Conditioning for Outdoor Sports

Is climbing the best conditioning for climbing?
Does a kayaker need to strength train?
What can I do to get prepared for my hiking trip?


Outdoor sports have certainly made it to the map. Despite the extreme classification of some of these sports, you could hardly call them marginal sports anymore. Apart from activities such as base jumping or deep sea diving, outdoor sports are gaining wider popularity and almost becoming mainstream.
As these extreme sports grow, so does the knowledge of how to become better at them. Paddle sports, rock climbing, and hiking are all wonderful activities and can be enjoyed even more by engaging in the proper conditioning.

Questions are often raised on the importance of conditioning for these sports as they are becoming more popular at all levels. One could think that as the extreme sports are often intense and total by nature, add-on conditioning would not be necessary. Now, you cannot get around the fact that the sport itself will not prepare you best for the sport. You cannot become a kayaker by lifting dumbbells, just like you cannot become a climber by doing push-ups. The connection between specific movement patterns and body’s ability to perform can only be produced in the particular movements of the sport itself. Only the sport itself trains the body in right ratio of different motor components. For example; rock climbing involves strength, balance, coordination, flexibility, endurance and power in a specific formula that can only be reached by climbing. However, the human body seems to require a diverse combination of stimulations to become an optimally performing specimen and that is where conditioning comes into the picture. This is supported by the fact that every single successful athlete dedicates a considerable amount of time and effort into programmed sport conditioning.

The focus here is on conditioning that is not performed within the sport activity itself, supplemental conditioning, if you will. As examples of conditioning within the sport, kayakers can condition themselves by paddling sprints of various durations, intensities and recoveries; climbers can perform reactive “dyno” training repeatedly for power and lock-out strength; hikers can focus on the performance specificity by carrying different loads with different speeds.
Supplemental conditioning consists of exercises that are designed to assist in following areas:

- Enhancing the strengths and weeding out the weaknesses of the performance.
- Optimizing body’s overall movement ability and performance capacity in order to enhance adaptation through sport specific training.
- Preventing injuries that might be caused by repetitive movement patterns.

Got chalk?

Tommi

PS: If human beings are perceived as potentials rather than problems, as possessing strengths instead of weaknesses, as unlimited rather that dull and unresponsive, then they thrive and grow to their capabilities. Bob Conklin

Functional confusion?

So what is the best way to train?

- pilates?
- strongman training?
- stretching?
- spinning?
- functional training?

Is there something wrong with the question?

I guess we can mostly blame ourselves as professionals in the field for the fact that confusion over which "training style" is the best, is evident at the moment.

The whole premise of calling functional training a style of training is misleading, I think. We have started to define functional training based on the exercise equipment that we use instead of focusing on the the whole concept of function. "If you use a bosu or a medicine ball or a resistance band it is definitely functional, right?" I am not sure if it is that simple.

"Functional" is not defined by the equipment or by the exercise - it is more or less defined by its effectiveness in enhancing human movement. It may be enhancing everyday life, improving sport performance or correcting poor movement patterns. All of that can be "functional" regardless of which equipment you use.

I have a question that I am pondering myself. Maybe you already have an answer to this...?

If an exercise is very effective in terms of the goal it is designed to reach, is it safe to call it "functional?"

In other words, If I know the goal of my client and I choose an approach that will be very effective getting him/her there....have I already fulfilled the requirements of "functional training?"

What do you think?

So, what if my client's goal is to grow his left biceps as big as possible? A very specific and admirable goal indeed....I can definitely design a program that is pretty effective in terms of his goal (or hers...) but will it enhance human movement as a whole?

(a stupid example. Sorry, it is Monday.)

Then on the other hand, it could be defined as training for human movement - training for this goal does require movement after all.

What if I train a powerlifter that focuses on bench press? Is bench press as an exercise functional for him (or her, I apologize for the discrimination in my examples, let's call this guy Mike from now on to avoid more confusion..) If bench press is functional for Mike, is it functional for everyone?

What if the bench press enhances the bench press but causes limitations within other dimensions of human movement? What if Mike's gait gets distorted or the mobility of his upper back decreases as a result of bench press? Is it functional now?

What if Mike performs a lot of exercises that also enhance his proprioception, balance, mobility and stability to compliment his bench press?

Or what about Linda whose work consists of squeezing a phone between her shoulder and head while typing an email seated on an office chair that is set too low for her?

What would her functional training program look like?
________

How can we examine this "mystery" of function and functional training?

Could we use some "functional filters" to get closer to an answer?

My thought process today is that in order for an exercise to be functional is has to go through three "functional filters."

Functional filter no.1: "Function is determined by the structure of the human being."

Functional filter no.2: "Function refers to an objective of the training, not the method."

Functional filter no.3: "Function is defined by the needs and characteristics of each individual."

Hmmmmm.....I start to find loopholes in my theory already as I am writing.....

Would these filters even work?

Or would we need them in the first place?

What is the function of this blog entry anyway?

How did I get so confused?

....Anything for a headache, anyone?

Tommi

PS: If confusion is the first step to knowledge, I must be a genius. Larry Leisner