And yet you know it when you see it, so it does mean something. Just because it’s a bit hard to define does not negate its existence. Example (hear me out)...The normal squat vs. the single leg Bavarian squat. The bilateral squat is *less* a functional movement than the Bavarian single leg squat because humans seldom exert extreme forces on two planted legs. Now don’t go aflame on me, we all know bilateral squats are awesome strength developers, it’s just that in sport and in life what humans generally do is transfer force from one leg to the next....this involves some other vectors in adductive and abductive control the bilateral training wont emphasize. Thus, while hard to draw a clean line around it, acknowledged, “functional training” is training that attempts to simulate more closely the actual movement demands placed on the body under stress. The bozu ballers’ hearts are in the right place on destabilizing while lifting, its just that they’ve gone way out of reality by lightening the load (too much) and putting the emphasis on balance (too much). If you don’t believe me read Mike Boyle’s book “Advances In Functional Training”....not easy to dismiss him.
@E Jay I get where you're going. Now hear me out. If you do just the back squat, you will find that not only does the squat progress, but your lunges get stronger, your split squat gets stronger, your core gets stronger, your run/gait gets more explosive. If you do just the bulgarian split squat the only thing that will improve is the split squat (and it won't even improve as well as it would if you just did squats). So although the split squat looks more "functional" the regular squat is still objectively more functional because of its carryover to every leg exercise and your daily life. As an mma fighter/ jiu jitsu athlete I find strength coaches are always tring to pick exercises that "look like fighting." When in reality the squat, deadlift, press, sled and jumps are the only things that have ever made me a stronger, faster fighter.
"[Functional training] is the bastard child of strength and conditioning, and it must be stopped." Don't be so tactful that we can't tell how you feel, Rip. Take a stand! (On two legs, apparently. With a barbell on your back. Not too high on your back).
i always start workouts with barbell strength training. but there are definitely some days where i do a little circuit at the end for fun. and i always include a kettlebell movement (swing/ turkish get-up/snatch) after strength training. my shoulders have never felt better since doing TGUs and my conditioning hasnt been better since i started doing 100 swings or snatches. this is not some false dichotomy, do everything to be well rounded
With all due to respect to Mark, from whom I have learned most of what I do in the gym, he is mischaracterizing functional training. True, there is a light-weight/balance board variety, but this is not the complete picture. Kettlebells of up to very heavy weights and and extremely challenging calisthenics such as planches, levers, and gymnastic ring work or even heavy loaded cable movements that engage the entire body are also “functional training”. Pushing a tank or advanced pull-ups variations such as the arbor pull up are also functional training. These require immense strength and skill both, while creating excellent physical control with generally low injury rates. The “low weight “ Mark refers to in the functional training field is a training flaw no different than use of low/non-challenging weights often seen amongst naive barbell enthusiasts. It is not the mode of training itself but its poor application to strength development principles that is the culprit. Mark, please address this before you make a statement that functional training “must be stopped”. Poor functional training should be stopped, but no more so than poor barbell training or poor training of any other kind. There is most definitely a strength progression possible in functional training.
Calisthenics/Street Workout is not what Mark talked about... Planches, Levers, and gymnastic rings all belong to gymnastics family, gymnastics is not considered to be functional training at the exact same way that snatches are not functional training, even though one can argue that the whole body function in those movements. bottom line, gymnastic is gymnastic, O lift is O lifts, and functional training according to what mark described is the way commercial gyms and poor quality trainers make their money of,
Unless you have gone through your LP and milked it for all it’s got, you don’t have time or metabolic resources for extra stuff. After said time you can do condition, but not before. Time is short.
stevanstevan S you have to do the platform assessment for movement and coaching, and the written exam. They do have seminars in London now on the schedule.
Crossfit had lowered the Standards for many Exercises in order to accommodate the general population. by doing so they completley destroyed the exercises themselves and along the way, the people who are performing those exercises under CrossFit standarts which are pretty low ... for example , A pullup that got stuck on level 0 (kipping) the Handstand pushup that is never performed as an actual handstand but with wall assisted, the pistol squat that is performed with half of the rang of motion, the rope climbing that is done with leg assisted, the Olympics weightlifting which is aimed to reps instead of maximum force and so on .... Crossfit stands for POOR QUALITY EXERCISES. I would like to seperate the people from the sport because there are very talented people in CrossFit, but their talent is restricted by crossfit LOW STANDARDS !!!!
Well, if you look at the Crosssfit Games there are plenty of events which demonstrate the opposite of what you are saying. I have seen events where people must climb the rope with just arms, Clean and Jerk looking for maximum weight. So, it is not like whenever you see Crossfit, you will end up watching poor quality exercises...
How much weight are you moving when performing a pull up? Your body weight. How far are you moving that weight? The distance from your arms locked out to chin over the bar. I think we can agree? How much weight are you moving when performing a kipping pull up? Your body weight. How far are you moving that weight? The distance from your arms locked out to chin over the bar. The only difference is the speed with which you get the work done. (Force x Distance) / Time = Power Therefore kipping and butterfly pull ups are more power based. If you are trying to test a purely strength modality, that's different. But CrossFit tests broad time and modal domains. Strength is only one component of fitness. There are ten total.
Functional training is fundementally the method of training correct movement coupled with the science of the body involving movement ,of which is very complicated and requires years of study.And in general CrossFit coaches do not have the education in the science of functional training, as don't most commercial trainers. I took courses in kinisiology, nerve function of specific muscles, physiology, injury pathology and rehab, science of respiration function. With all my studies I still have a lot more to study to know Functional training thoroughly,so what I am saying is unless one takes premed course in college they should not go around talking out of their ear about functional training.
My general point is that Mark is ridiculing the easy target part of functional training, but not all functional training is light weight and balance-intensive. If you want to exclude gymnastics from this, how about all the various anti-rotational work you can do with cables machines and the land-mine. These can be loaded without limit and build strength in ways the barbells cannot. There is good functional training and there is useless functional training. He should distinguish that. And by the way, being lean is not only a matter of vanity but of health. The gut he’s packing is early stage obesity, that isn’t good for your insides, ie blood sugar, cholesterol, and heart health. Doesn’t diminish his coaching ability as he defends, but it also doesn’t set a very good example either. Jack LaLane would never have let himself look like that. Dan John has worked hard with his weight issues. Mark is just rationalizing a weakness. Yes, he is a brilliant explainer of barbell training, the best ever maybe, but he’s also being a bit of an ass in regard to certain things. This makes it harder for me to use him as the model in my gym for ultimate trainer.
E Jay Anti-Rotation is pretty useless once you learn to stabilize your spine with basic barbell movements with 400+ pounds on the squat and deadlift. How do I know this? Actually do it and see what happens. Get your bench to about 1.5x BW for 5 reps, get your deadlift to about 2x BW for 5 reps. People that have these numbers are typically able to do a perfect single arm-pushup, shoulders and hips parallel to the floor.
Even under heavy loading, you’re not grasping the difference between the force generation differences between the sagittal plane (SQ’s, DL, Bench) and the transverse plane (twisting, or rather not twisting). Anti-rotational work changes the abdominal muscles from stabilizers - which is good yes - to agonists. That’s different. I’d say about anti-rotational work what George Michael said about sex, not every does it, but everybody should.
+E Jay I think you've pretty well missed Jordan's point. You develop the ability to resist rotation in your trunk by doing basic barbell training. That's why people with the aforementioned lifts can do one-arm pushups with little or no specific training for them, and why specific anti-rotation training is unnecessary. At least, that's Jordan's claim. I don't know anyone who can do any of those things, so I can't vouch for them. Also, I'm pretty sure the abdominals are still stabilizers- not agonists- in just about every anti-rotation exercise out there.
The way to look at this is that you can lift more near the biceps tendon rather than at the hand, but the hand moves faster than the end of the biceps tendon.
You're right they are not the class of levers that were designed to increase mechanical advantage. I think what he meant is the skeleton is what we use to display our force.
My comment was wrong, the skeletal levers do multiply force...by numbers between 0 and 1 distally from the tendon and numbers greater than 1 nearer to the joint being moved. Ripp is technically correct once again!
"You may have the healthiest heart and lungs on the planet, but if you're not strong enough to get out of a chair without help, your daily activities are less pleasant than they could be. " Yes, but the reverse is also true. If you have an 800lb. deadlift, but not the cardiovascular capacity to climb a flight of stairs without panting, or the aerobic fitness to go on a hike, you're going to be pretty miserable. Strength training is great. I love it, and I love barbells. But the truth of the matter is, non-athletes don't need to be able to deadlift or squat more than 2x bodyweight, and generally 1.5x your weight is more than enough unless you're doing serious manual labor.
Joel Henderson FYI - strength training is like intense HIIT. If you can deadlift 800 there’s a super high likelihood be able to get out of a chair without panting.
+Mike Viggiani Again, this goes both ways, and in no way says anything about the relative importance of strength vs cardiovascular fitness. In other words, if you run a 5 minute-mile, there's a super high likelihood you'll be strong enough to get out of a chair without help. Please, don't give me an FYI about that. As I said in my comment, I enjoy strength training myself, so I know it offers cardiovascular benefits (though it's absolutely NOT like HIIT). My point was that Rippetoe presented a false dichotomy, and misrepresented the importance of one vs the other.
strongmen have hearts big enough for their body. so we can asume strong men have at least decent endurance, compared to their size and strength but obv. the skinny marathoner will have a heart of the same size.
"You may have the healthiest heart and lungs on the planet, but if you're not strong enough to get out of a chair without help, your daily activities are less pleasant than they could be. " - If you have a healthy heart and lungs, at least until age of 80+ you will be able to get out of the chair by your own, and even if you have fallen down and broke a hip, you'll be able to recover pretty well. But if you are 80 y.o fart, after two heart attacks and some level of heart failure, you can be strong until blue on your face - you'll have a bad quality of life. Most of the very old(85 and above) people I've seen, are much less than strong, judging by their shape. Most of them are pretty thin, don't eat a lot, and have a lot of walks. And, they are still pretty strong.
If it ain't about strength training then Rip thinks it's irrelevant. But how strong do you really "need" to be? At a certain point strength becomes irrelevant because no one is lifting 500+ lbs outside the gym. And they certainly aren't going to lift weight in a stationary position in the real world. I'd rather be a well-rounded athlete.
I think you need to read the books, listen to more podcasts and read more articles to fully understand what Rip actually means. But just to give you a small example from real day to day life, lifting two 50 pound bags of cement at the same time becomes a lot easier if you deadlift 600 pounds rather than 400 pounds.
@@harpaljhooti6554 how often do you human beings or an individual lifting or carrying 2 x 50 pounds on a daily basis? You want to live backwards like caveman then so be it. There’s alot of stress on a daily basis already and if you want to carry 2 x 50 pounds on a daily to add more stress to your system on top of other shit then let me know if it fucks your immune system. It’s not just about musculoskeletal, its about being well rounded. Go read about body systems and how it all works together. I’d rather be a well rounded with decent strength and a healthy heart. I bet you rip couldn’t run to save his life against a grizzly bear despite all his strength throughout the years. How does he match or you with a silverback? If you know, you know.
@@PhiyackYuh There is sooo much I can say in response to that comment, but it seems like too much work. But I will send this comment to starting strength to be used in the 'comments from the haters section'. This is pure gold! And yes, I want to live backwards like a caveman so I'm soon moving into a cave! Let's hope I don't stumble upon a grizzly bear or 2 x 50 pounds xD
@@harpaljhooti6554 when you learn how complex body system is then you can put your own comment to ignorant comments 😉 just remember olympians who are in peak physical condition than you or rip do not lift 500 plus pounds. You need to work on ya brain game mate and not just dumb ass muscles 😝 remember its not the strongest or smartest that survives, its the adaptable one 🤫
@@PhiyackYuh Automatic reply: I am and will remain unavailable for the next 10 years due to pursuite of my lifelong ambition of being a backwards caveman. I will get back to you in 10 years. If not, please assume that the grizzly bear was superior to me being more well rounded with a decent strength and a healthy heart. Take care.
You can’t deny that crossfit has gotten more people under barbells and fitter than they have ever been in modern history. I find it hilarious how overweight people who are capable of little more than waddling up to a barbell and lifting it for 1-5 reps double down on their dogma, cherry pick evidence based research, and promote unhealthy, in vogue eating habits all for the sake of shit that ultimately makes no difference in the world and boils down to personal preference. Yes, be strong, but true strength transcends that which is only displayed with barbells, because I know a lot of guys who are capable of little else, and what’s the point of that?
Functional fitness training is like inner beauty: it can mean anything, so it means nothing.
And yet you know it when you see it, so it does mean something. Just because it’s a bit hard to define does not negate its existence. Example (hear me out)...The normal squat vs. the single leg Bavarian squat. The bilateral squat is *less* a functional movement than the Bavarian single leg squat because humans seldom exert extreme forces on two planted legs. Now don’t go aflame on me, we all know bilateral squats are awesome strength developers, it’s just that in sport and in life what humans generally do is transfer force from one leg to the next....this involves some other vectors in adductive and abductive control the bilateral training wont emphasize. Thus, while hard to draw a clean line around it, acknowledged, “functional training” is training that attempts to simulate more closely the actual movement demands placed on the body under stress. The bozu ballers’ hearts are in the right place on destabilizing while lifting, its just that they’ve gone way out of reality by lightening the load (too much) and putting the emphasis on balance (too much). If you don’t believe me read Mike Boyle’s book “Advances In Functional Training”....not easy to dismiss him.
@E Jay I get where you're going. Now hear me out.
If you do just the back squat, you will find that not only does the squat progress, but your lunges get stronger, your split squat gets stronger, your core gets stronger, your run/gait gets more explosive.
If you do just the bulgarian split squat the only thing that will improve is the split squat (and it won't even improve as well as it would if you just did squats). So although the split squat looks more "functional" the regular squat is still objectively more functional because of its carryover to every leg exercise and your daily life.
As an mma fighter/ jiu jitsu athlete I find strength coaches are always tring to pick exercises that "look like fighting." When in reality the squat, deadlift, press, sled and jumps are the only things that have ever made me a stronger, faster fighter.
@@zpt5394 How did you improve your cardio?
@@chewsir I’d imagine practising the sport itself would do that. Pushing a weighted sled around is pretty cardio as well
Watching people try to disprove Rip in this comment thread by comparing apples and oranges is pretty entertaining.
Marks voice is therapeutic
"[Functional training] is the bastard child of strength and conditioning, and it must be stopped." Don't be so tactful that we can't tell how you feel, Rip. Take a stand! (On two legs, apparently. With a barbell on your back. Not too high on your back).
Strength is not the production of force against external resistance it's actually
HIP DRAAAAAAAAAHVVEEEE
i always start workouts with barbell strength training. but there are definitely some days where i do a little circuit at the end for fun. and i always include a kettlebell movement (swing/ turkish get-up/snatch) after strength training. my shoulders have never felt better since doing TGUs and my conditioning hasnt been better since i started doing 100 swings or snatches.
this is not some false dichotomy, do everything to be well rounded
Found Greyskull a very good compromise - focus on compound strength moves followed by a plug-in, usually a 10 min high intensity workout.
With all due to respect to Mark, from whom I have learned most of what I do in the gym, he is mischaracterizing functional training. True, there is a light-weight/balance board variety, but this is not the complete picture. Kettlebells of up to very heavy weights and and extremely challenging calisthenics such as planches, levers, and gymnastic ring work or even heavy loaded cable movements that engage the entire body are also “functional training”. Pushing a tank or advanced pull-ups variations such as the arbor pull up are also functional training. These require immense strength and skill both, while creating excellent physical control with generally low injury rates. The “low weight “ Mark refers to in the functional training field is a training flaw no different than use of low/non-challenging weights often seen amongst naive barbell enthusiasts. It is not the mode of training itself but its poor application to strength development principles that is the culprit. Mark, please address this before you make a statement that functional training “must be stopped”. Poor functional training should be stopped, but no more so than poor barbell training or poor training of any other kind. There is most definitely a strength progression possible in functional training.
Calisthenics/Street Workout is not what Mark talked about... Planches, Levers, and gymnastic rings all belong to gymnastics family, gymnastics is not considered to be functional training at the exact same way that snatches are not functional training, even though one can argue that the whole body function in those movements. bottom line, gymnastic is gymnastic, O lift is O lifts, and functional training according to what mark described is the way commercial gyms and poor quality trainers make their money of,
but most of us might not have time to another exercise after the strength training.
Unless you have gone through your LP and milked it for all it’s got, you don’t have time or metabolic resources for extra stuff.
After said time you can do condition, but not before. Time is short.
Thank you. Coach
Great Video Mark. Keep spreading the truth.
Is there any chance to earn SS clarification if you do not live in USA?
Can someone tell me please?
I am from Europe
stevanstevan S you have to do the platform assessment for movement and coaching, and the written exam. They do have seminars in London now on the schedule.
Bless you rip
Crossfit had lowered the Standards for many Exercises in order to accommodate the general population. by doing so they completley destroyed the exercises themselves and along the way, the people who are performing those exercises under CrossFit standarts which are pretty low ... for example , A pullup that got stuck on level 0 (kipping) the Handstand pushup that is never performed as an actual handstand but with wall assisted, the pistol squat that is performed with half of the rang of motion, the rope climbing that is done with leg assisted, the Olympics weightlifting which is aimed to reps instead of maximum force and so on .... Crossfit stands for POOR QUALITY EXERCISES. I would like to seperate the people from the sport because there are very talented people in CrossFit, but their talent is restricted by crossfit LOW STANDARDS !!!!
anything goes I cringe so hard when I see them doing power cleans or snatches for reps.
Well, if you look at the Crosssfit Games there are plenty of events which demonstrate the opposite of what you are saying. I have seen events where people must climb the rope with just arms, Clean and Jerk looking for maximum weight. So, it is not like whenever you see Crossfit, you will end up watching poor quality exercises...
How much weight are you moving when performing a pull up? Your body weight. How far are you moving that weight? The distance from your arms locked out to chin over the bar. I think we can agree?
How much weight are you moving when performing a kipping pull up? Your body weight. How far are you moving that weight? The distance from your arms locked out to chin over the bar. The only difference is the speed with which you get the work done.
(Force x Distance) / Time = Power
Therefore kipping and butterfly pull ups are more power based. If you are trying to test a purely strength modality, that's different. But CrossFit tests broad time and modal domains. Strength is only one component of fitness. There are ten total.
TangyAftertaste OMG... What u saying is toally wrong.
TigerTiger At least my comment is readable and uses actual words.. And no, it isn't wrong
❤
Functional training is fundementally the method of training correct movement coupled with the science of the body involving movement ,of which is very complicated and requires years of study.And in general CrossFit coaches do not have the education in the science of functional training, as don't most commercial trainers. I took courses in kinisiology, nerve function of specific muscles, physiology, injury pathology and rehab, science of respiration function. With all my studies I still have a lot more to study to know Functional training thoroughly,so what I am saying is unless one takes premed course in college they should not go around talking out of their ear about functional training.
Also in the technique involved in their specific sport and exercises
Can you make a video talking about plyometrics and give your opinion on them?
Squat, bench, deadlift, chin-up and press.. Maybe a row.
Anything else will make you a gay.
My general point is that Mark is ridiculing the easy target part of functional training, but not all functional training is light weight and balance-intensive. If you want to exclude gymnastics from this, how about all the various anti-rotational work you can do with cables machines and the land-mine. These can be loaded without limit and build strength in ways the barbells cannot. There is good functional training and there is useless functional training. He should distinguish that. And by the way, being lean is not only a matter of vanity but of health. The gut he’s packing is early stage obesity, that isn’t good for your insides, ie blood sugar, cholesterol, and heart health. Doesn’t diminish his coaching ability as he defends, but it also doesn’t set a very good example either. Jack LaLane would never have let himself look like that. Dan John has worked hard with his weight issues. Mark is just rationalizing a weakness. Yes, he is a brilliant explainer of barbell training, the best ever maybe, but he’s also being a bit of an ass in regard to certain things. This makes it harder for me to use him as the model in my gym for ultimate trainer.
E Jay Anti-Rotation is pretty useless once you learn to stabilize your spine with basic barbell movements with 400+ pounds on the squat and deadlift. How do I know this? Actually do it and see what happens. Get your bench to about 1.5x BW for 5 reps, get your deadlift to about 2x BW for 5 reps.
People that have these numbers are typically able to do a perfect single arm-pushup, shoulders and hips parallel to the floor.
Even under heavy loading, you’re not grasping the difference between the force generation differences between the sagittal plane (SQ’s, DL, Bench) and the transverse plane (twisting, or rather not twisting). Anti-rotational work changes the abdominal muscles from stabilizers - which is good yes - to agonists. That’s different. I’d say about anti-rotational work what George Michael said about sex, not every does it, but everybody should.
+E Jay
I think you've pretty well missed Jordan's point. You develop the ability to resist rotation in your trunk by doing basic barbell training. That's why people with the aforementioned lifts can do one-arm pushups with little or no specific training for them, and why specific anti-rotation training is unnecessary. At least, that's Jordan's claim. I don't know anyone who can do any of those things, so I can't vouch for them.
Also, I'm pretty sure the abdominals are still stabilizers- not agonists- in just about every anti-rotation exercise out there.
The levers of our skeletons don't multiply force, they increase speed.
F = MA. Skeleton has mass, so increasing its speed thereby increases its force, no?
The way to look at this is that you can lift more near the biceps tendon rather than at the hand, but the hand moves faster than the end of the biceps tendon.
You're right they are not the class of levers that were designed to increase mechanical advantage. I think what he meant is the skeleton is what we use to display our force.
My comment was wrong, the skeletal levers do multiply force...by numbers between 0 and 1 distally from the tendon and numbers greater than 1 nearer to the joint being moved. Ripp is technically correct once again!
Cross fit is filled with juice heads.
"You may have the healthiest heart and lungs on the planet, but if you're not strong enough to get out of a chair without help, your daily activities are less pleasant than they could be. " Yes, but the reverse is also true. If you have an 800lb. deadlift, but not the cardiovascular capacity to climb a flight of stairs without panting, or the aerobic fitness to go on a hike, you're going to be pretty miserable.
Strength training is great. I love it, and I love barbells. But the truth of the matter is, non-athletes don't need to be able to deadlift or squat more than 2x bodyweight, and generally 1.5x your weight is more than enough unless you're doing serious manual labor.
Joel Henderson
FYI - strength training is like intense HIIT. If you can deadlift 800 there’s a super high likelihood be able to get out of a chair without panting.
+Mike Viggiani
Again, this goes both ways, and in no way says anything about the relative importance of strength vs cardiovascular fitness. In other words, if you run a 5 minute-mile, there's a super high likelihood you'll be strong enough to get out of a chair without help.
Please, don't give me an FYI about that. As I said in my comment, I enjoy strength training myself, so I know it offers cardiovascular benefits (though it's absolutely NOT like HIIT). My point was that Rippetoe presented a false dichotomy, and misrepresented the importance of one vs the other.
strongmen have hearts big enough for their body. so we can asume strong men have at least decent endurance, compared to their size and strength but obv. the skinny marathoner will have a heart of the same size.
+Steve Warris
Please see my response to Mike Viggiani.
Joel Henderson is clearly wrong
"You may have the healthiest heart and lungs on the planet, but if you're not strong enough to get out of a chair without help, your daily activities are less pleasant than they could be. " - If you have a healthy heart and lungs, at least until age of 80+ you will be able to get out of the chair by your own, and even if you have fallen down and broke a hip, you'll be able to recover pretty well. But if you are 80 y.o fart, after two heart attacks and some level of heart failure, you can be strong until blue on your face - you'll have a bad quality of life. Most of the very old(85 and above) people I've seen, are much less than strong, judging by their shape. Most of them are pretty thin, don't eat a lot, and have a lot of walks. And, they are still pretty strong.
If it ain't about strength training then Rip thinks it's irrelevant. But how strong do you really "need" to be? At a certain point strength becomes irrelevant because no one is lifting 500+ lbs outside the gym. And they certainly aren't going to lift weight in a stationary position in the real world. I'd rather be a well-rounded athlete.
I think you need to read the books, listen to more podcasts and read more articles to fully understand what Rip actually means. But just to give you a small example from real day to day life, lifting two 50 pound bags of cement at the same time becomes a lot easier if you deadlift 600 pounds rather than 400 pounds.
@@harpaljhooti6554 how often do you human beings or an individual lifting or carrying 2 x 50 pounds on a daily basis? You want to live backwards like caveman then so be it. There’s alot of stress on a daily basis already and if you want to carry 2 x 50 pounds on a daily to add more stress to your system on top of other shit then let me know if it fucks your immune system. It’s not just about musculoskeletal, its about being well rounded. Go read about body systems and how it all works together. I’d rather be a well rounded with decent strength and a healthy heart. I bet you rip couldn’t run to save his life against a grizzly bear despite all his strength throughout the years. How does he match or you with a silverback? If you know, you know.
@@PhiyackYuh There is sooo much I can say in response to that comment, but it seems like too much work. But I will send this comment to starting strength to be used in the 'comments from the haters section'. This is pure gold! And yes, I want to live backwards like a caveman so I'm soon moving into a cave! Let's hope I don't stumble upon a grizzly bear or 2 x 50 pounds xD
@@harpaljhooti6554 when you learn how complex body system is then you can put your own comment to ignorant comments 😉 just remember olympians who are in peak physical condition than you or rip do not lift 500 plus pounds. You need to work on ya brain game mate and not just dumb ass muscles 😝 remember its not the strongest or smartest that survives, its the adaptable one 🤫
@@PhiyackYuh Automatic reply: I am and will remain unavailable for the next 10 years due to pursuite of my lifelong ambition of being a backwards caveman. I will get back to you in 10 years. If not, please assume that the grizzly bear was superior to me being more well rounded with a decent strength and a healthy heart. Take care.
You can’t deny that crossfit has gotten more people under barbells and fitter than they have ever been in modern history. I find it hilarious how overweight people who are capable of little more than waddling up to a barbell and lifting it for 1-5 reps double down on their dogma, cherry pick evidence based research, and promote unhealthy, in vogue eating habits all for the sake of shit that ultimately makes no difference in the world and boils down to personal preference. Yes, be strong, but true strength transcends that which is only displayed with barbells, because I know a lot of guys who are capable of little else, and what’s the point of that?
Trooooooollllllllllllllll!
You’re missing the point.