I KO'ed Functional Training

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
1

I just landed a sweet job at a gym. I would certainly be the kid at the candy store. Free weights, machines, squat rack, you name it. It couldn’t be better.

…Or so it seemed. For the first time, I was personally introduced to the fact of functional training. I’ve got to witness the pasty, mediocre (or even below that) people hail total body training and six packs.

Of course, this gym isn’t catered to the hardcore types, to those who enjoy the gym smell and the stains of rust on their calluses, to those “oddball juicing freaks” that use -gasp- split routines. Split routines in the 2000s? What the fuck?

I told one of the personal trainers working there that I used split routines, wanted to get big, and wanting to be strong as fuck. Nothin’ wrong with that, right? …Right?

Wrong.

My ideology was severely wrong. “Man, you should be training for functionality”, he told me. This 5’7", 155lb, 10% body fat trainer went on, praising himself for only doing dips for his triceps. He said when he was interested in getting big, he could squat 400. Mr. High and Mighty 400 (I laughed to myself inside, of course). He also only did pullups and a couple of rowing movements for his back.

It’s funny, too-all these functional trainers have spreadsheets about nutrient timing, intake, and calories, grams, etc. Here I am eating two double cheeseburgers two hours after eating half a box of spaghetti with chicken breast. Guess who’s better looking, stronger, and getting bigger? You may even be suprised.

He said that bodybuilders, with them neglecting their aerobic systems, are the same as morbidly obese people (aerobically speaking), but look great. If us stupid bodybuilders would train for functionality, we would be hell of a lot healthier. Hell, we could even run up a flight of stairs!

I stared blankly at him for a moment, and, letting my testosterone get to me, I replied-“You’re saying that if I bench 400, squat 800, and deadlift 600, and then I punch and knock the fucking shit out of you, you still wouldn’t consider those lifts functional, even though I functionally knocked your ass out?”

He then went off about how much more faster he would be, and he would land more punches in due to his “functional training”. I asked him, “Well, since you substitute power with speed, those punches would feel like taps to someone that actually has adequate muscle mass.” I waited for a reply as he began to stutter, seizure, and make buzzing noises with sparks.

I stumped functionality. I found out that day that functionality is about getting lean and maintaing a six pack, staying quick on your feet, and working your whole body in training sessions.

As long as you don’t get big (people below 6 feet never go above 180, and those above 6 feet never go above 210), stay lean, stay fast, and never use heavy ass weight, you too can enjoy your functional life, your…

…Mediocrity.

By the way, I have nothing wrong with training like that, just don’t call it functional training. If you’re training for functionality, then you are training to do a specific function. The majority of those doing “functional training” are office workers, golfers, just average day-to-day people.

I train for a specific function, but not sitting around or working in a garden, or taking it easy. If you’re going to use “functional training”, you better fucking realize that everyone here is undertaking functional training. Yes, even the split routine guys like myself.

Thoughts/comments on using the term “Functional training”, or using routines that could be called that?

2

I understand completely. I live next to a crossfit guy. We got into a little debate over the merits and strengths of each. I ended up saying that to train crossfit you aren’t strong(powerlifting), you aren’t powerful(olympic lifting), you aren’t functional strong(strongman), and you don’t look good(bodybuilding). The power of mediocrity.

3

I don’t know why you and other people would get so worked up over it anyway. The discussion solvved nothing and neither did your post. No point was proven. You would have to have a competition and winner to decide…and even then the only definitive answer ever is “Sometimes”.

You telling him you could knock him out and him telling you he could avoid your haymakers didn’t prove you were right. You would have to fight…even then, anything can happen in a fight. Your squat has nothing to do with it. Worry about yourself instead of the “functional training” people.

For the record: I use a split routine, am 6’o" tall, and over 200 lbs., don’t eat like shit just because I could(for the most part), and train in MMA. Everything just depends man.

(/another pointless post)

4

[quote]Fulmen wrote:

By the way, I have nothing wrong with training like that, just don’t call it functional training. If you’re training for functionality, then you are training to do a specific function. The majority of those doing “functional training” are office workers, golfers, just average day-to-day people.

[/quote]

I agree with this. All weight training is “functional.” This “functional” idea, is similar to the " in shape" idea. If someone is half past 250#'s and fairly lean, they sure as hell are “in shape.” A lot of people don’t seem to think so though…

You should have asked the guy what specific “function” he trains for. Seriously. I often ask that of these guys, and they have really absurd answers, which if mulled over don’t really satisfy the question. This shows you where this type of guy is headed.

If there is no clear “function”, then how could this training be “functional?” Rather I should say how could this training be, “more functional training,” which seems be in the subtext of the idea, “functional training.”

I have heard various retorts but none suffice.

Oh yeah, and Split Training is bad ass. Good shit on that OP.

5

And there it is! the mma’s are comming out. saying the squat is useless, this is great.

And by the way you KTFO’D functional training.

6

[quote]Deserteaglle wrote:
I don’t know why you and other people would get so worked up over it anyway. The discussion solvved nothing and neither did your post. No point was proven. You would have to have a competition and winner to decide…and even then the only definitive answer ever is “Sometimes”.

You telling him you could knock him out and him telling you he could avoid your haymakers didn’t prove you were right. You would have to fight…even then, anything can happen in a fight. Your squat has nothing to do with it. Worry about yourself instead of the “functional training” people.

For the record: I use a split routine, am 6’o" tall, and over 200 lbs., don’t eat like shit just because I could(for the most part), and train in MMA. Everything just depends man.

(/another pointless post)[/quote]

I can’t believe that you are so ignorant as to miss the point. My point was that we are ALL fuctionally training. I was trying to show my view on why I think its ridiculous to use the label “functional training”.

Split routines, TBT, any routine and exercise is functional if you’re training for a specific function (where to lift heavier weight, to add more mass, to get faster, etc).

7

[quote]Fulmen wrote:
I just landed a sweet job at a gym. I would certainly be the kid at the candy store. Free weights, machines, squat rack, you name it. It couldn’t be better.

…Or so it seemed. For the first time, I was personally introduced to the fact of functional training. I’ve got to witness the pasty, mediocre (or even below that) people hail total body training and six packs.

Of course, this gym isn’t catered to the hardcore types, to those who enjoy the gym smell and the stains of rust on their calluses, to those “oddball juicing freaks” that use -gasp- split routines. Split routines in the 2000s? What the fuck?

I told one of the personal trainers working there that I used split routines, wanted to get big, and wanting to be strong as fuck. Nothin’ wrong with that, right? …Right?

Wrong.

My ideology was severely wrong. “Man, you should be training for functionality”, he told me. This 5’7", 155lb, 10% body fat trainer went on, praising himself for only doing dips for his triceps. He said when he was interested in getting big, he could squat 400. Mr. High and Mighty 400 (I laughed to myself inside, of course). He also only did pullups and a couple of rowing movements for his back.

It’s funny, too-all these functional trainers have spreadsheets about nutrient timing, intake, and calories, grams, etc. Here I am eating two double cheeseburgers two hours after eating half a box of spaghetti with chicken breast. Guess who’s better looking, stronger, and getting bigger? You may even be suprised.

He said that bodybuilders, with them neglecting their aerobic systems, are the same as morbidly obese people (aerobically speaking), but look great. If us stupid bodybuilders would train for functionality, we would be hell of a lot healthier. Hell, we could even run up a flight of stairs!

I stared blankly at him for a moment, and, letting my testosterone get to me, I replied-“You’re saying that if I bench 400, squat 800, and deadlift 600, and then I punch and knock the fucking shit out of you, you still wouldn’t consider those lifts functional, even though I functionally knocked your ass out?”

He then went off about how much more faster he would be, and he would land more punches in due to his “functional training”. I asked him, “Well, since you substitute power with speed, those punches would feel like taps to someone that actually has adequate muscle mass.” I waited for a reply as he began to stutter, seizure, and make buzzing noises with sparks.

I stumped functionality. I found out that day that functionality is about getting lean and maintaing a six pack, staying quick on your feet, and working your whole body in training sessions.

As long as you don’t get big (people below 6 feet never go above 180, and those above 6 feet never go above 210), stay lean, stay fast, and never use heavy ass weight, you too can enjoy your functional life, your…

…Mediocrity.

By the way, I have nothing wrong with training like that, just don’t call it functional training. If you’re training for functionality, then you are training to do a specific function. The majority of those doing “functional training” are office workers, golfers, just average day-to-day people.

I train for a specific function, but not sitting around or working in a garden, or taking it easy. If you’re going to use “functional training”, you better fucking realize that everyone here is undertaking functional training. Yes, even the split routine guys like myself.

Thoughts/comments on using the term “Functional training”, or using routines that could be called that?[/quote]

Well back in the days when I used to read the forums but not post I saw a few of these “functional” debates and I always use to find them quite amusing because the argument is so easy to defeat.

As you stated the term functional relates to a specific function. So if you we look at it from a bodybuilding point of view the function of your training is primarily hypertrophy, not being able to balance on one leg or win a marathon but hypertrophy so the most functional training is whatever causes the most hypertrophy.

This is where the usual arguments start to fall apart because some people don’t seem to understand that not everybody cares about athletic performance because not everybody is an athlete.

You also find that the people that love to go on and on about their “functional training” are usually using it as an excuse for their lack of size and or strength.

Like you the function of my training is both size and strength so as long as my training enables me to get bigger and stronger, it is by definition “functional”.

8

I think you have to be more careful about how you define functional training or perhaps more to the point how those around you do. A bench press is not strictly functional. How many on your back pressing movements are done in any sport(not to say there isn’t some carryover to a function).

“Functional Training” simply aspires to enhance a real-world function. For instance, a study on O-lifters at the Mexico City Games in 1968 showed them to be as fast in the first few meters as olympic sprinters without ever specifically training sprinting . . . that’s functional.

Swiss balls be damned! Rather than demeaning a term that is poorly applied I would suggest you assert a proper definition to supplant an absurd one.

9

This guy is totally not functional, I mean he weights close to 300lbs

10

[quote]…

You also find that the people that love to go on and on about their “functional training” are usually using it as an excuse for their lack of size and or strength.

…quote]

so true…

11

My dad can beat up your dad.

12

[quote]IQ wrote:
Well back in the days when I used to read the forums but not post I saw a few of these “functional” debates and I always use to find them quite amusing because the argument is so easy to defeat.

As you stated the term functional relates to a specific function. So if you we look at it from a bodybuilding point of view the function of your training is primarily hypertrophy, not being able to balance on one leg or win a marathon but hypertrophy so the most functional training is whatever causes the most hypertrophy.

This is where the usual arguments start to fall apart because some people don’t seem to understand that not everybody cares about athletic performance because not everybody is an athlete.

You also find that the people that love to go on and on about their “functional training” are usually using it as an excuse for their lack of size and or strength.

Like you the function of my training is both size and strength so as long as my training enables me to get bigger and stronger, it is by definition “functional”.[/quote]

Best.Post.

The thread should end there…but will it?

13

[quote]John S. wrote:
This guy is totally not functional, I mean he weights close to 300lbs

He is the MAN. Strong, fit and athletic. He runs (jogs?) funny but he is pretty good on the jump rope.

You don’t get much better than that.

14

[quote]azman wrote:
A bench press is not strictly functional. How many on your back pressing movements are done in any sport(not to say there isn’t some carryover to a function). [/quote]

I never limited carry-overs only to sports. Any pressing movement are functional for certain jobs, and everyday activities (i.e. manual labor).

16

I actually KO’ed Functional Training the other day, with my squirt gun.

17

[quote]DrVonNostrand wrote:
My dad can beat up your dad.[/quote]

[quote]detazathoth wrote:
I actually KO’ed Functional Training the other day, with my squirt gun. [/quote]

Please leave crappy jokes at the door.

I’ve got another question-why are all those who say they’re using “functional training” always doing total body? I never see a guy using splits and using that terminology.

Once again, I have to stress for the fucking retards on this site that when it comes to routines, do what you want; I’m just curious and want a question answered.

18

[quote]Fulmen wrote:
DrVonNostrand wrote:
My dad can beat up your dad.
detazathoth wrote:
I actually KO’ed Functional Training the other day, with my squirt gun.

Please leave crappy jokes at the door.

I’ve got another question-why are all those who say they’re using “functional training” always doing total body? I never see a guy using splits and using that terminology.

Once again, I have to stress for the fucking retards on this site that when it comes to routines, do what you want; I’m just curious and want a question answered.

[/quote]

Indirectly blame Chad Waterbury? I reall don’t know, and I doubt there is any concrete answer to it. I personally think it a defense mechanism for people who are afraid to gain weight because their abs are going to disappear for a while.

19

I personally don’t believe you said any of those things as written. After all, that functional training idiot is bigger than you.

20

[quote]DrVonNostrand wrote:
I personally don’t believe you said any of those things as written. After all, that functional training idiot is bigger than you.[/quote]

I know he’s bigger than me, but that doesn’t mean the fanboys that tout his research as dogma are. I don’t have anything against him, I do however think a lot of the people that follow his stuff religiously seem the type to tout their horns about functional training. Really. I do plan on using his 10x3 for fat loss when I cut, so let me reiterate that I don’t have anything against man.