[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
A bright, coherant, well thought out post.[/quote]
Very well put Sentoguy. I’d shake your hand if I could.
[quote]NeoSpartan wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
Ren wrote:
If you paid attention to that video, you would have noticed that in between all that “functional training” that he was doing, he still had HEAVY weight training sessions.
You clearly don’t understand what is meant by functional training. Deadlifting is the bread and butter of functional training.
Dude…he is not arguing for or against functional training, nor is he arguing for the definition of functional training.
He (and I) is saying that the Heavy Lifting is complemented by the lightweight balancing stuff.[/quote]
What this man said. At least someone understood the point I was trying to make.
[quote]BigRagoo wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
A bright, coherant, well thought out post.
Very well put Sentoguy. I’d shake your hand if I could.[/quote]
Hell of a read, want to add something that he said about maximal strength. I have a few books by Kelly Baggett and Eric Cressey on athletic performance. The analogy they both like to use is that you must look at your athletic potential as a glass of water. All the training that you do: strength, speed-strength, strength-endurance, balance, flexibility, agility, etc. will help you fill this glass up.
The 1 defining feature though, is that the size of this glass is limited by your maximal strength, nothing else. Want to strong, athletic, functional? Make sure you keep improving your maximal strength.
[quote]Ren wrote:
The 1 defining feature though, is that the size of this glass is limited by your maximal strength, nothing else. Want to strong, athletic, functional? Make sure you keep improving your maximal strength. [/quote]
Bumped for emphasis so no one misses this point.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[/quote]
Good post.
I agree that you shouldn’t try and mimic complex movements with weights. Like a golf swing or a swim stroke. You would just mess up your swing. I made the digging comment after I worked on a far for a week and had to fork the feed to the cows. I was deadlifting and turning which made me thing of woodchops. So you train the basic movement pattern getting as close to the real movement without compromising it.
I believe that the absence of the stabilizers on machines would make injury more likely on the farm as I may try and use loads similar to what I did in the gym, but now my ‘weak’ stabilizers are in play.
Of course you can train the stabilizers with the free weights as well as max strength with machines, but I only want to spend so much time in the gym so I use the best bang for buck exercises.
Your inverted cross/lat raise solution doesn’t take open/closed chain movements into consideration. So its the old lat pull down doesn’t help chinups.
Again, a trainer who does a few free weights and some machines will no doubt be a strong dude. I just think time can be better spent training the nervous system in more ‘life’ compatible movement patterns. That is, if you are training for performance.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Good post.
I agree that you shouldn’t try and mimic complex movements with weights. Like a golf swing or a swim stroke. You would just mess up your swing. I made the digging comment after I worked on a far for a week and had to fork the feed to the cows. I was deadlifting and turning which made me thing of woodchops. So you train the basic movement pattern getting as close to the real movement without compromising it.
[/quote]
First, thanks.
Honestly, I can understand why it would seem to makes sense to try to mimic “real world” movement patterns from a logical standpoint. After all those are the movements that you are trying to get good at, right?
The problem comes when people take the idea to the extreme, or start labeling exercises that don’t closely resemble “real world” movements as “less” or worse yet “non” functional. Like I tried to point out in my previous post, it’s not as important that the exercises closely mimic the desired movement pattern as it is that the exercises overload the desired musculature.
See, it’s the muscles that create the movements. So, the stronger the muscles, the more powerful, coordinated, agile, and to an extent long lasting (since maximal strength does have a positive effect on endurance} the athlete will be. Yes, the nervous system plays a huge role in movements and does require attention. But, the only way you’ll ever really develop your desired movement patterns is by actually performing those patterns.
What I mean is that no matter how many squats you can do on a bosu ball, you will never be able to surf unless you actually go out and surf. Can squats on a bosu ball increase your balance? Yes. But, will they have a superior carryover to someone who does ME squats? No, probably not. The reason? Once again it’s maximal strength. Strength is a determining factor of balance, and while bosu squats may more directly focus on the balance factor itself, they also severely limit the amount of weight that a person can use, thus limiting the maximal strength factor. Now, of course a combination of the two methods, along with actual surfing practice, would probably produce the best results.
I agree. Which is why I stated that one should not compose a program based solely on machines.
And that’s completely your decision to make. I wasn’t trying to suggest that you need to use machines, nor was anyone else as far as I can tell. I was simply suggesting that you shouldn’t try to devalue machines simply because they don’t fit into your personal workout schedule. Like I said before, machines have their “function” and they fill it well, just as free weights, cables, and body weight exercises have their purpose.
I also wasn’t suggesting that if one could do a body weight lat raise, that they could then perform an inverted cross. My point was that the inverted cross requires phenomenal shoulder strength and that the arms are in a position similar (not exactly the same, but similar) to a lateral raise. Thus, because lateral raises are effective at building shoulder strength (specifically the medial head, which doesn’t come into play as much during pressing, or pulling movements) it could potentially help in developing the ability to perform an inverted cross. Once again, the only way you’re ever going to be able to do the skill, is by actually doing the skill.
Personally I feel that there are simply too many variable involved to say that one type of training will always be “better” than another type of training. What if the athlete’s weak point is maximal strength? Let’s say for instance that their stabilizer muscles are already well developed, so they don’t necessarily need to specifically focus on them. In such a situation, machines might be just what they need to improve their performance.
Good training,
Sentoguy
Quick question for you knowledgeable guys.
How would one go about adding the functional stuff to your workouts? I have a personal trainer that wants to train me for free, and she does the whole balance / agility / flexibility stuff (If you go back a few posts I posted a link to LT’s workouts, she learnt under his trainer).
I definitely want to do this as I feel I am lacking in that department and it would improve my performance on the rugby field tremendously.
At the same time I do not want lose my heavy sessions for an extended period of time (currently taking a small break for a few weeks from any heavy weights too).
I was thinking of 2 sessions with her a week and 2 ME sessions in the gym, 1 for upper and the other for lower. Any recommendations on the best way to structure this kind of a 4 day split?
[quote]Ren wrote:
Quick question for you knowledgeable guys.
How would one go about adding the functional stuff to your workouts? I have a personal trainer that wants to train me for free, and she does the whole balance / agility / flexibility stuff (If you go back a few posts I posted a link to LT’s workouts, she learnt under his trainer).
I definitely want to do this as I feel I am lacking in that department and it would improve my performance on the rugby field tremendously.
At the same time I do not want lose my heavy sessions for an extended period of time (currently taking a small break for a few weeks from any heavy weights too).
I was thinking of 2 sessions with her a week and 2 ME sessions in the gym, 1 for upper and the other for lower. Any recommendations on the best way to structure this kind of a 4 day split?[/quote]
Hi Ren,
You actually have a few options.
- You could follow a standard linear periodization scheme, where you would actually devote a certain time frame solely to improving your balance, stabilization, joint integrity, etc…
From the article you posted, that’s what it seems like LT did. If you’re going to work with a trainer who specializes in such aspects of training, then this would probably give you the most noticeable/dramatic results.
-
You could use a conjugated periodization scheme (like the one you suggested), where you devote a day or two to balance, agility, stabilization, etc… exercises.
-
You could throw in some of these exercises every time you hit the gym. Depending on how important you feel this is, and how much you need to work on these athletic qualities, you could place these exercises towards the beginning or end of your workouts. I would probably suggest waiting until after you’ve done your heavy ME exercises however (if you choose to use free weights), as there is much more risk of injury when performing ME stuff, than there is balancing on a bosu ball (even more so if your stabilizer muscles are already tired).
Of course, you could always use machines for your ME exercises, which would remove the need for stabilization, thus allowing you to perform your balance exercises first.
Hope this helps.
Good training,
Sentoguy
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Ren wrote:
Quick question for you knowledgeable guys.
How would one go about adding the functional stuff to your workouts? I have a personal trainer that wants to train me for free, and she does the whole balance / agility / flexibility stuff (If you go back a few posts I posted a link to LT’s workouts, she learnt under his trainer).
I definitely want to do this as I feel I am lacking in that department and it would improve my performance on the rugby field tremendously.
At the same time I do not want lose my heavy sessions for an extended period of time (currently taking a small break for a few weeks from any heavy weights too).
I was thinking of 2 sessions with her a week and 2 ME sessions in the gym, 1 for upper and the other for lower. Any recommendations on the best way to structure this kind of a 4 day split?
Hi Ren,
You actually have a few options.
- You could follow a standard linear periodization scheme, where you would actually devote a certain time frame solely to improving your balance, stabilization, joint integrity, etc…
From the article you posted, that’s what it seems like LT did. If you’re going to work with a trainer who specializes in such aspects of training, then this would probably give you the most noticeable/dramatic results.
-
You could use a conjugated periodization scheme (like the one you suggested), where you devote a day or two to balance, agility, stabilization, etc… exercises.
-
You could throw in some of these exercises every time you hit the gym. Depending on how important you feel this is, and how much you need to work on these athletic qualities, you could place these exercises towards the beginning or end of your workouts. I would probably suggest waiting until after you’ve done your heavy ME exercises however (if you choose to use free weights), as there is much more risk of injury when performing ME stuff, than there is balancing on a bosu ball (even more so if your stabilizer muscles are already tired).
Of course, you could always use machines for your ME exercises, which would remove the need for stabilization, thus allowing you to perform your balance exercises first.
Hope this helps.
Good training,
Sentoguy [/quote]
Thanks for the advice Sento. I am going to talk to her about it a little more. She mentioned it to Todd Durkin (LT’s trainer), and he said she could call him with any questions, so I am thinking of seeing if LT hit the Charger’s weight room twice a week throughout the off-season while he was doing his 3 other workouts a week.
I am pretty excited about this, once we work out my training details and I figure out how to incorporate the heavy weight days, I will either start posting a thread or post in my blog about what I am doing. I am sure some people would be curious to see how it goes.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
You clearly don’t understand what is meant by functional training. Deadlifting is the bread and butter of functional training.
[/quote]
I guess that is why you never see the “functional training” zealots performing them.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Good post.
I agree that you shouldn’t try and mimic complex movements with weights. Like a golf swing or a swim stroke. You would just mess up your swing. I made the digging comment after I worked on a far for a week and had to fork the feed to the cows. I was deadlifting and turning which made me thing of woodchops. So you train the basic movement pattern getting as close to the real movement without compromising it.
First, thanks.
Honestly, I can understand why it would seem to makes sense to try to mimic “real world” movement patterns from a logical standpoint. After all those are the movements that you are trying to get good at, right?
The problem comes when people take the idea to the extreme, or start labeling exercises that don’t closely resemble “real world” movements as “less” or worse yet “non” functional. Like I tried to point out in my previous post, it’s not as important that the exercises closely mimic the desired movement pattern as it is that the exercises overload the desired musculature.
See, it’s the muscles that create the movements. So, the stronger the muscles, the more powerful, coordinated, agile, and to an extent long lasting (since maximal strength does have a positive effect on endurance} the athlete will be. Yes, the nervous system plays a huge role in movements and does require attention. But, the only way you’ll ever really develop your desired movement patterns is by actually performing those patterns.
What I mean is that no matter how many squats you can do on a bosu ball, you will never be able to surf unless you actually go out and surf. Can squats on a bosu ball increase your balance? Yes. But, will they have a superior carryover to someone who does ME squats? No, probably not. The reason? Once again it’s maximal strength. Strength is a determining factor of balance, and while bosu squats may more directly focus on the balance factor itself, they also severely limit the amount of weight that a person can use, thus limiting the maximal strength factor. Now, of course a combination of the two methods, along with actual surfing practice, would probably produce the best results.
I believe that the absence of the stabilizers on machines would make injury more likely on the farm as I may try and use loads similar to what I did in the gym, but now my ‘weak’ stabilizers are in play.
I agree. Which is why I stated that one should not compose a program based solely on machines.
Of course you can train the stabilizers with the free weights as well as max strength with machines, but I only want to spend so much time in the gym so I use the best bang for buck exercises.
And that’s completely your decision to make. I wasn’t trying to suggest that you need to use machines, nor was anyone else as far as I can tell. I was simply suggesting that you shouldn’t try to devalue machines simply because they don’t fit into your personal workout schedule. Like I said before, machines have their “function” and they fill it well, just as free weights, cables, and body weight exercises have their purpose.
Your inverted cross/lat raise solution doesn’t take open/closed chain movements into consideration. So its the old lat pull down doesn’t help chinups.
I also wasn’t suggesting that if one could do a body weight lat raise, that they could then perform an inverted cross. My point was that the inverted cross requires phenomenal shoulder strength and that the arms are in a position similar (not exactly the same, but similar) to a lateral raise. Thus, because lateral raises are effective at building shoulder strength (specifically the medial head, which doesn’t come into play as much during pressing, or pulling movements) it could potentially help in developing the ability to perform an inverted cross. Once again, the only way you’re ever going to be able to do the skill, is by actually doing the skill.
Again, a trainer who does a few free weights and some machines will no doubt be a strong dude. I just think time can be better spent training the nervous system in more ‘life’ compatible movement patterns. That is, if you are training for performance.
Personally I feel that there are simply too many variable involved to say that one type of training will always be “better” than another type of training. What if the athlete’s weak point is maximal strength? Let’s say for instance that their stabilizer muscles are already well developed, so they don’t necessarily need to specifically focus on them. In such a situation, machines might be just what they need to improve their performance.
Good training,
Sentoguy[/quote]
Nothing new here. I never said BOSU squats will improve the skill of surfing. I think some balance exerciese can compliment actual training, but the only way to surf is to surf.
Everyone on this site seems to think ‘functional training’ is 1 legged BOSU triceps kickbacks with pink dumbbells.
If you do the ‘primal patterns’ squat, lunge, bend, push, pull, twist your doing the functional training thing. I was doing those exercises before I knew what ‘functional training’ was, and so was practically everyone else.
You can just pick a couple of these exercises, maybe modify them slightly to suit the movement pattern your training for and thats about as complex as it gets.
Its all nervous system training as far as Im concerned. Make it learn each and every rep.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
Nothing new here. I never said BOSU squats will improve the skill of surfing. I think some balance exerciese can compliment actual training, but the only way to surf is to surf.
[/quote]
Agreed. I also wasn’t suggesting that you said that Bosu squats would improve surfing. My point was that although Bosu squats might actually mimic surfing more closely than heavy ME squats, it wouldn’t necessarily have a better carry over. Remember, you’re the one who defined “functional” training as movements that mimic real world movement patterns.
And can you really blame them? The industry is currently saturated with people proclaiming that if you’re not doing things on Bosu balls, or stability balls, or on one leg, or you are using machines, you’re not training functionally. You are probably an exception and have your clients perform heavy compound free weight exercises, good for you. But, you have to realize that you’re the exception, not the rule. I know, I work in the industry and see it on a daily basis.
Which is why I personally have a problem with calling it “functional” training. If people have been doing it for years, you can’t just slap a new label on it and then go around pretending that you’ve come up with something new.
This also completely destroys the argument against bodybuilders being non functional. I have never seen a professional bodybuilder’s routine that did not involve squatting, lunging, pushing, twisting, and pulling. Some might do some of the movements using machines, but that’s usually because they work out alone, and/or don’t have adequate spotting assistance.
[quote]
Its all nervous system training as far as Im concerned. Make it learn each and every rep.[/quote]
I agree that the nervous system plays a role in strength training, a huge role. But, it’s not “all” nervous system training. You can have the most efficient nervous system in the world, but without adequate levels of contractile tissue it’s not going to give you the performance capabilities that you’re looking for.
Resistance training is just as much about skeletal muscle training as it is about nervous system training. You need to develop the muscles if you want to actually be able to do what the nervous system tells them to do. Heavy compounds like deadlifts, squats, bench presses, etc… have already been mapped out through years of trial and error so that they provide the best leverages, least likelihood of injury and allow you to use the most weight possible. Trying to “tweak” these exercises to more closely mimic “real world” movement patterns is not only unnecessary, it could be down right dangerous.
Look, I understand that this is what you do for a living, believe me, I do. You want to feel like you’ve got something different to offer, something that sets you apart from the crowd. Perhaps you do. And if you do, then use it. But, stop telling other people who don’t train the exact same way as you do, or choose to perform exercises that you wouldn’t perform/prescribe to your clients, that they are training “less” (or worse yet “non”) functionally.
You seem to be having a really hard time letting go of this term. But, you need to understand that it’s a gimic, a fad. People were, as you said yourself, performing squats, deads, bench, chins, etc… (the “primal patterns” as you called them) long before anyone came up with the term “functional”. And they’ll be doing them long after the term has fizzled out.
Good luck and good training,
Sentoguy
[quote]Ren wrote:
Thanks for the advice Sento. I am going to talk to her about it a little more. She mentioned it to Todd Durkin (LT’s trainer), and he said she could call him with any questions, so I am thinking of seeing if LT hit the Charger’s weight room twice a week throughout the off-season while he was doing his 3 other workouts a week.
I am pretty excited about this, once we work out my training details and I figure out how to incorporate the heavy weight days, I will either start posting a thread or post in my blog about what I am doing. I am sure some people would be curious to see how it goes.[/quote]
Cool. Good luck with your training, and keep us posted.
Sentoguy
I used to work with trainers doing all sorts of stupid exercises, like bench press/deadbugs. The trainer was all like “hows that for functional”?
I always thought it was a load of shit. Not so called ‘functional’ at all.
I just assumed that they didn’t know what functional training was, but it seems that its is what ‘functional training’ has become.
All that matters is that I know what I mean by functional exercise. I just better make sure I’m not labeled a ‘functional trainer’ or people will thingk I use the pink dumbbells as well.
That being said I had a chick use the purple dumbbells this morning. 
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
I used to work with trainers doing all sorts of stupid exercises, like bench press/deadbugs. The trainer was all like “hows that for functional”?
I always thought it was a load of shit. Not so called ‘functional’ at all.
I just assumed that they didn’t know what functional training was, but it seems that its is what ‘functional training’ has become.
All that matters is that I know what I mean by functional exercise. I just better make sure I’m not labeled a ‘functional trainer’ or people will thingk I use the pink dumbbells as well.
That being said I had a chick use the purple dumbbells this morning. [/quote]
Hi Andrew,
Yeah, nowadays “functional” training means:
-
combining two different exercises together (regardless of whether that combination makes any sense)
-
Performing exercises on one leg
-
Performing exercises on an unstable surface (Bosu, wobble board, stability ball, those TRX straps, etc…)
Honestly, there’s nothing wrong with any of the above mentioned exercise methodologies. It’s just that they are supplemental exercises, they should not make up the foundation of a resistance training program.
What really matters is that the trainer addresses the individual client’s needs. If the client lacks balance, have them perform exercises to develop their balance. If the client has weak unilateral strength, have them perform more unilateral work. If they lack coordination, have them perform complex exercises (like combining exercises together). Etc…etc…etc…
But, everyone (at least as far as I’m concerned) can benefit from maximal strength building exercises. Because, strength is functional, regardless of the desired function.
Good training,
Sentoguy
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
I used to work with trainers doing all sorts of stupid exercises, like bench press/deadbugs. The trainer was all like “hows that for functional”?
I always thought it was a load of shit. Not so called ‘functional’ at all.
I just assumed that they didn’t know what functional training was, but it seems that its is what ‘functional training’ has become.
All that matters is that I know what I mean by functional exercise. I just better make sure I’m not labeled a ‘functional trainer’ or people will thingk I use the pink dumbbells as well.
That being said I had a chick use the purple dumbbells this morning.
Hi Andrew,
Yeah, nowadays “functional” training means:
-
combining two different exercises together (regardless of whether that combination makes any sense)
-
Performing exercises on one leg
-
Performing exercises on an unstable surface (Bosu, wobble board, stability ball, those TRX straps, etc…)
Honestly, there’s nothing wrong with any of the above mentioned exercise methodologies. It’s just that they are supplemental exercises, they should not make up the foundation of a resistance training program.
What really matters is that the trainer addresses the individual client’s needs. If the client lacks balance, have them perform exercises to develop their balance. If the client has weak unilateral strength, have them perform more unilateral work. If they lack coordination, have them perform complex exercises (like combining exercises together). Etc…etc…etc…
But, everyone (at least as far as I’m concerned) can benefit from maximal strength building exercises. Because, strength is functional, regardless of the desired function.
Good training,
Sentoguy[/quote]
Good post.
Why then do so many “functional trainers” waste so much time degrading those who work on building strength on every exercise including isolation movements?
Why do so many newbies fall for this?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
<<< Good post.
Why then do so many “functional trainers” waste so much time degrading those who work on building strength on every exercise including isolation movements?
Why do so many newbies fall for this?[/quote]
Emphasis mine:
This has to be one of the most schizophrenic things I’ve ever heard of.
On one hand I think guys have been conditioned to believe that any really significant progress is achieved by genetic freaks who also happen to be soaked in anabolic drugs.
Therefore rather than strive for size (which 95% really do want even though they say they don’t) they gravitate toward a style of training that nobody will be able to tell if you do or not by looking at you. No chance of failure because you aren’t striving for anything.
They don’t believe THEY can actually be substantially bigger (definitely not without gear) so why listen to those who HAVE progressed in that area. It isn’t going to work for them anyway. We’ve seen that very thing. I was accused of using once here because I said I gained 20 lbs lean in a year as if that were an astronomical accomplishment.
On the other hand sometimes these very same people will decry eating big and lifting hard for fear of getting “too huge”. !?!?!?!? Anybody who’s been here more than a half hour knows what I’m talking about. Which damn way is it?
On top of that we have these threads where mediocre physique goals (at best) are held up as ideals of functional utopia. After all who could argue against being “functional”?. Does anybody want to be non functional? The impression is left, maybe without absolute intention, that your choices are either to be functional and small or non functional and big.
Hell, they’re already small so the former goal appears much more reachable and there’s the bonus of not lapsing into being a function-less, bulky goon.
Buried in here somewhere are the explanations for much of what we see with all confusion among those who lack the experience to know better.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Good post.
Why then do so many “functional trainers” waste so much time degrading those who work on building strength on every exercise including isolation movements?
Why do so many newbies fall for this?[/quote]
They fall for it because they don’t know any better. It’s the same reason why people who are looking to learn how to defend themselves go train at McDojos instead of joining a wrestling club, or boxing gym. They don’t know the difference between the good stuff (what really works) and the fluff.
Also, the people who do the fluff exercises are usually much more in your face than the people who do what actually works.
Just look at commercials on t.v. nowadays, what do you see? These days it seems like everyone and their mother is coming out with some new workout gadget or gizmo and proclaiming that it’s the answer to everyone’s physique prayers. A large number of unknowledgable people will fall for these marketing ploys and thus get taken for a ride.
I think it also plays to people’s natural laziness, fear of really working hard, and lifting heavy weights (especially women). People want some easy quick fix scheme that will get them in “shape” in as little time as possible.
So, the idea of combining exercises, or working more muscles (as in stabilizing muscles) sounds like a good idea. More work in less time. Then, when they stagnate and don’t actually reach their goals, they think that the answer is the next gizmo to come out.
And honestly, if people want to fall for this stuff that’s their choice. I personally wish that people would be more honest on the whole and not try to sucker people into following less than optimal exercise plans, or into using gadgets and gizmos.
But, I can’t control that. All that we can do as knowledgeable weight trainers is to try to steer those who we do have the opportunity to interact with in the right direct.
As far as the “functional trainers” degrading people who actually have the guts, knowledge to put in the effort and actually lift heavy weights, build strength, and reach their goals…they do it because they pretty much have to.
The reason they have to do this, is because what they are pedaling is just fluff. If they didn’t spend all that time putting serious weight trainers down, people might realize that those serious weight trainers might be on to something.
See, the weight trainers results speak for themselves, so they don’t need to put down the gimic gurus. But, the gimic gurus do need to put down the weight trainers, because in the end all they’ve got is talk.
So, they come up with all kinds of ways to make it look like the guys who are actually getting results are doing things wrong, or at least suboptimally. Things like, “look, he’s performing isolation exercises, those don’t mimic real world activities, therefore they’re not functional”, or “look he’s using machines, machines don’t involve the stabilizers, therefore they don’t carry over well to real world activities”.
Then they try to make it look like their exercise gimic/methodology somehow solves these “problems”. They might say something like “see, if you perform shoulder presses while standing on a Bosu you’re working way more stabilizer muscles, therefore it will have more real world carry over”, or “look, by combining romanian deadlifts with dumbell rows you’re mimicing picking up objects off the floor, therefore it’s more functional”.
In the end, it all comes down to money.
And honestly, I don’t think that we as serous weight trainers really care what the newest fad exercise guru is doing. We are getting results and are confident because we know that we’ve put in the blood, sweat, and tears and we know what actually works.
That is, until those people start trying to sell their B.S. We are not naive, easily swayed, or unknowledgeable enough to be tricked, and that makes us dangerous.
Good training,
Sentoguy
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
<<< Good post.
Why then do so many “functional trainers” waste so much time degrading those who work on building strength on every exercise including isolation movements?
Why do so many newbies fall for this?
Emphasis mine:
This has to be one of the most schizophrenic things I’ve ever heard of.
On one hand I think guys have been conditioned to believe that any really significant progress is achieved by genetic freaks who also happen to be soaked in anabolic drugs.
Therefore rather than strive for size (which 95% really do want even though they say they don’t) they gravitate toward a style of training that nobody will be able to tell if you do or not by looking at you. No chance of failure because you aren’t striving for anything.
They don’t believe THEY can actually be substantially bigger (definitely not without gear) so why listen to those who HAVE progressed in that area. It isn’t going to work for them anyway. We’ve seen that very thing. I was accused of using once here because I said I gained 20 lbs lean in a year as if that were an astronomical accomplishment.
On the other hand sometimes these very same people will decry eating big and lifting hard for fear of getting “too huge”. !?!?!?!? Anybody who’s been here more than a half hour knows what I’m talking about. Which damn way is it?
On top of that we have these threads where mediocre physique goals (at best) are held up as ideals of functional utopia. After all who could argue against being “functional”?. Does anybody want to be non functional? The impression is left, maybe without absolute intention, that your choices are either to be functional and small or non functional and big.
Hell, they’re already small so the former goal appears much more reachable and there’s the bonus of not lapsing into being a function-less, bulky goon.
Buried in here somewhere are the explanations for much of what we see with all confusion among those who lack the experience to know better.[/quote]
can we end the thread here? that was the best post I’ve ever seen
End the thread here? No way!
Look beyond training for bodybuilding and you might understand why people do this.
Dudes, I train women who have no desire to get big. They just want to lose some weight. I also train elderly people who want to be able to get off the toilet without a handle and play with their grandkids.
A lot of us who took the functional training thing on are there because of injuries. It’s not a lack of wanting to train hard. Or a cop out because we cant get big.
Not everyone wants 20" biceps.
I once heard Kim Goss talking about a figure skater he trained. She was able to out lift (step ups) an entire basket ball team. She was a tiny little thing, but still moped the floor with them.
She never wanted to get big. Some people must not get too big or it fucks their performance. Some need to be light or look elegant, or what ever.
I know thats not to do with exercise choice, but sets, reps, tests, etc, but the point is not everyone wants to be a tank.
Even if the balance stuff is bullshit(which I dont think it is), its not exactly easy to do. Its no crusiy workout…
Its not like I said. Damn these squats are hard, I’ll take the easy route and just do them 1 leg.
Of course what would I know I only weight 190lbs.