Functional Strength?

[V_R]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Nicholas F wrote:

No, the only people who are against it are the people who have spent years lifting in the gym only to learn that it doesn’t relate to real world activities as much as previously believed. Basically, just because you can bench and squat alot doesn’t mean your fast, can beat people up, jump high, excell at a variety of sports/acvtivities, etc. Weightlifting is the base to stand on, but it has many shortcomings without functional training.

What are those short comings? Most of the people using this term are NOT professional fighters or even athletes. They are simply little guys who lift weights outside by picking up barrels.[/quote]

Well I think the problem is, is that the term “functional training” has been bastardized and no one even understands what it really is. One persons definition can be completely different than anothers.

And professional athletes training is practically CONSISTED of functional training type exercises. These guys spend alot less time in the gym than you think.

[semper_fi1]

My thread has 5 stars. Neat.

[joshlydell]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Nicholas F wrote:

No, the only people who are against it are the people who have spent years lifting in the gym only to learn that it doesn’t relate to real world activities as much as previously believed. Basically, just because you can bench and squat alot doesn’t mean your fast, can beat people up, jump high, excell at a variety of sports/acvtivities, etc. Weightlifting is the base to stand on, but it has many shortcomings without functional training.

What are those short comings? Most of the people using this term are NOT professional fighters or even athletes. They are simply little guys who lift weights outside by picking up barrels.[/quote]

THAT is my problem with the “functional strengthers.” i would love for them to show me what activity it is that they excell at, exactly.

[Professor_X]

[quote]Nicholas F wrote:

Well I think the problem is, is that the term “functional training” has been bastardized and no one even understands what it really is. One persons definition can be completely different than anothers.

And professional athletes training is practically CONSISTED of functional training type exercises. These guys spend alot less time in the gym than you think. [/quote]

Most professional athletes practice whatever it is they are going to be doing. They don’t need to call that “functional training”. Any training you do makes you better at that activity. To imply that training for sports is the only “functional” way to train is to imply that everyone else is “nonfunctional”. It is a stupid concept. I could care less about training for a specific sport. I no longer play sports. How does that make me “nonfunctional” because my training is now in the gym?

The only “nonfunctional” people are the ones who don’t workout at all.

[tassie]

I do think the term functional strength is pretty redundant when used the way it seems to be.

Some one says “Yeah my functional strength training is coming along great, making great gains in functional strength” wtf does that mean?

“Oh my functional strength training is a bit of weight lifting, some conditioning work and lots of training for my sport”

So in other words, you lifted weights then gone to fucking football practice, no need to add functional strength or functional training in there anywhere because getting better at functioning at what you practice is already implied by the fact that your practicing it!

“I’ve been practicing kicking my footy and now im better at it, so my functional strength has improved” sound kind of redundant to anyone else?

[Magarhe]

[quote]DesertTrainer wrote:
So, the example I use is this. Imagine a woman, holding a baby in one arm, a bag of groceries in the other, and stands on one foot and uses the other foot to push the car door shut. Now, how does sitting on a machine and pushing handles back and forth help this woman with this everyday activity? Or any other everyday activity for that matter? Working out on machines has very little correlation to every day activities. [/quote]

THAT is exactly the kind of incorrect statement that really pisses everyone off about “functional strength”, a term which has also been thrown about almost like a trademark for inneffective, half assed training.

(note that I always prefer free weights over machines, however)

How do the olympic lifts translate to everyday life?

How do squats do anything for everyday life? for “functional strength” in ordinary situations?

If anyone believes that then they have not got a frikkin’ clue about [insert any area of training here].

And you are a TRAINER - which makes people even more pissed off, because people are sick of trainers who don’t know what they are talking about/doing taking up space in the gym.

Maybe your housewife clients who have not got a clue think they are getting good value standing on one leg holding a carrot at arms length.

It is a sad, sad fact that 90% of the people out there don’t realise what extraordinary benefits they’d receive in all areas of life from doing some basic lifts with heavy weight and building actual strength, instead of pretend, feebly mild improvments to their weak, uncoordinated state.

Gee what benefit will real lifting give for the housewife holding a baby in one arm and the groceries in the other …

• more strength in her whole body
• greater coordination, balance
• greater bone density especially important for women, especially breastfeeding women
• greater nutrient uptake as above
• greater desire for REAL nutrition instead of junk food (to go with the junk training)

What a waste of time this discussion is. I think I need to launch a public bulletin to beat these ideas out of the publics’ mind. It will be my “Promoting heavy squats for women will save the government billions of dollars in healthcare for the elderly” campaign.

[system]

If your training program allows you to excell in your chosen sport, you are doing a functional program.

Bodybuilder 1 does ‘non-functional’ exercises like curls and etc and looks like Ronnie Coleman.

Yet bodybuilder 2 runs around lifting sandbags, pulling sleds, throwing around a sledgehammer and etc and comes into the comp looking like Iggy Pop.

Which program achieved the end goal they both were striving for? Who’s program was functional?

Number 1 every time.

Same with athletes. Your success on the field determines whether the training is ‘functional’.

[system]

[quote]DesertTrainer wrote:
as a trainer I have an opportunity and an obligation to explain to my client exactly what it is going to mean for them as we embark on a training regimen.[/quote]

Love it. All us trainers, we have to spread the word. It is our obligation!

So, the example I use is this. Imagine a woman, holding a baby in one arm, a bag of groceries in the other, and stands on one foot and uses the other foot to push the car door shut.

No way! I have just started up a PT studio that has a car door to be opened when holding a baby and groceries. PM me and we will talk business.

More examples: Slipping on a patch of ice, tripping off of a curb, twisting to one side while sitting in a chair and bending over to pick up a box off the floor. The examples of everyday activities are endless. Functional training, as I see it, involves training people to do weight bearing exercises while challenging their balance and coordination at the same time. The most common way to do this is on a stability ball.

Do I know you? Are you that skinny punk PT at my local gym who couldn’t get a client through conventional methods, so he started Circus stunts PT Inc?

[Magarhe]

The problem is people are confusing the workd “functional” with the word “specific”.

If you train on a swiss ball holding tiny weights and stuffing around then it will have a specific crossover to the really absurd task of holding a baby, groceries, standing on one leg kicking a car, with a chicken on your head.

If you SQUAT HEAVY you not only will have MORE FUNCTIONAL STRENGTH development for doing that absurd acrobatic one legged baby, car, chicken dance, you will have more ACTUAL strength that is functionally applicable across many disciplines.

You do not need specific practise to do such feats of coordination unless you are disabled, recovering, or just plan clumsy. Which a lot of average people are. I am all for this kind of work for people who are clumsy, or for rehab.

And the average joe/jane will think they are getting improvements from it. However they should not be misled into thinking they are actually getting stronger, getting the best bang for the buck out of their training efforts, or that the heavy weight type training is in ANY way inferior (ie makes them not as strong).

Because calling one thing “functional strength” implies that everything else is either NOT strength, or NOT functional.

Which is not the case at all.

Squats = general, very functional across a wide variety of applications, real strength

Half assed swiss ball chicken workout = specifically applicable, mediocre coordination exercise.

Note the lack of the word strength or functional.

You don’t need specific training for ordinary daily tasks. You need specific training for high level sports performance. What most people need is general training and actual strength, which is functional, applicable to all daily activities. And which changes body composition to a healthier state.

I hate people being misled. I hate the fact that people are missing out on great benefits because they are being sold a bunch of lies.

[Professor_X]

[quote]Magarhe wrote:

I hate people being misled. I hate the fact that people are missing out on great benefits because they are being sold a bunch of lies.

[/quote]

Well said. I can only imagine the tons of high school kids running in fear from the heavy weights because they have fallen for “non-functionality”.

[Magarhe]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Magarhe wrote:

I hate people being misled. I hate the fact that people are missing out on great benefits because they are being sold a bunch of lies.

Well said. I can only imagine the tons of high school kids running in fear from the heavy weights because they have fallen for “non-functionality”.[/quote]

My school had no weight training. Our gym couches didn’t know a damned thing about anything. They never taught us any skills in any sports, athletics, nothing.

It makes me weep when I hear other people’s stories of how their couches in high taught them how to clean, sprint, wrestle etc… … but what makes me really mad is to think there are actual personal trainers out there who are ALSO off the planet.

I don’t go to public gyms, haven’t for years and years. The last gym I went to had a powerrack. One. So I signed up for a month to have a go. So I turn up the second day and the powerrack is gone.

“Where’s the powerrack?” I ask.
“The … what?” the trainer replies
“The big metal cage thing”
“Oh we got rid of it, it took up too much space”.

End of membership.

As I recall there were several Smith machines.

[pittbulll]

depends on what yourfunction is

[quote]tassie wrote:
I do think the term functional strength is pretty redundant when used the way it seems to be.

Some one says “Yeah my functional strength training is coming along great, making great gains in functional strength” wtf does that mean?

“Oh my functional strength training is a bit of weight lifting, some conditioning work and lots of training for my sport”

So in other words, you lifted weights then gone to fucking football practice, no need to add functional strength or functional training in there anywhere because getting better at functioning at what you practice is already implied by the fact that your practicing it!

“I’ve been practicing kicking my footy and now im better at it, so my functional strength has improved” sound kind of redundant to anyone else?[/quote]

[pittbulll]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Nicholas F wrote:

No, the only people who are against it are the people who have spent years lifting in the gym only to learn that it doesn’t relate to real world activities as much as previously believed. Basically, just because you can bench and squat alot doesn’t mean your fast, can beat people up, jump high, excell at a variety of sports/acvtivities, etc. Weightlifting is the base to stand on, but it has many shortcomings without functional training.

What are those short comings? Most of the people using this term are NOT professional fighters or even athletes. They are simply little guys who lift weights outside by picking up barrels.[/quote]

May be it is because you do not have a necessity for your muscle, being a doctor could be done with a very minimal amount of muscle. You lift weights for aesthetic purposes .
Just a thought.

[pittbulll]

I think one of the biggest arguments against Function Strength is its ambiguity. I think what everyone is leaving out is (Deductive reasoning). Meaning how the term is used in the communication determines the exact meaning of the phrase.

[Sentoguy]

Hi guys,

Ok, after reading this thread through, I can really see why so many here don’t like the term “functional strength”, honestly I think this has been the best discussion on it that I have read. Many people have made good arguments on both sides, but one truth has shown through…due to the fact that “functional strength” means so many different things to so many different people, the term somewhat loses it’s value.

Therefore, I have decided to stop using the term “functional strength” and instead use the term “athleticly functional strength” as per my original definition of the term.

Now, I realize that different sports require strength in different areas, magnitudes, movement planes, etc… But, all sports which require a high degree of strength (marathon running does not require much strength, just endurance) require the athletes to use their strength in a balanced, coordinated, kinesthetically aware, powerful manner. Therefore, any training which addresses these facets is “functional”.

Heavy compound movements like squats, bench press, chins, rows, gymnastics static holds, lifting heavy miscellaneous objects (rocks, sandbags, kegs), etc… are superb for building strenth. Explosive movements like the Olympic lifts, plyometrics, tumbling, etc… are great for building power, coordination, and kinesthetic awareness.

Other than that the only thing the athletes must do is to actually learn the skill sets required for their sport and how to apply the other attributes he/she has developed in training to those skill sets.

I agree with the people who are against calling anyone “nonfunctional” as well. Although I think that we could say that some people are more functional over a larger variety of activities than others.

For instance, if someone only did machine exercises, would that make them nonfunctional? No, they would still have built some strength and possibly endurance. But would they be as functional over a wide variety of activities as someone who had developed themselves in all the facets of athleticism? No, I don’t think they would (on average, obviously some people are just more naturally athletic than others).

Good training,

Sentoguy

[V_R]

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Hi guys,

Ok, after reading this thread through, I can really see why so many here don’t like the term “functional strength”, honestly I think this has been the best discussion on it that I have read. Many people have made good arguments on both sides, but one truth has shown through…due to the fact that “functional strength” means so many different things to so many different people, the term somewhat loses it’s value.

Therefore, I have decided to stop using the term “functional strength” and instead use the term “athleticly functional strength” as per my original definition of the term.

Now, I realize that different sports require strength in different areas, magnitudes, movement planes, etc… But, all sports which require a high degree of strength (marathon running does not require much strength, just endurance) require the athletes to use their strength in a balanced, coordinated, kinesthetically aware, powerful manner. Therefore, any training which addresses these facets is “functional”.

Heavy compound movements like squats, bench press, chins, rows, gymnastics static holds, lifting heavy miscellaneous objects (rocks, sandbags, kegs), etc… are superb for building strenth. Explosive movements like the Olympic lifts, plyometrics, tumbling, etc… are great for building power, coordination, and kinesthetic awareness.

Other than that the only thing the athletes must do is to actually learn the skill sets required for their sport and how to apply the other attributes he/she has developed in training to those skill sets.

I agree with the people who are against calling anyone “nonfunctional” as well. Although I think that we could say that some people are more functional over a larger variety of activities than others.

For instance, if someone only did machine exercises, would that make them nonfunctional? No, they would still have built some strength and possibly endurance. But would they be as functional over a wide variety of activities as someone who had developed themselves in all the facets of athleticism? No, I don’t think they would (on average, obviously some people are just more naturally athletic than others).

Good training,

Sentoguy [/quote]

Beautiful. Agree 100 percent.

Of course I love weight lifting and spend probably at least 1/3 of my training in one. I believe its absolutely necessary to builf a base upon. All Ive ever tried to say is this - if your trying to become a better all around athlete, get stronger/faster/jump higher and become a better fighter, lifting weights alone will NOT do it for you.

[DPH]

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
But would they be as functional over a wide variety of activities as someone who had developed themselves in all the facets of athleticism? No, I don’t think they would (on average, obviously some people are just more naturally athletic than others).
[/quote]

if I’m interpreting this correctly, to you ‘functional’ actually means ‘multi-functional’…

the argument against this definition is that people who train for a wide variety of athletic activities wind up being mediocre at all of them instead of being great at one…

if you constantly train for football AND baseball AND soccer AND wrestling you will not be a star at any one of them…

this is the era of specialization…if you want to be counted amoung the best in any particular field you must specialize…

because of this, top-level athletes are best to stay away from ‘multi-functional’ training…

…

on another note…

since there are so many diverse definitions for ‘functional strength’…

IMO…whenever someone uses the term ‘functional strength’ they would always be better off using clearer, more easily understandable language such as endurance training, speed training, strength training, sport-specific training, etc., to describe what they are doing in a program…

this way you’ll leave out any possible ambiguity…

[Massif]

[quote]DPH wrote:
IMO…whenever someone uses the term ‘functional strength’ they would always be better off using clearer, more easily understandable language such as endurance training, speed training, strength training, sport-specific training, etc., to describe what they are doing in a program…
[/quote]

IMO, whenever someone uses the term ‘functional strength’, they should be punched in the face.

I agree with the rest of your post, but most trainers don’t have the skills or knowledge to train someone in this manner.

[DPH]

[quote]Massif wrote:
IMO, whenever someone uses the term ‘functional strength’, they should be punched in the face.
[/quote]

LOL!

[Professor_X]

[quote]DPH wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
But would they be as functional over a wide variety of activities as someone who had developed themselves in all the facets of athleticism? No, I don’t think they would (on average, obviously some people are just more naturally athletic than others).

if I’m interpreting this correctly, to you ‘functional’ actually means ‘multi-functional’…

the argument against this definition is that people who train for a wide variety of athletic activities wind up being mediocre at all of them instead of being great at one…

if you constantly train for football AND baseball AND soccer AND wrestling you will not be a star at any one of them…

this is the era of specialization…if you want to be counted amoung the best in any particular field you must specialize…

because of this, top-level athletes are best to stay away from ‘multi-functional’ training…

…

on another note…

since there are so many diverse definitions for ‘functional strength’…

IMO…whenever someone uses the term ‘functional strength’ they would always be better off using clearer, more easily understandable language such as endurance training, speed training, strength training, sport-specific training, etc., to describe what they are doing in a program…

this way you’ll leave out any possible ambiguity…[/quote]

Good post. Very few athletes would be great at ALL sports. According to the idiotic use of that term, that would make Terrel Owens “unfunctional” for tennis. Sarina Williams would be “unfuntional” for pro wrestling.

The bottom line is it is a term that was created to somehow put down those who train for size and strength as a goal instead of carrying sand bags and tossing kettleballs. It has gotten stupid. Let the word die completely.