I'm Not Functional

[quote]JoeGood wrote:
Its a byproduct of dismissing the thing you don’t like. Some people can’t accept that different people want different things

Its the same principle as some guys on here who slam on anything that isn’t their version of bodybuilding.

Do your thing, be happy with it.[/quote]

QFT

since when is a 500lb load stable? That’s what I don’t get. Taking a load and flexing your hips and knees and then reversing it…
Single limb has its place, but c’mon.

[quote]MsM wrote:
Do you have any article links?[/quote]

Here:

http://www.take-it-like-a-man.com/

[quote]malonetd wrote:
MsM wrote:
Do you have any article links?

Here:

http://www.take-it-like-a-man.com/

[/quote]

lol?

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
Whenever someone makes a comment about BBers and functionality. I say “But the BBer lives in the gym and lives to squat, deadlift and OH press etc. His training reflects this, making him very good at his chosen activity.”

I also say “You will be crap in the gym but good on the field. He will excell in the gym but be crap on the field. SInce he wants to be in the gym and not on the field, he is superbly functional for what he wants to do.”

I had some 20 year old kid on my course try to tell me that standing on a swiss ball is more functional than a barbel OH press.

I countered with “What are you more likely to experience in everyday life? Pushing something overhead, or standing on a wobbly surface?” He shut up and now asks me for advice on squat technique, lol.

Bushy
[/quote]

Yes.

Whenever I see someone posts these rants that stem from conversation in “real life” i always wonder about the individual’s conversation skills and ability to debate. I’ve had conversations similar to this and rarely have these frustrations. I might not get them to agree with me, but I can at least get them to see my point of view.

Maybe I don’t run into as many stupid people.

I think you’re not functional when you can’t accomplish basic things like scratching your shoulder, bending over to touch your knee, jumping, swimming… because your training or physique makes it impossible. But that’s freakingly rare and people are really going crazy with the whole “functional not muscular” thing.

It’s just a wonderful excuse for having a shit physique.

[quote]MsM wrote:

Some bags have handles and some do not. How could you change your training to accommodate this? Do you have any article links?[/quote]

I cannot think of any article that addresses this problem. However from personal experience, the bags with handles are much more functional. I’m able to carry a week’s worth of groceries for 5 people, plus the 30 rack of water bottles to my car in one trip.

The bags without the handles require skills of balance and loading. Much more suited to the theatrical types, like Cirque du Soleil.

This shit came about because some people feel the need for there to be some new thing coming out. Some new gadget that is “groundbreaking” with what it can do. The things that get the most results are usually the hardest to do. So its people who want the results without putting in the work. You see this with infomercials that have statements along the lines of…

  1. “Stop dieting and starving yourself.”

  2. " why bother spending time in the gym when you can get results like these (post ripped pic of man and woman) in just minutes a day all in the comfort of your own home.

What would the old time lifters of years past think if they saw these Bosu ball gymnastics?

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
What would the old time lifters of years past think if they saw these Bosu ball gymnastics?[/quote]

It would be like telling your great grandmother she can have sex without getting pregnant. Blasphemy!

[quote]Yo Momma wrote:
MsM wrote:

Some bags have handles and some do not. How could you change your training to accommodate this? Do you have any article links?

I cannot think of any article that addresses this problem. However from personal experience, the bags with handles are much more functional. I’m able to carry a week’s worth of groceries for 5 people, plus the 30 rack of water bottles to my car in one trip.

The bags without the handles require skills of balance and loading. Much more suited to the theatrical types, like Cirque du Soleil.

[/quote]

Now that is functional at its finest!

I had an idea. In order to prepare for putting groceries away should an earthquake commence, we should all be training functionally by balancing on a bosu ball while putting away the bags of groceres and the case of water.

Unilateral lunges while holding economy sized canned goods should also help if you ever plan on climbing stairs with said bags and water. Otherwise, you might never make it.

I just want to say I love this thread. Luckily no one really ever tries to talk to me about this BS in real life - and anyone that does I automatically assume is just jealous that they are still 150lb skrawny bitch who can’t even deadlift his own BW and don’t waste my time listening to what they have to say.

A lot of good posts already. Functional gets a bad rap by people who do all the retarded balance ball stuff with 10lb weights. Functional is supposed to mean that you train using movements that approximate real life uses of your body.

For instance doing a deadlift is functional. Doing a triceps extension is not. At least that’s what I think of when I think functional.

However, if by doing a triceps extension you increase your shoulder press max then it ends up becoming functional…confusing eh?

Functional seems to get blurred with ‘athletic’ too much. That’s when people get into dumb arguments where someone says being 250lbs at 5’10" isn’t functional because you’re slow and inflexible.

The 250lb guy might not be as athletic for certain sports, but he’s going to be more “functional” at lifting heavy things or robbing old ladies.

There is a certain degree of validity to the notion that larger muscles can be less “functional.” A muscle with a greater circumference relative to its length is less mechanically efficient due to the greater angle of the peripheral fibers to the line of the muscle’s attachment point.

What this means is that very large muscles, such as those of bodybuilders, are less strong relative to their mass than the smaller muscles of athletes such as gymnasts and decathletes. It’s also why endurance sports select skinny athletes.

[quote]ryanjm wrote:

For instance doing a deadlift is functional. Doing a triceps extension is not. At least that’s what I think of when I think functional.
[/quote]

Pure, uncut bullshit.

you know everyone wants to be that bad ass mofo mario lopez!

hes the shit!

Sarcasm.

Athleticism has many components, size and strength are important but not the only thing. Train for your goals and don’t worry about fools.

[quote]malonetd wrote:
MsM wrote:
Do you have any article links?

Here:

http://www.take-it-like-a-man.com/[/quote]

How is that working out for ya?

[quote]ryanjm wrote:
A lot of good posts already. Functional gets a bad rap by people who do all the retarded balance ball stuff with 10lb weights. Functional is supposed to mean that you train using movements that approximate real life uses of your body.

For instance doing a deadlift is functional. Doing a triceps extension is not. At least that’s what I think of when I think functional.

However, if by doing a triceps extension you increase your shoulder press max then it ends up becoming functional…confusing eh?

Functional seems to get blurred with ‘athletic’ too much. That’s when people get into dumb arguments where someone says being 250lbs at 5’10" isn’t functional because you’re slow and inflexible.

The 250lb guy might not be as athletic for certain sports, but he’s going to be more “functional” at lifting heavy things or robbing old ladies.[/quote]

yea, look at this non-functional turd doing a non-functional exercise…

- YouTube (skip to about 3 minutes in)

How is this not functional?

Now this guy knows how to put groceries away!

This guy is where it’s at although it’s pushing the functional definition because how often would you seriously have a barbell on your back?