I KO'ed Functional Training

Training Bodybuilding
301

[quote]Modi wrote:
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, double inverted, astro parallel, ultra dense (except Wednesdays), pyramidded, superlative stability, pineapple upside down method with signs and wonders following.

Tirib, you can’t have a double inverted exercise that is also upside down…do your research ;)[/quote]

Don’t mess with these guys man, somebody will figure it out.

302

For those of you who haven’t read Boyle’s article, have a quick read.

http://www.michaelboyle.biz/joomla/dmdocuments/What__Functional_Training_Really_Is-V3.pdf

Its not about being unable to get big or perform party tricks.

303

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
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.

[/quote]

I’m really impressed with Bruce Lee as you probably are. I just know that if I dropped weight 'till I got down to his proportions, I’d be weak and miserable and I sure wouldn’t be able to move like him. Plus if you weighed 130 or so lbs. and were built like Lee, you certainly wont be avoiding any trouble due to shear size and build.

Bigger and stronger equals better no matter how you slice it.

304

Ok, here’s what I dont get about this whole… “functional training” vs “getting big and strong” debate…

Shouldn’t functional training result in getting bigger and stronger?

I admit I don’t know a whole lot about this stuff, but I thought one of the basic concepts was that the body wants to grow in proportion. Hence is why compound movements are better than isolation; getting your chest and triceps to grow together will result in bigger triceps than simply doing tricep pushdowns.

So, the line of logic that follows (and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) is that involving and strengthening more muscles will result in the most growth.

So why not combine the two concepts? For example, there seems to be a deep line between squatting heavy with two legs, or doing bodyweight one legged squats. Why not train to do heavy one legged squats? (of course, keeping in mind that “heavy” is a relative term)

Why not do “funtional training” exercises with the intensity of the exercises that bodybuilders and powerlifters do?

305

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ok, here’s what I dont get about this whole… “functional training” vs “getting big and strong” debate…

Shouldn’t functional training result in getting bigger and stronger?

I admit I don’t know a whole lot about this stuff, but I thought one of the basic concepts was that the body wants to grow in proportion. Hence is why compound movements are better than isolation; getting your chest and triceps to grow together will result in bigger triceps than simply doing tricep pushdowns.

So, the line of logic that follows (and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) is that involving and strengthening more muscles will result in the most growth.

So why not combine the two concepts? For example, there seems to be a deep line between squatting heavy with two legs, or doing bodyweight one legged squats. Why not train to do heavy one legged squats? (of course, keeping in mind that “heavy” is a relative term)

Why not do “funtional training” exercises with the intensity of the exercises that bodybuilders and powerlifters do? [/quote]

Thats exactly what you do.

Have you ever done 1 leg squats. I can do about 12ea leg on a good day. I’ve not yet added weight, but it wouldnt be heavy.

I think doing both 1 legged squats and regular heavy squats gives you the best results. However, I see adding leg press to the 2 as unnecessary.

306

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ok, here’s what I dont get about this whole… “functional training” vs “getting big and strong” debate…

Shouldn’t functional training result in getting bigger and stronger?

I admit I don’t know a whole lot about this stuff, but I thought one of the basic concepts was that the body wants to grow in proportion. Hence is why compound movements are better than isolation; getting your chest and triceps to grow together will result in bigger triceps than simply doing tricep pushdowns.

So, the line of logic that follows (and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) is that involving and strengthening more muscles will result in the most growth.

So why not combine the two concepts? For example, there seems to be a deep line between squatting heavy with two legs, or doing bodyweight one legged squats. Why not train to do heavy one legged squats? (of course, keeping in mind that “heavy” is a relative term)

Why not do “funtional training” exercises with the intensity of the exercises that bodybuilders and powerlifters do?

Thats exactly what you do.

Have you ever done 1 leg squats. I can do about 12ea leg on a good day. I’ve not yet added weight, but it wouldnt be heavy.

I think doing both 1 legged squats and regular heavy squats gives you the best results. However, I see adding leg press to the 2 as unnecessary.
[/quote]

Agreed.

I’ve been trying to do one leg squats, but I cant get very deep yet. Any suggestions on how to progress?

307

Hi guys,

I can do a lot of the aforementioned exercises (lots of different pull-up variations, handstand push-ups, weighted/jumping pistols, push-ups on swiss balls, etc…). Yeah, they take skill and a decent level of strength, but getting bigger and stronger has only helped in my ability to perform these skills.

The only problem with these exercises from a maximal strength standpoint is that they require too much skill and balance (other than the pull-up variations) to perform. They are great at developing coordination, balance, and learning how to apply your strength in a whole body fashion. But, in my opinion you’d better off performing military presses, squats (back or front), and bench presses if you want to build maximal strength.

CappedandPlanit,

A couple good progressions for performing pistols are:

  1. Negatives- try to descend as slowly as possible all the way to the bottom (ATG position). Also, try stopping along the way and holding that position for a short static hold. Once you can stop at any point along the descent and/or can do a super slow controlled negative, try a pistol.

  2. Stand facing one side of a door way/post/banister/basically anything you can use to hold onto and get into a pistol position (your extended leg should be to the side of whatever support object you’re holding onto). While continuing to hold onto the support, lower down into the bottom position of a pistol and then stand back up, using your hands to walk yourself back up the support (assistance).

Those are basically the two exercises I used to get to being able to do a pistol. From there, work up to doing reps, then add weight, then try them jumping, then jumping onto a box, then jumping for distance, and finally jumping for distance onto a box. Once you can do that you’ll have some pretty good power in your legs. It’s also possible to perform pistol jumps into back flips, but unless you’re looking to get into competitive gymnastics that’s probably not something you need to worry about.

Good luck and good training,

Sentoguy

308

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Hi guys,

I can do a lot of the aforementioned exercises (lots of different pull-up variations, handstand push-ups, weighted/jumping pistols, push-ups on swiss balls, etc…). Yeah, they take skill and a decent level of strength, but getting bigger and stronger has only helped in my ability to perform these skills.

The only problem with these exercises from a maximal strength standpoint is that they require too much skill and balance (other than the pull-up variations) to perform. They are great at developing coordination, balance, and learning how to apply your strength in a whole body fashion. But, in my opinion you’d better off performing military presses, squats (back or front), and bench presses if you want to build maximal strength.

CappedandPlanit,

A couple good progressions for performing pistols are:

  1. Negatives- try to descend as slowly as possible all the way to the bottom (ATG position). Also, try stopping along the way and holding that position for a short static hold. Once you can stop at any point along the descent and/or can do a super slow controlled negative, try a pistol.

  2. Stand facing one side of a door way/post/banister/basically anything you can use to hold onto and get into a pistol position (your extended leg should be to the side of whatever support object you’re holding onto). While continuing to hold onto the support, lower down into the bottom position of a pistol and then stand back up, using your hands to walk yourself back up the support (assistance).

Those are basically the two exercises I used to get to being able to do a pistol. From there, work up to doing reps, then add weight, then try them jumping, then jumping onto a box, then jumping for distance, and finally jumping for distance onto a box. Once you can do that you’ll have some pretty good power in your legs. It’s also possible to perform pistol jumps into back flips, but unless you’re looking to get into competitive gymnastics that’s probably not something you need to worry about.

Good luck and good training,

Sentoguy[/quote]

Thank you.

309

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
For those of you who haven’t read Boyle’s article, have a quick read.[/quote]

Boyle’s definition for functional strength seems to be: “Strengthening stabilizer muscles with bodyweight exercises for injury prevention”.

That’s fine…but why not just call it Injury Prevention Training for sports?

The tone of the article suggests that people who don’t use this method are some how non-functional, which is a load of bullshit.

He rambles about how people who use other methods of training are fearful that their sport of choice will become unpopular if everyone switches to ‘functional’ training. He claims that people don’t like ‘functional’ training “because it works and it makes sense”.

A few of points…

  1. The powerlifters that I know do a lot of injury preventions training.
    2)To suggest that powerlifters/olympic lifters are non-funtional is just plain silly.
  2. Boyle is guilty of the exact same thing he rails against…“One way to detract from something is to emphasize a perceived negative”. He makes this statement then goes onto emphasize his own perceived negative ideas about other forms of training.

…

Training in a nutshell (my version)…

  1. Build muscle and strength in the weight room using the basics (various forms of squats, bench, deadlifts, rows, etc) to a degree suitable for an athletes sport and task within that sport.

  2. Injury preventions training applicable to an athlete’s goal.

  3. Practice for the athlete at their sport.

There, I didn’t have to call anything ‘functional’, I didn’t have to insult any one, and best of all, “it works and it makes sense”.

310

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Hi guys,

I can do a lot of the aforementioned exercises (lots of different pull-up variations, handstand push-ups, weighted/jumping pistols, push-ups on swiss balls, etc…). Yeah, they take skill and a decent level of strength, but getting bigger and stronger has only helped in my ability to perform these skills.

Sentoguy[/quote]

You claim that getting bigger and stronger has aided in your handstand push ups and swiss ball push ups, yet indo board exercises don’t help a surfer? (balance exercises) Im not thinking it does so much, but then it wouldn’t work the other way either.

I could do 20 - 3 swiss ball push ups a while back. My first attempt I couldn’t do 1 although I managed 84 regular push ups in a 1 min push up comp.

The only thing to get me better at 3 ball push ups was more 3 ball push ups. I think it did a lot for my core strength.

It was a pure party trick like standing ball squats. Fun challenge though.

This is why I believe strength is so movement specific that we should do strength training in movement patterns similar to how we apply the strength in sport or work, gardening, etc. The basic lifts like squats and deads do provide a good carryover to many activities.

311

[quote]W@LRUS!1 wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
For those of you who haven’t read Boyle’s article, have a quick read.

Boyle’s definition for functional strength seems to be: “Strengthening stabilizer muscles with bodyweight exercises for injury prevention”.

That’s fine…but why not just call it Injury Prevention Training for sports?

The tone of the article suggests that people who don’t use this method are some how non-functional, which is a load of bullshit.

He rambles about how people who use other methods of training are fearful that their sport of choice will become unpopular if everyone switches to ‘functional’ training. He claims that people don’t like ‘functional’ training “because it works and it makes sense”.

A few of points…

  1. The powerlifters that I know do a lot of injury preventions training.
    2)To suggest that powerlifters/olympic lifters are non-funtional is just plain silly.
  2. Boyle is guilty of the exact same thing he rails against…“One way to detract from something is to emphasize a perceived negative”. He makes this statement then goes onto emphasize his own perceived negative ideas about other forms of training.

…

Training in a nutshell (my version)…

  1. Build muscle and strength in the weight room using the basics (various forms of squats, bench, deadlifts, rows, etc) to a degree suitable for an athletes sport and task within that sport.

  2. Injury preventions training applicable to an athlete’s goal.

  3. Practice for the athlete at their sport.

There, I didn’t have to call anything ‘functional’, I didn’t have to insult any one, and best of all, “it works and it makes sense”.[/quote]

What you said about reading Boyle’s definitions is pretty much what I was thinking.

312

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Hi guys,

I can do a lot of the aforementioned exercises (lots of different pull-up variations, handstand push-ups, weighted/jumping pistols, push-ups on swiss balls, etc…). Yeah, they take skill and a decent level of strength, but getting bigger and stronger has only helped in my ability to perform these skills.

Sentoguy

You claim that getting bigger and stronger has aided in your handstand push ups and swiss ball push ups, yet indo board exercises don’t help a surfer? (balance exercises) Im not thinking it does so much, but then it wouldn’t work the other way either.
[/quote]

I didn’t say that balance exercises wouldn’t necessarily help a surfer (although I don’t really think there are many balance exercises out there that are as challenging balance wise as actual surfing), what I said was that I don’t believe they will help a surfer more than simply increasing his maximal strength.

I also said that balance exercises wouldn’t allow someone the ability to surf without any prior surfing experience.

I’m not contradicting myself with the above statement. I have stated many times before that any and all athletes can benefit from maximal strength increases. Yes, skill specific work is needed to be able to master a given movement pattern.

It took me time to be able to master several of the above mentioned exercises. My point was that increasing my maximal strength (through the use of free weights, cables, and yes machines) has improved my ability to perform the exercises more so than just performing the exercises themselves, or trying to mimic the exercises using free weights (which I did try some of in the past).

See, I don’t agree with this statement. I’m not arguing that 3 ball push-ups won’t make you better at 3 ball push-ups, I would be a fool to do so. But, from personal experience, improving your maximal strength in the muscles involved in 3 ball push-ups along with actually practicing the movement will improve your ability to perform the movement at an even faster rate.

[quote]
This is why I believe strength is so movement specific that we should do strength training in movement patterns similar to how we apply the strength in sport or work, gardening, etc. The basic lifts like squats and deads do provide a good carryover to many activities.[/quote]

I would disagree that strength is so movement specific. The reason why a lot of people can’t perform 3 ball push-ups isn’t necessarily because they lack the strength to perform them, but more so because they lack the skill specific coordination, balance, and stability to be able to perform them.

Strengthening the specific musculature on the other hand, once again at least from my experience, has a great deal of carry over. Case in point, when I was a little kid I lived near conservation land, and had very few kids my age in the neighborhood.

So, I used to love to climb trees. When I got to grade school they had us perform a sort of physical fitness test. One of the tests was a pull-up test. I did 40 pull-ups, having never performed that specific movement ever before.

How could I do this? Because climbing trees had strengthened the muscles responsible for performing pull-ups. Had I actually practiced pull-ups specifically on top of climbing trees, I would probably have done even better.

Look, I’m still not trying to suggest that skill specific work isn’t important, it is. I’m just saying that in my opinion one would be best off to focus on improving maximal strength using whatever exercises that best overload the target skeletal musculature (whether those be freeweight, cable, machine, or even bodyweight) while in the gym, and leave the skill specific work to actually performing the target skill.

Good training,

Sentoguy

313

Jeez Fulmen, sounds like you really handed it to that dumbass trainer. Did he just fold up the tent and go away?

He sounds pretty stupid. If he’s smaller than you (you’re small based on your self-description) he must be just dinky! And his wimpy 400 pound squat just makes me want to bust a gut.

I have to deal with idiots like this all the time. As if you could give someone a good workout with bands… What a fucking laugh! People like that don’t deserve to call themselves trainers.

Keep us up to date on your perils. Maybe you can school him a bit some day and tell us about it.

314

[quote]greekdawg wrote:

The funny thing is, when Gracie got bombed on and got his soul took, it was by a bigger and stronger guy: Shamrock.

And when Gracie, came back again recently he got the shit beat out of him again by a bigger, more muscular, stronger guy Hughes.

Like someone else said, I’ll take the bigger stronger guy to have my back anyday. You can practce technique all day, but there is something to be said for size, strength, and power.
[/quote]

Thu funny thing is, you’re ignorant and clueless. Just about everything you wrote there is incorrect. Shamrock fought Royce twice. The first time, Shamrock submitted in less than a minute. The second match was a draw after 30 minutes of fighting. Shamrock never beat Royce.

What’s more, EVERY fighter that gracie ever beat was heavier than him. At 176 pounds, Gracie beat:

Art Jimmerson - 196 lbs
Ken Shamrock - 205
Gerard Gordeau - 216
Minold Ichihara - 178
Jason Delucia - 190
Remco Pardoel - 250
Patrick Smith - 225
Kimo Leopoldo - 235
Ron Van Clief - 190
Keith Hackney - 200
Dan Severn - 250
Nobuhiko Takada - 210
Akebono Taro - 517
Kazushi Sakuraba - 183

You have to be out of your mind using Royce’s fighting record as evidence that size is greater than skill.

To finish things off, Matt hughes was approximately the same weight as gracie – Matt 170, Gracie 176.

Bottom line, you can spout BS on forums all day, but there is something to be said for getting a clue and doing some research before you hit the send button.

315

[quote]Racarnus wrote:
greekdawg wrote:

The funny thing is, when Gracie got bombed on and got his soul took, it was by a bigger and stronger guy: Shamrock.

And when Gracie, came back again recently he got the shit beat out of him again by a bigger, more muscular, stronger guy Hughes.

Like someone else said, I’ll take the bigger stronger guy to have my back anyday. You can practce technique all day, but there is something to be said for size, strength, and power.

Thu funny thing is, you’re ignorant and clueless. Just about everything you wrote there is incorrect. Shamrock fought Royce twice. The first time, Shamrock submitted in less than a minute. The second match was a draw after 30 minutes of fighting. Shamrock never beat Royce.

What’s more, EVERY fighter that gracie ever beat was heavier than him. At 176 pounds, Gracie beat:

Art Jimmerson - 196 lbs
Ken Shamrock - 205
Gerard Gordeau - 216
Minold Ichihara - 178
Jason Delucia - 190
Remco Pardoel - 250
Patrick Smith - 225
Kimo Leopoldo - 235
Ron Van Clief - 190
Keith Hackney - 200
Dan Severn - 250
Nobuhiko Takada - 210
Akebono Taro - 517
Kazushi Sakuraba - 183

You have to be out of your mind using Royce’s fighting record as evidence that size is greater than skill.

To finish things off, Matt hughes was approximately the same weight as gracie – Matt 170, Gracie 176.

Bottom line, you can spout BS on forums all day, but there is something to be said for getting a clue and doing some research before you hit the send button.[/quote]

First, I’m not trying to take anything from Royce. He is one of the all time greats in the world of MMA.

However, it’s important to remember that the majority of guys he beat had no grappling/Jiu-Jitsu knowledge or experience what-so-ever. Even in his prime Gracie would have been no match for Fedor, Nogeira, Couture, Arlovski, or any of the other currently top rated heavyweights. There is just too much of a strength and size disparity.

Also, Hughes was not 170 in his fight against Royce. That fight’s weight limit (at weigh-ins) was not 170 as it was not a title match. I believe that the weight was somewhere around 180, but I can’t seem to find the exact weight. And of course, that’s just he weight that each of them had to make for the weigh-ins. More than likely Hughes weighed more than that by fight time.

Good training,

Sentoguy

316

[quote]Professor X wrote:
adonis-complex wrote:
Fulmen wrote:
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).

i think any program where you accutally make your body worse at operating in real life
you are offically not training functionally

give that function should have some meaning in the sense that you should be making your body operate better
there certinaly are training methods that are not functional

two exercises often mentioned by experts on here

ie leg curls
when you move , your hamstring does not contract indenpendtly of the glute max ,ye thats what you are training your body to do with leg curls

leg ext
anyone can look on the posts by the trainers on here and see that the quad musclarture does not get an even increase of strength through out the diff muscle of the quad
adventally cuasing knee probelms

I am honestly in awe at the thinking around here. You actually think that leg curls are “functionless” because it strengthens the hamstring directly? That makes no sense.

You wrote, “hamstring does not contract indenpendtly of the glute max”. Uh, obviously it can if it can be trained without significant stimulation of the glutes. Are you saying there is no “function” in life where the leg would need to flex like it would with a leg curl? Not one soccer player has EVER made such a move?

Is this debate even real?[/quote]

Nice leg curl, but I’m guessing the success relies on the opposite leg.

317

Squats are functional training. When do you use them in day to day life? In the gym…everyday.

318

It’s not like modern fighters like Noguiera and Fedor only have a size disparity with Royce Gracie. Those guys train for the modern sport where as Royce is still basically just Gi jiu-jitsu. Also Matt Hughes isn’t only way more athletic than Royce but his grappling and submissions are way better, too. Even if he had equal size/strength/athleticism to Royce he would beat him on skill alone.

319

[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]

interesting, I am shifting from that guy point of view to a bodbuilder one. I did not know that i was going that way. But, now I see the light. that explains why did bother some people with my posts also. Coming from there, i agree with you. he is in a previous stage.

don’t mind fuctional training guys…