[Allerious]

Originally Posted by Cynic

By what definition? Supine hip extensions and supine hip extensions w/ leg curl greatly improved my ability to move weight under control and balance and therefore improved my ability to move more weight with less incident of injury.

That's just bodyweight floor work that you've described. It's no different from having people perform BW squats, pushups, dips or chins. Leg curls using the ball, maybe, but you don't need an implement to do supine extensions. I'm in favor of such exercise. From a strength perspective, everybody should be able to work with their own bodyweight before they add external resistance. There is a very natural progression from these exercises to their free weight counterparts. BW Squat => DB Squat => BB Squat Elevated Pushup => Floor Pushup => Bench Press and so on

Originally Posted by Cynic

Secondly, where did John advocate pure functional training?

You're reading more than is there.

I was using the opportunity to make a general commentary on the issue, not just to reply to what others had written. I passionately despise functional training and I hope I got that across in my post.

Originally Posted by Cynic

I believe you totally pooch screwed the interpretation of what LD said along with a lot of others. I'm sure LD can defend his own words, but as a precursor:
I think Lost Dog was talking about a program of basic moves (Squat, deadlift, VPUSh, VPULL, etc) to use as assessment once a month or so.

But how much better will someone do on an assessment if said assessment consists of the same program used in that person's training? The answer is kind of obvious. I'm pretty sure I got his message. I'm not sure that you got mine. I was making a point about the importance of training specificity in contrast to the mainstream "cross training" dogma which I fervently despise.

If you want to improve on "squats, deads, pushes and pulls, test max times on planks" then there is no better way of doing it than to regularly include all of those movements into your training.

I understand that he was offering this idea as a suggested compromise to the OP's dilemna. I am advising the OP to reject all compromises in this matter and bludgeon anyone who advocates functional training.

Originally Posted by Lost Dog

Ever?

A stability ball leg curl cannot create a significant stimulus? What about a pushup on a ball strengthening the stabilizers in the shoulder girdle?

I said prime mover stimulus, not stabilizers. Training stabilizers all day isn't going to get an out of shape person into shape.

Originally Posted by Lost Dog

Client likes ball. Give client ball. If you don't, some lame trainer will. Because he ends up quitting the purist who wouldn't give him the ball and goes to some guy who has him squat on the ball, rather than use the ball in an effective manner. If one is a good trainer, maybe you're being irresponsible by not working the ball (or whatever) into the routine to keep him around to benefit from an otherwise stellar routine.

I see your point but it's moot in my case for several reasons:

1) I don't market myself or accept clients from the "fun-seeking" crowd. I look for people who want results and are willing to put in the effort required to get them. This is my chosen niche. Qualifying your client prospects is one of the most important things you can do as a trainer. Simply put, not every person who walks in the door is going to be a viable prospect. Many of them won't be at a commercial facility. And I'm fine with that.

2) I have comprehensive systems in place for client retention, billing, sales, etc...I don't simply wing these things. What I lack in terms of "fun factor", I make up for in other areas.

Originally Posted by Lost Dog

I want to think I'm reading your whole post wrong, but I'm just not sure. I think you phrased things badly, making it hard to tell whether you're agreeing, disagreeing, or showing solidarity with John and Dan. Maybe you could clarify?

It's pretty much the latter. Dan is on the right track as a trainer and I was addressing his questions as to why the industry operates the way it does wrt funct. training.

What I'm trying to say is that Dan is not being told to avoid basic exercises because his supervisors honestly believe that variety produces better results. His supervisors don't give a shit about results. Their advice is based entirely on sales, marketing and promotion. It has nothing to do with getting people better results. He's giving these crooks and phoneys too much credit.

I just had an interview where everything was going well until I had to describe my training methods and the guy wasn't too happy when I mentioned that I wasn't a big practitioner of the functional bullshit (I didn't call it that, heh). The hiring manager stated quite frankly that the purpose of doing functional training was to confuse the hell out of clients and keep them coming back for more training.

I can't argue with that, from a sales perspective. It works. But that is not how you get someone results.

In the end, the blame must always fall on the dumbass consumer. Sales people simply offer what people want to buy. It's the idiots signing up for "kickboxing workout" classes and paying the stability ball trainers who need to be taken behind a shed and whipped.