[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
I’ve recently confused myself regarding these terms. I see functional exercises as an exercise that produces real world strength out of the gym.
So whats the difference between that and speficity?
I’ve been using the term specificity to refer more to energy systems of reps schemes.
Any clarity on this?[/quote]
Other than these being marketing terms, I see them as a somewhat perverted synonym with the term “transferability”.
Transferability refers to the degree to which improvements in the gym carryover or “transfer” to improvements in sport and in the workplace.
If a firefighter must lift a 60kg hydraulic pump from the ground and into the truck on the job site, then for this firefighter, various types the deadlift would be have greater transferability for him than types of squat or leg press.
Likewise, a competitive rock climber will spend a great amount of time with his upper body in vertical pulling isometric contractions at a few select, predictable angles. So while doing regular up-down pullups WILL improve his rock climbing ability, performing lock-off pullups where he spends 20-30 seconds per “rep” holding isometric contractions at the various angles he would experience in practice and competition would be performing an exercise with GREATER transferability…
…or “functional” or “real world” strength (to this one particular activity), if you will.
The term “transferability” I think is better because it really gets to the point and sets a playing field of exercises being MORE or LESS transferable to the specific activity.
When someone says “real world” or “functional” strength, everyone gets their shorts in a knot because it sets up a dichotomy of “either-or”. Either the deadlift IS functional, or it IS NOT functional. Either pullups ARE functional or ARE NOT functional…
One-legged squats are MORE transferable for a hockey player or speed skater than barbell back squats. This doesn’t mean that the back squat does not provide “real world” or “functional” strength, it means that if you plot out these exercises on a continuum from “less transferable” to “more transferable” the barbell back squat would be “less transferable” than the one-leg squat in this ONE SPECIFIC situation.
Also, more “raw strength” exercises like squats, deads, basic presses and pulls are superior for developing muscle mass and neural drive than perfectly-transferable exercises. This is why in the early part of the training year you give athletes “general” exercises to perform to better increase their mass and neural drive.
Then you switch them to “functional” or rather “more transferable to their specific activity” exercises to better enable them to use the strength (that they developed with basic exercises) in their real-world task or activity.
There is also the idea that some exercises have greater “general transferability” to “real world” movements. Oddly enough, the exercises real-worlders tout as being “non functional” are actually the most functional.
In the “real world” you have to pick heavy things up off of the ground → deadlift.
In the “real world” you have to lift heavy things above your head → push press.
In the “real world” you might have to push a car out of the ditch → front squat
etc, etc, etc…
Hope this helps.
– ElbowStrike
