I was sent an article written by Ken Mannie, Strength and
Conditioning coach at Michigan State entitled Traditional vs. Functional:
Balancing the Scales. What is the difference between traditional
training and functional training or traditional strength training and functional
strength training? Is there a difference? What scales are we trying to balance? Let start
with a definition – Functional training incorporates
a full spectrum of training methods, designed to elicit optimum adaptive
response appropriate for the sport or activity being trained for. It is not
a choice between traditional and functional, nor is it a balance. For some
reason people love to categorize and pigeonhole ideas and concepts to either
justify of refute certain ideas.
All training is functional; it is just a matter of how
functional in relation to preparation for the sport or activity trained for. There
are very simple steps to follow 1) Determine the demands of the sport you are
preparing for 2) Determine the demands of the position or event in the sport 3)
Determine the qualities of the individual athlete 4) Address injury prevention
by understanding the pattern of injuries that occur in that sport. Using this
simple algorithm as a starting point not much is left to chance. Then apply these
criteria to your strength training in selecting 
the exercises and movements: 1)
Multiple joint, 2) multiple plane, 3) proprioceptively demanding. Then make
sure that within a seven day training cycle that you have a distribution of
pulling, pushing, squatting (and squat derivatives) and rotational movements. All training is based on principles, if those
basic principles are observed the mode of strength training can be adapted to
prepare the athletes for the demands of the sport. If you have to move someone
or move a heavy object then heavier external resistance is necessary and you
must add mass. (Photo at left is a quarterback, if he were an offensive lineman then the movement would probably be with a bar and significantly heavier) A program like that should look and feel different from a
program for volleyball or baseball.
Mannie suggest that “functional movements” have a place as
fillers during a workout or finishers to end a workout. As far as I am
concerned that shows a lack of understanding of the big picture of training. I
want my athletes to focus; good training does not have “fillers” or “enders.”
Each exercise has a specific goal and purpose to prepare the athlete for
competition. You must carefully choose the exercises, the sequence and order.
Each workout has a specific theme that fits into the theme of the week. I want
the athlete to connect the movements in the strength training to their performance
on the field, court or the pool. This makes it mindful with the athlete fully
engaged in the process. I have seen this work in all sports including American football.
Perhaps the best example of this approach was the training of the Brisbane Broncos
Rugby League team. I observed their
training for two weeks. It met all the criteria I outline while lifting heavy
and moving fast. (Photo at right is a Bronco player working on strengthening a spefic movment he needs to work on) Their strength coach Dan Baker and
their performance director
Dean Benton get it. I know football programs that are using this approach with
outstanding success. It demands a tremendous amount of planning and
supervision, but what good training program does not? There are amny roads to Rome, some are more direct than others.
Jonathan Hewitt ATC
vern,
Would you agree that sometimes the longer road to Rome is preferable due to the athletes training age or where they fall on the athleticism spectrrum of more athletic and less athletic?
Dap
Wow… That QB looks like such an athlete!
Paul Davis
Vern-
Would it be fair to say that the “function” training should improve is movement? I am a firm believer in your statement “train movements, not muscles”, which leads me to believe that in reality we are training the nervous system, since it is neurons that fire muscles and make movement possible. In that vein, why does the S & C industry get so caught up in how much athletes can lift, or how big their muscles are?
Dap – your comment about the QB in the picture is indicative of this over-obsession with size. Body type is a function of genetics first, and there is no rule that says skinny guys can’t be fast, jump high, throw hard, hit far, etc. See Kevin Durant, Usain Bolt, Tim Lincecum, or Chase Utley.
Functional does NOT mean there is NO resistance training advocated. But perhaps if it is integrated with the notion of training movement, people will understand that if too much weight is used, movement and neuronal patterns are altered – which results in performance decrement, not enhancement.
tim sullivan
Would you gentelmen be having this conversation 20+ years ago, or is this something new? “Are they training for function or functional training”?
Patrick McHugh
Vern: as I have learned more about Functional Training what is interesting to me is that it involves very traditional forms of training: Body weight, med balls, multiple planes of movement to name just a few. You cannot get much more traditional then that. Some how the “Big Three” (squatting, benching and power cleaning)have become the tradition over the last 20 years in strength programs that focus on developing 300 pound linemen. Functional Training seems to be bringing back training priorities of the past that have been lost in this focus on developing mass in recent years. So the title of the article seems to not accurately reflect waht is going on.
Fitness Blog
Functional training is about returning to a more comprehensive core strength. A man who who has done physical work from a young age,is going to have more strength than an athlete who only uses machine weights that target a specific muscle. Functional training, like kettlebells build explosive strength, and ligament strength.