What Functional Training Really Is

Reprinted from Perform Better - The Magazine Volume 1 #1 April 2006

I am often confused when I encounter opponents of functional training. The concept of functional training seems so common sense and intuitive to me that I used to struggle to find what could be objectionable to others. It was not until I read Charles Staley's description of functional training in his new book that I realized why so many people seem so "anti" functional training. Staley describes functional training in his new book Muscle Logic as "exercises performed on various devices -such as exercise balls, foam rollers, and "wobble boards"- that are designed to create a more challenging environment for the purpose of involving more of the smaller and more deeply located stabilizer muscles."

Staley goes on to state that "functional training advocates purport that greater stabilizer involvement is the key to enhanced performance and overall training results". As the author of Functional Training for Sports (Human Kinetics,2003), I can see that I obviously failed in my first attempt to describe functional training because an intelligent and well-read man like Charles Staley, himself a widely published author, does not appear understand the basic concept of functional training as I see it.

Function is, essentially, purpose. Functional training can therefore be described as purposeful training. I firmly believe many, both proponents and opponents, have misconstrued the essence of functional training. Functional training and unstable surface training are not synonymous. Unstable surface training is one aspect of the larger thought process that makes up functional training. Unfortunately these unstable pieces have become so synonymous with functional training that many feel they are one and the same. Functional training is not so much about the gadgets used by physical therapists in rehab but, about the knowledge that physical therapists have gained in regard to why injuries occur. I think this is where people get confused. It's not about the gadgets, it's about the information.

Functional training shifts the focus of exercises to incorporate stabilizer muscles because this is what physical therapists reported as the source of injury in my injured clients. Let me explain my path to becoming a believer in functional training. Every time I sent a client to a physical therapist with an injury the report that came back was simple. Most often the injury occurred because a stabilizing muscle was weak and stress was shifted to another muscle. Most frequently, the weak muscles were stabilizers of the hip, spine or scapulo-thoracic joint. A trend became obvious. It always seemed to be the same muscles. Therapists frequently pointed at the deep abdominal muscles ( transverse abdominus and internal oblique), hip stabilizers ( gluteus medius, adductors and quadratus lumborum, and hip external rotators), and scapula retractors ( lower traps, and rhomboids) as being weak. Each weak group seemed to be the cause of a different problem. Athletes or clients with low back pain were usually weak in the deep abdominals. Athletes or clients with knee problems usually had weak hip stabilizers. Lastly, those with rotator cuff issues seemed to universally have issues with scapula retractors and stabilizers. Common sense made me develop so called "functional training" protocols.

We were seeing the same weaknesses over and over, why not address them? We didn't throw out the baby with the bathwater, we simply made a point of addressing muscles that our trainers and therapists were saying were consistently weak even though our athletes trained with the basic multi-joint exercises we had always used. I didn't do this because it was trendy, I did this because I wanted results. My number one goal is to reduce my athletes incidence of injury. Even performance enhancement comes in second to injury reduction. Interestingly enough after reading Charles Staley description of functional training I went back to my book to see how many exercises I had demonstrated that used "exercise balls, foam roller or wobble boards". I counted roughly one hundred and ten exercises depicted in the book.

Four used unstable surfaces and ten used a stability ball. Most of the stability ball exercises were core training exercises. I was beginning to question myself. Had I given people the wrong impression? I felt better when I realized that less than fifteen percent of the exercises described in an entire book devoted entirely to functional training used unstable devices or for that matter, any devices at all. I felt even better when I realized that Staley's own book depicts approximately 56 exercises and three are unstable in some way. Even Staley himself is over 5 percent. In fact the description of functional training in Functional Training for Sports is clear " Functional training is best described as a continuum of exercises that teach athletes to handle their own body weight in all planes of movement" the book goes on to state "In its simplest form, functional training teaches athletes how to handle their own body weight. The coach uses body weight as resistance and attempts to employ positions that make sense to the participant." How did we get so confused? I think we got confused because other so-called experts wanted to confuse us. One way to detract from something is to emphasize a perceived negative. Those who dislike functional training tend to be strength athletes who I believe fear change.

When performance coaches no longer need to look to powerlifters, Olympic lifters or bodybuilders for their information these sports that are already struggling to maintain popularity slip further away from the public eye. I believe many of the opponents of functional training dislike it for the same reason I like It. It works and it makes sense. As a former powerlifter myself, I can tell you that watching collegiate or professional athletes train like powerlifters, Olympic lifters or bodybuilders began to make less and less sense to me as my knowledge base expanded. It was not that I didn't appreciate the contributions of these sports to our knowledge base, just that I realized there was so much more as I began to develop a deeper understanding of anatomy and of injury mechanisms.

What functional training really comes down to is the application of functional anatomy to training. It is taking what we know and using that information to help us select exercises that will reduce incidence of injury and improve performance. Instability is a potential progression but, not the fundamental driver.