NETWORK WINTER 2020 | Page 19

F unctional and unstable training became immensely popular in the fitness industry around the mid 1990’s, due in large part to the work of Paul Chek. At its core, functional training proposes that the body knows movement and not muscles. The majority of gym equipment at that time was designed to train muscles in a manner in which, the proponents of functional training believed, they were never designed to work. To exercise effectively, so the argument goes, movements must mimic actions and activities encountered in everyday life. Like most things in life, the enthusiastic acceptance in the fitness industry of functional training preceded scientific inquiry into the topic to confirm or refute the many claims made by those endorsing it. ‘The earth is round; we should squat on a ball’ and ‘When in life do you lie on your stomach and pull your feet towards your butt? You don’t, so don’t do leg curls’. These were just some of the many early popular arguments that were made for abandoning traditional strength training and adopting a functional approach instead. It would be fair to say that the initial viewpoint was that functional training is a better way to exercise than traditional, stable methods and that destabilising strength exercises or mimicking movements from everyday life would lead to superior outcomes in functional strength gains and neuromuscular activation. Questioning functional and unstable training Prior to substantial research being conducted, two articles appeared in 2002 that questioned some of the central tenets of unstable and functional training. The first was written by me and published in this magazine 1 , the second was written by the late Mel Siff 2 and was published several months later. We both argued that the term functional training was being largely confused with sports specific training, which few question the value of in a periodised program. The issue we raised was the universal recommendation of functional exercises to the exclusion of traditional strength exercises and the claim that they would lead to superior functional strength gains than traditional movements. Periodisation experts dating back to the 1970’s proposed that a training cycle should incorporate phases that emphasised the development of general motor capacities and strength (the GPP: General Physical Preparedness) and those that transform those abilities into sports specific qualities (the SPP: Specific Physical Preparedness). In other words, generalised theories of training that have formed the basis of our training knowledge encourage coaches to use both traditional strength training exercises and those that are sports specific – or in our language – functional (and not one or the other). Defining function THE QUICK READ • The enthusiastic adoption of functional training by the fitness industry preceded scientific research into its efficacy • Periodisation experts have long encouraged coaches to train athletes using both traditional strength training exercises and sports specific/functional ones • The rationale behind unstable training is that destabilising training environments may enhance neuromuscular adaptations and training specificity, while providing a more varied and effective training stimulus • ‘Functional’ training may be seen to apply to exercises that improve the function of the activity or to the function of muscle/capacity of the system it targets • Studies showing the ability of machine resistance training (considered non-functional) to dramatically improve function, as well as evidence that instability training can result in decreased force and power output, highlight the problem of elevating functional and unstable training above traditional training methods. providing a more varied and effective training stimulus. Research examining the muscular activation levels during stable and unstable exercises reveals that no single exercise can challenge and develop all the motor aspects required for performance, muscle growth or health. Acknowledging this point allows us to examine each exercise choice and establish what that particular movement does well and when it should be used in a long-term training plan. To know this, the literature examining direct comparisons between stable and unstable training, functional and non-functional exercises must be explored. In the past two decades, several well conducted studies have been published on unstable training, most notably by the Canadian David Behm. Professor Behm has been one of the most prolific researchers examining the difference between functional and traditional strength training on several parameters of muscular performance. By way of definitions, function in science refers to the way in which an organism operates 4 . Functional training, then, refers to training methods or exercises that improves the way we operate in the world. The way we operate is specific to the environment in which we want to function. These might include functioning in a power or speedbased sport, a prolonged endurance endeavour, being self-sufficient in old age, returning to walking and running after a knee injury or improving glucose control in type 2 diabetes. The term functional In an attempt to clarify positions, defining functional and unstable training becomes critical, so arguments for and against functional or unstable straining are fairly levelled. Santana notes that the term functional training is most commonly used for any training that is not bodybuilding 3 . Instability training can involve unstable conditions with body mass or external loads (kettlebells, dumbbells, barbells) as resistance. Instability can be induced with unstable foot pads, Swiss or BOSU balls. Reducing the base of support or performing unilateral exercises will also provide a challenge to the body’s equilibrium. Another common way to apply instability is offloading a barbell, using bands or chains or attaching swinging bands with kettlebells to the ends of a barbell (the chaos method). Proponents of functional exercise and unstable devices, such as Paul Chek, suggest that the higher instability demands may stress the neuromuscular system to a greater extent than traditional strength training. The rationale is that destabilising training environments may enhance neuromuscular adaptations and training specificity, while NETWORK WINTER 2020 | 19