[quote]mharmar wrote:
It’s just that I believe the strength gained from isolation exercises isn’t “non-functional” is that really so hard to comprehend? [/quote]
Evidently for some it is impossible.
[quote]tanimal wrote:
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
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…
[/quote]
You are an idiot. You have been here for days. No one needs you to tell them how to post. People are impatient with you because your posts are lame. Either correct that problem or expect it to continue happening to you.
[quote]tanimal wrote:
I have never fluctuated over 5lbs within a day before…[/quote]
How about within a single dump?
– ElbowStrike
[quote]mharmar wrote:
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.
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]
Yeah yeah, ad homien attack. Shouldn’t have said idiot, and Im sorry.
Triceps pushdowns wont help the rockckimber in the slightest, I can pretty well assure you of that.
So compound being better than isolation makes them more functional…thats really about as simplified as it can get.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
So compound being better than isolation makes them more functional…thats really about as simplified as it can get.[/quote]
Please show me where this was ever an issue.
Please show me one post where anyone suggested that isolation is superior to compound.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
So compound being better than isolation makes them more functional…thats really about as simplified as it can get.
Please show me where this was ever an issue.
Please show me one post where anyone suggested that isolation is superior to compound.
[/quote]
I posted this on about page 4
[quote]Dudes,
You all seem to be agreeing on the same thing and not realising it.
Hamstring Curls - Some carryover strenght to work/sport
Deadlifts - Better carryover to strength to work/sport.
So why would you ever do hamstring curls? They are less functional in all cases I can think of.[/quote]
Do you realise how small this is? Its an argument on defining what we almost agree on.
See what I’m saying here, its making the choice to do the more effective exercises based on what youre training for.
There’s a litle more to it, but I think we can agree on that yes?
[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]
Hell, I’d pick the one who was best at the sport. Which, believe it or not, does not correlate perfectly with the shit he does in the weight room.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Cam Birtwell wrote:
<<< (i.e. absorbing abuse from individuals much larger than myself). >>>
That explains a lot =]
(I couldn’t help it.)[/quote]
Is he in prison? You would think with that high protein diet he would be bigger, unless he is taking in the other end.
[quote]tanimal wrote:
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?
I have never fluctuated over 5lbs within a day before…
[/quote]
You have never sweated through a sporting event?
You cannot always hydrate fast enough to prevent weight loss.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
So compound being better than isolation makes them more functional…thats really about as simplified as it can get.
Please show me where this was ever an issue.
Please show me one post where anyone suggested that isolation is superior to compound.
[/quote]
This is the whole damn freakin @$%&*$#@ point. EVERYTHING is superior to SOMETHING or NOTHING is superior to ANYTHING in and of itself depending on which angle you view it from, but it ALL serves some usable purpose and is in that sense “FUNCTIONAL”
Why am I still doing this to myself?
[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]
Oh, and I forgot to mention… that miniscule amount is why one lifter won and the other left.
If you’re an athlete of any kind, you will understand that every little advantage (however small) you can gain over your opponent will count in the end.
It did for powerlifter A.
BTW, I’m quite regular… no doubt because of my prison-related amorous encounters :')
Enjoy your day,
cb.