Read a blog post by Adam T. Glass that caught my attention and got me thinking. As you already know, if you have been following this blog for a while, we tend to discuss the meaning of such words as "fitness" and "functional" quite a lot. I will not go through all of mr. Glass post here and now but I advice you to read it. His point (one of them) is however that the "functional" in functional training is dependent upon what you are aiming for with that training. If you are aiming for world domination in powerlifting then a lot of powerlifting is probably functional. If you are aiming for having a back or knees that doesen't hurt some other type of training is probably more suitable. Nothing new under the sun here. If you in any way have taken part of the functional training debate the last couple of years and have an independent thought once in a while you most probably will have questioned what "functional" really means yourself. You might have tried to find or formulate a definition or you might have settled with thinking that functionality is dependent on situation and/or aims.
Myself, I tend to go for the second option. I do however try to look for some redeeming qualities in the "functional fitness" crowd.
Why is it so important for people to say that "their" way of training is functional? Well, the obvious answer is that they cannot say that their training is disfunctional. It is a version of the "Do you still hit your wife?"-dilemma. But hasn't there historically also been another reason for labeling training functional? I don't know what it is like in the USA or other parts of the world but in Sweden when I grew up training ment either sports, jogging or bodybuilding. I settled for jogging (well maybe running) and bodybuilding (not that I ever were big but that was the kind of weightlifting I did). Lifting weights ment, for everybody except for the extremely few who competed in weightlifting - training like a bodybuilder, i.e. getting really good at supinating the wrist for maximising the biceps peak. I trained more or less like that for a LONG time. It wasn't until I started using kettlebells that I really started viewing my body as a whole rather than as a compilation of muscles. I'm pretty sure this story isn't unique for me.
Now in Spain I look upon how regular people train and I see them on vibra plates and on treadmills. I see a fear of lifting heavy weights (haven't seen a place to deadlift since I came here and hasn't seen a decent barbell either). I might not have a water tight definition of what functional training is but I sure know what it is not. To say that any training can be functional depending upon what your goal are is a bit like throwing the baby out with the water. Half an hour on a vibra plate is NOT functional training.
There is a way of using the concept of "functional training" in a meaningful way and that is in the way it was probably used from the start. As a way to separate it from training that looks at the body as a collection of parts rather than as a whole. With time however, this concept has been used in so many different ways that it has totally lost it's meaning. If you for example look at Crossfit with an forgiving/understaning gaze you will see that there is something there which correctly might be described as functional. Doing METCONS every day, paying homage to Pukie on you Rhabdo T-shirt however is not functional in any way. Functionality must in some way or another be tied to the demands of everyday life and elite fitness is not everyday life.
Again, Adam T. Glass:
"So – functional training is only functional if it meets your goals.
If it does not meet YOUR goals, it is not functional."
"Make up your own goals, build your own program, test out shit, lead yourself."
This, of course makes sense. But how are we supposed to do this? I'm currently following Geoff Neuperts "Kettlebell Muscle" program. This is the second time in my life that I follow a program. I'm far from sure that I like it but I will follow it until the end (6 more weeks) because I want to be able to say to myself "I tried it, I did/didn't like it". Following what other people tells us are necessary. It is the only way of learning without reinventing the wheel over and over again. "On the shoulders of giants" y'know. There is no training method/philosophy that I subscibe to a 100% but I have found parts of bodybuilding, running, Crossfit, Convict Conditioning, Combat Conditioning and Hardstyle useful. Going through all those training methods thinking that "this one might be the shit" has learned me everything that I know about training.
I think that there often is too much focus on results in training. As a trainer I should of course be able to help people reach their goals and the results they long for but I find that I also need to teach them something else: the joy of training itself. I have personally always (as an adult) found great satisfaction in training not as something goal oriented but as something with a value in itself. The point of training isn't always to get better, faster or stronger but also just to train and to get to know yourself better through training. My friends on this path has been numerous: my gym teacher when I was 17, bodybuilding magazines, Jean Claude Van Damme, The Russian, Laszlo, Pavel, Anna, the guys at Crossfit Nordic, Fredrik and Adam T. Glass etc.
I have needed others to learn and I will keep on needing others to learn. My history has turned me into who I am so I will not frown upon it. So maybe none of the "systems" that I have adhered to has been able to tell me the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth but they are all parts of my path and I will respect them as such.
Finally, here's a new film shot in Parc Ciutadella the other day. Anna asked me why the fuck I need to use all those different filters and make it so arty. The answer is of course: Because I'm learning, it is a part of my path (well really, it's because I wan't to use my cool new apps).
Untitled from youmakelovingfun on Vimeo.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar