The following is a special guest blog post by a good friend of mine named Tom Gifford who is the author of The Great Cardo Myth. This is an article he put together about how my style of training differs from that of the “traditional” exercise that we have always been taught. Enjoy!

When you look at the field of exercise about 10 years ago, you would see a very different world that you see today. You would find the Body for Life craze was just getting started, exercise balls were not main stream yet, interval training was in its infancy, kettlebells were almost unheard of, and people seemed to be using either bodybuilding or extreme endurance programs to try and get lean.

Fast forward to today and you find a very different world. You see bootcamps, corrective exercise, Planet Fitness style gyms, and functional training have all become extremely popular.

So, the question is, what will things look like in 10 years? Will the things that are popular today still be popular, or will the field continue to evolve into things that are still in its infancy?

The field of exercise is always changing so much that it’s hard to say, but I will predict that things will keep evolving, keep changing, and fitness training will be very different 10 years from now.

To me, this is an interesting question to think about. I like to look at people who are doing things differently and wonder if what they are doing will one day be the new craze of fitness training.

10 years ago hardly anyone knew what kettlebells were. Now you can buy them at Target.

You might say that I am kind of a “nerd” when it comes to studying exercise programming. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of fitness to me is the science of program design and how it constantly evolves.

The more I study how to design exercise programs for a wide variety of people, it seems more like an art than it does a science. It has always intrigued me that you could give 100 fitness professionals the same client and have 100 programs that are completely different from one another. All of them may be effective, yet they could utilize completely different training methodologies and philosophies.

That brings us to when I met Barry Lovelace.

In June 2007 I was at Perform Better in Providence, RI when I first met Barry Lovelace. We were both at a hands on work shop and I introduced myself. We started talking about our fitness training philosophies, and for whatever reason we ended up getting into a discussion that lasted for a few hours.

There is one thing that intrigued me the most about talking with Barry that day. His training philosophy seemed to do everything that was exactly the opposite of what is to me while in college for Kinesiology at Penn State, in research labs I worked in (both in the US and Australia), from certification manuals, and from the rest of the main stream fitness industry.

The stuff he was telling me was working for his clients seemed really far out there. I mean, I am talking about no periodization for athletes OR for the average fat loss client, no progressions, no corrective exercise, no heavy loads, and virtually no traditional exercise.

The best way I can put it is that the training consists of nothing but “functional intensity”, which is a term that might be confusing to some.

At first it seemed like there was no way this could be an actual training philosophy that worked when applied to the real world.

Now, if you stayed on the pulse of the fitness industry for any amount of time you know that this kind of training philosophy really goes against the grain of traditionalism.

Virtually all certification manuals recommend different periodization models. Almost all the common periodization models are based solely on manipulating loading parameters and rest periods. Corrective exercise has become incredibly popular (you can actually get a Master’s degree in it). Functional progressions are virtually a science.

And then there is Barry’s style of training.

His training style is based on functional exercise, core training, resistance bands, unstable surfaces, and just about any other type of functional training equipment you can think of. However, the biggest thing his training style is based on is being endlessly creative.

Maybe one of the things I liked so much about Barry’s stuff is that he has never spent time in a research lab. He has spent many years “in the trenches” training clients and constantly refining his techniques. This resonates with me because I often find there is a huge gap between what works in the text book and what works in the real world. The people I like to study the most are the ones who are out there in the field day in and day out trying new things and always making it better.

It is funny how someone with a few letters after their name could write a whole book on periodization and never train a client in their life. Needless to say, all the science stuff is great and is very beneficial, but for those of us training people every day it sometimes leaves a gap between real world practicality and textbook theory.

Barry’s style of functional training certainly goes against the stereotype that lots of fitness professionals have. See, I have been traveling all around the country to lots of fitness seminars over the last 5 or so years. After listening to lots of presentation, speaking to lots of fitness pros and strength/conditioning coaches, I have found that functional training is something that seems to be loved or hated. Up until now, there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of middle ground.

When you mention functional training to the fitness pros that think it is equivalent to the plague (that is a little bit of an exaggeration, but it illustrates the point), they usually picture an overweight person or an athlete standing 1 leg on a balance pad or sitting on a stability ball with 1 foot on the ground while lifting 2lb pink dumbbells. They often seem to think that the phrase “functional training” is equivalent to zero intensity - and all too often this is the case when people try to apply it and do not truly understand it.

Then when you mention traditional weight training (heavy loads, muscle group isolation, etc.) to the fitness pros that love functional training and favor corrective exercise, they usually think traditional lifting is for “meatheads” that have no appreciation for functionality and haven’t evolved their philosophy since the 1970’s.

Like I stated before, there does not seem to be much middle ground.

The funny thing is, Barry’s stuff is completely different than either of the two schools of thought I just mentioned. It is so radically different that I believe you truly have to see it to understand it.

So, in October 2007 I went to spend a weekend hanging out with Barry.

I only live 2.5 hours away in State College, PA, so it was a pretty short trip. We spent lots of time in the gym, traveled around Philly, and played golf. We spent the weekend sharing training ideas, but I was mostly curious about seeing his stuff in action and experiencing it first hand.

What I came out with was an entirely different idea of what functional training is. The stuff I was doing with bands, stability balls, kettle bells, medicine balls, etc. were things that I have never seen before AND it was really intense. It was a far cry away from the barbell squats, bicep curls, skull crushers, and everything else you commonly see in the gym.

Now, you could argue against the philosophy and say that any type of training focusing on functional equipment is not based on science and is too far “out there”.

But, one of Barry’s athletes who is a 5″6 female volleyball player trains this way, and she was the starting Middle Blocker and #1 blocker on her college team as a FRESHMEN - which is a pretty big feat to accomplish. That is not a typo: a 5″6 volleyball player that Barry trains was the #1 blocker on her team. There are lots of other success stories I have seen from this type of training, but I will let Barry talk more about that stuff. All I want to know is 1) does it work 2) how well does it work and 3) is it working better than a lot of the stuff that is currently out there?

The focus of this writing is to share my experience about functional training, specifically my experience of observing Barry’s training methods.
Like I said in the beginning of this article, I study a lot of different methods of fitness training and program design. I could write volumes about what I have experienced, what I have applied, what I agree with, what I disagree with, etc. I like to study the best and then test it out for myself.

This past April I traveled to Boca Raton, FL to spend a week studying functional training with Juan Carlos Santana.

His methods are certainly different than Barry’s, but still have an emphasis on incorporating functional training into each workout. I was able to spend a lot of time talking with him about what functional training is and what is isn’t.

Now, I am not going go into great depth about our conversation and start saying “Santana says this” or “Santana says that” because someone will probably take it way out of context and find some alternative meaning that was not intended.

But I can say with complete confidence that anyone that thinks functional training is a total joke doesn’t have a solid understanding of it. Likewise, anyone that uses functional training and makes it consist of “circus acts” and uses zero intensity doesn’t have a solid understanding of it either. Sorry, but a 300lb person does not need to stand on a balance pad and cover their left eye with their left hand whole doing 5lb bicep curls with their right. That’s not functional training. In fact, I am not sure what that is….

It is hard to say what functional training is because the people that are really good at it all seem to use it somewhat differently.

What I have found in people who are veterans of functional training (like Barry and Santana) are that they use methods that are always evolving and they are trainers that use creativity as if it were their own personal expression of art.

I have taken stuff that Barry uses and applied it to both Division 1 athletes and senior citizens who have never worked out before and have found it to be incredibly effective in both situations. But that is not all - I have used these training methods in one way or another with virtually all of my clients and have found tremendous success with it.

Now, I mentioned at the beginning of this article that the thing that fascinated me about Barry’s training style is that it goes against the grain of almost all that is traditional. No periodization, no progressions, no excessive loads, very little “traditional” exercise, etc.

But, it makes his clients lose weight and get tremendously stronger and his athletes jump higher and move more efficiently, so it is obviously doing something right!

When you look at all the common training techniques that are out there right now, one can ask the question that is our industry teaching them because they work or are we doing them because that’s what our certification manual taught us? History shows us that thinking outside the box can lead to amazing things.
In fact, lots of the great trainers I know have developed their own style that is drastically different from other peoples. Then debates about the best training philosophy break out and almost lead to fights while at seminars - just kidding…well almost kidding.

But you don’t need to take my word for it.

I can say that you need to check out Barry’s stuff. See it for yourself and make your own decision.

Just be prepared to see some stuff you have never seen before and don’t expect to be “hammering your pecs” on the bench press =)