Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: 240 is Back on January 07, 2009, 06:53:13 PM
-
This one is interesting to me - I saw a thread about it here, and I recall in the gym, actually tonight, a fairly well built guy telling a smaller new guy to avoid the machines and only use free weights. Is it as simple as weight moved? Or do 'stabilizer muscles' matter, as the mags tell us?
Let's say you get a set of twins in the gym. They're 18, with identical genes, nutrition, and work ethic. You set them loose for 2 years.
Twin A is stuck in the freeweight section, where he can only use movements like Bench, military press, squat, deadlifts, rows, and dumbbell movements. He can use no machines.
Twin B is limited only to machines and cables, but just like his bro, he can use unlimited weights with it.
In 2 years, which guy carries more muscle?
-
try posting on getbig with weights and not a machine
machine wins
-
Find the happy medium: Hammer Strength
-
This one is interesting to me - I saw a thread about it here, and I recall in the gym, actually tonight, a fairly well built guy telling a smaller new guy to avoid the machines and only use free weights. Is it as simple as weight moved? Or do 'stabilizer muscles' matter, as the mags tell us?
Let's say you get a set of twins in the gym. They're 18, with identical genes, nutrition, and work ethic. You set them loose for 2 years.
Twin A is stuck in the freeweight section, where he can only use movements like Bench, military press, squat, deadlifts, rows, and dumbbell movements. He can use no machines.
Twin B is limited only to machines and cables, but just like his bro, he can use unlimited weights with it.
In 2 years, which guy carries more muscle?
I'd say free weight guy would be a bit bigger and machine guy would look more like a BBer
-
try posting on getbig with weights and not a machine
machine wins
Bluto is a MACHINE
-
twin A would have a pec tear, torn ACL, and torn tendons all over
twin B would be a tiny tit
seriously though...i'm pretty sure they'd both look about the same, especially if they had the same diet and drugs.
-
There are a few instances where machines probably win convincingly
BB pullover vs. Nautilus Pullover
SL Deadlift vs. Lying Hamstring curl machine
-
There are a few instances where machines probably win convincingly
BB pullover vs. Nautilus Pullover
SL Deadlift vs. Lying Hamstring curl machine
cable laterals
cable curls
machine bench press
cable crossovers
v-bar pushdowns
leg extension
seated hamstring curl
cable uprigth rows
seated cable rows
machine t bar rows with chest pad
seated tricep extension with elbow pad
etc etc etc
machines offer much more stress on target muscle and ability to much better focus on mind-muscle connection
-
There are a few instances where machines probably win convincingly
BB pullover vs. Nautilus Pullover
SL Deadlift vs. Lying Hamstring curl machine
I can agree with this statement.. I find you can work rear delts better using machines but overall TinyTit A will be a bit bigger.
-
depends on who progressed in poundages the most.
-
With regard to cable crossovers, any one who does them ever deserves to die. Unless your gym has 5 or more cable stations it is the most selfish thing you can do in the gym to take up an entire station and prevent any one from using one side to do cable curls/cable laterals/triceps pushdowns/etc
-
cable laterals
cable curls
machine bench press
cable crossovers
v-bar pushdowns
leg extension
seated hamstring curl
cable uprigth rows
seated cable rows
machine t bar rows with chest pad
seated tricep extension with elbow pad
etc etc etc
machines offer much more stress on target muscle and ability to much better focus on mind-muscle connection
Cable curls? no, no, no. the hamstring curl would be beneficial though. Cable rows your pulling the weight horizontally vs straight up and down so 200lbs cables will not exactly be 200lbs free weights.
-
Why not just do bodyweight exercises if the new trend on GB is machines only? If free weights are so overrated and machines are so much better then bodyweight exercises must be the best of the three. Right? ::)
-
Why not just do bodyweight exercises if the new trend on GB is machines only? If free weights are so overrated and machines are so much better then bodyweight exercises must be the best of the three. Right? ::)
Now your thinking like a true Falcon
-
Cable curls? no, no, no. the hamstring curl would be beneficial though. Cable rows your pulling the weight horizontally vs straight up and down so 200lbs cables will not exactly be 200lbs free weights.
cable curls offer constant tension..
-
Cable curls? no, no, no. the hamstring curl would be beneficial though. Cable rows your pulling the weight horizontally vs straight up and down so 200lbs cables will not exactly be 200lbs free weights.
cable curls you have tension on the bicep from the very bttoom to the very top. with a barbell you do not have this. the arc will take away a bit of the weights tension towards the top of the rep. cables keep full tension. and as i noted above, machines allow better concentration for beter mind-muscle connection..(which IMO is probably one of the very most important factors in this whole thign anyway)
-
This one is interesting to me - I saw a thread about it here, and I recall in the gym, actually tonight, a fairly well built guy telling a smaller new guy to avoid the machines and only use free weights. Is it as simple as weight moved? Or do 'stabilizer muscles' matter, as the mags tell us?
Let's say you get a set of twins in the gym. They're 18, with identical genes, nutrition, and work ethic. You set them loose for 2 years.
Twin A is stuck in the freeweight section, where he can only use movements like Bench, military press, squat, deadlifts, rows, and dumbbell movements. He can use no machines.
Twin B is limited only to machines and cables, but just like his bro, he can use unlimited weights with it.
In 2 years, which guy carries more muscle?
If they are both natural and lift with the same intensity, volume etc, the guy doing the free weights would be a bit more muscular than his twin who trains with machines and cables. Machines and cables complement free weights. You don't HAVE to do a particular exercise or routine to develop a body part - machines and cables can be very useful if you are training around an injury or even if you just like the way they feel as opposed to free weights.
Free weights are harder to do cause you need to fire stabilizers and ancillary muscles to both push / pull a weight as well as keep it in the groove that you want. With machines, you follow a fixed groove, which is why you can push more weight - like a guy who benches 225 doing 450 lbs on a hammer strength bench press, for example.
There are some movements such as deadlifts and squats that you just can't replicate using machines or cables, but then again, there are things like the leg press which stimulate muscle growth pretty well while giving you a level of comfort that you'd never get while doing free weights. So it's all up to you - as long as you are putting in the effort needed, you'll see results. That being said, the best thing to do would be to start with basic, compound movements using free weights and then moving on to machines and later, cables so you can properly exhaust the muscle group to the maximum possible extent.
-
This one is interesting to me - I saw a thread about it here, and I recall in the gym, actually tonight, a fairly well built guy telling a smaller new guy to avoid the machines and only use free weights. Is it as simple as weight moved? Or do 'stabilizer muscles' matter, as the mags tell us?
Let's say you get a set of twins in the gym. They're 18, with identical genes, nutrition, and work ethic. You set them loose for 2 years.
Twin A is stuck in the freeweight section, where he can only use movements like Bench, military press, squat, deadlifts, rows, and dumbbell movements. He can use no machines.
Twin B is limited only to machines and cables, but just like his bro, he can use unlimited weights with it.
In 2 years, which guy carries more muscle?
the one who has more money to buy more drugs and better respond to those drugs will win,,few of the best bodybuilders developed their bodys on bowflex and they are from eastern europe and didnt have money to go to gym while in america because they worked 3 diff jobs so they can eat yum yum
you need to stimulate the muscle! free weight is good and nice and i recomend it as base but when you have this base you can work machines and whatever not and get stimulation
combination of both is the best but as long as you get the stimulation needed and have the ability to be on hormones that twin will look better if both do same thing
if both completely natural it will be a dependent on diet training and rest
-
cable curls you have tension on the bicep from the very bttoom to the very top. with a barbell you do not have this. the arc will take away a bit of the weights tension towards the top of the rep. cables keep full tension. and as i noted above, machines allow better concentration for beter mind-muscle connection..(which IMO is probably one of the very most important factors in this whole thign anyway)
concentration curls will keep the tension from the top to the bottom.. if you go any higher your resting the weight on your joints anyways.
-
the one who has more money to buy more drugs and better respond to those drugs will win,,few of the best bodybuilders developed their bodys on bowflex and they are from eastern europe and didnt have money to go to gym while in america because they worked 3 diff jobs so they can eat yum yum
you need to stimulate the muscle! free weight is good and nice and i recomend it as base but when you have this base you can work machines and whatever not and get stimulation
combination of both is the best but as long as you get the stimulation needed and have the ability to be on hormones that twin will look better if both do same thing
if both completely natural it will be a dependent on diet training and rest
Your missing the point. Pick one or the other..
-
Why not just do bodyweight exercises if the new trend on GB is machines only? If free weights are so overrated and machines are so much better then bodyweight exercises must be the best of the three. Right? ::)
actually they are the best! They allow you to adjust difficulty in infinitesimally small increments by altering body position to increase or decrease torque, and they minimize the chance of injury by eliminating external load which could cause injury if out of control.
If you think you're too strong for bodyweight exercises complete the following:
one-arm legs together push-up
one-arm pull-up
one leg glute ham raise
one leg squat (with back straight and upright, and working knee behind toe)
These are tough but if they're too easy I can prescribe way tougher.
-
So the answer is.....whoever has the best drugs..... :-\
-
they'd probably look fairly similar, but the first guy would be a hell of a lot more athletic. given the unlimited possibilities of freeweights we could have one guy doing all Oly lifts and variations and he'd be in terrifyingly good shape. there's nothing a machine can do that will replace power cleans or push presses.
-
cable curls you have tension on the bicep from the very bttoom to the very top. with a barbell you do not have this. the arc will take away a bit of the weights tension towards the top of the rep. cables keep full tension. and as i noted above, machines allow better concentration for beter mind-muscle connection..(which IMO is probably one of the very most important factors in this whole thign anyway)
no matter what with every mechanic there is going to be different levels of tension through a repetition, its never been PROVEN that full ROM/partial ROM is the BEST way, its all individualization and speculation
-
what a bunch of morons....
different kinds of exercices dont give a different shape to a given muscle group...
the muscles are genetically designed to have a predetermined shape whatever the way you train em, so it makes this whole thread just another useless and retarded piece of shit in the ocean of bullcrap this board is.
-
they'd probably look fairly similar, but the first guy would be a hell of a lot more athletic. given the unlimited possibilities of freeweights we could have one guy doing all Oly lifts and variations and he'd be in terrifyingly good shape. there's nothing a machine can do that will replace power cleans or push presses.
olympic lifts will not generally make lifter A look like a bodybuilder, so if lifter A were just doing olympic style lifts I say TinyTit B would look bigger.
-
what a bunch of morons....
different kinds of exercices dont give a different shape to a given muscle group...
the muscles are genetically designed to have a predetermined shape whatever the way you train em, so it makes this whole thread just another useless and retarded of shit in the ocean of bullcrap this board is.
maybe so, but I'd say you get there a bit quicker using free weights which makes this thread still relevant.
-
olympic lifts will not generally make lifter A look like a bodybuilder, so if lifter A were just doing olympic style lifts I say TinyTit B would look bigger.
Generally a lot of athletes who only do Olympic lifts will look like BBers. Some will later do arm exercises and look real big.
-
Generally a lot of athletes who only do Olympic lifts will look like BBers. Some will later do arm exercises and look real big.
examples?
-
olympic lifts will not generally make lifter A look like a bodybuilder, so if lifter A were just doing olympic style lifts I say TinyTit B would look bigger.
you're right, but that's just it. the free weights offer a myriad of possibilities. you can train for anything you want. it's possible, given every machine on the planet, that one can get the same bodybuilder-style APPEARANCE that one can get with freeweights, but in no way could anyone training for any other purpose achieve their goals limited to simply machines.
so sure, if you set two twins down with the goal of getting 20" arms and sculpted quads or whatever the two would probably progress in a similar manner. but if you took them and said "you two are training for college wrestling" or pretty much anything else it just wouldn't fly.
also, are we avoiding machines that REPLICATE free weights? there are chest press and leg press machines out there that are designed in order to feel like freeweights, which to me is just admitting that freeweights are better but pepole want to hide behind the "safety" thing in order to sell $4000 machines.
-
maybe so, but I'd say you get there a bit quicker using free weights which makes this thread still relevant.
Since Oliva himself said that machines win when it comes to development. If someone who was an olympic lifter can say that, who cares about recycled theories here as to free weight ominpotence, clearly machines are at least comparable. IMO better in many cases, and getting better as designs improve-it's like computer vs. man in chess, the tide is turning.
I laugh at anyone who claims weights are alwaysbetter. The stabilizer argument is mainly a marketing thing, there's no proof it makes a difference for development plus there are counter-arguments the other way, in favor of machines that free weight proponents never mention.
-Standing/seated calf raises - who the %%$# cares if it's a machine with no stabilizers..lol
-Hack squat - who the %%$ cares if there are no stabilizers in the better machine version.
-Pullover - no one cares about stabilizers, machine wins.
-Various Hammer machines-the muscles are fried in ways i never got with free weights.
The only reason this doesn't extend to every exercise is machine design, future designs will get better.
Cables only for refining, finishing etc. that's just a myth that some continue to buy due to close-mindedness.
-
examples?
I personally know people that you don't (no name guys in college) who built there bodies using just free weights and the guys generally look like BBers, especially the black dudes. The only machines at our gym were pulldowns, cables for arms if you wanted, and a leg press for ancillary strength. The same can be said for most other athletes we see.
-
machines were first designed for disabled/handicaped people in order to reeducate em if im not mistaken? Correct me if i'm wrong?
or they've been created by bodybuilders THEN used by physical reeducators?
-
This one is interesting to me - I saw a thread about it here, and I recall in the gym, actually tonight, a fairly well built guy telling a smaller new guy to avoid the machines and only use free weights. Is it as simple as weight moved? Or do 'stabilizer muscles' matter, as the mags tell us?
Let's say you get a set of twins in the gym. They're 18, with identical genes, nutrition, and work ethic. You set them loose for 2 years.
Twin A is stuck in the freeweight section, where he can only use movements like Bench, military press, squat, deadlifts, rows, and dumbbell movements. He can use no machines.
Twin B is limited only to machines and cables, but just like his bro, he can use unlimited weights with it.
In 2 years, which guy carries more muscle?
The twin who wins is the twin who manages to push himself the hardest.
Whether he uses free weights or machines is irrelevant. It's a matter of intensity achieved, that's it. ;)
-
Whether he uses free weights or machines is irrelevant. It's a matter of intensity achieved, that's it. ;)
This is more improtant but the actual exercises do matter.
-
I personally know people that you don't (no name guys in college) who built there bodies using just free weights and the guys generally look like BBers, especially the black dudes. The only machines at our gym were pulldowns, cables for arms if you wanted, and a leg press for ancillary strength. The same can be said for most other athletes we see.
Imperfect example that proves nothing unless compared to another group that used mainly machines.
-
different kinds of exercices dont give a different shape to a given muscle group...
the muscles are genetically designed to have a predetermined shape whatever the way you train em
Take a look at Larry Scott from the 1960's when he was Mr. Olympia and then view him from the 2000's. He was able to change his naturally full biceps into peaked biceps through different training methods.
-
Not one person in this thread specified what the goals were for anything, be it machines or otherwise.
-
This one is interesting to me - I saw a thread about it here, and I recall in the gym, actually tonight, a fairly well built guy telling a smaller new guy to avoid the machines and only use free weights. Is it as simple as weight moved? Or do 'stabilizer muscles' matter, as the mags tell us?
Let's say you get a set of twins in the gym. They're 18, with identical genes, nutrition, and work ethic. You set them loose for 2 years.
Twin A is stuck in the freeweight section, where he can only use movements like Bench, military press, squat, deadlifts, rows, and dumbbell movements. He can use no machines.
Twin B is limited only to machines and cables, but just like his bro, he can use unlimited weights with it.
In 2 years, which guy carries more muscle?
WHAT IS THE GOAL??
-
Take a look at Larry Scott from the 1960's when he was Mr. Olympia and then view him from the 2000's. He was able to change his naturally full biceps into peaked biceps through different training methods.
If that change means anything here, it was essentially created by the use of machines in very isolated contexts coupled with a clear and intense focus to change things.
-
WHAT IS THE GOAL??
answer as if the goal is performance (sports or powerlifting)
then
answer as if the goal is appearance (bbing)
:)
-
Not one person in this thread specified what the goals were for anything, be it machines or otherwise.
On a BB forum, take a guess. ;)
-
Proves nothing unless compared to another group who only used machines.
I was just answering his post where he said that those lifts will not make a guy look like a BBer.
I'm not saying one is better than another because what works for one certainly does not work for another. I know guys who only used machines and got great results. Genetics and intensity sure will work. Depending on how you define intensity though, I would say you will build muscle quicker with compounds.
-
I've always thought that people who've built their physique primarily using free weights have a denser, more complete look to them than people who've used machines more.
-
If that change means anything here, it was essentially created by the use of machines in very isolated context coupled with a clear intent to change things.
You claimed it was due to the focus on spider curls. If you have any more information, feel free to share it. My intention was only to disprove the quoted statement; not get into a battle of free weights vs. machines.
-
Depending on how you define intensity though, I would say you will build muscle quicker with compounds.
The compounds thing is another one of those internet fallacies, just like the free weights thing. Those who believe in one generally follow the other as well.
-
Take a look at Larry Scott from the 1960's when he was Mr. Olympia and then view him from the 2000's. He was able to change his naturally full biceps into peaked biceps through different training methods.
If you look at the pictures, it's the same bicep with the same shape, he simply rotated his forearm differently to make the biceps appear to have a different shape...
Flex your biceps and rotate your fist... If you rotate your fist away from you (clockwise/to the front), your biceps will appear more "full" (longer). If you rotate your fist towards you (counter-clockwise/to the rear), your biceps will appear to have a higher "peak" despite being not as "full." ;)
Bodybuilders used to flex them in the more full, less peaked way. Sergio is one example if you look at his pictures. It's just a matter of how contracted you make the muscle by rotating your forearm when you flex it. Larry Scott used to flex his biceps for a fuller look, then later flexed them in the peaked way. The muscle didn't actually change, the way he flexed it did.
-
Ron: could you thematize a thread on the G&O?
240 (for short): "at your service, master (wipping his 'mouth')",right away sir, I just read A23 + meso + many others and ready for my own threading, even thought I'm a tattooed loser who's being blankly hanging out on here for the last 5 years for no apparent reasons.
A23 = king of all star-struck weaknesses.
-
answer as if the goal is performance (sports or powerlifting)
All weights for sports performance with the exeption of leg curls and reverse hypers
then
answer as if the goal is appearance (bbing)
80/20 in favor of weights
:)
-
On a BB forum, take a guess. ;)
He didn't specify in the original post.
-
80/20...I love "coach's" completely arbitrary breakdowns. ;D
-
One of the problems with machines is that you end up working the stronger side more than the weaker. Free weights tend to avoid this problem.
-
80/20...I love "coach's" completely arbitrary breakdowns. ;D
LOL.....quick and to the point. I get tired of explaining things after a while. I've became a man of few word as of late.
-
One of the problems with machines is that you end up working the stronger side more than the weaker. Free weights tend to avoid this problem.
Actually if that were really important no one would use BBs, since they also cause that. Only DBs would be used, in order to maximize the stabilizer thing. So much for the stabilizer arguement. ;D
-
One of the problems with machines is that you end up working the stronger side more than the weaker. Free weights tend to avoid this problem.
Only avioded if you add unlateral movements.
-
Based on what exactly. You have Oliva a former olympic lifter disagreeing with you. Me i find it easier to get intense on a machine, because going to failure doesn't carry as much of a concern about getting stuck with the weight or balancing it vs. just getting the weight up.
Everything I could say would be anecdotal and you could refute, and we could go back and forth. If you are talking just lifting heavier, I would say most men could build a thicker stonger overall body with compounds.
There are other intensity techniques, which you tout, that machines can be more useful for...example, HIT that Oliva liked. I would never go to complete failure on Olympic cleans. I would say that his Olympic lifting background, much like Coleman (mostly for football and PL) made there later lifting techniques all the more effective.
-
Only avioded if you add unlateral movements.
You'd get even better results than machines or free weights if you just tied a cable around a few plates, attached it to a guy and had him sprint around cones as fast as he can! Right, Coach? ;)
-
Everything I could say would be anecdotal and you could refute
Either side could be refuted, exactly why i wouldn't draw clear conclusions either way like some do. ;)
-
Either side could be refuted, exactly why i wouldn't draw clear conclusions either way like some do. ;)
For sure man. I just didn't think the poster was right in saying that Olympic lifters or free weight lifters wouldn't look like BBers. With the exception of 6-12 sets of curls a week, every football player I knew in college used compounds lifts and looked like BBers; so I believe his assertion to be false.
Jones' results with his lifters obviously cannot be refuted so obviously both work which is why most guys use both for size. The biggest non-athlete I know uses just cables for his arms and I think they tape about 19-20"; he is about 260 pounds at 6'5".
-
If they are both natural and lift with the same intensity, volume etc, the guy doing the free weights would be a bit more muscular than his twin who trains with machines and cables. Machines and cables complement free weights. You don't HAVE to do a particular exercise or routine to develop a body part - machines and cables can be very useful if you are training around an injury or even if you just like the way they feel as opposed to free weights.
Thanks for the sanity check!
Drug free= free weights
Roids= massive targeted muscle growth with machines
HTH 8)
-
If you look at the pictures, it's the same bicep with the same shape, he simply rotated his forearm differently to make the biceps appear to have a different shape...
Flex your biceps and rotate your fist... If you rotate your fist away from you (clockwise/to the front), your biceps will appear more "full" (longer). If you rotate your fist towards you (counter-clockwise/to the rear), your biceps will appear to have a higher "peak" despite being not as "full." ;)
Bodybuilders used to flex them in the more full, less peaked way. Sergio is one example if you look at his pictures. It's just a matter of how contracted you make the muscle by rotating your forearm when you flex it. Larry Scott used to flex his biceps for a fuller look, then later flexed them in the peaked way. The muscle didn't actually change, the way he flexed it did.
Factually disproven, unless this and other pics from latter in his career are photoshopped. That's highly unlikely, though.
-
For sure man. I just didn't think the poster was right in saying that Olympic lifters or free weight lifters wouldn't look like BBers. With the exception of 6-12 sets of curls a week, every football player I knew in college used compounds lifts and looked like BBers; so I believe his assertion to be false.
Jones' results with his lifters obviously cannot be refuted so obviously both work which is why most guys use both for size. The biggest non-athlete I know uses just cables for his arms and I think they tape about 19-20"; he is about 260 pounds at 6'5".
This olympic lifter I would say LOOKS like a bodybuilder.. but you cannot tell me that the only thing he does is olympic lifts.
(http://stronglifts.com/wp-content/uploads/ivan-stoitsov.jpg)
-
This olympic lifter I would say LOOKS like a bodybuilder.. but you cannot tell me that the only thing he does is olympic lifts.
(http://stronglifts.com/wp-content/uploads/ivan-stoitsov.jpg)
No point in arguing because I don't know. I DO know female gymnasts who don't lift like BBers and could compete at figure shows. I do know football players and wrestlers who could compete at local shows and win.
-
Factually disproven, unless this and other pics from latter in his career are photoshopped. That's highly unlikely, though.
True, his biceps are more peaked now...
It appears as if his biceps simply grew bigger. Meaning, they just developed more over the years as he trained more, making them more and more peaked. Look at the inertion points. They stayed the same. However, his biceps got higher up (bigger) over time as he continued to make them grow.
-
No point in arguing because I don't know. I DO know female gymnasts who don't lift like BBers and could compete at figure shows. I do know football players and wrestlers who could compete at local shows and win.
lol, keep dreaming!
(http://www.isteroids.com/images/arnold-schwarzenegger-big_muscle.jpg)
-
lol, keep dreaming!
(http://www.isteroids.com/images/arnold-schwarzenegger-big_muscle.jpg)
You do know he built the foundation of his body with power lifts right? And how does posting a picture of Arnie on Dbol and Primo have anything to do with me saying that guys I know could win local BBing shows over regular dudes? I didn't say they were on their way to Nationals to earn their pro card.
-
True, his biceps are more peaked now...
It appears as if his biceps simply grew bigger. Meaning, they just developed more over the years as he trained more, making them more and more peaked. Look at the inertion points. They stayed the same. However, his biceps got higher up (bigger) over time as he continued to make them grow.
That's very true; the insertion points stayed the same. But, the muscle belly changed from being evenly spread over the origin and insertion to being fuller (higher) peaked closer to the insertion - creating the "peaked" biceps. This happened through training.
-
That's very true; the insertion points stayed the same. But, the muscle belly changed from being evenly spread over the origin and insertion to being fuller (higher) peaked closer to the insertion - creating the "peaked" biceps. This happened through training.
And he claimed to have accomplished this with preacher curls, correct?
-
And he claimed to have accomplished this with preacher curls, correct?
He started off with preachers and then later in his career moved onto spider curls; which he claims as the reason for building his peaked biceps.
-
He started off with preachers and then later in his career moved onto spider curls; which he claims as the reason for building his peaked biceps.
so he "claims"..... muscle shape = genetics.... there's only so many fucking ways you can move your arms....
hahah ok "isolated-reverse-grip-bent-over-supination-curls"..... ::) ::)
-
so he "claims"..... muscle shape = genetics.... there's only so many fucking ways you can move your arms....
hahah ok "isolated-reverse-grip-bent-over-supination-curls"..... ::) ::)
I agree.
I mean i don't know if you actually can or not, but i roll my eyes when i hear people say "I need more biceps peak"...
-
If they are both natural and lift with the same intensity, volume etc, the guy doing the free weights would be a bit more muscular than his twin who trains with machines and cables. Machines and cables complement free weights. You don't HAVE to do a particular exercise or routine to develop a body part - machines and cables can be very useful if you are training around an injury or even if you just like the way they feel as opposed to free weights.
Free weights are harder to do cause you need to fire stabilizers and ancillary muscles to both push / pull a weight as well as keep it in the groove that you want. With machines, you follow a fixed groove, which is why you can push more weight - like a guy who benches 225 doing 450 lbs on a hammer strength bench press, for example.
There are some movements such as deadlifts that you just can't replicate using machines or cables, but then again, there are things like the leg press which stimulate muscle growth pretty well while giving you a level of comfort that you'd never get while doing free weights. So it's all up to you - as long as you are putting in the effort needed, you'll see results. That being said, the best thing to do would be to start with basic, compound movements using free weights and then moving on to machines and later, cables so you can properly exhaust the muscle group to the maximum possible extent.
BOOOOM
My gym has this thing and it is a fucking Great,great machine.....can't say enough good things about it.
-
so he "claims"..... muscle shape = genetics.... there's only so many fucking ways you can move your arms....
hahah ok "isolated-reverse-grip-bent-over-supination-curls"..... ::) ::)
if you ever do "double bicep curls" with the cables...the peak definitely gets super pumped and noticeably more developed with time.