[quote]donovanbrambila wrote:
honest_lifter wrote:
The majority of people want to perform well for all sorts of activities. If your profession is strongman and that is all you do then that is one thing, but i am talking about day to day activities. Like running hills to playing football to rockclimbing. Things that a normally “athletic” person would think of.
You don’t think big people perform day to day activities? And honestly, I dont think rockclimbing is a day to day activity. It’s something only small people are good at. But football and running hill? Come on. Is that serious?[/quote]
By “day to day” i didn’t mean you do them everyday. I was just saying these were things that you would do on any given day. I think someone that is a WELL CONDITIONED 210 lbs at 6’2" could do well rock climbing and someone but also could put up a good fight on the o-line of a pickup type game of football. I realize they aren’t going to be winning any awards. I am talking about being a jack-of-all-traders, not specialized in anyone specific task…like post thanksgiving toy shopping.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
The majority of people want to perform well for all sorts of activities. If your profession is strongman and that is all you do then that is one thing, but i am talking about day to day activities. Like running hills to playing football to rockclimbing. Things that a normally “athletic” person would think of.[/quote]
How are those ‘day to day’ activities? The term ‘functional’ is meaningless without a specific context, one body or set of strengths is only going to be truly ‘functional’ for one activity. Football as a sport has multiple positions with different ‘functions’ and a body type for one position is not ideal for the body type of another position. A small rock climber is not going to be good at football unless he trains for a specific football position. And one person who trains for anaerobic activities is not going to be good for more aerobicly-inclined activities unless he trains for that. His body type will most likely change once he starts changing his training as well.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
donovanbrambila wrote:
honest_lifter wrote:
The majority of people want to perform well for all sorts of activities. If your profession is strongman and that is all you do then that is one thing, but i am talking about day to day activities. Like running hills to playing football to rockclimbing. Things that a normally “athletic” person would think of.
You don’t think big people perform day to day activities? And honestly, I dont think rockclimbing is a day to day activity. It’s something only small people are good at. But football and running hill? Come on. Is that serious?
By “day to day” i didn’t mean you do them everyday. I was just saying these were things that you would do on any given day. I think someone that is a WELL CONDITIONED 210 lbs at 6’2" could do well rock climbing and someone but also could put up a good fight on the o-line of a pickup type game of football. I realize they aren’t going to be winning any awards. I am talking about being a jack-of-all-traders, not specialized in anyone specific task…like post thanksgiving toy shopping.
[/quote]
According to Kant, being a jack-of-all trades is abominable and bad for society.
[quote]That One Guy wrote:
honest_lifter wrote:
The majority of people want to perform well for all sorts of activities. If your profession is strongman and that is all you do then that is one thing, but i am talking about day to day activities. Like running hills to playing football to rockclimbing. Things that a normally “athletic” person would think of.
How are those ‘day to day’ activities? The term ‘functional’ is meaningless without a specific context, one body or set of strengths is only going to be truly ‘functional’ for one activity. Football as a sport has multiple positions with different ‘functions’ and a body type for one position is not ideal for the body type of another position. A small rock climber is not going to be good at football unless he trains for a specific football position. And one person who trains for anaerobic activities is not going to be good for more aerobicly-inclined activities unless he trains for that. His body type will most likely change once he starts changing his training as well.
[/quote]
Really? Are we going to look at things in absolutes? You guys are telling me that you only train for one thing? Like if you train for football, you are not going to be any good at basketball? or if you train for sprinting, you would never be any good at rock climbing? Me personally, I train cardio in the form of complexes, tabata, and HIIT. And I train strength in the form of Heavy compound movements and accessory exercises to strengthen my weaknesses. This has gotten quite decent and good amount of things. I still feel i could put on 10 lbs so that is why i think 210 @ 6’2" is an ideal weight. That kind of thing is what i was looking to find out.
[quote]chimera182 wrote:
honest_lifter wrote:
The majority of people want to perform well for all sorts of activities. If your profession is strongman and that is all you do then that is one thing, but i am talking about day to day activities. Like running hills to playing football to rockclimbing. Things that a normally “athletic” person would think of.
I’m pretty sure strong men can run hills and play football. Though, I would ask what normal people do you know that run up and down hills? Or rock climb for that matter?[/quote]
Normally active people. People that like doing things where they move around.
Normally active people. People that like doing things where they move around.
In that case, I would say an average physique would do.
The weight/height ratio rnnge would be quite large.
It looks like you’re not going to accept any height/weight range that’s not already in the range you’re thinking of in your head. [/quote]
No, i just happen to be 6’2". I have no idea where people who are taller or people who are shorter would fall as far as weight. Even the same height, if someone were to say a weight that was above 210 at least that would give me another number. People are giving any info.
You sound like a crossfitter. As if there is some magical “functional” weight. Many people on, say the minnesota vikings are functional, yet there is a huge difference in sizes. I am sure their largest starting D lineman can climb stairs well and beat most members on this site in the 40 yard dash. I am pretty sure that that uncomforatable feeling comes from being fat. I have experienced it myself. If you want to be a jack of all trades you will be a master of none. Being a master of none makes you pretty damn boring and ordinary. If this is your ideal then eat the zone diet and join crossfit one world. Make sure to avoid too much protein and getting too good at anything. Then you will be ready to climb stairs, cross streets, hail cabs and walk quickly to meetings when you’re running late. Hoo Rah!
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
honest_lifter wrote:
The majority of people want to perform well for all sorts of activities. If your profession is strongman and that is all you do then that is one thing, but i am talking about day to day activities. Like running hills to playing football to rockclimbing. Things that a normally “athletic” person would think of.
How are those ‘day to day’ activities? The term ‘functional’ is meaningless without a specific context, one body or set of strengths is only going to be truly ‘functional’ for one activity. Football as a sport has multiple positions with different ‘functions’ and a body type for one position is not ideal for the body type of another position. A small rock climber is not going to be good at football unless he trains for a specific football position. And one person who trains for anaerobic activities is not going to be good for more aerobicly-inclined activities unless he trains for that. His body type will most likely change once he starts changing his training as well.
Really? Are we going to look at things in absolutes? You guys are telling me that you only train for one thing? Like if you train for football, you are not going to be any good at basketball? or if you train for sprinting, you would never be any good at rock climbing? Me personally, I train cardio in the form of complexes, tabata, and HIIT. And I train strength in the form of Heavy compound movements and accessory exercises to strengthen my weaknesses. This has gotten quite decent and good amount of things. I still feel i could put on 10 lbs so that is why i think 210 @ 6’2" is an ideal weight. That kind of thing is what i was looking to find out. [/quote]
Irony? You’re the one thinking in absolutes, looking for an ideal bodyweight for ‘normal’ activities. I’m saying it’s relative to the activity. Idiot.
For me my best functional weight is the where I can bench 2x my bw, squat 3xbw, dunk a basketball, run a sub 4.5 40 and generally be ready for any kind of physical challenge. Right now the only thing I got is the dunk and the 40. I’d like that weight to be about 185lbs. Got about 80lbs on the bench and a buck-fifty on the squat to go.
I guess sense I’m an 09er I can sympathize with this guy… I understand what you want, just have no answer for you. I train specifically to improve my lacrosse abilities… and add other things too keep me well rounded to a certain extent. I’m 5’9 160… probably not the ideal lol
guy, just get to a weight you feel good at. there’s no magic number, and no definitive answer for anyone. and no bonus points for buzzwords like “functional”
Well, then I guess I’ll say gain 120 more solid pounds. I see people at 300 and over who are “functional” read: can tie their shoes. But I’ve never seen someone over 330 who can do that. Those biggins wear velcro. Yes, this is a serious answer.
[quote]ApplCobbler wrote:
Batman is 6’2 220 pounds
Superman is 6’4 240 pounds
Anything in between those is about right.[/quote]
Both these sizes for an athlete who does a sport where performance is based on how fast you can move yourself (and not plowing down opponents), for any duration, would get DESTROYED. They weigh waaay too much.
I’m 6’2" and back down to 176lbs, and would be considered one of the bigger riders in an endurance sport such as cycling, at the elite level. At the amateur level, my weight is very typical for my height.
Everyone is different though. My power output actually went up when I lost 8lbs this year. I’m really not anymore powerful at 184lbs compared to 176. Some sprinters my height are best at 200lbs. If you consistently train in your sport, your body will automatically go to the proper weight.
But this is T-Nation, one the top priorities is looking huge. I would suspect that most responses will be on the high side for ‘best functional bodyweight.’
My perception is skewed though, I come from a sport where power-to-weight ratio is king. There are many sports where it doesn’t matter much at all. Although, I think I remember seeing some UFC fighters at my height and weight range. That makes me wonder, what if there were weight classes in endurance/sprint sports? LOL
[quote]SWR wrote:
I would say a marathon runner would be better at normal, every day walking around at a shopping center, if he had a whole lot of stuff to buy, and was shopping all day. [/quote]
