Rethinking Functional Training - Integrated Performance Systems

Rethinking Functional Training: Finding Balance in Modern Fitness

The Pendulum Swing of Fitness Trends

In recent years, traditional body part specialization training splits have been increasingly pushed aside, largely due to the meteoric rise of the “functional training” movement. This shift has fundamentally transformed the fitness industry’s approach to exercise programming. While functional training undoubtedly has its place in a well-rounded fitness regimen, the way it has been marketed, interpreted, and applied has led to widespread misconceptions and overgeneralizations—ultimately diminishing the value of traditional strength training methods that have proven effective for decades.

The Origins and Evolution of Functional Training

The term “functional training” was originally intended to describe exercises that enhance an individual’s ability to perform daily activities, improve movement patterns, and prevent injuries. The foundational concept made perfect sense: train movements rather than muscles, prioritize multi-joint exercises over isolation work, and focus on developing real-world applicable strength and was highly promoted by experts in the field such as Paul Chek with good intentions but they may not have predicted the over correction we have seen.

As the fitness industry recognized the marketability of this approach, the concept became increasingly distorted. What began as a sensible training philosophy evolved into an almost religious rejection of conventional training methods. Suddenly, functional training was portrayed as the antithesis of traditional resistance training—avoiding machines, isolation exercises, or anything resembling bodybuilding-style training became the new dogma.

Functionality Is Relative, Not Absolute

The fundamental flaw in the current functional training paradigm is the assumption that certain exercises are inherently “functional” while others are not. This oversimplification ignores a crucial reality: functionality is relative to the individual and their specific goals, limitations, and requirements.

This leads us to a question that challenges the binary thinking prevalent in today’s fitness culture:

The False Dichotomy: Bench Press vs. Push-Ups

A common debate in fitness circles centers on whether bench press or push-ups are more “functional.” The knee-jerk response from functional training advocates is that push-ups are superior—often without consideration for individual context.

Let’s break down the reality:

For a rugby player who needs to generate maximal upper-body pushing force against resistance, the bench press may be more functional because it allows for progressive overload and maximal strength development in a stable position, directly translating to on-field performance.
For a gymnast or martial artist focused on relative strength, body control, and core stability, push-ups and their variations might be more functional as they require full-body coordination, shoulder stability, and anti-extension core engagement.
For a recreational fitness enthusiast recovering from shoulder impingement, neither exercise might be appropriate initially—making cable or machine-based exercises temporarily more “functional” for their rehabilitation goals.
For a bodybuilder preparing for competition, isolation movements targeting specific muscle groups might be the most “functional” approach to achieve their aesthetic objectives.

The answer isn’t universal—functionality depends entirely on the individual’s goals, anatomical structure, injury history, and sport or lifestyle demands.

The Pendulum Has Swung Too Far

The fitness industry has a history of pendulum swings between extremes, and functional training represents one of the most pronounced examples. Somewhere along the way, we shifted from a balanced approach incorporating various training methodologies to an almost complete rejection of traditional training methods.

This extremism manifests in several problematic ways:

The Demonization of Isolation Exercises: Movements like bicep curls, tricep extensions, and lateral raises were suddenly deemed “non-functional” despite their value in developing specific muscles, addressing imbalances, and preventing injuries.
The Unstable Surface Obsession: The notion that performing exercises on unstable surfaces is inherently more functional led to people squatting on BOSU balls and performing resistance exercises on stability equipment—often sacrificing load, proper technique, and progressive overload in the process.
The Rejection of Machines: Resistance machines were broadly dismissed despite their value in controlled movement patterns, rehabilitation settings, and allowing for safe training to muscular failure.
The Complexity Bias: Simple, effective exercises were replaced with complex, Instagram-worthy movements that often prioritized novelty over results and safety.

This mindset ignores fundamental strength and hypertrophy principles, which remain essential for muscle development, injury prevention, and even performance enhancement across all domains of physical activity.

Recalibrating Our Approach to Functional Training

To move forward productively, we need to step back from the excesses that functional training has become and return to applying solid, evidence-based training principles:

1. Strength Is Inherently Functional

Regardless of how it’s developed—whether through free weights, machines, or bodyweight exercises—increased strength improves real-world performance. A stronger muscle can produce more force, better stabilize joints, and enhance overall resilience. The method of developing that strength should be chosen based on individual needs, not dogmatic adherence to what’s currently trendy.

2. Hypertrophy Training Has Profound Value

Muscle development isn’t merely cosmetic. Larger muscles:

Create greater potential for force production
Provide enhanced joint protection
Improve metabolic health
Increase bone mineral density
Support longevity and quality of life with aging

The strategic isolation of muscle groups to promote hypertrophy serves both aesthetic and functional purposes that extend far beyond “show muscles.”

3. Exercise Selection Should Be Goal-Driven

Not every exercise needs to mimic a sport movement or daily activity to be valuable. Heavy squats may not look like anything you do in everyday life, but the lower body strength they develop transfers to countless real-world activities. Similarly, a reverse step-up with bodyweight might be the most appropriate exercise for someone rehabilitating a knee injury before returning to squatting movements.

4. Integration, Not Elimination

The most effective training approaches integrate various methodologies rather than eliminating entire categories of exercises. Combining traditional strength training, hypertrophy-focused work, sport-specific movements, and general physical preparedness creates a comprehensive program that addresses all aspects of physical development.

5. Individualization Trumps Ideology

Perhaps most importantly, effective training programs must be individualized. Factors including chronological age, training age, injury history, anatomical structure, goals, available time, equipment access, and personal preferences should dictate program design—not adherence to a particular training philosophy.

The Path Forward: Pragmatic Functionality

It’s time to transcend the limiting narratives that have emerged around functional training and adopt a more nuanced, individualized approach. True functionality isn’t determined by whether an exercise looks “functional” but whether it serves the specific needs and goals of the individual performing it.

A balanced approach—one that strategically incorporates strength training, hypertrophy work, sport-specific movements, and corrective exercises tailored to the individual—represents the most effective training methodology for most people.

The future of effective training lies not in rejecting traditional methods or blindly embracing new trends, but in thoughtfully applying evidence-based principles based on individual needs, goals, and circumstances. Functional training isn’t a universal template—it’s about doing what works best for the individual at any given time.

By embracing this more sophisticated understanding of functionality, we can build training programs that truly enhance performance, aesthetics, and longevity without unnecessary limitations or dogmatic restrictions.

By Peter Rouse