[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
<<< I’m such a burden on the industry telling clients to eat unprocessed food and exercies with free weights am I? >>>[/quote]
That’s not what he said or meant =[
[quote]Professor X wrote:
LOL @ “primal patterns”. Is sex included?[/quote]
LOL. Well, if it is, and the female trainer is hot, count me in for some “functional training”.
In all seriousness, this thread is getting pretty personal.
Look, Andrew, if what you are doing is getting the results that your clients want, then that’s great, and in the end all that matters. I really don’t think that anyone here is telling you that you should change the way you train your clients.
If your elderly clients were on completely machine based routines, and were severely lacking in balance and joint stabilization, then good job getting them to do some basic foundational free weight exercises. In this case, that was probably the best thing you could have done for them, as elderly individuals generally have balance and joint stability issues. So, good job.
If your female clients ask you specifically for a certain type of routine, and you give it to them, then there is nothing wrong with that (well, honestly I generally try to dispel the misconceptions a lot of my female clients have concerning weight training, but whatever). Of course, the results have to be there too.
I still take a little argument with perpetuating the whole “I don’t want to get big, so I can’t lift real weights” phallesy, which you are by the way doing by not explaining to them that they won’t get huge over night. The whole idea that that’s even possible is a slap in the face to every guy who has spent years of intense training, and dieting to actually get big. If it were so easy to get big, just about every guy in the gym would look like Arnold (or bigger).
But, once again whatever. The point I was trying to make was that if you are helping your clients reach their goals, addressing their weaknesses, and improving their quality of life, then that’s great. But, by using terms like “functional” or “primal patterns” you are in a way (and it might even be unconscious) perpetuating fitness fads.
If you want to have your clients perform the weight lifting basics (squat, DL, bench, chin, row, etc…) then I don’t think that anyone here is going to argue with you. But, you don’t need to slap some gimic name on these exercises like “primal patterns”, since that’s just a fad term invented by Paul Chek (like you said yourself).
And regardless of your definition of what “functional training” means, by using the term you are (either consciously or unconsciously) perpetuating the whole “functional training” fad that has saturated the fitness industry. Thus, as Your XLNS stated, you are “representing” fitness fads, which I also agree are what is wrong in the fitness industry. I don’t think that he was saying YOU are what is wrong with the fitness industry. He was saying that by refusing to let go of a gimic exercise fad term, that you are REPRESENTING what is wrong in the fitness industry.
Good training,
Sentoguy
The real question is when will this thread be KO’ed?!
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
<<< And regardless of your definition of what “functional training” means, by using the term you are (either consciously or unconsciously) perpetuating the whole “functional training” fad that has saturated the fitness industry. Thus, as Your XLNS stated, you are “representing” fitness fads, which I also agree are what is wrong in the fitness industry. I don’t think that he was saying YOU are what is wrong with the fitness industry. He was saying that by refusing to let go of a gimic exercise fad term, that you are REPRESENTING what is wrong in the fitness industry.
Good training,
Sentoguy
[/quote]
That is what he said and meant.
fad (fd)
n.
A fashion that is taken up with great enthusiasm for a brief period of time; a craze.
Maybe just a brief decade or so.
Maybe one day the machine fad will die out.
What about 1 set to failure?
Makavoi system
Static contraction
Body for life
How about the cardio craze.
How about double training, genrman volume training, greasing the groove, kettlebells, bands, chains.
Maybe we should all go back to 3 sets of 10. Wouldn’t that be fun.
Shit dudes, sometimes my clients just want to do something different. Maybe I’ll bring in my unicycle and challenge them with that.
Functional whatever, I don’t care what its called. Lets just call it free weights. No fad. Just weights.
Tube steak fucking boogie.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
<<< Functional whatever, I don’t care what its called. Lets just call it free weights. No fad. Just weights.[/quote]
OUTSTANDING!!!
This would be far preferable to the latest "Super shiznit, double inverted, astro parallel, ultra dense (except Wednesdays), pyramidded, superlative stability, pineapple upside down method with signs and wonders following.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
<<< Functional whatever, I don’t care what its called. Lets just call it free weights. No fad. Just weights.
OUTSTANDING!!!
This would be far preferable to the latest "Super shiznit, [/quote]double inverted[quote], astro parallel, ultra dense (except Wednesdays), pyramidded, superlative stability, pineapple [/quote]upside down[quote] method with signs and wonders following.[/quote]
Tirib, you can’t have a double inverted exercise that is also upside down…do your research 
There’s a dude at my gym (shit, health club) who can do all sorts of weird chin variations and can even do a push-up with his feet on a bench and either hand on a separate swiss ball. I consider that impressive. I don’t laugh at him because he can’t dead lift even 225 lbs. Different strokes.
Anyhow, while he was working out yesterday, I was reminded of this thread. “What is this person more functional at than I am,” I thought? I’ve never, after all, done more than 12 chin-ups. And I can barely do a push-up with both hands on the same Swiss ball.
I figured there are some things he can do better. I wouldn’t race up a rock against the guy.
But he’s 6’ and 150 (generous) pounds. If I wanted to lose 60 pounds, I could give him a run for his money. Why would I want to do this, though?
Why is the guy necessarily more functional than I am? Could he load up more gear for a long ruck march? I doubt it, as many guys like him tried and failed beating me at such endeavors in the military. Could he beat me up? Could he dominate me on the mat? Again, I doubt it.
If he and I were walking down the street, who would the mugger go after first? Put someone from Westside there, and I’d be the second victim, with out Swiss ball guy being the first one.
Isn’t avoiding being victimized functional?
So why is the Swiss ball guy more functional than I am? I seriously want to know.
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Isn’t avoiding being victimized functional?
[/quote]
Abso-fucking-lutely! That’s got to be the best reason for me trying to break 270 by this Fall. Well, one of the best.
To avoid fighting is winning too!
[quote]derek wrote:
Abso-fucking-lutely! That’s got to be the best reason for me trying to break 270 by this Fall. Well, one of the best.
To avoid fighting is winning too![/quote]
LOL. I don’t know many 270 lb. guys who have to get into fights or who get mugged. I wonder why that is?
I did non-functional leg presses today for the first time in ages.
My legs feel pretty non-functional right now.
Perhaps the definition of functional training has something to do with the fact that you can function well immediately after you are done.
I remember hitting the leg-killing
Leg Press-Leg Extension-Sissy Squat giant set to failure when I was younger. I was very much non-functional for an hour afterward.
Hmmmm, maybe I’ll try that again soon. Yikes, the leg extension? No! Not that!
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
There’s a dude at my gym (shit, health club) who can do all sorts of weird chin variations and can even do a push-up with his feet on a bench and either hand on a separate swiss ball. I consider that impressive. I don’t laugh at him because he can’t dead lift even 225 lbs. Different strokes.
Anyhow, while he was working out yesterday, I was reminded of this thread. “What is this person more functional at than I am,” I thought? I’ve never, after all, done more than 12 chin-ups. And I can barely do a push-up with both hands on the same Swiss ball.
I figured there are some things he can do better. I wouldn’t race up a rock against the guy.
But he’s 6’ and 150 (generous) pounds. If I wanted to lose 60 pounds, I could give him a run for his money. Why would I want to do this, though?
Why is the guy necessarily more functional than I am? Could he load up more gear for a long ruck march? I doubt it, as many guys like him tried and failed beating me at such endeavors in the military. Could he beat me up? Could he dominate me on the mat? Again, I doubt it.
If he and I were walking down the street, who would the mugger go after first? Put someone from Westside there, and I’d be the second victim, with out Swiss ball guy being the first one.
Isn’t avoiding being victimized functional?
So why is the Swiss ball guy more functional than I am? I seriously want to know. [/quote]
Hm.
I don’t know what to think about the term “functional training”. Like you said, any form of traning is “functional”. Even if its, say, to win a bodybuilding competition and get a million dollars, thats one hell of a “function” right there.
Maybe its because, whats called functional training, is more geared towards being able to do something more that being able to do something with more resistance.
For example, everybody can squat. One day of learning proper form, and anyone can squat, even if its just the bar, they’re still doing the same thing that the Westside guy is doing. The difference is that the Westside guy is doing it with 800 pounds.
However, I dont think most people (myself included) could do all those pullup variations, or clean one legged squats or handstand pushups.
So is that it, maybe? That “functional training” is about being able to do something most people can’t do, whereas most other forms of training are about being able to do what others can, but with a lot more resistance?
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
derek wrote:
Abso-fucking-lutely! That’s got to be the best reason for me trying to break 270 by this Fall. Well, one of the best.
To avoid fighting is winning too!
LOL. I don’t know many 270 lb. guys who have to get into fights or who get mugged. I wonder why that is? [/quote]
I’m actually only 250 now. Maybe I should edit my profile. I bet I can eat and train myself up to 270. I think I just challenged myself. Cal-Law and others, what’r your goals at the moment? Maybe we can get some of us 200+ guys into a “20 lbs Challenge”. It might do us all some good. Of course not if you’re currently on a cutting cycle…
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
derek wrote:
Abso-fucking-lutely! That’s got to be the best reason for me trying to break 270 by this Fall. Well, one of the best.
To avoid fighting is winning too!
LOL. I don’t know many 270 lb. guys who have to get into fights or who get mugged. I wonder why that is? [/quote]
That’s one reason among many that the benefits of being more muscular outweigh looking average. If anything, people generally go out of their way to be nice in most situations. I think drunk skinny dudes in bars are the rare exception to that rule.
I just don’t see the point in looking like a target and trying so hard to make that seem like a positive.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So is that it, maybe? That “functional training” is about being able to do something most people can’t do, whereas most other forms of training are about being able to do what others can, but with a lot more resistance?
[/quote]
I honestly think it’s a term used by those not willing to eat and train hard enough to become bigger, stronger versions of themselves.
Who do you know that would return to 170 lbs after a magic genie gave them 30 lbs of muscle mass?
“Umm, sorry Mr. Genie, I want to go back to the smaller, weaker guy I was before I rubbed the lamp.”
In fact, I remember (cringing) when I was 16, once saying “I don’t want to get THAT big” pointing at a guy walking at the beach. Now I’m as big or bigger than he was and I’m looking to get bigger.
The thing is that I’m now 36 and I weigh 70+ lbs more and can sprint, climb, jump and “function” much better than I could then.
Go figure.
It all comes down to maturity. I remember 3 years ago I posted something on cutting when I weighed 180 at 6’2! I got ripped to shreds but still did not listen till about a year later. Now I’m 40 lbs heavier and my strength is through the roof! People fall into that functional training shit because they don’t think they can get big.
[quote]derek wrote:
I’m actually only 250 now. Maybe I should edit my profile. I bet I can eat and train myself up to 270. I think I just challenged myself. Cal-Law and others, what’r your goals at the moment? Maybe we can get some of us 200+ guys into a “20 lbs Challenge”. It might do us all some good. Of course not if you’re currently on a cutting cycle…
[/quote]
That’s a great idea. I’m just finishing up my dieting. This time last year I was 255 pounds (not like you at 250!). I was on a 4 year layoff after injuries that I ignored for too long and thus which brought me to my knees. (And if it weren’t for ART, which Bill Phillips and TC Luoma brought to our attention in MM2K I would seriously not be training now; so gratitude to them for that.)
I have literally been training with “heavy” weights for only about 3 or 4 months. And, of course, they are not truly heavy since I’ve been on a damned diet. I’m at 210 fully glycogen loaded, and I’ happy where my physique is at.
My body is primed for some real growth. This week I began bumping my cals back up. Once I have my metabolism restored, I’m going to start gaining some quality weight back. Twenty pounds sounds like a good goal!
Besides, my skin is so sensitive to the sun (sunscreen doesn’t do shit!) that I can’t take my shirt off anyway, so I don’t need to be ripped for the summer.
[quote]derek wrote:
Who do you know that would return to 170 lbs after a magic genie gave them 30 lbs of muscle mass? “Umm, sorry Mr. Genie, I want to go back to the smaller, weaker guy I was before I rubbed the lamp.”[/quote]
That’s a damned good metaphor.
Truth. A while back I found some old boxing pics. I was at 163. (I’m 6’.) No one literally believed that the guy in the photos was me. My arms were 13"… maybe.
Funny thing is, when I gained weight, I kept getting stronger and faster. I could hit harder. And I never lost any quickness.
In terms of function, I have always cared about ass-kicking. And I could always kick more ass bigger and stronger than smaller and weaker.
Other guys might want their bodies to perform different functions. That’s cool. I really am impressed with Swiss ball dude, and I like watching the Chinese acrobats.
I just don’t like it when people try hijacking the term functional training. Being little does not make you more functional. In many instances, it makes you less so.