[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
See, I believe that if I train in a movement pattern similar to digging a hole in the ground - such as reverse wood chops and dead lifts its more functional than back extensions and oblique crunches.
…
Don’t mimic movements in the gym. It does not have the carryover and it can actually impede the actual movement itself.[/quote]
Hi Andrew,
I’ve pretty much stayed out of this part of the discussion, but Zap does bring up a good point. You have so far defined “functional” training as:
I recall reading a study posted by Coach Christopher Sommer, one of the most accomplished Gymnastics coaches in the states, that basically said that athletes who performed movements that attempted to replicate their sport specific skill sets actually decreased in their performance (or at the very least were outperformed by the athletes that simply performed traditional strength training exercises).
These results are thought to be, as Zap alluded to, the fact that performing the similar resistance exercises actually taught incorrect motor skills, thus decreasing performance.
Now, if anyone needs to develop strength in their upper body stabilizer muscles and “whole body” strength, it’s gymnasts. I personally can’t think of any exercise that even comes close in those regards to the still rings. Yet, here he is making a point NOT to attempt to replicate “outside world” movements in the weight room.
You then wrote
I’m a trainer, and I disagree. Strength is strength, period. Maximal strength is the one athletic quality that will improve all other athletic qualities. The benefit of machines are:
-
They allow you to use more weight because of the fact that your stabilizer muscles (which are generally much smaller and weaker than your prime movers) are not a limiting factor.
-
They remove much of the likelihood of injury, since a spotter is seldom needed and there is no risk of losing control of the weight. Therefore once again allowing you to, in all likelihood, use more weight.
So, I would disagree that their functionality pertains only to bodybuilders. They are good for developing maximal strength and overloading the target musculature. This would make them beneficial for anyone who requires high levels of maximal strength. And, going back to my previous statement about the benefits of maximal strength, that would include just about everyone.
Now, I’m also not trying to suggest that people should only do machine exercises. I think that free weight exercises are phenomenal, and would never dream of designing a workout program that didn’t involve them. I am just trying to make a point that free weights, machines, cables, and bodyweight exercises can all have their place in a well designed resistance training program.
You then wrote:
Going back to my previous statement, the reason that deadlifts and wood chops are superior for building strength (I’m purposely leaving out the term functional for now) to back extensions and oblique crunches is because they allow for one to use greater loads, thus they develop higher levels of maximal strength.
Do you really think that deadlifts mimic digging a whole in the ground? Have you ever dug a whole in the ground? If/when you did, did you get down into a deadlifting position, make sure your back was straight, weight was evenly distributed between your two feet, head was up, and then lift the shovel only by extending your hips/knees? No. That’s not how you shovel.
Yes, digging holes does require strength in the hip extensors, shoulders, biceps, upper back, spinal rotators, and hands. But, deadlifts and wood chops do not accurately mimic the movement of digging holes. What they do is to overload the muscles involved in digging holes, thereby increasing their levels of maximal strength, thereby making someone a better hole digger. Of course, doing deadlifts on a deadlift machine (such as a hammer strength machine), or doing spinal rotations on a machine (such as a Nautilus rotation machine) would probably also make someone a better hole digger.
Finally you wrote:
But, it does strengthen the medial head of the deltoids, which will carry over into many activities. Therefore, because it has a positive effect on once again increasing the strength of the musculature involved, it is “functional”. Also, what about strength moves like the Inverted Cross on the rings, that’s basically a body weight static lat raise, and requires inhuman levels of shoulder strength.
What about someone who has dominant front delts (which usually occurs if one does a lot of pressing movements without ever isolating the medial delt)? If that person then isolates the medial head, thus increasing it’s strength, this will lead to ultimately better numbers in pressing movements (especially overhead pressing).
Seriously, I have nothing against anyone doing things because they think they’re fun, or they simply like the exercises, or they have found that those exercises improve their performance in their particular sport. My problem is with saying that some exercises are “more” or “less” functional based simply on whether or not they closely mimic an “outside world” movement.
As I stated before, strength is strength. What allows one to transfer that strength to a “real world” activity is actually practicing the activity itself, not by trying to mimic that movement in the weight room.
Going back to your example of Ronnie and Royce, yes, Royce might win that fight (although I’d bet that simply because of the strength disparity ronnie would give him a lot of trouble). But, have Ronnie train seriously with a world class grappling coach for 1 year, and he would man handle Royce.
You can argue if you like, but if Ronnie knew what Royce was trying to do and how to defend submissions, Royce would be in a world of trouble. Royce’s only chance at that point would be to try to burn Ronnie out, which he still might be able to do, but I doubt it. In a grappling match, maybe, in a real fight, not likely.
Good training,
Sentoguy
