[quote]Nicholas F wrote:
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.
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.[/quote]
functional plow horse
[quote]Nicholas F wrote:
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.
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.[/quote]
you know, it’s called sacrifice for the sport. competitive elite bodybuilders obviously sacrifice some degree of mobility and cardiovascular performance for their sport. they’re not training to perform a 40 yard dash and they’re not training to jump high, they’re training to look as big and cut as possible on a stage.
not really hard to understand. obviously bodybuilding is one of the less athletic sports <and i;m wary of even using the word ‘sport’ to define bodybuilding’>… but do you even have a point?
this thread is about how meaningless the term ‘functional’ is without context, and how’s it’s thrown around by tiny twerps as some sort of justification for why they’re small and pathetic despite being experts in the forums.
this thread is NOT about your distaste for bodybuilding/bodybuilders. it’s not like they do it to impress YOU or to make you look small. live and let live.
The way I see it, the “functional strength” debate is kind of like the whole “size doesn’t matter” debate.
The guys that say “it’s not the size of the boat, it’s the motion of the ocean” are only saying that because they are tiny.
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
The way I see it, the “functional strength” debate is kind of like the whole “size doesn’t matter” debate.
The guys that say “it’s not the size of the boat, it’s the motion of the ocean” are only saying that because they are tiny.[/quote]
Exactly.
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
The way I see it, the “functional strength” debate is kind of like the whole “size doesn’t matter” debate.
The guys that say “it’s not the size of the boat, it’s the motion of the ocean” are only saying that because they are tiny.[/quote]
Good analogy.
[quote]El_Animal wrote:
jtrinsey wrote:
The way I see it, the “functional strength” debate is kind of like the whole “size doesn’t matter” debate.
The guys that say “it’s not the size of the boat, it’s the motion of the ocean” are only saying that because they are tiny.
Good analogy.
[/quote]
This arguement gets entertaining. More and more so. The train for size and train for function may be resolved after the Muslim, Jewish arguement.
In all the points, I don’t see much discussed about the genetic factor. “I train for size”…ummm, because you can, it works for you and its what is important to you…“I train for function” Some of these folks want to get bigger, some are giving their best effort, but point to the form and function, becuase that is what is most important to them. Strength trainers that don’t get much bigger point to the usless muscle…endless. Has anyone here, in any camp, been changed by this thread? I am not saying this to get this to stop. 12 hour work days with not much more to do has to be filled.
I think the whole misnomer comes about by the general ambiguity of speech in it?s self. One ambiguous term that is seen every day here is the term Body Builder. When I hear the term I see some one with the major motivation being getting a large sculpted body. But when you read all the material on this site, you would deduce body building means lifting big weights and developing strength to make one?s self a better fighter, even sex.
[quote]hueyOT wrote:
they’re training to look as big and cut as possible on a stage.
[/quote]
Thats the point. I don’t train to LOOK. I train to BE. Some LOOK the part. I would rather BE the part.
No point in looking like a badass if you can’t BE a badass. And you’ll never be much of anything training by lifting objects and staring at a mirror.
Everyone had their own goals I guess.
[quote]Nicholas F wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
they’re training to look as big and cut as possible on a stage.
Thats the point. I don’t train to LOOK. I train to BE. Some LOOK the part. I would rather BE the part.
No point in looking like a badass if you can’t BE a badass. And you’ll never be much of anything training by lifting objects and staring at a mirror.
Everyone had their own goals I guess. [/quote]
Amen Brother Nicholas
[quote]Nicholas F wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
they’re training to look as big and cut as possible on a stage.
Thats the point. I don’t train to LOOK. I train to BE. Some LOOK the part. I would rather BE the part.
No point in looking like a badass if you can’t BE a badass. And you’ll never be much of anything training by lifting objects and staring at a mirror.
Everyone had their own goals I guess. [/quote]
you know, looking the part and being the part aren’t mutually exclusive. and part of me suspects that you’re not a badass in any respect.
Does anyone believe there is such as thing as
dysfunctional strength
???
Or, is the opposite, functional weakness?
isn’t that what you are developing on a Swiss ball? you are weak, and functionally adept at balancing on a blow up ball.
If you are going to train for a function I’d prefer lifting heavy weights over balancing like a numbnut, anyday.
[quote]Magarhe wrote:
Does anyone believe there is such as thing as
dysfunctional strength
???
Or, is the opposite, functional weakness?
isn’t that what you are developing on a Swiss ball? you are weak, and functionally adept at balancing on a blow up ball.
If you are going to train for a function I’d prefer lifting heavy weights over balancing like a numbnut, anyday.
[/quote]
I would call those phases oxymoronic
[quote]Magarhe wrote:
Does anyone believe there is such as thing as
dysfunctional strength
???
Or, is the opposite, functional weakness?
isn’t that what you are developing on a Swiss ball? you are weak, and functionally adept at balancing on a blow up ball.
If you are going to train for a function I’d prefer lifting heavy weights over balancing like a numbnut, anyday.
[/quote]
After some thought, I know it is a stretch but dysfunctional strength could mean uncoordination.
I hate it when a pissing match loses steam.
Haven’t read every post, but do the two have to be exclusive to each other? Raw streghth and functional training? how about this definition “a contiuum of exercises that teach athletes how to handle their own weight in all planes of movement”. When the anti function folks get all geared up, it it because they think of functional training as swiss ball seals and balance board bozos?
If I did a simple test and found a huge difference between my ability to move, with or without control, with or without balance being thrown into the mix, a weight, whether it be my body weight or whatever resistance, an imbalance from side to side…If I ignore it will it go away? Poliquin’s article on acheiving structural balance is an interesting read.
I’d like to read more about people’s input on this. Can I fuel it by pising off both groups? When I bounced, some of the easiest people to throw out of the club, push around, fight if we had to, were the big lummox powerlifters. for the other side, I can’t stand the designer sweat pant wearing, space taking, core, bouncy ball metrosexual’s with their no noise makin’ psuedoscientific aversion to balls out effort…
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
I hate it when a pissing match loses steam.
Haven’t read every post, but do the two have to be exclusive to each other? Raw streghth and functional training? how about this definition “a contiuum of exercises that teach athletes how to handle their own weight in all planes of movement”. When the anti function folks get all geared up, it it because they think of functional training as swiss ball seals and balance board bozos?
If I did a simple test and found a huge difference between my ability to move, with or without control, with or without balance being thrown into the mix, a weight, whether it be my body weight or whatever resistance, an imbalance from side to side…If I ignore it will it go away? Poliquin’s article on acheiving structural balance is an interesting read.
I’d like to read more about people’s input on this. Can I fuel it by pising off both groups? When I bounced, some of the easiest people to throw out of the club, push around, fight if we had to, were the big lummox powerlifters. for the other side, I can’t stand the designer sweat pant wearing, space taking, core, bouncy ball metrosexual’s with their no noise makin’ psuedoscientific aversion to balls out effort…
[/quote]
My take is this, and its why I know Im right. Weightlifting is PART of becoming functionally athletic. But its only part. HIT training like ply’os, sprints, sandbag/tire/sled etc. is part of it as well.
I don’t see it as a pissing match. I see it as one side(the lift only, gain size people) as being one dimensional dinosaur thinkers who are stuck in the 80’s way of thinking that lifting weights as the be all end all way.
Then there is my way - to incorporate everything, take what is usefull, and discard what is not, all while not being shortsided enough to discredit other ideas of doing something.
It all depends on who/what you want to be. If you want to look good nakid and nothing else, then go the lift only way. My problem with them though, is they tend to be very limited in their abilities. Ive seen these type of people like X and such before. Yea, there big and they can pick up heavy stuff. So what? Its a sham. Its a defense mechanism to the Nth degree, the exact type of thinking Craig Davidson talks about in his Rust and Bones article(http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1109622&pageNo=0#1109785.
Either way, Im not to shortsided to see threw it. Some people are just happy by looking the part. I would rather BE the part.
[quote]Nicholas F wrote:
Weightlifting is PART of becoming functionally athletic. But its only part.
[/quote]
what if your goal is to become an olympic weightlifter? then lifting heavy weights in the gym IS your goal…
do you consider oly weightlifters athletic?
(for that matter, what is an athlete?)
all this should only be part of an athlete’s training if it helps them make improvements towards their goals…
different athletic goals require different training protocols…there is no ‘one size fits all’ athletic training for all athletes…
for instance, short distance sprinters do no endurance training, it would be counter-productive to their goals…etc, etc, etc…
who says that lifting is all that is needed for all athletic endeavors? I’ve never heard anyone say this…
if your goal is to become a competive oly lifter or powerlifter then lifting alone will get you 99% of the way there…but NO ONE is arguing the point that lifting weights alone will make someone a top notch NFL wide receiver, PGA golf pro, or pole vaulter…
no one is arguing your made-up point…
agreed, different athletic endeavors will require different training protocols…but it’s always a good idea to keep an open mind towards new methods…
so what, almost all great athletes are limited in their abilities…lance armstrong is a great distance bicyclist but he would make for a next to worthless oly weightlifter or NFL linebacker…
todays great athletes specialize, there is no such thing as a great ‘general’ athlete…the best MMA fighters in the world couldn’t make bench-warmer status on a minor league baseball team without extensive training that would negatively affect their fighting abilities…
lifting heavy stuff is a sham?
is olympic weightlifting a sham? all they do is lift heavy stuff all day…
are strongman competitors a sham? all they do is lift heavy stuff all day…
you think oly weightlifters, strongman competitors, powerlifters, etc. all compete in their respective sports as a defense mechanism ‘to the Nth degree’?
maybe they do it because of some goofy dime-store psychology horseshit from your favorite fiction writer…but maybe, just maybe, they do it because that is what they enjoy doing and could care less that some twit thinks their favorite sport is a sham…
[quote]
Either way, Im not to shortsided to see threw it. Some people are just happy by looking the part. I would rather BE the part.[/quote]
what are you talking about BE the part…part of what?
again, do oly weightlifters only ‘look the part’? do strongman competitors only ‘look the part’? do top-notch competitive powerlifters only ‘look the part’?
[quote]DPH wrote:
A very good counterargument.[/quote]
You are wasting your time. I seriously doubt our friend Nick is out of high school. If he is, I doubt he is anywhere near becoming the greatest all around athlete the world has ever known. Again I ask, why aren’t these “super-athletes” on this forum claiming to “be the part” going pro? You would think someone who “was the part” would be making a few million from it.
[quote]Nicholas F wrote:
My problem with them though, is they tend to be very limited in their abilities. Ive seen these type of people like X and such before. Yea, there big and they can pick up heavy stuff. So what? Its a sham. Its a defense mechanism to the Nth degree, the exact type of thinking Craig Davidson talks about in his Rust and Bones article(http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1109622&pageNo=0#1109785.
Either way, Im not to shortsided to see threw it. Some people are just happy by looking the part. I would rather BE the part.[/quote]
what a load of crap, defense mechananism?, this line of thinking can be applied to any one who trains in any fighting art as well not just weightlifting.
have a read of Henry Rollins view on weightlifting, he talks about that aspect and plenty of others that you could do well to read.
read the article you mentioned and yes i see that attitude in the gym from turds who are 175lb and used gear to get to 200lbs, they shit me to tears because they are weak in all aspects of their life.
to gain any unusual amount of mass takes time dedication and fortitude, something that these wankers don't have and will never have and they stick out like dog's nuts to the dedicated lifter.
as for your claim that you would rather be ''the part'' rather than look like it, show's you very clearly have your head up your arse, one day you may grow up into a man but i think that time is a long time off if at all.
I considers this whole argument one of the English Language.Meanning Functional has a meaning and Strength has a meaning and when you put them together they have an ambiguous but still meaning. And because of the ambiguity you can not deny someone the right to use the term. You can take any phrase and if you try hard enough you could create ambiguity, Body Building, Weightlifting any phrase.
I think DPH is right I believe weight lifting is a function. I think what Nicholas was trying to say if all you do is train with weights then your best function is going to be lifting weights in the same pattern of movement and with the weights you been training with…
If you look at the whole thread as jpdubya was saying the thread turns into a pissing match.IMO After the all knowing Professor posts, the thread erupts into a negative discussion. Look at every post he has made when he disagrees with the poster. Not once does he use ration or reason in his arguments . There is some attack on the individual or he discusses masturbation or scratching his pussy. I do know he is capable of intelligence, but I wonder why in this discussion he chooses to insight disharmony among the people posting.