Functional training has be¬come quite a buzz-term of late, almost to the point that op-ed pieces on the topic are themselves a trendy item (this contribution excluded of course). The flow of these pieces has been lamentably predictable… THIS is func¬tional training… THAT is not. This tactic is occasion¬ally helpful in that terms like BOSU and Pilates are set in the proper context: limited functionality. People who Olympic lift, practice gymnastics, MMA, highland games, and track and field, to name a few, “get” the fact that what passes for function¬ality for many has no basis in reality when performance really matters. Previous is¬sues of the CrossFit Journal have delineated what func¬tionality is to an amazingly sophisticated degree: Core to extremity, universal mo¬tor recruitment patterns, and neuro-endocrine response are concepts and or results of functional training. This is a profound insight and an area that is ripe for further investi¬gation, but I would like to put forward a simple theoretical construct for evaluating the functionality of various ac¬tivities. Let’s call it “Multidi¬mensionality.”

In the book Contact (or this may only happen in the mov¬ie… it has been ages since I read the book, so my apolo¬gies if I missed this), it ap¬pears some scientists on earth have received millions of im¬ages that contain information from an alien civilization. These images appear to fit to¬gether in some way but no one can quite figure out how the system works. One aged and dying billionaire engineer makes the observation that a superior intelligence would not be constrained to send¬ing information in the two di¬mensions typical of writing, but would instead take ad¬vantage of three dimensions to increase the information density of their communica¬tions (the images fit together like a puzzle and were then decipherable). Thus I would assert that functionality has a high degree of multidimen¬sionality.

For an example of multidi¬mensionality, let’s consider permutations of the pull-up. If you have been anywhere near the CF message board at any time in its history, the often heated debate of the kipped vs. dead-hang pull up can be seen. People from the gymnastics and Cross¬Fit community regard the kipped pull-up as more func¬tional (multidimensional) for a variety of reasons: increased power output, ballistic load¬ ing of the shoulder girdle, full body coordi¬nated movement initiated by an explosive hip flexion/extension, improved proprio¬ception due to moving ones body through space… The list is long and can have many iterations. The Dead Hang crowd has com¬plained that the kipped pull-up generates inadequate strength in an absolute sense. I argue against that assertion, but let’s assume for a moment that a dead hang pull up has merit for the sake of increasing absolute strength or simply for another training stim¬ulus… is the standard dead hang pull up the best? For relative experts on the DHPU, I would look to the climbing community and/or Pavel Tsatsouline. One of Pavel’s best contributions has been a concept of full body tension or hyper-irradiation. Not only does this technique improve strength, but also it protects joints and prevents injury.

So… the dead hang pull up practitioner (DHPP) would fasten a weight about their waist, grasp the bar, tighten every muscle in his or her body (hopefully) and grind away at pull-ups. Effective strength training to be sure, but what about a multidi¬mensional move like the L-sit pull-up? In the L-sit, the task of a full body contraction is requisite to the activity. One CAN do DHPU’s without full body tension but L-sits, front and back levers necessitate contraction of every muscular element, and there is no middle ground. An additional feature of the L-sit PU is the rotational moment at the hips, which must be overcome by increased (relative to DHPU) grip force. This increased grip force increases the “hyperirradiation” of the exercise. Those concerned with pro¬gressive overload need only borrow a trick from Coach Sommer and take a 2-3’ piece of Theraband and tie it into a loop. Thread the Theraband through the opening of a 1 1/4 lb weight and then slide the feet through the loops of Theraband. The weighted L-sit PU, because of the lever arm of the legs, is amazingly challenging. All of the benefits mentioned above are greatly increased with what appears to be minute loading. The core is trained in a highly effective way, something that becomes very obvious to the L-sit PU practitioner. If the L-sit PU seems unchallenging to the DHPU crowd, perhaps the front lever PU could be of interest.

This whole idea of multidimensionality oc¬curred to me after the discussions found here. Somewhere deep in that discussion I make the point that it is the very complex¬ity of gymnastics and the Olympic lifts that makes them desirable for athletic training and are in fact the only route to elite fitness as defined by CrossFit. This statement was made to a person who claimed a Westside Barbell approach to training would yield superior fitness, that swings, deadlifts and keg tosses are superior to the Olympic lifts for athletic preparation. This seems an eas¬ily tested claim, particularly in the case of simplistic one-dimensional training trumping complexi¬ty. Swings and keg tosses are not superior modalities to the snatch. This is fairly eas¬ily proven by the fact that an individual proficient in the snatch can perform swings and keg tosses with the best of that crowd, but the reverse is not true. Push-ups, pull-ups and sit-ups are gateways to levers, press to handstands and basic tumbling. Sledgehammer work will never be a hammer throw. These basic movements are subsets of a greater whole that encom¬passes multiple training stimuli and there¬fore elicit a more integrated and impressive training effect.

When one chases the multidimensional training effects to be found in gymnastics, throwing events, the Olympic lifts and mar¬tial arts, progress will be obtained in all the parameters of fitness while avoiding the dead-end of fringe athleticism and sub-par fitness.