Dogma

[Waldo]

I think there is a lot of confusion by everyone both in and out of the iron game, about the purposes of training. Bodybuilders rarely train for limit strength while powerlifters rarely condition well. Football players train for both but outside of some vanity curls train very little for physique. Crossfitters train as prescribed or to compete, while Strongmen train limit strength and endurance, but their 40 time and six pack are irrelevant. The only common thread between any of these people is that they use a barbell in pursuit of their goals. The problem is, that is where the similarity stops and that confuses the shit out of just about everyone.

And everyone mocks bodyweight training.

Or did. The times are a changing, I've seen far, far more acceptance of it recently vs. when I first started in all the various places I visit.

[El Exorcisto]

Anyone that hates on advanced forms of bodyweight training as a real mode of getting stronger is ill informed and of little taste. I didn't include it in my comparison because I don't know of any competitive forum for it but I obviously meant no disrespect.

[Why not?]

SteelShield, I just have to throw it out there... Type-a-ness sounds like Type-Anus.

Thank God I wasn't the only one...

[Why not?]

El Ex, it may surprise you to learn that I agree.  I'm not a fan of the "one size fits all" approach to fitness.  I received an excellent object lesson in this when I first got started in CrossFit and coerced my wife into working out with me

 

Some great explanations have been offered in this thread already.  I'd say the "n=1" experiment probably plays a large role.  People have a tendency to assume that others are like themselves, therefore, someone who is doing something different must be wrong.  I think the dogma bit comes in when people only know one method and, wanting to seem knowledgeable, insist that it's the only way to go.  It's a combination of ego and insecurity.

 

Personally I like to lift heavy things, I like to do bodyweight/gymnastic exercises, I like to run, and I like plyometrics, among other things, so I try to combine a bit of everything into my routine...if you can call it a routine.  Coming from a track and field/cross country background I'm very familiar with different approaches to fitness and the varied results that come from them.

 

For me the bottom line is are you having fun while getting fit?  If not, you should probably mix up your routine.  If you are and it's working, great.  This philosophy should, of course, be viewed through the lens of whether or not you are achieving your fitness goals.

 

Now that being said, if someone asks me for advice on non-specialized fitness, I'm going to advise a someone who comes from a CrossFit/track background.  That's what I know, that's what I've seen work.  It doesn't necessarily mean I think it's the only way, it's just the only approach I'm qualified to give advice on.

[Flex Luthor]

I believe the dogma that Exorcisto was referencing your case Why was the idea that being a crossfitter is the ideal way to exist as a human via the "functional" argument. If that's not your belief I might try communicating differently because that was the impression I got from the discussion.

[Why not?]

I believe the dogma that Exorcisto was referencing your case Why was the idea that being a crossfitter is the ideal way to exist as a human via the "functional" argument. If that's not your belief I might try communicating differently because that was the impression I got from the discussion.

The manner in which I communicated was admittedly defensive, after the idea of "functionality" was ridiculed when I proposed it for use in determining programming.  When defending a viewpoint, the natural tendency is to express why you feel that it is "better".

[El Exorcisto]

I think the issue was the narrow definition of the word "functional" compared to what the other posters in the topic defined it as. While you believe functional movements involve weight being moved over long distances, the rest of use believed that any movement with carry over into the real world is inherently functional. The defense of your definition is what led to the pissing matches.

 

Do you concede that nearly anything one does in the gym can be construed by our definition as functional?

[Why not?]

I think the issue was the narrow definition of the word "functional" compared to what the other posters in the topic defined it as. While you believe functional movements involve weight being moved over long distances, the rest of use believed that any movement with carry over into the real world is inherently functional. The defense of your definition is what led to the pissing matches.

 

Do you concede that nearly anything one does in the gym can be construed by our definition as functional?

Just for the sake of clarification, I'm going to quote CrossFit's definition of "functional movement", which is the one I use as well:

 

There are movements that mimic motor recruitment patterns that are found in everyday life. Others are somewhat

unique to the gym. Squatting is standing from a seated position; deadlifting is picking any object off the ground.They

are both functional movements. Leg extension and leg curl both have no equivalent in nature and are in turn non-

functional movements. The bulk of isolation movements are non-functional movements. By contrast the compound or

multi-joint movements are functional. Natural movement typically involves the movement of multiple joints for every

activity.

The importance of functional movements is primarily two-fold. First of all the functional movements are mechanically

sound and therefore safe, and secondly they are the movements that elicit a high neuroendocrine response.

 

It does not say that all isolation movements are non-functional, simply that most are.  I don't think our definitions are that different, this one just seems to have been further refined.  Functional movement doesn't necessarily mean weight being moved over long distances, but if you choose to move a weight over a long distance, you will, by definition, use a functional movement to do so.

[El Exorcisto]

So you view building muscles and not movements as inherently non-functional?

[Why not?]

So you view building muscles and not movements as inherently non-functional?

Non-functional in this instance does not literally mean "it has no function".  It simply refers to an exercise that has no direct application to a movement commonly used in "nature".

[Waldo]

Non-functional in this instance does not literally mean "it has no function".  It simply refers to an exercise that has no direct application to a movement commonly used in "nature".

I'm not sure you understand anything about what occurs when muscles are built and strengthened.

[El Exorcisto]

So you only define the general term functional in your terms but no one else's? It seems like you have fit into our definition of someone that preaches and follows the dogma of your training system and dismisses the others because they don't prescribe to it. This is exactly the topic I wanted to address in this discussion. Thank you.

[Waldo]

Certain groups have an us vs. them mentality and grossly stretch the truth about them. Noobs among us that know no thems tend to be totally insulated from reality about them.

For example, people (both Xfitters and powerlifters are guilty of this) who think bodybuilders are weak.

[Flex Luthor]

Non-functional in this instance does not literally mean "it has no function".  It simply refers to an exercise that has no direct application to a movement commonly used in "nature".

 

I agree with what Waldo said. Assistance exercises are a thing you might want to look up.

[Why not?]

So you only define the general term functional in your terms but no one else's? It seems like you have fit into our definition of someone that preaches and follows the dogma of your training system and dismisses the others because they don't prescribe to it. This is exactly the topic I wanted to address in this discussion. Thank you.

That conclusion was a bit of a leap.  I have been dismissive of nothing.

 

A group of people involved in a similar activity will often have words or phrases that they use to describe something that are used slightly differently from the Merriam-Webster definition.  This is one such case.  It's not a matter of dismissing anything, it's simply saying "this is how we define this term for our workout regimen".  Are you seriously getting all bent out of shape because someone chose to give a term a definition, within the context of a specific program, that you don't like?

Take a break from your dogma witch hunt and realize that's not what this is, it's simply a difference in terminology.

[Why not?]

I'm not sure you understand anything about what occurs when muscles are built and strengthened.

 

 

I agree with what Waldo said. Assistance exercises are a thing you might want to look up.

Read my post: DIRECT application.  What you are referring to is indirect application.  You're trying to create an argument where there isn't one.

[bigm141414]

Read my post: DIRECT application. What you are referring to is indirect application. You're trying to create an argument where there isn't one.

So functional in this sense is the same as sports specific on other terms. You train for what you are doing and on the side spend time doing accessory work that has indirect benefits toward your sport/functional movement.

Correct?

Sent from a phonical device. Please excuse the shortness

[El Exorcisto]

You've clarified and offered yourself up as the definition of what I was trying to understand, Why Not. I'm out.

[Why not?]

So functional in this sense is the same as sports specific on other terms. You train for what you are doing and on the side spend time doing accessory work that has indirect benefits toward your sport/functional movement.

Correct?

Sent from a phonical device. Please excuse the shortness

Well worded, yes.

[Why not?]

You've clarified and offered yourself up as the definition of what I was trying to understand, Why Not. I'm out.

Actually I've said nothing to support this, you've simply chosen to hear what you want to hear.  Rather ironic, given the context.

[Flex Luthor]

Strengthening your biceps has a direct carryover to pull up strength. Strengthening your triceps has a direct carryover to bench strength. Strengthening your quadriceps has a direct carryover to squat strength. I'm not sure I understand how assistance work is indirect.

[El Exorcisto]

Actually I've said nothing to support this, you've simply chosen to hear what you want to hear.  Rather ironic, given the context.

 

1. The issue with isolation exercises is that they serve essentially no purpose other than the exercise themselves, since it is rather unusual to use only one group of muscles in any movement encountered in life outside of a gym.

It does not say that all isolation movements are non-functional, simply that most are.  I don't think our definitions are that different, this one just seems to have been further refined.  Functional movement doesn't necessarily mean weight being moved over long distances, but if you choose to move a weight over a long distance, you will, by definition, use a functional movement to do so.

Non-functional in this instance does not literally mean "it has no function".  It simply refers to an exercise that has no direct application to a movement commonly used in "nature".

 It's not a matter of dismissing anything, it's simply saying "this is how we define this term for our workout regimen".

 

It seems to me that you have adopted a narrow view of the word functional that deviates greatly from that of others and are defending it quite vocally while simultaneously informing us that we should bend to your definition. You further define what I sought to understand. Again, I thank you.

[Why not?]

It seems to me that you have adopted a narrow view of the word functional that deviates greatly from that of others and are defending it quite vocally while simultaneously informing us that we should bend to your definition. You further define what I sought to understand. Again, I thank you.

Not so much.  I have explained to you how I use the word and why I do so.  At no point have I tried to convince you that you should think the same way I do.  You're essentially accusing me of being dogmatic and elitist for explaining my point of view.  That's just silly.

[Waldo]

Strengthening your biceps has a direct carryover to pull up strength. Strengthening your triceps has a direct carryover to bench strength. Strengthening your quadriceps has a direct carryover to squat strength. I'm not sure I understand how assistance work is indirect.

Likewise the aesthetic muscle groups are very functional for some movements. Show me a BBer with well developed upper pecs, delts, traps, and tris, and I'll show you someone that can lift a crap ton of weight over their head.

[Waldo]

Why do the gods of multiple postings mock me...?