[quote]tanimal wrote:
There is no point in debate anymore…as has been said before, most are agreeing on the same points. Me, I just want piss off X [/quote]
Now that’s not very neighborly. The professor’s a big ol teddy bear. He gets a bit impatient sometimes, but he’s been more help to more people, that I’ve personally witnessed than most guys on this site.
BTW, he’s just stubborn enough (I think) not to bring this up himself, but his handle, “Professor X” refers to the X-Men character, not his occupation for those who are attempting to belittle his professional status.
[quote]unearth wrote:
If you’re going to claim to be a strength coach, it helps to have walked the walk to at least a decent level of achievement.[/quote]
Perhaps it HELPS with notoriety etc. but a better judgement is the quality of the athletes/teams that are produced.
[quote]unearth wrote:
So two guys both total 2000 lbs in a powerlifting meet. One guy weighs 242 lbs, the other weighs 241 lbs. The guy weighing 241 wins. However, to say one is relatively stronger than the other would be inaccurate.[/quote]
Math is usually accurate if you plug in the right numbers and symbols. Power lifter A has more relative strength than Powerlifter B as demonstrated by their lifts in that competition(both of whom are ridiculously strong).
I was a badass amateur at one time myself (ABA in the eighties) and still have plenty of scars (and trophies) to prove it. One of the funnest things I’ve ever participated in.
[/quote]
Sweet! You should try some racing again - some of the guys I race against in the local races are guys who started in the 80’s then picked it up again when their young’uns got into it.
Great fun, great competition, and great fitness too. Got any tips?
[quote]
On the larger front here, it’s becoming clearer that this thread is largely a circus of semantic badminton. [/quote]
I agree. In spite of the fact that I perhaps initiated some of the semantic warfare, I’m pretty much done. Let’s meet up in a different thread with a different tone and go from there. Hey at least we got some practice in anger management!
I will close with two more posts, but they won’t be my words.
Mike Boyle (from Functional Training for Sports 2004, Human Kinetics):
“Most coaches would agree that functional training is best characterized by exercises done with the feet in contact wtih the ground and without the aid of machines… it [incorporates] actions such as squatting and lunging or pushing and pulling… Experts emphasize that functional training trains movements, not muscles.”
“When an athlete performs a leg extension, he or she is using a muscle action and nervous system pattern that are never employed when walking or running.”
“At certain times, certain muscle groups - notably the deep abdominals, hip abductors, and scapula stabilizers - need to be isolated to improve their function… This is one of the paradoxes of functional training.”
“Think of your training as a vehicle to improve performance, not just to improve strength.”
“Proponents of machine-based training systems argue that machine-based training is safer, but there is a clear trade-off. Although machine-based training may result in fewer injuries in training, the lack of proprioceptive input [and] stabilization will more than likely lead to a greater number of injuries during competition.”
Good book by the way - the scapular circuit is just what I needed.
From the late, great, Mel Siff (Supertraining, 2000).
“The main reason why the prescription of resistance training for enhancing performance is not all straightforward is that strength training displays definite specificity in many respects.”
“Fitness training for a given sport is not simply a matter of selecting a few popular exercises from a bodybuilding magazine … this approach may produce aesthetic results for the average non-competitive client of a health centre, but it is of very limited value to the serious athlete.”
“It is not only the exercise which modifies the body, or, more specifically, the neuromuscular system, but the way in which the exercise is performed … it is vital to remember that all exercise involves information processing in the central nervous and neuromuscular systems, so that all training should be regarded as a way in which the body’s extremely complex computing systems are programmed.”
“For many years there have been two opposing theories … One [that] proposes that strength training should simulate the sporting movements as closely as possible with regard to movement pattern, velocity, force-time curve, type of muscle contraction and so forth … the other [maintaining] that it is sufficient to train the relevant muscles with no regard to specificity.”
“…both approaches will improve performance, [however] current scientific research strongly supports the superiority of the specificity principle in at least ten respsects:
Type of muscle contraction
movement pattern
region of movement
velocity of movement
force of contraction
muscle fibre recruitment
metabolism
biochemical adaptation
flexibility
fatigue.”
Another great book - if you spend the time to put the billions of random ideas, facts, and theories together. Siff was an amazing dude.
I’m done with this thread (it’s about time!) Enjoy.
[quote]Cam Birtwell wrote:
From the late, great, Mel Siff (Supertraining, 2000).
“The main reason why the prescription of resistance training for enhancing performance is not all straightforward is that strength training displays definite specificity in many respects.”
“Fitness training for a given sport is not simply a matter of selecting a few popular exercises from a bodybuilding magazine … this approach may produce aesthetic results for the average non-competitive client of a health centre, but it is of very limited value to the serious athlete.”
“It is not only the exercise which modifies the body, or, more specifically, the neuromuscular system, but the way in which the exercise is performed … it is vital to remember that all exercise involves information processing in the central nervous and neuromuscular systems, so that all training should be regarded as a way in which the body’s extremely complex computing systems are programmed.”
“For many years there have been two opposing theories … One [that] proposes that strength training should simulate the sporting movements as closely as possible with regard to movement pattern, velocity, force-time curve, type of muscle contraction and so forth … the other [maintaining] that it is sufficient to train the relevant muscles with no regard to specificity.”
“…both approaches will improve performance, [however] current scientific research strongly supports the superiority of the specificity principle in at least ten respsects:
Type of muscle contraction
movement pattern
region of movement
velocity of movement
force of contraction
muscle fibre recruitment
metabolism
biochemical adaptation
flexibility
fatigue.”
Another great book - if you spend the time to put the billions of random ideas, facts, and theories together. Siff was an amazing dude.
I’m done with this thread (it’s about time!) Enjoy.
cb.[/quote]
The word “functional” never shows up, and nothing he said disproves the notion that non-specific training is transferrable.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There is no such thing as an otherwise normal, healthy, especially male, who is so genetically deficient as to be capable of a total lifetime lean increase of only “a few” pounds.
On the larger front here, it’s becoming clearer that this thread is largely a circus of semantic badminton. [/quote]
Did I say over a lifetime? Nope. I said over years. Another misconception on this thread. I will assume that you are one of those people who is genetically predispositioned to gaining lean mass. You think that after, say, three years of training with the same methods, you and the “skinny” (not predispositioned) guy are going to have put on the same mass.
No, you may have put on 30lbs, but he will have likely put on 10 or 15lbs. That is a huge difference. Especially when you are talking 10+ years. Assuming all lean mass gains stayed the same for both of you (which they likely would slow down slightly), we are talking differences of 30-45lbs…
I’ve come to the conclusion that posting in this thread is pointless. Cam has his head so far up his ass and into his own beliefs that he just refuses to possibly see another way. His world is still flat.
He is also one of those people we all despise. The toxic people. He is definitely a toxic person. You could buy a new mercedes, and he’d say you should have gotten the ferrari. Of course he would have a ferrari. You can squat 500, and he would say well why not 600? Or hes still stronger because he weighs 180 and you weigh 220.
Aside from the discussion board, in the real world, absolute strength matters. Will you be strong enough to move your oak headboard? I am. Can you run up 15 flights of stairs if need be? I can. If I needed to jump, vertical or long, would I make it? I think so. Functional, non-functional, whatever the hell you wanna call it, in the end it matters if you can do what you need to do, look the way you want, and be happy. All the “functional training” in the world is not going to lift my headboard when I move, run up the stairs, jump better, or give me the body I want.
Cam, I mean this in the nicest possible way. Please get a life.
[quote]tanimal wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
There is no such thing as an otherwise normal, healthy, especially male, who is so genetically deficient as to be capable of a total lifetime lean increase of only “a few” pounds.
On the larger front here, it’s becoming clearer that this thread is largely a circus of semantic badminton.
Did I say over a lifetime? Nope. I said over years. Another misconception on this thread. I will assume that you are one of those people who is genetically predispositioned to gaining lean mass. You think that after, say, three years of training with the same methods, you and the “skinny” (not predispositioned) guy are going to have put on the same mass.
No, you may have put on 30lbs, but he will have likely put on 10 or 15lbs. That is a huge difference. Especially when you are talking 10+ years. Assuming all lean mass gains stayed the same for both of you (which they likely would slow down slightly), we are talking differences of 30-45lbs…[/quote]
OK, I’ll rephrase:
There is no such thing as an otherwise normal, healthy, especially male, who is so genetically deficient as to be capable of a total 5 year lean increase of only “a few” pounds if few is defined as under 20.
This has nothing to do with me. In my mid-late 20’s I was 6’2 and and under 160 pounds. I AM NOT SAYING that there aren’t dramatic differences in the amount of and rate at which individuals can make lean gains.
I AM SAYING that if you give me 5 years with ANY male between the ages of 18 or 20 and 50 without other pathological barriers and I will show them how to put on a bare minimum of 20 pounds lean in that time frame and probably twice that in most, especially closer to 40 years old. Even substantially more still in A LOT of the ones in their 20’s and 30’s and some older than that.
There would a version of everything I just said that would be appropriately adjusted for females.
People woefully underestimate their potential in most cases while whining about being hardgainers. A person matching the criteria I just described who hasn’t gained 20-40 pounds in 5 years has no idea what they’re doing or isn’t motivated enough or both.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
tanimal wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
There is no such thing as an otherwise normal, healthy, especially male, who is so genetically deficient as to be capable of a total lifetime lean increase of only “a few” pounds.
On the larger front here, it’s becoming clearer that this thread is largely a circus of semantic badminton.
Did I say over a lifetime? Nope. I said over years. Another misconception on this thread. I will assume that you are one of those people who is genetically predispositioned to gaining lean mass. You think that after, say, three years of training with the same methods, you and the “skinny” (not predispositioned) guy are going to have put on the same mass.
No, you may have put on 30lbs, but he will have likely put on 10 or 15lbs. That is a huge difference. Especially when you are talking 10+ years. Assuming all lean mass gains stayed the same for both of you (which they likely would slow down slightly), we are talking differences of 30-45lbs…
OK, I’ll rephrase:
There is no such thing as an otherwise normal, healthy, especially male, who is so genetically deficient as to be capable of a total 5 year lean increase of only “a few” pounds if few is defined as under 20.
This has nothing to do with me. In my mid-late 20’s I was 6’2 and and under 160 pounds. I AM NOT SAYING that there aren’t dramatic differences in the amount of and rate at which individuals can make lean gains.
I AM SAYING that if you give me 5 years with ANY male between the ages of 18 or 20 and 50 without other pathological barriers and I will show them how to put on a bare minimum of 20 pounds lean in that time frame and probably twice that in most, especially closer to 40 years old. Even substantially more still in A LOT of the ones in their 20’s and 30’s and some older than that.
There would a version of everything I just said that would be appropriately adjusted for females.
People woefully underestimate their potential in most cases while whining about being hardgainers. A person matching the criteria I just described who hasn’t gained 20-40 pounds in 5 years has no idea what they’re doing or isn’t motivated enough or both.[/quote]
I agree with you, but you are talking to people who pride themselves in lack of physical progress…while degrading everyone who passed up their level of development long ago by talking about phantom ankle stress from all of the “unfunctional” weight.
Gladly, this site seems to not be headed down that road anymore. I am so happy.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
tanimal wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
There is no such thing as an otherwise normal, healthy, especially male, who is so genetically deficient as to be capable of a total lifetime lean increase of only “a few” pounds.
On the larger front here, it’s becoming clearer that this thread is largely a circus of semantic badminton.
Did I say over a lifetime? Nope. I said over years. Another misconception on this thread. I will assume that you are one of those people who is genetically predispositioned to gaining lean mass. You think that after, say, three years of training with the same methods, you and the “skinny” (not predispositioned) guy are going to have put on the same mass.
No, you may have put on 30lbs, but he will have likely put on 10 or 15lbs. That is a huge difference. Especially when you are talking 10+ years. Assuming all lean mass gains stayed the same for both of you (which they likely would slow down slightly), we are talking differences of 30-45lbs…
OK, I’ll rephrase:
There is no such thing as an otherwise normal, healthy, especially male, who is so genetically deficient as to be capable of a total 5 year lean increase of only “a few” pounds if few is defined as under 20.
This has nothing to do with me. In my mid-late 20’s I was 6’2 and and under 160 pounds. I AM NOT SAYING that there aren’t dramatic differences in the amount of and rate at which individuals can make lean gains.
I AM SAYING that if you give me 5 years with ANY male between the ages of 18 or 20 and 50 without other pathological barriers and I will show them how to put on a bare minimum of 20 pounds lean in that time frame and probably twice that in most, especially closer to 40 years old. Even substantially more still in A LOT of the ones in their 20’s and 30’s and some older than that.
There would a version of everything I just said that would be appropriately adjusted for females.
People woefully underestimate their potential in most cases while whining about being hardgainers. A person matching the criteria I just described who hasn’t gained 20-40 pounds in 5 years has no idea what they’re doing or isn’t motivated enough or both.[/quote]
Pop quiz, person A weighs 180 lbs, Person B weighs 115 lbs. Which person is going to need to gain more weight to get to 200 lbs?
[quote]Sliver wrote:
Pop quiz, person A weighs 180 lbs, Person B weighs 115 lbs. Which person is going to need to gain more weight to get to 200 lbs?
[/quote]
Ok dudes. If person A did only the so called ‘nonfunctional’ exercises(isolation and machine based and open chain) and person B did only so called ‘functional’ exercises(squat, deadlift, all the good ones), assuming they trained for strenght and power and were of equat weight, body fat, with equal potential for skill development - who would you pick to start training for your team, be it football, volleyball, rugby, jiu jitsu, wrestling whatever?
Oh and they can only ever continue with the sme non/functional training methods.
Ok, understand the question? I pick the so called functional trainee.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I agree with you, but you are talking to people who pride themselves in lack of physical progress…while degrading everyone who passed up their level of development long ago by talking about phantom ankle stress from all of the “unfunctional” weight.
[/quote]
Yup, I lack physical progress alright considering in the 8 week winter offseason last year I put on 7lbs while having people comment that I looked like I lost weight after that 8-week period. My bench increased over 20lbs for the same number of reps and my squat about 40lbs for the same number of reps.
Not bad considering that 20lb bench press increase represents a 30% increase in weight relative to the weight I could push before. Come to think of it, I didn’t do any lower body isolation exercises and upper isolation exercises consisted of 2 sets of one bicep/tricep exercise. But hey, what do I know? I lack knowledge and my lack of physical progress shows this…
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
Ok dudes. If person A did only the so called ‘nonfunctional’ exercises(isolation and machine based and open chain) and person B did only so called ‘functional’ exercises(squat, deadlift, all the good ones), assuming they trained for strenght and power and were of equat weight, body fat, with equal potential for skill development - who would you pick to start training for your team, be it football, volleyball, rugby, jiu jitsu, wrestling whatever?
Oh and they can only ever continue with the sme non/functional training methods.
Ok, understand the question? I pick the so called functional trainer.[/quote]
I pick the guy who understands that no one on this forum would ever tell someone to avoid basic mass building exercises like the SQUAT.
I pick the guy who isn’t so gullible as to base all they know about training on key words like “functional” when most training programs include compound AND isolation movements and no one is saying either should be avoided (except you apparently).
I pick the guy who isn’t so retarded that they can’t understand what other people are saying so they box what they “think” is being said into little hypothetical sequences where they ignore what has been written in majority.
So whats with the you skinny little PT comments. Get back in the gym, etc. Dude, your a fucking accountant.
You should see the size of the PT here in Slovenia. He’s massive, freaky bodybuilder and I think he sucks as a trainer. Your size doesnt make you a better trainer.
You also dont have to have Dave Tate’s stats in powerlifting to be a good trainer either.
My stats suck. I’m no powerlifter.
Motocross, and snowboarding have given me some siginfigant injuries to my knees and left shoulder over the years, so super heavy lifting isnt as high on my list as being pain free and hopefully getting back on the board some day.
Do you think my injuries makes me a worse trainer?
I can confidently say that I know alot more about knees, shoulders and backs than probably 98% pesonal trainers thanks to my experiences.
My new sport is rockclimbing, does the idiot who thinks we’re(the functional believers) are really jealous of bodybuilders? Like that would help me get up the wall.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
Ok dudes. If person A did only the so called ‘nonfunctional’ exercises(isolation and machine based and open chain) and person B did only so called ‘functional’ exercises(squat, deadlift, all the good ones), assuming they trained for strenght and power and were of equat weight, body fat, with equal potential for skill development - who would you pick to start training for your team, be it football, volleyball, rugby, jiu jitsu, wrestling whatever?
Oh and they can only ever continue with the sme non/functional training methods.
Ok, understand the question? I pick the so called functional trainer.
I pick the guy who understands that no one on this forum would ever tell someone to avoid basic mass building exercises like the SQUAT.
I pick the guy who isn’t so gullible as to base all they know about training on key words like “functional” when most training programs include compound AND isolation movements and no one is saying either should be avoided (except you apparently).
I pick the guy who isn’t so retarded that they can’t understand what other people are saying so they box what they “think” is being said into little hypothetical sequences where they ignore what has been written in majority.
Yeah…I’d pick that guy.[/quote]
So again you missed the point.
I’m not saying you would avoid all the compound free weight exercises, but what if you did?
And I’m not saying avoid all isolation/machine exercises, but what if you did?
[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
I’ve come to the conclusion that posting in this thread is pointless. Cam has his head so far up his ass and into his own beliefs that he just refuses to possibly see another way. His world is still flat.[/quote]
Funny… I was going to say the same thing about you guys! You do of course realize that the “world is flat” people were the traditional thinkers (ie. “general weight training”) and it was only until people challenged the stubborn old guys view that things began to change.
[quote] He is also one of those people we all despise. The toxic people. He is definitely a toxic person.
[/quote]
Are you quoting Britney Spears??? Deadly. I can see how that is comparable to my quotes from Mike Boyle and Mel Siff.
Well if I have a Ferrari, can squat 600, and weigh 180… I’d be doing pretty well… hahahhahha. Then I could spend more time on other things (like the rest of you should) like get outside and breathe some fresh air (oh wait, you don’t have that in DC).
[quote]
Aside from the discussion board, in the real world, absolute strength matters. Will you be strong enough to move your oak headboard? I am. [/quote]
Good for you… maybe I’ll give you a call every 10 years when I move. Maybe every time my car is in a tight parking spot, I’ll call up Franco to lift it out for me. If it’s too heavy for the both of you, I’ll just move it with my miiinnnnnddddddd.
[quote]
Can you run up 15 flights of stairs if need be? I can. If I needed to jump, vertical or long, would I make it? I think so. [/quote]
Thanks for making my point for me. Relative strength (and anaerobic capacity/power and aerobic power in the stairs example) is key in the performance of both of those tasks. I hope you can understand that.
Agreed. I can happily check all of those off… I hope you can do the same
[quote]
All the “functional training” in the world is not going to lift my headboard when I move, run up the stairs, jump better, or give me the body I want. [/quote]
Yes it will. Uranus to TrainerinDC: Your head is entering our atmosphere and it’s traveling at a terminal velocity!!! AAAAAAAAHHhhhhhhhhhg. POP!
[quote]
Cam, I mean this in the nicest possible way. Please get a life. [/quote]
Hey, I like my Ferrari-drivin, 600-squattin, 180 poundin athletic life. Maybe it’s your mercedes-drivin, 500-squattin, and 220 poundin life that needs and upgrade
Just kiddin big fella, I really don’t take any of this too seriously - it’s just fun to test people’s knowledge of what they think they’re talking about and force them to realize that they are sorely lacking.
Agree or disagree, I don’t care. Can you say the same? Perhaps you should take your own advice…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I agree with you, but you are talking to people who pride themselves in lack of physical progress…while degrading everyone who passed up their level of development long ago by talking about phantom ankle stress from all of the “unfunctional” weight.
[/quote]
Since you brought it up:
Title: Weight loss reduces knee-joint loads in overweight and obese older adults with knee osteoarthritis
Author(s): Messier SP, Gutekunst DJ, Davis C, DeVita P
Source: ARTHRITIS AND RHEUMATISM 52 (7): 2026-2032 JUL 2005
“A weight reduction of 9.8N (1 kg) was associated with reductions of 40.6N and 38.7N in compressive and resultant forces, respectively, Thus, each weight-loss unit was associated with an similar to 4-unit reduction in knee-joint forces.”
This is when WALKING. Admittedly, these individuals did not have the muscular development of a typical Testosterone member, but the general principle remains the same - more bodymass = SUBSTANTIALLY more loading on the lower extremity joints.
Just imagine what the effect is when running/jumping…
