I have to disagree with this. I'm into powerlifting/olympic lifting...and this notion of "functional strength" or "practical strength" is really misunderstood. Yes, certain exercises, usually the ones that involve machines, like the leg press, are not functional. Because it is isolating your leg muscles, the strength you will gain from doing leg presses is only really good for doing leg presses. However, if you do heavy squats for example, that is working your legs plus your lower back and core. The strength you gain from that will be useful in any number of activities that involve lifting and moving heavy objects (e.g. furniture). It will also strengthen your body, and hopefully if you build up your strength and mass when you're young, you will retain a good amount of strength in old age. That's a major motivation for me, so I don't have to be dependent on people once I'm old,
Doing endless reps of a lift is essentially pointless. For example, a person who does a 3x5 routine for squats with 225 lbs will easily be able to bodyweight squats for 40 reps. But will a guy who only does bodyweight squats for 40 reps day in day out be able to squat 225 lbs? Of course not. So whose strength is more functional? They only way to get stronger is to gradually increase the load on your muscles so they get stronger to adapt.
People think that being really strong means being huge. That is not the case. The reason bodybuilders have bad stamina is because they don't train cardio usually and they have too much mass.
While it's true that a bigger muscle is a stronger muscle, the converse is not necessarily true. You can make huge strength gains without putting on any mass by improving the neural adaptation (muscle fiber recruitment).
Of course, at a certain point, your muscle will have to grow in order to get stronger, but you could weigh a lean 160 lbs and deadlift the same amount of weight as a guy who weighs a lean 180 lbs depending on how efficient your muscles are.
Bookmarks