Functional Strength?

Training Bodybuilding
121

[quote]Harry Flashman wrote:
Does nobody else think that this site was a much better and less antagonistic place when Prof.X was somewhere getting shot at hopefully![/quote]

That’s incredible idiotic.

There’s nothing wrong with some debate. If nothing else, if you can’t defend your point, it probably means that it isn’t very good in the first place.

PX seems to be pretty old-school, and not the most tactful guy around, but doesn’t mean that he doesn’t often bring-up good points.

What would suck is if everyone here went around virtually high-fiving each other and saying that they agree with everything that everyone wrote.

122

[quote]perseng wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Nicholas F wrote:

Beautiful post. I couldn’t agree more. Prof X is just a perfect representation of “Yesterdays Thinking” of gym rats who spend all of there X training hours in a gym, completely ignoring todays training knowledge that overall athleticism is MUCH more important and can’t be achieved by only being inside a gym.

“Overall athleticism”? Most pro athletes aren’t even good across the entire spectrum of all sports. What, pray tell, am I missing in my training?

I’ll bet you are light on flexibility :)[/quote]

I am actually doing a full split as I type this…with my toes.

123

[quote]Nicholas F wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Nicholas F wrote:

Beautiful post. I couldn’t agree more. Prof X is just a perfect representation of “Yesterdays Thinking” of gym rats who spend all of there X training hours in a gym, completely ignoring todays training knowledge that overall athleticism is MUCH more important and can’t be achieved by only being inside a gym.

“Overall athleticism”? Most pro athletes aren’t even good across the entire spectrum of all sports. What, pray tell, am I missing in my training?

Not in all sports, but most pro athletes are “Great” Athletes. Meaning they run good 40 times. They have good vert numbers. They could probably do anything athletically well they wanted to, whatever the task was, be it rock climbing, swimming, whatever, use your imagination. They are “Functionally Athletic”.

Gym rats like yourself that spend 100 percent of their time just lifting weights aren’t. Meaning, your athletic skills and abilities are limited. Sure, you can pick up heavy objects, but thats it. Doing pretty much anything else you would be severly limited. Like rock climbing. Playing softball. Sprinting fast. Jumping high. Fighting. Playing pickup basketball with friends. RaquetBall. Whatever the task may be.

Do you undertstand the point Im trying to make? Being functionally athletic allows you to do pretty much anything that involves physical movement, and excelling at it to a reasonable level. Sure, people who train for that like myself will never be olympic sprinters. But you can bet at a 4.6 40 Im faster than pretty much everyone around who isn’t some sort of college or pro athlete.

Sure I’ll never be an elite rock climber. But Im dam good and the best in my area. Sure I’ll never be a pro basketball player. But Im still pretty good, can hold my own. Sure I’ll never be a pro snoboarder. but Im one of the best in my group. Thats the whole point Im trying to make.

Being functionally athletic gives you tools to do a variety of tasks in life that are fun. Lifting weights is part of that equation. But its only part. [/quote]

You’re drifting away from the Functinoal Strength/training debate and you’re talking about athleticism (which is a completely different beast).

General across-the-board athleticism is a result of many different factors: coorindation, balance, reflexes as well as speed, endurance and strength.

If you possess the coorindation, balance and reflexes then even if you “only” a body builder or a football player you’ll still be good at a wide variety of sports (no matter how you train).

124

More muscle doesnt equate less flexibility it equates less range of motion. Those are 2 entirely different things.

Being athletic across the board is rare. Athletes are for the most part great at their sport but are not at others. There are very few exceptions, Bo, Dieon, Bob Beamon, Jim Thorpe, Babe Didrikson (this chick could probably whip most of us at any sport!) The list is very short.

125

[quote]PGA200X wrote:
…Babe Didrikson (this chick could probably whip most of us at any sport!) The list is very short.[/quote]

If she even was a chick.

126

[quote]jjoseph_x wrote:
Harry Flashman wrote:
Does nobody else think that this site was a much better and less antagonistic place when Prof.X was somewhere getting shot at hopefully!

That’s incredible idiotic.

There’s nothing wrong with some debate. If nothing else, if you can’t defend your point, it probably means that it isn’t very good in the first place.

PX seems to be pretty old-school, and not the most tactful guy around, but doesn’t mean that he doesn’t often bring-up good points.

What would suck is if everyone here went around virtually high-fiving each other and saying that they agree with everything that everyone wrote.
[/quote]

How do you define debate? I would prefer intelligent discussion. The rules to this debate are call a post gay or the poster needs punched in the face or some one else?s post happy horse shit. Or you can stick your fingers in your ears and ignore everyone?s post and keep ranting. I have enjoyed a couple opposing posts where DHP actually engaged his mind Thank you for your contribution DHP. But for some reason he changes and becomes like the all knowing professor . The funny thing is I personally do not even care. I just find it ironic that two individuals could care so much about something that matters little. I personally participate in these forums as a way to exercise my writing ability and derive some meaningful dialog. Above all I enjoy the article of the day. Peace all

127

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally participate in these forums as a way to exercise my writing ability and derive some meaningful dialog. [/quote]

But your writing ability sucks.

128

[quote]Professor X wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I personally participate in these forums as a way to exercise my writing ability and derive some meaningful dialog.

But your writing ability sucks.
[/quote]

That is why iam trying to improve

129

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have enjoyed a couple opposing posts where DHP actually engaged his mind Thank you for your contribution DHP. But for some reason he changes and becomes like the all knowing professor.[/quote]

paragraphs would make your writing easier to read…just a suggestion…

anyhoo…

I do try to think but it’s difficult for me because I seem to have been blessed with a low-horse power brain (or perhaps I experimented with drugs a little too agressively as a youngster)…attempting to thinking intelligently for too long over-heats my noggin and my thoughts quickly spiral downward into a semi-turrets like bunch of crapola…

but hey, at least I’m aware of my mental limitations…

130

This is confusing but I think the point everyone is trying to make is:

Everyone is functionally strong for whatever sport they do. But no one can be functionally strong for every sport.
But weak people take advantage of the word by saying body builders are not functional just because they can bench a lot more than the weak people.

Correct me if I’m wrong. And then lets end this thread. I seriously didn’t mean to start a huge debate I promise I’ll never mention the term “functional strength” again.

131

[quote]malonetd wrote:
Nicholas F wrote:
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.[/quote]

this is like saying a guy with a great 800 meter time will also have a great 40 yard dash time…

elite level 800 meter runners are slow starters…elite level 40 yard dash sprinters are quick starters…

optimal training for these two things are vastly different…

someone training for a double body weight non-shirted bench is training to be explosive over a very short time period, while someone training for high-rep pushups is training for endurance…

132

[quote]semper_fi wrote:
This is confusing but I think the point everyone is trying to make is:

Everyone is functionally strong for whatever sport they do. But no one can be functionally strong for every sport.
But weak people take advantage of the word by saying body builders are not functional just because they can bench a lot more than the weak people.

Correct me if I’m wrong. And then lets end this thread. I seriously didn’t mean to start a huge debate I promise I’ll never mention the term “functional strength” again.

[/quote]

You’re not wrong. The people using that term on a regular basis are.

133

Glad to see that after 6 pages of discussion we’re getting close to some kind of definitive conclusion to the “functional” arguement!

I got bored by page 3 since it seemed that this thread was going around in circles. I haven’t really analysed pages 4-6 in depth so i’m sorry if i repeat anything that has already been said.

Firstly, i’m not sure how discussing athletes helps anything. As I understood it, “function” was used to refer to the usability of your physical attributes to real-life activities. Athletics and sports are not everyday activities and require specificity of training - ie you need to do specialised drill and training to be successful.

When functional training was first introduced, i guess it was to remind people to train the body as a unit. I’m all for this. However what was originally a useful concept was, like most ideas, blown out of all proportion. This was probably due to the misconception that everybody trains their body using isolation exercises and machines.

Isolation exercises certainly have their place, and if you only do isolation exercises then you aren’t functional. The body works as a unit, so it makes sense to train it as a unit.

So as long as we’re training a majority of the time with exercises such as deadlifts, squats, standing military presses, cleans, snatches, chins, bench, dips etc, then i don’t think we need worry about periodising a special swissball-only month.

134

IMO Function means any activity The All Knowing Professor Likes to spank his monkey, I like to work to fight, and some people like to lift extreme amounts of weight .Some people like to run like the wind. These are functions. And we all develop strengths that suit our activity. My only point is these two words have meaning, and I do not care who disagrees. I better quit because my noggin is smoking:)

135

OK seriously, this thread has gone on for too long. If you’re still reading and havn’t figured out that “functional training” is a misnomer then you BADLY need a hobby.

136

[quote]El_Animal wrote:
OK seriously, this thread has gone on for too long. If you’re still reading and havn’t figured out that “functional training” is a misnomer then you BADLY need a hobby.[/quote]

posting on T Nation is one of my hobbies as I would assume it is one of yours as well

137

prof x: i agree with almost everything you’re saying… ‘functional’ is such a meaningless term without context, and it’s so abused by pansy little 150-pound chumps to discredit all the dudes who are twice their size and strength.

but their is SOME value to ‘functional’ strength in the general sense. i think having a strong lower back and abdominals is more ‘functional’ in everday life and preventative of commmon injuries/conditions that many seniors develop in old age. so as far as functionality goes, it’s generally more valuable from a health perspective to have a strong core and flexibility in your hips, hams, lower back, and inner thigh than it is to have 19-inch arms.

138

[quote]Nicholas F wrote:

Couldn’t be more wrong.

Serena is an amazing athlete. Fast and VERY functionally strong. I think with 6 months learning the basics with a wrestling coach, she would make a VERY good pro wrestler. In fact, a younger Serena Williams a few years ago was, IMO, one of the best all around female athletes out there - I think she would excell at any sport she wanted to. [/b]

you can think what you want, but you’re wrong. there’s no way serena can simply do 6 months of any sport specific training and become elite. how disrespectful is that to elite athletes in all sports who have spent years and years becoming as good as they are?

granted, you didn’t say ‘elite’, you said ‘very good’. sure, some people are more athletically gifted than others in various facets of athleticism <flexiblity, coordination, reaction time, power, endurance/cardiovascular, etc>… so maybe serena could become better than your average joe in a shorter period of time when learning a new sets of skills for a new sport, but don’t kid yourself, serena will not and COULD not become a pro swimmer, runner, basketball player, or even nascar driver.

and when you say she was one of the best overall athletes, this is meaningless. what is your criteria for defining the ‘best overall female athlete’?

foot speed? 40 yard dash? maximum bench press? vertical? reaction time? cardiovascular conditioning? serena might be the best tennis player, and might get some of the best foot speed results on some type of standardized test, but she will be murdered in countless other facets of athleticism from many other female athletes.

Why? Because she is athletically and functionally strong. And she didnt get that way by only being in a gym lifting weights.

what the fuck does ‘functional’ mean without context?

139

Sure I’ll never be an elite rock climber. But Im dam good and the best in my area. Sure I’ll never be a pro basketball player. But Im still pretty good, can hold my own. Sure I’ll never be a pro snoboarder. but Im one of the best in my group. Thats the whole point Im trying to make.

sure you’ll also never bench double body weight, deadlift triple, your squat 2.5 times your bodyweight either. sure you’ll never be big and jacked.

p.s. here’s a cookie for your accomplishments.

140

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
prof x: and it’s so abused by pansy little 150-pound chumps to discredit all the dudes who are twice their size and strength.

[/quote]

And overgrown bloated 250 pound bobybuilders who couldn’t break a 4.8 40 or jump 30 inches if their life depended on it. Or heck, do anything athletic with any degree of explosiveness aside from lifting heavy objects.