Who’d rather get punched by a guy that can press 2 plates per side on the Hammer Incline than the same guy when he eventually works up to 4-5 plates per side and gains 30 lbs?
I’m guessing his punch would be just a bit harder if he doubles his strength on that machine. Of course he’d tear a stabilizer just throwing the punch :^)
[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]
You’re killin me here guy. I am really trying to be fair. I just quoted myself from a PM to you from a couple months ago that was a response to the one you sent me when this exact discussion erupted last time.
I specifically said I didn’t mind the term in itself, but that it was the reverse that bothered me. If someone wants to label themselves or a method as functional because that’s what it’s called in their circles then fine. Who am I to say they can’t.
You lose when me when, not being content with the above, it is further asserted that no other definition is legitimate. Especially when said assertions are proclaimed in a dogmatic tone calculated to challenge Moses on Mt. Sinai.
Shit, assuming the accuracy of what you say about leg extensions then even they would have the function of damaging the ACL. DYSfunctional isn’t the same as functionLESS
I would never get into another discussion on this ever it it weren’t for people trying to deny me and others the right to use a word in relation to our training.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
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]
So true, all a submission hold in a bar fight is gonna do is give your opponents friends enough time to stomp on your head while you’re lying on the ground.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
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?
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.
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.[/quote]
Dude!
Why do you think every comment is directed at you and your methods? I gave a HIT example of machine only training. Just to say, “they exist”. I don’t know you from a bag of shit and I haven’t read all your posts.
No wonder you think everyone is stupid, you take so much out of context then shoot back with a fine argument for miscalculation.
Functional anatomy is used to describe what the muscles do. Rather then just a bicep, a tricep, etc. You know, like how the skeletal system works.
My training over the past 2 years has been injury rehab. This is why I’m so interested in stuff like this. I know what its like to have knee, back and shoulder pain. This is a result of motocross and snowboarding and not being very good at either.
1 year ago I couldn’t bench press a 10lbs dumbbell without pain and was told I may need surgery, now I’m back doing 88lbs without surgery, so I think my progress is good considering I thought my lifting days were over.
I can also now deep 1 legged squat on my knee that had much of the meniscus removed 3 years ago, and to me thats great progress.
Its been a bitch of a ride, but I’ve learnt alot.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
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. >>>
You’re killin me here guy. I am really trying to be fair. I just quoted myself from a PM to you from a couple months ago that was a response to the one you sent me when this exact discussion erupted last time.
I specifically said I didn’t mind the term in itself, but that it was the reverse that bothered me. If someone wants to label themselves or a method as functional because that’s what it’s called in their circles then fine. Who am I to say they can’t.
You lose when me when, not being content with the above, it is further asserted that no other definition is legitimate. Especially when said assertions are proclaimed in a dogmatic tone calculated to challenge Moses on Mt. Sinai.
Shit, assuming the accuracy of what you say about leg extensions then even they would have the function of damaging the ACL. DYSfunctional isn’t the same as functionLESS
I would never get into another discussion on this ever it it weren’t for people trying to deny me and others the right to use a word in relation to our training.[/quote]
I’m completely fucking bewildered at your post. I cant tell weather your coming or going. I feel like I’m talking to monkeys.
I agree that you disagree with me.
[quote]W@LRUS!1 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
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.
So true, all a submission hold in a bar fight is gonna do is give your opponents friends enough time to stomp on your head while you’re lying on the ground.[/quote]
Sorry to come out of the wood work again but I just needed to add one thing, if you try a submission and a guy has any sort of strength you will get your head smashed into the ground and you will be unconscious and the guy will in turn start stomping your unconscious body.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
Functional anatomy is used to describe what the muscles do. Rather then just a bicep, a tricep, etc. You know, like how the skeletal system works.[/quote]
That makes no sense. I am telling you this again because describing certain body parts as “functional” in and of themselves is retarded. I really don’t care who has done so in the past.
[quote]
My training over the past 2 years has been injury rehab. [/quote]
In other words, little no progress physically? I’m just trying to get a picture of the person so concerned with naming certain exercises and body parts as “functional”.
It would seem that most of the people who make the arguments you do are either injured or blame their lack of progress on genetics. Either way, it makes me want avoid the same mentality.
Get well soon.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
<<< I’m completely fucking bewildered at your post. I cant tell weather your coming or going. I feel like I’m talking to monkeys.
I agree that you disagree with me.
[/quote]
Calm down man. I reread my post and realized that it sounded like it was exclusively aimed at you.
Let me put this one more other way.
I do agree that your use of functional as a term denoting what you’re into is your right and beyond dispute.
Now, grant me the same.
When speaking with someone in your position I will take into account the vernacular usage of the word in those circles. If you refuse to do the same then despite my sincerely wanting to believe the contrary you will have proven Professor X right about you.
If you don’t refuse then we’ve been arguing about nothing.
Trib, X-
Don’t you guys love what I started?
My old boss was like. He loved his swiss balls and balance movements and would often tell me that I was wasting my time with my training.
I was impressed at his agility and balance.
He was impressed when I squatted 140kg for reps etc etc.
End of the day, we both learned from each other and never justified how we trained to each other more than talking about what our goals where and how we were training to achieve them. We respected each other enough to do that. Our clients all made good progrees irrespective of the approach.
Many laughs at the ‘who would you rather be punched by?’ comment. I do not want to be punched by the guy who trains to punch things. If all you do is lift weights then you don’t know shit about fighting.
[quote]Sxio wrote:
Many laughs at the ‘who would you rather be punched by?’ comment. I do not want to be punched by the guy who trains to punch things. If all you do is lift weights then you don’t know shit about fighting. [/quote]
WHAT??? are you saying someone who benched a lot would not hit like a truck?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
<<< I’m completely fucking bewildered at your post. I cant tell weather your coming or going. I feel like I’m talking to monkeys.
I agree that you disagree with me.
Calm down man. I reread my post and realized that it sounded like it was exclusively aimed at you.
Let me put this one more other way.
I do agree that your use of functional as a term denoting what you’re into is your right and beyond dispute.
Now, grant me the same.
When speaking with someone in your position I will take into account the vernacular usage of the word in those circles. If you refuse to do the same then despite my sincerely wanting to believe the contrary you will have proven Professor X right about you.
If you don’t refuse then we’ve been arguing about nothing.[/quote]
I honestly believe if we discussing this in person it would go alot smoother.
[quote]Fulmen wrote:
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.[/quote]
Its becasue you come of as a cocky guy with an inferiority complex. If a guy wants to train “funtionaly” fuck it, who cares. All this philsophical bs is retarded.
PS, do you see the irony in critisizing a 400 pound squat when you cannot do it.
That is like someone criticizing a heavily muscled bodybuilder as being non functional (aka bulky) because one hasn’t (or cant) attain that level.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
Functional anatomy is used to describe what the muscles do. Rather then just a bicep, a tricep, etc. You know, like how the skeletal system works.
That makes no sense. I am telling you this again because describing certain body parts as “functional” in and of themselves is retarded. I really don’t care who has done so in the past.
My training over the past 2 years has been injury rehab.
In other words, little no progress physically? I’m just trying to get a picture of the person so concerned with naming certain exercises and body parts as “functional”.
It would seem that most of the people who make the arguments you do are either injured or blame their lack of progress on genetics. Either way, it makes me want avoid the same mentality.
Get well soon.[/quote]
Of course I’m concerned with function. I would say not being able to lift your arm above your head is dysfunctional. So i train to get function back then to improve/maintain. I chose to avoid things like smith machine presses.
Did you ever try static contraction(pete sisco/john little)? I’m curious as to what you think about that method of training.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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?[/quote]
Triceps and shoulders are not stabilizers in the presses. They are synergists, and sometimes targets. A synergist contracts and changes length and actually moves the target or adjacent joint through its range of motion. A stabilizer contracts with no change in length to maintian a posture or fixate either the target joint or an adjacent joint.
With machines it is possible to complete the motion without using the many of the stabilizers because the machine serves their purpose. The fact is, machines deemphasise or eliminate muscles that would be worked with the use of free weights.
This is really basic stuff, proffessor. It’s not rocket science, how could you get it wrong?
[quote]keaster wrote:
Fulmen wrote:
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.
Its becasue you come of as a cocky guy with an inferiority complex. If a guy wants to train “funtionaly” fuck it, who cares. All this philsophical bs is retarded.
PS, do you see the irony in critisizing a 400 pound squat when you cannot do it.
That is like someone criticizing a heavily muscled bodybuilder as being non functional (aka bulky) because one hasn’t (or cant) attain that level.
[/quote]
But its fun to laugh at the big strong bodybuilder who struggles to do a chin up. I’ve seen such things on my travels.
[quote]Fulmen wrote:
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.[/quote]
Prof X dosent “laugh on the inside” at people who are bigger and stronger than him regardless of how they train.
At least not in the posts I have seen from him.
So dont compare your self to him.
Your stats came into play when you talked shit about a 400lb squat.
This site turns 150-160lb guys into badasses in like 2 weeks flat.
[quote]Racarnus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
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?
Triceps and shoulders are not stabilizers in the presses. They are synergists, and sometimes targets. A synergist contracts and changes length and actually moves the target or adjacent joint through its range of motion. A stabilizer contracts with no change in length to maintian a posture or fixate either the target joint or an adjacent joint.
With machines it is possible to complete the motion without using the many of the stabilizers because the machine serves their purpose. The fact is, machines deemphasise or eliminate muscles that would be worked with the use of free weights.
This is really basic stuff, proffessor. It’s not rocket science, how could you get it wrong?[/quote]
Stabilizer muscles in bodybuilding have ALWAYS referred to the muscles assisting in the movement that are not the direct targets of the movement itself. In a bench press, any other muscle assisting in moving the weight and maintaining control of it other than the pectorals is considered a “stabilizer” in that movement.
To claim that “stabilizers” don’t ever contract and change in length is ridiculous as far as how it applies in bodybuilding. That would imply that the only use for stabilizing a weight is when either at the final point of full contraction or the bottom of a movement. Every muscle that helps STABILIZE the weight as you press a dumbbell into the air is a “stabilizing muscle” in that movement.
If you didn’t know this, now you do. Most bodybuilders don’t even lock out for a final contraction in a movement making the definition you tried to pass off inapplicable.
Perhaps someone should make a list of “bodybuilding terminology” so that people aren’t confused.
[quote]Racarnus wrote:
This is really basic stuff, proffessor. It’s not rocket science, how could you get it wrong?[/quote]
…and “Racarnus”, the word “professor” has ONE “F”. That isn’t rocket science either.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Sxio wrote:
Many laughs at the ‘who would you rather be punched by?’ comment. I do not want to be punched by the guy who trains to punch things. If all you do is lift weights then you don’t know shit about fighting.
WHAT??? are you saying someone who benched a lot would not hit like a truck?[/quote]
All things created equal the heavy bencher would hit harder. I would rather get hit by the strong bencher that dosent train to punch harder.