I KO'ed Functional Training

Training Bodybuilding
261

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
End the thread here? No way! >>>

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

[/quote]

Nobody’s pickin on you. I was making a couple general observations. ONE MORE TIME, buddy, pal, chum =]

Nobody is saying there is anything wrong with how you train yourself or anybody else, but I stand fully by what I’ve said to you in the past, in this thread and in PM’s which I am not going to repeat, I have a function-less chest, tri’s and shoulders workout to do. I only hope the benefits don’t fly away when I come back upstairs. Come on be a good sport, chuckle with me a little.

262

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
End the thread here? No way! >>>

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Nobody’s pickin on you. I was making a couple general observations. ONE MORE TIME, buddy, pal, chum =]

Nobody is saying there is anything wrong with how you train yourself or anybody else, but I stand fully by what I’ve said to you in the past, in this thread and in PM’s which I am not going to repeat, I have a function-less chest, tri’s and shoulders workout to do. I only hope the benefits don’t fly away when I come back upstairs. Come on be a good sport, chuckle with me a little.[/quote]

Chuckle? I’m not a woman and I’m not elderly. I don’t plan to train as if I am either one. If women and the elderly were the only ones acting as if “functional training” is the latest fashion statement, no one would be having this discussion. It is a debate, and will be one in the future, because really small guys who look completely AVERAGE use it to degrade those who train to be ABOVE AVERAGE. If I wanted to look like everyone else and lift what most people can lift, I would have quit training like I do about 10 years ago or more.

“Function” can’t even be observed unless that “function” pertains to use in a specific sporting event. That makes its wide application in the weight lifting community not much more than a marketing gimmick to replace “tone” and “sculpt” in the Book Of Wimpy Gym Jargon.

Final note to the “the functional”: That huge guy benching twice what you do…is FUNCTIONAL. He’s also BIGGER and STRONGER than you. Deal with it.

263

I think this can only be solved by a battle royal to the the death.

Seriously guys. This is a waste of your time.

264

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
End the thread here? No way! >>>

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Nobody’s pickin on you. I was making a couple general observations. ONE MORE TIME, buddy, pal, chum =]

Nobody is saying there is anything wrong with how you train yourself or anybody else, but I stand fully by what I’ve said to you in the past, in this thread and in PM’s which I am not going to repeat, I have a function-less chest, tri’s and shoulders workout to do. I only hope the benefits don’t fly away when I come back upstairs. Come on be a good sport, chuckle with me a little.[/quote]

I’m not arguing the carryover strenght, it the reasons someone might go for all the balance stuff over traditional bodybuilding Im talking about.

Even if they are mislead, I think intentions are good. Either trainers trying to help clients with injuries, trainers with injuries themselves have moved away from bodybuilding and towards “Functional Training”(balance shit).

Maybe it is a cop out for some, I’m not sure.

265

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
End the thread here? No way!

[/quote]

This thread has been over since I stoped posting… I just didnt let you guys in on it.

266

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
End the thread here? No way! >>>

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Nobody’s pickin on you. I was making a couple general observations. ONE MORE TIME, buddy, pal, chum =]

Nobody is saying there is anything wrong with how you train yourself or anybody else, but I stand fully by what I’ve said to you in the past, in this thread and in PM’s which I am not going to repeat, I have a function-less chest, tri’s and shoulders workout to do. I only hope the benefits don’t fly away when I come back upstairs. Come on be a good sport, chuckle with me a little.

Chuckle? I’m not a woman and I’m not elderly. I don’t plan to train as if I am either one. If women and the elderly were the only ones acting as if “functional training” is the latest fashion statement, no one would be having this discussion. It is a debate, and will be one in the future, because really small guys who look completely AVERAGE use it to degrade those who train to be ABOVE AVERAGE. If I wanted to look like everyone else and lift what most people can lift, I would have quit training like I do about 10 years ago or more.

“Function” can’t even be observed unless that “function” pertains to use in a specific sporting event. That makes its wide application in the weight lifting community not much more than a marketing gimmick to replace “tone” and “sculpt” in the Book Of Wimpy Gym Jargon.

Final note to the “the functional”: That huge guy benching twice what you do…is FUNCTIONAL. He’s also BIGGER and STRONGER than you. Deal with it.[/quote]

I can deal with it as I’m sure you can deal with the guy who can do more chin up than you…or whatever it may be that your not the best at.

267

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:

I can deal with it as I’m sure you can deal with the guy who can do more chin up than you…or whatever it may be that your not the best at.[/quote]

I suck at unicycle riding. I hold no contempt towards people who can ride unicycles nor do I laugh at them because they can’t bench press more than their body weight.

268

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
<<< I’m not arguing the carryover strenght, it the reasons someone might go for all the balance stuff over traditional bodybuilding Im talking about.

Even if they are mislead, I think intentions are good. Either trainers trying to help clients with injuries, trainers with injuries themselves have moved away from bodybuilding and towards “Functional Training”(balance shit).

Maybe it is a cop out for some, I’m not sure.

[/quote]

I’ll tell ya what, let’s get some regular folks and bring em with us to the gym for a couple days. After that we’ll ask em who they would pick to pull them or their loved ones from a burning building or some other disaster. better yet we could make a sort of strongman competition out of it with simulated events and see who came out on top after the small children were safe. Is that functional enough?

Give your clients what they want. You’d be a poor business man if you didn’t, but you are lying to them if you tell them they will be somehow MORE functional than if they trained for size and strength unless they are actually competitive in a sport.

269

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:

I can deal with it as I’m sure you can deal with the guy who can do more chin up than you…or whatever it may be that your not the best at.

I suck at unicycle riding. I hold no contempt towards people who can ride unicycles nor do I laugh at them because they can’t bench press more than their body weight.[/quote]

LOL, there’s an equitable compromise.

270

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:

I can deal with it as I’m sure you can deal with the guy who can do more chin up than you…or whatever it may be that your not the best at.

I suck at unicycle riding. I hold no contempt towards people who can ride unicycles nor do I laugh at them because they can’t bench press more than their body weight.[/quote]

But do I have issues with people who are stronger than me? Or bigger? Am I so jealouse with everyones sussess I want to pull them down?

If you honestly think thats me what can I say? It means nothing anyway.

271

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:

I can deal with it as I’m sure you can deal with the guy who can do more chin up than you…or whatever it may be that your not the best at.

I suck at unicycle riding. I hold no contempt towards people who can ride unicycles nor do I laugh at them because they can’t bench press more than their body weight.

But do I have issues with people who are stronger than me? Or bigger? Am I so jealouse with everyones sussess I want to pull them down?

If you honestly think thats me what can I say? It means nothing anyway. [/quote]

Well, you are the one who wrote that you laugh at bodybuilders who can’t do pull ups. I personally would never even think of something like that…because if someone has built their body to that degree, they clearly know what they are doing. If they can’t do a pull up, who the hell cares.

You may claim that was written like a joke, but the simple fact that you wrote it says a whole lot. I also doubt it was a joke originally until people starting calling you on it.

272

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
<<< I’m not arguing the carryover strenght, it the reasons someone might go for all the balance stuff over traditional bodybuilding Im talking about.

Even if they are mislead, I think intentions are good. Either trainers trying to help clients with injuries, trainers with injuries themselves have moved away from bodybuilding and towards “Functional Training”(balance shit).

Maybe it is a cop out for some, I’m not sure.

I’ll tell ya what, let’s get some regular folks and bring em with us to the gym for a couple days. After that we’ll ask em who they would pick to pull them or their loved ones from a burning building or some other disaster. better yet we could make a sort of strongman competition out of it with simulated events and see who came out on top after the small children were safe. Is that functional enough?

Give your clients what they want. You’d be a poor business man if you didn’t, but you are lying to them if you tell them they will be somehow MORE functional than if they trained for size and strength unless they are actually competitive in a sport.[/quote]

Take the oldies for example. I took a group of 60’s to 89 year olds. They had programs written by instructors mainly machine based. We don’t want them falling and hurting themselves.

The reason they are there is to gain strength and muscle more energy and also to prevent falls. I spent my time taking them off the leg curl and leg extensions, etc and taught them how to lunge, squat and do push ups among other things. I gave them exercises to challenge balance.

In my opinion they were getting more out of dong what I showed them than the machine based training even thought they would have gained muscle and strength.

Tell me more about you views on trainng for competitive sport. Whats the difference between training for tennis, rugby, golf, hokey, etc or training for house cleaning, gardening, fire fighting, nursing, laboring, etc?

273

Andrew Dixon or whatever, please shut the fuck up, you’re really annoying, and won’t let this thread die. Just let it go man, nothing is more sad than someone making a fool out of themself over a beaten to death subject such as this functional training bullshit.

We all have different goals, thus different training styles.End.Of.Fucking.Story.

274

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:

I can deal with it as I’m sure you can deal with the guy who can do more chin up than you…or whatever it may be that your not the best at.

I suck at unicycle riding. I hold no contempt towards people who can ride unicycles nor do I laugh at them because they can’t bench press more than their body weight.

But do I have issues with people who are stronger than me? Or bigger? Am I so jealouse with everyones sussess I want to pull them down?

If you honestly think thats me what can I say? It means nothing anyway.

Well, you are the one who wrote that you laugh at bodybuilders who can’t do pull ups. I personally would never even think of something like that…because if someone has built their body to that degree, they clearly know what they are doing. If they can’t do a pull up, who the hell cares.

You may claim that was written like a joke, but the simple fact that you wrote it says a whole lot. I also doubt it was a joke originally until people starting calling you on it.[/quote]

It wasn’t a joke. But I wouldn’t just laugh at some big dude who cant chin up.

I’ve come across some real fucking wankers in my gym, bodybuilders and just regular sized wankers as well. You know, the guys who think they own the gym. I was thinking about these guys when I made my comment. It was a crap comment in the heat of battle. I guess the damage is done. My fine reputation tarnished forever.

At the end of the day, your opinion of me matters not. At least I can ride a unicycle.

275

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:

<<<< Tell me more about you views on trainng for competitive sport. Whats the difference between training for tennis, rugby, golf, hokey, etc or training for house cleaning, gardening, fire fighting, nursing, laboring, etc? >>>[/quote]

No idea. Not my thing.

Look mate, shouldn’t you be out chasin wallabys through the outback or something?

Don’t ask me why, but I’ll try again. I believe you are good at what you do, he can correct me if I’m wrong, but I have a feeling Professor X believes that too. Nobody is trying to talk you into changing anything (there’s an echo in here).

However you do not have a divinely annointed right to the use of the word “functional”.

1st Andrew chapter 1 verse 1:
"Thou shalt not take the word functional in vain for Andrew Dixon will not hold him guiltless who takes this word in vain.

Knocks on Andrew’s forehead: hello? are you in there? Come on man stop being so damn muleheaded.

276

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:

<<<< Tell me more about you views on trainng for competitive sport. Whats the difference between training for tennis, rugby, golf, hokey, etc or training for house cleaning, gardening, fire fighting, nursing, laboring, etc? >>>

No idea. Not my thing.

Look mate, shouldn’t you be out chasin wallabys through the outback or something?

Don’t ask me why, but I’ll try again. I believe you are good at what you do, he can correct me if I’m wrong, but I have a feeling Professor X believes that too. Nobody is trying to talk you into changing anything (there’s an echo in here).

However you do not have a divinely annointed right to the use of the word “functional”.

1st Andrew chapter 1 verse 1:
"Thou shalt not take the word functional in vain for Andrew Dixon will not hold him guiltless who takes this word in vain.

Knocks on Andrew’s forehead: hello? are you in there? Come on man stop being so damn muleheaded.
[/quote]

Its seems to now be a case of who get the last word. You seem to be as stubborn as me.

I must now go chase wallabies on my off road unicycle.

277

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:

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.
[/quote]

Like all internet debates, I’m sure this one won’t change anyone’s mind and will only just reinforce beliefs, but I have to ask - why do you need to come up with terms like “primal patterns”?

What you’re describing is weightlifting “basics” that have been performed by every successful athlete and bodybuilder since the dawn of time. Using ambiguous jargon like “primal patterns” does nothing but confuse beginners and mislead people into believing that you know something others don’t.

Seriously, I find this approach so underhanded that it makes my skin crawl.

I don’t know anything about you other than what I’ve read of your posts, but I personally believe that you represent everything that’s wrong with the fitness industry. Notice I said the fitness industry and not just the bodybuilding industry. I know these are harsh words, and I try to avoid making such criticism on the internet for an infinite number of reasons, but the way you and others like you market training by using fad jargon and turning your nose up at basic systems that have built far more successful athletes and bodybuilders than you and others like you will ever produce really burns me.

Please stop inventing terms for what has been around since the dawn of time in an attempt to lay claim to it.

Stop dismissing methods that have a proven track record

Stop gloating about your system when you (according to your stats and lifts) are anything but functional and most likely haven’t produced any great champions in any sport (notice I didn’t say bodybuilding)

And most importantly stop misleading beginners.

278

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
<<< Its seems to now be a case of who get the last word. You seem to be as stubborn as me. >>>
[/quote]

I don’t have to get the last word. I freely admit when I’m wrong and have done so here in the past. You have been denied nothing, but all rights reserved status on the functionality of training methodologies.

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
<<< I must now go chase wallabies on my off road unicycle. >>>
[/quote]

LOL! That was kinda funny. I bet wallabies get those legs by doing hammer presses huh?

279

[quote]YourXLNS wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:

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.

Like all internet debates, I’m sure this one won’t change anyone’s mind and will only just reinforce beliefs, but I have to ask - why do you need to come up with terms like “primal patterns”?

What you’re describing is weightlifting “basics” that have been performed by every successful athlete and bodybuilder since the dawn of time. Using ambiguous jargon like “primal patterns” does nothing but confuse beginners and mislead people into believing that you know something others don’t.

Seriously, I find this approach so underhanded that it makes my skin crawl.

I don’t know anything about you other than what I’ve read of your posts, but I personally believe that you represent everything that’s wrong with the fitness industry. Notice I said the fitness industry and not just the bodybuilding industry. I know these are harsh words, and I try to avoid making such criticism on the internet for an infinite number of reasons, but the way you and others like you market training by using fad jargon and turning your nose up at basic systems that have built far more successful athletes and bodybuilders than you and others like you will ever produce really burns me.

Please stop inventing terms for what has been around since the dawn of time in an attempt to lay claim to it.

Stop dismissing methods that have a proven track record

Stop gloating about your system when you (according to your stats and lifts) are anything but functional and most likely haven’t produced any great champions in any sport (notice I didn’t say bodybuilding)

And most importantly stop misleading beginners.

[/quote]

Best. Post.

The entire stance of most of them seems to be built on basic marketing schemes.

LOL @ “primal patterns”. Is sex included?

280

[quote]YourXLNS wrote:
I personally believe that you represent everything that’s wrong with the fitness industry.
[/quote]

How can the thread be expected to die with comments like that?

Thanks dude.

Primal patterns is just the term I was taught. Its Paul Chek’s term based on some dude named Schmidt’s research many moons ago.

I’m such a burden on the industry telling clients to eat unprocessed food and exercies with free weights am I? Do you sell Nautilus or own a McDonald’s by any chance?

Besides, if I wanted your opinion I’d have given it to you.