Functional training does not exist – Part One
Paul Swainson, Master Personal Trainer
Functional training does not exist. For some that may be a controversial statement, for others it may be something you’ve heard before. By way of explanation, the specificity principle would suggest that to be truly functional, an exercise must match the actual function (let’s say a tennis serve for example) in terms of movement patterns, energy systems, environmental conditions, etc. Therefore by definition the only ‘true’ functional exercise is the sport or activity itself, e.g. an actual tennis serve. Indeed if you are training for something, it is necessarily different in quality to the actual function - any exercise that simply tries to replicate the movements or environment in a given sport is training for function. Even practicing the sport itself may not be classed as true function if we take psychological influences into account – the effects of motivation and state of mind on performing a tennis serve will no doubt be very different on a practice court behind closed doors compared to centre court at Wimbledon in front of thousands of spectators.
Functional training does not exist. For some that may be a controversial statement, for others it may be something you’ve heard before. By way of explanation, the specificity principle would suggest that to be truly functional, an exercise must match the actual function (let’s say a tennis serve for example) in terms of movement patterns, energy systems, environmental conditions, etc. Therefore by definition the only ‘true’ functional exercise is the sport or activity itself, e.g. an actual tennis serve. Indeed if you are training for something, it is necessarily different in quality to the actual function - any exercise that simply tries to replicate the movements or environment in a given sport is training for function. Even practicing the sport itself may not be classed as true function if we take psychological influences into account – the effects of motivation and state of mind on performing a tennis serve will no doubt be very different on a practice court behind closed doors compared to centre court at Wimbledon in front of thousands of spectators.
So functional training is to a large extent a contradiction in terms, although the term persists as it is commonly used to describe training for function which is the next best thing to actual competition and so is arguably the best practical form of training for sports. All we can do is try to make the gap between training and actual function as small as possible, all the while making sure we are enhancing that function more than we would by simply playing the sport.
So how do we do that? We need to replicate the physiological, psychological and environmental conditions of an activity or sport as closely as possible. However we have established that the psychological conditions of competition are as yet impossible to recreate because if you’re not competing, you’re not competing! Environmental conditions can be replicated by, for example, training indoors or outdoors depending on the sport, on the same surfaces (grass/tarmac, etc) or in the same climate.
This leaves us with mimicking physiological conditions which the fitness industry has made leaps and bounds in over recent years with for example, the increasing use of whole body, integrated multi-planar movements.
What is interesting then, is that one of the most easily replicable physical aspects of sports is typically not factored into training. Almost all programmes will feature a series of individual exercises (even if they are integrated multi-plane ones), performed for a set number of repetitions. Yet in everyday life and sports the same movement pattern is not repeated 8, 10, 12 or 20 times in succession (e.g. a tennis serve is not performed more than twice consecutively unless the player is double faulting continually – and why would you want to get good at that?!). Granted there a few activities (e.g. walking, running and cycling) where a single movement pattern is repeated continuously, but what actually happens in most sports and activities is a variety of movements, in multiple planes, occurring in sequence. In tennis, a serve could be followed by two or three fast side steps, followed by a forehand, then perhaps a two or three step forward sprint. Would there be some functional benefit therefore, in recreating these biomechanical and metabolic demands on the body as closely as possible in training?
In Part 2 of this article, we will look at how we can incorporate such an approach into training to add a new dimension to function.
Functional training does not exist – Part Two
In part one of this article, we looked at how training, by definition, can never be truly functional as we can never perfectly recreate the physiological, psychological and environmental conditions of, for example, a sport without performing or playing that sport itself. The best we can achieve is training for function.
We also identified that almost all sports involve a complex sequence of varying movements in multiple planes and so the traditional sets and reps training format may not be the most relevant approach.
Primal FlowTM aims to tackle this aspect of functionality, by linking together multiple patterns of movement over set time periods, rather than doing multiple repetitions of single patterns. The patterns reflect the vast range of movements the human body is capable of, from the simple (e.g. pushing, pulling, flexing) to the more complex (crawling, rotating, rolling).
Exposing the body to the endless possibilities of movement available allows it to move out of its comfort zone which in turn promotes adaptation and improvement in strength, endurance, injury resistance and conditioning.
This means Primal Flow TM not only has huge potential within sports performance, but also offers a unique new method of training for general fitness. The use of sequenced movements reduces the likelihood of pattern overload associated with traditional training methods, and as the system means that just body weight is a sufficient load for even experienced exercisers (just ask the Leeds Rhinos rugby league team how they felt after a Primal FlowTM session!), it’s a practical and free system for anyone to use. In addition, the use of multiple movement patterns recruits more muscle mass, leading to greater metabolic demands, which means accelerated fat loss and increased muscle tone.
Borne from a simple concept, Primal FlowTM is the most revolutionary training approach to hit the fitness industry for years. Once you learn the philosophy behind the system, the number of original exercises and programmes you can design will be limited only by your imagination.
For more information, contact Creating Chaos, keep an eye out for taster workshops or get ahead of the game and book onto the next Primal Pattern and Functional Movement Specialist course – be one the first trainers in the world to be certified in the next generation of training technology.
Whilst i totally agree with the ethos of training here, i completely disagree with this article. I think the author has completely misunderstood the notion of "functional training" Yes there is definitely misapplication of functional exercises, there are many out there who seem to think that simply training someone on a swiss ball qualifies it as a functional exercise, which of course is not true, but to suggest that there is no such thing as a functional exercise is just incorrect.
A functional exercise is any exercise that effectively improves or benefits a given movement or function within a given environment. Examples of non functional exercises include using a leg press machine for a high jumper, using a lat pulldown machine for a mountain climber. These exercises would not improve the function of the required activity within that activities environment. Examples of a functional exercise for a tennis player would be speed ladder drills or rotator cuff exercises or lunge movements. These exercises will improve the function and motor skills required to perform the activity in the given environment, in this case playing tennis on the tennis court. To suggest that there is no such thing as a functional exercise for tennis because no exercise exactly reflects playing a game of tennis in front of an audience etc, is a total misunderstanding of what functional means.
An integral part of any formula one drivers training is a good strength endurance program. It is vital for drivers to have improved strength endurance in order to get the car round the track 60+ times. A strength endurance program will improve the performance of the driver and is therefore functional to that driver, it improves their performance in a given activity within a given environment. For the authors argument to be true would mean that unless the driver performed his strength routine actually in his car whilst driving around a track at 200kmph, no exercises are functional to his performance, which is simply not true.
Is standing on a swiss ball NON functional to a skateboarder because he is not on a board or going up a half pipe? Is a rotator cuff exercise, which stabilises the shoulder girdle and allows for improved proprioception and subsequent power delivery, a NON functional exercise for a tennis player or javelin thrower because it isnt performed on the tennis court or athletics stadium, or because a ball isnt hit or a javelin thrown?
If you have a client with weak glutes and you put them into an unstable supine position such as a supine lateral ball roll, you force the body into activating survival mechanisms and switching on the glutes. If your client has lumbar spine dysfunction, this would be a functional exercise. It improves and benefits the required activity, in this case simply moving without pain, in the required environment, in this case ordinary day to day life such as walking up stairs and getting in and out of a car. In this example, simply replicating the exact movements, as the first part of the article suggests, would actually make things worse rather than better and therefore replicating those movements would be a NON functional exercise.
As i said, there is definitely a need for better understanding of functional exercises but the argument made here, that there is no such thing as a functional exercise, is not a matter of opinion or conjecture, it is quite simply incorrect.
Thanks for the response - some interesting and very valid points. The opening few paragraphs of the above article were in part designed to provoke discussion around this often controversial topic so to that end it has achieved its function :).
I would in fact agree with most of your assertions Darren. Indeed, if we assume that all training is, or should be, done for particular purpose, we could say that ALL exercises are or should be functional.
My argument was mainly a semantic one – if we take the term ‘training’ to mean the process by which we acquire a skilled behaviour, functional training is, by definition, only functional for the training itself. There is nothing EXACTLY like performing a function other than performing it so the specificity principle would suggest this is most likely to impose the exact demands required for the function (would we agree that, imbalances and dysfunctions aside, the best way to improve at kicking a football is to kick a football?). I am then simply taking this to a logical and theoretical extreme by incorporating psychological influences.
By way of example, we hear about football teams practicing penalties for hours on end in preparation for a potential shoot out in a cup final – yet on the day the pressures of the situation often affect their performance, something that is very difficult if not impossible to recreate.
I’m certainly not saying that exercises and training can’t benefit performance and function, I would whole-heartedly agree that lunge movements and rotator cuff exercises can improve a tennis player’s game for example. Perhaps I should have been more specific and talked about ‘functional outcome’ – in order to achieve the outcome of getting a tennis ball over a net you need to perform a stroke. A rotator cuff exercise would not directly help to get a ball over a net, although undoubtedly it would improve the ABILITY to do so. I know this may sound pedantic but hopefully it helps to explain my view that on a purely linguistic level, the term ‘functional training’ is something of an oxymoron, and that what we as trainers prescribe is in fact training FOR function.
Now whilst I agree that you don’t HAVE to be in front of a crowd at Wimbledon to improve at tennis, or travelling at 200kph in a Formula One car to get better at race driving, my argument throws up a theoretical question which I would be interested to hear some opinions on:
Take two equally-abled Formula One drivers. Give one a 3-month strength endurance programme out of the car, and the other the same period of time driving the car around various tracks at race speeds. Who would show the greatest improvements in strength endurance for the function of driving a Formula One car?