[quote]DLboy wrote:
Functional strength is being strong in every movement plane, being neuromuscularly coordinated, and having no weaknesses. I don’t think anyone can argue with that definition.
If somone can bench press 600, it doesn’t mean a damn thing if they can’t squat at least 2x their bodyweight. They’re still weak little shits and they would be overpowered by anyone with strong legs in a sport such as football, for instance.[/quote]
Definition #3,456,876,001
[quote]DLboy wrote:
Functional strength is being strong in every movement plane, being neuromuscularly coordinated, and having no weaknesses. I don’t think anyone can argue with that definition.
If somone can bench press 600, it doesn’t mean a damn thing if they can’t squat at least 2x their bodyweight. They’re still weak little shits and they would be overpowered by anyone with strong legs in a sport such as football, for instance.[/quote]
Actually I think that functional strength just means that your strength is geared towards a particular purpose… and that’s all.
I know a guy who runs track. When you see him in the gym is training routine is geared towards explosive power. He doesn’t squat very much, but he’s damned fast (he got a scholarship to Indiana University to run track). If he gained 60lbs of muscle and squatted 700lbs, it wouldn’t help his 100 meter time any (he’d prolly get a lot slower).
For example, if a guy’s got an unimpressive bench but can do 100 strict-form push-ups… then he can talk about functional or relative strength.
But there’s gotta be some kind of tangible strength component. Digging ditches and lifting sandbags doesn’t mean that you’re strong… nor does it make your strength any more functional and a guy who can bench 600lbs (unless you can dig faster than him… in which case, for the purpose of ditch digging, yeah… you’ve got good relative or functional strength).
jjoseph x,
You wrote:
“I know a guy who runs track. When you see him in the gym is training routine is geared towards explosive power. He doesn’t squat very much, but he’s damned fast (he got a scholarship to Indiana University to run track). If he gained 60lbs of muscle and squatted 700lbs, it wouldn’t help his 100 meter time any (he’d prolly get a lot slower).”
Well, that depends on how much he weighs now. If that 60 lbs still allows him to get a triple bodyweight squat he may become faster because his relative strength will still have increased.
You then wrote:
“For example, if a guy’s got an unimpressive bench but can do 100 strict-form push-ups… then he can talk about functional or relative strength.”
hmmmmmmm…only if his goal is to do a lot of push-ups. Absolute strength is still a component that needs to be taken in to consideration when determining relative strength, or functional strength for that matter.
You then wrote:
“But there’s gotta be some kind of tangible strength component. Digging ditches and lifting sandbags doesn’t mean that you’re strong… nor does it make your strength any more functional and a guy who can bench 600lbs (unless you can dig faster than him… in which case, for the purpose of ditch digging, yeah… you’ve got good relative or functional strength).”
I agree with the first sentence, and the first part of the second sentence. But to say that lifting sandbags won’t make you more functionally strong without specifying the weight of the sandbag is a mistake. If a guy can bench a 600lbs sandbag, then that would make him at the very least as functionally strong as the guy who could bench a 600lbs barbell.
Good training,
Sentoguy
I gotta agree with the professor the Term Functional Strength and how its used is purely fodder for idiots if you have only strentgth to move 5lbs that amount of strength is functional as we all move at least 5lbs at some point in the day. Ad-nauseum this may be a well meaning thread but the topic its self and the arguments are non sensical.
I have yet to see any level of strenghth that is not functional for something.
I think there should be some sort of law requiring the phrase “for ______” to be inserted in between the words “functional” and “strength”.
Functional for sprinting strength is whatever helps Justin Gatlin fly down the track.
Functional for football strength is whatever helps Brian Urlacher rip somebody’s head off on the football field.
Functional for bodybuilding strength is whatever helps Ronnie be so fucking large.
Functional for doing manual labor around the house strength is whatever helps you pick up some uneven shit and carry it across the yard.
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
I think there should be some sort of law requiring the phrase “for ______” to be inserted in between the words “functional” and “strength”.
Functional for sprinting strength is whatever helps Justin Gatlin fly down the track.
Functional for football strength is whatever helps Brian Urlacher rip somebody’s head off on the football field.
Functional for bodybuilding strength is whatever helps Ronnie be so fucking large.
Functional for doing manual labor around the house strength is whatever helps you pick up some uneven shit and carry it across the yard.[/quote]
Exactly! That why it’s “functional” strength… it serves a specific purpose.
Having a great benchpress doesn’t mean that you’ll have a bigger serve than Andy Roddick (similarly it doesn’t mean that if Roddick benches 600lbs that his serve will be faster… that’s more a function of how fast he can move this racquet).
It’s a matter of training for a specific goal (or “function”). Also someone can have more functional strength than another (i.e. they’re stronger or better at that function… like a faster sprinter or better javelin thrower).
Actually he weighs something like 150lbs soaking wet. A 60lbs weigh gain would be a pretty massive change in body composition.
That’s what I meant by “functional” his goal might well be to do lots of push-ups (lots of guy who bench 300+ lbs can’t do 100 push-ups).
I completely agree that absolute strength is a component of functional strength. But how much absolutely strength matters, depends on the “function” (a powerlifter might be able to lift a hell of a lot of weight, but he might not be as potent a pitcher say Randy Johnson… who probably doesn’t lift particularly monstrous weights).
You’re right. Lift heavy sandbags will obviously make you stonger. I was think more in the range of the 20-40lbs sandbag that someone would typically lift when gardening.
[quote]jjoseph_x wrote:
jtrinsey wrote:
Exactly! That why it’s “functional” strength… it serves a specific purpose.
[/quote]
Refer to as specific strength then
Functional Strength = Gay.
NTTAWWT.
functional strength is a near religious debate. i am ok with christians, i am ok with muslims, i am ok with buddhists. i am not ok with people who try to push something on me. some people want to train to bench press 1000lbs. good for them. i train for mma. good for me. lance armstrong trains to ride a bike. good for him. at least we are doing SOMETHING. unlike the goobers who debate how functional any of these activities are.
my point is, do your thing but don’t expect anyone else to have to do it. let them have their thing.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
BIGRAGOO wrote:
Raimisch wrote:
I do wrist curls to build up forearm strength. It helps me masterbate is that functional?
As a matter of fact, it is. Textbook definition.
Webster’s
Func.tion.al Strength (n) - Strength gained in order to increase and sustain self pleasure through penile manipulation.
Damn it, he’s right.[/quote]
LOL this is about the funniest thing ive read in months, i cant stop laughing
THE PROBLEMS WITH “FUNCTIONAL STRENGTH”
The people who rave about it do exercises that don’t really have a function
They are not strong.
Functional strength is usually strength developed or used through a movement pattern rather than a muscle group. Though increasing the strength and or cross-sectional area of a muscle group increases the functional strength of the movement pattern it is associated with too.
Think squats not leg extensions. Also, exercises that mimic or can be somehow related, usually biomechanically to a sport or activity are usually deemed functional training (whether or not they benefit the sport or activity in any way.
functional
adj.
1.
a. Of or relating to a function.
b. Of, relating to, or indicating a mathematical function or functions.
2. Designed for or adapted to a particular function or use: functional architecture.
3. Capable of performing; operative: a functional set of brakes.
4. Pathology. Involving functions rather than a physiological or structural cause. Top Web Results for “Strength”
6 entries found for Strength.
strength P Pronunciation Key (str ngkth, str ngth, str nth)
n.
a. The number of people constituting a normal or ideal organization: The police force has been at half strength since the budget cuts.
b. Military capability in terms of personnel and materiel: an army of fearsome strength.
7.
a. A source of power or force.
b. One that is regarded as the embodiment of protective or supportive power; a support or mainstay.
c. An attribute or quality of particular worth or utility; an asset.
8. Degree of intensity, force, effectiveness, or potency in terms of a particular property, as:
a. Degree of concentration, distillation, or saturation; potency.
b. Operative effectiveness or potency.
c. Intensity, as of sound or light.
d. Intensity or vehemence, as of emotion or language.
9. Effective or binding force; efficacy: the strength of an argument.
10. Firmness of or a continuous rising tendency in prices, as on the stock market.
11. Games. Power derived from the value of playing cards held.
I do not know why any one would have so much trouble with two words. I find it amusing. I have not heard any one saying they were magic. I can not believe any one would deny that when you put them together they have meaning.
[quote]Shadowzz4 wrote:
Functional strength is usually strength developed or used through a movement pattern rather than a muscle group. Though increasing the strength and or cross-sectional area of a muscle group increases the functional strength of the movement pattern it is associated with too.[/quote]
movement pattern = more blowhard guru speak…
everytime a human moves it’s a movement patter…wiping my ass is a movement pattern, jacking-off is a movement pattern, flipping through channels with a remote control is a movement pattern…so fucking what!
“train movement patterns not muscle groups blah, blah, blah”…
every god damned time a human moves he’s using muscles in a movement pattern!
if I train certain muscle groups I’m using certain movement patterns…if I train certain movement patterns I’m using certain muscle groups…
it doesn’t matter what you do in the gym, if you’re lifting something it’s a movement pattern…
[quote]DPH wrote:
Shadowzz4 wrote:
Functional strength is usually strength developed or used through a movement pattern rather than a muscle group. Though increasing the strength and or cross-sectional area of a muscle group increases the functional strength of the movement pattern it is associated with too.
movement pattern = more blowhard guru speak…
everytime a human moves it’s a movement patter…wiping my ass is a movement pattern, jacking-off is a movement pattern, flipping through channels with a remote control is a movement pattern…so fucking what!
“train movement patterns not muscle groups blah, blah, blah”…
every god damned time a human moves he’s using muscles in a movement pattern!
if I train certain muscle groups I’m using certain movement patterns…if I train certain movement patterns I’m using certain muscle groups…
it doesn’t matter what you do in the gym, if you’re lifting something it’s a movement pattern…[/quote]
Personally I do not believe that intelligent thought is a pattern you follow .
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Personally I do not believe that intelligent thought is a pattern you follow .[/quote]
That was lame. I agree with him. “Movement pattern” means nothing. It is speudo-scientific personal trainer jargon. Anytime you move it is within a plane of movement. Unless you can describe for me a time when your skeletal muscles are moving and NOT moving in a “movement pattern” then that definition is utter bullshit. Using big words doesn’t make you smarter. Being able to see truth behind bullshit does a better job at that.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Personally I do not believe that intelligent thought is a pattern you follow .
That was lame. I agree with him. “Movement pattern” means nothing. It is speudo-scientific persoinal trainer jargon. Anytime you move it is within a plane of movement. Unless you can describe for me a tiome when your skeletal muscles are moving and NOT moving in a “movement pattern” then that definition is utter bullshit. Using big words doesn’t make you smarter. Being able to see truth behind bullshit does a better job at that.[/quote]
Please do not make me look up the words movement and pattern. So you will admit they have meaning
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Personally I do not believe that intelligent thought is a pattern you follow .[/quote]
I must say I’m in awe of your world class debating skills…
instead of addressing the points I’ve made, you make a weak attack on my intelligence…truly the work of a master…what tactic do you plan on following up with? calling me a doodie-head?
impressive indeed!
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Please do not make me look up the words movement and pattern. So you will admit they have meaning
[/quote]
Why would I need to look it up? Scratching my ass is a “movement pattern”. Therefore, I am functionally strong enough to scratch my own ass. To place some importance on this beyond the simple fact that you get good at what you practice doing is ridiculous.