The term, “Functional Training†has become more and more popular these days. It’s usually used to distinguish a style of training involving hard, sometimes awkward work, sewn together in a circuit or an isolation. The theory is that strength, aerobic, and anaerobic work, should somehow mimic manual labor to achieve better results from your conditioning program. My question is, why does anyone want to get better at doing hard labor other than manual laborers? What is the advantage of lighter weight and harder to use implements over heavier, safer, more productive ones?
Another variation of “Functional Training†is to avoid anything appearing as a modern gym apparatus. This usually means machines, but might include dumbbells, barbells, benches, racks, and pulleys. It most certainly includes calf, leg curl, leg extension, arm, chest, and deltoid machines. Free weights build strength. Machines are the realm of HIT Jedi’s; the small subculture that worships the teachings of Arthur Jones and the Mentzer Brothers. Machine training moves you in “fixed patterns.†According to Jones and the Mentzer Brothers, athletics are random, therefore your training should be random.
Here is the problem. It was most elegantly stated by Dan John. There is no right or wrong. Why are we placing moral equivalents on picking up and moving things during training sessions? Why is it either/or? Can’t we do squats OR run up a hillside with a log on our shoulders? What law enforcement agency is stopping us? Can we finish our training with a few sets of leg extensions because it keeps our knees feeling good or would that be blasphemy? How about doing some curls? Non-functional you say? Well if you are riding bulls in a rodeo, strong biceps might be a good idea. Not too bad for deadlifting either.
In fact, trying to make your conditioning drills too similar to your sports skills can wreak havoc on your performance. There are exceptions though. Watch MMA athlete, Fedor Emelianenko hitting a tire with a sledgehammer then watch him unleash gravity aided punches from inside an opponent’s guard. It’s hard to argue with success.
The truth is, most athletes are attempting to get stronger, faster, and more resistant to injury. This usually involves lifting heavy weights and doing both easy cardiovascular training, and anaerobic type methods. How these are juggled by the athletes and coaches is anyone’s guess. The outcome is what counts. To say that one type of training is “functional†and the other is not is to miss the definition of the word in the first place. All “methods†are just tools in a toolbox. True mastery is understanding which tools to use at the right time.
Train Hard.
| Article Information | |
 |
This article was featured in the December 2010 Issue of the My Mad Methods Magazine. "Functional Workouts? What does "functional" mean?" was written by Tom Furman. You can purchase this issue by Clicking Here. |
| Contributor Information | |
 |
Tom Furman has been involved in martial arts and conditioning since 1972. His down to earth training methods are derived from his decades long practice of martial arts and his study of exercise science. The application of force, improvement of movement and durability rank high on his list of priorities when training. Find out more at www.TomFurman.com |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
