T Nation

Funny 'Functional Strength' Comment

So I like doing short triathlons and check in on other forums relating to that. Recently there’s been a big deal made by a guy who wrote an article about how he couldn’t do a pull up and wondering if triatheletes like him really deserve the title of “most fit athletes” that they think they do.

So, after reading this article on guy decided to try benching and this is what he posted.

[q]Uuuuggh…I was pretty bored here at the shop, so I decided to go next door to see how I would fare on the flat bench press. I used to weigh 220 and could put up 305, starting around 215 and working my way up. Now, at 173 and just doing push-ups on a swiss ball, I could do no more then 2 sets of 10 reps at 185.

What an eye-opener…

Think I’ll just stick to that swiss ball and kettle balls[/q]

This next post is just pure gold.

[q]Yeah, but you now have functional strength as opposed to pretty strength. Consider that the vast majority of people out there can barely manage a pushup, and couldn’t even dream of pressing their weight even once…

John[/q]

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=1753204;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

Pretty strength?

I don’t know anyone that can bench press alot and no be able to do a pushup. LOL.

I’m a double threat, I’m pretty AND strong.

lol@ functional strength. wtf does that even mean? you can handle your own body weight? ok, well someone else can handle your bodyweight and then some. do these people train for the case of emergency where theyre hiking through the forest, snacking on their granola and stumble upon a rickity old bringe then an earthquake comes and knocks out all the planks so the only way they can cross is to do the monkey bar climb across the whole thing? functional training is fucking gay.

…consider most people who train for size and strength can handle the ultra taxation of a pushup.

[quote]funkhauser wrote:
I’m a double threat, I’m pretty AND strong.[/quote]

I’m pretty, strong, and rich! Beat that.

[quote]analog_kid wrote:
funkhauser wrote:
I’m a double threat, I’m pretty AND strong.

I’m pretty, strong, and rich! Beat that.
[/quote]

I’m pretty, strong, rich and a pimp.

Im pretty, strong, rich, pimping, AND prettaaaaaay functional.

[quote]Brant_Drake wrote:
So I like doing short triathlons and check in on other forums relating to that. Recently there’s been a big deal made by a guy who wrote an article about how he couldn’t do a pull up and wondering if triatheletes like him really deserve the title of “most fit athletes” that they think they do.

So, after reading this article on guy decided to try benching and this is what he posted.

[q]Uuuuggh…I was pretty bored here at the shop, so I decided to go next door to see how I would fare on the flat bench press. I used to weigh 220 and could put up 305, starting around 215 and working my way up. Now, at 173 and just doing push-ups on a swiss ball, I could do no more then 2 sets of 10 reps at 185.

What an eye-opener…

Think I’ll just stick to that swiss ball and kettle balls[/q]

This next post is just pure gold.

[q]Yeah, but you now have functional strength as opposed to pretty strength. Consider that the vast majority of people out there can barely manage a pushup, and couldn’t even dream of pressing their weight even once…

John[/q]

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=1753204;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

[/quote]

If I were you I would’ve just posted something like “functional for what?”

You guys are laughing but it is clear that quite a few members here think just like that. They just appear to be a little more afraid to post lately.

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
If I were you I would’ve just posted something like “functional for what?”[/quote]

“You can’t fix stupid.”

[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
Do these people train for the case of emergency where theyre hiking through the forest, snacking on their granola and stumble upon a rickity old bringe then an earthquake comes and knocks out all the planks so the only way they can cross is to do the monkey bar climb across the whole thing?[/quote]

Actually I do, but on the other hand, my therapist says I’m crazy.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
You guys are laughing but it is clear that quite a few members here think just like that. They just appear to be a little more afraid to post lately.[/quote]

thats great news. i wish Waterbury would assemble a ship and sail off to some deserted island with all the functional people where they can climb trees, toss sandbags, and do handstand competitons all free from the weak 240 lb oaths that cant even tie their shoes or walk up a flight of stairs with their unfunctional legs.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
You guys are laughing but it is clear that quite a few members here think just like that. They just appear to be a little more afraid to post lately.[/quote]

They still show up in the beginners section.

But you’re right, they have been on the decline. I think you scared them off.

[quote]Otep wrote:
Professor X wrote:
You guys are laughing but it is clear that quite a few members here think just like that. They just appear to be a little more afraid to post lately.

They still show up in the beginners section.

But you’re right, they have been on the decline. I think you scared them off.[/quote]

Nothin’ wrong with that. A lot of people seem to get this site confused with Mens Health these days.

lol…

185 is speed weight

Functional strength? 10 pushups is functional strength? Come the fuck on.

Now I might get some shit for this, but to me, yeah, some exercises are more functional than others. Its a relative term, really. The bench press is more functional than a tricep kickback, a squat is more functional than a bench press, a deadlift is more functional than a squat.

By comparison, I’d say the pushup is more functional than the bench press (yes this is just IMO) because a pushup involves all the core musculature needed to transfer the movement from the arms to the feet (you have to keep your stomach tight, glutes tight, serratus anterior is activated, etc). Basically, we’re built more for a pushup than a bench press. Its arguable that we’re even moreso built for a dip than a pushup.

But unless you’re doing a pushup with a significant amount of weight on your back, its ridiculous to call it “functional strength”.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Functional strength? 10 pushups is functional strength? Come the fuck on.

Now I might get some shit for this, but to me, yeah, some exercises are more functional than others. Its a relative term, really. The bench press is more functional than a tricep kickback, a squat is more functional than a bench press, a deadlift is more functional than a squat.

By comparison, I’d say the pushup is more functional than the bench press (yes this is just IMO) because a pushup involves all the core musculature needed to transfer the movement from the arms to the feet (you have to keep your stomach tight, glutes tight, serratus anterior is activated, etc). Basically, we’re built more for a pushup than a bench press.

But unless you’re doing a pushup with a significant amount of weight on your back, its ridiculous to call it “functional strength”.[/quote]

Great balls of bullshit.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Functional strength? 10 pushups is functional strength? Come the fuck on.

Now I might get some shit for this, but to me, yeah, some exercises are more functional than others. Its a relative term, really. The bench press is more functional than a tricep kickback, a squat is more functional than a bench press, a deadlift is more functional than a squat.

By comparison, I’d say the pushup is more functional than the bench press (yes this is just IMO) because a pushup involves all the core musculature needed to transfer the movement from the arms to the feet (you have to keep your stomach tight, glutes tight, serratus anterior is activated, etc). Basically, we’re built more for a pushup than a bench press.

But unless you’re doing a pushup with a significant amount of weight on your back, its ridiculous to call it “functional strength”.

Great balls of bullshit.
[/quote]

Whats bullshit about it, exactly?

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The bench press is more functional than a tricep kickback, a squat is more functional than a bench press, a deadlift is more functional than a squat.

By comparison, I’d say the pushup is more functional than the bench press (yes this is just IMO) because a pushup involves all the core musculature needed to transfer the movement from the arms to the feet (you have to keep your stomach tight, glutes tight, serratus anterior is activated, etc). Basically, we’re built more for a pushup than a bench press. Its arguable that we’re even moreso built for a dip than a pushup.

But unless you’re doing a pushup with a significant amount of weight on your back, its ridiculous to call it “functional strength”.
[/quote]

I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic.

Pushups are functional at making you better at doing pushups. Benching is functional for improving your bench press.

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The bench press is more functional than a tricep kickback, a squat is more functional than a bench press, a deadlift is more functional than a squat.

By comparison, I’d say the pushup is more functional than the bench press (yes this is just IMO) because a pushup involves all the core musculature needed to transfer the movement from the arms to the feet (you have to keep your stomach tight, glutes tight, serratus anterior is activated, etc). Basically, we’re built more for a pushup than a bench press. Its arguable that we’re even moreso built for a dip than a pushup.

But unless you’re doing a pushup with a significant amount of weight on your back, its ridiculous to call it “functional strength”.

I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic.

Pushups are functional at making you better at doing pushups. Benching is functional for improving your bench press.[/quote]

nods Ok, I can respect that definition of functional. For me, I tend to look at it as “is it something a primitive human would do? Is it a natural movement pattern?”. I cant think of many situations where you need to lay on your back and push something into the air… but I stand up all the time. Hence I consider the squat to be more functional than the bench. I cant imagine why someone would need to hold something over their head and squat down, but it makes sense that people need to pick stuff up off the ground. So I consider the deadlift to be more functional than an overhead squat.

This doesn’t mean I consider any exercise to be “nonfunctional”. Nonfunction would mean being relaxed and unused. Just, as I said before, some are more functional than others.

This doesn’t mean a “more functional” exercise (by my definion) is always to be preferred over a less functional one. If you want to be a powerlifter, of course you want to train your bench and not pushups. I dont see “functional” as an excuse to be weak. I especially dont see doing stuff on a wobble board or bosu ball to be “functional”, since there would be no time that a human in any natural environment would be on an unstable surface like that. I know there are a lot of people who make those assumptions as soon as someone says “functional”.