So you thought those Instagram fitness models with an insatiable appetite for likes were the worst trend in fitness? Not even close. Meet the “functional movement” gurus. Their training philosophies exist on the fringe of what is scientifically accepted, and regularly go against almost all of the currently published research in the field. To make matters worse, they usually have little to no evidence backing their own grand claims. Despite this, many of them have grown a large, almost cult like following surrounding their beliefs and training methodologies–which mostly consist of bashing other training modalities.
At the heart of it , TRUE “functional training” revolves around one thing: “functional” movements that increase the movement efficiency/capacity and strength/resiliency of the system as a whole, to better equip us to handle “real world” tasks. What could be wrong with that? the answer: absolutely nothing. In fact, the majority of our training here at Fowler Fitness WOULD be considered functional training (in accordance to the definition above), since we work all of our foundational movement patterns with multi-joint, compound exercises like the squat, deadlift, and press that “functionally” transfer over into daily activates and life. So what’s the deal? We run into a problem when the “gurus” give the core principles of “functional training” a bad name by doing the following:
- Taking a particular training paradigm, and removing it from its avenue of purposeful training application. For example, take the bosu ball. Originally designed with lower extremity rehabilitation in mind, “functional” gurus have taken this training tool out of its avenue for purposeful application (rehabilitation) and applied it incorrectly in the strength and conditioning world by having athelets standing on it, and performing a myriad of single leg exercises like curls, presses, and squats that happen to look more like a circus act than actual training. When was the last time you saw anyone encounter an unstable surface in the real world? In the context of the law of dynamic correspondence, this would not fall into the category of a “functional” exercise…unless your sport is actually balancing on a bosu ball.
- Taking a particular training methodology and holding it above all others, or bashing the effectiveness of other training methodologies simply to differentiate oneself. For example, despite the large body of evidence to the contrary, many so called “functional gurus” have labeled ACTUAL “functional” exercises like the axially loaded back squat and deadlift “harmful” and “unproductive”. Many of these gurus will use buzzword filled explanations to justify their claims, with little to no actual hard evidence. To the uneducated listener, It’s believable. To the experts in the field? You’re not fooling us. The research is clear.
With that being said, I want to reiterate that the “functional movement” training paradigm is NOT the problem. As mentioned above, all training methodologies have an avenue for purposeful application. Rather, its the twisting, or faulty application of it that IS the problem.
The Worst Offender: Naudi Aguilar
Just like many of these movement experts, Naudi Aguilar presents us with a seemingly good message, at least at first: Improve our movement capacity, and ability to perform the foundational activities that we evolved doing such as running, jumping, throwing ect. Here at Fowler Fitness, this same training paradigm resembles almost exactly what we do with our athelets during their early prep, GPP and corrective exercise phase. The goal here is to correct any muscles imbalances or muscle “viruses” that limit our ability to move well, while simultaneously “deloading” from the rigorous demands of the season. Watch bellow as Naudi explains how to functionally reintegrate the sling systems for improved running mechanics:
it’s really no surprise that many people have experienced great results from following his Functional Patterns programming. The fact of the matter is that many people DO need to just simply move better, and a program like this could have huge performance enhancing effects for someone limited in that regard.
Unfortunately, Naudi, like many other functional gurus, makes ones of the big two mistakes mentioned above: attempting to reinvent the wheel by bashing other proven and effective training modalities, simply to differentiate himself. While there are too many offenses to count, we’ll focus on the worst: Claiming that activities like Lifting weights, gymnastics, and calisthenics create dysfunctional movement patterns that make us more susceptible to injury, screw up our gait cycle, and alter throwing mechanics. Despite these claims sounding outrageous and completely contrary to almost ALL of the current research in biomechanics, biological anthropology, S&C research and so on, this continues to be one of the selling points of Naudi’s “Functional Patterns”.
To the average listener, I could see how this claim might make some logical sense. How many people do we know that continue to experience nagging aches and pains from lifting? Or individuals who display impressive feats of strength in the gym despite not being able to jump or sprint to save their life?
However, instead of labeling strength training as dysfunctional because of these examples, have we ever thought that maybe these same individuals simply aren’t performing these movements correctly, or in accordance to their unique anatomy? Since Naudi is a proponent of improving “functional patterns” like running, jumping and throwing, has he ever stopped to consider that many of these high-velocity activities can produce upwards of 10x the compressive load/force than that of any strength training exercise in the gym? Has Naudi stopped to consider the fact that just as many injuries and dysfunctional movement patterns have stemmed from poorly executed sprints, jumps and throws? Has Naudi stopped to consider that rarely do humans EVER balance on unstable surfaces such as a bosu balls, or come in contact with the type of resistance that a cable machine provides? Has he considered that for athelets such as pitchers or lineman, gaining strength and muscle can have huge performance enhancing effects? Has Naudi also not considered the fact that there is not a set standard for correct posture, or even movement proficiency across the board? Or that certain so called “restrictions” in mobility or “postural distortions” can actually be both advantageous or detrimental to performance depending on the given sport or activity? No he has not, and has continued to evade these questions because he simply does not have an answer for them. Humans regularly perform activates that require, you guest it, ACTUAL strength. Stop evading the obvious. I’d love to see Naudi actually pick up a couch or TV without blowing out his back.
The simple fact of that matter is that the “movement” school of though is just one of the MANY training paradigms that we can implement into a holistic performance model. So what happens once we’ve become efficient movers? How do we ramp up our capacity to actually run faster, jump higher, and throw further with this new found movement capacity? If strength training in the form of squats, deadlifts, presses, cleans, pull ups ect are bad, then how do we effectively prepare our bodies for the rigorous demands of sporting activites? The answer: you simply cannot following this training philosophy alone. PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED strength training provides us with both the necessary structural (bone, muscle, tendons, ligaments) adaptation (S), and neurological adaption(S) to boost all measures of physical capacity. If training for strength and muscle did not have performance enhancing effects, then athelets would not take steroids. Steroids provide athelets with an advantage due to the force generating capacity that bigger and stronger muscles provide! That’s why there’s no such thing as a “balance” or “movement” steroid.
At the end of the day, the best athelets will ALWAYS be the athelets that can move well, and who posses the strength and power to back it up. As Mark Rippetoe says “Stronger people are harder to kill, and more useful in general”