The term "functional training" has become one of the latest thoughtless
buzzwords in current rehabilitation and conditioning parley, but it
invariably means nothing much more than action specific training, movement
specific or sports specific training (take your pick!).

Near the end of the chapter on PNF in "Supertraining" (Ch 3), I defined
modified or sports applicable PNF as a system of "functional neuromuscular
conditioning", where I stressed that actual "functional conditioning" or
training really means neuromuscular and metabolic functionality, not simply
neuromuscular function. Thus, while sprint running drills may be
neuromuscularly functional for sprinting, they are not completely functional
for endurance running, because it does not address the metabolic
functionality of the latter.

Assuming now that almost all individuals mean "neuromuscular functionality"
when they refer to "functional training", let us now examine the accuracy of
the statement that sit-ups, for example, are not functional. First of all,
all functionality is context dependent, so that one has to examine every
exercise in terms of the neuromuscular function that it is intended to
improve. If we are to take this concept of functionality to its logical end,
then only the exercise itself is completely functional, since this is the
only action that is identical in terms of muscles, joints and motor patterns
implicated in the conditioning process.

Certainly, if we are to consider sit-ups as non-functional with respect to
virtually any complex sporting action, then we also have to regard crunches,
cable crunches, back extended ball crunches, TVA exercises, hanging leg
raises and every other popular gym abdominal exercise as being
non-functional. In other words, there is no such entity as a really
"functional" exercise except for the actual sporting or daily movement that
we are trying to enhance by training.

If we dismiss sit-ups and allied types of abdominal exercise (and that even
includes the much hallowed TVA procedures) as being non-functional in "core
training", then we have to re-examine the entire world of supplementary
training for all sports. After all, if sit-ups play absolutely no functional
 role at all in conditioning the trunk, then we have to wonder if isolated
exercises for strengthening the individual muscles of the rotator cuff,
squatting exercises for any of the knee extensors and glutes, prone back
extensions on the floor or over a bench, and all other popular resistance
exercises are also a waste of time in functionally conditioning the intended
body movements. This would suggest then that strength training is only
functionally relevant to weightlifters and powerlifters, and then only if one
trains with the competitive lifts alone.

To resolve this logical dilemma or paradox, we need to examine the model of
training as defined in periodisation theory, where one of the basic tenets is
that all training may be subdivided into general and specific training. Thus
a period of general training is referred to as General Physical Preparation
(GPP) and a period of sport specific training is referred to as Specific
Physical Training (SPP), which includes both action specific (or similar) and
sports specific training (in terms of neuromuscular and metabolic function).

The GPP, contrary to what many coaches believe is not necessarily separate
from SPP, because any training period may include elements of both GPP and
SPP, depending on the training goals at the time. It is well understood that
GPP activities, though not directly enhancing functional motor skills, either
lay the foundation for SPP actions or address certain overall bodily needs
such as stabilisation and metabolic (bioenergetic) function. They are never
intended to replace SPP type actions, but merely serve to augment them
wherever necessary. The final decision to implement any activity is based
upon sporting economics and efficiency - if too much time is spent on
supplementary activities which do not significantly enhance training and
competitive progress, then a given exercise may be removed from the training
regimen.

While I fully agree that many forms of sit-ups and trunk flexion in a supine
position are largely a waste of time in terms of sporting efficiency, and
indeed I have written and lectured on this issue for several decades, I
cannot agree that they are a waste of effort in all respects. Firstly, doing
some form of sit-ups is better than doing no abdominal training at all. In
fact, I might even so far as to suggest that various sit-ups or crunches are
more functionally appropriate than any measure of TVA training, which we
might easily regard as a very limited exercise intended for a few people
with a given trunk pathology and entirely redundant for the sporting
population at large.

If we decided to discard all standard TVA titillating exercises, then all or
most of their alleged benefits would be retained by executing standing or
supine sit-ups, crunches and rotatory crunches with a pronounced grunt or
ballistic pulse near the beginning of these exercises (see Basmajian,
"Muscles Alive", on the activation of TVA under such conditions).

In short, we need to note that the concept of "functional training" has been
taken a little too far by various fitness and therapeutic gurus. While most
of us acknowledge the importance of spending adequate training time on
exercises which address in an integrative fashion the specific stabilising,
mobilising and metabolic functions of any human activity, we should not
dismiss from our training repertoire other exercises which may play a
somewhat non-functional role in overall preparation. Far too many folk in
the training world today are confusing sports identical, sport specific,
sport simulating and movement/action specific training. In fact, some
coaches even suggest that the only type of training necessary in some sports
is the use of the competitive sporting actions themselves.

Let us conclude by asking if sit-ups, especially if done with added loading
in PNF-like patterns, offer no strengthening and stabilising qualities at
all, for this is what is being implied by any remark which states that
sit-ups are functionally useless. Of course, we can suggest other abdominal
exercises that are generally and specifically more effective (and
economically more efficient) than conventional sit-ups, but we would not be
very scientific if we proclaimed that all sit-ups are functionally useless.

Possibly we need to distinguish between general and specific functionality;
then we may conclude that sit-ups (and TVA exercises, etc etc) constitute one
of many forms of general functional exercise and therefore may play a role in
overall conditioning. The final choice whether or not to use such exercises
would then lie, as they always have, in their effectiveness and efficiency in
significantly enhancing the execution of a given human activity.

On this basis, for example, while 15 minutes of dedicated abdominal training
on a physio ball may offer an acceptable form of general abdominal
conditioning, the time needed for this activity may detract from the overall
efficiency of a sports training session in which other actions (such as
squats, standing presses, power snatches and bench pressing) may offer all or
more "core strengthening" benefits.

In deciding to use any general or specific conditioning exercise, we simply
have to ask the following questions (Siff MC & Verkhoshansky YV
"Supertraining", 1999, Ch 8.3):

Is the given exercise:

* Necessary?
* Sufficient?
* Appropriate?
* Effective?
* Challenging?
* Safe?

Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
http://www.egroups.com/group/supertraining


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%