2)Watching them take an hour to unpack, to workout for 15 minutes.
Infomercial ab machines are the best, especially the one Steve Carell uses in The 40 Year Old Virgin, I think its called the ab-lounge…its literally a chair that bends.
Maybe there will eventually be an ab-bed or ab-couch that does the work for you while you sleep.
There are huge and fast guys with agility that would make Alan Iverson jealous; however, those guys are…well, that guy is Brian Urlacher…
I’m just saying; maybe there’s a reason that we don’t see too many massive shortstops or second basemen? Even Thib posted an article talking about athletes and how it might be rare but muscle size can obstruct ROM in some cases.
Most of the infomercials on TV…everyone trying to act like their piece of equipment is some magicial thing that will transform everyone into the shape they desire.
Yoga also annoys me. While I think yoga is great for flexibility, stress reduction and can strengthen some muscles, it’s not the complete body re-shaper a lot of “experts” claim it to be.
You are right, none of the things I listed are bad at all. Certainly compared to the ab electrode, the Chuck Norris “gym,” or any infomercial, complexes and kettlebells are wonderful.
I started the thread to, admittedly, bitch about the things presented on this site as the cure-all to all things bodybuilding.
And I think you are right, this is more of a gripe about the industry rather than the items I listed. It’s hard to have a problem with complexes by themselves, but you know there are people on this site who read the multiplying articles and posts about them and jump on the bandwagon just to sound knowledgable and hardcore. Then two months down the line they will be back to doing their old routine.
It’s rare you see a post after an article that says “you know, this is an interesting concept but I think I will stick to the basics and work harder.”
Instead it’s “this is just what I needed!” or “I’m going to start this TODAY.”
I just thought of the worst: The “fat burning zone” nonsense. As if going an hour in the “zone” will really burn more fat than going for an hour where you are outside of the zone much of the time.
[quote]IfYouHateManUtd wrote:
You are right, none of the things I listed are bad at all. Certainly compared to the ab electrode, the Chuck Norris “gym,” or any infomercial, complexes and kettlebells are wonderful.
I started the thread to, admittedly, bitch about the things presented on this site as the cure-all to all things bodybuilding.
And I think you are right, this is more of a gripe about the industry rather than the items I listed. It’s hard to have a problem with complexes by themselves, but you know there are people on this site who read the multiplying articles and posts about them and jump on the bandwagon just to sound knowledgable and hardcore. Then two months down the line they will be back to doing their old routine.
It’s rare you see a post after an article that says “you know, this is an interesting concept but I think I will stick to the basics and work harder.”
Instead it’s “this is just what I needed!” or “I’m going to start this TODAY.”[/quote]
I think we can sum up by saying anyone or anything that claims to be “The one any only”.
[quote]Plim wrote:
Nothingface wrote:
dhuge67 wrote:
fightingtiger wrote:
What exactly is a non-functional muscle?
One that doesnt move?
I’d like to see a really hugely muscled bodybuilder play shortstop. That’s what people mean by non-functional muscle, I think.
That doesn’t make any sense. Every physique doesn’t have to be ideal for every type of physical endeavor to be considered functional. I’d like to see Lance Armstrong deadlift 800 pounds. Because he can’t, does that mean his physique is non-functional?
Yes it does if you put it in context. His physique dosen’t perform the ‘huge deadlift’ function.
[/quote]
Spoken for truth
[quote]Nate Dogg wrote:
The new “postural correctness” fad has been bothering me lately.
Lift some weights. It will take care of most postural issues.[/quote]
This needs to be highlighted.
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
I just thought of the worst: The “fat burning zone” nonsense. As if going an hour in the “zone” will really burn more fat than going for an hour where you are outside of the zone much of the time.[/quote]
Ah, indeed, this is a terrible one. Its just a good excuse for lazy people to “work out” without ever actually getting out of breath, and barely breaking a sweat.
“That idiot doing sprints is way out of the fat burning zone!!”
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Nate Dogg wrote:
The new “postural correctness” fad has been bothering me lately.
Lift some weights. It will take care of most postural issues.
This needs to be highlighted.[/quote]
The problem isn’t with the information. The information Cressey and Robertson are putting out is quite good. The problem is that the information is over hyped and thus everyone thinks they have these postural issues. I just shake my head when imagining a bunch of 150 lb. guys laying down two bills for a DVD collection.
Truth is, very few people worried about these “posture” issues are actually training hard enough in the gym such that they would injure themselves or develop a muscular imbalances. You have to actually have some muscle before you can have imbalances between those muscles. Yet the first point is dismissed.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ah, indeed, this is a terrible one. Its just a good excuse for lazy people to “work out” without ever actually getting out of breath, and barely breaking a sweat.
“That idiot doing sprints is way out of the fat burning zone!!”[/quote]
Here is what cracks me up. I have a resting heart rate of 56-58. Merely walking down the street at a normal pace puts me at 120. So if I just walk around (or even walk at a quick pace), I supposedly burn more fat than when I run sprints and get my heart up to 190 or more?
Target heart rate, like BMI, is so facially stupid that anyone who throws those terms around (too many doctors, sadly) can immediately be adjudicated as an ignorant fool.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
I think we can sum up by saying anyone or anything that claims to be “The one any only”.
[/quote]
Bingo.
Although I don’t know what’s worse, those that tell you there is only one way to accomplish a task or those that believe it.
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
Plim wrote:
Nothingface wrote:
dhuge67 wrote:
fightingtiger wrote:
What exactly is a non-functional muscle?
One that doesnt move?
I’d like to see a really hugely muscled bodybuilder play shortstop. That’s what people mean by non-functional muscle, I think.
That doesn’t make any sense. Every physique doesn’t have to be ideal for every type of physical endeavor to be considered functional. I’d like to see Lance Armstrong deadlift 800 pounds. Because he can’t, does that mean his physique is non-functional?
Yes it does if you put it in context. His physique dosen’t perform the ‘huge deadlift’ function.
Spoken for truth
[/quote]
If you mean “huge deadlift functional”, then say that. But the term “functional” is used as a broad stroke usually referring to heavily muscled guys supposedly not being good at certain sports. Mariusz P. may not be able to play shortstop, but don’t call him “non-functional” because of it.
Well the word really only has any meaning when put into context. When someone uses the word without context it is just nonsense. What ‘function’ are they describing?
As if there is only one body type that should serve all functions, or there is only certain functions that are worthy of being described as a ‘function’.
The way you construct your body, as an athlete, is a method, this is why different athletes train in different ways. A fucking huge powerlifter trains, to function better at lifting big weights in his sport. A long distance runner trains so he functions better at running long distance. A skinny metrosexual trains incorrectly because he functions as a moron.
Often it is a matter of trading one function for another. But we know this, that is why people keep getting pissed off when the word is thrown around. It’s just gibberish.
At the same time though, alot of people seem to get defensive when someone implies that muscle mass alone dosen’t suddenly make you great at all sports, or turn them into superman.
Circuit training 300-Style.
Anything that promotes Olympic lifts with more than 6 reps per set.
All the super-bullshit stuff that doesn’t make it onto T-Nation but is being practiced in gyms today like that Body-pump hybrid cardio/weights group-fitness crap.
[quote]Nothingface wrote:
dhuge67 wrote:
fightingtiger wrote:
What exactly is a non-functional muscle?
One that doesnt move?
I’d like to see a really hugely muscled bodybuilder play shortstop. That’s what people mean by non-functional muscle, I think.
That doesn’t make any sense. Every physique doesn’t have to be ideal for every type of physical endeavor to be considered functional. I’d like to see Lance Armstrong deadlift 800 pounds. Because he can’t, does that mean his physique is non-functional?
[/quote]
But Lance Armstrong Dosn’t take st!.. oh yea my bad
Bosu balls
Stability balls
Balance boards
Fucking rowing machines.
I know someone who goes to the gym and only uses rowing machines. He just goes there and uses a rowing machine for like an hour or something. Then he tells people he is counting his calories and getting ripped abs.
Wtf.
[quote]Plim wrote:
Fucking rowing machines.
I know someone who goes to the gym and only uses rowing machines. He just goes there and uses a rowing machine for like an hour or something. Then he tells people he is counting his calories and getting ripped abs.
Wtf.[/quote]
WELL…Is he getting ripped abs??
