Functional training has been a very popular term for as long as I’ve been a trainer. It’s having a surge lately, thanks to some very popular coaches on social media claiming that they provide more “functional exercises”, or calling themselves “functional fitness trainers”.
Unfortunately, as with many terms in the fitness industry, the exact definition as it relates to your workouts is pretty broad. In order to get to the truth of things, I’m going to talk about three groups of trainers that existed when I started out as a PT…
The 3 Types of Trainer (circa 2008…)
This first group relied heavily on fixed resistance machines to train themselves and their clients. This group of trainers believed that using resistance machines were safe, stable and simple. They could be used to overload muscles and movements regardless of client ability, delivering quick and straightforward results.
The second group believed that free weights (barbells, dumbbells, and kettlebells) were the only way to go. This added freedom of movement created a greater need for skill mastery, and recruited supporting muscles that fixed machines neglected. According to this group, increased complexity and instability (compared to machines) promised greater transfer to real-world tasks, and provided greater strength increases.
The third group took these points about complexity and freedom of movement one step further. If these were the markers of a great workout, then why stop at barbells and dumbbells? Enter Swiss balls, Bosu balls, doing everything on one leg, juggling kettlebells, and so on.
Interest in core training was at an all-time high too, so anything that challenged the stability of the midsection was sold as a core exercise. The fact that these complex exercises required a lot of effort to stabilise prompted a lot of people to claim that this would also prevent injury.
Functional Training, But Not Really
All of these groups probably thought their methods were functional, but it was the third group that committed to the “functional training” brand. This was driven by the promise that these methods more closely resembled real-world tasks and prevented injury. On the other hand, anything that isolated one muscle group or allowed you to use a heavy load was non-functional meat-headedness. Naturally, this came with increased injury risk (although this claim was rarely backed up).
At first glance, there is an appeal to this logic. It’s easy to see why trainers, athletes, and nervous gym-goers jumped on board. Life is unpredictable, and our daily movements are not as neat as exercises performed in a squat rack or a machine. Unfortunately, this logic does not justify prescribing such unstable, unpredictable exercises, that they are impossible with more than 5 kilos.
Real world tasks require you to produce and tolerate high forces. Our ability to handle these forces is often a greater limiting factor than our ability to handle instability. Yes, a fridge may be an awkward shape to hold. But carrying it up to your second-floor flat requires strength and endurance that you won’t gain from squatting on a Swiss ball. You may develop great balance standing on one leg, but if you can’t handle the impact of stepping off a curb then functional training has failed to prepare you for the real world.
This type of functional training claims to solve many of life’s problems by throwing a myriad of weird movement challenges your way. However, just because an exercise is hard to perform does not mean it is providing overload in any productive, objectively meaningful way.
The 4th Group of Trainers
There is a fourth group of trainers that I haven’t mentioned. These are the trainers that have the open-mindedness to take what works from multiple sources. They combine:
- The targeted focus of isolation exercises;
- The technical challenge of free weights;
- The occasional novelty that comes from a more complex movement (Turkish get-ups, overhead squats, etc.).
More importantly, this group doesn’t subscribe to any particular training doctrine. They can therefore make decisions based on the information they are given instead of twisting things to suit their views.
So What is Functional Training, Really?
Real functional training is suited to the goals of the individual, and looks different for each person. However, there are some boxes that training must tick to meet my standards of functionality:
- Training movements across the main fundamental movement patterns. These are squatting, hinging, pushing, pulling, single leg work, and various types of core exercises.
- Training these movements in a way that allows force production to be the limiting factor as opposed to balance or skill breakdown.
- Keeping exercises consistent from week to week so progress can be applied and monitored (more reps, more weight, etc.).
- Working through a broad range of reps to build maximum strength, power, endurance, and muscular development.
If this sounds like regular basic training, that’s because that’s what functional training is (or should be, at least). Any training that efficiently gives you improved strength and competency is functional. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is either misguided about how to get real results, or they’re trying to sell you their e-book.
Thanks for reading! You know what could be described as functional exercises? Deadlifts and pullups. I have an online programme available for each that also gives you access to the Trainerize app. Click to find out more!