[quote]stockzy wrote:
Specificity…
[/quote]
…aka, function. Agreed. Your training should function to produce the best results in your clients for their goals. The tough part comes in when it’s not something as simple as “losing weight” but might be “becoming a better Mixed Martial Artist.” The results might be harder to measure there.
-MAtt
[quote]De sleeplijn wrote:
AgentOrange wrote:
I think you missed the banner at the top – it says Bodybuilding’s Think-Tank, not Functional Strength’s Think-Tank. I have a hard time believing that your intentions here are anything but inflammatory.
Aside:
Where do old trolls go to die? Do they get banned, or do they just leave on their own accord? If they do get banned, it sure seems to take the mods a while to finally put an end to some of them.
Hmmm. Some of these Forums seem not to only be about bodybuilding. IE Strength Sports. Had he put it in there would it be okay with you?
What’s your definition of a troll? Anyone that thinks differently than you.
You are the troll here. What a boring site this would be if we all though alike and kissed each others asses for making the some dickhead comments.
This thread has actually been an interesting read. Guys like you turn this to shit.
Great work Troll.[/quote]
Trolls are people who come onto a forum and posts threads with the sole purpose of being inflammatory.
Coming onto this forum and insulting bodybuilders is inflammatory, given that this is a bodybuilding site. You wouldn’t go onto a Christian site and start a post telling everyone they are stupid for not following Mohammed, would you?
While strength sports are not bodybuilding, they have similar goals. As far as I can tell, “functional fitness” has the opposite goals of bodybuilding, and the term was probably invented with the sole purpose of denigrating bodybuilders – similar to the “muscle-bound” term that was prevalent in sports in the early days of bodybuilding.
You claim that this is an interesting thread, but I haven’t seen the productive discussion that you and Chek allude to. Chek hides behind the premise of wanting a discussion when he originally started the thread as an insult. Actually, I’m kind of sad to have read through all of it.
But thanks for coming out of the woodwork to call me a troll, that was kind of amusing. Judging from your stats, maybe you should read the site and put some of its principles into action before you start calling people trolls. That’s not an insult – that’s the truth. I had almost identical stats a year or two ago, and T-Nation was responsible for most of the gains (edit: which came in the last six months)… Chek, not so much.
Thanks for adding me to your friends list?
[quote]Matgic wrote:
I believe that almost all compound movements should done explosively or the trainee should attempt to move them explosively.
So 10RM movements at anything but an explosive concentric pace are a waste of time? Or are you talking about heavier weights?
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.
If you need to worry about falling off the ball, you need to take a step back in your progression.[/quote]
stockzy wrote:
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 said nothing of the sort. All I said was that bench presses at a high weight in the usual manner can have negative impact on your shoulder joints
[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]
Yet another case of “I don’t understand, so I may as well bag it”
Followed up, as usual, by a statement that’d make anyone look rediculous outside primary school.
[quote]AgentOrange wrote:
As far as I can tell, “functional fitness” has the opposite goals of bodybuilding, and the term was probably invented with the sole purpose of denigrating bodybuilders
Is the sun shining out of your ass, or is that citrus fruit you that the world revolves around?
[/quote]
[quote]SWR-1240 wrote:
Do you think they’re more qualified to debate your point?[/quote]
I think they’re more qualified to debate neary every point posted on the forum. Does that mean we ought to take everything up to them to see what they say? Surely some things can be discussed here.
First thing I do when I log in tomorrow is to pose my point to one of the experts. Pick one and I’ll contact him.
[quote]Matgic wrote:
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.
[/quote]
The plane’s course is readjusted many times during the trip, but either way, I’d rather spend a few months getting my body right before going heavy than to just have your “fuck it” attitute and have the condition get worse and worse.
I understand you point. But performing at a level of the upper reaches of our physical capacity will often lead to injuries of some sort. It is almost inevitable.
Granted, there are certain things that can be done to make these lifts safer. Proper scapular retraction, tucked elbows, keeping the ass on the bench, etc. when benching all contribute to “safety.”
But the truth is, I’ve never seen someone become a powerful athletic beast from training on a swiss ball as a primarly focus.
I think that the anecdotal evidence suggests that the serious powerlifters, footballs players, MMAs, bodybuilders, etc. would rather become a highly destrutive force even at the cost of higher chances of injury then settle for being average.
-MAtt
[quote]CHEKonIT wrote:
stockzy wrote:
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 said nothing of the sort. All I said was that bench presses at a high weight in the usual manner can have negative impact on your shoulder joints
[/quote]
Ok, CHEK, have you ever used DB’s heavier than say, 70 lbs.? If you have, and had any sense you wouldn’t recommend using them on a Swiss ball. Show me all these great athletes who benefit so much from lifting on a ball, and the ones who are so worn out and torn up from benching. There are plenty of other ways to train your core without using a damn balloon. Most here don’t disagree with you because your opinions are different, it’s because you sound like a pompous idiot(AND a troll). What’s next, are you going to recommend we deadlift with rollerskates on? Squats on a teeter-totter? What next?
[quote]CHEKonIT wrote:
Matgic wrote:
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.
The plane’s course is readjusted many times during the trip, but either way, I’d rather spend a few months getting my body right before going heavy than to just have your “fuck it” attitute and have the condition get worse and worse.
[/quote]
There are many who find the focus on all of these “problems” your body supposedly has to be overstated. It helps sell a program though. If there are major structural issues, then by all means, focus on that. However, why is it all of a sudden nearly every human being on the planet has some major structural issue that needs to be taken care of before they start training? Have some of you truly begun to believe that this is “normal”?
[quote]Matgic wrote:
I understand you point. But performing at a level of the upper reaches of our physical capacity will often lead to injuries of some sort. It is almost inevitable.
Granted, there are certain things that can be done to make these lifts safer. Proper scapular retraction, tucked elbows, keeping the ass on the bench, etc. when benching all contribute to “safety.”
But the truth is, I’ve never seen someone become a powerful athletic beast from training on a swiss ball as a primarly focus.
I think that the anecdotal evidence suggests that the serious powerlifters, footballs players, MMAs, bodybuilders, etc. would rather become a highly destrutive force even at the cost of higher chances of injury then settle for being average.
-MAtt
[/quote]
Very good point. In fact, i would go as far as to say that the guy more focused on some potential problem he MAY have than he is on making progress will probably be the type to never reach his potential regardless. It reminds of people who think they are always sick or coming down with something.
[quote]AgentOrange wrote:
Trolls are people who come onto a forum and posts threads with the sole purpose of being inflammatory.
[/quote]
Who says anyone has here. CHEKonIT has put thought into what he is saying. He probably believes it all and applys all the Chek principles to his own training. Does that make him a Troll?
Nope. But if I was Opus Dei I might try and convert other branches of Catholics into the faith.
Bodybuilders: Get huge whatever means possible.
Strength Sports: Lift heavier than your opponent.
Put Mario Pudz up on stage with Ronnie Coleman and Ronnie wins every time. Put them in a strongman, and Super Mario wins every time.
Don’t give me that shit. This thread has actually been quite interesting to see both sides of view.
You get so many bullshit artists blowing their weight up, I decided to put mine down.
[quote]
Thanks for adding me to your friends list?[/quote]
Keep this up and I may revoke this illustrious status.
Spartacus, old buddy old pal. Long time, no hear from.
[quote]Kratos wrote:
Ok, CHEK, have you ever used DB’s heavier than say, 70 lbs.? If you have, and had any sense you wouldn’t recommend using them on a Swiss ball.
[/quote]
If memory serves me well, I distinctly remember on a sporting tour of Australia we were lucky enough to visit the Victorian Institute of Sport where I witnessed something so crazy you would not believe. The Melbourne Storm Rugby League players were doing DB chest press on the Swiss Ball. (They are kind of large and they were using 70kg DB’s)
See above.
Why is he pompous? Only because he is saying something that doesn’t sit well with you.
[quote]
What’s next, are you going to recommend we deadlift with rollerskates on? Squats on a teeter-totter? What next?[/quote]
Have a read through his previous posts. He actually said Deadlifts and Squats are great exercises.
[quote]De sleeplijn wrote:
They are kind of large and they were using 70kg DB’s
[/quote]
Nearly 155lbs dumbbells on a swissball? Bullshit.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Possibly true for the other side too. Bodybuilders jump on functional trainers because they get pissed that skinny fuckers are calling their bluff to prove they are all show and no go!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
De sleeplijn wrote:
They are kind of large and they were using 70kg DB’s
Nearly 155lbs dumbbells on a swissball? Bullshit.[/quote]
They are big boys with well over 400lb benches. My memory may be on 90% accurate but I know that it was definetly 65kg or over.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
De sleeplijn wrote:
They are kind of large and they were using 70kg DB’s
Nearly 155lbs dumbbells on a swissball? Bullshit.[/quote]
Second. Balance becomes more and more of an issue as the weight goes up. A slight wobble with 45 lbs. becomes a soft tissue injury with 105 or so.
[quote]Kratos wrote:
Second. Balance becomes more and more of an issue as the weight goes up. A slight wobble with 45 lbs. becomes a soft tissue injury with 105 or so.
[/quote]
I don’t know you Spartacus, but I’ll tip they are more finely tuned athletes than yourself and they will be capable of a little more than yourself.
[quote]De sleeplijn wrote:
Professor X wrote:
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.
Possibly true for the other side too. Bodybuilders jump on functional trainers because they get pissed that skinny fuckers are calling their bluff to prove they are all show and no go![/quote]
You have a point there. Some guys are all fluff. But I think there are more skinny dudes trumpeting “pound-for-pound,” and “functionality.”
I hear things like this all the time,“So&So benches 500!” Yeah, but he weighs 325! I bench 315 and I only weigh 175! That’s almost double my weight.
That’s great, but the 300-pounder is still bigger and stronger.