I was making a point that aerobic fitness isnt general and neither is strenght. Swimmer vs cyclist or deadlifter vs squatter, pull up vs pull down, shoulder press vs handstand pushup, etc.
SPORTS SPECIFIC STRENGHT is functional strength. Work specific strength or gandening specific strength, all need to be trained specifically.
Sure you may get the illusion of being stronger after smith squatting for a while. You also may get the illusion of being safer, but its when your smith machine is no longer there you are at risk of injury.
So when your machine strenght is to be realised without your machine, you put your self at risk of injury.
So youre only as strong as your weakest link, so for it to be functional the whole chain needs to be trained.
Using elbows out tri extensions for picking up a bench press may usefull. It’s not really what you’d consider a functional exercise. The functional exercise has to be useful on it own. Thats how I look at it anyway.
Without these distinctions, we would just be giving everyone isolation exercise for any old reason.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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. [/quote]
Didn’t you say that in your first or second post in this thread? How hard is it to grasp that? Evidently, there are those on this thread that have just finished reading their “PT-Quarterly” magazine and feel the need to let everyone know how smart they are. I think there must be something in the water up in Canada.
There is no such thing as “functional” training. And I make a motion that from here on out, anyone caught referring to something that doesn’t exist should be tarred and feathered.
There are only two reasons to do resistance training. Period. 1.To get stronger. 2. To get bigger.
You can apply resistance training SPECIFICALLY to better performance in a given sport, or activity, but you cannot call it functional - it is specific.
Honestly - you PT guys need try getting to a gym and actually training instead of reading about one.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
tanimal wrote:
<<< 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.
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] Emphasis mine
This is what I’m talkin about. Tanimal quoted Andrew Dixon’s misquote of my statement rather than the statement itself. I said “ANY frickin utilization of that muscle for any purpose whatsoever will carry with it that benefit. 100% of the time.”. That is a quantification of instance not degree.
I’ll step back now so I don’t get the smoke from your ears in my eyes while you ponder the heights of that apparently incomprehensible difference.
Professor X is a smart guy, but I’d be dishonest if I gave him too much credit for thoroughly understanding this.
Number one because he brought it up first and number two because I just this minute asked my aforementioned 11 year old daughter this question. She trains BTW. “Is your getting stronger on Dad’s weights making you stronger anywhere else?”
She looked at me kinda confused and slowly said “yyyyeah?” Like " that can’t be a real question, ya somthin a little tougher".
I was making a point that aerobic fitness isnt general and neither is strenght. Swimmer vs cyclist or deadlifter vs squatter, pull up vs pull down, shoulder press vs handstand pushup, etc.
SPORTS SPECIFIC STRENGHT is functional strength. Work specific strength or gandening specific strength, all need to be trained specifically.
Sure you may get the illusion of being stronger after smith squatting for a while. You also may get the illusion of being safer, but its when your smith machine is no longer there you are at risk of injury.
[/quote]
This is by far the dumbest statement I have ever heard. I have lifted for several years now. According to you, all of my strength gained is an “illusion” unless I am training specifically for a sport. You need serious mental help. Get it quickly.
Since I am a lament (sic), I will attempt to put this in lament’s (sic) terms.
For the sake of this discussion, I provide the following definitions:
*flubberwhacking = any sport, game, or athletic endeavor of your choice
*dinkus maximus = any muscle or muscle group
*dinglehoppers = any exercise, compound OR isolation. For the sake of this argument, lets stay away from swiss balls, bosu balls, wobble boards etc. We all know they are functional anyway.
You want to be a better flubberwhacker. It doesn’t matter if you just want to beat your brother-in-law Bob, or you want to compete at the highest level.
Flubberwhacking coaches at all levels agree that a big strong dinkus maximus is very important in the sport of flubberwhacking. Few experts in the field of S&C will disagree.
Dinglehoppers, while controversial in some circles, are widely accepted (as ONE of many exercises) to help create a bigger , stronger dinkus maximus.
Didn’t you say that in your first or second post in this thread? How hard is it to grasp that? Evidently, there are those on this thread that have just finished reading their “PT-Quarterly” magazine and feel the need to let everyone know how smart they are. I think there must be something in the water up in Canada.
[/quote]
I laughed out loud at this, i know exactly the sort.
i think CT put it best when he said
“since the potential of these (“functional”) exercises for strength, strength-speed and speed-strength improvement is very low, I don’t consider them to be functional training in its truest sense.”
Im working with a Parkour team at the moment, and they’re having a hard time getting over the “functional” body weight culture thats developed and deeply ingrained in their discipline.
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?
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.[/quote]
Chill out. I’m just trying to make the point that terms don’t matter if drills and exercises chosen for a persons sport-specific training make sense. I’ll agree that exercises distinction of functionality and specificity change based on the sport they’re being applied to.
Are power cleans functional or specific for a wide receiver? It doesn’t really matter as long as doing power cleans in training makes them faster and better at jumping up to grab passes. Functional vs Specific distinctions shouldn’t matter within sports specific training IF using Functional vs Specific distinctions among exercises gets in the way of an athlete forming a training program specific to their sport.
[quote]FightingScott wrote:
Professor X wrote:
tanimal wrote:
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?
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.
Chill out. I’m just trying to make the point that terms don’t matter if drills and exercises chosen for a persons sport-specific training make sense. I’ll agree that exercises distinction of functionality and specificity change based on the sport they’re being applied to.
Are power cleans functional or specific for a wide receiver? It doesn’t really matter as long as doing power cleans in training makes them faster and better at jumping up to grab passes. Functional vs Specific distinctions shouldn’t matter within sports specific training IF using Functional vs Specific distinctions among exercises gets in the way of an athlete forming a training program specific to their sport.[/quote]
You aren’t saying anything different than me, Tiribulus, or Rainjack have said. Why the need to repeat this info for me? I think this thread has jumped the shark…looped the roller coaster…or whatever other term applies to what happens when sitcoms and tv dramas start adding new characters to the cast because ratings are dropping.
Don’t fuck around and let this thread end like Alias or The Cosby Show. It will all be YOUR FAULT.
I was making a point that aerobic fitness isnt general and neither is strenght. Swimmer vs cyclist or deadlifter vs squatter, pull up vs pull down, shoulder press vs handstand pushup, etc.
SPORTS SPECIFIC STRENGHT is functional strength. Work specific strength or gandening specific strength, all need to be trained specifically.
Sure you may get the illusion of being stronger after smith squatting for a while. You also may get the illusion of being safer, but its when your smith machine is no longer there you are at risk of injury.
So when your machine strenght is to be realised without your machine, you put your self at risk of injury.
So youre only as strong as your weakest link, so for it to be functional the whole chain needs to be trained.
Using elbows out tri extensions for picking up a bench press may usefull. It’s not really what you’d consider a functional exercise. The functional exercise has to be useful on it own. Thats how I look at it anyway.
Without these distinctions, we would just be giving everyone isolation exercise for any old reason.
[/quote]
That pretty much sums it up…but don’t expect ProfX to understand because he is clearly missing the point
[quote]tanimal wrote:
<<<<<<<<< That pretty much sums it up…but don’t expect ProfX to understand because he is clearly missing the point
[/quote]
This is, I think the most frustrating thread I’ve been in since joining this forum. What… WHAT is so mystifying about all this.
Every biological process there is, whether it even be directly exercise related or not is “functional”. If we define functional as having some kind of purposeful benefit of some kind.
There cannot be, by the very ontological reality of the case, assuming were speaking the same language, any such thing as “non-functional” training.
It may be more or less beneficial to different people who are pursuing different results (sports specific), but where the hell are the exercises that cease to have any impact on someone unless they are in the present act of performing that exercise.
GOD ALMIGHTY!!! I just repeated in yet one more slightly different way what has been said a dozen times already.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
tanimal wrote:
<<<<<<<<< That pretty much sums it up…but don’t expect ProfX to understand because he is clearly missing the point
This is, I think the most frustrating thread I’ve been in since joining this forum. What… WHAT is so mystifying about all this.
Every biological process there is, whether it even be directly exercise related or not is “functional”. If we define functional as having some kind of purposeful benefit of some kind.
There cannot be, by the very ontological reality of the case, assuming were speaking the same language, any such thing as “non-functional” training.
It may be more or less beneficial to different people who are pursuing different results (sports specific), but where the hell are the exercises that cease to have any impact on someone unless they are in the present act of performing that exercise.
GOD ALMIGHTY!!! I just repeated in yet one more slightly different way what has been said a dozen times already.[/quote]
Is it possible to have an intelligent discussion with either of you? Trib maybe, but ProfX all you do is attack the people who post and offer no real input to the discussion.
I just jump on the forums and ask or answer some questions based on what I’ve read and learned in the past 5 years.
Even if you disagree, you can see no harm in training with a functional point of view. My cients are happy with results they get, mostly experienceing less pain since I helped them.
We didnt convince anyone to the other side and personally I dont give a shit.
I had fun with this, makes me think some more about what I do. Thanks for reinforcing my view point.
Is it possible to have an intelligent discussion with either of you? Trib maybe, but ProfX all you do is attack the people who post and offer no real input to the discussion.
I just jump on the forums and ask or answer some questions based on what I’ve read and learned in the past 5 years.
Even if you disagree, you can see no harm in training with a functional point of view. My cients are happy with results they get, mostly experienceing less pain since I helped them.
We didnt convince anyone to the other side and personally I dont give a shit.
I had fun with this, makes me think some more about what I do. Thanks for reinforcing my view point.
Andrew
[/quote]
Dude, your points have been responded to DIRECTLY. If you can’t see this, no one can help you. You must have some sort of defect if think there has been no “real input” in this thread.
“For those of you who are familiar with my training concepts, you know I’m not a big fan of the leg press machine as it builds non-functional strength.”
Fucking dumbass PT pencil neck. What the fuck does he know about it? Get under the bar, then we can talk.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
Tribulus and ProfX
Is it possible to have an intelligent discussion with either of you? Trib maybe, but ProfX all you do is attack the people who post and offer no real input to the discussion.
I just jump on the forums and ask or answer some questions based on what I’ve read and learned in the past 5 years.
Even if you disagree, you can see no harm in training with a functional point of view. My cients are happy with results they get, mostly experienceing less pain since I helped them.
We didnt convince anyone to the other side and personally I dont give a shit.
I had fun with this, makes me think some more about what I do. Thanks for reinforcing my view point.
Andrew
Dude, your points have been responded to DIRECTLY. If you can’t see this, no one can help you. You must have some sort of defect if think there has been no “real input” in this thread.[/quote]
Its hard to see the input with all your negative abuse. What do you do for work? I’m assuming its not people related.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
Tribulus and ProfX
Is it possible to have an intelligent discussion with either of you? Trib maybe, but ProfX all you do is attack the people who post and offer no real input to the discussion.
I just jump on the forums and ask or answer some questions based on what I’ve read and learned in the past 5 years.
Even if you disagree, you can see no harm in training with a functional point of view. My cients are happy with results they get, mostly experienceing less pain since I helped them.
We didnt convince anyone to the other side and personally I dont give a shit.
I had fun with this, makes me think some more about what I do. Thanks for reinforcing my view point.
Andrew
Dude, your points have been responded to DIRECTLY. If you can’t see this, no one can help you. You must have some sort of defect if think there has been no “real input” in this thread.
Its hard to see the input with all your negative abuse. What do you do for work? I’m assuming its not people related.[/quote]
I am a DMD. I work with people all day long and am very good at it. This is NOT a professional setting. This is a discussion forum which would be related more to talking on a basketball court while playing with random strangers.
Your points in this thread were laughable. You were told this. You were informed how ridiculous they were. You somehow think that no one is supposed to tell you when you say things that don’t make sense? Why do you think this? Why do you think we should pretend that you are making sense when you aren’t?
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
Here’s a quote from Poliquin
“For those of you who are familiar with my training concepts, you know I’m not a big fan of the leg press machine as it builds non-functional strength.”
Fucking dumbass PT pencil neck. What the fuck does he know about it? Get under the bar, then we can talk. [/quote]
Name dropping. You have to love that. As if because Poliquin said it, that makes it right. I disagree with Charles Poloquin if that statement is truly from him. It makes no sense. That is coming from a medical professional with years of weight lifting experience.
WTF is “nonfunctional strength”? There is NO SUCH THING.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
Its hard to see the input with all your negative abuse. What do you do for work? I’m assuming its not people related.[/quote]
My guess is postal worker. But not one of the ones that walks - he drives a truck. (Newman from Seinfeld - to use Prof’s analogy of sitcoms).
[quote]FightingScott wrote:
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.
