"Functional Strength"

[#1 Klaus fan]

It's why many huge bodybuilders are extremely strong on isolation-type exercises and/or machines but cannot usually display world-class strength in multi-joint movements.

How did you arrive to this conclusion?

[Hulkotron]

I've "plowed" most of your mothers.

[Fortress]

How did you arrive to this conclusion?

Key word, "many".

[Coach is Back!]

Strength is strength. It is neither functional, nor unfunctional. It simply "is".

To your point, I wonder if you're arguing the more detailed issue of the ability to generate power, or force?

Force, or course, is a relationship between mass and acceleration.

Power is a relationship between energy used over a period of time.

To be "strong" means you can apply more force than one who is not. A strong man can more greatly accelerate the same mass as an unstrong man. This is greatly dependent on your ability achieve full activation of all fibers in a muscle group. Since contractions against near maximal resistance will almost certainly generate full activation of all fibers, activation is not the rate limiting step to force. The rate limiting step to force is the ability of each muscle fiber to contract and actually accelerate the mass. By being forceful, some men can accelerate loads others cannot because their muscle fibers are "powerful" enough to do so.

To be powerful means you can unleash stored energy in the muscles in a smaller period of time, than could a less powerful man. Or, similarly speaking you can unleash more energy in the same period of time. Well trained muscle fibers have superior energy/metabolic thresholds and adaptations that allow for more powerful muscle contractions (i.e. they produce more energy in the same time-frame as untrained muscle fibers). Each muscle fiber is more "energetically inclined".

We mistakenly confuse strength as functional or not. Rather, what we see as "functional" is the ability of a man to coordinate the power held in muscle fibers across varying muscle bodies, as opposed to the "unfunctional" man, who cannot coordinate this activity, and therefore be more forceful in certain planes. But being "functional" does not mean one inherently has muscle fibers that are more forceful or powerful. It is simply coordination. And coordination is a learned behavior practiced over the course of repetitive behavior.

To be functional requires repetition of a task. To be powerful or forceful does not require repetition of a specific task, per se, though it would certainly help.

The powerlifter is far more functional at the task of bench pressing than is the bodybuilder or the sprinter.

The sprinter is far more functional at the task of sprinting than is the bodybuilder or powerlifter.

The bodybuilder is far more functional at the task of doing rear delt raises (as you point out) than is the powerlifter or sprinter.

Because practice leads to functionality. Yet all three men may have the same ability to generate force in a muscle fiber, and have the same power output threshold. But the functionality of coordinating those force-generating powerful muscle fibers is the key. We qualitatively ascribe one man to be more "functional" than another, but those are our own personal prejudices at play in our belief that one activity is more functional than another. All activity is functional, if it accomplishes the task set before a man. It is unfunctional if it does not.

I think this is a great post but I have to argue on the simplicity of "strength is strength". It really isn't and I am speaking from an athletic prospective. Just because one can display power and strength in a weight room on a SAGITTAL plain does not mean that he/she cannot display it laterally. That's were the difference in training modalities comes in. Take a sprinter just as an example. Just because he has the power to run at full speed in a lineal sprint (stride length x stride frequency = speed and speed inevitably is power )  doesn't mean he has the power or joint integrity to change direction or properly decelerate.

A good example of this would be Milos and his leg injury when he tried to sprint a 40, tore his vastus medialis, torn ACL among a myriad of other injuries in that same run. Last year there was a record number of hamstring injuries in the NFL because of the lock and either not training or improper training. My point is that all training isn't the same. You just can't bench, squat, deadlift and power clean.  The training has to be designed to the specific athlete within the needs of his/her sport.

[chaos]

Functional strength is whats needed when I lift your moms fat ass off my bed and carry her to the front door and chuck her ass out on the porch.

Think some bench press and ab crunches would give me that kind of functional strength

[#1 Klaus fan]

Key word, "many".

Ok and you said world class strength which bodybuilders apart from 1 or 2 obviously don't have.

[snx]

I think this is a great post but I have to argue on the simplicity of "strength is strength". It really isn't and I am speaking from an athletic prospective. Just because one can display power and strength in a weight room on a SAGITTAL plain does not mean that he/she cannot display it laterally. That's were the difference in training modalities comes in. Take a sprinter just as an example. Just because he has the power to run at full speed in a lineal sprint (stride length x stride frequency = speed and speed inevitably is power )  doesn't mean he has the power or joint integrity to change direction or properly decelerate.

A good example of this would be Milos and his leg injury when he tried to sprint a 40, tore his vastus medialis, torn ACL among a myriad of other injuries in that same run. Last year there was a record number of hamstring injuries in the NFL because of the lock and either not training or improper training. My point is that all training isn't the same. You just can't bench, squat, deadlift and power clean.  The training has to be designed to the specific athlete within the needs of his/her sport.

I actually agree with everything you posted.

Maybe my first statement was a gross generalization. But I believe we're actually saying the same things, more or less.

Simply, that strength in one plane/activity doesn't translate to strength in another. Force and power are there in any trained athlete. The ability to coordinate muscle fiber power into a new activity, though, will always require training, repetition and coaching if very complex.

It's the same way an Olympic Lifter can't bench press the way a powerlifter can, yet both are athletic, strong, forceful and powerful. But each has learned patterns specific to their activity.

Or as Coach points out, deceleration is not something a 100m sprinter works on. So they aren't functionally strong in that activity. Yet a running back in the NFL cannot succeed without being able to deccelerate at a ridiculous rate. Both are forceful and as powerful as can be. Therefore, they are both strong. But each has chose to specialize that strength on an activity that maximizes athletic outcomes.

Strength is a qualitative descriptor for the quantitative force generating properties of a muscle fiber, which are derived from the power a fiber can create. Muscles are therefore trained to be powerful. The plane/activity in which we choose to train them defines the functionality of our power, hence the functionality of the force we can create, hence the functionality of our strength.  

But one can always argue the qualitative merits one type of functionality over another. Is the bodybuilder's functional strength any less useful than the running back, or the O-lifter, or the discus thrower, or the hay-bailer? If money is used to define the value of the functionality, then the answer is yes, for the most part. :-)

[Jadeveon Clowney]

what's athletic about powerlifting?

I actually agree with everything you posted.

Maybe my first statement was a gross generalization. But I believe we're actually saying the same things, more or less.

Simply, that strength in one plane/activity doesn't translate to strength in another. Force and power are there in any trained athlete. The ability to coordinate muscle fiber power into a new activity, though, will always require training, repetition and coaching if very complex.

It's the same way an Olympic Lifter can't bench press the way a powerlifter can, yet both are athletic, strong, forceful and powerful. But each has learned patterns specific to their activity.

Or as Coach points out, deceleration is not something a 100m sprinter works on. So they aren't functionally strong in that activity. Yet a running back in the NFL cannot succeed without being able to deccelerate at a ridiculous rate. Both are forceful and as powerful as can be. Therefore, they are both strong. But each has chose to specialize that strength on an activity that maximizes athletic outcomes.

Strength is a qualitative descriptor for the quantitative force generating properties of a muscle fiber, which are derived from the power a fiber can create. Muscles are therefore trained to be powerful. The plane/activity in which we choose to train them defines the functionality of our power, hence the functionality of the force we can create, hence the functionality of our strength.  

[snx]

what's athletic about powerlifting?

How would you define "athletic"?

[Coach is Back!]

IMO, this video displays an awesome example of athletic functional power with acceleration (especially when breaking through), deceleration and COD. Love him or hate him this was one of the beast runs ever..

[oldtimer1]

Strength is strength. It is neither functional, nor unfunctional. It simply "is".

To your point, I wonder if you're arguing the more detailed issue of the ability to generate power, or force?

Force, or course, is a relationship between mass and acceleration.

Power is a relationship between energy used over a period of time.

To be "strong" means you can apply more force than one who is not. A strong man can more greatly accelerate the same mass as an unstrong man. This is greatly dependent on your ability achieve full activation of all fibers in a muscle group. Since contractions against near maximal resistance will almost certainly generate full activation of all fibers, activation is not the rate limiting step to force. The rate limiting step to force is the ability of each muscle fiber to contract and actually accelerate the mass. By being forceful, some men can accelerate loads others cannot because their muscle fibers are "powerful" enough to do so.

To be powerful means you can unleash stored energy in the muscles in a smaller period of time, than could a less powerful man. Or, similarly speaking you can unleash more energy in the same period of time. Well trained muscle fibers have superior energy/metabolic thresholds and adaptations that allow for more powerful muscle contractions (i.e. they produce more energy in the same time-frame as untrained muscle fibers). Each muscle fiber is more "energetically inclined".

We mistakenly confuse strength as functional or not. Rather, what we see as "functional" is the ability of a man to coordinate the power held in muscle fibers across varying muscle bodies, as opposed to the "unfunctional" man, who cannot coordinate this activity, and therefore be more forceful in certain planes. But being "functional" does not mean one inherently has muscle fibers that are more forceful or powerful. It is simply coordination. And coordination is a learned behavior practiced over the course of repetitive behavior.

To be functional requires repetition of a task. To be powerful or forceful does not require repetition of a specific task, per se, though it would certainly help.

The powerlifter is far more functional at the task of bench pressing than is the bodybuilder or the sprinter.

The sprinter is far more functional at the task of sprinting than is the bodybuilder or powerlifter.

The bodybuilder is far more functional at the task of doing rear delt raises (as you point out) than is the powerlifter or sprinter.

Because practice leads to functionality. Yet all three men may have the same ability to generate force in a muscle fiber, and have the same power output threshold. But the functionality of coordinating those force-generating powerful muscle fibers is the key. We qualitatively ascribe one man to be more "functional" than another, but those are our own personal prejudices at play in our belief that one activity is more functional than another. All activity is functional, if it accomplishes the task set before a man. It is unfunctional if it does not.

You are using a skill argument. The informed will see a guy who punches really hard but can't bench 225 saying it's a practiced skill. It's a pure demonstration of power.

 In all real athletics like sprinting, punching, Olympic lifting, jumping,tackling an opponent and other true athletic movements requires a skill but make no mistake the most important is power to complete the task.

I think when talking about functional concerning lifting weights we are talking about improving athletic performance in a real sport. To say a bench press champion is functional in bench pressing is to misuse the context of what lifting is to improve athletic function.  The better statement would be will benching make you a better athlete in a real sport?

[snx]

You are using a skill argument. The informed will see a guy who punches really hard but can't bench 225 saying it's a practiced skill. It's a pure demonstration of power.

 In all real athletics like sprinting, punching, Olympic lifting, jumping,tackling an opponent and other true athletic movements requires a skill but make no mistake the most important is power to complete the task.

I think when talking about functional concerning lifting weights we are talking about improving athletic performance in a real sport. To say a bench press champion is functional in bench pressing is to misuse the context of what lifting is to improve athletic function.  The better statement would be will benching make you a better athlete in a real sport?

Will benching make you a better athlete in a real sport? I'll assume you mean something like football or hockey. Then yes - it would. Just like any other task used to improve muscle power, it has its place. If used properly.

I certainly wouldn't do only the bench press, that would be ludicrous. And benching has risks too - most notably the fact that athletes like to see how much they can bench (it's a man thing) and are prone to hurting themselves for the ego boost. The bench press is pretty safe, if you do it right and use it smartly as an adjunct to athletic development.

Put another way, I think have a strong pressing ability is important in athletics, such as football and hockey. No denying that. You can't also deny that the bench press is an important movement (though not the only) to boost the horizontal and vertical push. So of course the bench press makes you a better athlete. And therefore, the bench press is a functional movement, since by your definition, it improves athletic performance.

I'm being pedantic for a reason. We have yet to define why something is functional or not. And we continue to ascribe qualitative meaning to whether a movement or activity is functional or not.

It comes down to the basic definition: If it helps man perform the task in front of him, then it is functional in performing that task.

If having stronger pushing power helps a defensive lineman function successfully as a defensive lineman, and we hold that the bench press can serve the function of improving pushing power (since the bench press is capable of improving the power generating abilities of the pushing muscles), then ergo, the bench press is a functional movement for a defensive lineman.