//A response to Bret Contreras’s Debate Challenge

A response to Bret Contreras’s Debate Challenge

A response to Bret Contreras’s Debate Challenge

I have recently made it public that I am ready to respond to Bret Contreras’s challenge to a debate (CLICK RIGHT HERE TO SEE THE LINK).
I am yet to hear anything back. Why is that? I think I know. That is not the purpose of this post. The purpose of this post is to actually respond to his critique step by step, showcasing why his theories in training are mostly wrong. Of course, Bret comes from the established training institutions putting forth evidence of things that may make sense in a reductionist view on reality. My point is not to be a reductionist, it is to solve problems with people in the real world. As much as people in the training field once thought lifting 400 lbs on a deadlift was practical, the injuries so many are dealing with now are telling them otherwise.

For years, I have witnessed the nonsense that has existed in the fitness industry. From the ridiculous crap we see on tv, to the nonsense taught in educational curriculums that relate almost nothing to the SAID principle that the supposedly educated in the field clamor about. There are contradictions everywhere in the world of movement, and I have been picking them off one by one? Why? Because it didn’t work for me. I dealt with the pain problems coming from traditional approaches. That wasn’t enough for me though. I had to get thousands people involved worldwide to see if this was commonplace elsewhere. Guess what? Other people have been seeing the same thing as me, after I teach them my methods of course. From average joes, to personal trainers, to physical therapists. The virus of nonsense is everywhere. This post is here to dispel a portion of that nonsense.

To Bret Contreras…

You made it a point to study what I did for a few hours and pick apart something you knew nothing about. I understand that you are skeptical. I don’t blame you for that. Years have passed, and you know your injuries are the result of a problem in your training. You now know what this is doing to people. At some point you have to fess up to this and make it public that you were incorrect with your assertions about me years ago. I realize I was and am brash in my approach, by using profanities and what not. But the truth is that people only look at my posts when I do those things. If I didn’t use that language, people would avoid the inconvenient truths I have been spreading around the industry. We all must do what we have to do to get a message over to the masses. I did what worked, after testing the nice guy approach and almost going bankrupt in the process. We all go through our struggles in life, I’m sure you did in yours. But if you want to use the word “scientist” in your way of describing what you are, you need to seriously analyze what you are saying.

Being scientific is easy. It’s not debates that prove anything. Debates are political, not scientific. The way to find out whether something passes the scrutiny of the scientific method or not, is easy. It’s called testing. I was open then for the testing of my applications, and now, even more so. I have evolved my craft to such a degree that I have no doubts that Functional Patterns is the best thing to happen to the field of exercise. I could make claims for other fields, but I’ll be conservative for now. Point being that scientific competence is determined via tests, not debates. The world of politics exists, so I have to confront this monster. Here we go…

If you want to understand the context of this debate, it’s simple. I am stating how traditional training, especially 3 years ago (before people plagiarized FP like mad), was damaging because it was mostly in the sagittal plane of motion. How essentially all training neglected the fact that it has no idea what to do with the gait cycle or throwing. Why? Because gait and throwing was never seen as a priority. It has taken a back seat to squatting and deadlifting in recent years. I was told I was a fraud because of this, but now that a few years passed and people are hurt, tones are changing. Of course I’m going to gloat. Why? Because people so quickly forget the horrible realities people like myself face when we stand up against the establishment. How so many only give you publicity when they can tear you down. When you prove the naysayers wrong, they take on the material they aggressively attacked you on and act like they learned it elsewhere. People, this is the reality of all innovators in history who challenged the establishment. Real science does not take place in most circumstances with panels of people doing peer reviewed studies. Real science happens in tiny labs. I don’t even need to give an example of this as scientific history is flooded with these scenarios. I am telling you all that this has happened again. Functional Patterns is the next scientific revolution. As a collective now reaching over 1 thousand in certified reps, we are showcasing the findings. These aren’t just anecdotes, or clinical findings. These are findings happening all over the world. Especially in physical therapy settings. We are moving into other fields also. To not draw this out too much, I will focus on Bret’s topics 1 by 1.

Where this all started

This is what Bret wrote on his page to describe why he “grilled me”:

Bret: “First of all, I want to clarify something. I never knew who you were as of several days ago. But your team recently tagged me in one of your posts about bilateral glute training, and several of you decided to badmouth my methods. Had your team not done that, I would still not know who you are or what your beliefs were. However, since you chose to come after me, I decided to do my research on you, and I found your methods and beliefs to be highly questionable and flat out contradictory with regards to what published research shows, Therefore, I intend on grilling you. I decided to first post an article providing a general overview as to how people like you go about your business; this way I could teach my readers how to spot pseudoscience, hence my last blogpost. I did not mention your name, but it turns out that many people recognized the fact that the article heavily characterized your actions. This blog post and my next one will indeed mention your name and will not beat around the bush.”

Bret, whether you knew who I was or not was irrelevant. You bring this up to act as if I was unimportant. Completely pointless with regard to the topics I put forth. My team never tagged you on one of my facebook posts, as we at Functional Patterns don’t do that with people. In fact, we rarely ever go on other people’s platforms, unless we are provoked. Most of the time we keep our time on our own social media outlets. It was not someone from my team who tagged you, it was someone who followed both of us. All I said in the post was that bilateral glute training does not relate to human gait, therefore it does more harm than good. No one from “my team” even murmured your name. You jumped to a conclusion without doing research. After all, you did say you barely knew who I was, right? Wouldn’t it have been more responsible for you to address me in a more civil manner before jumping to the conclusion that I was attacking something you do, but not you? Think about that Bret, you started the call outs, not me. To those watching this, really pay attention to Bret’s manipulation of this scenario. He sets the tone of dishonesty by acting like I am the one who started this. Did I start drama? Yes. Absolutely. Unapologetically 100 percent. This is America and we are allowed to have opinions. We live in a free market economy where I am allowed to separate my craft from the rest of the fitness industry. If you take offense to this separation, that is your problem, not mine.

A “backlash” I didn’t expect?

Bret: “You seem to be acting shocked at the backlash you are currently receiving. I want you to know that people are responding to you because you and your team are actively calling them out directly. If you and your team laid low, remained humble, and let your results speak for themselves, you wouldn’t be receiving such backlash. However, this is not the case, and you’ve been very vocal lately, denouncing and declaring dysfunctional adaptations associated with:

Deadlifts
Axial loaded squats
Olympic lifting
Gymnastics
CrossFit, and
All bilateral glute exercises”

This is laughable. I expected a backlash and did it for marketing purposes, because you all wanted to conveniently avoid the points I put forth. Am I supposed to go bankrupt as a business, so that you may live in comfort doing your deadlifts that relate nothing to biomechanical aspects of movement in real life? I don’t think so. Regarding the backlash, it’s been about 3 years. Our following has quadrupled and courses sellout every month all over the world. Why? Because the results I knew we would get verified the critique I made on the industry. Let’s face it, humility in capitalism doesn’t equate to staying in business. I am in the business of helping the hopeless who were wrecked by an industry of numbskulls who call themselves professionals. I will do whatever it takes to help people. Some will be offended, but many will be helped in the process. The results have spoken.

With regard to all the assumptions you made about my view on deadlifts, axial loaded squats, Olympic lifting, gymnastics, crossfit, and all bilateral glute exercises, you are completely not seeing where I am coming from. I put forth critique on each of these systems and exercises for the reason that none of them enhance human functionality at a foundation. Why? Because none of them were designed to do this. When I started Functional Patterns, that was my intent. My intent was to decode what humans need at a foundation to function at a higher quantifiable level, accomplishing this without the pain and injury residuals. As time has moved forward, we at FP have showcased results continuously over time. Results we have challenged thousands of others to duplicate. None of them have responded. In this blog, I will put just a few brush strokes describing the counterproductive aspects of all the “things” Bret listed above. I have already addressed these topics on dozens of occasions online. If you type in the keyword search “functional patterns cognitive rampage”, I go into the depths of all these topics. These videos have been widely avoided by the top of the field for obvious reasons. If you are on the fence, watch them. I assure you that your mind will melt.

“Conspiracies”

Bret: “Moreover, you’ve implicated the entire strength & conditioning industry in a large conspiracy to cover up your allegedly superior methods in attempts to continue lining our pockets with our inferior, antiquated methods. As the late Carl Sagan once said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” To date, I’ve seen zero evidence supporting any of your claims.

Perhaps more alarming than your claims is the way that you and your team interact with skeptical individuals. Rather than provide evidence or logical consistency, your team attempts to bully the opposition and resort to ad hominem attacks. A larger concern is that I don’t think you or your team even understand the scientific process, but that’s a separate matter. I fear that although there is ample evidence to refute your claims as well as ample logical rationale, you will not consider any of it and will continue to bash popular and successful forms of training that possess sound research supporting their efficacy.

To quote Sam Harris, “If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?”

Since my last blogpost, I see that your team has been accusing me of 1) being butthurt, 2) being jealous of your success, 3) stealing your methods, and 4) wanting your autograph? What in the hell is wrong with you guys haha? I’m not butthurt, I’m not jealous, I’ve watched your videos and I don’t use a single method of yours, nor have I stolen any of them from you, and I do not want your autograph. All I care about is science and spreading good information in the strength & conditioning industry. I have witnessed plenty of cult-like behavior in my time, but your team takes it to an entirely new level.

I have prepared an article that refutes some of your claims and backs it up with scientific references. However, rather than post the article, I’d first like to reach out to you in hopes that we can settle our differences in a debate.

Therefore, I hereby formally challenge you to a debate regarding various claims you have made. Since you seem to label most lifters as “beta males,” I’m hoping that you’ll act like an “alpha male” here and accept my offer.

So you are stating that I implicated that the entire strength and conditioning industry conspired against Functional Patterns? lol, oh Bret…

This is the first thing a self appointed guardian of the status quo goes to first when they have no idea what they are talking about. A conspiracy? Hardly. There are literally millions worldwide affiliated with traditional training. It’s an indoctrination to train the way people do. There is no conspiracy here Bret. I am questioning thought processes. You and your followers happen to have a vested interest in this thought process and I brought about your bias. You using Carl Sagan in your blogpost does not validate what you say. You say you have evidence to support that traditional training is successful? Then tell my why the wide majority of athletes fail using traditional training. If traditional training really worked, the playing field would equalize at some point because it would condition all humans to be athletes. To say that Usain Bolt is successful in his career because he lifts is very irresponsible. What about the millions of track athletes that exist who do the exact same thing who fail? Forget about being competitive enough to beat Usain, most don’t even come close. How is it evident that training the way you do makes athlets better? The truth is that it doesn’t.

You yourself are a walking example of the failures you have had in your training, constantly talking about the pain you suffer on a regular basis doing nonsensical lifts. You really have no idea what evidence even means do you? Here’s an experiment you can do right now to show me evidence of gravitational force existing: Grab something. Throw it up. Write down what happens. Make a video of it. When I see that things keep falling to the earth, you and I can both conclude gravity exists. Here’s another test Bret… How about you do max sprint tests with your clients. Forget empirical data. Go get some average joes and have them do your training. Film their running speed without and then with your training. Film it. Show me evidence that you yourself are competent enough to make people run faster like we have repeatedly online. Moreover, show me that people can run pain free for years at a time like we have. Just because it doesn’t fulfill the bias of your peers, does not make visual references non evidence based. When we showcase evidence like we do online, just because you decide to close your eyes towards it does not make it non evident, it makes you negligent. Bret, I want to see your results relating to functionality. Forget about the establishment. I want to see what your Phd can do for humans seeking to function better. If you don’t have any results (which you don’t), you have no business speaking on this matter.

Regarding bullying, do some research Bret. There is a sherdog post I put up where tons of your followers bullied me before I even got a chance to show what I was about. Just type in “Naudi Aguilar sherdog check out my guy” on google and you can see bullying in action before I ever started any controversy. I didn’t start this Bret, your community of lifters did. You guys didn’t choose to inquire scientifically. You chose to belittle me from the beginning. Regarding our treatment of others, showcasing a confirmation bias to the people who are there trying to belittle our training is hardly bullying. When we point out your inability to train outside of the sagittal plane of motion, it has to be mentioned. If you are an incompetent human in the field of aeronautics and someone calls you on it, there’s nothing wrong with that. If you have no idea how to correct movement in a multidimensional reality or make people run faster, we are gonna have to bring it up at some point. Especially when Functional Patterns people ask you questions that you can’t answer and completely avoid. If you can’t answer basic questions, you can’t expect us to not bring up your clear incompetence.

About those accusations of you, that’s childish rhetoric. Grow up Bret. If you’re being scientific, it doesn’t matter what others say about you regarding your supposed envy. Keep things on point. When you say you prepared an article about how you can refute what I do, WHEN YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I DO, I never saw anything. I waited 3 years for your body to straight up deteriorate, and the results have spoken Bret. I’m still waiting on this article. I am laughing as I think about this… You challenge me to debate when you have the advantage. You still have the advantage, not including how your joints have become as brittle as matchsticks, and you instead chose to have your fans take down my post on instagram where I accept your challenge. You still have me blocked on social media after I suggested you unblock me to start the dialogue, and you still have me blocked. Now that you have crumbled and I have been vindicated by time showcasing massive results, in less than 3 short years, you are not wanting any of this. So I’ll get to this now.

My use of the word “beta males” was simply a marketing strategy. It worked. We all are alpha and beta depending on the circumstance. I am more than willing to accept that about myself. Since no one asks, I don’t tell them this. The fact you even brought this into your blog post discussing how scientific you are tells you how politically driven you are. At the end of the day this is all politics Bret. Difference between you and myself is that I cut it straight to people, without hiding behind corny self centered rhetoric.

Bret’s comical points of discussion

1. Whether or not you realize that not everyone is concerned with their gait and throwing mechanics and that most people take up exercise because they simply want to look better

Bret, my concern is not dealing with people’s artifical wants in life. Whether you choose to accept it or not, your values were marketed to you. As much as you think you are supposed to be “manly” and “strong”, realize that these thoughts are not your own. This is fact. Unless you think that sociology is a bullshit science, you might want to think about what you are saying when I choose not to appeal to subjective wants. Research a man by the name of Edward Bernays. He is the godfather of Public Relations (something he directly referred to as propaganda during peace). He changed marketing in a way that led the masses to want to buy nonsensical things for the sake of being consumeristic. My concerns in life are not to fulfill this manipulation. My concerns relate to fulfilling human biological need. Big difference here. Humans have fundamental needs to stay healthy. I concern myself with those needs and don’t care to appeal to brainwashing from marketers. All those butt shots you post on your social media from your clients are the product of marketers from fitness magazines. The only thing that makes those things relevant is your misguided belief that it is relevant. I am a scientist, not a person favoring a culture of vanity based values that are self destructive at their core. Of course, if you weren’t a shallow minded human, you might get what I’m talking about.

2. Whether or not it is okay for these individuals with aesthetics goals to perform bilateral exercises and exercises that target various muscles

I never stated that bilateral exercises are wrong. In fact, I have addressed this over 100 times online. You are yet to ever murmur a response about this. I am for the minimizing of bilateral exercises because they are not as fundamental as walking and/running in functional movement. It doesn’t take a scientist with a Phd to look outside their window and see humans walking outside. I don’t want to write what word I would use to describe a person who would say walking is not the most fundamental movement in humans, but man I am tempted to. Again Bret, I am talking human needs here, not human wants. You operate under the assumption that I am interested in helping people cope with their life, I am not. I want to resolve their dysfunctional behaviors in life. Again, you perpetuate ignorance, while I do the opposite. Pretty basic stuff to anyone with a good functioning prefrontal cortex, that doesn’t have strong cultural confirmation biases.

3. Your claim that deadlifts are for beta males and that they do not lead to functional improvements

The fact you even throw the expression beta male in this is ridiculous. It’s manipulative. Instead of being scientific and going after my foibles with the deadlift, you had to splice in the beta response to further promote this failed smear campaign on me. Stay on task Bret. My foibles relate back to you ignoring phsycial phenomena in our reality, not me empathizing with your delusional vanity disorders. Can deadlifts lead to functional improvements? Maybe. How far does that go and when do negative biproducts leak in? That’s the question I ask. Ofcourse, no one in the field today wants to run scientific studies on this topic, so it’s barely worth mentioning. I will say this though, the dynamics of deadlifts have no transferability to anything in life that doesn’t involve you grabbing a bar and lifting it up. Deadlifts don’t duplicate lifting mechanics. Sure they encompass the hinging at the hip (bilaterally), but they don’t incorporate the lifing of irregular objects in space. Lifting irregular objects require different force vector arrangements in the body that deadlifts do not account for. This is not theoretical, it is factual. I will make a post showcasing this. I have already done many times on varius social media platforms. Since it is inconvenient for deadlifters, they avoid these posts like the plague. If they do catch the posts online when I share them, they never murmur a single word of argument. Point being that just because a deadlift can improve something, does not mean it does. If you murmur the science on the lift, we can also murmur the smear campaigns cigarette companies made with their supposed science too. I focus on the physics, not the historically biased scientific establishment.

4. Your claim that Olympic lifting is for beta males and that it does not lead to functional improvements

Once again, you hone in on the beta response because you don’t want to remain objective. Olympic lifting takes place in the sagittal and longitudinal plane of motion. It neglects all other planes of motion. The said principle states that you adapt to what you do most. If you continue to train linear in a reality that is non linear, you are not adapting yourself for life. Specifically, you will ruin the most fundamental movement you do with your body as a human: walking. Furthermore, olympic lifting is a contrivance. At no point did anyone look at the dynamics of movement in life and tell themselves that olympic lifting would account for variables keeping people from moving well. It doesn’t take a PhD in biomechanics to see that. There is a reason people are having to drop this mode of training and replace it with something more passive. Our courses are flooded with olympic lifters who wrecked their bodies. They are some of the most difficult people to fix. It’s for a reason. Humans went through an evolutionary movement process for things beyond lifting a barbell above your head. Again, this is not rocket science. A 3 year old can understand this. I can’t believe I even have to explain this to people. It seriously hurts my brain…

5. Your claim that axial loaded squats suck

Refer to my comments above regarding planes of motion. The fact you don’t see the similarities between concerns 3 and 4 on your list is concerning Bret Contreras. Come on. You are talking about a fuji apple and a red apple. How are you not capable of seeing this? Ok ok, spinal compression. Backsquats compress the spine. That compression also affects the knees. You know Bret Contreras, the pain that you talked about on one of your instagram posts when you did back squats?

6. Your claim that all bilateral glute training conditions out the posterior oblique sling and that it does not lead to functional improvements

Bret Contreras, the Glute Max extends the femurs. The Latissimus Dorsi Extends the humerous. When you walk, run or throw (fundamental human evolutionary movements according to anthropologists), these are movements that stimulate the posterior oblique sling contralaterally in a chain. Bilateral lifts, don’t do this. They are bilateral. You can’t be serious Bret Contreras. Again, I don’t understand how you don’t see this. Apparently, your logic would state that the posterior oblique sling adapted over millions of years on humans to move bilaterally. It seems to contradict many sciences. Care to elaborate on how muscle chains appeared magically out of nowhere? Seriously though, muscles adapt for certain purposes through natural forms of human adaptation. When you walk, this is what conditions a certain kind of sling. Your most common movement pattern will orient the kind of muscle chains you develop over a period of time. It’s quite clear the posterior oblique sling is not stimulated by backsquats, Bret Contreras. Go grab your EMGs and measure contralateral glute to lat function in your lab and I’ll wager you see no communication between the glutes and lats. Within time, someone will do this who is not trying to confirm a bilateral lifting bias and I will be dubbed a genius for pointing out the obvious… sigh…

7. Your definition of functional training versus those of others in the industry (see a quote of Naudi’s definition of functional training toward the bottom of this article)

I am not going to go into this as I have literally done this 100s of other times. Here is a link for it. Watch it Bret Contreras.
WHAT IS NAUDI’S DEFINITION OF FUNCTIONAL TRAINING? CLICK HERE

8. Your interpretation of human evolutionary biology and its relevance to resistance training, specifically whether we were in fact designed solely to run and throw, and whether or not every aspect of our training should be geared toward improving solely running and throwing performance

Bret Contreras, I also do bilateral exercises. My training tends to orient around contralateral and ipsalateral movement because that’s what humans evolved to do most. It’s not a matter of sole functions, it’s a matter of priorities. You know… Like you prioritizing your addiction to gains instead of a healthy body and mind? My logic resides in the fact that fish in water typically have fins and muscles that form in relation to treading water. How does this relate to humans? Well, once again science says humans walk as a priority. Well the scientific establishment doesn’t need to say it. Look outside. If evolution happened for a particular kind of movement, it was walking. Again, repeating myself. Why? Because so many are clouded with distorted cultural biases that make basic logic impossible to comprehend. What are your thoughts Bret? That 99 percent of our training should be in the sagittal plane like yours to be considered functional? Your instagram is flooded with videos of your training showing this. How do you suppose this coincides with human evolution? Remember when I asked you that on instagram and then you blocked me? I do.

9. Assuming that running and throwing were indeed the only activities we should try to improve in training, whether or not your methods are best suited to achieve these improvements

“Only activities”. I never said only activities Bret. I said priority. The priority of movement in humans relate specifically to what they did most in nature. Walk, Run, and Throw. As of now, I am tackling the gait cylce because it is more fundamental than throwing. When I get gait down, we will tackle throwing too. If you respect this thing called visual evidence that most humans respect, we have showcased improvements of walking and running gait. We do this all the time. Go to our Functional Patterns instagram page Bret. We drop results on there like crazy. Maybe if you researched and stayed up to date on things, you would see we are doing this. In fact we were doing this years ago when you instituted this debate challenge…

10. Your claim that pectoral training (bench press, push ups, etc.) is dysfunctional because it interferes with throwing mechanics

The bench press and pushups involve no humeral rotation, rib or hip tilts, thoracic rotations or any contralateral reciprocating motions. This is fact Bret Contreras, you know this to be true. Unless you don’t understand what those concepts mean, you know exactly what I’m talking about. Bench press and pushups are once again bilateral exercises. The motions in them look nothing like a throw therefore they do not respect the said principle in the slightest. The excuses you commonly get about lifting is that it produces mass. It does. My foible is whether or not that mass impedes function or not. If the mass is not built around the movement, it impedes the function. If the mass is built around the function, it enhances function. Bench presses and pushups don’t enhance any other function other than pushing, something that is not involved in throwing. Bret Contreras, this isn’t that complicated.

11. Your claim that calisthenics on bars is counterproductive because it makes you perform like a gorilla

Bret Contreras, we evolved to walk with our feet on the ground. Should we climb stuff at some point? Yes. Should we prioritize this over our gait cycle, no. I already explained why. Especially on your 7th concern. I am not completely opposed to calisthenics, just like I am not completely opposed to bilateral lifting like you assumed through obviously lazy research, I am opposed to the majority of training not being governed around the most fundamental human functions. At least 80 to 90 percent of your training should respect fundamental human functions. I am being conservative for the sake of you being inclusive in this. Most of what I do is contralateral and our results online speak for themselves. I’m feeling better in my 30’s than my 20’s. I am still getting better as I codify these things. Sorry for the rambling, but this stuff is just so repetitive. If you want to to move like an ape, train like one all day like people used to 3 years ago. That fad is dying. Why? Because of injuries. Why? Because people don’t respect their biology.

12. Your insinuation that rotational training should be the centerpiece of functional training

For starters, perfect rotations don’t exist in movement. There is rarely a time in motion where you will get a perfect rotation anywhere. Lateral tilts, shifts, anterior shifts and tilts accompany rotation. The most fundamental piece in it relates back to rotation bringing the left side of the body to the right. In that context (hugeeeee), rotation is the most important aspect of human motion. Since you prioritize your time in the sagitall plane Bret Contreras, I know it sounds crazy. To anyone who actually tackles these problems regularly with people, this is common sense. If you don’t see that rotation should be the centerpiece of motion, it’s because you are simply not watching high level athletes move. You are stuck in the weight room and not in reality with the rest of us at FUnctional Patterns.

13. Your usage of unstable surface training for functional improvements

To begin, our unstable surface training is not unstable. The tools we use are attached to a stable surface. If we put a bosu or swiss ball on top of water, you could call it unstable surface training. If it was unstable, I wouldn’t be able to stand on a swiss ball. The studies conducted on “unstable surface training” were conducted by people who had not idea how to apply it. I specifically use it to center a person’s mass while they perform an exercise. Asymmetry usually leads people to injury. You know all about that stuff right Bret Contreras? Why you are always injured? Probably not, which is why you are asking me this question. Keep in mind that at Functional Patterns, we don’t even teach the use of this kind of training until the end of our 2 year curriculum. Funny right? Your community loves to bash on me for this kind of training, even though it accounts for maybe .001 percent of what we do. Good try here Bret Contreras.

14. What the general purpose of the Functional Patterns training system is – who is it for, what does it claim to improve, and what does it do better than other forms of training

If you actually went to my website, you might know this Bret Contreras. We train people in relation to their biological characteristics. We build our training around the evolutionary blueprint orienting the fundamental human functions I have repeated here over and over again. What do we claim to do? Enhance human biomecahnical efficiency for a multidimensional reality. Since other forms of training have no clue what this means, it does all of that better. Mainly, we actually showcase mechanical and performance improvements on people’s movement pretty much on a daily basis on social media. When I ask people like you for before and afters on performance increases, your guys say I’m an asshole. True story. What makes us better? You can actually see improvement using our system, while the rest hide behind a piece of paper without any application associated with that piece of paper. Not the vanity driven bullshit results. Actual results that relate to human efficiency and sustainability.

15. Whether or not everyone should be adhering to your system (some of the methods shown at the bottom of this article), or if other methods are better suited for various people depending on their goals

You see Bret Contreras, it’s not a matter of choice whether people will have to employ my system, it’s a matter of time. All humans have basic needs physiologically. When they are not met, they might get injured. Right Bret? Injuries? You know about that right? Wanna know why you got them? Because you neglected your human characteristics. This is what we focus on at Functional Patterns. Human needs, not nonsensical vanity driven bullshit. This is why people get results with FP and those results last a really long time. You see, goals are created to give people a sense of purpose. If you are delusional enough to think that we are smart enough to know our purpose in this reality, I fear for your health. You’re in over your fascially restricted head here Bret Contreras. I’m not here to be sensitive to people’s self important purposes that are typically just coping strategies trying to mask a poor sense of self, I’m here to find out what humans need. On a scientific level. Homeostasis probably exists Bret Contreras. You of all people should do some research on it.

16. Whether or not rotational training is in fact the best way to build rotational power

Didn’t we discuss rotation already? How do you potentiate a motion without replicating the dynamics of that motion in your training? You are serious? You can’t be serious Bret… You’re telling me that the SAID principle doesn’t apply? sigh…

17. Your claim that sagittal plane training should be avoided and whether or not sagittal plane training leads to functional improvements in other planes

I never said this Bret Contreras. I already addressed this point on this blogpost and you are just spinning in circles with nonsense here. This is unbelievable.

18. Your claim that there is a huge conspiracy going on in S&C to cover up your methods and continue promoting archaic, traditional methods

Bret, conspiracies exist everywhere. If you take the dictionary term, they are present everywhere around us. You and many other status quo sheep like to use that word to make someone look like they are crazy. You wanna know what crazy is Bret? Training yourself towards an injury to fulfill a vain societal delusion. We all know who fits that description. Regarding there actually being a conspiracy, there isn’t. Like I mentioned in the beginning of this blogpost, there is no control group here. It’s a cultural custom to think that lifting somehow transfers to reality. I am simply challenging your way of thinking and making money. Millions of others make money doing this so they attack people like me when I call their obsolescence into question. It’s a natural process I am very aware of.

19. Your insinuation that individuals seeking increased glute mass would be better off performing THESE and THESE exercises rather than the ones I utilize HERE and whether or not you truly believe this.

If I showed you the exercises we use to develop functional Glute mass, everyone would plagiarize them. I have techniques that do this, without all the lumbar hyperextension people induce with ridiculous lifts like hip thrusters. With that said, they will have transferable glute engagement because they embody multidimensional movement. They are loaded motions as well, meaning they build strength. On top of that, they work on the rhythms that are involved in human gait and throwing, something your lifts do none of. It’s 2017, everyone gets it now Bret. Even you. Your knees especially understand what I’m talking about.

20. Whether or not you have obtained a single before/after picture of a client like I do HERE showing an impressive glute transformation

Bret Contreras, I can do anything you do in your life regarding training better than you. If I wanted to make women’s glutes huge and firm, I could do it. My concern comes back to whether or not this is a healthy pattern to promote for a human being. I again am not trying to fulfill a marketing strategy that was pumped into me when I was a kid. I’m trying to help people understand more about themselves as humans as well as the environment they are inhabiting. If you assume that women are just pieces of meat and that the gross manipulation of them with these kinds of pictures are permissable as results, you are an insult to the human species. Most if not all these women will suffer from a psychological problem in the future when they eventually get old and become unattractive. We all become unattractive at some point. Some age fast, some slow. I’m in it for the long haul kid. I want the aesthetics too, but I won’t trade it for my function and health. I will get both. And I won’t have to do it with pills or steroids either. This is one of the most disgusting displays of marketing I have ever witnessed. I bet you put this here in hopes of getting impressionable women with insecurities about their physical looks to buy into your bullshit. Shame on you Bret. Shame on you.

21. Whether you intend on conducting any randomized controlled research using your methods and comparing the functional transfer to those of other popular and established forms of training (powerlifting, Olympic lifting, CrossFit, gymnastics)?

Bret Contreras, I am more than happy to do randomized controlled research using my method. I only stated it several years ago, but no one conveniently jumps on-board. I’ll tell you why. Because most who would do these studies would have nothing to gain in proving my method correct. I know it’s correct. In fact, we have tons of results showcased online of people that get unreal results with FP. You know the ones you have been avoiding all this time? I know, all the people we have must be faking their before videos. The thousands of people we work who get results with us worldwide are part of a conspiracy to disprove traditional training. At this stage in the game, you are a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist if you think we make up what we do. Do I plan on doing studies? No. I’m a scientist. I’m too busy trying to solve problems then to subject myself into a static scientific establishment that stagnates innovation at every level. Point being that I don’t need to be a part of your club to engage the world as a scientist. Science is a marketing decision for most people. I myself market in other ways Bret. Namely, by showcasing undeniable results that only get better as we decode the human structure.

22. If so, what the measures of functional performances would be – would they examine speed, power, strength, and hypertrophy (which are in general what people seek in training), or would they examine subjective measures such as gait aesthetics, throwing aesthetics, TVA function, and posterior oblique sling coordination (which are in general not what people seek in training, but even so, how would one go about measuring this anyway)

As time moves forward, we will tackle all things mentioned by you under the harshest scrutiny of science. Everything you listed there is what our system will take ownership of. Complete ownership. We are working on this worldwide and we have our peers on the case. Hundreds of people fully certified in FP rocking this thing. Hypertrophy will not look like what you would expect, as it will be proportionate muscle, but you catch my drift. Actually you probably don’t because of the nonsensical crap you made me write about. Seriously, I didn’t really care to look at this post years ago. I knew you were going to perpetuate nonsense, but I had no idea it would be this bad. What a crazy simulator we live in.

23. Whether you think that everyone should be standing all day with the posture you propose to be ideal (see Naudi’s example of exemplary posture shown at the very bottom of this article)

No Bret, you don’t stand like that all day unless your body asks for it. It’s a way to brace the body for better function before you do a dynamic movement. Our culture as well as degeneration impede many people from engaging deep muscles responsible helping us sustain ourselves. The purpose of that posture is a regression to all exercise. It’s a base to work from. Eventually if muscles potentiate eccentrically and concentrically, I would imagine a human would stand similarly to that unconsciously. Ofcourse I have modified that position over the years as I have adapted my craft. Keep in mind that your structure is way off the mark from what I have in that picture. Notice all your injuries? I do things much more demanding with my body than you and I have no injuries. Slight tensions from occasional miscalculations in training, but all my tissues are intact. It all starts with me having the capacity to connect with that posture. Of course that is the tip of the tip of the iceberg with what I do. Like I said prior Bret Contreras, you have zero clue what I did 3 years ago. What I did then looks like complete dogshit compared to what I do today. Since I am scientific, what I do now will look like crap in 3 to 6 months. That’s the nature of being scientific. Things change. Notice how you haven’t changed? I have. Nature has taken notice too. Especially gravity. Maybe one day you’ll put the low level math together like I did over a decade ago.

24. Your take on THIS article written by sports science legend Mel Siff in 2002 (13 years ago) on functional training/functional trainers and whether you think it accurately describes you and your method

My thought on the article is that it has nothing to do with what I do. What I do is very different. I don’t show what I do anymore because people plagiarize me like crazy online. Especially the people who said I was fraudulent. I don’t measure up with prior depictions of functional training, because I am not the same thing. I assure you that if you ever try what I do in person, you perception on the human body will change forever. This isn’t empty hype either Bret. If you sign an extensive non disclosure agreement, I’ll train you myself. I’ll take those perceptions you have of me and destroy them one by one. I will do this with a percentile of the weight you use now. Of course this is all in my chamber of secrets. You at some point will be forced to deal with these things, because they work oh so well. Like I said, I don’t couple myself with any other system out there because we are simply better. We have heaps of results to prove it too. I’m getting bored now and am close to finishing this out.

25. Your take on my article from the other day and whether or not you think it accurately describes you and your methods

Your perspective is completely inaccurate. It shows how little research you put forth in trying to investigate systems you don’t understand. It’s why 3 years later, you are left with a broken body and I am barely beginning with mine. I use foresight brah, while you use hindsight. I’m ahead of my years and you know it. I’m way ahead of the industry too. You know that also. Make a smart choice Bret, or you will be seen as yet another gait keeper for the establishment that held back the growth of humanity. It’s a moral obligation. Grow up Bret. Seriously.

Hope you all enjoyed that, I sure as hell didn’t. But it’s necessary.

Think.

Naudi Aguilar


Preview the 10-Week FP Online Course


2017-11-11T00:42:29+00:00 November 11th, 2017|Functional|4 Comments

4 Comments

  1. Aj November 11, 2017 at 4:01 pm - Reply

    Lmfao what a retard, reading brets points again really highlight the dysfunctional thought process and vanity driven training. What a piece of shit.
    Can’t wait to see his attempt at a response

  2. David Graham November 12, 2017 at 12:33 pm - Reply

    Well written and thoroughly explained.

  3. Chris November 15, 2017 at 12:52 pm - Reply

    Dude you know a lot of your stuff came out from Paul CHEK whose been doing this for longer than you.
    That’s why I follow you, cause you take some of his techniques and evolve them.
    But PAUL CHEK has been doing what your doing now for much longer and had pioneered most for your beliefs about the human body and training strategies. So I hope do don’t try to clam it for your own.
    Keep up the good work.

    • William Menzies November 18, 2017 at 12:40 am - Reply

      Hey Chris.

      Naudi has given credit to Paul Chek in the past and also discussed the short comings of the CHEK method in podcasts.

      Regards
      The FP Team

Leave A Comment