|
JLS_PT_OCS -> Re: Functional Exercises (June 22, 2005 7:17:00 AM)
|
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
|
|
|
|