The Best Functional Bodyweight?

Off Topic
101

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:
brian.m wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:
I prefer to think of this age old question in terms of “pit weight”. Pit weight is that weight where you are carrying neither excess fat nor excess muscle…it’s the intersection of your best cardio health and the strongest you can be at that fitness level. It’s probably the kind of shape you’d want to be in if you had to fight for your life. Yeah, okay, Marius is “functional”, I get that…but the likes of Marius would have no place on an elite fighting/war squad and he’s hardly the picture of health. I think some of you, myself included along my own personal journey, have forgotten about the health aspect - trading size and strength at the expense of overall health. Truly, the most functional and healthy among us would be built like an outstanding special forces guy. Just my opinion…

you think that you would beat mariusz in an ‘elite/war squad fight’ if you gain 10 lbs of muscle and he remains at his best conditioning at 315 or whatever?

if my life depended on a survival outcome, i’d go to the weight i just described above…which is to LOSE weight, GAIN conditioning…not gain weight. if you think in terms of “beating” marius, you must be 13 years old and in your world, the biggest guy always wins fights. does that about sum it up?

question; do you think marius could box 12 rounds? do you think he could fight 3 five minute rounds? allow me to save you from wasting your time; the answer is no.

Uh, he’s signed to fight so I guess the answer is yes.[/quote]

if you think he can fight at an EFFECTIVE pace for 12 boxing rounds or 3 mma rounds, well then I guess you’re just entitled to your opinion on that. if you think a large man will not sacrafice conditioning to a smaller man, i don’t know what to tell you.

i do know this, in the fight game, there are far too many bloated fighters. they would all be better served, and be better fighters, by getting down to their true weight.

you true weight is not an extreme to conditioning or to muscle - its where both intersect at their highest. it means that you won’t win a marathon, but you could probably compete in one. you won’t win a powerlifting contest, but you could aquit yourself with pride. it’s a sweet spot between the two, and every fight trainer knows it and tinkers with it.

102

[quote]SWR wrote:
Deorum wrote:
SWR wrote:
What health problems is Marius having?
How much muscle can someone have before they can’t still have cardio health?

i doubt he publishes the results from his doctor visits so what issues he currently has is anyones guess.
my point exactly
that said its no secret a man his size will not live as long as he would being 100lbs lighter. i actually think i would dismiss anyone who said different unless they had some hella thought provoking science behind them.

I think the statement “a man his size will not live as long as he would being 100lbs lighter” would need a ton of science (that doesn’t include overly fat or obese people) behind it.

Show me any research on the subject that only includes heavily muscled AND conditioned people, such as Marius (and not generally fat or obese people). I’m honestly curious.[/quote]

you need go no further than the life span for nfl players. i never checked but i’d expect a lower life span for nba players too.

it’s simple medical science though. no matter what the constitution of your mass, the heart works harder - even if you just happen to be very tall. how many 6.7 80 year olds you see walking around?

103

[quote]brian.m wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:
brian.m wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:
I prefer to think of this age old question in terms of “pit weight”. Pit weight is that weight where you are carrying neither excess fat nor excess muscle…it’s the intersection of your best cardio health and the strongest you can be at that fitness level. It’s probably the kind of shape you’d want to be in if you had to fight for your life. Yeah, okay, Marius is “functional”, I get that…but the likes of Marius would have no place on an elite fighting/war squad and he’s hardly the picture of health. I think some of you, myself included along my own personal journey, have forgotten about the health aspect - trading size and strength at the expense of overall health. Truly, the most functional and healthy among us would be built like an outstanding special forces guy. Just my opinion…

you think that you would beat mariusz in an ‘elite/war squad fight’ if you gain 10 lbs of muscle and he remains at his best conditioning at 315 or whatever?

if my life depended on a survival outcome, i’d go to the weight i just described above…which is to LOSE weight, GAIN conditioning…not gain weight. if you think in terms of “beating” marius, you must be 13 years old and in your world, the biggest guy always wins fights. does that about sum it up?

question; do you think marius could box 12 rounds? do you think he could fight 3 five minute rounds? allow me to save you from wasting your time; the answer is no.

the point is the complete other side of survival is what are you surviving against? If Marius was boxing you +10lbs in a fight, i believe he wouldnt have to go 10 rounds, because That is how survival works.

hell, even if i was going to have to survive in the woods i think i’d rather start at a heavier weight and let the lack of food let me trim down to a more “functional” weight

dude, my picture is right beside my posts, so no, i’m not 13, and yes i keep dogging on the Survival aspect, because thats what i see as surviving[/quote]

and what if survival included covering two miles as quickly as possible before you fight? or after you fight? you keep nitting it up with details when i think i was pretty damn clear in my initial opinion. of course, if you’re going to change the goal, the relative function will need to change. but at the end of the day, i think OP is thinking along health lines as well. and i’m telling you it’s not long term healthy to be that big - and i’m telling you as a 265lb guy that very much wants to take it down some.

104

[quote]ShortDave wrote:
Also, if the bigger guy didn’t almost always win in a fight, the UFC wouldn’t have gay’d itself up by adding in weight classes.[/quote]

seriously? ufc added weight classes for REGULATORY reasons - to be sanctioned and licensed and legal…

105

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

and what if survival included covering two miles as quickly as possible before you fight? or after you fight? you keep nitting it up with details when i think i was pretty damn clear in my initial opinion. of course, if you’re going to change the goal, the relative function will need to change. but at the end of the day, i think OP is thinking along health lines as well. and i’m telling you it’s not long term healthy to be that big - and i’m telling you as a 265lb guy that very much wants to take it down some.

[/quote]

What if you’re being chased and there’s a heavy bolder in the way that you have to lift. :open_mouth:

Why not just give the OP some info about a very skinny, female vegan height to weight ratio? If you’re talking about longevity. Being born wealthy might help too.

I don’t remember the OP asking what body weight will allow him to live the longest.

Is anyone really concerned that what they’re doing now might make them die at 87 years old instead of 103?

106

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
ShortDave wrote:
Also, if the bigger guy didn’t almost always win in a fight, the UFC wouldn’t have gay’d itself up by adding in weight classes.

seriously? ufc added weight classes for REGULATORY reasons - to be sanctioned and licensed and legal…
[/quote]

And the sanctions and laws are in place to protect the lighter fighters. :wink:

107

Yes, this is what i was going for exactly. The full package. Definitely not “average” in the general vernacular, but “balanced” way above average. What my question was, then, once that is established is at what weight people of different heights would be “best” at. I understand, obviously that there are variation, but not to any extreme degree. I mean, the Brock video posted earlier i believe showed him at 265. Now there was definitely some weight that could have been lost just in body fat alone. perhaps 30 lbs or more. at his weight class, though, he may find the extra weight advantageous, so as to wear out his opponent, but that is clearly profession specific.

108

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

and what if survival included covering two miles as quickly as possible before you fight? or after you fight? you keep nitting it up with details when i think i was pretty damn clear in my initial opinion. of course, if you’re going to change the goal, the relative function will need to change. but at the end of the day, i think OP is thinking along health lines as well. and i’m telling you it’s not long term healthy to be that big - and i’m telling you as a 265lb guy that very much wants to take it down some.

Yes, this is what i was going for exactly. The full package. Definitely not “average” in the general vernacular, but “balanced” way above average. What my question was, then, once that is established is at what weight people of different heights would be “best” at. I understand, obviously that there are variation, but not to any extreme degree. I mean, the Brock video posted earlier i believe showed him at 265. Now there was definitely some weight that could have been lost just in body fat alone. perhaps 30 lbs or more. at his weight class, though, he may find the extra weight advantageous, so as to wear out his opponent, but that is clearly profession specific. [/quote]

Why is functionality being define as the ability to do something that most have no intention of doing? I understand what you’re asking but don’t call it “functional body weight” because it stems that same debate over and over. How about the best body weight to survive a theoretical situation in which you must run 2 miles, fight and climb a rock while playing football?

109

[quote]SWR wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:

and what if survival included covering two miles as quickly as possible before you fight? or after you fight? you keep nitting it up with details when i think i was pretty damn clear in my initial opinion. of course, if you’re going to change the goal, the relative function will need to change. but at the end of the day, i think OP is thinking along health lines as well. and i’m telling you it’s not long term healthy to be that big - and i’m telling you as a 265lb guy that very much wants to take it down some.

What if you’re being chased and there’s a heavy bolder in the way that you have to lift. :open_mouth:

Why not just give the OP some info about a very skinny, female vegan height to weight ratio? If you’re talking about longevity. Being born wealthy might help too.

I don’t remember the OP asking what body weight will allow him to live the longest.

Is anyone really concerned that what they’re doing now might make them die at 87 years old instead of 103?[/quote]

he mentioned overall health. read his OP.

110

[quote]SWR wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:
ShortDave wrote:
Also, if the bigger guy didn’t almost always win in a fight, the UFC wouldn’t have gay’d itself up by adding in weight classes.

seriously? ufc added weight classes for REGULATORY reasons - to be sanctioned and licensed and legal…

And the sanctions and laws are in place to protect the lighter fighters. ;-)[/quote]

no they are not. they are in place to conform to existing boxing laws. believe me, i’m a “size matters” guy… i fight…i “get it”…but ufc conformed to regs to get approved. simple. it wasn’t just weight classes. it was rounds too, among other things - like gloves and prohibitions against certain tactics - which “protected” all fighters regardless of weight.

111

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

Yes, this is what i was going for exactly. The full package. Definitely not “average” in the general vernacular, but “balanced” way above average. What my question was, then, once that is established is at what weight people of different heights would be “best” at. I understand, obviously that there are variation, but not to any extreme degree. I mean, the Brock video posted earlier i believe showed him at 265. Now there was definitely some weight that could have been lost just in body fat alone. perhaps 30 lbs or more. at his weight class, though, he may find the extra weight advantageous, so as to wear out his opponent, but that is clearly profession specific. [/quote]

you got your answers man. the best real life examples are probably the middle weight fighters across all fight disciplines. these are the guys that are usually at their “pit weight” - where stamina and strength intersect at their relative maximum. it’s probably the healthiest “relative” place to be. that’s your answer.

112

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
no they are not. they are in place to conform to existing boxing laws. believe me, i’m a “size matters” guy… i fight…i “get it”…but ufc conformed to regs to get approved. simple. it wasn’t just weight classes. it was rounds too, among other things - like gloves and prohibitions against certain tactics - which “protected” all fighters regardless of weight.
[/quote]

You missed his point - he was saying that weight classes were originally enacted in boxing or any sport because the little guys would get their asses handed to them a preponderance of the time.

113

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

and what if survival included covering two miles as quickly as possible before you fight? or after you fight? you keep nitting it up with details when i think i was pretty damn clear in my initial opinion. of course, if you’re going to change the goal, the relative function will need to change. but at the end of the day, i think OP is thinking along health lines as well. and i’m telling you it’s not long term healthy to be that big - and i’m telling you as a 265lb guy that very much wants to take it down some.

Yes, this is what i was going for exactly. The full package. Definitely not “average” in the general vernacular, but “balanced” way above average. What my question was, then, once that is established is at what weight people of different heights would be “best” at. I understand, obviously that there are variation, but not to any extreme degree. I mean, the Brock video posted earlier i believe showed him at 265. Now there was definitely some weight that could have been lost just in body fat alone. perhaps 30 lbs or more. at his weight class, though, he may find the extra weight advantageous, so as to wear out his opponent, but that is clearly profession specific. [/quote]

I have tried to hold back on this thread but i can’t do it anymore.

265 lbs is about right. Brock Lesnar wins MMA fights. So he is automatically a definition of pit weight. As for twelve rounds, there is no 170 lb dude who is going to last twelve rounds against Brock Lesnar. Why is there an assumption that big guys are not in good cardiovascular shape? It is complete horse shit. Some are, some aren’t. Boxing is a way more artificial fight than MMA. As for the war comparison, on today’s war I would want a 140lb dude who doesn’t miss. In yesterdays war were swinging a battle axe into someones face was important, I would take Brock or Mariusz any day of the week. Then again in today’s war I would just take the country with more money and nukes. The simple truth is there is no general best weight. Each specific function demands different attributes. Cyclists must be small. Lineman must be big. Waterbury’s size is designed to get female clients like he states in the article. Weight classes exist because oscar deLehoya in his prime would not stand a chance against Brock Lesnar in a “PIT.” Tired of the bull. Ronnie Coleman has done the splits on stage. Brock beats the life out of most of his opponents. Mariusz has lower bodyfat than most on this site. And yes rock climbers and cyclers and jockeys are still small. Define your function, you get your form. By the way Superman would beat anybosies ass in a cycling race- the mother f-er has super powers!

114

[quote]MiJuggernaut wrote:
honest_lifter wrote:

and what if survival included covering two miles as quickly as possible before you fight? or after you fight? you keep nitting it up with details when i think i was pretty damn clear in my initial opinion. of course, if you’re going to change the goal, the relative function will need to change. but at the end of the day, i think OP is thinking along health lines as well. and i’m telling you it’s not long term healthy to be that big - and i’m telling you as a 265lb guy that very much wants to take it down some.

Yes, this is what i was going for exactly. The full package. Definitely not “average” in the general vernacular, but “balanced” way above average. What my question was, then, once that is established is at what weight people of different heights would be “best” at. I understand, obviously that there are variation, but not to any extreme degree. I mean, the Brock video posted earlier i believe showed him at 265. Now there was definitely some weight that could have been lost just in body fat alone. perhaps 30 lbs or more. at his weight class, though, he may find the extra weight advantageous, so as to wear out his opponent, but that is clearly profession specific.

I have tried to hold back on this thread but i can’t do it anymore.

265 lbs is about right. Brock Lesnar wins MMA fights. So he is automatically a definition of pit weight. As for twelve rounds, there is no 170 lb dude who is going to last twelve rounds against Brock Lesnar. Why is there an assumption that big guys are not in good cardiovascular shape? It is complete horse shit. Some are, some aren’t. Boxing is a way more artificial fight than MMA. As for the war comparison, on today’s war I would want a 140lb dude who doesn’t miss. In yesterdays war were swinging a battle axe into someones face was important, I would take Brock or Mariusz any day of the week. Then again in today’s war I would just take the country with more money and nukes. The simple truth is there is no general best weight. Each specific function demands different attributes. Cyclists must be small. Lineman must be big. Waterbury’s size is designed to get female clients like he states in the article. Weight classes exist because oscar deLehoya in his prime would not stand a chance against Brock Lesnar in a “PIT.” Tired of the bull. Ronnie Coleman has done the splits on stage. Brock beats the life out of most of his opponents. Mariusz has lower bodyfat than most on this site. And yes rock climbers and cyclers and jockeys are still small. Define your function, you get your form. By the way Superman would beat anybosies ass in a cycling race- the mother f-er has super powers! [/quote]

This.

115

[quote]SWR wrote:

What if you’re being chased and there’s a heavy bolder in the way that you have to lift. :-O[/quote]

Ugh, those are worse than those tiny superscript italicizers. Damn you heavy bolders!