Prof X
I’m curious…what exercises did you do last time 2 times you trained? No weights or reps, just the exercises.
This is a terrible thread.
There’s a huge difference in training for a sport and bodybuilding. It’s much larger than to isolate or to not isolate, but no one seems to understand that.
[quote]allNatural wrote:
So basically everyone who trains is a functional trainer now. The distinction now is between athletic and non-athletic functional training. But will bodybuilders start claiming they’re athletes and make us redefine the terms so we can keep arguing about terms?[/quote]
Interesting point. This “non-athletic” vs “athletic functional training.” Is what I was getting at in my earlier post that claimed there is a spirit of “more functional training” ( vs say a bodybuilders “less functional training” ) in the subtext of the more common term “functional training.”
All “function” that is trained for, loses much of it’s importance if no “functions” are specified. There is no such thing as “general function,” is there?
I think a “function” of “general function”, is as subjective and weird as saying “in shape.” At the very least it is ultra-conformist to a macro-cultural ideal of athleticism, which is probably equal parts fact and fiction.
This however is not a conflict for myself because I view bodybuilding as “athletic.” Perhaps it is on the fringes of athleticism, like surfing, snow boarding, or some MA ( think Aikido ), but I assert that bodybuilders are athletes of some kind.
Am I really subverting the term “athlete” to claim bodybuilders are athletes? Why is this all-inclusive idea of mine so dangerous? Because people will fight over terminology? People do that now. I am not going to go against what I think, just to keep peace. Especially when I think people have a bad habit of being shit-face to bodybuilders as a sub culture.
Why is it you do not think bodybuilders are athletes any way?
Still I am not likely to go shoving this down anyones throats. The main issue I have with the “functional” crowd is that they are always trying to save some ones athletic soul. Just do what your gonna do, do it well, and shut up.
[quote]LAMF wrote:
allNatural wrote:
So basically everyone who trains is a functional trainer now. The distinction now is between athletic and non-athletic functional training. But will bodybuilders start claiming they’re athletes and make us redefine the terms so we can keep arguing about terms?
Interesting point. This “non-athletic” vs “athletic functional training.” Is what I was getting at in my earlier post that claimed there is a spirit of “more functional training” ( vs say a bodybuilders “less functional training” ) in the subtext of the more common term “functional training.”
All “function” that is trained for, loses much of it’s importance if no “functions” are specified. There is no such thing as “general function,” is there?
I think a “function” of “general function”, is as subjective and weird as saying “in shape.” At the very least it is ultra-conformist to a macro-cultural ideal of athleticism, which is probably equal parts fact and fiction.
This however is not a conflict for myself because I view bodybuilding as “athletic.” Perhaps it is on the fringes of athleticism, like surfing, snow boarding, or some MA ( think Aikido ), but I assert that bodybuilders are athletes of some kind.
Am I really subverting the term “athlete” to claim bodybuilders are athletes? Why is this all-inclusive idea of mine so dangerous? Because people will fight over terminology? People do that now. I am not going to go against what I think, just to keep peace. Especially when I think people have a bad habit of being shit-face to bodybuilders as a sub culture.
Why is it you do not think bodybuilders are athletes any way?
Still I am not likely to go shoving this down anyones throats. The main issue I have with the “functional” crowd is that they are always trying to save some ones athletic soul. Just do what your gonna do, do it well, and shut up.
[/quote]
/thread
[quote]LAMF wrote:
allNatural wrote:
So basically everyone who trains is a functional trainer now. The distinction now is between athletic and non-athletic functional training. But will bodybuilders start claiming they’re athletes and make us redefine the terms so we can keep arguing about terms?
Interesting point. This “non-athletic” vs “athletic functional training.” Is what I was getting at in my earlier post that claimed there is a spirit of “more functional training” ( vs say a bodybuilders “less functional training” ) in the subtext of the more common term “functional training.”
All “function” that is trained for, loses much of it’s importance if no “functions” are specified. There is no such thing as “general function,” is there?
I think a “function” of “general function”, is as subjective and weird as saying “in shape.” At the very least it is ultra-conformist to a macro-cultural ideal of athleticism, which is probably equal parts fact and fiction.
This however is not a conflict for myself because I view bodybuilding as “athletic.” Perhaps it is on the fringes of athleticism, like surfing, snow boarding, or some MA ( think Aikido ), but I assert that bodybuilders are athletes of some kind.
Am I really subverting the term “athlete” to claim bodybuilders are athletes? Why is this all-inclusive idea of mine so dangerous? Because people will fight over terminology? People do that now. I am not going to go against what I think, just to keep peace. Especially when I think people have a bad habit of being shit-face to bodybuilders as a sub culture.
Why is it you do not think bodybuilders are athletes any way?
Still I am not likely to go shoving this down anyones throats. The main issue I have with the “functional” crowd is that they are always trying to save some ones athletic soul. Just do what your gonna do, do it well, and shut up.
[/quote]
Good post overall. I only want to add one thing. Regardless of whether or not a bodybuilder is an athlete, fer too many of these “functional” trainers aren’t athletes either. They don’t play a sport or compete in any thing. Training for function(whatever the hell that means) doesn’t make you an athlete. At least bodybuilders have a goal with their training.
Also, being a weekend warrior on a bar league softball/bowling team doesn’t make you more of an athlete than a bodybuilder, even if bodybuilders aren’t athletes.
In the end, who cares? Most serious lifters respect other serious lifter’s goals and training methods. It’s always the half-hearted and the ones that put in little effort that complain.
It’s the wannabe MMA guy who had only fought his little brother that whines.
It’s the skinny bodybuilder who doesn’t “wanna get too big” that bitches.
It’s the powerlifter that uses the title as an excuse to be fat, but isn’t strong yet, and the only competition he has done is a “bench meet” with his buddies in 12th grade that cries.
Get over it.(OK, maybe that was more than “one thing.”)
I wonder who I’d pick to back me up in a bar fight? (a very functional activity if you ask me).
Or help me move my couch upstairs…
or…
Interesting thing about adding mass and staying “functional” from Ross Enamait.
Over a period of approximately 4 months, I was able to gain 12 pounds. Although 12 pounds is certainly not a huge increase in size, it would be equivalent to moving up one or two weight classes as a fighter.
After gaining the mass, I do not notice any changes to my conditioning. I am still a ?conditioning fanatic? and have been able to maintain the same level of intensity while training. In addition, I have not noticed any reductions in speed or power. Overall, I feel as fast and explosive as I was prior to gaining the weight.
My experiment has shown me that one can gain size without impairing other athletic qualities. In my opinion, the most important part of mass building takes place in the kitchen. I did not make many changes to my actual training plan. The biggest change to my daily schedule was related to food consumption. I simply ate larger meals with greater frequency. The intense nature of my conditioning workouts allowed me to eat more without gaining body fat.
[quote]derek wrote:
Interesting thing about adding mass and staying “functional” from Ross Enamait.
Over a period of approximately 4 months, I was able to gain 12 pounds. Although 12 pounds is certainly not a huge increase in size, it would be equivalent to moving up one or two weight classes as a fighter.
After gaining the mass, I do not notice any changes to my conditioning. I am still a ?conditioning fanatic? and have been able to maintain the same level of intensity while training. In addition, I have not noticed any reductions in speed or power. Overall, I feel as fast and explosive as I was prior to gaining the weight.
My experiment has shown me that one can gain size without impairing other athletic qualities. In my opinion, the most important part of mass building takes place in the kitchen. I did not make many changes to my actual training plan. The biggest change to my daily schedule was related to food consumption. I simply ate larger meals with greater frequency. The intense nature of my conditioning workouts allowed me to eat more without gaining body fat.
[/quote]
Haha, wait till i show this too the functional training geeks at my subgrappling classes. They worship Enamait as some functional training god and see me as some 240lb satan
Once again, some of you are missing the point. The point I was trying to make was that [b][u]nearly all[/b][/u] exercises could be considered “functional”. I just find the terminology useless.
[quote]Fulmen wrote:
Once again, some of you are missing the point. The point I was trying to make was that [b][u]nearly all[/b][/u] exercises could be considered “functional”. I just find the terminology useless.[/quote]
I agree with this and it’s a stupid and overused term. The only unfunctional exercise is the one that prevents your goals.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
Fulmen wrote:
Once again, some of you are missing the point. The point I was trying to make was that [b][u]nearly all[/b][/u] exercises could be considered “functional”. I just find the terminology useless.
I agree with this and it’s a stupid and overused term. The only unfunctional exercise is the one that prevents your goals.[/quote]
Here we go again, I really tried to resist getting into this yet aonther time, but I’m weak.
Would it be too much to ask for some of these “functional” folks to list for us the exercises which cease to provide ANY function beyond the performance of the exercise itself?
What, pray tell, are these functionLESS exercises? The ones where unless you are presently in the very act of performing them carry no functional benefit into your life.
As soon as someone recognizes this invincible line of logic and says “well, that’s not really what we mean” the whole “functional” argument falls to the ground.
There has never been nor is there now ANYBODY, who can tie their own shoes, that denies that different training methods produce different functionally applicable results.
There also have never been nor is there now ANY, ANY, ANY, movement of the human body against resistance that yields benefits strictly confined within the performance of the movement.
I do hereby defy anybody, not wearing a bib and making finger paintings somewhere, to refute what I have just said.
Just another unfunctional trainer. I think I saw him using some “bodybuilding” exercises once (or twice).
I’d love to see a comprehensive list of functional vs. non-functional exercises and a brief description of why each is on that list. There’d have to be a third list of “questionable” exercises that defy either catagory.
That’d be a HOOT!
[quote]derek wrote:
I’d love to see a comprehensive list of functional vs. non-functional exercises and a brief description of why each is on that list. There’d have to be a third list of “questionable” exercises that defy either catagory.
That’d be a HOOT!
[/quote]
How bout a “Rate MY Exercise” thread? 1-10 for functional-NESS.
Professor X is right too no doubt. People who are truly competitive in sports don’t generally concern themselves much with these bullshit semantic discussions nor do physique athletes who are actually making progress.
It reminds of a particularly brain dead IT manager I was once had who was always bitching about how messy my cube was because he didn’t have a flickering clue about what I actually did.
[quote]derek wrote:
I wonder who I’d pick to back me up in a bar fight? (a very functional activity if you ask me).
Or help me move my couch upstairs…[/quote]
I’d pick Royce Gracie to back me in a fight over this dude any day. Royce is 176lbs.
This dude can help me lift my couch for sure though. Who said shrugs aren’t functional?
[quote]derek wrote:
Just another unfunctional trainer. I think I saw him using some “bodybuilding” exercises once (or twice).[/quote]
HEY! that was my example.
Did anyone read Prof X’s response to a guy who said since he hurt his shoulder he can’t press much free weight, but machine press is ok?
The Prof said thats becuase you don’t have to worry about the stabilizing muscles(which is probably what was injured)with the machine thus can lift more.
Doesn’t logic tell us that if we use machines all the time we wouldn’t train the stabilizers?
If we don’t train the stabilizers aren’t we more likely to injure them when needed?
Then isn’t it safe to say if were not training the stabilizers then its a “non-functional” exercise?
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
<<< This dude can help me lift my couch for sure though. Who said shrugs aren’t functional?[/quote]
!?!?!?!?!?
Did you really just say that? Andrew Dixon, a “functional” guy if ever there was one, has just, in 16 words, gotten it. This statement is THE point that permeates this whole debate.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
I’d pick Royce Gracie to back me in a fight over this dude any day. Royce is 176lbs.
[/quote]
I get your point but it really wasn’t relevant. I was comparing an enormously big and strong pro bodybuilder to a specific guy doing medicine-ball push-ups.