I KO'ed Functional Training

Training Bodybuilding
81

[quote]John S. wrote:
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.

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).
[/quote]

My point was the big guys don’t automatically make great fighters. Its usually the opposite if they train in a conventional bodybuilding way. Same with rock climbing. You see a new big guy having a go and he burns out so much quicker than a regular guy. But he thought he was going to impress everyone. Horses for courses.

82

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
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?

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.[/quote]

Werd!

83

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

I was referring more to the general tone of your posts, sounded like you have an axe to grind or something.

Functional training is a name that might have stood for something good. Like a general preparedness and strength standard. But all it is at this point is $$$ for the testicle sorcerers who sell beach balls with exotic names.

84

The only thing that is functional training is doing Kegels. I actually use that muscle for a unique and specific purpose that is all about functionality.

85

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
<<< 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.

[/quote]

Nothing Boyle said in that short article is objectionable. If you give him his definition then fine.

Here are a couple portions of what I said to you then in my PM:

[quote]I wrote:
My problem hasn’t been so much with the “functional” label as such, but the idea that there can be ANY exercises or types of training that are non functional or in other words useless.[/quote]

And again:

[quote] I also wrote:
Bottom line? People should train toward whatever their own goals are and in that light anything that accomplishes that is “functional” to them.

I don’t know how any sensible serious person could dispute that.[/quote]

Let me ask you this. What is so essential about exclusive rights to the use of this word?

You and I get along better than the Professor and yourself, but this does mystify me and you’re not alone in coveting the functional appellation. As if some sort of uniqueness would be forfeited or something.

Why is it so difficult to just grant that ANYTHING fulfilling a need is possessed of function insofar as it succeeds?

86

[quote]Majin wrote:
<<< Functional training is a name that might have stood for something good. Like a general preparedness and strength standard. But all it is at this point is $$$ for the testicle sorcerers who sell beach balls with exotic names. [/quote]

I will say that the Mike Boyle article he linked me to vehemently rejects this and does propound a much more sensible view, but that doesn’t solve the misconception that any other type of training included in a sentence with the word “functional” is somehow illegitimately so called.

87

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:

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

WTF? WHO is doing this aside from weekend warriors or those 150lbs guys worried about their abs for spring break? Why would anyone serious about bodybuilding give a damn that some people exist who do stupid things? Why would we even need a discussion about them? What BODYBUILDERS do you know of who have never used free weights before?

Answer the question. There must be some for this to be of such concern to you.

I use more machines now because I already put the time in under free weights and am working specific details in my training. No one needs you to run a freaking diagnostic over what they do in the gym. How much progress are YOU making? How much have YOU gained?

Do you understand that just because a guy who is extremely built may use more machines now that they may have spent YEARS using free weights before that? If you saw them in the gym only using machines yet they clearly were seeing progress from it far beyond where you are, would you honestly think they are doing something wrong? If so, why?

[quote]
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…[/quote]

So you speak for Gary Gray now? You couldn’t even understand what I wrote previously about someone else’s shoulder injury but you speak for other trainers now? Who are you kidding?

I personally don’t run around trying to read what most of these authors and trainers write. I’m not a beginner and I’m not uneducated on these subjects.

There is nothing wrong with reading what some of these people write, but you seem to have trouble even understanding some basic info written on this forum which makes me really question how much you are getting from these authors you keep bringing up.

Also, why do you keep bringing up my profession? You have done that twice in this thread alone. What do YOU do for a living that makes you qualified to speak for anyone else?

88

OP

Please insert

Bench max
Deadlift max
Squat max
Weight
Height
BF%

89

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Why is it so difficult to just grant that ANYTHING fulfilling a need is possessed of function insofar as it succeeds?[/quote]

Because it is hard to admit that the big guy in the corner who is doing everything they’ve read from this and that trainer as being wrong is seeing great progress from it.

I honestly think it is that simple. If it weren’t that simple, there wouldn’t some need to try to justify being smaller at every possible opportunity from hypothetical fights (even though most have probably never even been in a real fight) to running up stairs.

90

[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.

[quote]

You can find your current max for reps and enter it in a 1rm max calculator. Then report back.

91

[quote]keaster wrote:
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.

You can find your current max for reps and enter it in a 1rm max calculator. Then report back.
[/quote]

400 is a great goal for squating.

The guy is 160lbs and benchs 225 he is 16% bodyfat he dosent squat 400.

Thats Unfunctional!

92

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
<<< 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.

Nothing Boyle said in that short article is objectionable. If you give him his definition then fine.

Here are a couple portions of what I said to you then in my PM:

I wrote:
My problem hasn’t been so much with the “functional” label as such, but the idea that there can be ANY exercises or types of training that are non functional or in other words useless.

And again:
I also wrote:
Bottom line? People should train toward whatever their own goals are and in that light anything that accomplishes that is “functional” to them.

I don’t know how any sensible serious person could dispute that.

Let me ask you this. What is so essential about exclusive rights to the use of this word?

You and I get along better than the Professor and yourself, but this does mystify me and you’re not alone in coveting the functional appellation. As if some sort of uniqueness would be forfeited or something.

Why is it so difficult to just grant that ANYTHING fulfilling a need is possessed of function insofar as it succeeds?[/quote]

I can probably see why you don’t like the term and I’m not a huge fan of it because of the stigma attached. Your view on functional is purely goal based, but thats not what it means in physical therapy or strength training.

It has its roots in Physical Therapy. Its applying functional anatomy to exercise. Kenitic chain chains and slings, etc.

Its basically an advanced machine vs free weight argument.

I’m of the opinion that leg extensions can damage the ACL. To me this would be dysfunctional exercise. However, limited use would be fine. Its like junk food. A little is ok.

93

[quote]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).[/quote]

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

94

Prof X(you big ugly tooth brusher)

I’m not as serious as you. I like to poke a bit of fun and not take myself too seriously. You have something shoved up your butt that makes you very angry.

You claim I’m so stupid for misunderstanding you, yet you seem to misunderstand me. Maybe we’re both stupid.

There is an entire HIT crew that use pure machines. This is what I’m talking about. Like you said you’ve done your time under the free weights so you have the foundations.

I had an argument with an Arthur Jones wannabe who thought 1 set to failure on a machine was the path to every athletic and bodybuilding goal. He disagreed that young or beginners should use free weights first. They had no place in his tool box. He trains athletes(so he claimed). To me that makes no sense.

I also work in gyms so it is of interest to me how other people exercise. I study this shit almost daily and I know I have much to learn. I even lift weights myself.

PS - Did you watch the Smoking Tooth?

95

Why the fuck should my stats come into play when all I did was say that I thought the phrase “functional training” is useless? And Dixon-thanks for keeping this thread alive with your bullshit.

I swear, next time I’ll hesitate before making controversial threads. I didn’t know I (along with Prof. X) would get libeled in the process.

Some of you really need to grow up.

96

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
I can probably see why you don’t like the term and I’m not a huge fan of it because of the stigma attached. Your view on functional is purely goal based, but thats not what it means in physical therapy or strength training.

It has its roots in Physical Therapy. Its applying functional anatomy to exercise. Kenitic chain chains and slings, etc.

Its basically an advanced machine vs free weight argument.

I’m of the opinion that leg extensions can damage the ACL. To me this would be dysfunctional exercise. However, limited use would be fine. Its like junk food. A little is ok.

[/quote]

I can only assume that someone who has this much objection to entire schemes of training and diversion to certain exercises is simply amazingly built and has “athleticism and function” that would make us all envious.

If that isn’t the case, then perhaps you would do better to avoid taking the word of your favorite strength coach as absolute law without question.

“Functional anatomy”? That’s a new one. Your anatomy as a whole is functional. Your anatomy in parts is functional. Therefore, that term means absolutely nothing.

97

[quote]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 [/quote]

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?

98

[quote]adonis-complex wrote:
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 [/quote]

Kid, go and read, read, read. Leg Curls do work your hamstrings, however, you should also add deadlifts and such for more hamstring work. Leg Extensions are mainly for adding DEFINITION, not mass. Squats and the related are for that.

99

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:

There is an entire HIT crew that use pure machines. This is what I’m talking about. Like you said you’ve done your time under the free weights so you have the foundations. [/quote]

Where have you seen me EVER support HIT? I have written my opinion on both Mentzer and HIT several times on this board so what is the point of discussing them in this thread when NOT ONE PERSON IN THIS DISCUSSION was talking about HIT?

You “work in gyms” so this makes you qualified to speak for other trainers on issues of biology, anatomy and weight training?

How much progress have you made in the last 2 years? 1 year?

Experience can’t be learned from books, no matter how much you read.

100

Since names are getting thrown around, Charles Poliquin, the Strength Coach that seems to only work with elite athletes, seems to prescribe the leg curl quite often.

Take up the anti-leg curl issue with him.