Forget Functional Fitness

Functional fitness sounds innovative, superior, and relevant. Why wouldn’t you want to be functional? You may have seen an article or post claiming that you should:

• “Train movements, not muscles.”
• “Train for real life, not machines.”
• “Train for function, not aesthetics.”
• “Train muscle groups, not isolation.”

These statements may leave you wondering whether your workout is in vain if you train your pectorals for hypertrophy using a pec fly machine. These functional training claims often have intriguing recommendations based on slippery slope logic.

This logic suggests that any exercise you choose isn’t sufficiently functional.  You can always enhance its functionality by adjusting the position, range of motion, speed, setup, and equipment, among other factors. However, isn’t that the same as tailoring training to the current goal or need? 

However, research indicates that the term “functional” is, at best, ambiguous and redundant. The terminology and definitions of various types of functional fitness (at least six types cited in research) lack consistency, confusing what functional fitness actually entails. 

In this article, we will examine the research on functional fitness, its definition, the distinction between functional and non-functional fitness, the arbitrary classification of exercises as functional, and the history of this marketing term.

The Origins of Functional Fitness

According to the ACSM’s annual worldwide fitness trends survey, functional fitness has been a top 10 trend almost every year since the survey’s inception in 2006 (Thompson, 2006). This new trend likely originated from CrossFit®, a company that was the first to brand a workout that combined multiple components of fitness into a single workout. 

Before CrossFit, nothing had as significant an impact on the way a workout could be structured. Functional fitness may have been a term used to describe CrossFit-style workouts in general, and the trend was established.

Lack of a Clear Definition and Terminology Confusion

Research in exercise science, sports medicine, and related fields is abundant with studies examining the effects of functional fitness versus a control on specific populations. However, research uses the term “functional” differently from study to study, and there is no consensus on what functional fitness is (Soriano et al., 2022; Dominski et al., 2022; Ide et al., 2022; Pereira et al., 2025; Corbin & Le Masurier, 2014). 

There is even an organization dedicated to functional fitness, the International Functional Fitness Federation, yet its mission statement and “about” webpage don’t define what makes its fitness federation “functional” (https://functionalfitness.sport/). 

Pereira et al. noted this vaguely defined term and set out to define it. It took an entire research study and the input of 13 industry experts to agree upon a definition. They defined functional fitness as:

 An approach that enhances human performance based on individual goals in sports, daily life, rehabilitation, or fitness, considering task specificity and individual responsiveness. 

However, redundancy was noted in this definition, leading to a proposal to eliminate the distinction between functional training and general training concepts.

Functional Training vs. Traditional Training—Is There a Real Difference?

Functional training implies there is a distinct way to train non-functionally. Traditional training is often used as the control to test the efficacy of functional training. If you think about it, improving one’s fitness inherently enhances the body’s function in some aspect, so why create redundancy by calling it functional fitness? 

Using bicep curls as a basic example, machine bicep curls can improve the function of the bicep muscles, increase their strength, and promote muscular hypertrophy. Let’s use the Smith machine squat as another example. While training this exercise, the squat movement pattern is performed, allowing the lower body muscles to adapt and function more strongly and effectively. 

Multiple studies in the literature have noted that functional training and traditional exercises show no significant distinction or differentiation, and both follow the foundational principles of strength and conditioning (Palmieri-Smith et al., 2022; Xiao et al., 2025; Beiniec & Grabara, 2025; Pereira et al., 2025). In the functional fitness literature, it is common to see one study label a push-up or split squat as “traditional” and another as “functional” (Niknam et al., 2025; Xiao et al., 2025).

The Arbitrary Categorization of Exercises as “Functional”

A conceptual review on functional fitness outlines ways to make your training more practical. (Da Silva-Grigoletto, et al., 2022):

This suggests that exercise is more beneficial (more challenging and effective) when you’re not sitting or moving slowly. However, this doesn’t apply to every type of exercise. For instance, a controlled bilateral leg press might be far more advantageous for an older adult with difficulty getting in and out of a chair than a single-leg explosive squat. Simply making an exercise faster, more difficult, or more complex doesn’t necessarily guarantee improved results or achievement of fitness goals.

The ways to make your exercise more functional in the table above point to an exercise’s functionality as more of a continuum, not a black-and-white label. For example, a seated machine overhead press may be classified as lower in the functional fitness continuum. 

In other words, a specific exercise can possess a degree of functionality based on how it advances you toward a goal that satisfies your needs. The same exercise may be more functional for one person and less for another. However, this concept is more closely aligned with individualized training than with functional training. There is a distinction between random training and individualized training, which is directed toward a specific goal. Nevertheless, most people do not train randomly.

Functional fitness claims to enhance strength, speed, coordination, balance, and flexibility, which have been key fitness elements for a long time (Stephens-Sarlós et al., 2025). Other researchers argue that exercises in functional fitness aren’t fundamentally different from those in other training programs (Xia et al., 2025; Niknam et al., 2025; Soriano et al., 2022). 

“Functional” as a Marketing Buzzword Rather than a Distinct Concept

In many functional classes, workshops, and training styles, it is challenging to distinguish what makes them functional from those that are non-functional or semi-functional. With no agreed-upon definition, the term seems more like a marketing buzzword than one that genuinely helps explain the activity.

The word “functional” triggers an emotional response, leading people to believe that a workout will offer additional benefits beyond just getting stronger or fitter. For example, seeing a “Functional HIIT” class rather than “HIIT” would sound more sophisticated or superior, making clients feel like they were getting something premium. Here are some similar examples in life:

• Gourmet salad vs. salad
• Artisanal bread vs. bread
• Intuitive parenting vs. parenting
• Hand-woven fabric vs. fabric
• Military-grade plastic vs. plastic
• Collaborative workspace vs. office
• Luxury activewear vs. leggings
• Holistic wellness vs. wellness

Conclusion

In summary, the term “functional fitness” lacks a clear and consistent definition, often serving more as a marketing label than a meaningful training distinction. While its rise in popularity has led to creative and engaging programming, the idea that traditional exercises are less practical or relevant is not supported by research. 

Most exercises—whether performed on a machine, with free weights, or using bodyweight are valuable when they’re aligned with a person’s individual goals and needs. Rather than chasing a vague notion of functionality, trainers and trainees alike would benefit more from evidence-based principles, specificity, and purposeful programming.

References

1. Bieniec A, Grabara M. Does functional strength training program improve ice speed and agility in young elite ice hockey players? Functional strength training’s impact on hockey performance. Front Physiol. 2025 Mar 12;16:1448495. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2025.1448495. PMID: 40144546; PMCID: PMC11936901.
2. Corbin, C. B., & Le Masurier, G. (2014). *Fitness for life* (6th ed.). Human Kinetics.
3. Da Silva-Grigoletto, Marzo & Resende-Neto, Antônio & La Scala Teixeira, Cauê. (2020). Functional training: A conceptual update. Revista Brasileira de Cineantropometria e Desempenho Humano. 22. 10.1590/1980-0037.2020v22e72646.
4. Dominski FH, Tibana RA, Andrade A. “Functional Fitness Training”, CrossFit, HIMT, or HIFT: What Is the Preferable Terminology? Front Sports Act Living. 2022 May 26;4:882195. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2022.882195. PMID: 35721876; PMCID: PMC9199896.
5. Functional Fitness. (n.d.). Home. Functional Fitness. https://functionalfitness.sport/
6. Ide BN, Silvatti AP, Marocolo M, Santos CPC, Silva BVC, Oranchuk DJ, Mota GR. Is There Any Non-functional Training? A Conceptual Review. Front Sports Act Living. 2022 Jan 13;3:803366. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2021.803366. PMID: 35098121; PMCID: PMC8794631.
7. Niknam A, Gaeini AA, Hamidvand A, Jahromi MK, Oviedo GR, Kordi M, Safarpour F. High-intensity functional training modulates oxidative stress and improves physical performance in adolescent male soccer players: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2025 Mar 4;17(1):38. doi: 10.1186/s13102-024-01037-7. PMID: 40038817; PMCID: PMC11877747.
8. Palmieri-Smith RM, Brown SR, Wojtys EM, Krishnan C. Functional Resistance Training Improves Thigh Muscle Strength after ACL Reconstruction: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2022 Oct 1;54(10):1729-1737. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002958. Epub 2022 May 12. PMID: 35551165; PMCID: PMC9481660.
9. Pereira HV, Teixeira DS, Fisher J, Fleck SJ, Helms E, Ide BN, Izquierdo M, Nedergaard A, Philips S, Pinto RS, Plotkin DL, Turner AN, Schoenfeld BJ. International consensus on the definition of functional training: Modified e-Delphi method. J Sports Sci. 2025 Mar 18:1-9. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2025.2477393. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 40102701.
10. Soriano MA, Boullosa D, Amaro-Gahete F. Editorial: Functional fitness/high intensity functional training for health and performance. Front Physiol. 2022 Sep 14;13:1024809. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2022.1024809. PMID: 36187802; PMCID: PMC9516109.
11. Stephens-Sarlós E, Horváth-Pápai A, Tóth EE, Ihász F, Somogyi A, Szabo A. Relationship between primitive reflexes, functional fitness, handgrip strength, and physical activity in older adults aged 65 and over. Physiol Rep. 2025 Apr;13(7):e70229. doi: 10.14814/phy2.70229. PMID: 40151067; PMCID: PMC11950628.
12. Strand KL, Cherup NP, Totillo MC, Castillo DC, Gabor NJ, Signorile JF. Periodized Resistance Training With and Without Functional Training Improves Functional Capacity, Balance, and Strength in Parkinson’s Disease. J Strength Cond Res. 2021 Jun 1;35(6):1611-1619. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004025. PMID: 33927114.
13. Thompson, Walter R. Ph.D., FACSM, FAACVPR. Worldwide Survey Reveals Fitness Trends for 2007. ACSM’s Health & Fitness Journal 10(6):p 8-14, November 2006. | DOI: 10.1249/01.FIT.0000252519.52241.39
14. Xiao W, Bu T, Zhao F, Zhang J, Bai X, Geok SK. Effects of functional training on skill performance and movement quality among skilled youth male tennis players: A cluster randomized control trial. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2025 Mar 8;17(1):43. doi: 10.1186/s13102-025-01085-7. PMID: 40057803; PMCID: PMC11889926.