CTM Band vs. FlossPoint: What Changed and Why
If you've used the CTM Band — or heard of it — you may be wondering what the difference is with FlossPoint. The short answer: same mechanism, meaningfully better execution.
The CTM Band: Where This Started
The CTM Band was developed in 2017 and has been used clinically since 2019. Over five-plus years of use with collegiate and professional athletes, it validated the core mechanism: compression combined with raised contact points on the band generates directional shear at tissue interfaces during movement — a different mechanical input than uniform compression alone.
More than 5,600 CTM Bands were sold, with clinical use spanning athletic training rooms, physical therapy clinics, and individual athletes across multiple sports.
The mechanism worked. The materials had limitations.
What the CTM Band Got Right
The fundamental insight behind the CTM Band remains the basis for FlossPoint: tissue restrictions that show up under load require interventions that work under load.
The raised contact points on the CTM Band created focal compression during movement. This generated directional shear forces between tissue layers — challenging interfaces to glide while they were being asked to work, not while they were at rest.
This is mechanically different from standard floss bands, which create uniform circumferential compression without specific interface targeting.
The concept was clinically validated over seven years of use with NCAA record holders, national champions, and Olympic athletes at the University of Kentucky Athletics program.
What Changed: The Three Improvements
1. Band material and durability
The CTM Band used a standard latex band formulation. Under repeated high-tension use, it lost elasticity over time, which reduced the compression consistency across applications.
FlossPoint uses a higher-tension natural latex formulation that maintains its elastic properties significantly longer.
2. ShearPoint material and texture
The original CTM Band contact points were functional but had two limitations: the rubber compound softened with repeated use, reducing the focal compression effectiveness over time, and the surface texture was less effective at creating engagement with the tissue during movement.
FlossPoint ShearPoints use a denser rubber compound that maintains its properties over the life of the band.
3. Attachment mechanism
The CTM Band contact points could shift position or partially detach during explosive movement patterns.
FlossPoint ShearPoints attach more securely to the band and maintain position through high-velocity movements including sprinting, plyometrics, and high-speed agility work.
What Didn't Change
The mechanism is the same. Focal compression via ShearPoints combined with active movement generates directional shear at tissue interfaces. The target interfaces, the movement protocols, and the clinical application are all unchanged.
If you've used the CTM Band and understood the protocol, FlossPoint works exactly the same way.
Is FlossPoint Worth the Upgrade for CTM Band Users?
For athletes who use the band regularly: yes. The durability improvement means significantly longer useful life per band, and the improved ShearPoint engagement means more consistent results across applications.
For clinical practitioners who use the band daily: definitely. The attachment reliability during high-velocity movement and the durability improvement both matter for clinical efficiency.
0 comments