The world and our selves evolve and exist in a cyclic
fashion; good times and bad… ups and downs… we
experience changes that seem to repeat, including everyday
cycles of sleep-wake and cell regeneration. History is a
broad example of cycles, whereby we enter the “dark ages”
followed by an “age of enlightenment.” We now are in an
irrational dark age of fitness. Irrational is an ideal term to
describe a method of exercise considered dangerous,
impractical, unproved (yet implemented when other proven
methods exist) and irrelevant (i.e., claiming to do something
that cannot be achieved). Below is such an example.
FUNCTIONAL CORE EXERCISE
In an article by a well known “functional/core exercise”
proponent, there is an attempt to affiliate the concepts of
microscopic life of the amoeba with human cellular
processes, and “functional training” when the author claims:
“Movement, survival and the optimal functioning of the
organism all go hand in hand.” This statement opens a
door for the author as he links “movement” with “function,”
together with the concept of “optimal.” He then claims that
there is a link between functional exercise and survival, as
confirmed historically by the “fact” that when exercise needs
are not met (too much, too little, an absence or the wrong
kind), then “disease lurks!” (exclamation his). Certainly lack
of activity or too much activity (excess strain) can pose
negative results, but here he links “the wrong kind” of
exercise to that of disease or ill health.
After addressing how natives achieved functional fitness
through hunting practices, the author then discussed
ancient methods of yoga, Tai-Chi, and then martial arts,
connecting the concept of “functional exercise” with
improving health and vitality of the mind and body, to
improve “man’s relationship with both external and internal
nature.” This concept has now opened a second door for
the author’s “brand” of functional training and to denounce
methods that are different.
Apparently, according to the author, today’s concept of
exercise (particularly bodybuilding) is wrong, since many
methods confirm to Newtonian thinking to produce an
“isolationists’/reductionists’ point of view,” in that we think of
only single muscles and not the body as a whole. Rather,
what we need is “system integration.” This would mean
whole-body movement/participation of some kind. However,
bodybuilders do consider the look of the body as a whole,
and many exercises performed take into account body
coordination (or, at least, the coordination of several
muscles). Even the use of a single-joint exercise machine
causes its user to contract many muscles in an attempt to
brace the body and to generate greater body coordination as
muscular fatigue is reached. Further ignored is the fact that
it may be necessary to focus one’s attention on a single
muscle (for reasons of balancing development or function).
And, by doing so, this improves the system as a whole as
muscles are able to work and integrate better in more
dynamic activities, i.e., by strengthening the weakest link.
The author claims that the exercise machine industry also is
at fault, as it breaks the body into separate parts or muscle
groups to be worked in isolation, “building on people’s
aesthetic desires rather than functional needs.” It is well
known that no muscle can work in complete isolation, as
stated in the paragraph above. Nonetheless, exaggeration
is obvious in that many machines do train multiple muscles,
such as pulldowns, machine deadlifts and squats, leg
presses, chest presses, and shoulder presses, or that a
person can train for aesthetics as well as function. If a
person’s biceps can produce 50% more force as a result of
machine or dumbbell biceps curls that served to increase
both mass and strength, certainly that person’s biceps’
function has improved, and this has an influence on full
body functional ability.
The author then claims that those who succumb to modern
isolationist exercise methods and influence suffer higher
incidence of injury. What proof does he offer? None.
Conversely, the author does not reference activities that
produce the highest forces (and greatest potential for injury),
such as explosive lifting, Olympic lifts, and plyometrics. In
fact, he does endorse Olympic lifting and plyometrics (within
reason) since they apparently mimic “natural” movement
better. He also recommends the higher risk of Swiss ball
exercises, with an attempt to balance and control weights in
an unstable environment. I do not recall the last time a
person needed to clean and jerk an object, jump multiple
times off boxes (sometimes with loads on the shoulders),
or to balance one’s self on a ball in activities of daily living.
Consequently, how do those activities mimic the “natural”
movements of walking, lifting items off the ground
(carefully), climbing stairs, or the unique and specific
mechanics of various sporting activities (outside Olympic
lifting)?
The author continues by stating that there is limited value in
isolationist exercise approaches, which is why there is such
a divergence toward Tai-Chi and other “integrated” systems.
It should be obvious that any approach is limited in value
(since everything in the Universe is finite), and that includes
Tai-Chi, which does a poor job of optimizing muscular
strength and muscle development, two key aspects that
support “function” as we age. From my perspective, people
tend to diverge toward Tai-Chi because it is an easy means
of activity, and is more of a means of meditation and
relaxation than exercise. In any event, it has been
established that greater muscular loading and functional
improvement can be had with stable exercises as opposed
to unstable Swiss ball exercises. This only makes sense
since so much more effort is directed toward balance (and
paranoia of falling) during unstable exercises, together with
less weight and effort on the target muscles. However,
those aspects are ignored by the author.
The author became more mystically vague when he stated:
“Historical analysis of the biological basis of movement
shows that even the ancient systems of exercise were
based on cosmic relationships, Mother Nature and our
relationship with her.” He clarifies his stance by suggesting
that modern systems of functional exercise “see the body as
an integrated system, a synergy of the
physical-emotional-mental-spiritual energies and aspects
of realities.” (I am aware of only one “reality”; that in which I
live.) I am uncertain how this differs from systems not
considered a “modern system of functional exercise.” The
manner, method and intensity of my training, for example, is
governed by my emotions and mental outlook/motivations,
which affect my performance and any results that can be
achieved physically. My philosophy of life and how I view
fitness affects the spiritual aspect of that discipline. This is
true of any individual, no matter the method of exercise,
including the use of machines. The author sees it differently
and, apparently, we need to be lunging, balancing, and
rolling about on a ball for this
physical-emotional-mental-spiritual synergy to take place.
Now, for an exercise system to be “functional,” it should
meet the author’s criteria:
1. It must support and improve life. Chronic (regular?)
exposure to “training to failure” is not a good thing in the
author’s eyes and serves only to “extinguish vitality.” It is
ironic that many individuals (including yours truly) has
trained in this manner for many years, are strong, physically
developed and feel a great deal of vitality. It is not training to
muscular fatigue that is the problem, but the overall
demands that one is exposed to, including too much
volume and frequency. Nonetheless, training to failure and
believing in “no pain, no gain,” according to the author,
“results in dysfunctional exercise and less functional
people.” The idea of “no pain, no gain” is exaggerated,
although well meaning at one point in the history of exercise
(to get people to exercise harder). However, if a person can
increase strength and muscle to a greater degree (or even
to the same degree) by training to failure (without abusing
exercise in general), how would that result in less functional
people? How does greater/improved function = less
function?
The author concludes by stating: “the by-product of modern
bodybuilding and these types of training mottos is a new
culture of fitness without health.” Suffice it to say that a
person can be healthy without partaking in a regular fitness
program. “Healthy” generally means free from disease.
And needless to say that an intense exercise program that
improves blood cholesterol, blood pressure, resting heart
rate, cardiovascular endurance, heart resilience, strength,
muscle, and ADL function certainly is “fitness with health.”
Moreover, the term “fitness” means “the quality or state of
being fit,” and “fit” means “to be well adapted or suitable for”
(Oxford’s English Dictionary). Partaking in a fitness
program, to become “fit” (although some are better than
others) will result in positive health changes, even if a
method happens to be one of aesthetics primarily, i.e.,
bodybuilding.
2. Functional exercise is always a means to an end (with
examples of gathering wood to stay warm, lifting stones,
and doing calisthenics in the army to stay “strong enough”
to fulfill duties). In other words, perform movement patterns
that are essential to your work or sports environment. I work
at a computer for the most part, and so perhaps I should
perform some keyboard typing overload exercises.
Sarcasm aside, most of us have enough strength to
complete daily activities, and to mimic those activities with
resistance often does us worse than good. An example in
sports would be sprinting with heavy weights attached to the
body with the notion that our sprinting will improve, although
sprinting mechanics obviously would alter under such
circumstances. Moreover, consider elbow flexion that
occurs when we lift an object, and the elbow flexion that
occurs during dumbbell or machine arm curls. Would the
latter not have a positive bearing on the former? Certainly it
would, but since it is not “exact” to everyday movements, the
author condemns such actions, and without realizing that
any “functional exercise” also is not exact to daily activities
(unless the same resistance and movement patterns exist,
and if so, it no longer would be exercise but activities of daily
living).
The author talks around the issue of isolation training to
improve function by stating the following: “Training muscles
with isolation methods to achieve increased mass in
specific muscle is only functional if your goal is to compete
in bodybuilding competitions, or specific rehabilitation
procedures or as part of a well-designed
isolation-to-integration program.” Certainly “isolation to
integration” could mean performing daily tasks and activities
better as a result of larger and stronger muscles that were
produced as a result of using machines or free-weights, as
has been done for several decades.
He continues: “There must be a goal motivating the
selection of exercises or one cannot ascertain whether the
outcome is functional or dysfunctional.” In the previous
paragraph he clearly acknowledges that a weak chain can
be made stronger by (greater) isolation, yet ignores its value
unless it can be proven that the outcome improves function
(in the individual’s best interests to achieve another goal). If
that goal is to feel better, look better, and function better,
then any exercise in any medium (free weight, machine,
rubber band, calisthenics, etc.) has that potential. The
extent to which that happens varies, thus depending on the
quality of movement and effort far more than how dynamic
(the use of several muscles in an unfixed environment) or
unstable an exercise happens to be.
Moreover, a few things are wrong with the author’s
statement above. One, the ultimate goal may be aesthetics,
and there is nothing wrong with that, but pointless according
to the author since that aspect of a fitness program means
nothing to him. Two, injuries are the result of weak links,
and there is no better way of addressing this issue than
through means of specific exercise that is as isolated as
possible, whether through single-joint movements or not. It
is like working on an entire house when you know the
problem to be the support beams. If you need to strengthen
the support beams, then forget about the shingles or
windows. Three, function required in specific activity
requires practice of the specific activity to improve that ability,
whereas exercise provides general conditioning and
strength improvements that then support the specific
sporting movements. Hence, truly functional training
involves the specific motor skills of a particular activity, and
not movement patterns that “sort of” resemble an activity but
which uses different loads, different velocities, different
movement patterns, different balancing requirements, etc.
3. Selection of an exercise or exercise regimen must
consider the desired outcome on all primary physiological
systems of the body (including hormonal, musculoskeletal,
circulatory, immune, thermoregulatory, visceral and
neurological). And “every intent and attempt should be to
improve the exerciser’s physiology through exercise, or the
exercise regimen can’t be considered functional.” Please
explain how stabilizing on a Swiss ball while performing
dumbbell presses can account for all the primary
physiological systems, whereas working the muscles with
heavier resistance and with greater physical/mental effort in
a stable environment cannot.
Moreover, it takes little effort to improve all these systems
even on the worst program (whether stable or unstable),
and so it goes without saying that improvement will occur in
all aspects to some extent. To what extent improvement will
occur depends on many factors more important than trying
to maintain balance while moving weights in the hopes that
you will not fall off a ball or wobble board as opposed to
using a machine, factors such as the quality and effort of the
program overall. Differences in results become obvious if
one were to compare a person who (purposely) puts forth
little effort while following the author’s “functional” workout
with rubber cables and Swiss balls as opposed to a person
who tries very hard with an Author Jones intense workout on
Nautilus or MedX machines. In this example it should be
obvious who will make the best changes, and the opposite
also would be true of a person who tries very hard on any
so-called “functional” program as opposed to a person
whose performance is lackluster while using exercise
machines.
4. Selection of an exercise or exercise regimen must take
into account a person’s emotional, mental and spiritual
components. This statement is obvious, in that a properly
prescribed program takes into account the individual, but
the author suggests that “the expenditure of the life-force
energy on a leg press is not bringing exercisers closer to
complete well-being!” (exclamation his). Why should this be
the case with the leg press, or why should it not be the
case? There is no explanation behind his statement, but he
does disclose the following: “when an exercise program is
functional, it supports the collective needs of the living
organism and the body becomes progressively healthier,
which positively influences the emotions and the mind and
affording the spirit greater freedom of expression.” What a
load! (exclamation mine). How is it that a person can
become one with the Universe by balancing on a ball or
wobble board, or by moving about while yanking on some
rubber bands or cable system, yet this cannot be achieved
on a leg press? What is the scientific evidence?
The author concludes by stating: “The keystone of functional
exercise is that it improves the health and vitality of the
participant.” Apparently, however, this is impossible with
machines or exercise modalities the author does not
consider “functional.” Yet, if a person were to train only with
machines, and improve many aspects of health, such as
cholesterol levels, strength, muscle, heart health and overall
function, then that person’s health and vitality has
improved… and, the exercises must be functional.
Brian D. Johnston is the Director of Education and President of the I.A.R.T. fitness certification institute. He has written over 12 books and is a contributor author to the Merck Medical Manual. An international lecturer, Mr. Johnston wears many hats in the fitness and health industries. You can visit his site at http://www.ExerciseCertification.com for more free articles.
