T Nation

Funny 'Functional Strength' Comment

excluding handicap people*********

If you bench more than 185lbs and can’t do a pushup your retarded.

If doing pushups builds your core? Your a weak fuck.

Functional is a word for simpletons that couldn’t comprehend specific strength. Unfortunately they took the word and ran with it, used it to describe anything that can make it seem like they are stronger than somebody who lifts. Are you telling me Arnie’ couldn’t do push-ups?

I’m actually thinking of switching to a more functional routine. Could someone help me out?

Here it is so far:

Barbell Good Mornings (to build my getting-up-in-the-morning functional strength)

Single-leg seated calf raises (So I can build my pedal-pushing strength when driving)

Single arm cable rows and pushes (for teeth brushing strength)

Weighted pelvic thrusts

Weighted keyboard typing Pyramids (thanks to trajj)

…am I missing anything?

[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]

He is a big scary guy

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
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.

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”.

[/quote]

The problem with that functional shit is that it immediately brings to mind the question “Functional for what?”

As you’ll see if this thread grows legs, everybody on the fucking planet has a different answer to that question. This guy thinks it means “What would a caveman do?” This guy thinks that it means “If it helps me move furniture, then it’s functional!” This guy thinks that it means “Would it help me climb shit?”

“Does it make me a better fighter?”
“Functional means it helps me do gymnastics!”
“If it improves my “core”, then it’s functional training!”

Nobody can agree on what the hell “functional” means when the term is used outside of a specific context. Thus, the term “Functional Strength” is a completely meaningless term.

You say that [quote]“I cant think of many situations where you need to lay on your back and push something into the air…”[/quote]

Funny you should mention it, but I find myself doing that exact thing twice a week. I guess the bench really IS “functional training”!

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
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.

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”.

[/quote]

I really just don’t see the point in defining functional in that way.

If you are training for any sport or activity that doesn’t occur in the weight room, any weightlifting exercise that you do is just general strength work and is in no way specific.

I don’t think it makes much difference at all whether a football player, sprinter, or boxer etc chooses incine dumbbell presses over weighted pushups, or one legged deadlifts over good mornings etc. In most cases there is very little point in trying to make weightroom work more specific. Lifting weights is simply to build strength in the appropriate muscles for whatever goal you are training for. I don’t think that it really matters what means are used to achieve the strenght increases.

The strength developed via weights can then be converted to more specific means via direct training, ie track work for a sprinter, sparring for a boxer, a climbing wall for a rockclimber etc.

Trying to be more functional often seems to lead to people choosing exercises that are much less efficient at building strength.

[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
I’m actually thinking of switching to a more functional routine. Could someone help me out?

Here it is so far:

Barbell Good Mornings (to build my getting-up-in-the-morning functional strength)

Single-leg seated calf raises (So I can build my pedal-pushing strength when driving)

Single arm cable rows and pushes (for teeth brushing strength)

Weighted pelvic thrusts

Weighted keyboard typing Pyramids (thanks to trajj)

…am I missing anything?[/quote]

One arm bicep curls to the mouth to train for eating Quater pounders. Start with a quater pound weight for the first rep and use a slightly lighter weight for each rep after that. This will simulate the decreasing weight of the burger as each bite is taken.

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Natural Nate wrote:
I’m actually thinking of switching to a more functional routine. Could someone help me out?

Here it is so far:

Barbell Good Mornings (to build my getting-up-in-the-morning functional strength)

Single-leg seated calf raises (So I can build my pedal-pushing strength when driving)

Single arm cable rows and pushes (for teeth brushing strength)

Weighted pelvic thrusts

Weighted keyboard typing Pyramids (thanks to trajj)

…am I missing anything?

One arm bicep curls to the mouth to train for eating Quater pounders. Start with a quater pound weight for the first rep and use a slightly lighter weight for each rep after that. This will simulate the decreasing weight of the burger as each bite is taken.

[/quote]

No no no, he needs heavier weights. What if he decides to splurge and get a 3/4 lb burger, and doesn’t have the functional core strength to get it to his mouth?

Seriously, to all the functional people, I say, get as big and strong in every plane and motion possible, and it’s hard to go wrong.

Take out seated calf and put in rotary if you want to be more fuctional.

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
The problem with that functional shit is that it immediately brings to mind the question “Functional for what?”

As you’ll see if this thread grows legs, everybody on the fucking planet has a different answer to that question. This guy thinks it means “What would a caveman do?” This guy thinks that it means “If it helps me move furniture, then it’s functional!” This guy thinks that it means “Would it help me climb shit?”

“Does it make me a better fighter?”
“Functional means it helps me do gymnastics!”
“If it improves my “core”, then it’s functional training!”

Nobody can agree on what the hell “functional” means when the term is used outside of a specific context. Thus, the term “Functional Strength” is a completely meaningless term.
[/quote]

Did some thinking about this post today, and I disagree. Just because the term can mean different things for different people doesn’t make it completely meaningless. Consider words like “art”. Everybody has a different definition of what art means, and its sometimes abused and bastardized. Does that make “art” a completely meaningless term?

I think the real problems with the term ‘functional’ are twofold: on one hand you have the people who abuse the term as an excuse to be weak, and on the other hand you have people oversensitive to the idea that what they do isn’t considered functional by others.

Even if a consensus was made as to what “functional training” or “functional strength” meant, everyone who has goals outside of that meaning would be clamoring for it to be changed in order to include what they do.

So what does it matter if my definition of an ambiguous term is different than yours? As long as I’m not attacking what you do or insinuating that what you is somehow inferior because its “less functional”, where is the problem?

[quote]

You say that “I cant think of many situations where you need to lay on your back and push something into the air…”

Funny you should mention it, but I find myself doing that exact thing twice a week. I guess the bench really IS “functional training”![/quote]

I never said the bench wasnt functional training. I said I see it as being less functional than pressing movements that involve more natural movement patterns (such as pushing yourself up off the ground or pushing yourself up to climb on something).

Again, it goes back to it being a relative term. Like “risk”, for example. Should we consider the term “risk” completely meaningless because everyone has a different definition of it? Since something is only risky as compared to something else, does that mean that everything is a risk therefore nothing is a risk (and by that logic, driving to the store is as much a risk as skydiving)?

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Natural Nate wrote:
I’m actually thinking of switching to a more functional routine. Could someone help me out?

Here it is so far:

Barbell Good Mornings (to build my getting-up-in-the-morning functional strength)

Single-leg seated calf raises (So I can build my pedal-pushing strength when driving)

Single arm cable rows and pushes (for teeth brushing strength)

Weighted pelvic thrusts

Weighted keyboard typing Pyramids (thanks to trajj)

…am I missing anything?

One arm bicep curls to the mouth to train for eating Quater pounders. Start with a quater pound weight for the first rep and use a slightly lighter weight for each rep after that. This will simulate the decreasing weight of the burger as each bite is taken.

[/quote]

I’m personally a big fan of the beer curl myself. I can handle a pint in each hand!

Why all the discussion over pointless terms and labels lately?

Since the ass is the only part of my body that I care what it looks like, I think that I’m going to start calling myself a dysfunctional, easygaining assbuilder.

An idea for progression for you.

[quote]christine wrote:
I’m personally a big fan of the beer curl myself. I can handle a pint in each hand!
[/quote]

[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
An idea for progression for you.

christine wrote:
I’m personally a big fan of the beer curl myself. I can handle a pint in each hand!

[/quote]

I think his form is off.

[quote]christine wrote:
Why all the discussion over pointless terms and labels lately?

Since the ass is the only part of my body that I care what it looks like, I think that I’m going to start calling myself a dysfunctional, easygaining assbuilder.[/quote]

Discussion over terms and labels involved in bodybuilding and training tend to happen on the forums on a website dedicated to bodybuilding and training.

Crazy, right?

[quote]christine wrote:
Doug Adams wrote:
An idea for progression for you.

christine wrote:
I’m personally a big fan of the beer curl myself. I can handle a pint in each hand!

I think his form is off.[/quote]

Yes,I agree…he’s not applying strict form or full ROM.

He’ll never grow.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
christine wrote:
Why all the discussion over pointless terms and labels lately?

Since the ass is the only part of my body that I care what it looks like, I think that I’m going to start calling myself a dysfunctional, easygaining assbuilder.

Discussion over terms and labels involved in bodybuilding and training tend to happen on the forums on a website dedicated to bodybuilding and training.

Crazy, right?[/quote]

You must be a hit at parties.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Discussion over terms and labels involved in bodybuilding and training tend to happen on the forums on a website dedicated to bodybuilding and training.

Crazy, right?[/quote]

Yep, and oftentimes people are making the exact same point, only wording it differently. Such is the case here.

Now this IS functional:

It kind of reminds me of a diesel truck racing a porsche

[quote]christine wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
christine wrote:
Why all the discussion over pointless terms and labels lately?

Since the ass is the only part of my body that I care what it looks like, I think that I’m going to start calling myself a dysfunctional, easygaining assbuilder.

Discussion over terms and labels involved in bodybuilding and training tend to happen on the forums on a website dedicated to bodybuilding and training.

Crazy, right?

You must be a hit at parties.[/quote]

What’s a party?

Hey X and Tiri-

Remember “I KO’ed Functional Training”?

Good times.