[quote]Vtecthis wrote:
Whatever this guy is
Dude has pretty bad gyno from steroid usage I would guess…
He needs to do a little research on AI’s.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Not sure what forum to ask this question but to piggy back off of something that Waterbury said, what do you guys feel is the most fuctional bodyweight for your height? I am 6’2" @ 200 and ~8% BF. I am thinking that 210lbs at that same BF is probably best for ALL-ROUND quality of life. Any other heights/weights? I am curious for training clients of different heights what would be the best real life figure for that height.[/quote]
TSB…
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
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.[/quote]
Thank you. That is exactly what i was looking for. How tall are you?
[quote]Amiright wrote:
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 [/quote]
Thanks for this. Is this with a very low body fat? My goal is to find good BALL PARK numbers that people that are at different heights should shoot for if their goal is to be considered very athletic. I am pretty sure if you play lacrosse, your physical abilities at say, football, would be very decent, and i am sure your quickness and agility are probably there for rock climbing and the like. I had in my mind 185 for that height, but that is why i am asking the question 
[quote]Kilosprinter2 wrote:
ApplCobbler wrote:
Batman is 6’2 220 pounds
Superman is 6’4 240 pounds
Anything in between those is about right.
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]
I appreciate the input. For a SPORT that DEPENDED on that ABSOLUTE quality, then yes, there would probably be a very specific weight to be at, given that the parameters are most likely very specific. I realize that someone that is at the IDEAL that i am looking for would have to sacrifice top end on any SPECIFIC sport, but there are a lot of people out there that want to perform well in many things, but don’t want to train for a sport.
But your input is great for me if i were to train people that want to be in that sport (and yes there have been some).
[quote]donovanbrambila wrote:
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]
Even though you were serious, I don’t think many people view someone who can tie there shoes as functional, it is hard for me to think that you really believe that. (yes i did see 120 SOLID pounds)
Side point guys: I love football and i think defensive linemen, are EXTREMELY powerful, and i am always amazed how they can chase down a quarterback that is 100 lbs lighter than them. However, that is their job, it is a very specific one (w/o seeking an argument, it is very one demensional: get around the blocker and get to the quarterback.)
[quote]matsm21 wrote:
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”[/quote]
This is what I was thinking.
Now Alpha was around 6’, 230 and could do about anything you would ever want … but better
Also has a “How do you train” thread on T Cell
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Side point guys: I love football and i think defensive linemen, are EXTREMELY powerful, and i am always amazed how they can chase down a quarterback that is 100 lbs lighter than them. However, that is their job, it is a very specific one (w/o seeking an argument, it is very one demensional: get around the blocker and get to the quarterback.)[/quote]
Do you honestly believe that’s ALL they are capable of doing well? Because that’s how I’m reading it, which makes me think you don’t really have a clue. If not, carry on
[quote]TheDudeAbides wrote:
honest_lifter wrote:
Side point guys: I love football and i think defensive linemen, are EXTREMELY powerful, and i am always amazed how they can chase down a quarterback that is 100 lbs lighter than them. However, that is their job, it is a very specific one (w/o seeking an argument, it is very one demensional: get around the blocker and get to the quarterback.)
Do you honestly believe that’s ALL they are capable of doing well? Because that’s how I’m reading it, which makes me think you don’t really have a clue. If not, carry on[/quote]
Thanks for at least giving me the benefit of the doubt. I know they have tons of strength and that is good for a lot of things. However, it is not what i think most people would consider the BEST functional body weight.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
TheDudeAbides wrote:
honest_lifter wrote:
Side point guys: I love football and i think defensive linemen, are EXTREMELY powerful, and i am always amazed how they can chase down a quarterback that is 100 lbs lighter than them. However, that is their job, it is a very specific one (w/o seeking an argument, it is very one demensional: get around the blocker and get to the quarterback.)
Do you honestly believe that’s ALL they are capable of doing well? Because that’s how I’m reading it, which makes me think you don’t really have a clue. If not, carry on
Thanks for at least giving me the benefit of the doubt. I know they have tons of strength and that is good for a lot of things. However, it is not what i think most people would consider the BEST functional body weight.[/quote]
What does functional body weight even mean? Is that the body weight at which you would optimally perform a sport? I know you’re doing this for discussion, but does it even matter?
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
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?
Normally active people. People that like doing things where they move around. [/quote]
I dunno, I’m 5’9 230 and I’d say I’m pretty active. Granted I’ve never gone rock climbing but I play rugby and am outrunning people who are 50 pounds lighter than me.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Amiright wrote:
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
Thanks for this. Is this with a very low body fat? My goal is to find good BALL PARK numbers that people that are at different heights should shoot for if their goal is to be considered very athletic. I am pretty sure if you play lacrosse, your physical abilities at say, football, would be very decent, and i am sure your quickness and agility are probably there for rock climbing and the like. I had in my mind 185 for that height, but that is why i am asking the question :)[/quote]
I’m not sure on my body fat never really cared, but its not much… 185 doesn’t sound bad, I don’t think I would ever go that high… for me if I choose to gain weight it would only be to 170-5, but 160 has been what my body likes during lacrosse season.
Im sick of everyone calling these playground gymnasts and side flag dudes functional. They are wicked impressive feats, but how are they useful in every day life?
Function would be strong parts in the following order:
Strong Back
Strong Glutes
Strong Abdominals
Strong Shoulders
when you are 150lbs with cripple jimmy legs so you can do 75 pullups in a row, I can see how that would be functional if you had to swing from trees all day, but we live in a world where the surface is generally stable and hard, and gravity points in one direction
6’2, 230 going up and counting.
FUNCTIONAL
I can run, jump more than before, am faster and more explosive at my most heaviest.
[quote]schultzie wrote:
Im sick of everyone calling these playground gymnasts and side flag dudes functional. They are wicked impressive feats, but how are they useful in every day life?
Function would be strong parts in the following order:
Strong Back
Strong Glutes
Strong Abdominals
Strong Shoulders
when you are 150lbs with cripple jimmy legs so you can do 75 pullups in a row, I can see how that would be functional if you had to swing from trees all day, but we live in a world where the surface is generally stable and hard, and gravity points in one direction[/quote]
that was just hilarious man.
[quote]matko5 wrote:
6’2, 230 going up and counting.
FUNCTIONAL
I can run, jump more than before, am faster and more explosive at my most heaviest.[/quote]
Really? what is your body fat?
This is NOT the kind of functional i am talking about.
[quote]chimera182 wrote:
I dunno, I’m 5’9 230 and I’d say I’m pretty active. Granted I’ve never gone rock climbing but I play rugby and am outrunning people who are 50 pounds lighter than me.[/quote]
agreed. i’d like to be a little heavier than i am right now but still feel pretty ‘functional’
lol
Brock’s pretty functional.
[quote]HolyMacaroni wrote:
chimera182 wrote:
I dunno, I’m 5’9 230 and I’d say I’m pretty active. Granted I’ve never gone rock climbing but I play rugby and am outrunning people who are 50 pounds lighter than me.
agreed. i’d like to be a little heavier than i am right now but still feel pretty ‘functional’
lol[/quote]
To address the issue of functionality we have a three part test: can you run up a hill? Can you play football? Can you climb rocks? If the answer to any of those is no, then I’m sorry but you’re too hyooge.