tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3897774470372565730.post6799771568408781259..comments2023-11-26T00:39:22.902-08:00Comments on The Bodyweight Files: So, what is practical?Justin_PShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819478474074071804noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3897774470372565730.post-79298605789083615942012-06-05T11:52:17.034-07:002012-06-05T11:52:17.034-07:00Good post, as usual. Just to play devil's advo...Good post, as usual. Just to play devil's advocate, though:<br />This is pretty obvious, but not everyone trains just to be 'practical'. If your jailhouse man looked powerful up top and had the bench/overhead or whatever to match, he was probably pretty happy and didn't give a damn what he could do in terms of manual labor. Not everyone does. After all, most of the population doesn't have to lift anything heavier than a laptop so if you're in decent condition and look athletic, at least, you're attractive to the majority and way ahead of the pack performance wise.<br /><br />Now, as for that nautilus machine. I've never got the chance to try one but I've always kinda wanted to. Enough bodybuilders use a pullover-type device, and speak highly of it that it must be pretty useful for its intended purpose--increasing lat size, with some side benefits of shoulder flexibility. Despite its stupid appearance, if it can make my lats bigger and stronger, it's useful. More size = more strength potential (for other exercises, if I want), and big lats are cool in my book. The movement itself does not have to be practical or functional, imo, for it to be useful. Same goes for exercises like the pjr pullover. If it can build size it can be useful. Just don't neglect the 'practical' movements if you want to be 'practical'. <br />Keep in mind that this is coming from someone who obsesses over pullups/chins and has for years. I just wouldn't throw something out the window because it doesn't look like a practical movement pattern.Afoninhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12423981434971796023noreply@blogger.com