Functional / Specificity

SO I laughed this morning when I went to work and someone started doing dumbbell shoulder press on a bosu…

On another note, I am sure the Professor has passed along many tidbits of great information on this site over the years seeing as he has been a member for a long time; however, I, being a new member, have only seen recent posts from him. In most of his posts, not only on this thread but many other ones, I have found him to offer nothing but bitterness and criticism with nothing positive to say, and certainly no advice on how to help better any OP I have ever seen…I don’t understand the all the hostility…I want to see this Professor you are talking about (and I mean that seriously, not sarcastically, because it would make the website better to have more people contributing positively and constructively)

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
I dont get the ringing endorsment comment.

I figured you wouldn’t.

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.

There’s reading - and there’s understanding.

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.

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]

Why dont you explain it to me then?

Who doesn’t nderstand me or you?

Yes bodybuilding, no, not only bodybuilding. Have you ever seen the home page it states:

TESTOSTERONE NATION is a place where chemists, scientists, nutritional theorists, and exercise physiologists come together to share their discoveries with you. It?s where the best people in sport meet to experiment, theorize, and ultimately create new training programs and new nutritional protocols. It?s a place where new ideas are born, where false and outdated dogmas are destroyed, and where truth and intellect rule!

It?s home to bodybuilders, powerlifters, Mixed Martial Artists, and in fact, athletes of any kind who stand to benefit from increased size, increased strength, increased power, or increased endurance.

But beyond that, Testosterone Nation is a philosophy, a way of life. It?s where there are no excuses and no apologies; where men are free to be men. It?s where the noble aspects of Testosterone rule.

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
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]

I KNOW you and I are on the same page Andrew… isn’t it also interesting that we both use real names as well? Anyhow I think that there is a flexibility in the way that you and I are thinking in that we are open to different and potentially more effective methods of training.

Opinions are like (well you know the rest). The best thing for any of us to do is gather as much info as possible and make informed decisions based on that. At the end of the day, our ability to do so either enhances our training and our lives or detracts from it.

That’s why this forum is (was?) great… people had intelligent things to say without the insults and diatribe. I’m finding out more and more that the most useful and applicable knowledge is contained in the articles, not the forums. Hopefully this downward trend of resentment and criticism will not continue.

Superbowl today!!!

cb.

[quote]Cam Birtwell wrote:
unearth wrote:

Wow! Athlete A is .035 relatively stronger than athlete B.

This level of anal retentivness is indicative of ‘functional strength’ goofballs.

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]

Ya got me!

Athlete A is indeed a whopping three one hundredth of a percent relatively stronger than athlete B.

But, given that the average person’s weight fluctuates by five pounds on any given day, it seems a tad anal retentive to claim Athlete A is relatively stronger than athlete B. They’re at a statistical dead heat.

[quote]Cam Birtwell wrote:
That’s why this forum is (was?) great… people had intelligent things to say without the insults and diatribe.[/quote]

How many of your post directed at me have included an insult?

Perhaps it’s time you get down from your high horse.

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
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]

I’ve never had one single milligram of any anabolic drug in my body in my life. I’m not anti gear, but have never used.

[quote]unearth wrote:
But, given that the average person’s weight fluctuates by five pounds on any given day, it seems a tad anal retentive to claim Athlete A is relatively stronger than athlete B. They’re at a statistical dead heat.[/quote]

If the athletes were female, they could possibly fluxuate ten pounds in a day. What would that do to the fuctional gurus calculations?

I still can’t believe there are guys who think that lifting doesn’t help make a person functional. I don’t think anyone truly believes this. It’s denial. "I am weak, but at least I’m functional.

No – You are weak and non-functional. You would have your ass handed to you in any athletic endeavor.

Sports movements are limitless and take place in several different planes. Thus, training in several different planes is optimal.

Tripcep pushdowns would seem to be good for nothing, right? Look at pictures one and two and tell me such a “bodybuilder” move wouldn’t be helpful: http://www.bjjfighter.com/techniques/gi/mount/keylock.html

[quote]Cam Birtwell wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
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.

I KNOW you and I are on the same page Andrew… isn’t it also interesting that we both use real names as well? Anyhow I think that there is a flexibility in the way that you and I are thinking in that we are open to different and potentially more effective methods of training.

Opinions are like (well you know the rest). The best thing for any of us to do is gather as much info as possible and make informed decisions based on that. At the end of the day, our ability to do so either enhances our training and our lives or detracts from it.

That’s why this forum is (was?) great… people had intelligent things to say without the insults and diatribe. I’m finding out more and more that the most useful and applicable knowledge is contained in the articles, not the forums. Hopefully this downward trend of resentment and criticism will not continue.

Superbowl today!!!

cb.[/quote]

Yeah dude. I tried so had not be insult. I know how much it destroys credibility. I was thought it was funny, but I get the feeling these guys are red in the face and screaming when they post.

Just a thought.

Go the Bears.

[quote]tanimal wrote:
<<< the Professor >>>
<<< I have found him to offer nothing but bitterness and criticism with nothing positive to say, and certainly no advice on how to help better any OP I have ever seen… >>>
[/quote]

3 days ago directed at him personally:

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1432391

Wow. A lot of updates to this. I really like what Cam Birtwell came up with.
Can I just walk away from this post with the idea that performing exercises that mimic sport specific motions will increase performance by both muscular and neurological means? Or am I missing something?

I really don’t see where the whole bit about relative strength came into this conversation. But I think you should check out this “smaller guy’s” rant about relative strength.

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1390749

And I’m pretty sure Olympic Lifters compete in pre-set weight classes. So if a guy whose light for the heaviest class looses to a dude bordering on the edge of disqualification the light guy is sitll gonna go home with silver even if he has higher relative strength.

Relative strength only matters if it helps you win.

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
I still can’t believe there are guys who think that lifting doesn’t help make a person functional. I don’t think anyone truly believes this. It’s denial. "I am weak, but at least I’m functional.

No – You are weak and non-functional. You would have your ass handed to you in any athletic endeavor.

Sports movements are limitless and take place in several different planes. Thus, training in several different planes is optimal.

Tripcep pushdowns would seem to be good for nothing, right? Look at pictures one and two and tell me such a “bodybuilder” move wouldn’t be helpful: http://www.bjjfighter.com/techniques/gi/mount/keylock.html

[/quote]

I dont think it would be so helpful. Its all bodyweight shifting to get into that position.

His triceps are competing only really with his opponents ability to internally rotate his arm which is in a disadvantaged(bio mechanically)position. His bodyweight is doing all the work.

I used to like that move in my short juijitsu experience.

[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]

One thing I have noticed is that people have been resorting to ad hominem attacks a lot it’s a logical fallacy people and completely undermines your argument.

[quote]mharmar wrote:

One thing I have noticed is that people have been resorting to ad hominem attacks a lot it’s a logical fallacy people and completely undermines your argument.
[/quote]

Totally agree. I think I was like the last to do it, and the first to be accused of it.

Happens alot on this site when anyone mentions something non conventional.

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
I dont think it would be so helpful. Its all bodyweight shifting to get into that position.

His triceps are competing only really with his opponents ability to internally rotate his arm which is in a disadvantaged(bio mechanically)position. His bodyweight is doing all the work.[/quote]

Wrong.

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
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]

See now that right there is an ad hominem attack. Plus I didn’t say I thought you functional believers were jealous, I asked if you were jealous, big difference. No looking like a bodybuilder would not help you get up the wall. But I am sure any strength gained would help you get up the wall whether it be from triceps pressdowns or deadlifts, all that strength is useful.

I don’t understand these arguments going on at all by the way. Did anyone say isolation exercises build more strength than compound? I don’t remember seeing that, hell I have at least 2 compound movements per muscle group. It’s just that I believe the strength gained from isolation exercises isn’t “non-functional” is that really so hard to comprehend?

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
I dont think it would be so helpful. Its all bodyweight shifting to get into that position.

His triceps are competing only really with his opponents ability to internally rotate his arm which is in a disadvantaged(bio mechanically)position. His bodyweight is doing all the work.

Wrong.[/quote]

Really? I think otherwise, but anyways .

So do the pressdowns, but make a handle out of a kimono and do them one arm at a time. :slight_smile:

[quote]FightingScott wrote:
Wow. A lot of updates to this. I really like what Cam Birtwell came up with.
Can I just walk away from this post with the idea that performing exercises that mimic sport specific motions will increase performance by both muscular and neurological means? Or am I missing something?
[/quote]

That’s it right there - bang on! Nice work.

cb.

[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
unearth wrote:
But, given that the average person’s weight fluctuates by five pounds on any given day, it seems a tad anal retentive to claim Athlete A is relatively stronger than athlete B. They’re at a statistical dead heat.

If the athletes were female, they could possibly fluxuate ten pounds in a day. What would that do to the fuctional gurus calculations? [/quote]

I have never fluctuated over 5lbs within a day before…

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
tanimal wrote:
<<< the Professor >>>
<<< I have found him to offer nothing but bitterness and criticism with nothing positive to say, and certainly no advice on how to help better any OP I have ever seen… >>>

3 days ago directed at him personally:

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1432391

[/quote]

Just read that. It was actually nice and helpful. He still shouldn’t get so angry and impatient when people don’t share his viewpoint though…