I KO'ed Functional Training

Training Bodybuilding
61

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
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]

Now there you go again. Right when I was rejoicing in your personal epiphany.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that everything you say is true, which I do not believe BTW, but let’s just say it is.

Could you please elucidate for me the line of reasoning whereby you have concluded that “not training the stabilizers”, even if that were true, immediately disqualifies an exercise from having function?

As if "functional and “stabilizer muscles” are so inseparably related that the latter entirely defines the former.

I’ve always considered you a decent guy and though we haven’t always agreed I thought of you as being pretty smart overall, but this has to be the most boneheaded statement I’ve seen from somebody who should know better in a while.

I’m hoping your response is that you simply stated this in an unfortunate manner.

62

[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 would pick the big strong guy over Royce any day. Royce was good and all but if you saw his last fight, a bigger stronger guy just mopped the floor with him.

63

I should get Biotest discounts for making this thread.

64

[quote]Fulmen

He said when he was interested in getting big, he could squat 400. Mr. High and Mighty 400 (I laughed to myself inside,[/quote]

What do you squat?

65

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
<<< This dude can help me lift my couch for sure though. Who said shrugs aren’t functional?

!?!?!?!?!?

This statement is THE point that permeates this whole debate.[/quote]

No it doesnt.

66

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
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]

That wasn’t the point I was making at all, Doofus. I wrote to him that he obviously wasn’t training whatever muscle was injured by doing the machine. That doesn’t mean that no stabilizer muscles are trained at all by doing Hammer Strength incline presses.

Your triceps, shoulders and even lats to some degree are all stabilizers for the pressing movements. Are you about to claim that the HS incline machine doesn’t work any of those muscles at all? Do you really believe this?

If he injured his shoulder, that means any weak link in the muscles surrounding that joint could be the reason for his decrease in strength with free weights. It is highly likely that doing the machine may help avoid aggravating that specific tendon or muscle. It does not mean that the HS incline doesn’t work any stabilizers.

This shit isn’t exactly advanced physics so I am not sure how you were so thrown off by what was stated when NOWHERE was it written that the machine worked NO stabilizing muscle groups.

The lack of comprehension you just showed is why so many people are turned around any time an author here isn’t ABSOLUTELY EXTREMELY SPECIFICALLY clear with every single word uttered.

It is like some of you hear what you WANT to hear. I honestly don’t think most even read the passages. You just read the first couple of lines and then imagine the rest.

67

Wow, you completely missed the point. A bigger, stronger guy beat Royce. However, that guy is also an elite level fighter in the same sport. It’s not like he lost to some big guy off the street who didn’t know how to fight.

My BJJ instructor told us bluntly that if you run into a guy with your same skill level but bigger and stronger than you, you’re in trouble. That’s why they have weight classes.

[quote]John S. wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:

I’d pick Royce Gracie to back me in a fight over this dude any day. Royce is 176lbs.

I would pick the big strong guy over Royce any day. Royce was good and all but if you saw his last fight, a bigger stronger guy just mopped the floor with him.[/quote]

68

I’ve honestly never tried do my 1rm for squat-but the point was that he considered 400 to be a great goal in squatting, which made me think of the guy who said deadlifting 315 is inspirational.

I personally think a person should be shooting for 6,7,800 squat even if they don’t reach it. Keeping your goals high is a smart thing to do, don’t you agree?

69

[quote]Professor X wrote:
It is like some of you hear what you WANT to hear. I honestly don’t think most even read the passages. You just read the first couple of lines and then imagine the rest.[/quote]

Hell, you even see that in this thread.

70

[quote]John S. wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:

I’d pick Royce Gracie to back me in a fight over this dude any day. Royce is 176lbs.

I would pick the big strong guy over Royce any day. Royce was good and all but if you saw his last fight, a bigger stronger guy just mopped the floor with him.[/quote]

Lol, Matt Hughes is 169lbs.

71

[quote]Professor X wrote:

That wasn’t the point I was making at all, Doofus. I wrote to him that he obviously wasn’t training whatever muscle was injured by doing the machine. That doesn’t mean that no stabilizer muscles are trained at all by doing Hammer Strength incline presses.

Your triceps, shoulders and even lats to some degree are all stabilizers for the pressing movements. Are you about to claim that the HS incline machine doesn’t work any of those muscles at all? Do you really believe this?

If he injured his shoulder, that means any weak link in the muscles surrounding that joint could be the reason for his decrease in strength with free weights. It is highly likely that doing the machine may help avoid aggravating that specific tendon or muscle. It does not mean that the HS incline doesn’t work any stabilizers.

This shit isn’t exactly advanced physics so I am not sure how you were so thrown off by what was stated when NOWHERE was it written that the machine worked NO stabilizing muscle groups.

The lack of comprehension you just showed is why so many people are turned around any time an author here isn’t ABSOLUTELY EXTREMELY SPECIFICALLY clear with every single word uttered.

It is like some of you hear what you WANT to hear. I honestly don’t think most even read the passages. You just read the first couple of lines and then imagine the rest.[/quote]

Listen big fella, when you don’t have to stabilize the weight, your stabilizers wont get trained. If you always sit and did supported fix axis exercises, you’d miss out on training the proprioceptive muscles.

Theres no need to attack my intelligence every time I post. You think your so fucking good because your a big fuck off dentist. I find it amazing you think coaches and physical therapists like Gary Gray, Mike Boyle, etc have no clue about training. After all these are they guys I learn from, not freaks like you.

72

[quote]Dre Cappa wrote:
Wow, you completely missed the point. A bigger, stronger guy beat Royce. However, that guy is also an elite level fighter in the same sport. It’s not like he lost to some big guy off the street who didn’t know how to fight.

My BJJ instructor told us bluntly that if you run into a guy with your same skill level but bigger and stronger than you, you’re in trouble. That’s why they have weight classes.

John S. wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:

I’d pick Royce Gracie to back me in a fight over this dude any day. Royce is 176lbs.

I would pick the big strong guy over Royce any day. Royce was good and all but if you saw his last fight, a bigger stronger guy just mopped the floor with him.

[/quote]

Royce beat Kimo Leopoldo and he weighs 235lbs. Obviously Royce out skilled him.

Stronger is always better, but bigger definetly isn’t always better.

73

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
Royce beat Kimo Leopoldo and he weighs 235lbs. Obviously Royce out skilled him.

Stronger is always better, but bigger definetly isn’t always better.[/quote]

It seems like you hate muscle. You must despise every one bigger than you. And you probably cheer every time you see even a hint of someone’s muscular size might not helping their sport/situation/etc.

Yes, size isn’t ALWAYS better. But 95% of the time it IS. And on a bodybuilding website… that’s a really bullshit thing for you to say.

74

[quote]Fulmen wrote:
I’ve honestly never tried do my 1rm for squat-but the point was that he considered 400 to be a great goal in squatting, which made me think of the guy who said deadlifting 315 is inspirational.

I personally think a person should be shooting for 6,7,800 squat even if they don’t reach it. Keeping your goals high is a smart thing to do, don’t you agree?[/quote]

I see you point about maintaining lofty and distant goals, but a 400 lb squat that is raw and ass to the grass is a lot more impressive and worthy goal than a 315 pound deadlift.

Of course I am willing to bet your friend at the gym thinks loading a bar with 400, unracking it, and dropping two inches means he can squat 400.

75

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
Listen big fella, when you don’t have to stabilize the weight, your stabilizers wont get trained. If you always sit and did supported fix axis exercises, you’d miss out on training the proprioceptive muscles.[/quote]

WHO has EVER written that someone should always use machines of any kind? You show your own ignorance every single time you make up some argument that no one has ever presented.

[quote]
Theres no need to attack my intelligence every time I post. You think your so fucking good because your a big fuck off dentist. I find it amazing you think coaches and physical therapists like Gary Gray, Mike Boyle, etc have no clue about training. After all these are they guys I learn from, not freaks like you.[/quote]

I think what? When I have ever even discussed Gary Gary or Mike Boyle? If I have never discussed these people, how could you tell me what I think about them? What in hell are you talking about?

76

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
Dre Cappa wrote:
Wow, you completely missed the point. A bigger, stronger guy beat Royce. However, that guy is also an elite level fighter in the same sport. It’s not like he lost to some big guy off the street who didn’t know how to fight.

My BJJ instructor told us bluntly that if you run into a guy with your same skill level but bigger and stronger than you, you’re in trouble. That’s why they have weight classes.

John S. wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:

I’d pick Royce Gracie to back me in a fight over this dude any day. Royce is 176lbs.

I would pick the big strong guy over Royce any day. Royce was good and all but if you saw his last fight, a bigger stronger guy just mopped the floor with him.

Royce beat Kimo Leopoldo and he weighs 235lbs. Obviously Royce out skilled him.

Stronger is always better, but bigger definetly isn’t always better.

[/quote]

Also rules screwed kimo. If someone was pulling my hair on and was under neath me my hand would be over there throat crushing it while my other hand was throwing bombs in there face(you can’t use your hand and choke them in the rules).

Just saying using those old fights is pointless because what would have really happend was not allowed(yes I understand it was a sport and in the sport he was great, this is in no way a great cross over in real life).

This will be my last post about this, If you choose to believe muscle is bad then fine thats your choice, but don’t pull up these fights that you know would never work out and try to critize someone just for being bigger/stronger then you.

77

[quote]Majin wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
Royce beat Kimo Leopoldo and he weighs 235lbs. Obviously Royce out skilled him.

Stronger is always better, but bigger definetly isn’t always better.

It seems like you hate muscle. You must despise every one bigger than you. And you probably cheer every time you see even a hint of someone’s muscular size might not helping their sport/situation/etc.

Yes, size isn’t ALWAYS better. But 95% of the time it IS. And on a bodybuilding website… that’s a really bullshit thing for you to say.
[/quote]

I’m talking for an athletic point of view. Nothing wrong with being huge, but its not always the best choice for sport.

Or should every athlete just try and be as big as possible?

I know it says bodybuilding, but the forum is for all strength, speed, agility sports.

78

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
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…

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]

I would pick the incredibly strong 300 pound ex-cop to back me in a bar fight.

Gracie may be good in the octagon but I am not sure trying a submission hold in a bar fight is the best idea.

I would go with the guy that can throw people through the wall.

79

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

I thought you read Boyle’s article and agreed with it. You know, the one that said functional exercise is referring to muscles that involve the entire kinetic chain etc.

80

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
Listen big fella, when you don’t have to stabilize the weight, your stabilizers wont get trained. If you always sit and did supported fix axis exercises, you’d miss out on training the proprioceptive muscles.

WHO has EVER written that someone should always use machines of any kind? You show your own ignorance every single time you make up some argument that no one has ever presented.

Theres no need to attack my intelligence every time I post. You think your so fucking good because your a big fuck off dentist. I find it amazing you think coaches and physical therapists like Gary Gray, Mike Boyle, etc have no clue about training. After all these are they guys I learn from, not freaks like you.

I think what? When I have ever even discussed Gary Gary or Mike Boyle? If I have never discussed these people, how could you tell me what I think about them? What in hell are you talking about?[/quote]

This is the point. Some people do use machines all the time. Are you agreeing with me when I say they shouldn’t?

I mention Gary Gray because they call him the “father of function”. You seem so certain that I have no clue about what I’m on about you must think he(among other) have no idea what they are on about. Someone has to teach us what we know right? Then we apply it…