Functional Training?

One of many buzzwords that have been floating around the strength and conditioning world for a while now is "functional training." It sounds good, can catch the attention of potential clients, and can be useful if done correctly. But what exactly is it?

I remember having a discussion in a graduate school class while in Ithaca on the topic. We tried for a solid 20 minutes to come up with a workable definition and I'm not sure we ever came to a consensus. I remember discussing the merits of the bench press vs. exercises like sled pushing for offensive lineman in football. That day, I think we finally accepted the idea that "functional" simply meant "looks a lot like the sport you're training for." So, trainers watch sports and then make their athletes perform the same movements but get creative with it and add resistance. And this is the idea than many coaches, trainers and athletes have run with.

I believe this has led to 2 main problems with training:
1) Adding blind resistance to movement patterns without considering what the actual goals are of the athlete
2) Over emphasis on "gimicky" equipment; wobble boards, stability balls, vibration platforms, etc. (they do have their place-but do you really need your 10th grade running back to perform squats on a stability ball?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTCIA5umib8

I love the music they chose to have on in the background

With the first issue of blindly adding resistance, I personally think this method is a little too simplified. First of all, not all movements in sports need to be made harder with training just because the athlete has become proficient at it. And making a movement harder does not simply mean adding weight to it.

My mentor, Lee Taft, made this clear to me when he made an example with a basketball player (by the way, pretty much all of my information about training has come from him, so if I don't reference you could probably just assume). If you are a 90% shooter from the foul line, should you now practice with a weighted ball? Of course not, but this same logic has been applied to all aspects of training.

With number 2: A positive advancement in the training industry is that more and more people have gone away from fixed machines. Finally. However, many of us have gone to the extreme and really all we have accomplished is a few cool you tube videos and probably countless injuries (avoidable ones at that).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4pLkjqBNLQ

The best definition I have heard of Functional Training was at a conference, and I believe it was Gray Cook who was speaking. He definied it as "any training that translates into improved performance in activities of daily living." That's not word for word, but you get the idea. This means that functional carries a different meaning for everybody. The 22 year old baseball player shouldn't train the same as a 50 year old factory worker or a 75 year old woman trying to live independent of outside assistance.

I guess the lesson is to take into account 3 considerations before using a given exercise:

1) What are my goals for using this exercise?
2) Is this exercise accomplishing these goals?
3) What are the risks associated with the exercise vs. the benefits I can gain from doing it?

The 3rd question is most important. If you can't justify the risk (a la squatting on a stability ball-is the possibily of a broken neck really worth the slightly increased demand on hip adductors that you can get in a multitude of different ways while grounded?) then DON'T DO THE EXERCISE!

Happy Track Season to Upstate NY'ers!
Jon