So when I see a guy who likes to throw around “knowledge”, but appears unable to grasp the idea that regardless of how muscles get stronger they are stronger nonetheless, my respect meter plummets like a dropped barbell.
[/quote]
Knowing why one exercise is more beneficial than another is knowledge without the quotation marks. My last question to you is “how do you measure strength?” Dan John has an interesting article just posted and he discusses the effects of HIT training. Read this first.
Almost all of the most successful strength coaches blend science with practicality (Poliquin, DeFranco, Cressey are the first three that came to mind). Some others that would disagree with some of the posts here are: Verkhoshansky, Zatsiorsky, the late Mel Siff, Mike Boyle etc.
If you have no need to maximize the transfer of your training to a sport or occupation, nor the need to simply help your body function better as a whole, I don’t blame you for not wanting to learn about it.
The only contributions that I have seen from Prof X on any threads I have followed (including this one) have consisted of insults, ignorance, and the inability to effectively get his point across with good examples or explanations.
I have no doubt that he has lots of information about gaining weight, bodybuilding, and perhaps even effectively and efficiently gaining strength. I would (sincerely!) like to see an article of his experience and training methods on the main page. Given that he spends a lot of time on this site, he should have the resources to come up with a good summary.
[quote]
You may not be quite the asshole I originally took you for, but it’s guys like you who lead these poor noobs around in circles when all they need is the same basic shit that’s worked for 100 years.[/quote]
I could really care less if people think I’m an asshole or not - I will challenge some traditional beliefs, but I will back up my words and use actual explanations instead of claiming “everyone knows…”. If someone’s goal is to train like people did 100 years ago, more power to them. In the meantime, I’ll be building faster, stronger, healthier, fitter, and more effective athletes (and everyday people). To each their own.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Cam Birtwell wrote:
Eccentric strength is related to incidence of hamstring pulls and you can effectively train eccentrically on a leg curl machine. I would contend that doing GHR negatives are just as easy and potentially more beneficial.
Dammit kid - just walk away from the leg curl, and leave it alone. You have completely missed the argument in an effort to prove just how smart you are. Sadly - in doing so you have proven your inability to prove much of anything. I think you need to work on your functional intelligence. [/quote]
For a second there I was thinking maybe some of us were going too hard on the guy and maybe there was more misunderstanding than it first appeared. Then he had to go n quote my “strength is strength” statement out of the contexts of both the individual post and the discussion at large.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Cam Birtwell wrote:
Eccentric strength is related to incidence of hamstring pulls and you can effectively train eccentrically on a leg curl machine. I would contend that doing GHR negatives are just as easy and potentially more beneficial.
Dammit kid - just walk away from the leg curl, and leave it alone. You have completely missed the argument in an effort to prove just how smart you are. Sadly - in doing so you have proven your inability to prove much of anything. I think you need to work on your functional intelligence.
For a second there I was thinking maybe some of us were going too hard on the guy and maybe there was more misunderstanding than it first appeared. Then he had to go n quote my “strength is strength” statement out of the contexts of both the individual post and the discussion at large.[/quote]
Given enough time, you will begin to pick out these ass-hats from a mile away from their very first post. This guy is no exception. It was painfully evident long before this thread. There are hundreds of guys like this on the internet. They are equally as unimpressive when seen in person.
[quote]Cam Birtwell wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
rainjack
If you tested your 10RM on a barbell back squat and then did only smith machine squats for 3 or 4 months. Would you expect your barbell squat to improve as a result? Everything else being equal.
Better yet, test the 10RM squat then train the involved muscles with leg extensions, back extensions, and leg curls. Since “strength is strength” as Tiribulus put it, one should see improvement if their isolation numbers go up?
Thanks for adding your insight to this (I mean your own) thread… I’m pretty sure you and I are on the same page here!
cb.[/quote]
I could have suggested the split bodypart approach to the squat, but i think you can even prove the theory with a smith machine using the exact movement pattern.
Tribulus seems not to see or understand this point of view.
Muscle strenght is useless if it cant be applied. So if a smith squat builds strenght not shared by the free squat, what is that strenght actually going to be good for?
You still have yet to show me what kind of muscle strength is useless because it can not be applied anywhere.
Please list these types of strength that are incapable of being applied to any task at all.
Your point is ridiculous. It is like saying, “Shoulder presses are USELESS…to a race horse jocky…therefore, they are useless”. The smarter you try to sound, the dumber you look. But hey, at least you have company.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
Muscle strenght is useless if it cant be applied. So if a smith squat builds strenght not shared by the free squat, what is that strenght actually going to be good for?
[/quote]
The majority of pro and elite athletes don’t even do free weight squats anymore because of the risk of injury. If there has to be a smith machine exercise, the choice is squats because it is very close to the barbell version.
Now tell me, if a guy has a 135 lb squat bb, works on a smith machine for 6 months squatting progressively heavier, do you think he will go back to the barbell squatting only 135? No. As soon as he re-adjusts to the technique, his BB squat will be much higher. Smith squat strength will translate to BB squat strength. So will smith bench and incline presses, shoulder presses and rows. It may not be as dificult, but it will cause gains in muscle mass and strength.
Strength isnt general, just like fitness isnt gereral.
Needs to be specific to the application.
Take elite cyclist/swimmer
One isnt good at the other.
Strongman tyre flipper/Powerlifter Squat.
One isnt good at the other.[/quote]
You are talking about skills within the given sports.
All I said was leg curls can help make stronger hams, and that stronger hams are very functional in a sport such as soccer. Therefore, I consider leg curls as “functional.” The point to the argument was to debunk some gurus’ use of the term “functional training,” since all training is functional.
I didn’t say that leg curls were the best exercise for hams. I rarely do them. I don’t think anybody said that they were the best, just that they have a place in training for lots of folks. They are certainly not useless as someone stated.
The majority of pro and elite athletes don’t even do free weight squats anymore because of the risk of injury. If there has to be a smith machine exercise, the choice is squats because it is very close to the barbell version.
[/quote]
Could you direct me to a resource that supports your assertion that the “majority” of pro and elite athletes do not do free weight squats? Perhaps you could also provide some info as to how smith machine squats are safer/healthier for the body than free weight squats.
Take another individual who works solely with the barbell squat and train them for the same amount of time - who will be stronger? I am not debating that strength CAN transfer but just how much and if there is a more efficient way to do so.
You now have a nearly 100% success rate at missing my points entirely at best or intentionally misrepresenting them at worst and I’m saying uncle. You can interpret that as “bowing out gracefully” if you so desire.
Chalk it up as another one of your many victories over the intellectually inferior who’s ineptitude is surpassed only by their gall in ever having been foolish enough to tangle with you in the first place.
There are too many serfs out there suffering in ignorance for me to keep you from them any longer in good conscience.
Given enough time, you will begin to pick out these ass-hats from a mile away from their very first post. This guy is no exception. It was painfully evident long before this thread.
[/quote]
Given that I hadn’t done any major posting on these boards for the past 3 years, “painfully evident long before” does not apply.
There are thousands of 5’11" 270 pounders in the states… your point is?
[quote]
They are equally as unimpressive when seen in person.[/quote]
Perhaps unremarkable while wearing nondescript clothes. Hardly so when on the playing field, in the squat rack, on the beach, or hitting on your girlfriend.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Dammit kid - just walk away from the leg curl, and leave it alone. You have completely missed the argument in an effort to prove just how smart you are. Sadly - in doing so you have proven your inability to prove much of anything. I think you need to work on your functional intelligence. [/quote]
hahhahahaha… nice one. I will have to use that sometime “functional intelligence” - the ability to effectively wade through the rhetoric and insults to get to the main issue.
Perhaps you have missed the point of the thread… what is functional, what is specific?
Your avatar is funny. Is that SuperTroopers? I’m looking forward to Reno 911.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
You still have yet to show me what kind of muscle strength is useless because it can not be applied anywhere.
Please list these types of strength that are incapable of being applied to any task at all.
Your point is ridiculous. It is like saying, “Shoulder presses are USELESS…to a race horse jocky…therefore, they are useless”. The smarter you try to sound, the dumber you look. But hey, at least you have company.[/quote]
Perhaps “limited use” is a better term. Suboptimal? Inappropriate? Unless that jockey wants to bulk up for the photo in the winner’s circle.
I’ve been lead to believe that Functional exercises mimic an actual movement performed in a sport while specific exercises target a single muscle.
But does it really fucking matter? Why make up almost interchangeable terms when you can just tailor a workout to match your goals by common sense. The quad leg raise machine is specific to developing the quad but functional at building the strength that comes in handy when you kick a standing man in the balls from a chair.
[quote]Cam Birtwell wrote:
Professor X wrote:
You still have yet to show me what kind of muscle strength is useless because it can not be applied anywhere.
Please list these types of strength that are incapable of being applied to any task at all.
Your point is ridiculous. It is like saying, “Shoulder presses are USELESS…to a race horse jocky…therefore, they are useless”. The smarter you try to sound, the dumber you look. But hey, at least you have company.
Perhaps “limited use” is a better term. Suboptimal? Inappropriate? Unless that jockey wants to bulk up for the photo in the winner’s circle.
[/quote]
I tried. I really did, but I can’t bring myself to leave this alone. How can one guy so completely miss such simple points so consistently. It’s an innate talent. Has to be. My hat is off.
Wow, where to even start with this one…I have never seen so many people (well there were actually just a few) not understand, AT ALL, the difference between functional and specific…
Functional: An exercise that has very similar biomechanical movements to those used in everyday life.
Specific: Any exercise that is applied for a specific use (be it BB, sports, rehab, etc…)
Therefore, leg curl = specific but in no way functional. What about overhead db or barbell tricep extensions? Functional? Nope, specific to bb who do them for aesthetic purposes. When are you ever going to be lifting something from BEHIND your head to a position above your head? And please don’t even try to convince me that it is specific for soccer throw ins, because it is not…Use an overhead med ball throw then…much more specific.
I think it was Tiribulis or ProfX who wrote “strength gained anywhere is strength usable anywhere”…are you kidding me?? Not necessarily can it be used anywhere. Not even close to 100% of your strength will transfer from exercise to exercise and I would like to see you prove me otherwise.
One of the first principles of physiology is specificity of training…and in laments terms, that means you have to train specifically for strength, endurance, hypertrophy, power, speed, agility, sports, etc…, and this applies to both aerobic and anaerobic systems as well.
Which brings me to another case in point:
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote: Strength isnt general, just like fitness isnt gereral. Needs to be specific to the application.
Take elite cyclist/swimmer
One isnt good at the other.
La wrote: You are talking about skills within the given sports.[/quote]
What? You think that the act of cycling and swimming are skills of the sport?? Sure, some people who are more muscularly dense than others have more trouble swimming, but aside from that, do you think that just because someone can bike 180km they could swim 5 or 10km just the same?
You are a fool. You have to train specifically, aerobic capacity doesn’t 100% transfer, and neither does strength.
[quote]Nikiforos wrote:
If you think that you will be able to perform deadlifts and squats with any modicum of frequency in your workouts as an in-season soccer player (at least, with European schedules, don’t know how often they play/train over there) then I invite you to take up the sport and try.[/quote]
Well, seeing as how I play rugby and the season is in full swing right now and I train my legs at least twice per week, I think that a soccer play who doesn’t tackle and be tackled for 80 minutes could surely pull off the same training schedule…
I don’t know what kind of elite athletes you know, but every elite or pro athlete I know does free-standing barbell back squats…
Someone could not have said it better. I don’t think I have seen one of his posts have anything intelligent, meaningful or constructive to say…
Yea I guess it’s pretty hard to get to 270lbs when you stand 5’11"…Exactly how much of that is fat and how much of that is muscle?..I am betting that the bulk majority of it is fat and if you trimmed down, you would probably be around 220lbs. Which, don’t get me wrong, would still be a very respectable size…
but seriously, maybe you should put all your “practical knowledge” to use and cut down since you pretty much know everything and most other people on this website cleary know nothing about training principles…
By the way, just because someone is only 180lbs, doesn’t mean they can’t get any bigger. There are people in this world who, believe it or not, have no use for being massive and putting unnecessary strain and weight on their hip, knee and ankle joints…
Nope, I am pretty sure him, Andrew and only a few other people on here were actually grasping the real issue at hand and had anything useful to say to debate the topic. I got his point, so did the others who have formal education in Physical Education…
You may know how to lift weights and what works for your body, but I doubt you can explain physiologically why everything happens. Go read some books and then you might be able to keep up with the information some of the people are posting…
[quote]FightingScott wrote:
I’ve been lead to believe that Functional exercises mimic an actual movement performed in a sport while specific exercises target a single muscle.
But does it really fucking matter? Why make up almost interchangeable terms when you can just tailor a workout to match your goals by common sense. The quad leg raise machine is specific to developing the quad but functional at building the strength that comes in handy when you kick a standing man in the balls from a chair.[/quote]
Too bad the pic didn’t copy. I loved this one! I laughed pretty good. You pretty much made the thread with that one, made it not so frustrating and lightened the mood a bit.
Well, I think that’s about it for now…I didn’t mean to offend some of the intelligent people who posted on this thread, only the dumbasses…
[quote]Cam Birtwell wrote:
Now tell me, if a guy has a 135 lb squat bb, works on a smith machine for 6 months squatting progressively heavier, do you think he will go back to the barbell squatting only 135? No. As soon as he re-adjusts to the technique, his BB squat will be much higher.
Take another individual who works solely with the barbell squat and train them for the same amount of time - who will be stronger? I am not debating that strength CAN transfer but just how much and if there is a more efficient way to do so.[/quote]
It is no secret that a significant number if not the majority of NFL and NBA players don’t do free weight lifts as much as machines, i.e. smith, to minimize potential injury.
Of course they will have more gains with the BB as opposed to the smith, this is no contest. But they will have gains, FUNCTIONAL gains, on a smith as well.
[quote]tanimal wrote:
Therefore, leg curl = specific but in no way functional. What about overhead db or barbell tricep extensions? Functional? Nope, specific to bb who do them for aesthetic purposes. When are you ever going to be lifting something from BEHIND your head to a position above your head? And please don’t even try to convince me that it is specific for soccer throw ins, because it is not…Use an overhead med ball throw then…much more specific. [/quote]
Shooting a basketball? Where are all of these idiots coming from? Behind the neck triceps extensions are now “unfunctional” because you can’t immediately think of a movement that mimics the exact same movement? This is actually a little funny.
Here’s a tip, unless we are discussing SPORT SPECIFIC TRAINING which means movements SPECIFIC FOR A SPORT OR EVENT, this entire discussion is absolutely ridiculous. That same behind the neck triceps extensions helps DEVELOP MY TRICEPS STRENGTH which translates into EVERYTHING I USE TRICEPS FOR.
That is why people who are lacking strength on the bench press very often need to take time and work on development of the muscle groups BESIDES CHEST that aid in the movement. This is done through isolation exercises.
[quote]
I think it was Tiribulis or ProfX who wrote “strength gained anywhere is strength usable anywhere”…are you kidding me?? Not necessarily can it be used anywhere. Not even close to 100% of your strength will transfer from exercise to exercise and I would like to see you prove me otherwise. [/quote]
Holy crap. If I build up strength in my triceps through isolation movements, this does NOT transfer over to helping me in the bench press? Please tell me you don’t think this.
[quote]
One of the first principles of physiology is specificity of training…and in laments terms[/quote]
I’m sorry, whose terms?
[quote]
Which brings me to another case in point:
Andrew Dixon wrote: Strength isnt general, just like fitness isnt gereral. Needs to be specific to the application.
Take elite cyclist/swimmer
One isnt good at the other.
La wrote: You are talking about skills within the given sports.
What? You think that the act of cycling and swimming are skills of the sport?? Sure, some people who are more muscularly dense than others have more trouble swimming, but aside from that, do you think that just because someone can bike 180km they could swim 5 or 10km just the same? [/quote]
You are retarded. That isn’t what he was saying at all, doofus. He was saying that sports have specific movements that can be trained for. Outside of that arena, this discussion is pointless other than to give you idiots some public space for mental masturbation. Mind you, that is some poor masturbating you are doing. You all should really take classes on how to reach orgasm.
Uhm…wow.
[quote]
Cam Birtwell wrote: The only contributions that I have seen from Prof X on any threads I have followed (including this one) have consisted of insults, ignorance, and the inability to effectively get his point across with good examples or explanations.
Someone could not have said it better. I don’t think I have seen one of his posts have anything intelligent, meaningful or constructive to say…[/quote]
LOL. Like this post from you is intelligent, meaningful and constructive. I’m loving this. You guys crack me up.
[quote]
Cam Birtwell: I have no doubt that he has lots of information about gaining weight, bodybuilding, and perhaps even effectively and efficiently gaining strength.
Yea I guess it’s pretty hard to get to 270lbs when you stand 5’11"…Exactly how much of that is fat and how much of that is muscle?..I am betting that the bulk majority of it is fat and if you trimmed down, you would probably be around 220lbs. Which, don’t get me wrong, would still be a very respectable size…[/quote]
Kid, most people here know what I look like. Your critique of how I’m built isn’t needed. You can bet that dieted down, I would be carrying more lean body mass than many on this site. When that becomes my main priority, I will let you know.
[quote].
By the way, just because someone is only 180lbs, doesn’t mean they can’t get any bigger. There are people in this world who, believe it or not, have no use for being massive and putting unnecessary strain and weight on their hip, knee and ankle joints…[/quote]
Why does most of this crap always come from some of the least developed people? You would think with all of this “theory” they would either be professional athletes themselves or a hell of a lot more built.
[quote]
Nope, I am pretty sure him, Andrew and only a few other people on here were actually grasping the real issue at hand and had anything useful to say to debate the topic. I got his point, so did the others who have formal education in Physical Education…
You may know how to lift weights and what works for your body, but I doubt you can explain physiologically why everything happens. Go read some books and then you might be able to keep up with the information some of the people are posting…[/quote]
What a load of crap. Experience serves a great purpose. It is also what separates the skinny guys talking about what might be accomplished from the guys who have actually done it. No one needs a formal education in P.E. to get a full grasp of what they need to to see results. While knowledge is definitely power and the goal should be to gain as much as possible. There comes a time when ACTION and results beat theory and a whole lot of talk.
[quote]
FightingScott wrote:
I’ve been lead to believe that Functional exercises mimic an actual movement performed in a sport while specific exercises target a single muscle.
But does it really fucking matter?[/quote]
Yes. It really fucking matters. It really fucking matters that this discussion makes no sense outside of SPORT SPECIFIC TRAINING. Otherwise, it is simply a bunch of skinny dudes trying to sound intelligent to everyone here who lifts seriously when it isn’t actually helping anyone make any further progress.
What is “functional” for one sport may or may not be “functional” for another sport. That makes trying to point out what exercises are “functional” in and of themselves completely ridiculous. Get a clue.
It is no secret that a significant number if not the majority of NFL and NBA players don’t do free weight lifts as much as machines, i.e. smith, to minimize potential injury.
[/quote]
I do believe that you are telling the truth as you see it but I would like someone to direct me to an article of some kind that reports this info directly from the source.
I’m pretty sure you and I are on the same page here!