Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Cap on January 22, 2007, 09:37:49 AM

Title: Pros and machines
Post by: Cap on January 22, 2007, 09:37:49 AM
Does anyone think many amatures don't look as good as they used to because of voer reliance on machines.  I remember Levrone saying M3 that guys don't train heavy and hardcore and don't look as good.
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: benchthis on January 22, 2007, 09:40:07 AM
theres a certain hardness missing IMO
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: the shadow on January 22, 2007, 09:41:04 AM
Does anyone think many amatures don't look as good as they used to because of voer reliance on machines.  I remember Levrone saying M3 that guys don't train heavy and hardcore and don't look as good.
pros love machines and machines love pros..
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: Cap on January 22, 2007, 09:41:29 AM
theres a certain hardness missing IMO
Yea and there is a lack of density we used to see.
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: Bluto on January 22, 2007, 09:41:34 AM
amateurs? who watch amateurs? i only watch pros
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: Cap on January 22, 2007, 09:42:06 AM
amateurs? who watch amateurs? i only watch pros

The guys who win their pro cards... 
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: the shadow on January 22, 2007, 09:42:35 AM
amateurs? who watch amateurs? i only watch pros

hahha yeah..you only like pros cocks..hahahah
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: tom joad on January 22, 2007, 09:43:55 AM
gotta go back to the basics and the weider principles.
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: Bluto on January 22, 2007, 09:44:30 AM
dorian used a lot of machines
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: Cap on January 22, 2007, 09:44:58 AM
Absolutely bullshit. Ruhl, DJ or Schlierkamp mainly use machines.
They all use free weights but the guys coming up don't look as good from overusing machines IMO. 
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: the shadow on January 22, 2007, 09:45:27 AM
Absolutely bullshit. Ruhl, DJ or Schlierkamp mainly use machines.
you're the guy who is bullshitting here.just go and watch djs this is the way i do it..few machines.he is known as a real hardcore trainer.i can agree with ruhl and gunter using alot of machines.paul dillet and wheeler used the most machines
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: Cap on January 22, 2007, 09:47:03 AM
you're the guy who is bullshitting here.just go and watch djs this is the way i do it..few machines.he is known as a real hardcore trainer.i can agree with ruhl and gunter using alot of machines.paul dillet and wheeler used the most machines
Well Wheeler and Dillet used a shit load of roids and responded to very little training and to AAS.
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: natural al on January 22, 2007, 09:49:30 AM
the lack of hardness or grainyness is due to the higher amounts of GH and insulin, it doesn't have anything to do with training with machines or free weights.  Look at pics of strydom from his show last year, nobody was as hard and grainy as he was from the front and he uses a bunch of machines.  his drug intake is just different than the guys coming up today.
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: Bluto on January 22, 2007, 09:50:23 AM
a lot of pros use a lot of machines, then they use a lot of cables and smith machine etc too most rather use lat pulldowns than chins, cable rows etc
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: Cap on January 22, 2007, 09:52:04 AM
the lack of hardness or grainyness is due to the higher amounts of GH and insulin, it doesn't have anything to do with training with machines or free weights.  Look at pics of strydom from his show last year, nobody was as hard and grainy as he was from the front and he uses a bunch of machines.  his drug intake is just different than the guys coming up today.
What about the guys in the 90's they were bigger, harder, and drier than these guys.  I mean a last place finisher from the 90's could place top 10 in the O today in that same shape.  It's kinda sad.  I think machines have a place but guys don't look as good.
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: Man of Steel on January 22, 2007, 09:54:06 AM
dorian used a lot of machines

Correct, towards the end of his pro career he had more reliance on machines, but his core was built on a foundation of free weights.....still, he built size towards the end with machines and free weights....you're right about that.
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: kiwiol on January 22, 2007, 09:55:19 AM
What about the guys in the 90's they were bigger, harder, and drier than these guys.  I mean a last place finisher from the 90's could place top 10 in the O today in that same shape.  It's kinda sad.  I think machines have a place but guys don't look as good.

Machines have their place and should be used only if you have an injury that a free weight exercise might make worse. If there is a free weight exercise that you can do to target a specific muscle group, you should use it instead of using a machine that does the same, cause you do more work with free weights (stabilising etc) and that means, a denser, more muscular, more separations / impressive look
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: natural al on January 22, 2007, 09:56:45 AM
What about the guys in the 90's they were bigger, harder, and drier than these guys.  I mean a last place finisher from the 90's could place top 10 in the O today in that same shape.  It's kinda sad.  I think machines have a place but guys don't look as good.

guys still used machines back then, I think it's more a product of "you've got to be as big as a house or we won't look at you" that has ruined the look you're talking about.  Compare a shot of Ruhl from his pro debut at the NOC a few years back to him when he placed top 5 at the olympia.  I doubt his training changed a whole buch, maybe it did but I doubt it.  All his detail, hardness and seperation are gone cause of all the drugs these guys are using to look f'n gigantic it bloats the skin and takes away from the detail.  Same with Ronnie, compare him from the last O to even back before he won his first O, especially his back and the difference is night andd day.

Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: Bluto on January 22, 2007, 09:57:45 AM
to be part machine you need to work with machines.
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: The Showstoppa on January 22, 2007, 09:59:58 AM
No doubt that free weights should always be the foundation, but nothing wrong with using machines as well.
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: Cap on January 22, 2007, 10:00:49 AM
guys still used machines back then, I think it's more a product of "you've got to be as big as a house or we won't look at you" that has ruined the look you're talking about.  Compare a shot of Ruhl from his pro debut at the NOC a few years back to him when he placed top 5 at the olympia.  I doubt his training changed a whole buch, maybe it did but I doubt it.  All his detail, hardness and seperation are gone cause of all the drugs these guys are using to look f'n gigantic it bloats the skin and takes away from the detail.  Same with Ronnie, compare him from the last O to even back before he won his first O, especially his back and the difference is night andd day.


Yea I agree with you.  Ronnie's back used to look alot better.

I am not saying machines suck, just that maybe some overuse them.
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: Man of Steel on January 22, 2007, 10:02:19 AM
No doubt that free weights should always be the foundation, but nothing wrong with using machines as well.

Exactly, I use free weights and machines all the time....its the folks that abandon the free weights completely in favor of the machines that lose out.
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: Cap on January 22, 2007, 10:03:37 AM
I just notice that alot of guys at my gym who juice rarely use free weights.  They are younger but is that common to what you guys see?
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: Man of Steel on January 22, 2007, 10:22:04 AM
I just notice that alot of guys at my gym who juice rarely use free weights.  They are younger but is that common to what you guys see?

Who needs all that heavy free weight when you have a magical syringe full of chemical muscle?
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: Cap on January 22, 2007, 10:24:05 AM
Who needs all that heavy free weight when you have a magical syringe full of chemical muscle?
I guess.   It kind of explains why guys bigger than me are in fact bigger but are weak as shit.  Good for them I guess,  hopefully the cc's don't run out.
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: the shadow on January 22, 2007, 10:24:13 AM
Exactly, I use free weights and machines all the time....its the folks that abandon the free weights completely in favor of the machines that lose out.
correct.a combination of free weights and machines builds the ideal physiue
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: The True Adonis on January 22, 2007, 10:26:06 AM
You could reach your max potential ONLY USING MACHINES as they certainly are better designed to get the job done much more efficiently.

Free weights are overrated actually. 
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: bigmc on January 22, 2007, 10:26:37 AM
You could reach your max potential ONLY USING MACHINES as they certainly are better designed to get the job done much more efficiently.

Free weights are overrated actually. 

 ::)
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: The True Adonis on January 22, 2007, 10:29:38 AM
Anything that exhausts the muscle and is difficult will work.


IF I were to put you in an Artifical enviroment of higher gravity, lets say 4 times the amount on earth, but one that is survivable.

You will in fact have better musculature from just existing and interacting in that enviroment than you would with all of your free-weight training.


You MENTALLY think free weights are better.  It is more of a psychological issue than anything.
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: jwb on January 22, 2007, 12:07:43 PM
I always find this argument funny... machines versus free weights - like a single muscle fibre can tell the difference - it only knows whether it is been made to contract or not that is it.

Also, I'd like to see someone train calves or hamstrings exclusively without machines too...
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: natural al on January 22, 2007, 01:13:36 PM
I always find this argument funny... machines versus free weights - like a single muscle fibre can tell the difference - it only knows whether it is been made to contract or not that is it.

Also, I'd like to see someone train calves or hamstrings exclusively without machines too...

I've been saying the same thing for years and years.....
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: The True Adonis on January 22, 2007, 01:17:52 PM
I always find this argument funny... machines versus free weights - like a single muscle fibre can tell the difference - it only knows whether it is been made to contract or not that is it.

Also, I'd like to see someone train calves or hamstrings exclusively without machines too...

You could even have the BEST quads, by just doing leg extensions and nothing else.
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: Palpatine Q on January 22, 2007, 01:33:12 PM
You could reach your max potential ONLY USING MACHINES as they certainly are better designed to get the job done much more efficiently.

Free weights are overrated actually. 

I agree here.

100lbs. is 100lbs., whether it's a round plate or a square brick.

Your muscles don't know the difference, heavy is heavy
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: SWOLETRAIN on January 22, 2007, 01:33:21 PM
Anything that exhausts the muscle and is difficult will work.


IF I were to put you in an Artifical enviroment of higher gravity, lets say 4 times the amount on earth, but one that is survivable.

You will in fact have better musculature from just existing and interacting in that enviroment than you would with all of your free-weight training.


You MENTALLY think free weights are better.  It is more of a psychological issue than anything.
ill second that....
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: Option D on January 22, 2007, 01:35:28 PM
You could even have the BEST quads, by just doing leg extensions and nothing else.
Serious...is that for shock value or do you believe that.


also. Wouldnt those rubber bands with the handles build mass too. Or the bow flex.??? I dont think so.
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: SWOLETRAIN on January 22, 2007, 01:36:51 PM
i just think that there is no movements that can subsitute exercises like squat (free), deadlift, barbell curl, and incline bench press. Anything after that machines are cool. just as long as the basics are still preformed
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: buffbong on January 24, 2007, 05:25:16 PM
i dont use any machines for calves just stack the wieght on my lap for seated and do standing calve raises off a block......... and for hams stiff leg deads after quads..
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: jwb on January 24, 2007, 07:02:45 PM
i dont use any machines for calves just stack the wieght on my lap for seated and do standing calve raises off a block......... and for hams stiff leg deads after quads..

sure you can improvise but NOBODY is gonna develop gary strydom level calves and hamstrings without some machine work.

stiff legs are great but they only do one of the two functions of the hamstrings which is to extend the hip. The other function is to flex the knee and for that you need a leg curl machine... knee flexion is also a prime function of the gastrocnemius muscle in the calf too btw...
Title: Re: Pros and machines
Post by: ManBearPig... on January 24, 2007, 07:07:19 PM
I always find this argument funny... machines versus free weights - like a single muscle fibre can tell the difference - it only knows whether it is been made to contract or not that is it.

Also, I'd like to see someone train calves or hamstrings exclusively without machines too...

just when you think there's no common sense left around these parts.