Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum

This is an article i read that seems like it explains the title of this post really well. it also has a couple of other links to look at along the way.

http://www.athletes.com/fun/kelly8.htm

__________________
OH SHIT!!!! ITS THE COPS!!!!

You clearly don't know shit about fuck - KANE

You're not some sort of mystical creature that is immune to a training effect- KANE

I wish there was an entity that represented the term "injury" if it was, i would find it and beat the living shit out of it!!!!!

yes......i just type and press enter, i dont proofread i did enough of that in college. you know what i meant when i typed it anyway

Finally got around to reading that, Monsta. KB is a smart guy but I'm not sure that he's on the mark with regards to functional strength. Functional strength, whether or not there is anything to "functional training, has to do with motor qualities. He hasn't really said anything about "function" in a broader sense. If you do bench press and get stronger than you have "functional" strength for that endeavor. Kind of a fancy way of saying that strength training is specific. But if you do explosive squats to get a better 800 meter sprint? Squats are not "functional" to sprinting. To your brain they are different things and it's about joints and a thousand other things, not just muscles. You would still have to sprint in order to train that function. So I'm not sure he is saying much there. I know he knows what he is talking about, I just don't think he is saying a whole lot in that article. I mean, it all came down to using different rep ranges. Kinda basic to all strength training.

The basic idea of "functional strength" has to do with the strength gains from "training" actually enhancing the movements or functions or whatever athletic or other activities you are engaged in. I think it's more about the way the brain runs the muscles than it is just about explosivity.

I understand the point about speed or explosivity being key, and that this would be considered "functional" for an athlete who needs it, but MOVEMENT, is specific. Doing a certain thing mostly makes you better at that thing. But saying that a certain strength quality is functional isn't the same thing as defining functional strength as a certain strength quality.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
or
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


If you act sanctimonious I will just list out your logical fallacies until you get pissed off and spew blasphemous remarks.

i understand what you are saying. i dont agree with everythign he wrote but i kind of posted it just so people can get an idea of functional strength in general. you knwo how some guys say they want to get stronger so they go to the gym and get straight on the bench and thats all they do. no squats, no deads no military press.

i was hoping that posting that would lead to some people understanding that 3 sets on the bench and 10 minutes on the treadmill wont get you to be in incredible hulk.

it wasnt the best example but when i read it i was thinking it might help

Def..I agree. I'm not trying to criticize your posts. It's just a discussion thing. You're talking about balanced training. I'd call that "being strong as opposed to being hare-brained"

I'm not really saying he said anything that was incorrect anyway. Just incomplete. It would be like me saying speed work is strength training when if course it is only one possible aspect of it.

lol i know you arent just gettign at my post. i think the more input the better when anythign is being discussed. just like your signature says "Open minds disagree. Closed minds disregard". so i think all that stuff is helpful

I love it when the pro's stop kissing each other's asses and say what they really think. Here see Michael Boyle take it to Charles Stahley...kind of

It's a thing on functional training.

http://www.michaelboyle.biz/joomla/d...ally_Is-V3.pdf

LOL!! Thanks for posting that.

Jeff

Interesting article eric, I agree with him on many points, I always looked at functional training as "useful" or as "purpose driven" sort of like what the article talks about.

__________________
I don't do this for my family, my friends, women, accolades, pride, or ego. I do it for me and no one else, its just part of who I am.

Yeah, he kind of "wrote the book on it" but of course there are many other things, I'm sure, that could be said about it. Never wanna go with just one source. My biggest reason for posting it is the honesty of it

word, I like how he talks about the stability ball training, and things like it. I look at these people in my gym, who have paid to get a trainer, and 99% are all doing the same thing, I see it day after day. the guy puts them on a s. ball, they do db press, or they stand on the half ball and do curls, or whatever. Then he has them hang upside down with grav boots and do cruches.

I feel bad for these people because they dont know any better, and they think they are getting functional training. If you stand on the half ball, and do curls with 15lbs, guess what your accomplishing ... your going to get amazingly good at ... wait for it .......... standing on the half ball, and curling 15lbs, congrats, thats hella usefull.