Functional training...really?

Okay so let me begin with a statement. “I am not a health and fitness professional”. Now that this drama is out of the way let me also say “I however do have a passion about health and fitness and believe anyone willing to develop their knowledge and understanding on how the human body works and how it responds to training, be it specific or general fitness purposes is completely harmless and should otherwise be thought that way.”

This latest post whilst not totally related to 20weekhit I will however state this - there is no way I will be performing any form of “functional training” in this routine as I have yet to come across any benefits to strength gains and muscular development - and even more importantly, I have not come across any pier reviewed papers which systematically show that functional training benefits your skill sets in your sports or day to day lives.

So where did this begin?

I came across a twitter account when researching some fitness people to follow - if they had anything worth saying. To my surprise some did (applying constant science to everything they said) and some were to say the least, not.

The account in question is Murphy_Fitness and to be honest he fits into primary category and not the later. He tweeted “Add more single arm & single leg exercises in your fitness program. You'll perform more reps, burn more calories & it's more functional”

Functional. Oh boy we have a difference of opinion.

So I questioned it. “functional training...really? The science behind this is where?”

It’s a simple question. No, really it is. You see, all I am asking for is the science to be applied to this reasoning. The twitter conversation ensued;

MF: @ginodb functional training is common sense: look at the way we walk, pick up something, step up & reach for anything, rotate to look over..


GD: @Murphy_Fitness sorry but I disagree. You are talking about balance/motor function in your examples. Train your muscles develop your skills.
GD: @Murphy_Fitness http://bit.ly/iqTNAt a good article on functional training


MF: @ginodb their nothing for you to disagree about. You obviously don't understand the definition of functional training. 

(Yep, this is the bit that every fitness professional seems to have in common, pure blinders)

GD: @Murphy_Fitness "to perform a set of weighted exercises that mimic the movements used in sport" men's health uses that definition.
(This is what happens when you google “functional training definition” by the way it was 2 am in the uk and I was half asleep) 
GD: @Murphy_Fitness If you can demonstrate how "functional training" applies to sport benefits PLMK. It's not a criticism of you just the term 
(PLMK - please let me know - and yes I was not criticising the health industry professional just the term functional training) 

MF: @ginodb thanks for proving my point. That is the most incomplete definition of functional training I've read. I will proper definition soon. 
(I think he missed the point when I clearly pointed out that Men’s Health and not me had made this definition)

@ginodb Functional training is an xercise continuum involving balance & proprioception, per4rmed w/feet on ground & w/out machine assistance such that strength is displayed in unstable conditions & the body weight is managed in all movement planes. Functional training is a spectrum of activities that condition the body consistent w/ it's integrated movement and/or use. Thus referring back 2 first tweet, integrating more single arm & single leg exercises is more functional than traditional exercises. Machines are artificial modes of stabilization and do not mimic the real world and our daily activities. If you don't understand what I'm conveying and want to learn, ask other fitness pros or agree to disagree. Wish you the best!

So basically he was calling me an idiot with a limited knowledge of the health and fitness industry and the limited capability to learn, understand and develop a knowledge on any of this stuff.

My response

@Murphy_Fitness well I am always trying to learn, questioning leads to that, disagreeing is a natural process and nothing to say either of us is correct. It's only natural to find some points we can and can't disagree with. I believe in building the strength & then harnessing your skill. An f1 driver can't realistically functionally train he can only better stamina and strength & then harness their driving ability. Their movements are not natural to the real world. I guess you would point out that f1 driver is part of your definition, and (I) totally agree so let's say you want to develop your ability to sprint. You would argue to use arm & leg weights & pull a weight aswell (whilst running) but if that's the case you are asking your muscles to perform differently to their biomechanics because your movement is altered due to having the weight placed on you. Hence develop your glutes and shoulders then your running technique. I think this calls for a blog post, but Thanks for your feedback, no matter the demeanour of some responses.

(F1 driver part of your definition - what I meant to say was “F1 driver is not totally part of your definition”. )

Can I just say that the “demeanour of some responses” was totally uncalled for and I apologise in advance to Mr Murphy. He didn’t deserve that, after all he was an answering a question/criticism of his tweet.

You see, the biggest issue I take with Mr Murphy and he has every right to correct me, it is after all a free world, is that he has not actually provided a scientific response to my primary question. Instead he has;

• Given me a definition of functional training (thanks by the way) 
• Told me that Machines provide an artificial mode of stabilisation and do not mimic the real world.
• And then told me that if I can’t be bothered to learn from him, go ask someone else who will totally back his point. 

He wished me well.

Now, time to be honest.

I did not point out science in my answer either.

My bad.

However in one of my tweets I did ask him to refer to a blog post by James Fisher (yes, my friend.) Now I chose James because he has used science to back his point. I wont go into detail for that click here. James summarised “functional training” as the following:

movement patterns, and neuromuscular recruitment are HIGHLY specific. Our movements though seemingly simple, are highly complex. And the ones which appear complex, are very very complicated. 

Now to paraphrase James, the article boiled down to “train the muscle, develop your skill” If I am wrong I am expecting some total shit storm to hit me when I see him next.

I put this to Mr Murphy. Is shooting a heavier basketball into a net going to develop the muscles to shoot a ball better than actually training the muscles through isolation or to fatigue? Is the ability to shoot the ball placed in the strength of the throw (therefore the “function”) or the skill required?

Is a baseball player able to hit more home runs because he has learnt to swing with a bat that is 5 kilos heavier in the hope that he acquires the strength to hit it out of the park (the function) or would it be better to train the skill of hitting that ball with a regular weighted bat?

If we pick up a shopping bag from the ground every day are you saying that we need to lift weights to mimic the movement in the gym and place in an imaginary car trunk (boot for those in the UK) or is it better to strengthen our core, abs, lower back, legs, arms through conventional training and actually apply a lifting skill/technique to place such item in the car?

I have read a lot, continue to read about functional training. I see that in cases of people who require "functional training" to be able to re-abilitate movement and motion in injury's, or rehabilitation after crashes there are significant improvements. But surely they are re-engaging their neuro-receptors to perform the motion/movement. Their strength will come, not by imitating the movement but by actually working the muscle directly.

If we talk about functional training we need to look at what it is we are actually trying to define as well. As James put it to me - Functional training for life and Functional training for sports. “Functional for sports and functional for life are also two very different entities, you can't train a complex sports movement without performing the exact complex sports movement. As for life...isn't life itself training. Many health and fitness experts are right to preach an increase in ADL (active daily lifestyle) e.g. mowing the lawn, gardening, using stairs, etc. So this is all functional. Primarily we need to ask WHY somebody trains? In your case; muscular enhancement, physical health fitness and strength. You aren't training for an event, and an increase in muscular strength enhances your ability to lift a shopping bag or walk up stairs etc. The skills are not so complex or challenging that they need to be performed faster or better.”

Something which I admit I forgot to point out to Mr Murphy, but something which Mr Murphy forgot to ask what my question was relative to as well.

Overall I have no issue with Mr Murphy I want to make this clear. (If I ever visit LA I promise to offer a protein shake and smoothie by way of hello.) What I take offence to is that I asked for science, not given any and then effectively taken to the cleaners because I am not a fitness professional (That is my interpretation of it anyway, when you hang out with Gym rats you appreciate the sub context of the discussions).

I may also not be an accountant Mr Murphy, but I understand double entry book keeping.