It's got to be functional.
Take home message
Functionality is the output - not the input
For Coaches
Context is everything with program design. Don’t label an exercise, program for adaptation.
For Athletes
Sport is sport specific. Everything else should be to help you do that better, even if it means doing something “non-sport specific”.
During this COVID-19 phase like many, I have foolishly attempted some lingering minor household repairs. Despite the straightforward nature of the repairs required, I have failed. A significant reason (apart from my clear lack of handyman skills) is inappropriate tools. Trust me, a pair of pliers and two Phillips head screwdrivers are not enough. I was told that a Phillips head screwdriver is very functional. But the job I was trying to do needed a flat-head screwdriver. That Phillips head was not so functional! What does this have to do with training? Being confined to quarters has permitted more time to read and finding articles about why certain exercises should or should not be in your program because they are functional inspired this piece:
Why do practitioners still define exercises as functional or non-functional?
What makes an exercise functional or non-functional?
Why are non-functional exercises frowned upon?
Perhaps it’s that vague (but underappreciated wise) understanding that like a lot in S&C, the answer is - “It depends”. It is context. Times like this, I refer to wiser heads. There is a wonderful article by Mel Siff in the NSCA Journal of 2002 on this very topic (“Functional Training Revisited”). I believe at the time, there was debate about machines v free weights and balance training was a craze. I really like elements of Mel’s conclusion:
“It would probably be preferable not to refer to any specific exercises as “functional” but instead to refer to exercises that enhance “functional” competence in a given sport, task or context…. The important issue is whether the particular exercise program that you have devised has a functional objective and produces an outcome that is “functional”… Functionality is not necessarily determined by the input (eg. specific exercise) but the output (performance)”.
Every exercise has a functional component - in the right context. It is up to you as a coach and athlete to determine the functionality of an exercise at the time. Not because of what an exercise looks like (single verse double leg, multiple joints versus single joints, sitting versus standing) but for the adaptation it induces. I cringe inside (probably on the outside too which is why I am terrible at Poker) when I hear someone say “we need to progress to standing so it is functional”. (“Sigh”). What makes standing functional for the execution of an exercise? Does that make standing bicep curls more functional than seated? Leg press can be thus defined as “non-functional” because the athlete needs to sit down. If you want strong legs and you cannot squat (because you are a vision-impaired cyclist who has trouble balancing whilst squatting and we cannot sufficiently load the Smith machine), leg press is a very functional exercise. Nordics receive criticism as being non-functional (kneeling posture, single joint movement pattern). I don’t believe coaches program Nordics for the sport specific movement pattern but the eccentric overload of the hamstrings. If you want to take the sport specific line, then logically, the only action that is functional is the sporting action on the field.
I remember conversations with a colleague who worked with surfers discussing the role of balance training in surfing. His reply was along the lines of (paraphrasing here) ‘Dude, do you know how hard surfers hit the water landing from an aerial? It is not about balance, it’s about withstanding high force. They need to be strong’. Lower body strength exercises may not look functional for surfing, but there are instances in performance, critical instances, where the surfer needs to produce high levels of force to maneuver or land. The sport specific output required in that instance was force development and you would select the exercise appropriate for that physical capacity in the context of the athlete and equipment available.
Also during this COVID-19 period, I have enjoyed listening to many podcasts and interviews. It is interesting to note the how many elite/professional level coaches state with despair the movement limitations in some of their athletes. Even at the elite level of sport specific training, they are having to undertake basic general movement training to improve fundamental patterns. The inability of some elite athletes to perform sport specific actions is enhanced by correcting gaps in basic, underlying movements. Classic periodisation (as discussed by Mel) involved a special physical preparation phase built upon a general preparation phase. It is OK to do general exercises with no sport specific resemblance, that develop foundational aspects such as technical proficiency, hypertrophy or fitness that the following specific training phase rely on.
My advice: be wary of labeling an exercise as functional or non-functional. Think about the output you require (also known as adaptation) and select the right tool for that job. Every exercise has a function. Your job as a coach or athlete is to pick the right one for the context of the job required. A screwdriver is a very functional tool. Until you need to saw wood!
Thanks for reading. If you’ve enjoyed this post (or previous ones) please consider sharing via your favourite social (a couple of links below) and signing up to my regular fortnightly email, by clicking on the “Subscribe” button below. When you subscribe, new posts will be delivered to your inbox.
Thanks again. BA.