“Discussing the benefits of NON-‘functional’ training”
I am sure that most will be puzzled by the title of this post. The reason for the confusion likely arises in the way many define the word “functional” itself… which I argue is the root cause of a common problem…
In an environment of conditioning professionals and manual therapists postulating that their method of training provides the most “functional” and “neurologically based” benefits whilst that of others are “non-functional” do so due to their “segmentalization,” we have all gotten caught up in the idea that tissue structure plays no role in movement capacity and injury prevention. It seems the ‘popular’ concept of the time is that “all things are connected” and that to train structures independent of function is NEVER necessary. However is this true? …or was the idea born out of a “my training is more complex (and thus better) than your training” struggle amongst the trend setters.
View original post 866 more words