And are they talking out their arse or is there some sense behind? My apologies if this question has already been asked a bazillion times but it’s just something that I’ve been thinking about recently.
Thanks for the help.
[quote]thazgeetsqat wrote:
talking out their arse [/quote]
I remember training one legged pistol squats on a wobble board for like a month once and then crane kicking the sh*t out of people because I was so damn good at it.
All I know is I’d rather ask Phil Heath to help me move than the average crossfitter.
I don’t know about you guys, but my backpack always has a good bit of books in it so it’s easiest for me to power clean it up. Of course I can do the one-armed curl/shrug thing to put it on but it’s easier to clean it.
Annnnnd that’s pretty much the only direct application of weightlifting movements in my everyday life.
[quote]JLone wrote:
I remember training one legged pistol squats on a wobble board for like a month once and then crane kicking the sh*t out of people because I was so damn good at it. [/quote]
This was funny as all hell
I will say this OP, the term “functional training” gets a bad rap because generally the people using it are the ones advocating rediculous exercises like what the guy with the pic described. However, “functional training” is supposed to mean using exercises that have the best carryover to whatever goals the trainee is trying to accomplish. This should ALWAYS be used when designing a training regimine. The reason it’s not usually brought up though, is because for the vast majority of goals, the “functional” exercises are the same.
For example, for just about any sport, squats, deadlifts, benches, and overhead work are all going to be “functional”.
An example of not using functional exercises would be a sprinter following a program built around nothing but bench presses and arm training, which is generally a bad idea anyway.
“Functional Training” has mostly been used as a sales gimmick here in the U.S.
[quote]thazgeetsqat wrote:
And are they talking out their arse or is there some sense behind?[/quote]
Who is “they”?
Like Other-Chris was getting at, “functional training” is a context-specific concept because it technically refers to training methods that allow a person to better perform the movements, activities, or functions they require on a day-to-day basis. There’s no one definition of “functional training” that applies like a blanket statement to everyone.
For Olympic lifters, doing snatches and clean & jerks are functional. For golfers, exercises that keep the back, hips, and shoulders healthy and flexible are functional. For a 40-year old lady who had twins via C-section three months ago, core training and compound lower body exercises are functional.
Exercises like leg extensions and Smith machine bench presses are often considered “unfunctional” because they generally discourage natural movement patterns/range of motion and can place unacceptable levels of stress on the joints. On the flip side, leg extensions can be “functional” when advocated by a physical therapist as a specific part of knee/quad rehab.
[quote]kakno wrote:
All I know is I’d rather ask Phil Heath to help me move than the average crossfitter.[/quote]
I wouldn’t.
Contest-shape Phil Heath would be next to useless when carrying his half of the sofa up three flights of stairs. Offseason Phil Heath would be too expensive to pay off with pizza and beer after the move. 
What about choosing between Phil Heath or the winner of the Crossfit games (comparing the best of one to the best of another)? I’ll take the champion crossfitter.
Or an average non-title-winning bodybuilder to an average WOD-following crossfitter? (I’d probably go for the bodybuilder on that one. Probably.)
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
[quote]thazgeetsqat wrote:
And are they talking out their arse or is there some sense behind?[/quote]
Who is “they”?
Like Other-Chris was getting at, “functional training” is a context-specific concept because it technically refers to training methods that allow a person to better perform the movements, activities, or functions they require on a day-to-day basis. There’s no one definition of “functional training” that applies like a blanket statement to everyone.
For Olympic lifters, doing snatches and clean & jerks are functional. For golfers, exercises that keep the back, hips, and shoulders healthy and flexible are functional. For a 40-year old lady who had twins via C-section three months ago, core training and compound lower body exercises are functional.
Exercises like leg extensions and Smith machine bench presses are often considered “unfunctional” because they generally discourage natural movement patterns/range of motion and can place unacceptable levels of stress on the joints. On the flip side, leg extensions can be “functional” when advocated by a physical therapist as a specific part of knee/quad rehab.[/quote]
‘They’ are the authors of the articles I’ve read. Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t an attack. I can see what you’re saying. I was just wondering what it meant in the broadest sense of the term, particularly when I’ve seen it mentioned in bodybuilding articles. For example, does Crossfit make one more ‘functional’, again in the broadest sense of the word, than bodybuilding? But of course, like you say, it’s context specific. Nice to have some expert input, though.
All training is functional. Really, it is.
Anything that makes you rich and badass…
