[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
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]
I’m not name dropping, Im referencing someone with a huge amount of respect in the strenght and conditioning field.
Name dropping is a term used for dropping the name of someone famous you claim to know.
He’s not alone it seems. Thib, Waterbury, Boyle, Chek back up the functional argument. Others as well I’m sure.
Im sure the many years of experience shared by these coaches is of no interest to you and your 11 years of biceps curls.
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]
It does transfer, however to maximize the transfer you have to train with similar movement parameters. Performing overhead dumbbell extensions is less likely to contribute meaningfully to your bench press than close grip bp or elbows wide pressdowns.
Because being BIG and strong is all that matters? Ever seen a gymnast budday? How about a track sprinter, or heck, just about any other athlete out there where efficiency of motion is key. Strength to weight trumps in most circumstances my friend.
I am not a professional athlete however I did play elite level rugby (Varsity, city, provincial, and national), was at the city rep level for soccer, and am currently a nationally-ranked amateur BMX racer who will be competing in the UCI World Championships this coming July.
I also have personal PR’s of:
Back Squat: 400 (to 7th pin in squat rack), 315x12 (7th), 135x50, 245x22
Deadlift: 385
Bench Press: 295 (in a competition format), 225x12
Power clean: 220
Consecutive chin-ups: 24
All at a bodyweight of 180 or lower (helps with the chin-ups!).
My top bodyweight was 195 pounds however I felt sluggish and unathletic at that weight.
I am sure that my numbers are not that impressive when measured against the average testosterone member however I do believe they put me in a category above a “weak ass PT”.
I agree with this for sure.
Sometimes the best “players” don’t make the best “coaches”.
Agreed… at that point, it’s time to put THEORY into ACTION
Thanks Prof - I’m glad you decided to switch gears and provide some useful comments along with the insults.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
Professor X wrote:
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.
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.
I’m not name dropping, Im referencing someone with a huge amount of respect in the strenght and conditioning field.
Name dropping is a term used for dropping the name of someone famous you claim to know.
He’s not alone it seems. Thib, Waterbury, Boyle, Chek back up the functional argument. Others as well I’m sure.
Im sure the many years of experience shared by these coaches is of no interest to you and your 11 years of biceps curls.
You really are a fucking dickhead arent you.
[/quote]
My head is actually shaved and quite round, however, it is non-dick shaped. Let’s make it simple for you…“all strength is FUNCTIONAL because there is no strength in your entire body that serves no purpose at all”.
No one can gain “non-functional strength” no matter who uses the term. ALL STRENGTH HAS A FUNCTION. I don’t care who you quote, I am still waiting on you to LIST all strength that has no function at all.
Quit playing word games. We can discuss movements that are specific for a sport but no strength or exercise on this planet is “function-less”. Do you understand that now, Mr. Personal Trainer?
I am a DMD. I work with people all day long and am very good at it.
Is that a doctor of dental medicine? How come you havent killed yourself yet?
Oh, shit I’ve sunk to your level.
[/quote]
Oh, wait, was that a clever reference to an 80’s study that showed that profession had the highest suicide rate? Do some more research. You will find that the results were skewed and incorrect.
Read this and educate yourself:
The pay has gone up fairly drastically so I doubt there are many offing themselves for no reason just because they are in that profession.
Are you referring to the JSCR or SCJ? I get both of those. Or perhaps the articles I regularly read from the front page of this website? Mebbe is’ jooo hoo shud dew mor reedin.
Yeah they pump neurotransmitters directly into the water supply automatically making us 10-15% smarter than anyone in the states
To increase power 4. To increase acceleration 5. To rehabilitate an injury 6. To improve symmetry and muscle balance 7. To prepare oneself for the rigours of competition or occupation
I think my PR’s may speak for themselves on this one. Thanks for your input.
My head is actually shaved and quite round, however, it is non-dick shaped. Let’s make it simple for you…“all strength is FUNCTIONAL because there is no strength in your entire body that serves no purpose at all”.
No one can gain “non-functional strength” no matter who uses the term. ALL STRENGTH HAS A FUNCTION. I don’t care who you quote, I am still waiting on you to LIST all strength that has no function at all.
Quit playing word games. We can discuss movements that are specific for a sport but no strength or exercise on this planet is “function-less”. Do you understand that now, Mr. Personal Trainer?[/quote]
As you desperatly try to hold on to your point of view i’ll remind you that I didnt say any exercise was totally functional or totally non functional. It’s a general term use to describ the more functional exercises.
You’re like my mum trying to deny the need for computers. They’re here to stay and so is concept of functional exercise.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I am a DMD. I work with people all day long and am very good at it.
Is that a doctor of dental medicine? How come you havent killed yourself yet?
Oh, shit I’ve sunk to your level.
Oh, wait, was that a clever reference to an 80’s study that showed that profession had the highest suicide rate? Do some more research. You will find that the results were skewed and incorrect.
Read this and educate yourself:
The pay has gone up fairly drastically so I doubt there are many offing themselves for no reason just because they are in that profession.[/quote]
It was clever wasnt it. I did read that it was misinterperted, but I couldnt resist.
I thought it was from looking down onto a black hole all day and listening to miserable people bitch about not wanting to be there.
Not the pay rate.
[quote]Cam Birtwell wrote:
3. To increase power 4. To increase acceleration 5. To rehabilitate an injury 6. To improve symmetry and muscle balance 7. To prepare oneself for the rigours of competition or occupation[/quote]
All functions of strength, displayed in one way or another, with the possible exception of #6.
[quote]
I think my PR’s may speak for themselves on this one.[/quote]
Yes, but I’m not sure they say what you want them to say…
I just want to apologize for my fellow British Columbians, and let everyone know, we aren’t all dumb up here. Seriously, I have never gotten this argument, I have only been working out a year doing pure “bodybuilding style” training, started at 140 now I am 180, and while my numbers aren’t amazing, I have made good gains in strength.
I am way more athletic and strong than I was, and I do plenty of isolation exercises. I really would like to know how any strength gained could be non-functional. Is this just jealousy because while an athlete can be strong most don’t look as good as a bodybuilder?
[quote]mharmar wrote:
I am way more athletic and strong than I was, and I do plenty of isolation exercises. I really would like to know how any strength gained could be non-functional. Is this just jealousy because while an athlete can be strong most don’t look as good as a bodybuilder?[/quote]
Just make sure you don’t develop too much functional strength - I think that’s when it becomes non-functional. The little PT boys don’t like it when one develops too much strength.
Why are the majority of people touting ‘functional strength training’ so fucking weak?
All these guys are weak turds (at best, the strongest of the lot have an OK stength level, and that’s when compared to non-lifting smucks), why should I even bother with ‘functional strength training’?
Now, before any one goes running off at the mouth listing their favorite testosterone.net authors, I’ll stop you right here. The only guy that’s ever written for this site that’s ever actually been strong is Dave Tate.
Functional strength training = goofy shit for weak turds.
Just make sure you don’t develop too much functional strength - I think that’s when it becomes non-functional. The little PT boys don’t like it when one develops too much strength.
[/quote]
You’re right, maybe since I have hit 180 I should start cutting, wouldn’t want to be one of those weakass non-functional bodybuilders. Arnold-girlyman, Columbu-sissy, Coleman-what a pussy, I want to be one of those cool functional 160lbs who can do 100 chin-ups in a row, AWESOME.
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Cam Birtwell wrote:
3. To increase power 4. To increase acceleration 5. To rehabilitate an injury 6. To improve symmetry and muscle balance 7. To prepare oneself for the rigours of competition or occupation
All functions of strength, displayed in one way or another, with the possible exception of #6.
[/quote]
Good point - #7 refers to specific muscular endurance and power endurance - not usually gained through “getting stronger”.
Hahahahaa… That one had me laughing for a little while. Wait… I’ll laugh some more.
Until you play a contact sport at an elite level, year round, for 5-6 consecutive years, you have no ability to judge my progress. There was no single week during that period that I was not training aerobic/anaerobic and resistance training simultaneously. I would guess that I had an average of 8-11 weeks each year when I wasn’t actively playing (i.e. absorbing abuse from individuals much larger than myself).
Take your gains (whatever they may be) and see if you could accomplish the same…
[quote]unearth wrote:
Why are the majority of people touting ‘functional strength training’ so fucking weak?[/quote]
Don’t worry. They will try to make themselves believe they are actually “relatively strong” and that we should respect that instead of realizing they are “absolutely weak”.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Cam Birtwell wrote:
3. To increase power
Power is strength - see my #1
To increase acceleration
Acceleration is moving an object with greater force at a higher rate of speed (or further in less time) - see also my #1
To rehabilitate an injury
Can be both increase in strength and increase in size. That would require both my #1 and #2
To improve symmetry and muscle balance
That is a classic #2.
To prepare oneself for the rigours of competition or occupation
If it involves resistance training - you once again need to vist my #1, #2, or both.
[/quote]
good points here - I concede on those, however the pursuit of muscular endurance (for sport/occupation or otherwise) can be performed through resistance training and is not necessarily improved through getting stronger/bigger.
ahahahaa. Yes functional indeed. Structural, ground-based exercises for the most part, simulating basic movements common to both sport and everyday life. Very little reliance on isolation exercises due to limited recovery resources from an extremely active training schedule. No leg curls in sight.
No emphasis on Smith squats, machine presses, overhead triceps extensions etc - I had the need to be the most efficient with my time as possible. If the gym was my whole life (seems like it is for a lot of you around here) instead of a means towards and end, maybe I would have trained as inefficiently as several of you have proposed.
Specific in that I often trained with power poundages (40-60%1RM range) to encourage adaptation both intramuscularly and intermuscularly in order to produce power effectively on the field.
Hhahaahah I do have clients, of course, who benefit immensely from my vast and all-encompassing knowledge I educate them on the effective basics - squat (for everybody), lift for your goals, and be balanced in your training by incorporating cardiovascular fitness and appropriate flexibility routines.
Re-read that if necessary - note that the first word is “educate” - I don’t train for a living, I train to help improve people’s health and daily function.
A hell of a lot more beneficial than whining about "sucky/skinny/weak ass PT’s on an internet forum.
Let the gym IMPROVE who you are, NOT DEFINE you.
I hope there’s a bright future out there for you somewhere.
[quote]mharmar wrote:
I have only been working out a year doing pure “bodybuilding style” training,
[/quote]
You can stop right there. Train more and read more before you contribute to this thread. From your fellow British Columbian
[quote]
Is this just jealousy because while an athlete can be strong most don’t look as good as a bodybuilder?[/quote]
“looking good” is in the eye of the beholder my friend. If the beholder is other males, you’re a shoe-in for bodybuilding. Then you can post your pics up and hope for approval from your equally bloaty internet training buddies!! Yayyy. (ps. I did that once and it was fun, I’ve just grown out of it now).
Perhaps your “athleticism” may have been even further improved by training with less of a “pure bodybuilding” style?
[quote]Cam Birtwell wrote:
Until you play a contact sport at an elite level, year round, for 5-6 consecutive years, you have no ability to judge my progress.
[/quote]
Well then, I guess one only has the ability to judge those in the same circle as oneself? Not a lot of opportunity for sharing knowledge as you are.
I actually do share your perspective in a way, I play a sport (volleyball) in college at a pretty high level and hardly have an off-season myself, from fall season, to the normal competitive season in the spring to the beach (I hope to play semi-pro when I graduate) doubles game in the summer. So I understand that the weightroom is only a means to an end for an athlete. I just wouldn’t neccessarily be saying that your PR’s “speak for themselves”, because they, without context, aren’t very impressive.
I agree with some things you have said, however, I think you drastically underestimate the contribution of strength in the training process. You can’t have explosive strength if you don’t have strength in the first place.
