|
|
Functional Exercises
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Functional Exercises - June 21, 2005 3:24:00 PM
|
|
|
anoopbal
Posts: 124
Joined: May 3, 2005
Status: offline
|
Do you think there is any benifit of doing functional exercises for athletes:I think there are benifts but is over blown.
The baisis of functional exericse is that you train movements than muscles.According to the theory of specificity, the more similiar the movements, the better the carry over.
And not many sporting movement can be immitated in the gym. So is this concept overexxagerated?
Thanks
Anoop
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Functional Exercises - June 21, 2005 10:02:00 PM
|
|
|
gomez2
Posts: 51
Joined: May 5, 2005
Status: offline
|
I have been working with the Portland FD for the past 2 years. What I hsve found is that as fit and strong as FF's are they traditionally lift weights. Once they begin working out in a "functional" routine, many gaps in their stability and endurance emerge. Traditional weights are linear and supported by benches. Where is the stability trained FF's that can perform barbell military press on a bench have to decrease the weight by more than 1/2 when they do dumbell shld press kneeling on a bench, reason? The stability now has to come from the hips. What good is it to bench press 300#'s when you can't use the power because the rest o fthe body hasn't trained to handle the stresses? I believe that the benefits of functional training are huge.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Functional Exercises - June 21, 2005 10:12:00 PM
|
|
|
Randy Dixon
Posts: 744
Joined: August 6, 2004
Status: offline
|
I'm not sure I understand the question really. Athletics is all functional training. There is some misunderstanding about what functional training consists of.
I guess the best way to answer it then is, is there athletic benefit to non-functional training?
A less rhetorical question is, is there greater benefit from training muscles in isolation for athletics?
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Functional Exercises - June 22, 2005 7:10:00 AM
|
|
|
anoopbal
Posts: 124
Joined: May 3, 2005
Status: offline
|
AS I wrote, I am not totally against functional training> In my book, you have taken functional training to the optimal level if you are doing:
Ground based exercises, like squats.
Using free weights
Unilateral exercies, like lunges, spli squats.
I am totally against( and many people in the strength industry)functional exercies such a doing squats and bench press on the balls and so on.As well, perforing too many body weight exercises and ignoring the emphasis on pure strength training.
Another arguement is that athletes get enough stabilty training when doing the sport. Focus in the weight room should be on strength.
Another big issue is that can balance and cordination be trained? Balance and cordination is VERY specific to the movement. If they could be trained, there will be no diference between good players and great players.
Any cooments appreciated
Anoop
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Functional Exercises - June 22, 2005 7:17:00 AM
|
|
|
JLS_PT_OCS
Posts: 1684
Joined: January 30, 2005
From: USA
Status: offline
|
The NSCA forums had a good discussion on this a while ago, speaking of fierce conversations.
We definitely have a spectrum here, where we have all sorts of circus acts performed on stability balls on one end, and you have a seated leg extension on the other.
This is a part of one of my posts from the NSCA forum...
"Perhaps the problem is one of definitions.
Despite the dictionary definition of the term "Functional", it often is used to describe a method or theory of training that attempts to more closely simulate real-life activities during conditioning exercises. This can be in terms of sports type skills or life skills, depending on the participant.
Please pardon my off-the-cuff definition, others please chime in as you see fit.
This method of training is supposedly designed to be more specific and relevant to a given activity than what are traditionally seen as "standard" conditioning exercises.
For example, a supine abdominal crunch exercise is not seen as "functional" as a standing medicine ball rotation, though both are designed to condition the same muscles or area. The MB exercise is supposedly more functional because it more closely simulates activities in life or sport (ie most sports and life skills are performed standing rather than sitting).
I think that this is definitely an issue of spectrum bias.
Meaning, at one end of the spectrum of functional training, we have activities I think most authorities agree are more useful than their traditional counterparts. On the other end of the spectrum you have activities that, although billed as being functional or useful, seem to be much less specific than the skill it purports to train and even quite comical in execution.
Most discussions of functional training seem to me to center around where two individuals draw the line about how much "functional" is too much.
That is, at what point do attempts to be specific to an activity compromise your ability to properly progress load and make gains?
At what point do attempts to challenge the body in a new way result in artificial and contrived positions and exercises that do not transfer to the supposed skill they are training?
It seems kind of like that to me. An issue of where in the spectrum people fall.
Lost in this debate seems to be the issue that since "functional' parameters are difficult to clearly establish, there is no research available to my knowledge that demonstrates some methods superior to others.
And yet some proponents of this type of training seem to make extraordinary claims for the effectiveness of their methods (which may or may not be superior) without any significant base of data.
Too often, issues of spectrum such as this degenerate into people trying to make the issue black and white (or at least accusing the other side of seeing it that way), when really it is all shades of gray we are talking about."
J
_____________________________
Jason Silvernail DPT, OCS, CSCS
"It isn't what you're able to do that requires your courage but rather what you have come to understand and are willing to express." - Barrett Dorko,PT
**I no longer post on RehabEdge**
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Functional Exercises - June 22, 2005 4:08:00 PM
|
|
|
anoopbal
Posts: 124
Joined: May 3, 2005
Status: offline
|
As you rightly said, I agree that there is a spectrumto many issues in this field. Most often peopole take an extreme stance rather than aneutral stance, like machines are bad or OL are the best and so on. Like they say the more tools you have in your tool box, the better you are as a coach.
Just for the record, I am not trying to advocate functional training is bad or good. Just trying to learb the underlying basis for all these exercises. Most of the strength coaches write aagainst or in favour of practices from their exeperinces than expalining it in an evidence based manner. To a certain extent, I dont blame them.
Paul Chek and few others like coach Davis are neck deep in functional training. I think the rationale for most of the functional exercise is that balance and cordination can be imrpoved. And I am nost sure if balance and cordination can be trained to have a carry over unless the movement used in training is quite similiar to the competetion movevemnt.
Another thing is that balance and cordination devoloped with exercies in the gym is anticipatory balance. You know the moevement and you just have to repeat it in a steady state manner. This never happens in the playing feild. The environment is completey altered every milli second.
Anoop
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Functional Exercises - June 23, 2005 2:11:00 AM
|
|
|
Sebastian Asselbergs
Posts: 1155
Joined: September 29, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
|
Anoop, that's why I use 5 lbs medicine balls in my training design with rugby athletes: they kneel on a physio/stability ball, balance, and try to throw the medicine balls at eachother - which they have to catch and throw back. With six players and two balls in play, there IS no "known motion". This is a lot of fun BTW, to OBSERVE - you'll never find me in a goup of those behemoths tossing heavy balls at eachother!
_____________________________
Mundi vult decipi
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Functional Exercises - June 23, 2005 3:31:00 AM
|
|
|
JLS_PT_OCS
Posts: 1684
Joined: January 30, 2005
From: USA
Status: offline
|
Anoop - good post, I think that cuts to the heart of the controversy.
Part of the issue is that the strength and conditioning world does not really have terribly well constructed studies examining sport training methods and a reliable and valid method of determining which is better.
So the functional vs traditional argument sort of degenerates into anecdotal stories, citations of questionably applicable basic science or limited outcome studies, and beating of the chest as to who is better.
Add to that the fact that athletes love magical thinking and placebo, and are very susceptible to strong personalities and opinions about performance enhancement, and you have the current state of sport science.
There are some really smart people out there trying to change that scenario, which is why I enjoy being involved in the NSCA, an international organization.
I think sebastian mentions one possible approach that nicely combines a lot of different issues about training in a commonsense way.
J
_____________________________
Jason Silvernail DPT, OCS, CSCS
"It isn't what you're able to do that requires your courage but rather what you have come to understand and are willing to express." - Barrett Dorko,PT
**I no longer post on RehabEdge**
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Functional Exercises - June 23, 2005 3:35:00 AM
|
|
|
anoopbal
Posts: 124
Joined: May 3, 2005
Status: offline
|
[QUOTE]Anoop, that's why I use 5 lbs medicine balls in my training design with rugby athletes: they kneel on a physio/stability ball, balance, and try to throw the medicine balls at eachother - which they have to catch and throw back. With six players and two balls in play, there IS no "known motion". This is a lot of fun BTW, to OBSERVE - you'll never find me in a goup of those behemoths tossing heavy balls at eachother [/QUOTE]That's good to hear. But just curious. Why do you make them kneel and perform the activity. One of the primary elemnts of functionl training is that all sports are ground based and hence the exercises should also be done with feet on the ground.
Also, not sure the balance you gained on a stability ball will transfer. As well, the balance of a player, specially contact players involves outside interferences like body tackle which can never be duplicated in weight room. All in all, I agree you using meicine balls for improving upper body power and as a form of resistance. But for balance. I am yet to be convinced.
Thanks for all the comments
Anoop
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Functional Exercises - June 23, 2005 4:18:00 AM
|
|
|
anoopbal
Posts: 124
Joined: May 3, 2005
Status: offline
|
[QUOTE]So the functional vs traditional argument sort of degenerates into anecdotal stories, citations of questionably applicable basic science or limited outcome studies, and beating of the chest as to who is better.
[/QUOTE]I think drawbacks of functional training cannot be proved just like we cannbot prove the benifts of this type of training.Though I base my arguement over the theory of specificty, the general motor theoris governing movement have yet to reach an agreement.
I think a good question would be since nobody is really sure why not devote some time for functional training? Why take a chance with your athelets? And I guess this is where coaches have to have their bias. No coach will ever get the time with his clienst or no player will ever get the time to devote all the enrgy and time to training. So they have to be really selective with their approach. Should they go for a stregth based approach and some moderate balance training or should they manly functional training with moderate emphasis on strength.
[QUOTE]Add to that the fact that athletes love magical thinking and placebo, and are very susceptible to strong personalities and opinions about performance enhancement, and you have the current state of sport science.[/QUOTE]True in many cases. Tell people the best way to lose weight is by eating less and working more, nobody belives you. Tell them a cutting edge plan which does the same thing, they all get excited.
Thanks
Anoop
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Functional Exercises - June 23, 2005 8:55:00 PM
|
|
|
Randy Dixon
Posts: 744
Joined: August 6, 2004
Status: offline
|
Also, not sure the balance you gained on a stability ball will transfer. As well, the balance of a player, specially contact players involves outside interferences like body tackle which can never be duplicated in weight room. -Anoop
I think obviously you aren't trying to recreate the effect of being tackled. But if you do general strength training and believe that it will be at least somewhat transferable then why would you not believe balance, coordination, proprioception and kinesthetic awareness (and add any other neat sounding words) being trained in a general sense won't be transferable?
I was going to add my defintion of functional training is training that enhances a functional ability. That is rather circular though, in this discussion. Whether something is "functional" or not is dependent on the goals of training. I think this very simple fact gets lost in the fad following. Running is one of the most functional exercises most people can do, no stability balls, rubber bands, or gadgets needed.
As to the balance training, the goal is not to have a steady stimulus but to introduce unpredictablity and changing loads which more closely simulate athletic events, unfortunately many trainers have adopted the "form" of functional training rather than the "function" of functional training.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Functional Exercises - June 24, 2005 1:51:00 AM
|
|
|
Sebastian Asselbergs
Posts: 1155
Joined: September 29, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
|
Anoop, I was composing and sweating over how to reply, but then Randy showed up and showed me up!! :-)
As Meat Loaf said: "You took the words right out of my mouth...", Randy.
_____________________________
Mundi vult decipi
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Functional Exercises - June 24, 2005 2:04:00 AM
|
|
|
JLS_PT_OCS
Posts: 1684
Joined: January 30, 2005
From: USA
Status: offline
|
Nice quote at the end there, Randy. Great sum up.
Just so you know, I'm going to steal that and not even give you credit.
:)
J
_____________________________
Jason Silvernail DPT, OCS, CSCS
"It isn't what you're able to do that requires your courage but rather what you have come to understand and are willing to express." - Barrett Dorko,PT
**I no longer post on RehabEdge**
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Functional Exercises - June 24, 2005 6:29:00 AM
|
|
|
anoopbal
Posts: 124
Joined: May 3, 2005
Status: offline
|
[QUOTE]Anoop, I was composing and sweating over how to reply, but then Randy showed up and showed me up!! :-)[/QUOTE]Sebastian, I think you are well ahead of most of the strength coaches.To be honest, I am still learning so I can always be wrong.
[QUOTE]But if you do general strength training and believe that it will be at least somewhat transferable then why would you not believe balance, coordination, proprioception and kinesthetic awareness (and add any other neat sounding words) being trained in a general sense won't be transferable?[/QUOTE]Good question,Randy. I agree theory of specificty is not 100% specific, or else we would be crippled in every movement that we have never practsied.
Most good strength coaches never make any absolute statements. They tell get stronger in the weight room and "hopefully" your body will learn to transfer this new found strength onto the playing field.Carl lewis never lifted weights and still condiered to be the greatest athelete.
I think most the balance and cordination improvements (or carry over)touted is just basically beacuse of the person getting stronger in his core and limbs and becoming more flexible.At he same time, I cannot prove that there is NO improvements in balance either.
And I am not totally against functional training. I just want to more know about how everything works so that I can be more selctive in my exercise programming.
Ok, if balance, cordination, propiorecptoion, sensory awareness can be trained, where do you think genetics makes the difference in a player?
Thanks for all the replies. My brain is definfitly working overtime :)
Anoop
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Functional Exercises - June 29, 2005 4:55:00 AM
|
|
|
gomez2
Posts: 51
Joined: May 5, 2005
Status: offline
|
Anoop,
There is a gym in Beaverton,OR called ADAPT (formerly function dynamics) where the philosophy is to get the body back to functioning the way its meant to be. It is all about functional training. Many of the clients are from local HS footbal teams and they return from College level sports touting the benefits over traditional training methods they encounter in the colloges. Clients are everything from late adolescents to late 60's. Check the website at [URL=http://www.adapttraining.com]www.adapttraining.com[/URL] or if its under construction try [URL=http://www.functiondynamics.com]www.functiondynamics.com[/URL]
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Functional Exercises - July 7, 2005 11:15:00 AM
|
|
|
aquatherapysc
Posts: 34
Joined: June 14, 2005
Status: offline
|
I don't know if I've missed this ship or not but I am a proponent of functional exercises as a compliment to non-functional or traditional routines. I had boxed in college for a couple of years and I would notice as I gained mass from traditional exercises, I sometimes sacraficed coordination. I began incorporating some forms of functional exercises and I noticed great improvement. For instance, I would take 4 & 5 LB dumbells and shadow box with a dumbell in each hand. It added resistence to the many movements a boxer will typically make during a fight. I found this to be very beneficial. When I was younger, my coach had me swinging a bat with a weight on it 40-50 times at home. One would normally only perform this type of exercises in the on-deck circle, with no more than 10 swings. I would also swing a broom. These exercise drastically improbed my bat speed over time.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Functional Exercises - July 31, 2005 5:33:00 PM
|
|
|
truthseeker
Posts: 148
Joined: June 23, 2005
Status: offline
|
It is more useful for us to have smart but weak muscles, than it is to have strong but stupid ones.
If you simply do strength training, it does not transfer to real life.
Recall ex phys class in PT school or whereever you went to school. Things we know to be true:
exercise is speed specific. exercise on an isokinetic device at 60 degrees per second and get results at 60 degrees per second but NOT at 450 degrees per second. Exercise at 450 and get some carryover at 60. (throwing a ball is roughly 1500 degrees per second at the shoulder)
Exercise is angle specific. isometrics done at angle "X" will result in improvements at angle "X" +/- 5 degrees. Therefore, doing theraband exercises in a neutral position, or sidelying ER/IR for pitchers has nothing or nearly nothing to do with performance enhancement.
Why then, to we do all of this good science and then dismiss it and simply exercise the way the PTs did in the 1960's?
Life happens fast, and almost all function is plyometric, that is, unloading usually happens immediately after a quick loading phase. Functional exercise (approaching the speed and angle of contraction) to train a particular functional pattern really is the best way to enhance performance, whether for an athlete or a 90 year old hip replacement patient.
How many of you here on this forum still do sidelying hip abduction PREs with the hip replacement patients?
The gluteus medius fires when the foot is on the ground, it is cued to do so by the pronation of the foot (indirectly causing the hip to adduct) when load is accepted onto the weight bearing limb. it then fires ECCENTRICALLY in an ADDUCTED position back to neutral and it does so quickly. That is function, the sidelying abduction looks nothing like it and does not eliminate the Trendelenberg gait pattern because it does nothing to give the muscles in question the proper cue to contract. (smart vs dumb muscles)
Ok, I got myself all worked up, let me have it.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Functional Exercises - August 1, 2005 3:52:00 AM
|
|
|
Shill
Posts: 1078
Joined: February 13, 2003
From: Madison WI USA
Status: offline
|
Tom,
Great points. I agree,... on most of them. BUT, the sidelying ABD movement is very helpful following THA for those (all) patients who need to transfer out of a bed, or roll over in bed, and need to be able to hold the leg from crossing into adduction and potential dislocation. So, it has its purpose.
I believe the THA post op exercise protocol programs are archaic, and in need of some global (functional) revamping, especially now that younger patients are getting them.
_____________________________
Steve Hill PT
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Functional Exercises - August 1, 2005 3:59:00 AM
|
|
|
truthseeker
Posts: 148
Joined: June 23, 2005
Status: offline
|
I agree with you to some extent. the straight leg raises are useful for getting into and out of bed. However, once the patient can do it, I don't ask them to do it with extra resistance or for high reps just because I would rather they spend their time on their feet doing weight bearing exercise.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Functional Exercises - August 1, 2005 5:21:00 AM
|
|
|
Yogi
Posts: 403
Joined: April 5, 2004
From: San Antonio, Tx., USA
Status: offline
|
Randy said it earlier, quite well. Ask the null hypothesis. Training is sports (or work) specific. How about just activity specific? How about leaving training up to the coaches? I work rehab. and sometimes I think "You just need to get the heck out of here and go do things, get on with your life." Should rehab be function specific? I thought it always was. I figure you'll get strong enough to do what you do if you do it. Yeah, I do quad strengthening if folks are compensating for quad weakness in sit to stand, but also sit to stand practice to re-educate to the correct movement and overcome the (subconcious) fear of knee buckling falls.
I agree Tom, I figured the usual supine SAQ, SLR, AB/ADD protocol is actually more to get hospital pt.'s realizing they can move again, than for real rehab.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
0.156
|
Printable Version
