I’m relatively inactive on this board but I’d thought I would give my opinion. Personally, I think the “functional strength” craze has certainly gotten out of hand. I have the utmost respect for bodybuilder, powerliftters and other strength athletes. True, there might not be such a thing as “functional strength”, but how about using your strength in a functional manner? My mom told/asked me a long time ago “what’s the use having those muscles if you don’t use them?” It never hit me until a few years ago. I’m not knocking anyone’s chosen discipline, but what can you do outside of the gym? Can you jump,run/sprint, climb over a fence, wrestle with your dogs? Stuff like that,that people take for granted. That’s what I consider using strength in a functional manner. Nuf said.
[quote]clc315 wrote:
I’m relatively inactive on this board but I’d thought I would give my opinion. Personally, I think the “functional strength” craze has certainly gotten out of hand. I have the utmost respect for bodybuilder, powerliftters and other strength athletes. True, there might not be such a thing as “functional strength”, but how about using your strength in a functional manner? My mom told/asked me a long time ago “what’s the use having those muscles if you don’t use them?” It never hit me until a few years ago. I’m not knocking anyone’s chosen discipline, but what can you do outside of the gym? Can you jump,run/sprint, climb over a fence,…
[/quote]
LOL, that stuff is important…if you’re being chased!!
Seriously though, that is a great point. I’ve wondered that many times. And come to think of it, besides lifting heavier barbells than your average Joe, there’s not a whole lot else I can do with those ‘big muscles’. I think weightlifting in general produces non-functional strength!
the way Ive understood it functional strength is only useful when its applied in the same area of activity… . for instance… . if a guy puts 20lbs on his main exercises without putting on weight thats 100% functional strength… . if the same guy has to put on 20lbs of muscle to get 20lbs on his exercises that still might be considered good by some (probably for the weight gain alone) but he hasnt actually progressed in teaching his muscle to get stronger he’s just added more. …
so functional strength is basically doing more with less… . or if getting bigger doing it proportionate with strength… . adding more muscle fibre size will definately add strength… . adding sarcoplasmic hypertrophy will probably just give you more stored energy for all those extra reps your doing. …
[quote]clc315 wrote:
… but what can you do outside of the gym? Can you jump,run/sprint, climb over a fence, wrestle with your dogs? Stuff like that,that people take for granted. That’s what I consider using strength in a functional manner. Nuf said.[/quote]
Why would having muscle impede on these things? Having shit cardio will impede on these, not having muscle.
[quote]clc315 wrote:
I’m relatively inactive on this board but I’d thought I would give my opinion. Personally, I think the “functional strength” craze has certainly gotten out of hand. I have the utmost respect for bodybuilder, powerliftters and other strength athletes. True, there might not be such a thing as “functional strength”, but how about using your strength in a functional manner? My mom told/asked me a long time ago “what’s the use having those muscles if you don’t use them?” It never hit me until a few years ago. I’m not knocking anyone’s chosen discipline, but what can you do outside of the gym? Can you jump,run/sprint, climb over a fence, wrestle with your dogs? Stuff like that,that people take for granted. That’s what I consider using strength in a functional manner. Nuf said.[/quote]
You think bodybuilders can’t jump, run or sprint? You think bodybuilders are incapable of climbing fences? Wrestle my dog? What the hell are you talking about? No offense to your mom, but her statement makes very little sense. You have to use those muscles to make them big in the first place so what sense does it make to state “if you don’t use them”? I do use them…to lift really heavy shit. If I wanted to be a great sprinter, I would train to be a great sprinter. If I want to have really strong arms over 20", I train to have arms that strong and that big. What does one have to do with the other? Can all sprinters bench press 400lbs? Can all people who bench press 400lbs be world class sprinters? It is a dumb concept. I don’t give a shit about sprinting.
You made that statement as if the only way I am justified in being “big and strong” is if my job revolves around it. So, only wrestlers and pro football players are allowed to have big strong muscles? Or was this some lame attempt to act as if big muscles are “weak”?
You asked what I can do outside of the gym. Outside of the gym I treat patients. I don’t know what you do for a living, but you seem to be claiming that I shouldn’t want to even be big or strong unless I work a job that incorporates tons of physical labor. This made sense to you? Why? What the hell does your mom know about weight lifting? So, everyone with a desk job should simply be skinny, fat and/or completely out of shape to compliment their job? Can skinny people run, jump or sprint…or wrestle with their dog? Why do you think these skills suddenly become impossible for people with muscles?
Your post was stupid, congrats.
[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:
the way Ive understood it functional strength is only useful when its applied in the same area of activity… . for instance… . if a guy puts 20lbs on his main exercises without putting on weight thats 100% functional strength… . if the same guy has to put on 20lbs of muscle to get 20lbs on his exercises that still might be considered good by some (probably for the weight gain alone) but he hasnt actually progressed in teaching his muscle to get stronger he’s just added more. …
so functional strength is basically doing more with less… . or if getting bigger doing it proportionate with strength… . adding more muscle fibre size will definately add strength… . adding sarcoplasmic hypertrophy will probably just give you more stored energy for all those extra reps your doing. …[/quote]
Prove to me that a larger bodybuilder only has “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy”. The bullshit is getting thick in here.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
clc315 wrote:
I’m relatively inactive on this board but I’d thought I would give my opinion. Personally, I think the “functional strength” craze has certainly gotten out of hand. I have the utmost respect for bodybuilder, powerliftters and other strength athletes. True, there might not be such a thing as “functional strength”, but how about using your strength in a functional manner? My mom told/asked me a long time ago “what’s the use having those muscles if you don’t use them?” It never hit me until a few years ago. I’m not knocking anyone’s chosen discipline, but what can you do outside of the gym? Can you jump,run/sprint, climb over a fence, wrestle with your dogs? Stuff like that,that people take for granted. That’s what I consider using strength in a functional manner. Nuf said.
You think bodybuilders can’t jump, run or sprint? You think bodybuilders are incapable of climbing fences? Wrestle my dog? What the hell are you talking about? No offense to your mom, but her statement makes very little sense. You have to use those muscles to make them big in the first place so what sense does it make to state “if you don’t use them”? I do use them…to lift really heavy shit. If I wanted to be a great sprinter, I would train to be a great sprinter. If I want to have really strong arms over 20", I train to have arms that strong and that big. What does one have to do with the other? Can all sprinters bench press 400lbs? Can all people who bench press 400lbs be world class sprinters? It is a dumb concept. I don’t give a shit about sprinting.
You made that statement as if the only way I am justified in being “big and strong” is if my job revolves around it. So, only wrestlers and pro football players are allowed to have big strong muscles? Or was this some lame attempt to act as if big muscles are “weak”?
You asked what I can do outside of the gym. Outside of the gym I treat patients. I don’t know what you do for a living, but you seem to be claiming that I shouldn’t want to even be big or strong unless I work a job that incorporates tons of physical labor. This made sense to you? Why? What the hell does your mom know about weight lifting? So, everyone with a desk job should simply be skinny, fat and/or completely out of shape to compliment their job? Can skinny people run, jump or sprint…or wrestle with their dog? Why do you think these skills suddenly become impossible for people with muscles?
Your post was stupid, congrats. [/quote]
Well written post Mr. X. NICE!!
[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:
the way Ive understood it functional strength is only useful when its applied in the same area of activity… . for instance… . if a guy puts 20lbs on his main exercises without putting on weight thats 100% functional strength… . if the same guy has to put on 20lbs of muscle to get 20lbs on his exercises that still might be considered good by some (probably for the weight gain alone) but he hasnt actually progressed in teaching his muscle to get stronger he’s just added more. …
so functional strength is basically doing more with less… . or if getting bigger doing it proportionate with strength… . adding more muscle fibre size will definately add strength… . adding sarcoplasmic hypertrophy will probably just give you more stored energy for all those extra reps your doing. …[/quote]
No your wrong. You are talking about relative strength. As my name applies, I know a thing or two about strength relative to bodyweight. That has nothing to do with functionality.
[quote]Pound4Pound wrote:
MachineAZ wrote:
Ronnie is an exception. As are other bodybuilders who are strong.
The majority don’t do compound, multi-joint movments. The ones that do, don’t always do a lot of weight.
And by the way, dumbbell bench pressing IS functional. It’s functional for being better at dumbbell bench pressing. Ha ha!
When people say that bodybuilders are non-functional, they are referring to the fact that most of them could not do anything like climb a few flights of stairs, sprint 400m, run a mile, flip a tire, etc. without being severely winded and ready to die.
There was a charity track event about 10 years ago including ex olympic athletes, NFL players etc. Guess who won that events 800m?
LOU FERRIGNO!!!
[/quote]
It was the “SuperStars” competition and it wasn’t 10 years ago. It was during the 1970’s. And big Lou clobbered everyone in the rowing event. But alas that was the only event he won. He even lost the overhead pressing contest to a shot putter named “Oldfield.”
I was there!
Sure, bodybuilders can pull off some numbers, but that’s after geting jacked a few hours before the workout. There are no professional strength athletes who have this much muscle mass. If someone had this much actual functional mass they would be stronger than anyone on earth, which they aren’t.
They take steroids before workouts and in general - insane amounts - and that’s what is responsible for their strength and size, period. If you get a shot of juice before a workout your strength will skyrocket - that’s not being strong, that’s like putting on a strap-on and claiming that you’re able to have wood for 40 hours straight.
Why are people so concerned with this issue? Bodybuilders are supposed to be big, everyhting else is secondary. People want to see ugly repulsive freaks full of chemicals not someone getting a good bench press. And I don’t give a shit what kind of hard work they put into it - they have money and roids. As long as there’s some skinny bastard who’s putting in all his efforts and is still frustrated at why he can’t get big the efforts of pro-bblders don’t mean shit - it’s still the easier route.
I don’t really care about the debate per se, but it seems that some of you are confusing functional strength and functional hypertrophy. The original post is entitled “Bodybuilders: Non-functional Mass”, or non-functional hypertrophy. He didn’t say anything about functionality as it relates to strength.
Hypertrophy of the contractile filamints within muscle tissue is known as “functional” hypertrophy, because it correlates to an increase in strength. Non-functional hypertrophy would be the proliferation of other things within the cell (sarcoplasm, etc) that do not positively effect strength (a lot of this occurs when lifting in the typical “hypertrophy” range, which is why a lot of bodybuilders are relatively weak for their size).
Functional strength, on the other hand, means strength that is carried over into sport, the real world, etc.
[quote]Majin wrote:
Sure, bodybuilders can pull off some numbers, but that’s after geting jacked a few hours before the workout…
They take steroids before workouts and in general - insane amounts - and that’s what is responsible for their strength and size, period. If you get a shot of juice before a workout your strength will skyrocket - that’s not being strong, that’s like putting on a strap-on and claiming that you’re able to have wood for 40 hours straight.[/quote]
I am all for truth telling, but what you just wrote is utter bullshit and shows you don’t even have basic knowledge as far as over the counter drugs that you take. Could you list the drugs taken that produce an effect so rapidly, that they can be taken right before a workout and the lifter’s numbers will skyrocket?
Did you know that the athletes most prone to take anything at all (sometimes in the form of epi-pens) right before a competition are powerlifters? Epinephrine would be the only drug that would have an immediate effect on awareness, focus and possibly strength.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Gl;itch.e wrote:
the way Ive understood it functional strength is only useful when its applied in the same area of activity… . for instance… . if a guy puts 20lbs on his main exercises without putting on weight thats 100% functional strength… . if the same guy has to put on 20lbs of muscle to get 20lbs on his exercises that still might be considered good by some (probably for the weight gain alone) but he hasnt actually progressed in teaching his muscle to get stronger he’s just added more. …
so functional strength is basically doing more with less… . or if getting bigger doing it proportionate with strength… . adding more muscle fibre size will definately add strength… . adding sarcoplasmic hypertrophy will probably just give you more stored energy for all those extra reps your doing. …
Prove to me that a larger bodybuilder only has “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy”. The bullshit is getting thick in here.[/quote]
you may not have noticed it but I have not posted in this thread prior to my statement nor have I said that bodybuilders (or any other sub-group of lifters) only have one or the other of a type of hypertrophy. …
but what I do stand by is that adding 2 inches of sarcoplasm is not the same as 2 inches of actual muscle fibre. …
[quote]Joel Marion wrote:
I don’t really care about the debate per se, but it seems that some of you are confusing functional strength and functional hypertrophy. The original post is entitled “Bodybuilders: Non-functional Mass”, or non-functional hypertrophy. He didn’t say anything about functionality as it relates to strength.
Hypertrophy of the contractile filamints within muscle tissue is known as “functional” hypertrophy, because it correlates to an increase in strength. Non-functional hypertrophy would be the proliferation of other things within the cell (sarcoplasm, etc) that do not positively effect strength (a lot of this occurs when lifting in the typical “hypertrophy” range, which is why a lot of bodybuilders are relatively weak for their size).
Functional strength, on the other hand, means strength that is carried over into sport, the real world, etc.[/quote]
There is no way you could predict how well someone would do in a “real world” event compared to their lifts or their size. Some people are simply natural athletes so why the need to make massive generalizations? Does anyone truly believe that the guy who bench presses 400lbs can’t help you push your car down the street? Why do you believe this? How would you know this without asking that specific person to help you push a car?
Some of you sound like you would get ready to move from your house, and in search of someone to help with the heavy furniture, you would walk past the 250lbs guy with 20" arms and try to find some guy who barely looks like he lifts in hopes of “functional strength”. I wish people did actually think this way so they could quit calling me for it.
[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:
you may not have noticed it but I have not posted in this thread prior to my statement nor have I said that bodybuilders (or any other sub-group of lifters) only have one or the other of a type of hypertrophy. …
but what I do stand by is that adding 2 inches of sarcoplasm is not the same as 2 inches of actual muscle fibre. …[/quote]
That isn’t what I asked you. WHO ON THIS PLANET IS SIMPLY ADDING “SARCOPLASMIC HYPERTROPHY” IN INCHES and how do you know this? X-ray vision? Psychic visions? No biopsy needed, huh? Where are you getting your info from?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Majin wrote:
Sure, bodybuilders can pull off some numbers, but that’s after geting jacked a few hours before the workout…
They take steroids before workouts and in general - insane amounts - and that’s what is responsible for their strength and size, period. If you get a shot of juice before a workout your strength will skyrocket - that’s not being strong, that’s like putting on a strap-on and claiming that you’re able to have wood for 40 hours straight.
I am all for truth telling, but what you just wrote is utter bullshit and shows you don’t even have basic knowledge as far as over the counter drugs that you take. Could you list the drugs taken that produce an effect so rapidly, that they can be taken right before a workout and the lifter’s numbers will skyrocket?
Did you know that the athletes most prone to take anything at all (sometimes in the form of epi-pens) right before a competition are powerlifters? Epinephrine would be the only drug that would have an immediate effect on awareness, focus and possibly strength. [/quote]
Agreed
That is one of the dumbest posts I’ve seen in a while. Someone who clearly doesn’t know about steroids, giving “advice” about steroids.
[quote]Pound4Pound wrote:
Kaz was one of the best strongmen of alltime. Strong men are very functional. I said POWERLIFTERS, You do know the diference right?
[/quote]
Kaz was a powerlifter that later switched over to strongman…
you obviously know jack shit…
where’s your all encompassing definition by the way?
[quote]DPH wrote:
Pound4Pound wrote:
Kaz was one of the best strongmen of alltime. Strong men are very functional. I said POWERLIFTERS, You do know the diference right?
Kaz was a powerlifter that later switched over to strongman…
you obviously know jack shit…
where’s your all encompassing definition by the way?[/quote]
It was in my original reply to you. “It’s the ability to transfer your potential strength to real world situations.”
[quote]Pound4Pound wrote:
DPH wrote:
Pound4Pound wrote:
Kaz was one of the best strongmen of alltime. Strong men are very functional. I said POWERLIFTERS, You do know the diference right?
Kaz was a powerlifter that later switched over to strongman…
you obviously know jack shit…
where’s your all encompassing definition by the way?
It was in my original reply to you. “It’s the ability to transfer your potential strength to real world situations.”[/quote]
“transfer POTENTIAL strength”
Give it a rest. It’s a bullshit concept. You would have to individually define and experiment each and every single POTENTIAL real life act to determine how much ‘translates.’ Who gives a F.
[quote]Pound4Pound wrote:
Functional Strength “The percentage of potential strength one is able to apply to real world situations” Suck on that one!
[/quote]
what is a ‘real world situation’ to you then?
you say that strongmen have great ‘functional strength’ but are all strongmen great fighters? is fighting a real world situation to you?
can all strongmen run very fast? is running fast a potential ‘real world situation’ to you?
do all strongmen have the endurance to run down someone that stole their wives purse? is endurance running a ‘real world situation’ that might be needed at some point?
most strongmen competitors would get they’re ass kicked by any skilled fighter…
most strongmen are far slower that a high school sprinter that snatched their wives purse…
most strongmen couldn’t run a decent 5k time to save their lives…
your definition is lacking…it’s crap…
so you’re saying that Lance Armstong has no ‘functional strength’?
there are a shit load of small professional fighters no stronger that Lance Armstrong is…do these lightweight fighters have no ‘functional strength’?
I have noticed that every guy that brags about kicking peoples ass on the internet is a complete pussy in real life that feels the need to talk big from the safty of there keyboard…
another words you don’t know shit…
Kas was a powerlifter before he ever got involved with strongman competitions… he won his very first strongman competition only training like an old-school powerlifter…