[quote]Cam Birtwell wrote:
Let the gym IMPROVE who you are, NOT DEFINE you.
[/quote]
Is this “functional motivation”?
This is the argument that has sailed unmolestedly over your head. I’ll put that in language a PT will grasp: You don’t get it.
I’ll explain it very slowly.
If you are in a gym for resistance training, the only possible outcomes will be size, or strength, or both. There no other options.
Regardless the choice of exercise, all strength gains are transferrable to real life. This fact seems to elude owners of bosu’s and swiss balls. It is specificity that determines whether it translates to an increase in functional performance.
Okay - I know that was way too many syllables for you BC PT’s. So I will try and dumb it down just a bit. If I strengthen my tricep in an isolation exercise - it will transfer to an increase in bench press strength. Why? Because compound movements require multiple muscle groups to perform them properly. Leg extensions will add strength on the squat. I know you don’t think so, but it is true. Are you starting to understand? I fear you won’t.
Discovering a new shade of pink does not require a reinvention of the color wheel.
For the PT’s - that means there are only 3 possible results if you are resistance training: size increase, strength. increase, or both. Think of those three results as the red, blue and yellow. Functional strength is pink.
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.
[/quote]
I do hope you aren’t saying that volleyball and rugby are equivalently tough on the joints and muscle tissue of the body? College level? Good for you… perhaps you’d like to list your stats in comparison to mine? Actually, forget it - it really doesn’t matter as one’s lifting ability is a combination of a myriad of different factors and no two people can be directly compared (except for twins!!).
Thanks for your input. See my point above. Of course it may be different in the states, but around here, it’s not too common to walk into an average gym and see a slim white dude with sticky legs squat 400 for a single to that depth.
[quote]
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.[/quote]
Agreeeed. Agreeeeeeeed. Agreeeeeedx1000000000. Trust me, I do not underestimate the influence of strength. I have re-examined those posts and I see rainjack’s point.
Howeverrr… MY point is that “strength is not strength” and that if you have any hope of developing strength that can be optimally transferred to sports, you have to train with more specific movement speeds and loading patterns than you would for “general training”. You also have to train “functional” movements for the basic integrated actions of your sport. I’m guessing that you and I are on the same page with that.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
unearth wrote:
Why are the majority of people touting ‘functional strength training’ so fucking weak?
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]
THAT is a GREAT post. Nice play on words Mr. X (now that I know your profession I can no longer call you professor in good conscience).
Of course I could say that in comparison to myself you are “relatively weak”. Doesn’t have quite the impact of “absolutely weak” though does it?
Can I ask you then, why the two major forms of strength and power competition are based on relative strength, not absolute strength? I am of course talking about powerlifting and Olympic lifting, both of which have weight classes, within which individuals are ranked according to their relative strength.
[quote]Cam Birtwell wrote:
You can stop right there. Train more and read more before you contribute to this thread. From your fellow British Columbian
[/quote]
Actually I have read plenty, and I am much more advanced than many people who have been working out for years, because of discipline and work ethic, so I feel that I can contribute.
So why do you have Arnold as your avatar, he looks good, but is obviously completely non-functional according to you. Maybe you should find some one more functional?
Maybe it would have, but I am not training to be a pure athlete, I am going into pro-wrestling, cosmetic appeal matters more than pure athleticism. Most athletes would be considered too small in the wrestling world.
Only if it enhances your daily life or sport or occupation budday.
[quote]
This is the argument that has sailed unmolestedly over your head. [/quote]
I’ll let you molest your own arguments thanks.
…or muscular endurance. Nothing groundbreaking here. I hope there’s more!
[quote]
2. Regardless the choice of exercise, all strength gains are transferrable to real life. It is specificity that determines whether it translates to an increase in functional performance. [/quote]
Wow, now you’re REALLY onto something. You actually used the words “functional” and “specificity” in the same sentence. Mr. X might disagree here… be careful!
[quote]
If I strengthen my tricep in an isolation exercise - it will transfer to an increase in bench press strength. [/quote]
I’ll add this - More specificity in your isolation ex = more transfer to the compound movement.
[quote]
Why? Because compound movements require multiple muscle groups to perform them properly. Leg extensions will add strength on the squat. [/quote]
Okay, so using this rationale, if I increase my leg extension strength, but everything else remains the same, I will enhance my squat strength?
You seem to know a lot about this - apparently I don’t - so another question is, if I increase my leg extension strength by 10%, how much can I expect my squat strength to go up?
How about if I performed deadlifts instead of leg extensions? Or maybe goodmornings or front squats? What if I did abdominal/torso work?
Efficiency.
Effectiveness.
Specificity.
Functionality.
[quote]
For the PT’s - that means there are only 3 possible results if you are resistance training: size increase, strength. increase, or both. Think of those three results as the red, blue and yellow. Functional strength is pink. [/quote]
For the bloaties - what if you could make that blue, red, and yellow more vibrant and resilient. Functional and specific training adds color to all of those.
Who is an idiot? I have never seen a basketball player shoot the ball from BEHIND THEIR head…except for maybe players who actually have no clue what correct technique is for shooting a basketball, which apparently is you…
Once again, you have shown everyone how much of a dick you are by completely missing the point! NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON ON THIS THREAD HAS DENIED THAT STRENGTH CAN CARRY OVER FROM EXERCISE TO EXERCISE. The arguement at hand is HOW MUCH of that strength transfers…and I think the majority of people would agree with me when I say that it is not close to 100%.
[quote]
I wrote:
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?
Professor X wrote: 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.[/quote]
He just agreed in his last post that was exactly what he was saying…
[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.
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…
Professor X wrote: Uhm…wow.[/quote]
Just making a point that rugger has way more contact than that of soccer and your body takes a lot more abuse, so if rugby players can train their legs in season, so can soccer players…
[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.
I wrote: 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…
Professor X wrote: 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]
This is the internet and hundreds of thousands of people from everywhere in the world use this site…I highly doubt that “most people on here” know what you look like. The fact of the matter is, despite carrying “more lean body mass than many on this site”, you are overweight. Period. Get over yourself Professor.
[quote]
I wrote: 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…
Professor X wrote: 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]
I think this is funny considering you probably think I am a man. News flash: I am a woman. I am an elite athlete who play rugby at the University level, plays women’s softball at the highest level available for my age group here (Junior Women’s A), and am also a nationally ranked amateur BMX racer. Go figure eh?
[quote] I wrote: 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…
Professor X wrote: 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]
You open your mouth and all that comes out is bullshit. “It is also what separates the skinny guys talking about what might be accomplished from the guys who have actually done it” ??? Because I suppose genetics don’t play a role in training at all eh? Some people have the genetic predisposition to put on muscle mass and some people don’t. Simple as that. Some of those “skinny guys” train for years and only gain a few pounds, despite possible similar training styles to you and I. That’s what crank is for…to help out those “skinny guys” who need that extra help gaining muscle mass. It just so happens that people who already have that predisposition to gaining muscle also take it and become monstrous, possibly even 270lbs…don’t they X?
Do you want to argue genetics with me too X? Bring it on…
[quote]unearth wrote:
Individuals competing in olympic lifting and powerlifting are ranked according to who lifts the most weight in a weight class.
[/quote]
I hope you realize you just said exactly what I did. The individual who lifts the most weight in powerlifting FOR A GIVEN WEIGHT CLASS has the most relative strength. The dude who lifts the most weight IN THE WHOLE EVENT has the most absolute strength. Wrap your head around that one big boy.
In Olympic lifting, if two lifters lift the same amount of weight, the lighter one wins. Hmmmmm. Would anyone like a little relative strength with their dindins?
Go back to your “dungeon”.
Those on the podium have the highest relative strength.
[quote]Cam Birtwell wrote:
Howeverrr… MY point is that “strength is not strength” and that if you have any hope of developing strength that can be optimally transferred to sports, you have to train with more specific movement speeds and loading patterns than you would for “general training”. You also have to train “functional” movements for the basic integrated actions of your sport. I’m guessing that you and I are on the same page with that.
[/quote]
I can’t disagree with anything that you said in that paragraph, good points.
I think the problem is that I tend to think “entertainment trainng” whenever I hear the word functional. Whereas I thik you are tending to relate it more to it’s transference to a sport (ie, GHR over leg curl, etc.).
[quote]Cam Birtwell wrote:
In Olympic lifting, if two lifters lift the same amount of weight, the lighter one wins. Hmmmmm. Would anyone like a little relative strength with their dindins?
[/quote]
So two guys both total 2000 lbs in a powerlifting meet. One guy weighs 242 lbs, the other weighs 241 lbs. The guy weighing 241 wins. However, to say one is relatively stronger than the other would be inaccurate.
[quote]mharmar wrote:
So why do you have Arnold as your avatar, he looks good, but is obviously completely non-functional according to you. Maybe you should find some one more functional?
[/quote]
Arnold was HUGELY functional in his training approach - his “function” was to develop a well-balanced, hypermuscular physique… It can be debated to no end whether or not the foundation of his muscle mass was built on heavy squats, presses, and rows or on isolation movements, but for his purposes it didn’t matter.
Good luck with that. Dare to dream my friend - don’t let anyone tell you that you can’t get there either. Lots of competition these days though.
Keep in mind, pro wrestlers are extremely athletic for the most part, and I do believe that most of them were actually athletes of other sorts before entering the ring.
[quote]unearth wrote:
You seem very angry, it probably stems from calling yourself a strength coach despite the fact that you’re pathetically weak.
Would anyone like a little insecurity with their dindins?[/quote]
hahahhaa… yeah I took the math comment out (it was a bit immature). Angry? No… pretty much all of my posts have been written with a smile on my face, hence the prevalence of these happy li’l guys.
By the way if you’re saying the only ones qualified to coach have to have been the best athletes, there are a billion examples out there that you are horribly, unfortunately wrong.
[quote]Cam Birtwell wrote:
For the bloaties - what if you could make that blue, red, and yellow more vibrant and resilient. Functional and specific training adds color to all of those.
[/quote]
More Vibrant? More resilient?
There is no such thing as new colors.
There is no such thing as functional training.
Endurance is a function of strength if resistance training is involved.
[quote]Cam Birtwell wrote:
By the way if you’re saying the only ones qualified to coach have to have been the best athletes, there are a billion examples out there that you are horribly, unfortunately wrong.[/quote]
The best coaches have at least competed at a high level in the sport they coach.
For example, you’d be hard pressed to find a coach in the NBA that didn’t at least play college level basketball, or an NFL coach that didn’t at least play college level football. Louie Simmons was never a powerlifting great but he has certainly competed at a high level in powerlifting.
If you’re going to claim to be a strength coach, it helps to have walked the walk to at least a decent level of achievement.
[quote]FightingScott wrote:
I’ve been told not to kill this post. Will someone please tell me what question we are trying to answer or what point is in debate?[/quote]
There is no point in debate anymore…as has been said before, most are agreeing on the same points. Me, I just want piss off X
[quote]tanimal wrote:
<<< I have never seen a basketball player shoot the ball from BEHIND THEIR head…except for maybe players who actually have no clue what correct technique is for shooting a basketball, which apparently is you… >>>[/quote]
Yes they do
I was a badass amateur at one time myself (ABA in the eighties) and still have plenty of scars (and trophies) to prove it. One of the funnest things I’ve ever participated in.
[quote]<<< Some of those “skinny guys” train for years and only gain a few pounds, despite possible similar training styles to you and I. >>>
[/quote]
There is no such thing as an otherwise normal, healthy, especially male, who is so genetically deficient as to be capable of a total lifetime lean increase of only “a few” pounds.
On the larger front here, it’s becoming clearer that this thread is largely a circus of semantic badminton.
[quote]tanimal wrote:
FightingScott wrote:
I’ve been told not to kill this post. Will someone please tell me what question we are trying to answer or what point is in debate?
There is no point in debate anymore…as has been said before, most are agreeing on the same points. Me, I just want piss off X [/quote]
