A question of functional strength.

Remmy

I see this term being thrown around alot on the internet.I see alot of ads for kettlebell workouts and how they build functional strength.Surely deadlifts and squats build functional strength but they don't seem to be put into this bracket much?Is the word functional strength meant to equate to exercises that mimick the movements used in our daily lives or just strength that we could use in our daily lives?

Hanley

Remmy wrote: »

I see this term being thrown around alot on the internet.I see alot of ads for kettlebell workouts and how they build functional strength.Surely deadlifts and squats build functional strength but they don't seem to be put into this bracket much?Is the word functional strength meant to equate to exercises that mimick the movements used in our daily lives or just strength that we could use in our daily lives?

Crossfit's the only thing that builds functional strength tbh.

I mean on my way to work today I had to climb over a 12 foot railing, jump across a river (grabbing a rope!!), sprint to the bus and decided to do some muscle ups on the rings you can hold onto. When I got off the bus I dropped like 50 1c coins (I only had about 5 minutes before I had to be in at this stage), so as quickly as I could, I dropped to the ground, did a burpee as I grabbed a coin, jumped back up, put it in my pocket and repeated it 50 times. There was a big log blocking the door into work so I clean and jerked it out of the way and strolled to my desk.

If it hadn't of been for Crossfit, I don't think I would have made it.

brianthebard

So much sarcasm dripping from that post, I think I have to wipe down my laptop screen...

amazingemmet

Functional fitness/ strength is a buzz word in the industry. Everytime I here it, its in relation to trying to sell me something.

Roper

Time for a definition:

Functional strength: The amount of strength required to perform the functions of daily life.
For a mother of 2 kids: pick up children from deep cots, carry kid onto bus with one hand while grasping a pram with another, run after errant child with baby wipe and a half eaten lolly in another.
For a relatively active man: Pick up new wife, carry across threshold, run for bus, climb a tree (you never know) perform bicep curls in the gym.
For an athlete (and I think this is what the argument is about): perform the various tasks in their chosen sport. For example, strike a ball really hard, have the power to increase their speed from a standing start, hold another player off the ball, tackle and drive another player backwards.

The arguments only start at how to best achieve the above but it's fair to say that all 3 examples above require physical strength to some degree. The difference is only in how much is required.

Colm_OReilly

Yeah unfortunately it's a buzzword at this stage.

As I understand it, what was originally meant is that it's a multi joint movement that mimics natural patterns and moves a large load relatively quickly.

Khannie

Hanley wrote: »

blah blah blah

I can't quite understand your intense dislike of crossfit. Any time you post in a thread about it you're spouting negativity. Crossfit's a really decent fitness program IMO and has a number of advantages over just "going to the gym" (which I, and a lot of other people, find boring as sh*te).

BossArky

I think Hanley's comments are related to the fact that usually threads like this are hopped on by Crossfit fanatics and the OP is buried with links to Rip this and Rip that.

Hanley

Khannie wrote: »

I can't quite understand your intense dislike of crossfit. Any time you post in a thread about it you're spouting negativity. Crossfit's a really decent fitness program IMO and has a number of advantages over just "going to the gym" (which I, and a lot of other people, find boring as sh*te).

BossArky wrote: »

I think Hanley's comments are related to the fact that usually threads like this are hopped on by Crossfit fanatics and the OP is buried with links to Rip this and Rip that.

Nail. Head.

Crossfit claims to be functional, but in the course of a normal day in the life of 99% of the people in the western world, how many times do they encounter situations that would be made easier by training Crossfit over some other style of training?

Remmy

Interesting replies!
My limited venture into weight training has been with a program that encompasses most of the compound weight lifting movements but I can still see crossfit's place for conditioning and strength endurance.Also the workouts look very interesting.

brianthebard

Thing is lifting weights should give you better conditioning too. I'm sure there's a place for doing everything at once in one uber complex, but really most of the time its not necessary. That would be my view.

Al_Fernz

Q: What do you think of that Crossfit stuff?

A: I have no clue what the hell that is. Is that one of those systems that's a mish-mash of everything?

Wait, I saw on article on that in Muscle & Fatness. Looked like a bunch of cachexic fitness-model wannabes searching for their souls in the weight room.

It reminds me of a Hungarian proverb: "If you only have one ***, you can't sit on two horses." If you try to do everything in your workout, you get nothing.

Another way to look at it is to think of Tim Ferris's example of wearing your underwear over your pants. It's different, and maybe even fun for some people, but it's not very effective.

No athlete has ever gotten good training like that.

Needless to say Poliquin is not a fan.

Roper

Well I'm not a fan of Polliquin so does that mean anything?

eroo

BossArky wrote: »

I think Hanley's comments are related to the fact that usually threads like this are hopped on by Crossfit fanatics and the OP is buried with links to Rip this and Rip that.

+1

If I could've thanked him twice I would have!

Dragan

Hanley wrote: »

Nail. Head.

Crossfit claims to be functional, but in the course of a normal day in the life of 99% of the people in the western world, how many times do they encounter situations that would be made easier by training Crossfit over some other style of training?

It really depends. Crossfit was never designed, nor was it originally aimed at, the general public. Much like any other system though it leaked out there, people who did it found the benefits it offered them ( much like any other training system ) decided they were in line with their goals and then went from there.

It's a bit like discounting Powerlifting, or MMA training, or GAA training because the person does not perfrom those actions on a day to day. Some people just like to train and will simply seek a positive health benefit in combination with the physique change that they are looking for.

For me, having experimented in Crossfit, it is a fun and effective way to train and it may or may not ( much like anything else ) be applicable to certain goals.

To be honest, circuit training ( what Crossfit is ) has been around for years, lots of them.

It's nothing new, it's just a brand, the same way as T-Nation is a brand, or Muscletech is a brand.

Edit : The comments offered by Charles merely show his severe distate for anyting you don't have to pay him for tbh. It's not a "catch-all" workout every day, you will cycle through various met-con, endurance, strength and conditioning workouts......much the same as the athletes who pay Charles good money will have different workouts that focus on different area's they need for their sport.

In my opinion, CP threw the baby out with the bath water with that comment.

I think the main thing that bothers people about Crossfit is that it is not specific, the people who train it as seen as having no goal. Maybe Crossfit is their goal?

Roper

Dragan wrote: »

It really depends. Crossfit was never designed, nor was it originally aimed at, the general public.

I think that's just clever marketing. We've been keeping this a secret etc. etc. but now we're unleashing it blah blah. I can't remember the marketing term but I think it's to do with making the product appear exclusive to increase it's appeal.

That being said I have nothing against Crossfit per se, I just don't agree with the principles behind it.

Dragan

Roper wrote: »

I think that's just clever marketing. We've been keeping this a secret etc. etc. but now we're unleashing it blah blah. I can't remember the marketing term but I think it's to do with making the product appear exclusive to increase it's appeal.

Sorry, what i meant was the the Glassmans didn't sit down and think "how are we going to train people and how are we going to market it", they just set up a business in a small section of a much larger "normal" gym and trained people the way they wanted to.

Thats about it. It took off because it was accepted, not because it was designed to be.

As for principals, if you blindly embrace anyone system ( sounds like SDMA!!! lol ) then this is your own fault and issue. A clever person breaks everything down, does their research, decides on their goals and then applies what they feel will help them.

Then they rinse and repeat, trying new things.

rubadub

Dragan wrote: »

Crossfit was never designed, nor was it originally aimed at, the general public.

Maybe, the basic strength standards have been discussed before
http://www.crossfit.com/cf-journal/WLSTANDARDS.pdf

the term "untrained" refers to the expected level of strength in a healthy individual who has not trained on the exercise before but can perform it correctly. This represents the minimum level of strength required to maintain a reasonable quality of life in a sedentary individual.

I expect over 95% of the population are deemed as not having a "reasonable quality of life".

Roper

Dragan wrote: »

Sorry, what i meant was the the Glassmans didn't sit down and think "how are we going to train people and how are we going to market it", they just set up a business in a small section of a much larger "normal" gym and trained people the way they wanted to.

Thats about it. It took off because it was accepted, not because it was designed to be.

I think we could apply that to anything though. I could say that John Samsung sat down in his workshop and made a quick design for a telly one day, and made one the way he wanted to and now suddenly it's a huge multi billion company. Or that Bill Gates and his mates just fvcked around with computers for a while and lo Microsoft happened.

Certainly for anyone outside of the Crossfit thing, it looks to be a cleverly designed, well marketed franchise that implies that it is organic. After all what better way to appeal to someone than to imply that it was their idea all along. The elite nature of it appeals to people too, the mocking of the "big box" gym and so on.

That's not to say that I disagree with any of what Crossfit says or does, just that I can see the strings.

Dragan

Roper wrote: »

I think we could apply that to anything though. I could say that John Samsung sat down in his workshop and made a quick design for a telly one day, and made one the way he wanted to and now suddenly it's a huge multi billion company. Or that Bill Gates and his mates just fvcked around with computers for a while and lo Microsoft happened.

Certainly for anyone outside of the Crossfit thing, it looks to be a cleverly designed, well marketed franchise that implies that it is organic. After all what better way to appeal to someone than to imply that it was their idea all along. The elite nature of it appeals to people too, the mocking of the "big box" gym and so on.

That's not to say that I disagree with any of what Crossfit says or does, just that I can see the strings.

But you see the strings because you have learned to look for them. Besides, no system, or product, or service, is no strings attached and the second you start a pricing system the simple fact is that you become a business and money becomes a goal.

It's that simple for me.

I have no doubt that even CP got into the game because he loves it but at the end of the day you need to make money, so your marketing, your brand, your image, becomes very, very important.

The major, and i mean MAJOR issue, that i have with CF is the level of arrogance that can exist in the people who can post on the host site. It's ALL about the times, the loads etc with them. That is how they justify themselves.

However, you get these people with every system, not because it's how the system is sold, simply because you will always have, in every walk of life, people who sign up blindly and then try and justify themselves through it.

Makes no real sense to me either, tbh.

It's like that kid who goes to a boxing club and then struts around the school yard.

cowzerp

Functional strenght is simply strenght that can be used in normal walks of life, so can be different to everyone.

but based on most people who just get on with life, functional strenght would be picking up loads, eg, washing basket-deadlifts could come in handy here!

the best functional exercises in my mind is 1's such as Squats, deadlifts, and anything that makes your body work in a natural sequence and can help in other movement types! leg curls and bicep curls are not the most natural in all fairness and are only good for 1 thing which is not realy functional..

Khannie

Note....I started answering this hours ago....so the thread may have changed quite a bit in that time....or not....

Hanley wrote: »

Crossfit claims to be functional, but in the course of a normal day in the life of 99% of the people in the western world, how many times do they encounter situations that would be made easier by training Crossfit over some other style of training?

Of course you're right. You can't argue with that. The same applies to going to almost any exercise regime. The real benefit is not that you can scale walls in a single bound (and Khannie can! Thank you crossfit. *snif*) but the way you feel when you wake up in the morning...that you can cut the grass without having a sore back for a few days after it, etc....

If we all exercised to fit in with 99% of what western life demands of our bodies....hell....we'd all be fat slobs. Western life places almost zero demand on our bodies if we choose to live that way.

Dragan wrote: »

It's a bit like discounting Powerlifting, or MMA training, or GAA training because the person does not perfrom those actions on a day to day. Some people just like to train and will simply seek a positive health benefit in combination with the physique change that they are looking for.

That kinda sums it up for me.

Dragan wrote: »

For me, having experimented in Crossfit, it is a fun and effective way to train and it may or may not ( much like anything else ) be applicable to certain goals.

And this is more or less why I train crossfit. The longer explanation: My goal is Muay Thai fighting. My life as a father and husband is busy so I try to use my lunchtime for training but I can't train Muay Thai at lunchtime all the time. My options are: Use the gym, or the pool, or go running, or dream something else up. Crossfit works well for me because it's fun, different and effective. Sure....I can scale walls a bit better or whatever, but that's not really what I'm after.

edit: I should say that I'm not a crossfit die-hard. The guy I train with is away on honeymoon at the moment and I've stopped doing the CF (for a few reasons). I do think it's good, but not the be all and end all.

t-ha

Dragan wrote: »

It's like that kid who goes to a boxing club and then struts around the school yard.

guilty! :pac:

To me, functional training is simply the natural backlash against the "Schwarzenegger/Pumping-Iron"-esque training of each bodypart for the 'pump'. It's possible, by using slow 'squeezing' sets of isolated exercises for each bodypart, and by dieting correctly, to look like an awesome athlete but yet be completely incapable of running a fast 10k, throwing a ball far and to be more likely to pull a muscle than anything else should you try and wrestle someone.

It's the idea of training to be the part instead of training to look the part. IMO any further breakdown than that is someone trying to sell you something.

Scramble

If CrossFit was just about making money then wouldn't they make CrossFit.com a paysite?

As it stands it's free to log on and get everything you need.

Where CrossFit appears to make its money- The CrossFit Journal and affiliates, are optional. I'd hazard a guess that the majority of people doing CrossFit are doing it on their own or in commercial gyms they'd be paying for anyway.

Beyond that, if someone has a better or equal alternative to CrossFit as a programme then I say good luck to them.

I can't help but feel that often a lot of the ire that is directed at CrossFit in this forum is really more down to some kind of contrarianism or begrudgery. It's getting popular, so we've got to slam it.

Roper

Scramble wrote: »

If CrossFit was just about making money then wouldn't they make CrossFit.com a paysite?

As it stands it's free to log on and get everything you need.

Where CrossFit appears to make its money- The CrossFit Journal and affiliates, are optional. I'd hazard a guess that the majority of people doing CrossFit are doing it on their own or in commercial gyms they'd be paying for anyway.

Since Microsoft is about making money wouldn't they make microsoft.com a paysite? Giving things away for free is often a method of drumming up business. I'm sure plenty of money comes on from affiliations, having to go to certification seminars if you want to be Crossfit certified etc. etc.

Beyond that, if someone has a better or equal alternative to CrossFit as a programme then I say good luck to them.

At doing what? At making you fit? By what standard? Crossfit vilifies endurance athletes, triathletes, soccer players and pretty much anyone who isn't training crossfit to get fit.

I can't help but feel that often a lot of the ire that is directed at CrossFit in this forum is really more down to some kind of contrarianism or begrudgery. It's getting popular, so we've got to slam it.

I think the supporters of Crossfit on this forum have retreated into that argument every time a question is raised for which Crossfit has no answer. "Oh you;re just saying that cos you hate us". As you well know I'm a friend of Colm's and have no personal ire with Crossfit. My opinions are based on having tried and examined Crossfit as a method, and finding it wanting.

Scramble

Since Microsoft is about making money wouldn't they make microsoft.com a paysite? Giving things away for free is often a method of drumming up business. I'm sure plenty of money comes on from affiliations, having to go to certification seminars if you want to be Crossfit certified etc. etc.

I guess you could look at it that way. But if having the mainsite as an open-source system, with all the programming up there along with a lot of instructional material is a marketing ploy... then it's a fairly benign one, right?

To just do CrossFit, logging onto the mainsite is free. If you want to certify or affiliate (something only a tiny minority of CrossFit practitioners will bother with) you open your wallet- that's fair enough, surely?

The CFJ is a kind of seperate case- it's a more conventional product, although I'd argue that it's still surprisingly cheap for what you get. Several years worth of stuff for 25 quid.

I think the supporters of Crossfit on this forum have retreated into that argument every time a question is raised for which Crossfit has no answer. "Oh you;re just saying that cos you hate us".
As you well know I'm a friend of Colm's and have no personal ire with Crossfit. My opinions are based on having tried and examined Crossfit as a method, and finding it wanting.

I wasn't really talking about you, Barry, it was more of a general observation which I stand by. When I read threads about CrossFit on boards.ie I don't see much if any criticism of the actual programming... everyhing but that, in fact. I still reckon people wouldn't be half so pissed-off with CrossFit except for the fact that it is becoming successful and garnering alot of interest. Maybe partially that's down to the accessibility of it, and the free mainsite. So who knows- maybe you're right about that, Barry.

(and I'm knackered after nights, took me ages to make this post even vaguely intelligible)

Hanley

Scramble wrote: »

I wasn't really talking about you, Barry, it was more of a general observation which I stand by. When I read threads about CrossFit on boards.ie I don't see much if any criticism of the actual programming... everyhing but that, in fact. I still reckon people wouldn't be half so pissed-off with CrossFit except for the fact that it is becoming successful and garnering alot of interest. Maybe partially that's down to the accessibility of it, and the free mainsite. So who knows- maybe you're right about that, Barry.

(and I'm knackered after nights, took me ages to make this post even vaguely intelligible)

I don't know about anyone else, but my beef with Crossfit is two fold.

The proponents look down their nose at the fittest (marathon runners and triathletes) and strongest athletes (powerlifters and weightlifters) in the world because they're "unfunctional" or because their skills and talents are in some way not applicable to "real life". Where as the crossfitters, who by their own admission aren't ever going to get to that level (and of course they don't want to, because it's useless!!) are the ones who think they're the most able and adaptable people in every day life because they do lots of pulls up and circuits.

Somehow being the absolute best at something isn't good, but only being medicre is a good thing????

Furthermore, it's not the concept of Crossfit that irks me. It's the religious ferverence it's defended with. At it's heart, it's just circuit training, which has been around donkey's years, and has been a very effective conditioning tool for all that time too. But now it's been given a buzzword name, and a culture that surrounds it, suddenly it's become a monster that insults anything that's not Crossfit, and if you're not training Crossfit, then you're not training the best way.