What Functional Training Really Is

[joelocal]

This artical was written my one of my mentors, whom I meet with twice per year for about two weeks at a time, this should help put things into prospective. This is one of my main protocols for training most of my clients. This is just one of the results from my training methods.........


http://joelocalpt.com/success.htm


I am often confused when I encounter opponents of functional training. The concept of functional training seems so common sense and intuitive to me that I used to struggle to find what could be objectionable to others. It was not until I read Charles Staley's description of functional training in his new book that I realized why so many people seem so "anti" functional training. Staley describes functional training in his new book Muscle Logic as "exercises performed on various devices -such as exercise balls, foam rollers, and "wobble boards"- that are designed to create a more challenging environment for the purpose of involving more of the smaller and more deeply located stabilizer muscles." Staley goes on to state that "functional training advocates purport that greater stabilizer involvement is the key to enhanced performance and overall training results". As the author of Functional Training for Sports (Human Kinetics,2003), I can see that I obviously failed in my first attempt to describe functional training because an intelligent and well-read man like Charles Staley, himself a widely published author, does not appear understand the basic concept of functional training as I see it.

Function is, essentially, purpose. Functional training can therefore be described as purposeful training. I firmly believe many, both proponents and opponents, have misconstrued the essence of functional training.

Functional training and unstable surface training are not synonymous. Unstable surface training is one aspect of the larger thought process that makes up functional training. Unfortunately these unstable pieces have become so synonymous with functional training that many feel they are one and the same. Functional training is not so much about the gadgets used by physical therapists in rehab but, about the knowledge that physical therapists have gained in regard to why injuries occur. I think this is where people get confused. It's not about the gadgets, it's about the information. Functional training shifts the focus of exercises to incorporate stabilizer muscles because this is what physical therapists reported as the source of injury in my injured clients.

Let me explain my path to becoming a believer in functional training. Every time I sent a client to a physical therapist with an injury the report that came back was simple. Most often the injury occurred because a stabilizing muscle was weak and stress was shifted to another muscle. Most frequently, the weak muscles were stabilizers of the hip, spine or scapulo-thoracic joint. A trend became obvious. It always seemed to be the same muscles. Therapists frequently pointed at the deep abdominal muscles ( transverse abdominus and internal oblique), hip stabilizers ( gluteus medius, adductors and quadratus lumborum, and hip external rotators), and scapula retractors ( lower traps, and rhomboids) as being weak. Each weak group seemed to be the cause of a different problem. Athletes or clients with low back pain were usually weak in the deep abdominals. Athletes or clients with knee problems usually had weak hip stabilizers. Lastly, those with rotator cuff issues seemed to universally have issues with scapula retractors and stabilizers.

Common sense made me develop so called "functional training" protocols. We were seeing the same weaknesses over and over, why not address them? We didn't throw out the baby with the bathwater, we simply made a point of addressing muscles that our trainers and therapists were saying were consistently weak even though our athletes trained with the basic multi-joint exercises we had always used. I didn't do this because it was trendy, I did this because I wanted results. My number one goal is to reduce my athletes incidence of injury. Even performance enhancement comes in second to injury reduction. Interestingly enough after reading Charles Staley description of functional training I went back to my book to see how many exercises I had demonstrated that used "exercise balls, foam roller or wobble boards". I counted roughly one hundred and ten exercises depicted in the book. Four used unstable surfaces and ten used a stability ball. Most of the stability ball exercises were core training exercises. I was beginning to question myself. Had I given people the wrong impression? I felt better when I realized that less than fifteen percent of the exercises described in an entire book devoted entirely to functional training used unstable devices or for that matter, any devices at all. I felt even better when I realized that Staley's own book depicts approximately 56 exercises and three are unstable in some way. Even Staley himself is over 5 percent.

In fact the description of functional training in Functional Training for Sports is clear " Functional training is best described as a continuum of exercises that teach athletes to handle their own body weight in all planes of movement" the book goes on to state "In its simplest form, functional training teaches athletes how to handle their own body weight. The coach uses body weight as resistance and attempts to employ positions that make sense to the participant.”

How did we get so confused? I think we got confused because other so-called experts wanted to confuse us. One way to detract from something is to emphasize a perceived negative. Those who dislike functional training tend to be strength athletes who I believe fear change. When performance coaches no longer need to look to powerlifters, Olympic lifters or bodybuilders for their information these sports that are already struggling to maintain popularity slip further away from the public eye. I believe many of the opponents of functional training dislike it for the same reason I like It. It works and it makes sense. As a former powerlifter myself, I can tell you that watching collegiate or professional athletes train like powerlifters, Olympic lifters or bodybuilders began to make less and less sense to me as my knowledge base expanded. It was not that I didn't appreciate the contributions of these sports to our knowledge base, just that I realized there was so much more as I began to develop a deeper understanding of anatomy and of injury mechanisms.

What functional training really comes down to is the application of functional anatomy to training. It is taking what we know and using that information to help us select exercises that will reduce incidence of injury and improve performance. Instability is a potential progression but, not the fundamental driver.



 
   


 
 
 
 
HOME | SEARCH | FREE JOURNAL | JOIN TODAY | TELL A FRIEND

 

[BEAST 8692]

interesting article

i have a question re functional training:

could the above recommendations realistically prepare Andy Bolton's core for a 1000lb deadlift?

my point is, how do you deadlift 1000lbs or squat 1000lbs without a strong core and what conceivable advantage would there be for such an athlete to perform 50lb squats on a swiss ball?

or are we talking about a specific type of athlete here and, if so, why is it not mentioned in the article that the information contained therein is only appropriate for specific athletes eg. tennis players, golfers, swimmers, etc?

i would think that these would be reasonable questions in a bodybuilding training forum considering that most come here for information on strength training through lifting heavy weights.

[Emmortal]

Beast, I think you are getting a little narrow sighted in your view of training here.  As you know, powerlifters train differently than bodybuilders, both of which train differently than other athletes (football players and even position specific players in footballs train differently than basketball players or baseball players) etc.  Core training as discussed in that article isn't going to help anyone squat 1k lbs.  It will however help the average person whose goals are not to squat 1k lbs to have more of an active lifestyle and a lower risk of injury in their day to day activities.

If your goals are to be a powerlifter or bodybuilder the type of training in this article is most likely useless as you are getting a much better core training through your normal routine.

[BEAST 8692]

Beast, I think you are getting a little narrow sighted in your view of training here.  As you know, powerlifters train differently than bodybuilders, both of which train differently than other athletes (football players and even position specific players in footballs train differently than basketball players or baseball players) etc.  Core training as discussed in that article isn't going to help anyone squat 1k lbs.  It will however help the average person whose goals are not to squat 1k lbs to have more of an active lifestyle and a lower risk of injury in their day to day activities.

If your goals are to be a powerlifter or bodybuilder the type of training in this article is most likely useless as you are getting a much better core training through your normal routine.

not narrow sighted at all. in fact i did explain this in my previous post on this subject.

the writer refers to 'athletes' specifically and doesn't identify any specific athlete. therefore it is correct to assume, from writers claims, that such training is not only appropriate, but beneficial to ALL athletes.

to my understanding, powerlifters are actually athletes and, although it seems hotly contested by a few unsuccessful bbers, bbers are athletes too.

[JackCheze]

I really don't know that much about functional training. I've seen personal trainers have people do it for the past 4 or 5 years or so, so that is what my opinion is based on.

I'm sure it's useful for a typical person who wants to get in shape, and it looks great for thin girls who want to look tighter. But for athletes I'm not so sure.

To say that functional = purpose is fine, great. Of course it is. Isn't breaking the body into parts and working different days with sets and reps serving a purpose??

Every athlete currently has a lot of choices for purpose based workouts.

I don't see much sense in using functional training for bb/pl/strongmen/football etc. because some of the exercises are inherently dangerous. I'm not trying to piss anyone off with that statement. We all know that before you start a set you NEED to have balance and lift from a firm base. At the weight that people use for these exercises it's probably ok, but I see people do db standing shoulder presses standing on one foot and I'm not gonna do that... I'm sure I'd pull something because I press a lot more than they do.

It seems like another scheme for the big health clubs to me

[Emmortal]

the writer refers to 'athletes' specifically and doesn't identify any specific athlete. therefore it is correct to assume, from writers claims, that such training is not only appropriate, but beneficial to ALL athletes.

True, I guess that makes my point moot since I was trying to get specific and the author was making general statements.

to my understanding, powerlifters are actually athletes and, although it seems hotly contested by a few unsuccessful bbers, bbers are athletes too.

I most certainly agree BB'rs are indeed athletes in my book.

[oldtimer1]

I for one hate the current buzz words on fitness like core and functional training. I'm also tired of writers that use internet certificates as proof of being an educated knowledgeable trainer. 

 As an athlete you have to ask is my training making me stronger and faster? Does it improve my jumping ability and my conditioning? Regarding strength training there has been to much emphasis on strength training for athletes and not enough on explosive/conditioning training for athletes.  What good is strength if you run out of gas?  A typical bodybuilding routine isn't something that would give most athletes an edge.  In sports explosive power is one of the most important attributes.  In sprinting, punching, tackling (American football/wrestling), jumping and other sports require speed and power.  Doing four different bicep exercises and four shoulder exercises done in a typical bodybuilding routine is not going to build that type of explosive power.

If you were going to train a fighter what type of auxiliary training would you use?  A fighter in boxing, wrestling, or MMA would be a fool to use a typical bodybuilding type routine. 


If you were going to do one exercise for "functional" training my vote would go to the power clean. 

[BEAST 8692]

I for one hate the current buzz words on fitness like core and functional training. I'm also tired of writers that use internet certificates as proof of being an educated knowledgeable trainer. 

 As an athlete you have to ask is my training making me stronger and faster? Does it improve my jumping ability and my conditioning? Regarding strength training there has been to much emphasis on strength training for athletes and not enough on explosive/conditioning training for athletes.  What good is strength if you run out of gas?  A typical bodybuilding routine isn't something that would give most athletes an edge.  In sports explosive power is one of the most important attributes.  In sprinting, punching, tackling (American football/wrestling), jumping and other sports require speed and power.  Doing four different bicep exercises and four shoulder exercises done in a typical bodybuilding routine is not going to build that type of explosive power.

If you were going to train a fighter what type of auxiliary training would you use?  A fighter in boxing, wrestling, or MMA would be a fool to use a typical bodybuilding type routine. 


If you were going to do one exercise for "functional" training my vote would go to the power clean. 

i agree with you.

talking exclusively strikers ie boxer, thai, etc, imo they should be extra careful about what they emphasize in their training so they don't develop tight rigid bodies which sap your power and stamina.

for mma competitors or any grappler i still think the strength training should be heavy but explosive compound movements. imo, the deadlift or rack pulls with big weight are the most beneficial because it gives you great explosive strength for shoot and take downs aswell as developing your hips, traps and core for good balance and a strong base to throw from.

i've rarely seen power cleans done right and that's because it requires some skill to perform. imo, they're not worth it. there are other movements out there. add high reps to the equasion and it becomes, not only useless, but dangerous to the joints and back. amazing how many strength and conditioning trainers advocate this though. i refuse to do them and i really don't think i'm missing out.

[Mike]

i agree with you.

talking exclusively strikers ie boxer, thai, etc, imo they should be extra careful about what they emphasize in their training so they don't develop tight rigid bodies which sap your power and stamina.

for mma competitors or any grappler i still think the strength training should be heavy but explosive compound movements. imo, the deadlift or rack pulls with big weight are the most beneficial because it gives you great explosive strength for shoot and take downs aswell as developing your hips, traps and core for good balance and a strong base to throw from.

i've rarely seen power cleans done right and that's because it requires some skill to perform. imo, they're not worth it. there are other movements out there. add high reps to the equasion and it becomes, not only useless, but dangerous to the joints and back. amazing how many strength and conditioning trainers advocate this though. i refuse to do them and i really don't think i'm missing out.

A deadlift is not really an explosive movement and is purely for strength.  I think the term "powerlifting" is a bit misleading.  A good power definition is:  the time rate at which work is done or energy is transferred.  I don't see the need to use speed to get the bar off the floor in the deadlift or speed to get out of a hole in a squat...it's used, but not like it is in traditional olympic (power) lifts.

I agree that BB Cleans are rarely done properly but I can't understand why you would say that clean are not "worth it" if they are not executed with precise form.  I have plenty of clients perform db cleans, sandbag cleans and med ball cleans at various different rep ranges and I have yet to have a problem.

I think you make many great points and I'm merely trying to foster debate on this topic.

[joelocal]

i agree with you.

talking exclusively strikers ie boxer, thai, etc, imo they should be extra careful about what they emphasize in their training so they don't develop tight rigid bodies which sap your power and stamina.

for mma competitors or any grappler i still think the strength training should be heavy but explosive compound movements. imo, the deadlift or rack pulls with big weight are the most beneficial because it gives you great explosive strength for shoot and take downs aswell as developing your hips, traps and core for good balance and a strong base to throw from.

i've rarely seen power cleans done right and that's because it requires some skill to perform. imo, they're not worth it. there are other movements out there. add high reps to the equasion and it becomes, not only useless, but dangerous to the joints and back. amazing how many strength and conditioning trainers advocate this though. i refuse to do them and i really don't think i'm missing out.

You cannot train an athlete, especially a contact sport athlete just with compound power movements, if you do you are only utilizing the sagittal plane and risking injury. If you want to train an athlete successfully, you MUST train all planes. If you are only training on a sagittal plane you are NOT training rotational or lateral strength. Compound movements are fine, but only in the strength periodization of the season but after that, the compound and bi-lateral movements must be limited and unilateral training should be the majority of the training.

[BEAST 8692]

A deadlift is not really an explosive movement and is purely for strength.  I think the term "powerlifting" is a bit misleading.  A good power definition is:  the time rate at which work is done or energy is transferred.  I don't see the need to use speed to get the bar off the floor in the deadlift or speed to get out of a hole in a squat...it's used, but not like it is in traditional olympic (power) lifts.

I agree that BB Cleans are rarely done properly but I can't understand why you would say that clean are not "worth it" if they are not executed with precise form.  I have plenty of clients perform db cleans, sandbag cleans and med ball cleans at various different rep ranges and I have yet to have a problem.

I think you make many great points and I'm merely trying to foster debate on this topic.

thankyou for the compliment and yes, i appreciate intelligent debate (makes for a welcome change on this site).

i agree that cleans can be a very good movement for explosive power and strength, but as i said, i've rarely seen them done with correct technique or enough explosive power, by anyone but those that are skilled in the movement.

thing is, i want to be skilled at my sport. there are so many other ways of developing sports specific power and speed for my sport.

i disagree with your assessment of compound movements like d/lifts and squats. it's true that powerlifters perform the rom slowly, but good luck pulling or squatting your true potential limits without moving through the plane of motion as fast as you can. powerlifters are very aware that without explosive speed applied, you are not going to reach your potential. ask louie simmons or andy bolton how important explosive speed is.

what i find great about using very heavy p/lifting movements for my sport is that you can still move as fast as you can through the compound movement, but the ballistic motion is controlled by the weight. imo, if you are moving as fast as you can regardless of the weight, you can develop excellent power and strength.

put it this way, if you can pull 900lbs off the rack, you're going to pull 200lbs a lot faster than a guy purely speed training with the pull if his limit weight is 300lbs.

as complex as some wish to make it (and i believe that's a mistake when you're talking about strength and power), power is still defined simply as strength x speed.

when you're talking about transferrence of energy, imo, that in itself is a skill best reserved for more sports specific movements ie if i want to develop more power in a left hook or a round house kick, what i want to be doing is performing brief intervals of perfect timing and technique aimed at causing the greatest impact with those strikes. transferrence of weight, torquing the hips, rotating the shoulders, etc, etc, all must be done with with perfect body mechanics and timing of transferrence. if i rotate the shoulders without rotating the hips first, the power dissipates.

what i want from my weight lifting is as much strength as possible anyway. for my sport, i develop the technique first, then apply speed and explosive movements ie plyometrics, heavy bag, focus mits, shooting with rubber bands, etc and with the added strength (as long as i haven't compromised my technique/movement with unbalanced or excess body mass) the power comes along nicely.

in any case, maximum strength potential is not something you just get when you follow a + b imo. otherwise, why on earth would bber and p/Lifters have to kill themselves in the gym and take steroids. this is the thing i just don't get. when an athlete just 'does his strength work because its required' they rarely show much for it. i take my strength work seriously out of camp and then when i want to fine tune everything and prepare for a bout, other things become more important and gaining more strength and power takes a back seat. the best case scenario in my experience is that i maintain the extra strength gained. if you're actually increasing strength in camp you obviously didn't take strength work seriously when it mattered.

[Mike]

what i want from my weight lifting is as much strength as possible anyway. for my sport, i develop the technique first, then apply speed and explosive movements ie plyometrics, heavy bag, focus mits, shooting with rubber bands, etc and with the added strength (as long as i haven't compromised my technique/movement with unbalanced or excess body mass) the power comes along nicely.

Great response, especially this quote.  Are you training MMA or boxing?  We've trained 4 different UFC fighters and we do the strength and conditioning for the IFL RedBears so we have some really great programs where I'm at, I'd love to share ideas on the subject.

joelocal is spot-on as usual and I made that point in another thread, utilizing all three planes of motion for athletic training is PARAMOUNT.  We periodize all our athletes to "peak" for a certain event or season and the strength training is usually in the offseason, followed by some general training, power training and then circuit training to get their conditioning ready.

[BEAST 8692]

Great response, especially this quote.  Are you training MMA or boxing?  We've trained 4 different UFC fighters and we do the strength and conditioning for the IFL RedBears so we have some really great programs where I'm at, I'd love to share ideas on the subject.

joelocal is spot-on as usual and I made that point in another thread, utilizing all three planes of motion for athletic training is PARAMOUNT.  We periodize all our athletes to "peak" for a certain event or season and the strength training is usually in the offseason, followed by some general training, power training and then circuit training to get their conditioning ready.

currently mma.

i don't believe in many of the concepts coming from strength and conditioning coaches. i have access to them of course, but their one size fits all antiquated systems don't give me what i want, which is to have the absolute best preparation possible.

it MUST make sense to me and i MUST be able to back it up with logic and science. s&c trainers, from my experience, get so focused on the comprehensive training of the lateral, rotational and sagittal planes of motion, that they tend to lose sight of the reason you're with them in the first place. i know many mma competitors love this stuff, but i'm dubious.

when did power and strength get so complicated? by it's very nature it must be simplified and brief ie if i am exacting maximum rotational force and power with the performance of a kick or a punch, why on earth would i want to go throwing sand bags around all day? better for me to focus on exact and sports specific movements.

power: how do you develop power by throwing sand bags around for an hour? because this is exactly what my s&c coach had me do. now common sense and science tells me this is bullshit. he's attempting to combine power with endurance with sadism.

give me 2 well trained athletes with said sanbags on tow. one i'll ask to throw the bag as far as he can once in 3 planes of motion and the other to throw it this way, that way and the other way for an hour. who do you think's going to throw it faster and harder (power)?

i question everything! i'm not at all impressed by egotistical mental midgets trying to impress me with their vocabulary and ability to cut and paste. give me simple common dog fuck minus the bullshit or i'm walking. 

[joelocal]

i question everything! i'm not at all impressed by egotistical mental midgets trying to impress me with their vocabulary and ability to cut and paste. give me simple common dog fuck minus the bullshit or i'm walking. 

Don't really care if your impressed or not, especially considering I've been doing this and studiying this before you were even a thought in your daddys pants and learned and trained along side of Boyle, Chu, DeFranco, Cressy, Berardi and Bob Ward, I currently train quite a few mma fighters and have been for years in their S&C (not skills) and a few were world champions. I still don't think you understand I do this for a living and have for a long long time and VERY successfully, the bottomline is toughguy, you don't buy it because you don't understand it. You just keep doing your power moves for you're mma training and can guaranty you'll be in for a shitload of injuries. Go ahead and walk!

[Mike]

give me 2 well trained athletes with said sanbags on tow. one i'll ask to throw the bag as far as he can once in 3 planes of motion and the other to throw it this way, that way and the other way for an hour. who do you think's going to throw it faster and harder (power)?

You just defined the function os this type of training.  I would typically give my client an object (say a heavy bag) and have him hip-toss the bag or suplex the bag or tackle the bag...with no prior directions other than "do it!"  Now, would I still cover all my bases in the workout with rotation, level change, locomotion, lateral movement, balance, core work, pushing, pulling....yes!  But he would be training with his sport-specific movements to duplicate scenarios/positions he might face in his sport.

[BEAST 8692]

You just defined the function os this type of training.  I would typically give my client an object (say a heavy bag) and have him hip-toss the bag or suplex the bag or tackle the bag...with no prior directions other than "do it!"  Now, would I still cover all my bases in the workout with rotation, level change, locomotion, lateral movement, balance, core work, pushing, pulling....yes!  But he would be training with his sport-specific movements to duplicate scenarios/positions he might face in his sport.

exactly, and i agree with this.

by getting him to follow all planes of motion explosively as possible you are accomplishing this task. done.

however, the problems i have when analysing power and functional training (with such training intended to constantly improve performance), what do you do when you want to increase the variables?

what if one athlete has more expolosive strength than another? do you increase the weight of the bag? by how much? is the weight of the bag considered and if so, how do you design appropriately work loads based on differing strength/power levels ie bantam and heavy weight competitors?

do you simply get the athletes to throw a constant weight (heavy bag) further and further? do you go for quicker transferrence or higher workload?

these are the sorts of questions that get me blank stares and zero substance to answers ie "i've been doing this shit since before you were....do you know how very successful i am.........."

to me, this type of response indicates an individual with a closed mind. maybe a very knowledgeable mind, but closed.

give me reason and science (not cut n paste/"i know jesus christ"/"i'm really really successful and you're not") and i'll give you the respect you crave.

[Mike]

what if one athlete has more expolosive strength than another? do you increase the weight of the bag? by how much? is the weight of the bag considered and if so, how do you design appropriately work loads based on differing strength/power levels ie bantam and heavy weight competitors?

Of course those factors are considered and you progress them accordingly based on how their training is going and what you want to accomplish, just keep them overloading them, wether its more reps, faster reps, or more weight.

I think you're looking into this too much.  The variables are what makes training...well....train ing.  It's not real life and it's not the actual sport.  Do you really want to get better at MMA(insert sport here)?....then spar more, hit the bag more, roll more...that's how you get better.  The strength and conditioning are just things to help you fix and maintain the techniques and skills you already have.

I've seen guys who do nothing else but jiu jitsu and run and they have great builds and are functionally strong beyond belief.  Their training comes on the mats and in the classes, every day with different partners in different positions and scenarios.  They've never lifted a barbell or done a crunch before.

[BEAST 8692]

Of course those factors are considered and you progress them accordingly based on how their training is going and what you want to accomplish, just keep them overloading them, wether its more reps, faster reps, or more weight.

I think you're looking into this too much.  The variables are what makes training...well....train ing.  It's not real life and it's not the actual sport.  Do you really want to get better at MMA(insert sport here)?....then spar more, hit the bag more, roll more...that's how you get better.  The strength and conditioning are just things to help you fix and maintain the techniques and skills you already have.

I've seen guys who do nothing else but jiu jitsu and run and they have great builds and are functionally strong beyond belief.  Their training comes on the mats and in the classes, every day with different partners in different positions and scenarios.  They've never lifted a barbell or done a crunch before.

[/b]

gracie bros did ok 4 years

i know how to differentiate, believe me. i guess i'm just fascinated by the pursuit of strength and power.

i think it should be simplified if anything and you have to constantly check yourself and remember why you're doing it in the first place.

the problem is that it gets unnecessarily overcomplicated by people who take themselves too seriously.

the big key, as i see it, is motivation because you need to be highly motivated to push as fast and as hard as possible. it's why it's very popular from what i've seen to change the variables every time ie sand bags 1 wo, bands the next, etc. it's just to keep the athlete off guard and fresh. i don't have a problem with motivation and i like to be a creature of habit, so imo, what's best is to keep what works best and get more efficient neurologically and strengthen the prime movers aswell as the stabilizers, but do it in a holistic way.

[Mike]

[/b]
the problem is that it gets unnecessarily overcomplicated by people who take themselves too seriously.

I think this sums it up the best.