[quote]rainjack wrote:
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]
They won’t get it Sliver, but it is fun to try!!!
cb.
PS. I know I said I was done, but it’s like crack man… it jususssst keeepspss me comingggg backkkk.
[quote]Cam Birtwell wrote:
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.
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…
Yours truly (in joint health)
cb.
[/quote]
Dear GOD that was retarded.
Go here and read:
http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/926042449.html
If you weren’t aware, building muscle through resistance training aids those with arthritis. Comparing a regular weight lifter to an obese sedentary person and saying, “hey look, the fat people who didn’t leave their seats all day had joint problems so you will too” is possibly the height of stupidity in this entire thread.
The sad part is, I had to provide a link when this should be common knowledge especially on this site.
While extreme weights may cause overuse problems, especially in runners, to relate that to “everyone over 200lbs” makes me wonder what is wrong with you.
For the record, my ankles are just fine.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
rainjack
So whats with the you skinny little PT comments. Get back in the gym, etc. Dude, your a fucking accountant.[/quote]
Evidently those that just do it like ProfX, and Mr Coleman seem to have a better grip on how to do it, than the swiss ball PT crowd.
I am an accountant that happens to have a full size gym in the back of his office building. Ronnie Coleman was a fucking cop. He won at least 2 Olympias while holding down a full time job.
The fact that you think he sucks is a ringing endorsement.
I could give a shit about your injuries - I think you are a typical PT because of the crap you espouse.
I’m glad. Really
[quote]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]
Maybe someone would give a shit if this were a fucking rock climbing site. Sadly for you - this is a body building site.
[quote]Cam Birtwell wrote:
rainjack wrote:
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?
They won’t get it Sliver, but it is fun to try!!!
cb.
PS. I know I said I was done, but it’s like crack man… it jususssst keeepspss me comingggg backkkk.[/quote]
I keep comming back too. This shit is good for my brain, except when Poof.X posts his magic. I think that actually lowers my IQ…you know, like when you watch Jerry pringer.
Thing is, I consider what the steriod cycling, extra room in the nut sack, oversized ego meatheads are saying. I’ve even gone from saying the ‘non’ functional exercises are useless to have some (even if only a teeny tiny amount) functional carryover. I can give them that. I think I said that in a round about way anyway.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
The word “functional” never shows up, and nothing he said disproves the notion that non-specific training is transferrable.
[/quote]
…Just that specific training transfers more. POINT! yayyyyyyyyy!
Just for you, Jack…
More Mel Siff:
"Although hypertrophy is the long-term result of a certain regime of neuromuscular stimulation, it is not the inevitable consequence of all types of work against resistance. Two basic types of resistance training may be recognized, namely:
functional resistance training
structural resistance training"
“While structural resistance training is aimed primarily at producing muscle hypertrophy…, functional strength training is associated with many different performance goals, including improvement in static strength, speed-strength, muscle endurance and reactive ability. In other words, the former produces increases in diameter and/or strength of individual muscle fibers, whereas the latter implicates the contractions of the numerous muscle fibres (I would add in a coordinated and practiced pattern) to produce the appropriate training effect.”
"At a more detailed level, functional training involves the following processes:
Intermuscular coordination (blurb)
Intramuscular coordination (blurb)
Facilitatory and inhibitory reflexive processes (blurb)
Motor learning."
cb.
[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 trainee.[/quote]
Nobody was ever saying to do such a thing. My point was/is that any exercise that helps develop strength is a functional exercise.
I think that the term “functional training” is used and abused by many people. And, that term is often used and abused by PTs selling their services.
I think that these are the same points Prof X, rainjack and the others were making as well.
LA
[quote]Cam Birtwell wrote:
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.
Powerlifter A: 2000/241 = 8.299
Powerlifter B: 2000/242 = 8.264
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).
End of story. Undebatable. Sorry.
cb.
[/quote]
Wow! Athlete A is .035 relatively stronger than athlete B.
This level of anal retentivness is indicative of ‘functional strength’ goofballs.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
rainjack
The fact that you think he sucks is a ringing endorsement.
Do you think my injuries makes me a worse trainer?
I could give a shit about your injuries - I think you are a typical PT because of the crap you espouse.
I can confidently say that I know alot more about knees, shoulders and backs than probably 98% pesonal trainers thanks to my experiences.
I’m glad. Really
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.
Maybe someone would give a shit if this were a fucking rock climbing site. Sadly for you - this is a body building site. [/quote]
I dont get the ringing endorsment comment. He’s a crap trainer, because he doenst seem to pay much attention to his clients doing behind he neck pulldowns with terrible form. Nothing to do with his size.
Funny because I learnt alot of the crap I espouse reading the articles here on T-Nation(at least it encourage further reading on certain topics). I read almost all of them.
This site is alot more than just a bodybuilding resource. Can’t you see that? Theres even a politics and world issues section. This section is building better bodies.
[quote]unearth wrote:
For example, you’d be hard pressed to find a coach in the NBA that didn’t at least play college level basketball, or an NFL coach that didn’t at least play college level football. Louie Simmons was never a powerlifting great but he has certainly competed at a high level in powerlifting.
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]
…
[quote] Cam Birtwell wrote:
Perhaps it HELPS with notoriety etc. but a better judgement is the quality of the athletes/teams that are produced.[/quote]
Strength training seems to be the only field where guys think they can learn everything from a book.
Why is this?
No one would ever hire an NFL or NBA coach that didn’t at least play college level ball. No one would ever hire an NFL or NBA coach who’s only experience was with books.
Now, for some strange reason, any dipshit with a sub 300 lbs bench who’s read a few books on the subject thinks they’re an expert on getting strong. They start touting goofy garbage like one legged squats on a moving skateboard while holding a beach ball over your head. They yammer on and on about being .035 relatively stronger than someone else.
The ‘functional strength’ phenomena is ridiculous.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
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]
OMG, what if Britain had won the revolutionary war? WHO CARES!?!?!? Nobody is saying anything like the meaningless hypotheticals you mention.
Birtwell, even though I can’t bring myself to outright dislike you, you’re a troll. You’re a chain yanking powder blue matching sweatsuit who hasn’t taken any of this seriously from start.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
I keep comming back too. This shit is good for my brain, except when Poof.X posts his magic. I think that actually lowers my IQ…you know, like when you watch Jerry pringer.
[/quote]
You know insulting Prof X whilen spouting your bull shit isn’t going to carry you too far in this discussion. Many members of this board, myself included have a tremendous respect for the professor, and have learned a lot from him over our time here.
He’s not a fitness professional, like myself and yourself (for you I use professional very loosely) he does this to help out less experienced lifters because he wants to.
Knock our viewpoint all you want, but please be man enough to not knock the man. It only makes those of us reading your posts respect you, your abilities and your apparently superior intellect even less.
[quote]LA 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 trainee.
Nobody was ever saying to do such a thing. My point was/is that any exercise that helps develop strength is a functional exercise.
I think that the term “functional training” is used and abused by many people. And, that term is often used and abused by PTs selling their services.
I think that these are the same points Prof X, rainjack and the others were making as well.
LA[/quote]
I ont hink this was the point of ProfX, etc. I was simply defining a term at the start of the post.
I agree that the term functional is miss used by PT with all the fancy execises. Thats not what I’m doing at all.
It’s like if you eat junk food occasionally is probably ok for you, but only junk food, thats bad for you.
You can’t just say its all food and all contributes equally to health.
Thus we have the defining terms, Junk and health food.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
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?
OMG, what if Britain had won the revolutionary war? WHO CARES!?!?!? Nobody is saying anything like the meaningless hypotheticals you mention.
Birtwell, even though I can’t bring myself to outright dislike you, you’re a troll. You’re a chain yanking powder blue matching sweatsuit who hasn’t taken any of this seriously from start. [/quote]
Dude, I’m trying to make a point. I know thats not what being said, surely you can see the angle I comming from.
If you guys thought a bit instead of exploding in a rage of roid abuse, you’d maybe get this.
[quote]Cam Birtwell wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The word “functional” never shows up, and nothing he said disproves the notion that non-specific training is transferrable.
…Just that specific training transfers more. POINT! yayyyyyyyyy!
cb.[/quote]
Before you pull a muscle with all the pom pom waving - When was this ever a point of debate?
I guess this proves my theory that the functional strength PT crowd is little more than a gaggle of estrogen-filled waifes. I mean - you guys are like arguing with pre-menstrual women.
[quote]unearth wrote:
Wow! Athlete A is .035 relatively stronger than athlete B.
This level of anal retentivness is indicative of ‘functional strength’ goofballs.[/quote]
It takes a big man to admit when he is wrong… I can see that you are quiiiitte tiny. awwwwww.
hahaha.
enjoy your day!
cb
[quote]unearth wrote:
Wow! Athlete A is relatively stronger than athlete B.
[/quote]
I like this one even better 
cb.
[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
I keep comming back too. This shit is good for my brain, except when Poof.X posts his magic. I think that actually lowers my IQ…you know, like when you watch Jerry pringer.
You know insulting Prof X whilen spouting your bull shit isn’t going to carry you too far in this discussion. Many members of this board, myself included have a tremendous respect for the professor, and have learned a lot from him over our time here.
He’s not a fitness professional, like myself and yourself (for you I use professional very loosely) he does this to help out less experienced lifters because he wants to.
Knock our viewpoint all you want, but please be man enough to not knock the man. It only makes those of us reading your posts respect you, your abilities and your apparently superior intellect even less. [/quote]
Fair comments, except the one loosely defing me. We all have our methods, mine work for my clientelle, I’m sre yours are happy with their results too.
I tried so hard not to be abusive, but the ProfX just attracts it. He comes in screaming abuse from the first post.
And you see me as abusive. Interesting.
Anyways, I’m joking around.
I dont claim to judge anyone based on some post on a message board. The Prof may be a nice dude in person. Anything is possible.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dear GOD that was retarded.
Go here and read:
http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/926042449.html
If you weren’t aware, building muscle through resistance training aids those with arthritis. Comparing a regular weight lifter to an obese sedentary person and saying, “hey look, the fat people who didn’t leave their seats all day had joint problems so you will too” is possibly the height of stupidity in this entire thread.
The sad part is, I had to provide a link when this should be common knowledge especially on this site.
[/quote]
ummmmm. Right. Because I was saying that weight training was not beneficial to people with arthritis. Maybe gaining 35 pounds in 1 year would be (which is what noobs do on this site to appease the bloaties).
I can see the headline now… “220+ bodybuilders defy the laws of physics!!!11111”
[quote]
While extreme weights may cause overuse problems, especially in runners, to relate that to “everyone over 200lbs” makes me wonder what is wrong with you. [/quote]
Those quotations are yours my friend - I made no such claim.
[quote]
For the record, my ankles are just fine.[/quote]
Talk to me when you’re 65 
Dear GOD THAT was retarded… hahaha.
cb.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
I dont get the ringing endorsment comment. [/quote]
I figured you wouldn’t.
There’s reading - and there’s understanding.
[quote]This site is alot more than just a bodybuilding resource. Can’t you see that? Theres even a politics and world issues section. This section is building better bodies.
[/quote]
Good lord - the motto here is “Bodybuilding’s Think Tank”. I hate to burst your bubble - but this is first and foremost a body building site.
Has it never occured to you why “Project Superhero” includes Stan McQuay, and not whoever the world champion fucntional strength guy is? I have not seen any rock climbers gracing a photo spread, or even an article for that matter.
Go figure.
[quote]LA wrote:
Nobody was ever saying to do such a thing. My point was/is that any exercise that helps develop strength is a functional exercise. [/quote]
Can be debated to no end, but I pretty much agree.
[quote]
I think that the term “functional training” is used and abused by many people. And, that term is often used and abused by PTs selling their services. [/quote]
I definitely agree with this, and it is a shame because of the automatic association with “selling” and “gimmicks” - In my mind the word refers to a philosophy of maximum transfer to one’s chosen activities. This definition is not shared by many people though.
[quote]
I think that these are the same points Prof X, rainjack and the others were making as well.
LA[/quote]
Thanks for putting your ideas forward without insults, derision, or “everyone knows this” statements.
cb.