Machines Are Not Functional, but Turkish Get-Ups Are, Right?
Brandon Hyatt, MS, CSCS
December 4, 2024
Functional Training Defined in 2024
Among the various training modalities, “functional training” remains the most ambiguously defined and misunderstood concept. It purports to enhance strength, flexibility, balance, coordination, and activities of daily living (ADLs) while reducing injury risk and muscle loss—outcomes that conventional training achieves equally effectively (1, 3, 5, 6, 8). This raises critical questions: Does conventional training not already address these outcomes effectively? And what, then, constitutes non-functional training?
After all, the core purpose of any exercise is to deliver a targeted training stimulus to enhance a specific physiological or performance-related outcome. Performing an exercise that fails to elicit a specific adaptive response is virtually impossible. Is the fitness industry merely overcomplicating matters with overly esoteric terminology to project expertise? In this article, we critically evaluate the utility of “functional training” as a distinct training modality.
What Makes Training Functional? Is Non-Functional Training Even Possible?
Is functional training defined by the exclusion of machines? Does it require balance on unstable surfaces? Must it incorporate rotational movements? Is it inherently superior to strength training due to purported improvements in functional capacity?
According to a conceptual review on functional fitness, the following strategies can enhance the functionality of a training program (2):
| Strategies | Example |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------------|
| General → Specific | Leg press → Squat |
| Lying/Sitting → Standing| Seated overhead press → Standing overhead press |
| Uniplanar → Multiplanar | Single-plane exercise → Multi-plane exercise |
| Slow → Fast | Controlled exercise → Explosive exercise |
| Bilateral → Unilateral | Squat → Pistol squat |
This framework suggests that exercises become more “functional” (i.e., more aligned with real-world movement demands) when they progress from general to specific, seated to standing, single-plane to multi-plane, slow to fast, or bilateral to unilateral. However, this logic is not universally applicable. For example, a controlled bilateral leg press may be far more appropriate for an older adult struggling with chair transfers than an explosive single-leg squat. Increasing an exercise’s speed, complexity, or difficulty does not guarantee superior adaptations or goal attainment—context and individual needs matter most.
In contrast to the ambiguity of functional training, other modalities (e.g., aerobic training, flexibility training, hypertrophy training, powerlifting) have well-established, consensus-driven definitions. The distinction between aerobic and strength training, for instance, is clear and universally applicable.
A Consensus Definition of Functional Training
To resolve decades of confusion, a panel of internationally published researchers and experts recently proposed a consensus definition of functional training (7):
“Functional training is a physical interventional approach that contributes to the enhancement of human performance—aligned with individual goals in sports, daily life, rehabilitation, or fitness—while accounting for task specificity and the unique responsiveness of each individual.”
A key takeaway from this definition is that functional training is not defined by equipment, movement planes, or exercise selection—but by its alignment with individual goals and task-specific demands. The experts explicitly note that even bodybuilding (a modality often criticized as “non-functional”) can be functional if it supports an individual’s goals (e.g., improving muscle mass for metabolic health).
Crucially, this definition frames functionality as a continuum, not a binary label. An exercise is not inherently “functional” or “non-functional”—its value depends on how well it moves a person closer to their unique goals. For example, a barbell bench press may be highly functional for a powerlifter aiming to increase chest strength but minimally functional for an older adult focused on climbing stairs.
An Opposing Perspective: Why the Term “Functional Training” Should Be Abandoned
A 2022 review of functional training sought to determine whether the modality is distinct from conventional strength, power, flexibility, or cardiorespiratory training (4). After analyzing the 20 most recent studies using the term “functional training,” the researchers identified three key findings:
No universal definition exists: Definitions of functional training vary widely across studies and practitioners.
Benefits are indistinguishable from conventional training: The purported advantages of functional training (e.g., improved balance, reduced injury risk) are identical to those of traditional strength or movement training.
Exercise selection overlaps completely: Functional and conventional training often rely on the same exercises—contradicting the myth that functional training requires “special” movements or equipment.
Based on these results, the researchers recommend discontinuing the use of the term “functional training” to eliminate confusion and mitigate misconceptions.
Final Thoughts
Both conventional training and functional training—regardless of how the latter is defined—are effective. All purposeful exercise targets individual goals and elicits “functional” adaptations (e.g., jumping higher, lifting heavier, climbing stairs easier) (2). Since all meaningful training is goal-directed and individualized, the term “functional training” adds no unique value beyond what is already inherent to intentional exercise.
After weighing both perspectives, the most straightforward solution to the confusion is simple: Abandon the term “functional training.” Focus instead on individualized, goal-aligned training—the core principle that has always defined effective exercise.
References
Balachandran A, Martins MM, De Faveri FG, Alan O, Cetinkaya F, Signorile JF. Functional strength training: Seated machine vs standing cable training to improve physical function in elderly. Exp Gerontol. 2016 Sep;82:131–8. doi: 10.1016/j.exger.2016.06.012.
Da Silva-Grigoletto M, Resende-Neto A, La Scala Teixeira C. Functional training: A conceptual update. Revista Brasileira de Cineantropometria e Desempenho Humano. 2020;22. doi: 10.1590/1980-0037.2020v22e72646.
do Nascimento DM, Machado KC, Bock PM, et al. Functional training improves peak oxygen consumption and quality of life of individuals with heart failure: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2023 Jul 29;23(1):381. doi: 10.1186/s12872-023-03404-7.
Ide BN, Silvatti AP, Marocolo M, et al. Is There Any Non-functional Training? A Conceptual Review. Front Sports Act Living. 2022 Jan 13;3:803366. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2021.803366.
Khazaei L, Parnow A, Amani-Shalamzari S. Comparing the effects of traditional resistance training and functional training on the bio-motor capacities of female elite taekwondo athletes. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2023 Oct 20;15(1):139. doi: 10.1186/s13102-023-00754-9.
Kong PW, Kan TYW, Mohamed Jamil RAGB, et al. Functional versus conventional strength and conditioning programs for back injury prevention in emergency responders. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022 Sep 9;10:918315. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.918315.
Pereira H, Teixeira D, Fisher J, et al. International Consensus on the Definition of Functional Training. 2024.
Silva DR, Meireles SM, Brumini C, Natour J. Effectiveness of functional training versus resistance exercise in patients with psoriatic arthritis: randomized controlled trial. Adv Rheumatol. 2023 Dec 13;63(1):58. doi: 10.1186/s42358-023-00342-y.
