[quote]rawda wrote:
watch out guys! the trolls are unifying.
[/quote]
Too bad they aren’t good at it.
I believe that almost all compound movements should done explosively or the trainee should attempt to move them explosively.
The key point being that you cannot produce maximum force and velocity on an unstable surface.
If you are benching your 1RM, you should attempt to move it as fast as possible, even if it ends up taking a few seconds to complete. You will not be able to fully recruit these fibers if you have to worry about falling off the ball.
-MAtt
[quote]CHEKonIT wrote:
tveddy wrote:
The problem with the swiss ball is that when you press, not only do you push the bar away from you, you also move into the ball. This give will hinder the explosiveness that could be attained from being in a fixed position. Think of it like this, when you fire a bullet all the compression goes into a fixed position in the firing chamber. This causes the bullet to achieve a greater velocity (or explosiveness). Conversely when you fire a rpg the gas is expelled out the back. While the rpg is rocket propelled and achieves its maximum velocity after it leaves the gun, the back of the rpg is open to relieve the “kick” from the holder who would be acting as the fixed point were the rpg built as a rifle. Back to the swiss ball, while the stabilizer muscles in the core are also getting a workout, benching on a rigid bench will allow a greater explosiveness to be developed because the user is not moving away from the weight.
Good call. If it’s explosive movements you’re after, stick to your plyometric push-ups and heavy medicine ball tosses.
[/quote]
[quote]De sleeplijn wrote:
CHEKonIT wrote:
SWR-1240 wrote:Afraid that they’re in a much better position to prove you wrong as opposed to the average T-Nation poster?
Unlike you, I don’t mind being proven wrong. It’s called growth.
Maybe if I stuck my fingers in my ears, I’d be as blissfully ignorant as you.
He gets on and bags anyone who says anything outside the bodybuilding square. [/quote]
Where did you get that from?
I’m not a bodybuilder, I powerlift. I don’t lift for size, I lift for strength first, and any size that comes along to help me with my powerlifting goals.
What are your goals, how far have you come and what do you like about this site?
If you had problems with any of my other posts, why have you not commented on any of them before?
[quote]CHEKonIT wrote:
tveddy wrote:
The problem with the swiss ball is that when you press, not only do you push the bar away from you, you also move into the ball. This give will hinder the explosiveness that could be attained from being in a fixed position. Think of it like this, when you fire a bullet all the compression goes into a fixed position in the firing chamber. This causes the bullet to achieve a greater velocity (or explosiveness). Conversely when you fire a rpg the gas is expelled out the back. While the rpg is rocket propelled and achieves its maximum velocity after it leaves the gun, the back of the rpg is open to relieve the “kick” from the holder who would be acting as the fixed point were the rpg built as a rifle. Back to the swiss ball, while the stabilizer muscles in the core are also getting a workout, benching on a rigid bench will allow a greater explosiveness to be developed because the user is not moving away from the weight.
Good call. If it’s explosive movements you’re after, stick to your plyometric push-ups and heavy medicine ball tosses.
[/quote]
ahaha. thats kinda funny. I train to be explosive with a lot higher weights than that though.
[quote]rawda wrote:
you have been warned. . .[/quote]
If I said that I weighed half the weight that you bench, do you think you could come around to my house and push me around?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Matgic, your posts in this thread are well thought out and I agree with all of it. I find it hilarious that “functional” now supposedly has some all encompassing meaning or that balancing on a ball now makes you more “functional”. I have yet to run into the situation in life where I was suddenly reduced to the strength of a school girl in spite of benching as much as I do simply because I haven’t been “ball balancing”. I want to see the physiques of those who claim my training isn’t good enough or “nonfunctional”. I want to see what it is I am missing.[/quote]
I have actually seen people who were strong in their limbs, but didn’t have a strong enough core to be able to be able to transfer this strength. However I think that thier problems could have been remedied by lifting without a belt.
[quote]rawda wrote:
watch out guys! the trolls are unifying.
if we don’t watch out, jjay is going to join these two, and then they’ll be unstoppable!
you have been warned. . .[/quote]
Great post dipshit.
I am at a loss to see why anyone would be dubbed a troll for simply posting something like this.
Holy shit. Two people agree while the masses do not, they must be trolls.
By the way, rather than jump on at the end of a discussion, have a read through the full 4 pages and you will probably find it educational.
Perhaps you will be able to add a little more in future than a failed attempt at humour by accusing people of trolling.
Mate, as someone who has also come from your ranks i’d suggest you carefully think about what antogonistic approach you take when it comes to “my way or the highway training” I fell into the same trap for a while. How do you suggest a powerlifter trains for the bench press if bench presses are so bad? Or should they do away with the sport altogether? Anyone can do a “light” bench press and not hurt themselves. The only problem that arises with some of these “unsanctioned” movements is when really heavy weights, no structural balance, no change in exercise prescrition, and a dangerous ROM is involved. My guess is you’ve just got your chek qualification and are champing at the bit to re-educate the world. That’s great. Be passionate. Go hard. Power to ya. But i bet in 5 years you’ll be slightly embarrassed at your over eager nature.
CHEKonIt is Paul Chek. Next he is going to explain to us the importance of the color and consistency of our shit and to not eat out of plastic containers because of the dreaded petrochemicals.
This thread is gay.
Let’s just sort this out. Benching on a ball will help strengthen muscles that aren’t normaly stimulated on a bench. That is good stuff for the core and stabilizers. However you cannot use maximal weights or use it for explosive lifting. That’s where your bench comes in. I do think that the ROM allowed on a ball can be beneficial for hypertrophy as well as shoulder mobility. So let’s not discredit either because they both have their place in training.
[quote]SWR-1240 wrote:
Does it not make sence to have this conversation with much more qualified people instead of us (the general public of T-Nation).
The authors aren’t close minded and encourage people to ask/talk about differnt ideas.
[/quote]
What’s the point of having forums if all the topics should be brought up with the article authors?
For the plebs amongst us, can you please tell us what topics we can and can’t post?
[quote]SWR-1240 wrote:
Where did you get that from?
I’m not a bodybuilder, I powerlift. I don’t lift for size, I lift for strength first, and any size that comes along to help me with my powerlifting goals.
What are your goals, how far have you come and what do you like about this site?
If you had problems with any of my other posts, why have you not commented on any of them before?[/quote]
I got it from the Marines Push ups post.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Too bad they aren’t good at it.[/quote]
Sorry if I don’t get your seal of approval. I think this has been an entertaining and thought provoking read.
If I was a troll, I’d be happy with 5 pages.
Nice work CHEKonIT.
If you are a troll.
[quote]keaster wrote:
CHEKonIt is Paul Chek. Next he is going to explain to us the importance of the color and consistency of our shit and to not eat out of plastic containers because of the dreaded petrochemicals.
This thread is gay.[/quote]
I’m still wondering why he won’t have this argument with any of the much-more-qualified-than-us authors on this site.
And checkonit, I’m not going to let my post just get burried and have you ignore/forget about it.
I’ll just keep bumping my post at least once on every new page until I see a thread where you have this conversation with one of the authors.
Don’t you agree that they are much more qualified to argue your point with?
This is a lifestyle for them, and what they do for a living. They have tons of experience and education that is relevant to your argument.
It really would be much more interesting to hear what they’d have to say, and to see your rebuttals to them.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I have yet to run into the situation in life where I was suddenly reduced to the strength of a school girl in spite of benching as much as I do simply because I haven’t been “ball balancing”. [/quote]
Hopefully for your sake it never does. I, at least, have never made such an exaggerated claim.
This one is funny. Function refers to doing, surprise, surprise, you’re talking about looking.
[quote]CHEKonIT wrote:
SWR-1240 wrote:
Does it not make sence to have this conversation with much more qualified people instead of us (the general public of T-Nation).
The authors aren’t close minded and encourage people to ask/talk about differnt ideas.
What’s the point of having forums if all the topics should be brought up with the article authors?
For the plebs amongst us, can you please tell us what topics we can and can’t post?
[/quote]
I didn’t say “all”, and I didn’t say you “can’t post” it here.
You’re trying to put words into my mouth and you’re avoiding the questions I asked.
Why not ask them?
Do you think they’re more qualified to debate your point?
[quote]CHEKonIT wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I have yet to run into the situation in life where I was suddenly reduced to the strength of a school girl in spite of benching as much as I do simply because I haven’t been “ball balancing”.
Hopefully for your sake it never does. I, at least, have never made such an exaggerated claim.
I want to see the physiques of those who claim my training isn’t good enough or “nonfunctional”. I want to see what it is I am missing.
This one is funny. Function refers to doing, surprise, surprise, you’re talking about looking.
[/quote]
Yeah, the problem with that is many of the guys rushing to jump behind the concept of “functional training” are also using it as an excuse as to why they don’t look like they lift and aren’t really making that much physical progress. Again, I would like to see what this mentality is producing in the real world with regular everyday trainers who jump behind it as opposed to more traditional methods of gaining size and strength.
[quote]CHEKonIT wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I have yet to run into the situation in life where I was suddenly reduced to the strength of a school girl in spite of benching as much as I do simply because I haven’t been “ball balancing”.
Hopefully for your sake it never does. I, at least, have never made such an exaggerated claim.
I want to see the physiques of those who claim my training isn’t good enough or “nonfunctional”. I want to see what it is I am missing.
This one is funny. Function refers to doing, surprise, surprise, you’re talking about looking.
[/quote]
Function as has been said, refers to doing [i] something [\i], in all but the most tautological senses.
Thanks. But believe me, you aren’t missing shit. Paul Chek has the most powerful or athletic phsyique of people who follow his system religiously (that I’ve seen). Having grown up in a gym where nearly everyone has a CHEK cert and buying into the stuff for years, I’ve been able to form my opinion first hand.
The trend with the hardcore CHEK people seems to be overanalysis with very little actual hard work. Because simply, doing shit on a swiss ball limits how much you can really exert yourself. If you have a knack for doing that type of stuff, join the circus.
For years, I convinced myself that I was somehow special because I could rub my head counter clockwise and pat my stomach while fingering my ass upsidedown on a swiss ball while my friends were putting real weight on a bar and getting much stronger than me. Even if their programs were crappily thrown together, they started getting much stronger. And all I could do was justify in my mind “yes, but can they do THIS on a swiss ball?”
I’ve been doing bodybuilding type training more the last few years. I’ve very little machines and have a preference for free weight movements. Despite my “unfunctional training” and being only 20 years old, I can outlift nearly every one of these trainers at my gym who have been training for more than half my life simply because I’ve put in the hard work and not don’t shit my pants about every little small detail.
These people will have you squatting the same weight for months and months because the upper half of your left labia is not firing correctly. I say, put some more damn weight on the bar and don’t worry about every single detail. A plane is off course for most of the trip, but the important thing is that it lands where it’s supposed to. If an engine falls off, it’s a problem. If the toilet is clogged, you don’t land the goddamn plane to fix the problem.
Sorry for the rant. But I certainly know the look of a CHEK trainee who smugly shrugs of the accomplishments of people with great raw strength only to hide under the facade of their 12" daily dumps and pink swiss balls.
-MAtt
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Matgic, your posts in this thread are well thought out and I agree with all of it. I find it hilarious that “functional” now supposedly has some all encompassing meaning or that balancing on a ball now makes you more “functional”. I have yet to run into the situation in life where I was suddenly reduced to the strength of a school girl in spite of benching as much as I do simply because I haven’t been “ball balancing”. I want to see the physiques of those who claim my training isn’t good enough or “nonfunctional”. I want to see what it is I am missing.[/quote]
Yeah, the problem with that is many of the guys rushing to jump behind the concept of “functional training” are also using it as an excuse as to why they don’t look like they lift and aren’t really making that much physical progress. Again, I would like to see what this mentality is producing in the real world with regular everyday trainers who jump behind it as opposed to more traditional methods of gaining size and strength.[/quote]
There’s nthing wrong with “functional training” if that’s what the client asks for. The Problem is when a fat chick asks a trainer to help her lose weight and the trainer ends up doing trigger point therapy on her shortened Quadratus Lumborum for 45 mins all in the name of structural balance. She wants to lose weight!!!
If a 60 year old guy comes to you and wants to be more flexible and sleep better at night then so be it. Specificity…