Functional Training

[Merrida]

It seems to me that Functional Training is the "new rage" in the clubs sprouting up,...at least in my area. The "old school" training focusing on hypertrophy and strength seem to be taking a back seat to the flourishing interest in Functional Training.

I know must of "us" (those who post here), "seem" at least, to be interested in the hypertrophy, strength, and power,....and I've seen very few posts which inquire about things like functional stability (ergo, my conclusion).

So I'm curious,....from trainers who post here, what's your take, and do you notice this as well? As for gym-goers, what's your take, and are you interested in Functional Training (either "instead of" or as an "adjunct" to your existing training program?)

I'm wondering who cares, who's interested, who understands its relevence, or who gives a hoot!

[Lady C]

What is your definition of "functional training"?

[standAPART]

Functional training has been the rage for the last 4 years or so. Bootcamps and odd-object training are now becoming the new rage. 7 years ago it was the stability ball---that is as common as Walmart now.

I disagree with you STRONGLY that hypertrophy and strength can't be achieved thru functional training. If you sincerely believe that, then you have forgotten the Principle of Overload (muscle growth is dictated by intensity....intensity is not ONLY adding more weight to a bar).

I have stopped training like a bodybuilder when I had shoulder surgery and realized I ain't a REAL bodybuilder who competes. I have made more gains in strength & size since adapting functional-type/sport training exercises, then back in the day when it was just about punking the guy out next to me on the squat rack.

[smm3]

I didn't really see in her post where she states that "hypertrophy and strength can't be achieved through functional training."


I like Lady C's question. What is, exactly, "functional training"?

[Merrida]

Originally Posted by smm3

I didn't really see in her post where she states that "hypertrophy and strength can't be achieved through functional training."


I like Lady C's question. What is, exactly, "functional training"?

Thank you. I was just about to point that out. Absolutely nowhere did I mention that achieving hypertrophy or strength gains were not possible through functional training. What I did emphasize was an "either-or" scenario, comparing people who opt for pure functional training as their style of choice, and people who opt for traditional (more familiar or often referred to as "old school" style) programs which primarily emphasize strength and hypertrophy (usually while simultaneously either ignoring or minimizing functional aspects of training protocol).

I'm also not denying or ignoring those who choose to combine approaches, -- my question was more about seeing an influx in popularity.

While we have been teaching and incorporating functional training for years, I am noticing only now that more and more people are PREFERRING it or requesting it. The popularity of it (not its existence, enterance, availability or practise) seems more pronounced now.

Functional training uses roughly 40% of a person's 1RM (or 10% of their BW) to maneuver in all three planes, focuses on proprioception, balance, stability,....there is an emphasis on the integrity of the stabilizers, and often (such as with NASM) a precisely outlined seven-step program to follow.

The "focus" is to assist people in protective function-ability in joint movements, kinetic chain awareness and balance, the balance of force-couple relationships, how to manipulate movement with the least amount of stress on the kinetic chain, motor control, neuromuscular efficiency,....

Where-as "old school" (a term I am using here, note, for the sake of simplicity) tends to FOCUS primarily on hypertrophic gains in LBM, periodizaton for the sake of strength gains and recovery to work around adaptation....

There is more that could be said but this post is turning into a book.

I was merely inquiring as to if, regardless of trainers' incorporation these past years,...if trainers and gym-goers are noticing the volume of those interested in functional training has increased in those from the "outside world" seeking new avenues for fitness.

I'm out of breath now.....

[smm3]

Wow, that is the best answer I've ever heard for that question.

And to be completely honest, it was a baiting question. I think a lot of people throw around the term without knowing what the hell they are talking about.

The only exposure people get to the term, from what I've seen, is through gimmicky trainers (no offense intended to anyone here). standAPART comparing it to the fad of bootcamps and stability balls is something I agree with.

To answer your questions, I haven't had anyone request it. When setting goals for a client, if balance is an issue, whether due to age or disfunction or athletic goals, it is taken into account for their program design. I believe all training is "functional" but do not like to put people balancing on bosu balls, doing odd exercises that require way more ability than most people will honestly use in their day-to-day lives.


Deadlifting is functional enough...

[gymrat]

I think it's an incredibly valuable way to train. However, I don't use it exclusively. I try to incorporate lots of training methods into my programs for my clients. Fortunately for me, functional training is quite useful given that I do in-home training and can only take so much equipment with me.

I haven't personally had any requests specifically for FT. Usually though, when I explain it to clients, they are very interested and I think it's easier for them to see real-world applications of FT than with other more traditional exercises.

[CF-OC_gal]

When I think of functional training I think of doing resistance work, flexibility/stability and cardio training with the goal of making the activities I like to do in life for recreation and work, easier on the body, especially since I'm experiencing the physical wear and tear of not having thought about it as much in the past.

Stability balls and bosus are good for someone like me who has never been an athlete, but a huge participant in physical activity for recreation and a much more demanding than sedentary job. (I also rarely sit still for any length of time.)

I suspect it is raging in popularity because of the demographics. Baby-boomers are getting still older and trying to fight it all the way.

[Merrida]

Originally Posted by Brat

I suspect it is raging in popularity because of the demographics. Baby-boomers are getting still older and trying to fight it all the way.

That is what I was thinking. The club I currently work in is situated in one of the wealthiest areas of Massachusetts, (not just the Boston area), and the majority of our members are the baby boomers, the ones with money who aren't scraping up pocket change for a protein drink, but have the cash to purchase 50 sessions at a time and train three times a week. They are older than the 20-something crowd I primarily dealt with years ago, and as such, their interests and focus are different.

That said, I'm not dismissing I've got those 20-somethings ASKING me for functional training upfront (by name). A club that opened up down the street is dedicated and only does functional training (and ensures that is how all their trainers train their clients).

I just see this sprouting up prevalently, and heavily within the past several months to a year or so,...it just seems to be "the new rage" as far as what people are interested in (again, not in what we incorporate into their programs as part of what WE know they need),...but this new spark of interest seems to have been smoldering and something's fanning the flames.

[tim_mcf]

Send some of those 20-somethings to my house, I've got a big-ass pile of wood they can split for me.

[rufiedog]

Originally Posted by Merrida

It seems to me that Functional Training is the "new rage" in the clubs sprouting up,...at least in my area. The "old school" training focusing on hypertrophy and strength seem to be taking a back seat to the flourishing interest in Functional Training.

I know must of "us" (those who post here), "seem" at least, to be interested in the hypertrophy, strength, and power,....and I've seen very few posts which inquire about things like functional stability (ergo, my conclusion).

So I'm curious,....from trainers who post here, what's your take, and do you notice this as well? As for gym-goers, what's your take, and are you interested in Functional Training (either "instead of" or as an "adjunct" to your existing training program?)

I'm wondering who cares, who's interested, who understands its relevence, or who gives a hoot!

From what I know about functional training, I think it’s bogus unless of course one is training for a specific sport.

The majority of us are after more lean body mass, and less body fat. Lifting weights and performing cardio (in separate sessions), under somewhat strict guidelines (number of reps, strict form, HR zones ) seems the way to achieve this goal optimally.

Nothing against switching things up a bit though

Dan

[CF-OC_gal]

Call it what you want.

Most people don't have specific goals and therefore don't know what they need and can't express what they are looking for apart from appearance goals.

Fitness isn't about instant gratification (at least in my view). Therefore functional fitness is another marketing term unless there is an element of health benefit to it and the ability to maintain those benefits over the long term. But that's just my opinion.

Fitness resides in the mind of the beholder, it's a respect for your body and health, therefore a way of life.

[.V.]

Functional training - interesting word.

It seems to have somewhat different meanings to different people.

For example for some who are on this board - it seems to be the ability to move heavy or strangely shaped objects around and drag stuff - giving them strength that would not only be useful in training or competition but also in real life - that's functional.

For others who's training journals I watch it seems to be more bodyweight and cardio oriented stuff that helps them reach their own goals of conditioning and lifelong fitness - again by reaching those goals, it's functional for them.

For me, functional means to stay walking, not be a cripple again, and be able to keep doing my job. That means things like deadlifts, shrugs, upright rows, bicep curls, bench press - the usual bodybuilder exercises because these movements acutally emulate the things I have to do in real life in my job. Oh yeah and make all the other women jealous of my wife for having me - someday. Therefore letting me keep doing these things, it's functional.

This long winded post probably wasn't what you were looking for, but the dishes are done, my family's gone out visiting the in-laws, the laundry is all folded, O'reilly isn't on yet...and I'm bored.

[.V.]

Oh and Tim, I've told you before and I'm telling you again. Bring your wood to my house and I'll chop it for free. Just make sure you pick it up within a week or it goes into my woodshed.

My 1 year old hickory that I've got to split before this winter - I'm dreading though. It's gonna be tough after seasoning for a year.

[tim_mcf]

From what I know about functional training, I think it’s bogus unless of course one is training for a specific sport.

The majority of us are after more lean body mass, and less body fat. Lifting weights and performing cardio (in separate sessions), under somewhat strict guidelines (number of reps, strict form, HR zones ) seems the way to achieve this goal optimally.

In my experience, it works the exact opposite way. I went from 280 to 235 by doing traditional sets and reps, and cardio seperated from the lifting by at least 8 hours - but then I plateaued hard for nearly a year. I attribute my initial success to the simple fact that I was doing SOMETHING, after years of nothing. Since mixing it up, I have dropped an additional 10 pounds in 5 months and am now in far far far better condition than I was in before. Just my personal experience. It makes sense to me from an evolutionary standpoint, too - a paleolithic hunter-gatherer wouldn't choose not to chase down that gazelle just because he had lifted something heavy (in 3 sets of 8) within the last few hours. Our bodies are designed to respond well to varied, mixed, intense stimuli.

Andy - I would be happy to have you split my wood, but the price of transporting it from Montana to your neck of the woods would make it not worth it. I just think it's funny how people are looking for these "new" and "innovative" ways to work out, when really it's as old school as it gets. There wouldn't be such a need to "work out" if more people would just work.