File :-(, x, )
Little Busters !!cYRK7ZeKVyk
Oh hey /fit/

Isn't it funny how way too skinny, effeminate, girly males advocate the "skinny, slender, toned" build over having even a moderate amount of visible cut muscles and striations? While fat assholes support "functional strength" over having a moderate amount of muscles? (I'd go into this, but then I decided to not to, because I'll make some faggots more confused than they already are about maximum strength and the body).

Looks like you hate what you can't have, and at the same time, try to put your own shitty characteristics in a good light.
>> Anonymous
I'm overweight but advocate muscularity. Functional strength is merely a bonus.
>> Little Busters !!cYRK7ZeKVyk
>>227951

Do you mean maximum strength? You're spending too much time with those faggot Crossfitters or whatever that term came from.

"Functional" is subjective. You want functional strength? Go be a hard laborer.
>> Anonymous
>>227955
...what?
I mean that being able to lift heaving things is a bonus, looking good/muscular is the aim. I'm not fussed about the functional strength, that's why I'm not a hard labourer or a powerlifter.
>> Anonymous
> Looks like you hate what you can't have, and at the same time, try to put your own shitty characteristics in a good light.

Welcome to the world. Enjoy your stay.
>> Little Busters !!cYRK7ZeKVyk
>>227960

Nah, lots of parts of the world don't have such obvious egotistic hypocrites and measly mouthed little fags who lack any modesty at all.

Enjoy staying in the little corners of your redneck town.
>> Anonymous
>>227955
Please explain how "functional" can be subjective

>functional (comparative more functional, superlative most functional)
> 1. In good working order.
> 2. Useful; serving a purpose
> 3. (computing theory) Having semantics defined purely in terms of mathematical functions, without side-effects.

Assuming we're working with definition #2, that's in no way subjective.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>227969
>> Anonymous
cunningtrolliscunning.jpg
>> Little Busters !!cYRK7ZeKVyk
>>227974

It's either subjective or redundant. If strength isn't functional, then what is it? And if it is functional, by definition #2, how do you gain "useful; serving a purpose" strength and how do you gain non-"useful, serving a purpose" strength?
>> Anonymous
Isn't it funny how namefags are always the worst posters on every board.
>> Little Busters !!cYRK7ZeKVyk
>>227978
>>227980

If I'm a troll, by that analogy, you two are the pieces of shit I take every morning.

That is, in the grand scheme of /fit/. You turds continue being useless.
>> Anonymous
>>227984
>subjective or redundant
I know what all these words mean, but they make no sense the way you use them.
Actually, that's true of all your post.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>227986
wat?
>> Little Busters !!cYRK7ZeKVyk
>>227985

Wow, now that is just a plain old fashioned flamebaiting. Too bad you're one of my victims who I already destroyed by simply asking for proof or that I made fun of deservingly. Otherwise, I might care.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
trollan in a trollan thred
>> Little Busters !!cYRK7ZeKVyk
>>227987

What are you, a fucking poet?
Writing like this?
Lol?
I'mma sonnet?

Go refresh your memory, son, and go look up those words again, I don't think you really know what they mean. Go check them out in their context and all.
>> Little Busters !!cYRK7ZeKVyk
>>227989

Oh, I'd draw a picture in MS Paint, but that'd take me 492424 hours. Here's what I mean:

You guys = pieces of shit.

Here's how the analogy goes: you post nothing useful in /fit/ except meta-shit like useless images of a smiley face or a facepalm. Pieces of shit also are useless. And that's the beauty of the analogy.

Enjoy. I'm into charity, so I gave you that little lesson for free.
>> Anonymous
>>227985
The most funny thing is how tripfags think they are a godsend, and they think of themselves as "large" whenever they reply to an anon post.

fucking faggots
>> Anonymous
>>227949
>fat assholes support "functional strength" over having a moderate amount of muscles
Never seen a fattie support functional strength. Unless you mean skinnyfatties.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
pic is me. i'm chubby (the least chubby i've ever been, and slimming out nicely) but i'm working on muscular growth. my ideal is to be slim and cut. i advocate low body fat and moderate size and strength with flexibility. gymnast style.
>> Little Busters !!cYRK7ZeKVyk
>>227999

You just got your perspectives messed up. When you post so shitty, and trust me, you do, everything looks large and important in comparison to you.
>> Anonymous
Hey Little Busters, could you give me a definition of functional strength? Also, what kind of training do you do?
Thanks in advance.
>> Little Busters !!cYRK7ZeKVyk
>>228012

Sure, boy. Functional strength is both redundant and subjective. You either have strength or you don't. Maximum strength would be tapping into 85% of your FT fibers, and increasing the diameter of myosin filaments, and being able to synchronize all muscles involved in the action efficiently.

As for my work out, I am currently doing mixed training for this macrocycle:

Day 1
Front dumbbell press
Incline side laterals
Preacher curls
Shrugs
Leg press
Power cleans

Day 2
Squats
Incline flys
Triceps pushdowns
Nautilus Crunches
Lateral pulldowns
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
DURP DURP I AM MASTER TROLL HURP HURP
>> Anonymous
>>228018
>being able to synchronize all muscles involved in the action efficiently
That is precisely the core of functional strength (excuse the pun). Someone who trains isolation exercises on machines all the time will not be able to do that.
>> Anonymous
>>227949
yeah it is funny.
it's also funny that the so-called ripped macho men bash on the skinnier guys and fatties to inflate their own egos since no one else is doing it for them.

jesus, all of /fit/ needs to die
>> Anonymous
>>228033

I don't really care about "functional" strength. I like the safety of isolation machines and I still gain muscle from it so I don't really care too much about "functional."

Most people are into weightlifting to look better, but those who use free weights and non-machines try to say "I'm getting functional strength!" to prove their weightlifting is better.

But really, does it matter? With our sedentary lives, what's the point of having functional strength (aside from helping somebody move furniture)?

I think that's what OP is trying to say: that "functional" doesn't really need to be mentioned.
>> Anonymous
>>228038
For example, functional training would help the average person develop strength that carries over into daily activities such as pulling open a heavy door, hiking up a rocky trail, starting a lawnmower, carrying a child, unloading heavy packages from the trunk of a car, or reaching up and pulling down a bulky box from an overhead shelf.

If you’re an athlete, functional training will help improve your performance: You will improve your swing, throw further, run faster or increase your vertical jump. Because functional training helps link your entire body together so it performs optimally as a cohesive unit, you’ll also decrease your chances of getting injured.

-- Tom "UNF UNF UNF" Venuto