Functional fitness. Is that a pleonasm like “wet water” and “white snow”? After all, when is fitness not functional? The term “functional fitness” has been hijacked by commerce and has thereby lost much of its original meaning. But what is functional fitness?
What is Functional Fitness?
So what is functional fitness? Various definitions are given, none of which fully cover the scope when we look at how “functional fitness” is practiced in reality. We can divide it into the following:
- Functional fitness aimed at improving everyday functions such as at home and at work,
- Functional fitness aimed at improving athletic performance,
- Functional fitness as part of rehabilitation.
Improving Everyday Functions
Functional fitness in its purest form simply means looking at the functions someone needs to perform and tailoring the training to that [1,2]. This means it’s customized.
It’s strange then that nowadays many gyms have a “functional fitness zone” without making an inventory of which functions should be trained per client. In practice, this means a space where machines with fixed movement paths are not used. The idea behind functional fitness is that traditional strength training in a gym often uses machines with limited range of motion. This could lead to movements that don’t correspond to natural movements, thus not benefiting from your training in everyday life and at work.
Instead of isolated exercises focusing on a single muscle group, functional fitness emphasizes exercises that mimic what is done in everyday life. This means by definition, you can’t create a standard program called “functional fitness”. The function varies from person to person. For example, a bricklayer or construction worker has very different needs in this regard than a hairdresser or adult film actor.
Improving Athletic Performance
This applies exactly the same as the previous point with the difference that it can be focused on a specific sport. The advantage of this is that programs can be slightly less customized because many practitioners of a sport need to strengthen the same functions.
In the article “strength training for martial arts,” for example, I discuss the adjustments you can make in your strength training to make it more suitable for practicing certain martial arts by focusing more on explosiveness rather than strength. Functional fitness for sports is based on the idea that traditional strength training limits normal movement paths. Not only would this be less effective for improving athletic performance, according to some researchers, it could also teach incorrect movement patterns that could lead to injuries [3,4].
Part of Rehabilitation
In the field of rehabilitation, it has been noticed at some point that rehabilitation is more successful and remains so when it is tailored to the specific situation of a patient instead of using a general rehabilitation program [5,6,7].
Functional Fitness: CrossFit and Calisthenics?
Given the above, it’s strange that training methods like CrossFit and calisthenics are often called “functional.”
CrossFit itself is defined as that which optimizes fitness (constantly varied functional movements performed at relatively high intensity)….
The magic is in the movements. All of CrossFit’s workouts are based on functional movements. These are the core movements of life, found everywhere, and built naturally into our DNA.
Crossfit.com
However, it’s not the case that you discuss with a trainer what your daily life functions are and they tailor a training program for you. Instead, you enter a CrossFit “box” and just participate in the same “workout of the day” everyone else does (with or without explanation and guidance). If you do calisthenics, you just mimic what others do, like skaters sharing tricks. So why are these training methods called functional?
CrossFit founder Greg Glassman sells it as follows: By doing a large number of different exercises across a wide spectrum and not specializing, you prepare the body for as many different situations as possible. A bit with the thought that there will also be the functions from your daily life among them. So you do box jumps, burpees, double unders, and power snatches and hit tires with a hammer assuming that there will be something among them that trains for your daily functioning.
Calisthenics is often promoted as functional because it only uses body weight as resistance and less of isolated exercises (resulting in a greater resemblance to movements in practice). Even if you were to accept this for granted, the movements are still not adapted to the various, specific functions of the different practitioners. Because it’s not customized, it cannot be called functional fitness in the strict sense of the term. Moreover, you may wonder how many people, for example, need to be able to do muscle-ups in their daily lives. Very useful if you have a role in “Cliffhanger 2,” but at home and at work?
For clarity: This is not a critique of CrossFit or calisthenics! I’m just trying to make clear that these should not be called “functional fitness.” I suspect that describing them as functional stems from a commercial thought: “Do CrossFit, then you don’t build ’empty muscle mass’ but functional strength!”.
Fitness is Aesthetic and Functional
But if we’re going to slap the label “functional” on everything, why not on “traditional” fitness like strength training and cardio? If you have better fitness, more strength, more muscle mass, and less body fat, don’t you benefit from that in daily life?
Often, things like cardio and strength training are said to be done only to look better. I’ll be the first to admit that I do bodybuilding to look better. When we look at fitness in general, I achieved much more from, for example, martial arts or basketball. Yet strength training is “more functional” for me.
Firstly, because thankfully, I never had to use my martial arts experience in practice. However, when I wasn’t doing strength training and was a skinny stick, I sometimes found myself in situations where you were provoked and tested. I never allowed myself to be drawn into those. However, it was noticeable that when I was 20 kilos bigger in muscle, these kinds of situations occurred much less frequently. In that sense, strength training is a bit like the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and the former Soviet Union. You could say “A waste, billions spent on weapons that are never used,” but the threat of these prevented a third world war.
Moreover, you may wonder how functional a type of training is if it causes more injuries than the functions it tries to improve. Squatting because you often have to lift heavy boxes at work is functional if it means you get fewer back problems. However, if you bruise your ankle in a fall while trying to do as many box jumps as possible in a minute, this doesn’t seem functional if you never have to jump in daily life.
Moreover, evolutionarily speaking, the main function of humans is reproduction. Okay, there are already too many people on earth, but our brains are still focused on this. We are attracted to a nice appearance because this is our way of assessing the health (fitness!) of another person and estimating which genes that person can pass on to our offspring. Looking at it this way, what could be more functional than increasing your chances with the opposite sex by having less body fat and being more muscular?
Furthermore, creating additional muscle mass and eliminating body fat are parts of the treatment of various conditions such as heart disease and insulin resistance. So functional in the sense that the body’s functions are improved.
Conclusion: Just Do What You Want
So you can call everything functional, depending on your definition. In practice, however, the term seems to be misused for commercial reasons. It also seems a bit Dutch. Imagine being such a vain person who trains five times a week just to look better. That doesn’t fit with “just be normal,” so we slap a sticker with “functional” on it.
Just do what you want, whether it’s CrossFit, calisthenics, bodybuilding, or Zumba, whether you do it for your appearance, health, or pleasure. You don’t need to defend (or sell) this with a label called “functional”.
References
- O’Sullivan, Susan B. (2007). Physical Therapy 5th Edition. glossary: F.A. Davis Company. p. 1335.
- Cannone, Jesse. “Functional training”. Retrieved 2007-08-26.
- Orr, R.M. (2013). [http http://works.bepress.com/rob_orr/36 “Movement Orientated Training for the Kinetic and Cyber Warrior” Tactical Strength and Conditioning Conference 2013. Norfolk, Virginia, USA. Apr. 2013.”].
- Burton, Craig (2007). “What is Functional Resistance Training”. Retrieved 2007-08-26.
- Timmermans, A. A, Spooren, A. I. F., Kingma, H., Seleen, H. A. M. (2010). “Influence of Task-Oriented Training Content on Skilled Arm–Hand Performance in Stroke: A Systematic Review”. Neural rehabilitation and neural repair 24: 219–224. doi:10.1177/1545968310368963.
- Blennerhassett, J., & Dite, W. (2004). “Additional task-related practice improves mobility and upper limb function early after stroke: A randomised controlled trial”. Australian journal of physiotherapy 50: 858–870.
- “Upper extremity interventions”, Evidence-based review of stroke rehabilitation
- crossfit.com/cf-info/what-is-crossfit.html
- WWF LIving planet report”. Panda.org. Retrieved 2011-11-30.
- Ecological Footprint Atlas 2009, Global Footprint Network, www.footprintnetwork.org/atlas
