Bodybuilders: Non-Functional Mass

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
21

[quote]silverback3433 wrote:
What does that video have to do with being functional? Is he going to chase down the guy who just stole his wife’s purse because he can rep out 200lb d-bell presses?
[/quote]

he won’t have to chase him…Ronnie will just throw one of those 200 lbs dumbells at the guys head as he’s running away…the thief’s brains will go splat and then all Ronnie has to do is walk over and get his wife’s purse…

‘functional strength’ is the stupidest fucking phrase of all time…it means something different to everyone that types or says those words…because of that, no one knows what the hell anyone is saying when that phrase is used…it means just about anything that you can think of…

22

[quote]MrTangerineSpedo wrote:
I think we’ve all overlooked the point of the video. Not Ronnie’s impressive strength…it was to showcase the ugliest pants in the world.[/quote]

When you’ve got over 30 inch legs you can wear whatever the hell you want, even a fannie pack, and be in style.

23

damn straight!! let’s focus on those repulsive rags for a sec!!!
i mean seriously?

24

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
silverback3433 wrote:
Where the hell did I say you personally were carrying a purse?
So let me get this straight. You think because you are big and strong that you are immune to any type of violence against you? You think that because you lift weights everybody is afraid of you? I don’t know where you come from but that is not how it is where I live. You have to be able to use the size that you have, not be a big pile of muscle and not be able to get out of your own way. That is how I define functional.

How many big piles of muscle have you met that are weak and can’t use that muscle? There are few to none.

We’ll have to ask Craig Titus about that in the years to come. A true test of ‘fuck-tionality’ is about to be empirically tested. I say he gets owned like a little schoolgirl[/quote]

Why? He’s been there before.

25

[quote]Professor X wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
silverback3433 wrote:
Where the hell did I say you personally were carrying a purse?
So let me get this straight. You think because you are big and strong that you are immune to any type of violence against you? You think that because you lift weights everybody is afraid of you? I don’t know where you come from but that is not how it is where I live. You have to be able to use the size that you have, not be a big pile of muscle and not be able to get out of your own way. That is how I define functional.

How many big piles of muscle have you met that are weak and can’t use that muscle? There are few to none.

We’ll have to ask Craig Titus about that in the years to come. A true test of ‘fuck-tionality’ is about to be empirically tested. I say he gets owned like a little schoolgirl

Why? He’s been there before.[/quote]

He hasn’t been where he’s going this time. Don’t confuse pre-school with college.

26

[quote]RIT Jared wrote:

“Hey Chuck, have you seen that can of worms?”

“Yeah, I opened it.”[/quote]

27

My point was merely to debunk any debate over whether bodybuilders are weaklings… Forgive me if this topic has already been done to death, but I had noticed quite a bit of debate going on. As for what functional means, functional means if something performs it’s job or not, so it’s a pretty vague statement. What most people who say that bodybuilders have non-functional mass, are trying to convey that for the size-strength ratio of the muscles of bodybuilders is less than that of people of different occupation/sport.

Well, as soon as you can define the optimal ratio of size to strength output, that is when the debate may be settled. However, this seems quite futile, due to two things. The first being that it would be a completely subjective definition (within a certain scope of reason), and secondly strength is more an accurate expression of neurological potential as opposed to the potential of the muscle fibres themselves.

Also, forgive me for using this video, if it has been used before, I hadn’t seen it. I thought all I had seen was the video of Ronnie doing 800lb deadlifts for reps.

But if what you lot are argueing is that Bodybuilders dont have the neurological strength capabilites that can be witnessed in other athletes, like powerlifters, who dedicate their training to neurological conditioning, well I’d have to agree! That’s like saying ‘those oranges aren’t as green as these granny smith apples!’ So I’d say it’s suffice to say that it is a pointless statement when trying to establish any scientific basis for a debate, and is therefore merely a bias opinion trying to big up one athletic camp over another…

-Sep

(P.S: I love how Ronnie hypes himself up, it seems so silly until he startes lifting… I also love his little Watch Yo’thelf comment at the end to the camera-man. Another big man with a silly little voice! cracks me up.)

28

Ronnie is an exception. As are other bodybuilders who are strong.

The majority don’t do compound, multi-joint movments. The ones that do, don’t always do a lot of weight.

And by the way, dumbbell bench pressing IS functional. It’s functional for being better at dumbbell bench pressing. Ha ha!

When people say that bodybuilders are non-functional, they are referring to the fact that most of them could not do anything like climb a few flights of stairs, sprint 400m, run a mile, flip a tire, etc. without being severely winded and ready to die.

29

[quote]MachineAZ wrote:
Ronnie is an exception. As are other bodybuilders who are strong.

The majority don’t do compound, multi-joint movments. The ones that do, don’t always do a lot of weight.

And by the way, dumbbell bench pressing IS functional. It’s functional for being better at dumbbell bench pressing. Ha ha!

When people say that bodybuilders are non-functional, they are referring to the fact that most of them could not do anything like climb a few flights of stairs, sprint 400m, run a mile, flip a tire, etc. without being severely winded and ready to die.[/quote]

Dumb, dumb, dumb. Please show me a bodybuilder that got to 260 lbs. with merely the 35s.

Your argument has been debunked 8,000 fucking times already.

Can’t we just Tube Steak Boogie the phrase “functional strength” into the land of swiss balls for good?

30

[quote]MachineAZ wrote:
When people say that bodybuilders are non-functional, they are referring to the fact that most of them could not do anything like climb a few flights of stairs, sprint 400m, run a mile, flip a tire, etc. without being severely winded and ready to die.[/quote]

is that what functional strength is?

because I’ve been told by people on this site that functional strength is all about how good of a fighter you are…I’ve been told by people on this site that functional strength is all about how good of a gymnast you are…I’ve been told by people on this site that functional strength is all about how good of a rock climber you are…

I’ve been told by people on this site that functional strength is all about how heavy of a weight that you can lift for one rep…I’ve been told by people on this site that functional strength is all about how many reps you can do with a light weight…I’ve been told by people on this site that functional strength is all about how good you would perform in a strongman contest…I’ve been told by people on this site that functional strength is all about how many chinup you can do…I’ve been told by people on this site that functional strength is all about how good of a triathlete you are…

the list goes on and on and on…

functional strength means nothing…

31

[quote]Churchill wrote:
silverback3433 wrote:
Just because he is strong doesn’t mean he is functional.

THATS WHAT FUNCTIONAL MEANS DUMBASS. People use that term to define how much strength one can produce from their muscles. Most athletes think they can produce more from their small muscles than big sarcoplasm filled muscles of bodybuilders.[/quote]

I wouldn’t be so quick to call anyone a “dumbass.”

I have great respect for Ronnie Coleman and what he can do. But there are many things that he can’t do as well as someone else because of his size.

For example can he do the following better than someone who trains higher reps and also has at least some focus on cardio?

Shovel a 40 foot long driveway to get his car out in mid winter (if you live in the East-I don’t)?

Can he make repeated trips up three flights of stairs carrying two bags of groceries each time?

Can he go out in the woods and chop down several good size trees with an axe?

Can he pick up the back end of a Toyota better than …oh wait he can do that with no trouble. :slight_smile:

Remember, I’m not saying he can’t do these things. I’s saying that he can’t do them as well as many others who train differently than him.

My point is, we all train for a purpose. Obviously his purpose is to train to get larger and for symmetry and all the other things Bodybuilders do. Nothing wrong with that, it takes great discipline to do what he does and he deserves respect. He is the best in the world at what he does!

And to say that his muscles are not “functional” is foolish. If he grabs you by the throat you would see how functional his muscles are.

However, if you put him up against a field of other athletes in tests that combine cardio and strength, agility etc. such as the three above, he would probably get crushed.

With that said I would be the first to bet that he could in fact train down to a respectable weight and with the right kind of training excel at the tasks above.

32

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Churchill wrote:
silverback3433 wrote:
Just because he is strong doesn’t mean he is functional.

THATS WHAT FUNCTIONAL MEANS DUMBASS. People use that term to define how much strength one can produce from their muscles. Most athletes think they can produce more from their small muscles than big sarcoplasm filled muscles of bodybuilders.

I wouldn’t be so quick to call anyone a “dumbass.”

I have great respect for Ronnie Coleman and what he can do. But there are many things that he can’t do as well as someone else because of his size.

For example can he do the following better than someone who trains higher reps and also has at least some focus on cardio?

Shovel a 40 foot long driveway to get his car out in mid winter (if you live in the East-I don’t)?

Can he make repeated trips up three flights of stairs carrying two bags of groceries each time?

Can he go out in the woods and chop down several good size trees with an axe?

Can he pick up the back end of a Toyota better than …oh wait he can do that with no trouble. :slight_smile:

Remember, I’m not saying he can’t do these things. I’s saying that he can’t do them as well as many others who train differently than him.

My point is, we all train for a purpose. Obviously his purpose is to train to get larger and for symmetry and all the other things Bodybuilders do. Nothing wrong with that, it takes great discipline to do what he does and he deserves respect. He is the best in the world at what he does!

And to say that his muscles are not “functional” is foolish. If he grabs you by the throat you would see how functional his muscles are.

However, if you put him up against a field of other athletes in tests that combine cardio and strength, agility etc. such as the three above, he would probably get crushed.

With that said I would be the first to bet that he could in fact train down to a respectable weight and with the right kind of training excel at the tasks above.

[/quote]

EXACTLY!

33

[quote]Sepukku wrote:
My point was merely to debunk any debate over whether bodybuilders are weaklings… Forgive me if this topic has already been done to death, but I had noticed quite a bit of debate going on. As for what functional means, functional means if something performs it’s job or not, so it’s a pretty vague statement. What most people who say that bodybuilders have non-functional mass, are trying to convey that for the size-strength ratio of the muscles of bodybuilders is less than that of people of different occupation/sport.

Well, as soon as you can define the optimal ratio of size to strength output, that is when the debate may be settled. However, this seems quite futile, due to two things. The first being that it would be a completely subjective definition (within a certain scope of reason), and secondly strength is more an accurate expression of neurological potential as opposed to the potential of the muscle fibres themselves.

Also, forgive me for using this video, if it has been used before, I hadn’t seen it. I thought all I had seen was the video of Ronnie doing 800lb deadlifts for reps.

But if what you lot are argueing is that Bodybuilders dont have the neurological strength capabilites that can be witnessed in other athletes, like powerlifters, who dedicate their training to neurological conditioning, well I’d have to agree! That’s like saying ‘those oranges aren’t as green as these granny smith apples!’ So I’d say it’s suffice to say that it is a pointless statement when trying to establish any scientific basis for a debate, and is therefore merely a bias opinion trying to big up one athletic camp over another…

-Sep

(P.S: I love how Ronnie hypes himself up, it seems so silly until he startes lifting… I also love his little Watch Yo’thelf comment at the end to the camera-man. Another big man with a silly little voice! cracks me up.)[/quote]

I’ve seen some guys who didn’t look that strong who are very strong. And I’ve seen some guys who look strong who turn out to be rather weak. Keep in mind both of the above cases are the exception to the rule, not the rule!

Overall, if someone looks strong they usually are.

Are Bodybuilders strong- Yea…most of them are very, very strong.

Here’s why:

The amount of overload placed on muscle determines the magnitude of stimulation and gain in muscle mass!

That’s just always going to be true. Thining anything else is just a way to make yourself feel better if you are skinny (or not as big as you might like to be).

Oh…and there’s another reason that the big lie of Bodybuilders being weak is perpetuated:

Some people literally make a career out of it. When you read about people like Matt Furey who claim that Bodybuilders are not strong, keep in mind he’s trying to sell you body weight only courses…

Ahh…that great motivating factor, money present once again :slight_smile:

34

Right you are ZEB, and on a somewhat unrelated note, check out this nutter deadlifting big!

http://media.putfile.com/Bennis-426kg-deadlift---big

LOL!!!

This has to be one of the funnier videos I’ve seen!

35

First let me say, that was awesome. He owned those 200’s like a pair of 80’s. I find 120’s awkward as fuck due to the length. For thgose of you that have never pressed over 100lb dumbells you can’t fully appreciated what Ronnie did in that video.

That being said, there sure as hell is such a thing as functional strength.

I know guys that are strong at construction work, wrestling, arm wrestling, running/football etc., that can’t bench 150 or squat 225!! It’s all about functionality.

I’ve been in fights with guys that are way bigger and stronger than me but when they shoved or tried to tackle me, it was like “WTF, he’s all show and no fucking go! SWEET! thump thump thump” Put non-functional guys like that on a bench and give them a heavy bar and say “OK push really hard now” and guess what, they’re strong as hell. Take them out of that environment and they are fucking PUSSY CATS!!!

What’s really funny about all this, is that powerlifters are the most non-functional of all weight lifting athletes.

36

[quote]MachineAZ wrote:
Ronnie is an exception. As are other bodybuilders who are strong.

The majority don’t do compound, multi-joint movments. The ones that do, don’t always do a lot of weight.

And by the way, dumbbell bench pressing IS functional. It’s functional for being better at dumbbell bench pressing. Ha ha!

When people say that bodybuilders are non-functional, they are referring to the fact that most of them could not do anything like climb a few flights of stairs, sprint 400m, run a mile, flip a tire, etc. without being severely winded and ready to die.[/quote]

There was a charity track event about 10 years ago including ex olympic athletes, NFL players etc. Guess who won that events 800m?

LOU FERRIGNO!!!

37

woah that’s a pretty bold statement… Here comes the (yoga) flame!
Round 1-Fight!

38

[quote]Pound4Pound wrote:
there sure as hell is such a thing as functional strength.
[/quote]

then please feel free to give an all encompassing definition…

I can’t wait to read what you come up with…

what you seem to be refering to is sport specific strength…

for instance, Lance Armstrong has incredible sport specific strength for cycling…but his cycling abilities won’t help him for shit in a strong man competition…

awesome…you decided to join the ranks of internet tough guys association… your internet tough guy association badge is in the mail…

I suppose you came to this conclusion because of the double-blind scientific study that you did right?

I guess Bill Kazmier was one non-functional dude wasn’t he…could barily tie his own shoes is what I heard…

39

Everytime I hear this arguement, I want to choke someone to death.

Is Ronnie’s strength functional? Absolutely - for Ronnie.

Is it good for a rock climber? Probably not. Then again, a rock climber’s program would be shithouse for Ronnie.

The term “functional strength” is a lazy term that will mean different things for different people. People generally saying “I’m training for Functional Strength” when they haven’t thought about exactly what they need to train for ie Strength, Speed-Strength, explosive power, endurance, vertical leap etc.

It’s a bullshit term. Stop using it.

40

[quote]DPH wrote:

then please feel free to give an all encompassing definition…
I can’t wait to read what you come up with…

Functional Strength “The percentage of potential strength one is able to apply to real world situations” Suck on that one!

what you seem to be refering to is sport specific strength…
for instance, Lance Armstrong has incredible sport specific strength for cycling…but his cycling abilities won’t help him for shit in a strong man competition…

Lance has great cycling speed and endurance…strength??? That’s like saying the Olympic marathon champion has incredible Ham/calf strength LOL!

awesome…you decided to join the ranks of internet tough guys association… your internet tough guy association badge is in the mail…

Jeeze. A little touchy aren’t we? Did you try to tackle someone before becasue they were smaller that ended up kicking your ass? If so sorry for bringing that story up! LOL

I suppose you came to this conclusion because of the double-blind scientific study that you did right?

Just general observation.

I guess Bill Kazmier was one non-functional dude wasn’t he…could barily tie his own shoes is what I heard…

Kaz was one of the best strongmen of alltime. Strong men are very functional. I said POWERLIFTERS, You do know the diference right?[/quote]