BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > General training questions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Unread 02-10-2009, 05:46 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Andy, I wrote like a 12 part series addressing this particular debate, I'm not going to write it up again here for your benefit. The whole argument is asinine. But please read the article series.

And the 400m example is because the usual argument used by the pro-interval dummies on the net is 'Compare a 400m runner to a marathoner, the 400m runner is leaner; hence you should train like a 400m runner'.

here's a question for you: do you have any idea how a 400m runner actually trains. What about the 100m. Compare and contrast that to the types of interval training pushed for fat loss.

Oh yeah, it's all in the article too.

The difference in body compsition between sprinters and marathoners is as much genetics and drugs as anything else. Saying it's because one sprints and one does distance training is absolutely asinine.

Sprinters aren't musclar and lean b/c they sprint (and sprint training for the 100m is nothing like the interval training pushed by people on the internet). They are muscular because they are black and lift weights and take drugs, and lean because they are lean.

Again, pleae take teh time to read the entire series on teh site before continuing with this. It's a waste of my time to write up the entirety of those 10-12 articles here.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Unread 02-10-2009, 05:48 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

As to the OP's qustion, I think using high level athletes as an example that 'regular weight training is bad' is incorrect. HIgh levels athletes pursue strength at a level that is irrelevant to general functioning.

My issue with 'functional' training at least as it is commonly practiced (e.g. the stupid crap you see in most weight rooms) is as stated: it doesn't accomplish anything of note. It doesn't make you stronger, it doesn't do anything for balance (balance not being a general characteristic), I think it's useless.

Basic strength and power production is a key to healthy aging. that odesn't mean you should try to bench press the world. That's the difference.

A functional training program should develop musculoskeletal strength, including a mix of bilateral and unilateral movements and should be balanced across joints (e.g. balance pushing and pulling in the horizontal and vertical planes, stuff lke that).

Maintanenance of metabolic conditioning (which can be a mix of steady state and interval) training is a good thing too.

Dicking around on a swiss ball isn't it.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Unread 02-10-2009, 05:53 PM
AndyAustin AndyAustin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Memphis, Tn
Posts: 59
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcd View Post
Yes, I agree, the general public should be flipping tires. You're joking, right?

No, I'm not joking. I see a movement which involves about 90% of the skeletal muscle in the body. Is it feasible from a space consideration? No. That doesn't devalue the merit of the movement.

I'm making an example, Andy. Bcause you know as well as I do that that is what a lot of functional training is. When I'm in commercial gyms and they are doing functional training that's what it is and yo uknow it.

Sure, but like I said, I'm slowly seeing a trend towards REAL functional training. Check out Monkey Bar Gym sometime.


Of more relevance, tell me how a DB clean and press will help someone in any aspect of their life. What does it train that will benefit them?
Picking up heavy objects and placing them in an overhead cabinet, for starters. Should we only do movements which exactly mimic life? How about movements which involve a great many muscle groups being called into play in a movement which not only builds strength, but proprioception and kinesthetic awareness as well?

Does there need to be direct carryover for a movement to be functional? If so, we need to design deadlift bars to the shape of laundry baskets or shopping bags...
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Unread 02-10-2009, 06:02 PM
AndyAustin AndyAustin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Memphis, Tn
Posts: 59
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcd View Post
Andy, I wrote like a 12 part series addressing this particular debate, I'm not going to write it up again here for your benefit. The whole argument is asinine. But please read the article series.

And the 400m example is because the usual argument used by the pro-interval dummies on the net is 'Compare a 400m runner to a marathoner, the 400m runner is leaner; hence you should train like a 400m runner'.




here's a question for you: do you have any idea how a 400m runner actually trains. What about the 100m. Compare and contrast that to the types of interval training pushed for fat loss.


Oh yeah, it's all in the article too.

The difference in body compsition between sprinters and marathoners is as much genetics and drugs as anything else. Saying it's because one sprints and one does distance training is absolutely asinine.

Sprinters aren't musclar and lean b/c they sprint (and sprint training for the 100m is nothing like the interval training pushed by people on the internet). They are muscular because they are black and lift weights and take drugs, and lean because they are lean.

Again, pleae take teh time to read the entire series on teh site before continuing with this. It's a waste of my time to write up the entirety of those 10-12 articles here.

I'll be happy to read the articles, and offer my opinion from them, thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Unread 02-10-2009, 07:17 PM
WarEagleAU WarEagleAU is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 30
Default

why do we need "functional" training in today's world? as long as you are a generally healthy and strong person there is no need for a bunch of special BS to function in modern society.
simply address certain issues and weaknesses and dont go overboard.

crossfit is just a bunch of guys running around getting tired. mostly people who are too old to play sports and fitness becomes their new hobby/sport.

instead, why not get the your squat up to 2xbw, dead to 2.5bw, military to BW, and then work on upping the reps on them? add in some sprinting and you'd be miiiiiles ahead of everyone in your gym in regards to 'functional' training. and youd be doing 4 things, all with a barbell.

do some joint mobility and eat right on top of it.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 02-10-2009, 07:45 PM
symbolic symbolic is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcd View Post
As to the OP's qustion, I think using high level athletes as an example that 'regular weight training is bad' is incorrect. HIgh levels athletes pursue strength at a level that is irrelevant to general functioning.

My issue with 'functional' training at least as it is commonly practiced (e.g. the stupid crap you see in most weight rooms) is as stated: it doesn't accomplish anything of note. It doesn't make you stronger, it doesn't do anything for balance (balance not being a general characteristic), I think it's useless.

Basic strength and power production is a key to healthy aging. that odesn't mean you should try to bench press the world. That's the difference.

A functional training program should develop musculoskeletal strength, including a mix of bilateral and unilateral movements and should be balanced across joints (e.g. balance pushing and pulling in the horizontal and vertical planes, stuff lke that).

Maintanenance of metabolic conditioning (which can be a mix of steady state and interval) training is a good thing too.

Dicking around on a swiss ball isn't it.
Thanks for the replies, Lyle. Your arguments about sprinters are spot on.

Regarding functional exercise, to use the benching example, I've really begun to wonder why we do it at all. I can't think of any example in life--except in weight lifting--in which an individual pushes an object of great mass away from the chest. For that matter, even the Olympic lifts seem "unnatural" or "non-functional." Holding a weighted bar in both hands while lifting it off the ground and thrusting it over head just doesn't seem very necessary. In other words, our body isn't "designed" for it. Before the activity of weight lifting, how would a human have developed the pectoral muscles? To me, natural pulling movements (e.g., lifting an unbalanced object off the ground or climbing) have more practical use. Perhaps throwing a spear would be a functional pushing movement. This, however, would entail power more than strength.

BTW, I realize that your writing has been geared towards athletic performance and body shape transformation. While I could critique those pursuits based on a range of culturally endemic physical and mental health concerns, I really don't begrudge anybody their interests as long as it doesn't harm others. From that standpoint, your writing is fantastic for those pursuing athletic performance and body "recomposition." As a separate project, would you consider writing on exercise and diet for general health? This is what interests me. The idea of "functional" pertains to achieving what our bodies are best designed to accomplish without injury, with a goal of maximum health in the broadest possible sense. Extreme performance, a la Crossfit (and their revered rhabdomyolysis), is non-functional and the antithesis of true fitness.

Last edited by symbolic : 02-10-2009 at 07:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Unread 02-10-2009, 09:35 PM
banderbe banderbe is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by symbolic View Post
While I could critique those pursuits based on a range of culturally endemic physical and mental health concerns
I would be fascinated to hear you expound on this topic. I think we could all discuss it without hurting anyone's feelings.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Unread 02-10-2009, 09:50 PM
deadby10's Avatar
deadby10 deadby10 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 82
Lightbulb

who gives a I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.? lift weights.
__________________
"When my mother was pregnant with me, they did an ultrasound and found she was having twins. When they did another ultrasound a few weeks later, they discovered that I had resorbed the other fetus. Do I regret this? No. I believe his tissue has made me stronger. I now have the strength of a grown man and a little baby."
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Unread 02-10-2009, 11:21 PM
AndyAustin AndyAustin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Memphis, Tn
Posts: 59
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by symbolic View Post
Thanks for the replies, Lyle. Your arguments about sprinters are spot on.

Regarding functional exercise, to use the benching example, I've really begun to wonder why we do it at all. I can't think of any example in life--except in weight lifting--in which an individual pushes an object of great mass away from the chest. For that matter, even the Olympic lifts seem "unnatural" or "non-functional." Holding a weighted bar in both hands while lifting it off the ground and thrusting it over head just doesn't seem very necessary. In other words, our body isn't "designed" for it. Before the activity of weight lifting, how would a human have developed the pectoral muscles? To me, natural pulling movements (e.g., lifting an unbalanced object off the ground or climbing) have more practical use. Perhaps throwing a spear would be a functional pushing movement. This, however, would entail power more than strength.


The clean in basic form actually differs very little from someone lifting a heavy object off the floor and shouldering it. Snatches likely have much less functional value. They are a very pretty lift to watch done right, but the same training effect is achieved with the clean. The jerk(or, it's cousin, the push press) is actually more of a natural movement pattern than a simple standing press, since in real world movements the object would usually first be moved upward by dipping and driving up with the legs.If one were to get nitpicky, it could also be said that the body isn't "designed" to place a metal bar across the shoulders and squat with it. If we are to go that route, let's just do away with any sort of commercial resistance training apparatus altogether, as none really mimic what happens in the real world.

Or, we could look at the value of heavy, closed kinetic chain multi-joint exercises and what they offer as far as strength increase, LBM increase, and body fat DECREASE.

If we want to look at what is "unnatural", we should also look at running great distances on surfaces like pavement, cement, and treadmills. THAT is something the body is not designed to withstand for very long.




BTW, I realize that your writing has been geared towards athletic performance and body shape transformation. While I could critique those pursuits based on a range of culturally endemic physical and mental health concerns, I really don't begrudge anybody their interests as long as it doesn't harm others. From that standpoint, your writing is fantastic for those pursuing athletic performance and body "recomposition." As a separate project, would you consider writing on exercise and diet for general health? This is what interests me. The idea of "functional" pertains to achieving what our bodies are best designed to accomplish without injury, with a goal of maximum health in the broadest possible sense. Extreme performance, a la Crossfit (and their revered rhabdomyolysis), is non-functional and the antithesis of true fitness.
Crossfit is the antithesis of fitness? No, sitting on your butt eating donuts is the antithesis of fitness. The movements done in Crossfit are in no way the problem. A medicine ball toss is actually a very functional movement. It's the fact that some of the Crossfit trainers think that everyone should be as gung ho about it as they which causes the problems. The movements done by top level athletes and those just seeking better fitness should be by and large the same. The loading parameters will obviously be different, but the neophyte fitness trainee who's goal is to simply improve health has the exact same muscles, the exact same origins and insertions as the top level athlete.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Unread 02-11-2009, 07:15 AM
deadby10's Avatar
deadby10 deadby10 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by symbolic View Post
Thanks for the replies, Lyle. Your arguments about sprinters are spot on.

Regarding functional exercise, to use the benching example, I've really begun to wonder why we do it at all. I can't think of any example in life--except in weight lifting--in which an individual pushes an object of great mass away from the chest. For that matter, even the Olympic lifts seem "unnatural" or "non-functional." Holding a weighted bar in both hands while lifting it off the ground and thrusting it over head just doesn't seem very necessary. In other words, our body isn't "designed" for it. Before the activity of weight lifting, how would a human have developed the pectoral muscles? To me, natural pulling movements (e.g., lifting an unbalanced object off the ground or climbing) have more practical use. Perhaps throwing a spear would be a functional pushing movement. This, however, would entail power more than strength.

BTW, I realize that your writing has been geared towards athletic performance and body shape transformation. While I could critique those pursuits based on a range of culturally endemic physical and mental health concerns, I really don't begrudge anybody their interests as long as it doesn't harm others. From that standpoint, your writing is fantastic for those pursuing athletic performance and body "recomposition." As a separate project, would you consider writing on exercise and diet for general health? This is what interests me. The idea of "functional" pertains to achieving what our bodies are best designed to accomplish without injury, with a goal of maximum health in the broadest possible sense. Extreme performance, a la Crossfit (and their revered rhabdomyolysis), is non-functional and the antithesis of true fitness.

you ever read any of de vanys stuff? sounds like you may have alot more in common with his train of thought.
__________________
"When my mother was pregnant with me, they did an ultrasound and found she was having twins. When they did another ultrasound a few weeks later, they discovered that I had resorbed the other fetus. Do I regret this? No. I believe his tissue has made me stronger. I now have the strength of a grown man and a little baby."
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.