For example, an individual who displays knees moving inward upon the OHSA have an underactive gluteus medius and this is further displayed in take off and landing if you have them jump. There are many other examples that could be discussed as well.
My disagreement does not mean that I am right, therefore you are wrong but simply i view it another way. I think the most important thing to understand with the OHSA is that it is only one assessment tool and should be treated as such. If an improper movement is displayed, a competent therapist will assess improper that pattern further with a more thorough evaluation. For the personal trainer, the OHSA is a good tool if they truly understand how to apply it, which is a completely different discussion.
Great post!
Yusuf
Great post Todd! Very interesting idea. Here are some counter-points:
- Does an exercise have to perfectly fit a real-world movement to merit our performing it? Perhaps yes for some people (the elderly, deconditioned, injured), but I would argue no for most athletes. The overhead squat places an extreme flexibility (and strength) demand on several muscle groups and joints simultaneously. Thus, it can work as an effective tool in a strength and conditioning program.
- In terms of the overhead squat as a test, it very clear and quickly shows a trainer how tight or closed the athlete’s hips and shoulders are. Yes you can use other movements, but the overhead squat seems to require more mobility than simply squatting or reaching overhead by themselves.
Just my $.02, thanks for reading!
Best,
Chris
Great comments everyone, I agree with most of what is being said here, and appreciate all the different points and perspectives. I think we are all agreed that no assessment is magic and they are all just tools. The important thing is the skill of the trainer in using the tools.
What is the only muscle that can keep the femur externally rotated during full hip flexion? (1,000,000 points to the correct responder)
This may provide an insight as to the benefit of the OHS… I think the other wonderful point here is that a 2 is indeed a pass on the FMS… Even so.. all a 3 on the deep squat does is require adequate muscle stabilization along the entire kinetic chain in combination with 180 degrees of shoulder flexion, 120 degrees of hip and knee flexion and 35 degrees of dorsiflexion…. and only against 1 body weight… if you can not move through full motion against 1 body weight does it make sense to add weight on top of it? If the squat was a bicep curl we would simply remove the weight to make it easier if the patient could not complete the rep as opposed to suggesting they move through partial range.
We consistently hear it argued that so a full deep squat is imperative when you are 2 years old but not when you are 12, 20 or 72…. that’s simply age discrimination at it’s best.
Neurodevelopmentally we squat before we land from a jump but how many rehab specialists fitness experts clear our fundamental movements the way gravity naturally did when we developed our basic movement construct. I don’t question how we learned how to move, mother nature or gravity.
Hopefully this is some additional perspective however incorrect it likely is…
Sometimes I think client needs get lost amidst the pursuit of technical schemata. Everyone’s body is different and people’s goals are different. I start with the client and work from there. If pushing up while squatting down is important to a client then the OHSA may be of value. If not, then not so much. I’m not interested in things for their theoretical value or as a part of an ideal. Nor do I view my client as a collection of parts. It’s the execution skills that are important to the client that make them important to me as a trainer.
[...] agree with everything Cook has to say, and have some reservations about the FMS and some of the movements used in the screen, I have enjoyed the book so far and wanted to share some quotes that I thought were right on the [...]
Hi,
You wrote an interesting statement that I have heard others say but have never had them really flesh out the idea.
“The reason this is difficult (the OHS) is that activation of the squatting pattern in the lower body will mechanically and neurologically encourage the upper back and shoulders to round forward”.
Would you happen to have any references to support this? Are we hardwired neurologically to create thoracic flexion when our Glutes are active or is this some extension of the lat:contra lateral gmax fascial chain bogeyman?
I’m not dismissing the idea, just want it explored.
Thanks,
Greg
Greg,
Thanks for the excellent question. I don’t have any references but here is the logic. A full squat will cause almost anyone to tilt the pelvis back of horizontal. If the spine stays straight or extended, this will mean the weight of the head will stay behind the base of support created by the feet. For the head to come over the feet, the whole spine and shoulders must round forward a little. You can see this even with toddlers who have excellent hip flexibility and are great squatters. Its just part of a whole body pattern of squatting. Kids learn to differentiate the upper body from the lower in crawling, where the hips and legs are in flexion and the spine and head are extended. But this is a different orientation to gravity.
Does that answer your question a little?
Hi Todd,
Thanks for your response and sorry for my delay. So here goes with a massive one!
I have both a two and four year old and film their squats and their running a lot. What I see in the squat is slightly different. You have the centre of gravity that must fall within the base of support. You then have the mass that falls behind the centre of gravity and tends to tilt the person backwards (the ass mass). This backward movement is balanced from mass in front of the centre of gravity. You suggest that this balance occurs with an individual who flexes their spine and then they let their shoulders fall forward. You note that the head falls over the feet but more importantly it falls in front of the centre of gravity and therefore acts as counter torque to the weight of the ass that is creating a backward torque. We are essentially balancing the teeter-totter of your body parts during the squat. Bad squatters round their shoulders and spine forward. I think this is purely solving a mechanical equation not a neurological link.
In toddlers, their heads are massive and this helps them perform a deep squat without having to bend forward (as does their fantastic ankle dorsi flexion). Their massive head is in front of the centre of gravity and balances the teeter-totter equation of their diapers pulling them backwards.
In the adult this toddler big head advantage is seen when we do a squat while holding a weight against out chest or with a weighted bar above our heads (typically easier than just a dowel). This lets us squat deep without falling backwards.
As an adult we try to balance the teeter-totter equation of “ass weight” pulling us backward with getting weight in front of the centre of gravity through a number of different ways.
You solved this teeter-totter equation by suggesting that some of us flex at the thorax and put our arms forward (an FMS score of 2 typically) but we can also solve it by having fantastic ankle dorsi flexion (see the http://www.happybody.com for an example of how 12 inches of dorsiflexion equals a squat where the thorax is perpendicular to the ground) or by being able to hyperextend the lumbar spine and extend the thorax spine. I would suggest that this extension leads to a forward shift of the mass in front to balance out the ass mass.
So I guess what I am saying here is that if the spine extends the head might stay over the feet (and does not need to come forward over the feet) as long as we have sufficient forward mass in front of the feet. This forward mass is in the thorax and occurs with spine extension. As an example, try to sit in long sitting on a couch with your back supported, extend your spine…your thorax shifts forward. This is enough ass mass balance.
I wrote this like fact because that is easier. Definitely open to debate.
Thanks Todd,
Greg
Hi Todd,
Great blog! I came across your site from sonasimple.
I have two FMS articles that might be relevant to the discussion:
http://www.exercisebiology.com/index.php/site/articles/functional_movement_screen/
http://www.exercisebiology.com/index.php/site/articles/functional_movement_screen_is_it_really_a_screen/
Thanks!!