[quote]DPH wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Personally I do not believe that intelligent thought is a pattern you follow .
I must say I’m in awe of your world class debating skills…
instead of addressing the points I’ve made, you make a weak attack on my intelligence…truly the work of a master…what tactic do you plan on following up with? calling me a doodie-head?
impressive indeed![/quote]
You have been the attacking people, just review the past posts.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Please do not make me look up the words movement and pattern. So you will admit they have meaning
Why would I need to look it up? Scratching my ass is a “movement pattern”. Therefore, I am functionally strong enough to scratch my own ass. To place some importance on this beyond the simple fact that you get good at what you practice doing is ridiculous.[/quote]
I am certainly glad you can accomplish that task.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am certainly glad you can accomplish that task.
[/quote]
You’d better be. That makes me more functional and stuff.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I am certainly glad you can accomplish that task.
You’d better be. That makes me more functional and stuff.[/quote]
If I did not know better I would say I was trying to communicate with a child. I am not angry but I will not respond to any more adolescent arguments.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I am certainly glad you can accomplish that task.
You’d better be. That makes me more functional and stuff.
If I did not know better I would say I was trying to communicate with a child. I am not angry but I will not respond to any more adolescent arguments.
[/quote]
If I were all grown up like you, I wouldn’t post this, but as it is:
If you knew better you wouldn’t use such specious reasoning in your own arguments. Why does simply quoting dictionary definitions of these terms provide any rationale for what you’ve been saying? That there is some potential crossover in their definitions and usages doesn’t mean that they will have any meaning when used in conjunction. Christ, if I were to write ‘functional fitness’ that would be a tautology, fit meaning ‘suited to a function or purpose.’
Is not ‘functional strength’ equally redundant as a term?
If bodybuilders are so non-functional then why am I always the first person within 10,000 ft asked to move, lift, push, pull, or drag heavy shit for lazy people. All my non-functional muscle always seems to be plenty to get the job done. Case in point, if you have a pulse you’re functional.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If I did not know better I would say I was trying to communicate with a child. I am not angry but I will not respond to any more adolescent arguments.
[/quote]
side-step issues by calling others in the debate adolescent children…
brilliant!
if I was smart like you I may have saw that one comming…
oh well, guess I really never stood a chance against a gifted and skilled public speaker such as yourself…
[quote]Jonny James wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I am certainly glad you can accomplish that task.
You’d better be. That makes me more functional and stuff.
If I did not know better I would say I was trying to communicate with a child. I am not angry but I will not respond to any more adolescent arguments.
If I were all grown up like you, I wouldn’t post this, but as it is:
If you knew better you wouldn’t use such specious reasoning in your own arguments. Why does simply quoting dictionary definitions of these terms provide any rationale for what you’ve been saying? That there is some potential crossover in their definitions and usages doesn’t mean that they will have any meaning when used in conjunction. Christ, if I were to write ‘functional fitness’ that would be a tautology, fit meaning ‘suited to a function or purpose.’
Is not ‘functional strength’ equally redundant as a term? [/quote]
. I do not consider my arguments to be deceptive or specious. Why I quoted the dictionary to make the case there is a valid definition of those words strung together in a phrase. I agree there is some cross over in the phrases that is how the English language works .I do not believe that unless you expressed the concept of Functional Fitness in other words would the phrase be tautological or redundant.
[quote]DPH wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
If I did not know better I would say I was trying to communicate with a child. I am not angry but I will not respond to any more adolescent arguments.
side-step issues by calling others in the debate adolescent children…
brilliant!
if I was smart like you I may have saw that one comming…
oh well, guess I really never stood a chance against a gifted and skilled public speaker such as yourself…[/quote]
DPH I am sorry if I have offended you. I interpreted your posts to be some what hostile and degrading.
DPH ?functional strength = stupid fucking ambiguous term that means something different to practically everyone that uses it…?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
blah blah blah
[/quote]
look…
more specific language such as ‘general endurance training’, ‘general strength training’, ‘sport-specific training’ allow for more understandable communication that ‘functional strength’ and it’s zillions of definitions don’t do…
your definition for ‘functional strength’ (spending all day digging ditches and pushing wheelbarrows) I would put under ‘general endurance training’…
many sports require a high degree of general endurance training while others require very little to be competitive…
for instance, pushing a wheelbarrow and digging ditches for prolonged periods of time is not going to help a MLB pitcher throw a better curve ball…MLB pitchers need a very high degree of sport-specific training (throwing practise) but they don’t need much in the way of endurance or strength training to be great at what they do…
olympic weightlifters and 100 meter sprinters don’t need much endurance training either, in fact, it would be counter productive to their progress…
on the other hand, Lance Armstrong need a very high degree of endurance training but only a little strength training…
does this make sense to you?
so why use ambiguous (people have way too many opposing ideas what this phrase should mean) terminology like ‘functional strength’ when you can use terms that give a much clearer understanding?
[quote]DPH wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
blah blah blah
look…
more specific language such as ‘general endurance training’, ‘general strength training’, ‘sport-specific training’ allow for more understandable communication that ‘functional strength’ and it’s zillions of definitions don’t do…
your definition for ‘functional strength’ (spending all day digging ditches and pushing wheelbarrows) I would put under ‘general endurance training’…
many sports require a high degree of general endurance training while others require very little to be competitive…
for instance, pushing a wheelbarrow and digging ditches for prolonged periods of time is not going to help a MLB pitcher throw a better curve ball…MLB pitchers need a very high degree of sport-specific training (throwing practise) but they don’t need much in the way of endurance or strength training to be great at what they do…
olympic weightlifters and 100 meter sprinters don’t need much endurance training either, in fact, it would be counter productive to their progress…
on the other hand, Lance Armstrong need a very high degree of endurance training but only a little strength training…
does this make sense to you?
so why use ambiguous (people have way too many opposing ideas what this phrase should mean) terminology like ‘functional strength’ when you can use terms that give a much clearer understanding?[/quote]
While I do agree with you endurance is needed for Digging ditches and stacking hay. But if you really want to be able to do either for an extended period, IMHO it would be best to train doing the given task .Or a task that very nearly resembles the task.
As far as the difference between pitching a base ball and pounding nails IMHO would be skill. Most people do not consider pounding nails to be a skill.
One of the most physically Challenging tasks I have done was to take down a block wall and leave the blocks in tack for reuse. A 2 pound hammer in one hand and a Chisel in the other is the exercise .I would not have accomplished the task in one day if I could not swing the hammer with either my right or left.
[quote]DPH wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
blah blah blah
look…
more specific language such as ‘general endurance training’, ‘general strength training’, ‘sport-specific training’ allow for more understandable communication that ‘functional strength’ and it’s zillions of definitions don’t do…
your definition for ‘functional strength’ (spending all day digging ditches and pushing wheelbarrows) I would put under ‘general endurance training’…
many sports require a high degree of general endurance training while others require very little to be competitive…
for instance, pushing a wheelbarrow and digging ditches for prolonged periods of time is not going to help a MLB pitcher throw a better curve ball…MLB pitchers need a very high degree of sport-specific training (throwing practise) but they don’t need much in the way of endurance or strength training to be great at what they do…
olympic weightlifters and 100 meter sprinters don’t need much endurance training either, in fact, it would be counter productive to their progress…
on the other hand, Lance Armstrong need a very high degree of endurance training but only a little strength training…
does this make sense to you?
so why use ambiguous (people have way too many opposing ideas what this phrase should mean) terminology like ‘functional strength’ when you can use terms that give a much clearer understanding?[/quote]
I do not think the term to be ambiguous; I think the term has more than one meaning. If we were to quit using words or phrases because they had more than one meaning we would cease to communicate .But you have the right to disagree.
[quote]E-man wrote:
If bodybuilders are so non-functional then why am I always the first person within 10,000 ft asked to move, lift, push, pull, or drag heavy shit for lazy people. All my non-functional muscle always seems to be plenty to get the job done. Case in point, if you have a pulse you’re functional.[/quote]
No one said that Bodybuilders are non-functional.
Yes the term functional and relative strength are used too much by the wrong people… but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have meaning.
In the case of relative strength, some guys have to be as strong as they can, while not gaining much weight. A good examlpe would be boxers or wrestlers or MMA fighters, since they might not want to move-up in weight class.
As for functional strength… if I’m a shot-putter, I have to be able to move the shot-put as fast as possible. Being a great all-around powerlifter or bodybuilder necessarily doesn’t help to be a better shot-putter so you train the shot-put movement. So while the shot-putter might not have the strength of olympic powerlifter… he can toss a shot-put farther (which is his goal).
At the same time, the shot-putter can still be very strong (they always). Functional strength doesn’t mean that you should be weak… it just means that you’re not necessarily trying to be as absoluately strong (in a traditional weight lifting sense) as you could be.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do not think the term to be ambiguous; I think the term has more than one meaning. If we were to quit using words or phrases because they had more than one meaning we would cease to communicate .But you have the right to disagree.
[/quote]
The problem is that “functional strength” is so ambiguous, you may as well just insert an “xyz” in its place, as in “I am training for xyz”. There has never been a proper definition, and never will be. If there was a proper definition, skinny-ass trainers wouldn’t use the term all the time. They hide behind its ambiguity so people can’t tell that they aren’t making any progress.
Client - “None of the weights I lift have gone up in 12 months”
Trainer - “Yeah, but you’re a lot more functional now”.
This is for the person who originally asked the question. I agree that functional strength or functional training can mean different things to different people but as a trainer I have an opportunity and an obligation to explain to my client exactly what it is going to mean for them as we embark on a training regimen. So, the example I use is this. Imagine a woman, holding a baby in one arm, a bag of groceries in the other, and stands on one foot and uses the other foot to push the car door shut. Now, how does sitting on a machine and pushing handles back and forth help this woman with this everyday activity? Or any other everyday activity for that matter? Working out on machines has very little correlation to every day activities. More examples: Slipping on a patch of ice, tripping off of a curb, twisting to one side while sitting in a chair and bending over to pick up a box off the floor. The examples of everyday activities are endless. Functional training, as I see it, involves training people to do weight bearing exercises while challenging their balance and coordination at the same time. The most common way to do this is on a stability ball. There are other methods but weight training on the stablility ball has been very successful for me and many of my clients. Many clients hire me with the goal of improving balance and coordination because they understand that it is important to their every day life, not just to athletes. To summarize, I don’t think functional training has a simple definition. It is an idea and can mean different things to different people. That’s where the trainer comes in, to help define the clients goals and the best way to reach them.
[quote]keaster wrote:
I wish matt furey was present. He would set you all straight. Functional strength is a term coined by small people that can do 140 pushups but can bench 75 pounds.
[/quote]
There isnt a person like that alive. Show me a man who can do 140 pushups straight and I’ll show you the same guy benching a minimum of DOUBLE his bodyweight.
Hope your being sarcastic.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The only people using it are the ones trying justify how they are better than the guy in the corner who outweighs them by 60lbs of muscle and can bench press more than they can.[/quote]
No, the only people who are against it are the people who have spent years lifting in the gym only to learn that it doesn’t relate to real world activities as much as previously believed. Basically, just because you can bench and squat alot doesn’t mean your fast, can beat people up, jump high, excell at a variety of sports/acvtivities, etc. Weightlifting is the base to stand on, but it has many shortcomings without functional training.
By all means, if looking good nekkid is your only goal, lifting weights is the way to go. But if your looking to get faster, stronger, jump higher, become a better fighter and all around athlete, lifting weights alone will get you only half way(or less).
[quote]combatmedic wrote:
Hey devildog, I think you may have opened a can of worms here and some arguments will follow. I’m not knocking on you though, it is a legitimate question and I’ll try to answer as best I can.
Functional strength is strength that can be applied to an activity. For example, a rock climber wouldn’t find much use for a max bench, but pullups would certainly be functional excercise. The arguement with this school of thought is a for a powerlifter, his max bench is his function.
Another example would be to take your stereotypical musclehead. Sure, he can lift a house, but he can’t run a mile. This is line of thinking also believes in being musclebound; more muscle makes you slower and less flexible.
Yet another of the functional schools refers to functional excercises as those that target your core. In addition to standard ab work, they preach lots of use of balls (excercise and medicine), kettlebells and balance boards. This school uses functional as a gimmick to sell products. Not all of thier theories are bunk, sure, they may have some good training principles, but most of it is a sales pitch.
To answer your next question about machines… When using a machine, the machine does most of the balancing for you. You are only concerned about creating force, not stabalizing a weight. You are only moving the weight in one plane of motion. In real life, you have to move an object, balance it and balance yourself. So no, machines aren’t good for functional strength.
On the last note, I’ll add that I am big on sandbag training. I believe it is as functional as you can get, especially for soldiers, marines and martial artists. Sand is dead weight, you have work hard to balance it. It shifts, so you have to make adjustments during a lift. This is much like a casualty, dead weight that shifts, or an oppenent, who will move against your movements.
I hope I helped you out, Semper Fi![/quote]
Thats a beautiful way of explaining it. Couldn’t agree more. T-points for you!
To the original poster, you must also understand that this is still a relatively hardcore, tradional BB site. Despite the fact that T-Nation is starting to move toward being a place for not just that but for other athletic endevors as well(MMA, extreme sports and sport training in general), its still quite a tradional place and the word “functional training” isn’t to well liked around here(yet, IMO)
[quote]Nicholas F wrote:
No, the only people who are against it are the people who have spent years lifting in the gym only to learn that it doesn’t relate to real world activities as much as previously believed. Basically, just because you can bench and squat alot doesn’t mean your fast, can beat people up, jump high, excell at a variety of sports/acvtivities, etc. Weightlifting is the base to stand on, but it has many shortcomings without functional training.
By all means, if looking good nekkid is your only goal, lifting weights is the way to go. But if your looking to get faster, stronger, jump higher, become a better fighter and all around athlete, lifting weights alone will get you only half way(or less).[/quote]
If you lift weights and run or play sports you will be a fairly well-rounded athlete. In fact that’s all that most athletes do: lift, their sport and perhaps some running/conditioning on top of that.
Yes if you want to jump higher or be quicker you can add plyometrics to that, or if your sport demands more intense endurance training then you can adapt for that…but I fail to see what functional training has to offer that weights, plyo’s and endurance work wouldn’t take care of.
What are the shortcomings that functional training addresses that could not be encompassed in a normal training routine?
[quote]Nicholas F wrote:
No, the only people who are against it are the people who have spent years lifting in the gym only to learn that it doesn’t relate to real world activities as much as previously believed. Basically, just because you can bench and squat alot doesn’t mean your fast, can beat people up, jump high, excell at a variety of sports/acvtivities, etc. Weightlifting is the base to stand on, but it has many shortcomings without functional training.[/quote]
What are those short comings? Most of the people using this term are NOT professional fighters or even athletes. They are simply little guys who lift weights outside by picking up barrels.