Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Coach is Back! on December 30, 2009, 11:05:39 PM
-
-
No responses? Whats the matter, people in that gym train too hard and not enough machines for you?
-
Pity bump.
-
Where's the pec deck at?
-
Ill watch it later
-
Pity bump.
Thank you. I was feeling left out.
-
Where's the pec deck at?
At the "fitness" gym around the corner.
-
4:19 is even a little to long for a redtube video IMO. I'm sure it's a great gym though, just don't have the patience.
-
Awesome stuff. My Training partner has a few of their equipment pieces. Good quality stuff.
-
Definitely a solid ass gym. I would give my left nut to have a place like that to train.
-
Definitely a solid ass gym. I would give my left nut to have a place like that to train.
Of course you would, "Silverback Gorilla".....of course you would.
-
Good stuff definitely!! That gym is better then the gyms i train at. The only bad thing in that Gym is a O$U Flag on the wall.
-
Interesting gym. For powerlifters and such. You would have trouble making a profit in a club like that in most cities.
I don't see enough machines. Those racks are nice but there are not enough lat machines, arm machines, calf machines, chest machines, etc.
I will have to do a tour like that for my gym. I have heaps of equipment and more rooms. It might show the lads here what we have. We have a very different concept but then we try to cater to most people who want to get stronger, build up and get fit.
Can you imagine the noise and clanging in that place!
-
Interesting gym. For powerlifters and such. You would have trouble making a profit in a club like that in most cities.
I don't see enough machines. Those racks are nice but there are not enough lat machines, arm machines, calf machines, chest machines, etc.
I will have to do a tour like that for my gym. I have heaps of equipment and more rooms. It might show the lads here what we have. We have a very different concept but then we try to cater to most people who want to get stronger, build up and get fit.
Can you imagine the noise and clanging in that place!
::)
-
Interesting gym. For powerlifters and such. You would have trouble making a profit in a club like that in most cities.
I don't see enough machines. Those racks are nice but there are not enough lat machines, arm machines, calf machines, chest machines, etc.
I will have to do a tour like that for my gym. I have heaps of equipment and more rooms. It might show the lads here what we have. We have a very different concept but then we try to cater to most people who want to get stronger, build up and get fit.
Can you imagine the noise and clanging in that place!
vince's gym is probably 4-5 times bigger than this place...
-
No responses? Whats the matter, people in that gym train too hard and not enough machines for you?
Getbig is not about training, it's about muscle and all weird things around (drugz, g4p...)
-
Pity bump.
lol
-
Say what you want about Vince, and I've said plenty, but "bloke" has an awesome gym with a lot of top notch equipment made by his own hand. If I was in that neck of the woods I would definitely want to train there. Of course, I'd have to show up in disguise and not do any tricep pushdowns with a rope.
-
Coach, where do you guys keep the Swiss balls and the aerobic step?
-
Nice setup Joe.
-
that's what i wish my gym was like, but i have to keep buying more and more cardio shit for the members. when they first ask (demand) for it, my first thought is 'i don't recall Arnold using one of those', but then i end up buying new shit. the members , even the girls, who get the best results long term are the ones who semi-strength train and do minimal cardio. but like Vince says, i need to keep adding the new shit to keep the profits.
www.probodies.ca
-
Sorry Basil, machines suck!
-
Sorry Basil, machines suck!
Nothing wrong with a good Hammer Strength line, but this gym is perfectly equipped for powerlifters and other strength athletes.
-
Nice gym but I'm not too knowledgeable on some of these apparatus they're on about - what is a belt squat and a mono lift?
-
It's good to see a place not overcrowded with machines.
Sweet looking gym!!
-
needs some chin-up bars
-
Nothing wrong with a good Hammer Strength line, but this gym is perfectly equipped for powerlifters and other strength athletes.
The problem with Hammer Strength is the leverage is too good. Thats why you will see skinny high school kids w/ 4 plates per side bouncing the chest ISO PRESS for sloppy reps.
-
Nice gym but I'm not too knowledgeable on some of these apparatus they're on about - what is a belt squat and a mono lift?
[/quote
The belt squat is a belt you wear with a cable pully system attached below. It allows you to deload the spine but still use heavy weights. It also tractions the hips and low back.
The monolift has arms that release the bar when the lifter is ready for lift off.
The advantage of this is that the lifter does NOT have to step back out of the power rack after unracking the weight.
-
needs some chin-up bars
ummm each one of the power racks or collegiate racks has a chin up bar attachment.
-
Soapy studs gym ???
-
Ya just couldn't let it go..LOL
-
The problem with Hammer Strength is the leverage is too good. Thats why you will see skinny high school kids w/ 4 plates per side bouncing the chest ISO PRESS for sloppy reps.
YES VERY DECIEVING....if u want to build muscle and a pump good,if u want to show off for ur friends and load plates then not so good.
-
nice gym. for the serious lifter/athlete.
definately not a gym for the general public though. won't get alot of members because of that i think.
-
Ya just couldn't let it go..LOL
;D
-
too much weird powerlifting crap
-
fuck yeah :o
-
Would be a cool gym but for the powerlifting weirdos...
-
Powerlifting weirdos?? As opposed to oiled up men in thongs who train on "machines" that can do a 3 plate deadlift on a smith? Ok!
-
Powerlifting weirdos?? As opposed to oiled up men in thongs who train on "machines" that can do a 3 plate deadlift on a smith? Ok!
No, but do you really want to share a gym with fat guys in spandex suits lifting with a 3 inch rom?
-
all i see are different kind of benches and racks everywhere in this gym. Great concept for people who are obsessed with their "strenght". Not so much for others. Congrats fro making money out of a niche clientele though.
-
Is that your gym Joe?
Very impressive! (much more so than your political opinions ;D)
-
I’m envious of more than a few pieces of equipment in that gym - particularly the reverse hyper.
As far as clientele…
Where many other folks (including me) live, the demand/market for this setup may not yield enough to break even.
A gym like this would probably be much smaller with fewer & older pieces of equipment – kind of like Vince’s Gym back in the day.
Given where Joe Coach lives, the demographic is probably a bit more conducive to profiting on an investment like this.
At least for his sake I hope so, anyway.
Would be interesting to know where this intense trainer learned his craft.
-
Is that your gym Joe?
Very impressive! (much more so than your political opinions ;D)
I wish....Dave Tate's gym. Elitefts
-
MONOTONE......uhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhh....heh heh heh heh.....uhhhhhhhhhh.... more bars..... more bars......purple balls....uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ....
-
Big J, here's a demo of those two machines, the mono isn't a competition model, but you can get an idea how it works-
.
.
Elite's private gym is great, sadly it probably wouldn't survive if not for the subsidization from the business side of the venture. Also, I'm sure they have a lat machine and a few other standard things, they're just not interesting enough to showcase compared to other pieces of their equiptment line.
-
I wish....Dave Tate's gym. Elitefts
Joe,
You also have a facility where you train guys?
Is that the place we've seen in the clips you appear in?
-
that is a bad ass gym man, the leg press machine and reverse hyper=good shit
-
Joe,
You also have a facility where you train guys?
Is that the place we've seen in the clips you appear in?
It's not my facility, it's the one I've been at for the last 7 years. Mine opens this summer.
-
that is a bad ass gym man, the leg press machine and reverse hyper=good shit
I'm not big on leg presses, but that bi-lateral press is sick!
-
Nice gym but I'm not too knowledgeable on some of these apparatus they're on about - what is a belt squat and a mono lift?
Was wondering about that too. Thanks for the explanations & vids guys.
-
Does Bob Hoffman own this facility? Looks like a Bob Hoffman gym ;D
-
It's not my facility, it's the one I've been at for the last 7 years. Mine opens this summer.
Nice.
Good luck!
-
Sorry Basil, machines suck!
Why, as a professional trainer, do you feel that machines suck?
-
Why, as a professional trainer, do you feel that machines suck?
i have thought that pt's stay away from using machines with clients because once they are shown how to use them they don't need the trainer anymore. with the 'core stabilty' style training most use they remain necessary to assist the client. kinda like a make-work or job retention idea. very smart
-
Was wondering about that too. Thanks for the explanations & vids guys.
Hmm. I think belt squat is just that: You wear a belt with the weights hanging between your legs and when you squat, the weights fall into a hole over which you're astride. Sounds weird. Tried it once. Not bad.
Monolifts are those racks that powerlifters use to hold their squat bar, which then swings out of the way to let them get their one rep.
-
Why, as a professional trainer, do you feel that machines suck?
trainers are a egotistical lot and we like to show off our unique exercises to other trainers when they are working with there clients at the same time
how can you show off your fancy new one handed barbell snatch into a turkish get up when you are making your client use the pec dec instead ?
-
(http://www.sportivnypress.com/documents/hip__belt_squat_picture_ezg_1.jpg).
http://www.sportivnypress.com/documents/SUB_73.html .
Technical article on Hip belt squats. You can use a dip belt or a specialty belt from Ironmind, Spud, PDA, etc..... It's a bit different than the machine, and a bitch to set up(helps to have a loading pin), but still a neat movement.
-
Just a good gym for powerlifters to train their fat ass.
-
Why, as a professional trainer, do you feel that machines suck?
On a functional scale 1-10, 98% of machines are about 2. It doesn't make much sense to train on just a sagittal plain since the body moves in multiple directions. Make sense?
-
trainers are a egotistical lot and we like to show off our unique exercises to other trainers when they are working with there clients at the same time
how can you show off your fancy new one handed barbell snatch into a turkish get up when you are making your client use the pec dec instead ?
You f**king can't be serious?
-
You f**king can't be serious?
lol, you haven't been to our gym
-
On a functional scale 1-10, 98% of machines are about 2. It doesn't make much sense to train on just a sagittal plain since the body moves in multiple directions. Make sense?
It doesn't make sense ,when I train with free weight I don't move in multiple direction either .
-
On a functional scale 1-10, 98% of machines are about 2. It doesn't make much sense to train on just a sagittal plain since the body moves in multiple directions. Make sense?
Nice point
-
It doesn't make sense ,when I train with free weight I don't move in multiple direction either .
Training with free weights allows you to recruit more motor units in to the movement, unless you're bodybuilding, the less isolation the better in most cases.
-
Training with free weights allows you to recruit more motor units in to the movement, unless you're bodybuilding, the less isolation the better in most cases.
what machines DO you like / not mind ?
-
Training with free weights allows you to recruit more motor units in to the movement,
I agree .
-
It doesn't make sense ,when I train with free weight I don't move in multiple direction either .
Ah, but when you train with a free-weight movement you are following your body's natural plane of movement. On a machine you are forced into what ever plane of motion/fixed pattern of movement the machines's maker thought was a good idea. Never a good idea.
-
On a functional scale 1-10, 98% of machines are about 2. It doesn't make much sense to train on just a sagittal plain since the body moves in multiple directions. Make sense?
functional in bodybuilding = build muscle . and anything that you can use to put tensjion on your muscles will grow you.
some machines are good some machines are bad, some machines are bad for person X some machines are good for person Y
free weighjt, machines..use whatever you want. that being said iwould recommend combination of both as you dont have to limit yourself unless you workout in very poorly equipped gym.
-
Ah, but when you train with a free-weight movement you are following your body's natural plane of movement. On a machine you are forced into what ever plane of motion/fixed pattern of movement the machines's maker thought was a good idea. Never a good idea.
why not? it depend on the machine...and in many cases the free weight exericse isnt done with good form ´..so natural vs unatural is too simplistic expression
if you like bench press and it feels good, do it. if you like chest press machine and it feels good and yuo like it do it,. both can and will grow you
-
Ah, but when you train with a free-weight movement you are following your body's natural plane of movement. On a machine you are forced into what ever plane of motion/fixed pattern of movement the machines's maker thought was a good idea. Never a good idea.
I get the same pump with machines or free weights.
-
what machines DO you like / not mind ?
reverse hyper, tred sleds, belt squats are excellent, pull down, seated row a few more I can't think of at the moment.
-
Ah, but when you train with a free-weight movement you are following your body's natural plane of movement. On a machine you are forced into what ever plane of motion/fixed pattern of movement the machines's maker thought was a good idea. Never a good idea.
Yeah I wonder how that affects the functioning of the muscle, if at all.
On the other hand some might argue that machines could perhaps supplment your training by emphasising parts of the muscle in ways that you cant with free weights. That would seem like a good argument, if true, and also if it's not overused.
-
functional in bodybuilding = build muscle . and anything that you can use to put tensjion on your muscles will grow you.
some machines are good some machines are bad, some machines are bad for person X some machines are good for person Y
free weighjt, machines..use whatever you want. that being said iwould recommend combination of both as you dont have to limit yourself unless you workout in very poorly equipped gym.
QFT
-
reverse hyper, tred sleds, belt squats are excellent, pull down, seated row a few more I can't think of at the moment.
I see. All of the above allow free motion. They are only 'machines' in as much as not having direct contact with the weight.
-
i have thought that pt's stay away from using machines with clients because once they are shown how to use them they don't need the trainer anymore. with the 'core stabilty' style training most use they remain necessary to assist the client. kinda like a make-work or job retention idea. very smart
You're wrong. The reason I let beginning(!) clients train on a machine is more as a starting point, especially for multicompound movements like presses and rows. A lot of them aren't even capable to train correct on a machine (pushing/pulling too fast, no breath control, no full range of motion and so on..). Once they are capable to perform such exercises correctly it's time for more free weights exercises. Unfortunately a lot of clients don't have the motivation and/or motor skill to train with free weights.
-
It doesn't make sense ,when I train with free weight I don't move in multiple direction either .
You activate more 'core' muscles to stabilize your movements, like tri's & front delts for benches for example. Also EMG studies show that more muscle fibers are activated during FW exercises than those with machines.
Machine vs benchpress (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:FXASCASUtYIJ:www.castonline.ilstu.edu/mccaw/hpr482/EMGREAD_files/4065%2520mccaw%2520%26%2520friday%2520bench%2520press.pdf+EMG+weights+machines&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj7EjKsjLEhJfAoKFAOP3Z8FDkXR3Dpwn1sZbgl5V8-V8G4HdArJNzqacQiMISg6KE7P6oNT_zBvj3TyzWyBoZhlWUF2WyIKr3m8rUVyHmnCi4QgNW3mEk42ZOrzArBDnerxdXm&sig=AHIEtbSoLBg57IsDdKVX-4Tb6srsZuBNHg)
-
this is a nice gym but would like to see more dumbbells, they don't have a very big selection of dbs, should have from 5 lbs to 200's in case ronnie stops by. guy narrating sounded bored hire liev schreiber next time will make it all sound so much more interesting.
-
You activate more 'core' muscles to stabilize your movements, like tri's & front delts for benches for example.
[
True , but the difference is not noticeable to the eye ,my point is that you can build the same physique w/ free weights or machines.
-
Yeah I wonder how that affects the functioning of the muscle, if at all.
On the other hand some might argue that machines could perhaps supplment your training by emphasising parts of the muscle in ways that you cant with free weights. That would seem like a good argument, if true, and also if it's not overused.
I would not argue that it's a big deal if you are trying to get big and a little strong. You give a man enough time, food, resistance, and dianabol... he'll get there:). A muscle up to a certain point doesn't care if the resistance is from a barbell or a machine. my main problem is with something like a smith machine, something that locks you into such an un-natural plane of movement.
Free weight work simply allows more options. In my view, it it is always, whether free weight or machine, a bad idea to force un-natural form or technique on an athlete. At best it hampers an athlete's expression of strength/talent, at worst it leads to injury because an athlete is trying to force himself into a box he just doesn't naturally fit into. Best to let the athlete find his own groove.
You see this all the time with powerlifters and O/L lifters, people argue about xyz's form/technique and how bad it is. Meanwhile , the lifter has found his way to the top because he his own natural way of doing things(e.g. Patera, Rigert, Anderson, Peoples, Martinez, etc....) .
I think the real debate here isn't machines vs. free weight, in so much as it is proper implamentation and selection of machines in an athletes training.
-
Powerlifting weirdos?? As opposed to oiled up men in thongs who train on "machines" that can do a 3 plate deadlift on a smith? Ok!
Why is one any better than the other...to each his own. it's all weightlifting.
Funny you would say that anyway...being you have recently competed
-
True , but the difference is not noticeable to the eye ,my point is that you can build the same physique w/ free weights or machines.
Maybe, maybe not, got to admit this is a tough one.
I think FW give you more overall muscle control & flexability which are important for posing + that they activate more supporting/core muscles like delts, traps, forearms, lower back, glutes, hips & abs.
It's a goddamn cliche, but both have their advantages/disadvantages.
-
I would not argue that it's a big deal if you are trying to get big and a little strong. You give a man enough time, food, resistance, and dianabol... he'll get there:). A muscle up to a certain point doesn't care if the resistance is from a barbell or a machine. my main problem is with something like a smith machine, something that locks you into such an un-natural plane of movement.
Free weight work simply allows more options. In my view, it it is always, whether free weight or machine, a bad idea to force un-natural form or technique on an athlete. At best it hampers an athele's expression of strength/talent, at worst it leads to injury because an athlete is trying to force himself into a box he just doesn't naturally fit into. Best to let the athele find his own groove.
yea- training as an athlete and as a bodybuilder are two different things. Although in some cases, like smith machines as u mentioned, its probably not a good idea to use them as they could lead to injury.
-
this is a nice gym but would like to see more dumbbells, they don't have a very big selection of dbs, should have from 5 lbs to 200's in case ronnie stops by. guy narrating sounded bored hire liev schreiber next time will make it all sound so much more interesting.
I won't be surprices if they have DB's up to 250 pound or more. A lot of PL guys do dumbell rows.
-
Maybe, maybe not, got to admit this is a tough one.
I think FW give you more overall muscle control & flexability which are important for posing + thats they activate more supporting/core muscles like delts, traps, forearms, lower back, glutes, hips & abs.
It's a goddamn cliche, but both have their advantages/disadvantages.
there is no difference.
Dorian was fucking tremendous and he used a lot of machines. wasn't a power guy at all. it's a bunch of bullshit propagated by douches with think they are "hardcore"
-
there is no difference.
Dorian was fucking tremendous and he used a lot of machines. wasn't a power guy at all. it's a bunch of bullshit propagated by douches with think they are "hardcore"
It depends on what kind of difference you mean. When it comes to building muscle I think the difference is close to zero. On the one hand there's Dorian crushing Hammer Strength machines and on the other one Ronnie crushing free weights, so it seems more a personal favor issue.
-
It depends on what kind of difference you mean. When it comes to building muscle I think the difference is close to zero. On the one hand there's Dorian crushing Hammer Strength machines and on the other one Ronnie crushing free weights, so it seems more a personal favor issue.
that's why I said "there's no difference" :D
-
It's all relative. There are several machines out there that allow for a little "give" in their range of motion; they do a great job of emulating free weights. There is a shoulder press out that does a tremendous job of providing an inch or two of "play" from side to side when you are pressing. Also, cables and machines are fantastic for bicep and tricep development. As in life, everything is good in moderation...neither extreme is correct.
-
that's why I said "there's no difference" :D
Again: "It depends on what kind of difference you mean."
-
You're wrong. The reason I let beginning(!) clients train on a machine is more as a starting point, especially for multicompound movements like presses and rows. A lot of them aren't even capable to train correct on a machine (pushing/pulling too fast, no breath control, no full range of motion and so on..). Once they are capable to perform such exercises correctly it's time for more free weights exercises. Unfortunately a lot of clients don't have the motivation and/or motor skill to train with free weights.
.
If thats the case you should have them do modified body weight movements but never machines
-
True , but the difference is not noticeable to the eye ,my point is that you can build the same physique w/ free weights or machines.
Not with the same person. Machine work is vastly inferior.
-
Why is one any better than the other...to each his own. it's all weightlifting.
Funny you would say that anyway...being you have recently competed
Two years ago.....and that was the first and last time in 18 years.
-
Not with the same person. Machine work is vastly inferior.
Yes with the same person , I'm speaking from my own experience.
-
.
If thats the case you should have them do modified body weight movements but never machines
I try to stimulate them but without motivation to learn & focus it's helpless. Once I see someone is lazy I become more a social guy than a trainer for them to save energy & time.
-
Not with the same person. Machine work is vastly inferior.
Again....Dorian Yates trained mostly with machines and he won the Mr Olympia six times. Depending on who you ask, he's either the number 1 or 2 best BBer ever.
-
Not with the same person. Machine work is vastly inferior.
Why?
-
Why?
Because, it's almost always a closed-chain exercise, not an open one.
-
trainers are a egotistical lot and we like to show off our unique exercises to other trainers when they are working with there clients at the same time
how can you show off your fancy new one handed barbell snatch into a turkish get up when you are making your client use the pec dec instead ?
Your stuff never gets old. BTW, great hair. I forgot to comment on it on the separate thread (which deserved nothing less). The carefully crafted tousled look gives you a roguish almost swashbuckling look. A man who is no stranger to lethal sword play and swooning women.
-
Your stuff never gets old. BTW, great hair. I forgot to comment on it on the separate thread (which deserved nothing less). The carefully crafted tousled look gives you a roguish almost swashbuckling look. A man who is no stranger to lethal sword play and swooning women.
Kinda reminds of a pirate without the eye patch ;D
-
Because, it's almost always a closed-chain exercise, not an open one.
lol lots of bullshit in this thread..do you even know what closed chain exercise is? if your gonna try to sound fancy know what the fuck your talking about.
and no machines arent always inferior. absolute nonsense.
as long as you can load a muscle safely it doesnt matter if its a machine or free weights, and the theory about stabilizers is shit. does that mean that every machine is good, no as many are poorly contstructed but they (machines) arent inherently inferior to free weights. that being said i personally use both machines and free weights.
you guys need to realize that machines and free weights are tools used to LOAD the muscle.
-
if you wanna discuss machines vs free weight exercise you need to
(1) specify exactly what machine and which free weight exercise you are talking about
and realize
(2) that people have different structure, strength levels , strength curves, pre existing injuries etc...all these need to be taken into consideration when comparing benefits of a certain machine vs certain free weight exercise
-
On a functional scale 1-10, 98% of machines are about 2. It doesn't make much sense to train on just a sagittal plain since the body moves in multiple directions. Make sense?
A bench press trains you in a specific plane of motion. Incline trains a different plane. Decline still another. There are incline, decline, flat machines.
Are you saying that it is necessary to train all the planes of motion? If so by how many degrees? How would you isolate the ham strings with free weights?
If there's any limitation on plane of motion it would seem to be free weights which, because it is governed by gravity, is simply up and down. When you start out with a bicep curl there is no resistance on your biceps. It steadily increase until your forearms are perpendicular to the floor at a 90 degree angle in which then, and only then, you have the full resistance of the weight.
You joints move in a rotary fashion. An example will be the Nautilus pullover where the resistance is where it's suppose to be, the elbows, so you by pass the much weaker biceps. Resistances is applies through out the full range of motion. Same with the lateral shoulder machine and bicep curl. Full range rotary motion.
-
Yes with the same person , I'm speaking from my own experience.
Way wrong answer... "che"
-
if you wanna discuss machines vs free weight exercise you need to
(1) specify exactly what machine and which free weight exercise you are talking about
and realize
(2) that people have different structure, strength levels , strength curves, pre existing injuries etc...all these need to be taken into consideration when comparing benefits of a certain machine vs certain free weight exercise
The older Nautilus machines and Hammer Strength are best in my book.
-
Ah, but when you train with a free-weight movement you are following your body's natural plane of movement. On a machine you are forced into what ever plane of motion/fixed pattern of movement the machines's maker thought was a good idea. Never a good idea.
That depends entirely on how you setup/position the exercise. Standing curls or Scott curls. Incline or decline bench. Narrow or wide stance squats. What is a body's natural plane of movement?
-
lol lots of bullshit in this thread..do you even know what closed chain exercise is? if your gonna try to sound fancy know what the fuck your talking about.
and no machines arent always inferior. absolute nonsense.
as long as you can load a muscle safely it doesnt matter if its a machine or free weights, and the theory about stabilizers is shit. does that mean that every machine is good, no as many are poorly contstructed but they (machines) arent inherently inferior to free weights. that being said i personally use both machines and free weights.
you guys need to realize that machines and free weights are tools used to LOAD the muscle.
Hmm. When I wrote that I was thinking of the pull-ups I did today vs. the pull-downs I see most people do. This ok with you, badass!?
-
Because, it's almost always a closed-chain exercise, not an open one.
What does that mean?
-
Chins, Dips and Squats increasing weight when possible throw in a few curls. A done deal for mass building
-
No responses? Whats the matter, people in that gym train too hard and not enough machines for you?
STFU... ::)
What's the big deal - you've suddenly after 30+ years in gym training all of a sudden discovered that some people train to lift heavy.
Give it another 12 months and you will be posting a video of a Weightlifting gym like that is something novel.
But hey - I'm happy for yeh!
I bet you wear House of pain tee's and beanies and shit too, being 100% HARDCOOOOOOOOOOORE? ;D
-
What does that mean?
You have a computer? Access to google? Sorry, I realize I've asked you that tonight. ;)
-
The older Nautilus machines and Hammer Strength are best in my book.
some nautilus machines are good..some are absolute shit. same with hammer strength...many good machines...some are poor. and i tried alot of them. so like i said some are good some are bad AND you have to factor that in when you compare to a certain free weight exercise. IF you safely can load a muscle using a certain machine exercise..it will be just as a good as free weights. progressive increases of tension on the muscle what first and foremost drives muscle growth.
-
Hmm. When I wrote that I was thinking of the pull-ups I did today vs. the pull-downs I see most people do. This ok with you, badass!?
I find that one of the reasons people don't do pull ups is because they can't. They aren't strong enough. I read an article that most top pros can't do pull ups because though they are very strong they weigh 275-300 pounds. Pull downs are a compromise.
-
Hmm. When I wrote that I was thinking of the pull-ups I did today vs. the pull-downs I see most people do. This ok with you, badass!?
pull ups or pull downs..doesnt matter which the fuck you do (personal preference...and many are too weak and/or fat to do correct chins.).eventho some hard core cocksuckers will say chins. all that matter is that you over time increase the weight in the exercise and do the exercise correctly so the intended muscles get worked.
-
pull ups or pull downs..doesnt matter which the fuck you do..eventho some hard core cocksuckers will say chins. all that matter is that you over time increase the weight in the exercise and do the exercise correctly so the intended muscles get worked.
QFT
-
too weak for chins?
that's pretty sad
-
too weak for chins?
that's pretty sad
Bump for the beret.
-
Bump for the beret.
lol thanks, bro ;D
-
too weak for chins?
that's pretty sad
I resent that. It's not a natural plane of movement for me.
-
I resent that. It's not a natural plane of movement for me.
you're still cool, pellius
no one can take that from you
-
-
You activate more 'core' muscles to stabilize your movements, like tri's & front delts for benches for example. Also EMG studies show that more muscle fibers are activated during FW exercises than those with machines.
Machine vs benchpress (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:FXASCASUtYIJ:www.castonline.ilstu.edu/mccaw/hpr482/EMGREAD_files/4065%2520mccaw%2520%26%2520friday%2520bench%2520press.pdf+EMG+weights+machines&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj7EjKsjLEhJfAoKFAOP3Z8FDkXR3Dpwn1sZbgl5V8-V8G4HdArJNzqacQiMISg6KE7P6oNT_zBvj3TyzWyBoZhlWUF2WyIKr3m8rUVyHmnCi4QgNW3mEk42ZOrzArBDnerxdXm&sig=AHIEtbSoLBg57IsDdKVX-4Tb6srsZuBNHg)
Of course free weights activate more muscles but that because you have to balance the weight making the environment more unstable which requires a lot for skill than machines. But why is that a good thing for the targeted muscle?
When I ask a person what is your core they kind of motion to their waist area. When I ask specifically what they mean, what muscles are they talking about, they'll same something like abs, obliques, lower back muscles. There are specific movements that target that muscle. All muscles in a sense or stabilizers in that they hold you up and maintain any position that you might want to assume. But is there really a specific class of stabilizer muscles? If so, what are they?
I think when people talk about core and stabilizers they are referring to the balancing skill required to move an unsupported weight which makes it more unstable. By why is that a good thing? I'm sure you use a lot more "stabilizing" muscles squatting or benching on a Swiss bar but the more unstable the environment the less you can target a given muscle. All a muscle does is contract. Contract under resistance and over load may stimulate an adaptive response. Compromise that resistance and the exercise becomes less effective for stimulating an adaptive response. Free weights become effective once a person learns the skill of lifting on that particular movement and can now focus on intensity and overload. But there's an inherent limitation because the maximum plane of resistance is limited to up and down whereas your joints move in a rotary fashion.
-
Of course free weights activate more muscles but that because you have to balance the weight making the environment more unstable which requires a lot for skill than machines. But why is that a good thing for the targeted muscle?
The advantage lies more in a higher rate of activated muscle fibers within the targeted muscle than the number of supporting muscles involved. AFAIK there's no consensus yet why this is, but I think that balancing play an important role. Especially dumbell exercises have a high EMG score. For example decline dumbell presses has the highest EMG score compared with other chest exercises with barbells, machines, cables and from other angles.
When I ask a person what is your core they kind of motion to their waist area. When I ask specifically what they mean, what muscles are they talking about, they'll same something like abs, obliques, lower back muscles. There are specific movements that target that muscle. All muscles in a sense or stabilizers in that they hold you up and maintain any position that you might want to assume. But is there really a specific class of stabilizer muscles? If so, what are they?
Officially your core means your whole body minus your legs and arms. You're correct that every muscle functions as a stabilizer, but in case of your core it's more about muscles who play a more active role in this process, like the lower and mid section from your back & abs to keep your torso in position, your neck for your head, hips for your legs & torso and delts for arms & torso. There are specific exercises for those areas but it's also important to let them work together. Imagine yourself in a wheelchair for a year with two daily options for 1 hour: 1. isolation exercises or 2. walking. I would definitely going for 2 because walking would be tough after 1 year with only the option #1.
I think when people talk about core and stabilizers they are referring to the balancing skill required to move an unsupported weight which makes it more unstable. By why is that a good thing?
Because most of us use those muscles to less because of modern times. We sit, we drive, take the lift, etc. For example strong abs help to prevent lowerback pain.
I'm sure you use a lot more "stabilizing" muscles squatting or benching on a Swiss bar but the more unstable the environment the less you can target a given muscle. All a muscle does is contract.
See my first reply in this post. A contraction is only a contraction on fiber level (activated or not).
Contract under resistance and over load may stimulate an adaptive response. Compromise that resistance and the exercise becomes less effective for stimulating an adaptive response. Free weights become effective once a person learns the skill of lifting on that particular movement and can now focus on intensity and overload. But there's an inherent limitation because the maximum plane of resistance is limited to up and down whereas your joints move in a rotary fashion.
The more muscles and balancing work is involved the harder it gets to perform them. I always tell impatient clients that they first need to control the movement & weight before going heavy. Of course this is nothing less than logic, but this is just beginners experience.
-
What is a body's natural plane of movement?
It varies with the with the individual. Watch a 1000 different people rack a clean or bench press you'll all sorts of variations in bar path, bar speed, etc.... that aren't easy to replicate, if even replicatable on a machine. It is quicker, safer, and more efficiant to have them use freeweights.
-
The advantage lies more in a higher rate of activated muscle fibers within the targeted muscle than the number of supporting muscles involved. AFAIK there's no consensus yet why this is, but I think that balancing play an important role. Especially dumbell exercises have a high EMG score. For example decline dumbell presses has the highest EMG score compared with other chest exercises with barbells, machines, cables and from other angles.
Officially your core means your whole body minus your legs and arms. You're correct that every muscle functions as a stabilizer, but in case of your core it's more about muscles who play a more active role in this process, like the lower and mid section from your back & abs to keep your torso in position, your neck for your head, hips for your legs & torso and delts for arms & torso. There are specific exercises for those areas but it's also important to let them work together. Imagine yourself in a wheelchair for a year with two daily options for 1 hour: 1. isolation exercises or 2. walking. I would definitely going for 2 because walking would be tough after 1 year with only the option #1.
Because most of us use those muscles to less because of modern times. We sit, we drive, take the lift, etc. For example strong abs help to prevent lowerback pain.
See my first reply in this post. A contraction is only a contraction on fiber level (activated or not).
The more muscles and balancing work is involved the harder it gets to perform them. I always tell impatient clients that they first need to control the movement & weight before going heavy. Of course this is nothing less than logic, but this is just beginners experience.
What activates the fibers is the load presented on them. Light load, less activation. More load, more activation. This is different from muscular inroads where the load is relatively light but repetitions high.
If you want to get good at walking -- walk. If you want to get good at managing a wheel chair -- roll around on that chair. Neither will help the other.
The body is very activity specific. This started to dawn on me when I rolled around with a Jiu-Jitsu novice who was a top notched marathon runner. Now when I say rolled around I had no intention of smashing him but just roll and let him practice on me. Is main problem was he just kept getting winded. He couldn't keep up with me conditioning wise on the mat. But I assure you I couldn't jog 10 miles let alone keep up with him in a marathon.
A lot of the conditioning training that coaches have their MMA fighters do: moving tires, chopping wood, pulling sleds, jumping around, even low intensity jogging, will do little or nothing in increasing a fighter's conditioning for a fight. Dan Gable was once asked what was the best exercise to be in shape for wrestling. He said "Wrestle."
When Joe Stevenson fought B.J. Penn of course he got smashed but he was barely winded even though B.J. was huffing and puffing. And Joe was in all the bad positions that exhaust you -- being on the bottom. His training consisted primary of very activity specific drills. Actually rolling and fighting round after after round.
Did you watch any of the last TUF? Those big guys did all those state of the art conditioning drills but when they actually step into the cage they could barely get through the first round. They were in great shape. In shape for jogging, lifting weights, climbing rope, pulling sleds, but not for fighting. In their training they seemed to do little all out sparring and wrestling and it showed.
-
It varies with the with the individual. Watch a 1000 different people rack a clean or bench press you'll all sorts of variations in bar path, bar speed, etc.... that aren't easy to replicate, if even replicatable on a machine. It is quicker, safer, and more efficiant to have them use freeweights.
A person is far, far more likely to hurt themselves doing a squat, bench press, shoulder press with free weights than a leg press, Nautilus chest or shoulder press precisely because it's a fix motion. There is no such thing as a natural groove that your body tends to. Watch someone who has never benched before. He may instinctively lower the bar to his neck or toward his stomach. He may not push it straight up (straight up and down being the natural groove for a free weight be it a rock or a barbell regardless what a person's "natural groove is."). With a machine all you have to do is adjust it to fit the person and let them push or pull. He doesn't have to worry about controlling and balancing the weight. Just subjecting the muscle to an over load.
We can debate whether free weights vs machines are more conducive to muscle size and strength but to claim that free weights are inherently safer is a stretch.
-
Again....Dorian Yates trained mostly with machines and he won the Mr Olympia six times. Depending on who you ask, he's either the number 1 or 2 best BBer ever.
Dorian built his foundation with free weights not machines.
-
Decline is one of the most useless exercises ever.
BTW Nice gym...def has the feeling of a mans gym and I've been in many gym all around the world.
-
(http://atlas.cooltext.com/rendered/cooltext444635658.gif)
-
overload is the key to growth it doesn't matter if you use machines or free weights...
one example is dorian's calf training... he used standing and seated calf machines and nothing else his entire career.
the key is to find the exercises (machine or free weight) that suit you and that you can feel strongly in the area you are trying to target... and this is different for every single person.
-
Decline is one of the most useless exercises ever.
Because it doesn't give you a pump or what?
-
Because it doesn't give you a pump or what?
I don't think it's ever done anything for me....EVER I haven't did it in at least 6-7 years....Bench and incline work fine.
-
I don't think it's ever done anything for me....EVER I haven't did it in at least 6-7 years....Bench and incline work fine.
But why make a blanket statement like that my wigger?
Decline blows my chest up like a balloon.
-
every exercise can be productive. the deciding factor is intensity.
-
Decline blows my chest up like a balloon.
X2 (the dumbbell version)
-
But why make a blanket statement like that my wigger?
Decline blows my chest up like a balloon.
Can some please show me results of what decline can do...
I am willing to put money that you can build great chest never touching a decline machine...
Please tell me the benefits I get that I don't get on the flat and incline...
You don't need it to buld a superior chest thus it is useless for chest...Obviously there is some benefit because it is a pressing movement involving your chest but useless compared to flat and incline...
-
I feel decline in my whole chest, unlike with any other press
plus I'm stronger on them
-
I feel decline in my whole chest, unlike with any other press
plus I'm stronger on them
You're stronger because the position of the bench...
No one built a huge chest of off just declines...it was cause of bench and incline.
Hell watch any bodybuilding workout video and you can count on one hand how many do declines. I actually can't think of any I'm sure there are some...ask around though...you'll see I'm correct.
-
You're stronger because the position of the bench...
No one built a huge chest of off just declines...it was cause of bench and incline.
Hell watch any bodybuilding workout video and you can count on one hand how many do declines. I actually can't think of any I'm sure there are some...ask around though...you'll see I'm correct.
hold the phone, Wiggs - I'm not calling you a liar
I usually do some combination of inclines, declines and dips (occasionally supersetted with cable crossovers or pec dec, depending on how busy the gym is)
-
Here's a complete list from several EMG measurements (for whats worth it). Those declines give me a much better stretch & contraction compared to flat bench movements.
IEMG max motor-unit activation
Exercise
%IEMG max
Pectoralis major
Decline dumbbell bench press
93
Decline bench press (Olympic bar)
89
Push-ups between benches
88
Flat dumbbell bench press
87
Flat bench press (Olympic bar)
85
Flat dumbbell flys
84
Pectoralis minor
Incline dumbbell bench press
91
Incline bench press (Olympic bar)
85
Incline dumbbell flys
83
Incline bench press (Smith machine)
81
Medial deltoids
Incline dumbbell side laterals
66
Standing dumbbell side laterals
63
Seated dumbbell side laterals
62
Cable side laterals
47
Posterior deltoids
Standing dumbbell bent laterals
85
Seated dumbbell bent laterals
83
Standing cable bent laterals
77
Anterior deltoids
Seated front dumbbell press
79
Standing front dumbbell raises
73
Seated front barbell press
61
Biceps brachii (long head)
Biceps preacher curls (Olympic bar)
90
Incline seated dumbbell curls (alternate)
88
Standing biceps curls (Olympic bar/narrow grip)
86
Standing dumbbell curls (alternate)
84
Concentration dumbbell curls
80
Standing biceps curls (Olympic bar/wide grip)
63
Standing E-Z biceps curls (wide grip)
61
Triceps brachii (outer head)
Decline triceps extensions (Olympic bar)
92
Triceps pressdowns (angled bar)
90
Triceps dip between benches
87
One-arm cable triceps extensions (reverse grip)
85
Overhead rope triceps extensions
84
Seated one-arm dumbbell triceps extensions (neutral grip)
82
Close-grip bench press (Olympic bar)
72
Latissimus dorsi
Bent-over barbell rows
93
One-arm dumbbell rows (alternate)
91
T-bar rows
89
Lat pulldowns to the front
86
Seated pulley rows
83
Rectus femoris (quadriceps)
Safety squats (90 degree angle, shoulder-width stance)
88
Seated leg extensions (toes straight)
86
Hack Squats (90 degree angle, shoulder-width stance)
78
Leg press (110 degree angle)
76
Smith machine squats (90 degree angle, shoulder-width stance)
60
Biceps femoris (hamstring)
Standing leg curls
82
Lying leg curls
71
Seated leg curls
58
Modified hamstring deadlifts
56
Semitendinosus (hamstring)
Seated leg curls
88
Standing leg curls
79
Lying leg curls
70
Modified hamstring deadlifts
63
Gastrocnemius (calf muscle)
Donkey calf raises
80
Standing one-leg calf raises
79
Standing two-leg calf raises
68
Seated calf raises
61
-
I've been there. It's in a barn basically, in the middle of nowhere near Columbus. Powerlifters heaven
-
That's perfect. We're opening in a warehouse, non-discreet non-commercial.
-
overload is the key to growth it doesn't matter if you use machines or free weights...
one example is dorian's calf training... he used standing and seated calf machines and nothing else his entire career.
the key is to find the exercises (machine or free weight) that suit you and that you can feel strongly in the area you are trying to target... and this is different for every single person.
QFT.
-
Can some please show me results of what decline can do...
I am willing to put money that you can build great chest never touching a decline machine...
Please tell me the benefits I get that I don't get on the flat and incline...
You don't need it to buld a superior chest thus it is useless for chest...Obviously there is some benefit because it is a pressing movement involving your chest but useless compared to flat and incline...
Wiggs, try doing sort of a most muscular in 3 different positions: one where your upper arms are on the side of your body and then you bring them toward your center line still with your arms sliding across your body trying to touch to your elbow together and so that forearms cross together (your arms are bent). Kind of like a most muscular except you're squeezing your pecs. Now bring your upper arms up to shoulder level and do the same thing. Bringing your elbows together toward the center line and squeezing your pecs. Now the third position where you try to bring your upper arms towards your nose.
Which position give you the most intense pec contraction?
-
Sorry Basil, machines suck!
That's funny considering elitefts sells tons of machines. Funny considering Tate's mentor, Louie Simmons, invented a few machines that have been promoted like hell by Tate and Simmons. ???
Free weight training at the Elitefts compound:
-
More hardcore free weight training at Elite
-
Roughly how much did it cost to out fit the gym?
-A DUB
-
nice gym. for the serious lifter/athlete.
definately not a gym for the general public though. won't get alot of members because of that i think.
My thoughts exactly. You will get your hardcore group of folks, which makes for a small percentage of most gyms clientel. I could see it surviving from personal training especially traning for specified sports, but only in a large city or metro area. But personally, that's a bad ass gym. Kinda has the Metro-Flex Gym persona with a whole lot more money put into the equipment.
-
More hardcore free weight training at Elite
I admit it, those vids make me a jealous bitch >:(
-
That's funny considering elitefts sells tons of machines. Funny considering Tate's mentor, Louie Simmons, invented a few machines that have been promoted like hell by Tate and Simmons. ???
Free weight training at the Elitefts compound:
Doesn't mean I like machines. Like I said, there are a few I like, reverse hyper being the main one. If Tate and Louie Simmons like the machines then more power to them.
-
STFU... ::)
What's the big deal - you've suddenly after 30+ years in gym training all of a sudden discovered that some people train to lift heavy.
Give it another 12 months and you will be posting a video of a Weightlifting gym like that is something novel.
But hey - I'm happy for yeh!
I bet you wear House of pain tee's and beanies and shit too, being 100% HARDCOOOOOOOOOOORE? ;D
We went through this a while ago. I'm not going to go over it again.
-
We went through this a while ago. I'm not going to go over it again.
I thought you were at the roses parade.
-
I thought you were at the roses parade.
No, my wife, son and my wifes family went. I hate going to the parade, it's a major pain in the ass to get around.....especially when I'm a little hungover. Going to Golds Venice as soon as my brain quits throbbing and I eat.
-
So, this is a "machines vs. freeweights" discussion?
Why don't we start an unheard of "H.I.T vs. FST-7" discussion?
So many obstinate home-made opinions here. Geez! Gimme an out of shape client that truly wants to get in shape and tell me that I can't use a gym, freeweights or machines to get them in top shape.
Not even a challenge. Stupid arguements from Crew Oblivious.
-
burpees ( and their SEVERAL variations) and good diet will make anyone shredded without a gym
-
burpees ( and their SEVERAL variations) and good diet will make anyone shredded without a gym
LOL!
-
LOL!
i'm telling you coach
you give me a fat body for 12 weeks and i will have them do nothing but tabata style Kip up chirpees and they will be fucking ripped
well, not really............ i just wanted to type the words "tabata style Kip Up Chirpees" for the hell of it ;D
-
http://www.flexcart.com/members/elitefts/default.asp?m=PD&cid=167&pid=1376
Hey we know it's a leg press and many do not see a value in them. This is why we jacked it up to the point is has become a machine that can make a difference in the weight room. This is not one of those 35 degree, load a zillion pounds on it leg presses. This is the real deal! The 45 degree angle makes all the difference in the world.
-
http://www.flexcart.com/members/elitefts/default.asp?m=PD&cid=167&pid=1376
Hey we know it's a leg press and many do not see a value in them. This is why we jacked it up to the point is has become a machine that can make a difference in the weight room. This is not one of those 35 degree, load a zillion pounds on it leg presses. This is the real deal! The 45 degree angle makes all the difference in the world.
Beautiful machine, especially it's unilateral platforms
This item will NOT fit through a standard size door.
;D
-
thats a really nice gym! although its missing a few things. i didnt see a pulldown, seated row, pull over, leg extension, seated ham curl, standing ham curl, lying ham curl, buttblaster, only one pulley machine..
-
thats a really nice gym! although its missing a few things. i didnt see a pulldown, seated row, pull over, leg extension, seated ham curl, standing ham curl, lying ham curl, buttblaster, only one pulley machine..
It's not set up for bodybuilding. Pretty sure Tate knows how to set up his gym!
-
It's not set up for bodybuilding.
Does Ken Patera workout there?
-
i'm telling you coach
you give me a fat body for 12 weeks and i will have them do nothing but tabata style Kip up chirpees and they will be fucking ripped
well, not really............ i just wanted to type the words "tabata style Kip Up Chirpees" for the hell of it ;D
I hope you didn't miss my critique of hair somewhere on this thread (I think page 4). As arguments grow heated and tempers flair we mustn't lose sight about what's really important in life.
-
Your stuff never gets old. BTW, great hair. I forgot to comment on it on the separate thread (which deserved nothing less). The carefully crafted tousled look gives you a roguish almost swashbuckling look. A man who is no stranger to lethal sword play and swooning women.
i just caught this
thank you for reminding me because i tend to forgot how important my hair is to me/this world.
seriously, what is the point of me saving the world when i can't do that thing wear i swift the bang out of my eye after i hit a roundhouse kick on a moustached bad guy?
my hair isn't only sexy but it is a matter of saving the free world
-
thats a really nice gym! although its missing a few things. i didnt see a pulldown, seated row, pull over, leg extension, seated ham curl, standing ham curl, lying ham curl, buttblaster, only one pulley machine..
I just caught this...seriously WTF?
-
http://www.flexcart.com/members/elitefts/default.asp?m=PD&cid=167&pid=1376
Hey we know it's a leg press and many do not see a value in them. This is why we jacked it up to the point is has become a machine that can make a difference in the weight room. This is not one of those 35 degree, load a zillion pounds on it leg presses. This is the real deal! The 45 degree angle makes all the difference in the world.
That thing is a monster, LOL!
-
I just caught this...seriously WTF?
love to work the glutes!!! :) a nice ass is essential
-
It's not set up for bodybuilding. Pretty sure Tate knows how to set up his gym!
Coach,
Are you saying Tate & Efts,LLC. should hire Candi as a freelance consultant for facility and program design?
;D
-
It's not set up for bodybuilding. Pretty sure Tate knows how to set up his gym!
It's pretty obvious the gym isn't set up for bodybuilding.... there aren't 400 mirrors. :)
-
Coach,
Are you saying Tate & Efts,LLC. should hire Candi as a freelance consultant for facility and program design?
;D
Yes, he can add the ad/abductor "machines" and put them next to the "buttblaster" "machine" ;D
Just bustin your balls Tbombz!
-
Yes, he can add the ad/abductor "machines" and put them next to the "buttblaster" "machine" ;D
Just bustin your balls Tbombz!
nothing like the ab/ad to bring out the inner thigh and outer glutes! :P
-
thats a really nice gym! although its missing a few things. i didnt see a pulldown, seated row, pull over, leg extension, seated ham curl, standing ham curl, lying ham curl, buttblaster, only one pulley machine..
I think they have all those things actually. I don't know about the butt blaster but probably a few pieces that can be used as one.
I saw a pic of a place they furnished, a college gym or something. It was like 10 powerracks with platforms on one side of the room and another 10 on the other side. Enough to make me jizz in my pants. :D
-
That's funny considering elitefts sells tons of machines. Funny considering Tate's mentor, Louie Simmons, invented a few machines that have been promoted like hell by Tate and Simmons. ???
Free weight training at the Elitefts compound:
Who is the beast doin 185 on the smith machine?
-
i didnt wade through the 7 pages of responses to check, but did anyone notice that there isnt a single mirror in the place?
great equipment, no mirrors, no fuss...now THAT's a GYM!!!
-
sometimes the image of yourself can be motivating. i know it is for me. mirrors boost my intensity. if i made my own gym, every surface would be a mirror. well besides the weights machines the deadlift platforms..etc.. of course lol
-
At the "fitness" gym around the corner.
Ive found that pec deck supersetted with dips (specifically v dips), give a pump like no other.
-
Ive found that pec deck supersetted with dips (specifically v dips), give a pump like no other.
and?
-
Ive found that pec deck supersetted with dips (specifically v dips), give a pump like no other.
pre-exhaustion = worked for me as well..pecs fail before the triceps, which mean greater stimilation to the pecs
-
i didnt wade through the 7 pages of responses to check, but did anyone notice that there isnt a single mirror in the place?
great equipment, no mirrors, no fuss...now THAT's a GYM!!!
Mirrors are useful for beginners to learn proper lifting techniques, but once you become a experienced lifter they become distracting. I allways turn my back to the mirror when I do squats.
-
Disco stu....no mirrors in my gym either
-
How did this thread make it to 8 pages? ???
-
Who is the beast doin 185 on the smith machine?
Dude is beast, seriously. Big and strong. Started juicing at 15 I hear. Just like JME. :D
(http://jimmysmithtraining.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/dave_tate.png)
(http://asp.elitefts.com/images/upload/qa/dave-log2.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3174/2854731033_a96b1da204.jpg)
-
and?
and what? U need ketchup on those fries too? tool
-
On a functional scale 1-10, 98% of machines are about 2. It doesn't make much sense to train on just a sagittal plain since the body moves in multiple directions. Make sense?
It is always refreshing to hear from a true expert. Wait, this is Getbig where everyone is an expert.
What a load of crap many say here. No doubt they say stuff to support what they sell. What functional scale? Let us stick to hypertrophy and forget about the other fitness components.
Some of you guys should sit down and try to design some gym equipment. You wouldn't make statements like this if you did.
I favour machines over free weights by a wide margin. If musclemen didn't use them I would put all my free weights in a barge and sink it off the coast. Would do more good there and result in a quieter gym!
-
It is always refreshing to hear from a true expert. Wait, this is Getbig where everyone is an expert.
What a load of crap many say here. No doubt they say stuff to support what they sell. What functional scale? Let us stick to hypertrophy and forget about the other fitness components.
Some of you guys should sit down and try to design some gym equipment. You wouldn't make statements like this if you did.
I favour machines over free weights by a wide margin. If musclemen didn't use them I would put all my free weights in a barge and sink it off the coast. Would do more good there and result in a quieter gym!
Because you don't know anything outside of bodybuilding training Vince, is that why you want to stick to hypertrophy only? You think hypertrophy is the only component to training?
Hey Vince, wtf do you think people did before all these fancy gimmick machines were around? Sorry Vince, that hypothetical scale and I stick by it 100%. Have you ever trained hard in your life? It's funny when I was in Golds today, I was watching some pros train today and was thinking the intensity the way these guys train is a joke, it was like they were just going through the motions, few sets here, rest a few minutes, 10 reps and check themselves in the mirror, geez!!
-
I saw a pic of a place they furnished, a college gym or something. It was like 10 powerracks with platforms on one side of the room and another 10 on the other side. Enough to make me jizz in my pants. :D
Maybe the University of Pittsburgh- http://elitefts.com/news-room/Photos/pitt2.jpg ?
Here's a few other weight rooms that were put together nicely-
-
How did this thread make it to 8 pages? ???
Someone started bashing machines over free weights....
go figure.
-
Dude is beast, seriously. Big and strong. Started juicing at 15 I hear. Just like JME. :D
(http://jimmysmithtraining.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/dave_tate.png)
(http://asp.elitefts.com/images/upload/qa/dave-log2.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3174/2854731033_a96b1da204.jpg)
If that pic in the middle is not photshopped, that is one BIG MOFO, Holy Shit!
-
I thought this was a bodybuilding forum to get big, right? I know what the gym industry has become and I also see a lot of bullshit out there. Look at the ads on TV. Yeah, twist your way to a trim waist. Wait, why twist when we can do Zumba! The industry has always been an embarrassment intellectually and that is true probably more so today. Way too many people involved who think they know something and charge others for that crap.
I have an opinion about machines that differs from you. Live with it. Most muscleheads believe more crap than they would even comprehend. When the experts keep a lot of that nonsense going then it is sad for everyone. Not that my posts are going to change the thinking here one iota. That is what happens when people hang around gyms and take courses.
-
I thought this was a bodybuilding forum to get big, right? I know what the gym industry has become and I also see a lot of bullshit out there. Look at the ads on TV. Yeah, twist your way to a trim waist. Wait, why twist when we can do Zumba! The industry has always been an embarrassment intellectually and that is true probably more so today. Way too many people involved who think they know something and charge others for that crap.
I have an opinion about machines that differs from you. Live with it. Most muscleheads believe more crap than they would even comprehend. When the experts keep a lot of that nonsense going then it is sad for everyone. Not that my posts are going to change the thinking here one iota. That is what happens when people hang around gyms and take courses.
The bullshit is the TV gimmicks and the commercial "fitness" gym filled with machines that are gimmicks in themselves.
-
I thought this was a bodybuilding forum to get big, right? I know what the gym industry has become and I also see a lot of bullshit out there. Look at the ads on TV. Yeah, twist your way to a trim waist. Wait, why twist when we can do Zumba! The industry has always been an embarrassment intellectually and that is true probably more so today. Way too many people involved who think they know something and charge others for that crap.
I have an opinion about machines that differs from you. Live with it. Most muscleheads believe more crap than they would even comprehend. When the experts keep a lot of that nonsense going then it is sad for everyone. Not that my posts are going to change the thinking here one iota. That is what happens when people hang around gyms and take courses.
You write a lot of shit without saying much. You think machines are great but you never elaborate in a way that explains anything.
I guess there's a connection between DOMS and machines, right? Of course, you don't know if DOMS is good or bad, just that it's somehow related to muscle growth. And I'm sure machines fit in in there somewhere.
-
Yeah, Bilderass, that is right in a nutshell. Quite simple when you think about it. Wait, musclemen don't have to think they just take pills.
As least you have some of the right vocabulary. JME is already beyond help.
-
"Most muscleheads believe more crap than they would even comprehend"
I'm having a hard time with this statement. How does one believe in something if they don't comprehend it? They may comprehend it with a somewhat limited perception, but I don't think this statement makes clear sense.
Ambiguous. Random. Call it what you will. It doesn't even 'sound' good.
Believe: to suppose or assume; understand
Comprehend: to understand
Are we being redundant, or am I missing something?
-
Not really. Anyone who has been around the Irongame for a long time realizes that a lot of beliefs are held like people hold religious convictions. Opinions and attitudes spread in various ways and they guide behaviour, beliefs, theories and so on. We believe lots of things we don't comprehend. Eg., a muscle needs to recover to grow. That, in my opinion, is false, but most gym goers believe it. The actual physical processes that occur in muscles are very complicated. The discipline of exercise science is exceedingly difficult, and most here, including myself, don't have the vocabulary to comprehend it. That doesn't stop us from formulating theories based on our experience. However, that usually isn't very solid for evidence that the theories work and are true.
If what I am saying is true is it any wonder that there is so much disagreement in bodybuilding? Go to any muscle forum and there are still debates about training.
-
Hey Vince, I've been in the "Iron game" for almost 35 years. Pretty sure I know what I'm talking about!
-
No doubt you are an expert. Being a world authority requires far more knowledge. Seems to me we will have to agree to disagree. I don't hold theories as being true unless I can't falsify them. Even then they could still be mistaken. Far too many claim expert status without the accompanying study and qualifications.
-
Hey Vince, I've been in the "Iron game" for almost 35 years. Pretty sure I know what I'm talking about!
By the way, on the 16th of January I will have 51 years experience. Not that having more experience equals better knowledge. However, I have studied a fair bit over my career. I am still learning. I doubt anyone knows everything in this business.
-
You write a lot of shit without saying much. You think machines are great but you never elaborate in a way that explains anything.
I guess there's a connection between DOMS and machines, right? Of course, you don't know if DOMS is good or bad, just that it's somehow related to muscle growth. And I'm sure machines fit in in there somewhere.
Free weights are very useful and I believe essential but they are limited because they provide their full resistance in an up and down fashion being entirely dependent on gravity. Your joints operate in a rotary fashion. Therefore a properly design machine can provide resistance throughout the full range of motion imn a rotary fashion, say, like the Nautilus pullover or leg curl machine. A great machine will also have variable resistance to compensate for the different strength levels at various positions in a movement. For example, when doing a squat you are weakest in the full squat position but get stronger as you push upward. Therefore you can only use as much weight that you can move in the weakest position. A good leg press will have the resistance increase as you push out. A. Jones tried to achieve that variable resistance with all his equipment using a cam and others have tried to follow (copy) his example. Whether he was successful is subject for debate. Of course, in the case of the squat using chains is superior than just squatting with the loaded barbell because the resistance increases as you raise the weight. This is assuming you are not a power lifter where learning the skill in the traditional squat is paramount.
-
You probably meant "don't have the vocabulary to explain it"
I suppose you also like to correlate the science of bodybuilding with philosophy. It can be stated that our minds have a limited capacity of understanding on almost any topic, yet we have to communicate in order to find closure or resolution.
If you feel that something cannot be comprehended fully or explained correctly with our limited vocabulary, why bother discussing? If it is just to let everyone know that you feel our capacity of understanding is too limited to have a debate, you might want to search for resolution by creating your own vocabulary and teaching it, or possibly learning to better communicate.
Personally, I feel a discussion like this, in this forum is a complete waste of time and counterproductive to finding the answers one might be searching for.
On that note, I do believe that our muscles need to "recover" in order to grow. Whether or not I choose to discuss how the Central Nervous System is an integral part of that "recovery" process would be dependent on how interested one was in understanding the process, not whether or not I could explain it correctly.
Is it O.K to discuss something here that has to do with muscle growth without breaking out the Physiology and Biology majors? If you agree that most "muscleheads" have to little understanding, maybe you should turn it down a notch instead of choosing condescension as your messenger.
You will never elaborate in a way that explains anything to anyone because you are too busy arguing with yourself... and your limited understanding. Why do I picture a dog chasing its tail?
-
Not really. Anyone who has been around the Irongame for a long time realizes that a lot of beliefs are held like people hold religious convictions. Opinions and attitudes spread in various ways and they guide behaviour, beliefs, theories and so on. We believe lots of things we don't comprehend. Eg., a muscle needs to recover to grow. That, in my opinion, is false, but most gym goers believe it. The actual physical processes that occur in muscles are very complicated. The discipline of exercise science is exceedingly difficult, and most here, including myself, don't have the vocabulary to comprehend it. That doesn't stop us from formulating theories based on our experience. However, that usually isn't very solid for evidence that the theories work and are true.
If what I am saying is true is it any wonder that there is so much disagreement in bodybuilding? Go to any muscle forum and there are still debates about training.
Translation: Lifters are dogmatic.
-
By the way, on the 16th of January I will have 51 years experience. Not that having more experience equals better knowledge. However, I have studied a fair bit over my career. I am still learning. I doubt anyone knows everything in this business.
and IMO that's the whole problem....this shit is simple.
Heavy= heavy
Trying hard=trying hard
300 lbs=300 lbs
Your muscles don't know the difference between a machine with a square weight attached to a cable, or a round weight on the end of a bar.
they just know contraction and failure.
it's ALL good if you are doing it right, if you are a pussy and have shit genetics, nothing will work.
-
and IMO that's the whole problem....this shit is simple.
Heavy= heavy
Trying hard=trying hard
300 lbs=300 lbs
Your muscles don't know the difference between a machine with a square weight attached to a cable, or a round weight on the end of a bar.
they just know contraction and failure.
it's ALL good if you are doing it right, if you are a pussy and have shit genetics, nothing will work.
X2
-
And to further expand...let me address the whole "stabilizing muscles" horseshit. If i'm squatting 400 llbs in a smith machine....i can guaran-fucking-tee you EVERY SINGLE muscle in my body is under a great deal of stress...down to my toes. and that includes these mythical "stabilizers".
The only difference is I'm not balancing the weight, but i am keep it going smoothly up and down, which will recruit the same muscles.
What Basile says is 100% on the money....some writer who thinks he knows something writes an article 30 years ago and people take it as the gospel, this goes for every aspect of the sport. It all depends on what resonates with you, that's what you will believe.
-
The main reason there is no resolution or agreement is because of differing theories, beliefs, attitudes and explanations. There is too much at stake for participants to abandon cherished ideas and beliefs.
"On that note, I do believe that our muscles need to "recover" in order to grow. Whether or not I choose to discuss how the Central Nervous System is an integral part of that "recovery" process would be dependent on how interested one was in understanding the process, not whether or not I could explain it correctly."
Why do you continue to believe this when there is evidence that refutes this? I cite swimmers, runners and skaters who train daily yet improve. How is that possible if recovery has to occur before improvement and growth? Read about the fowl experiments where weights were fastened on one wing of the experimental group. Some researchers, Antonio for example, managed to generate 300% growth in an anterior latissimus dorsi muscle of his group in 30 days! How is such rapid growth possible if recovery is required? Answer: that is a false premise.
Do a thought experiment and apply evolution to our primitive ancestors. Suppose these primitive creatures were hungry and needed to hunt and on one day got into a fight but failed to get anything to eat. The muscles the next day would be very sore from the extreme exertion. Do you think the creature would be unable to hunt again in an acute fashion because of those sore muscles? If so, then such creatures would not have survived. Thus, creatures that could function with sore muscles had an advantage and that is probably why it is possible to train with sore muscles and cause rapid growth.
The reason we haven't subscribed to this theory is because most do not believe it could be true. Because widespread negative beliefs exist does not refute a true theory. In fact, research has shown that the body once recovered is resistant to further change. They call this the repeated bout effect and we should try to avoid it at all costs. Do not let the muscle recover is mandatory for rapid growth. I mean in the sense of sustained rapid growth.
-
and IMO that's the whole problem....this shit is simple.
Heavy= heavy
Trying hard=trying hard
300 lbs=300 lbs
Your muscles don't know the difference between a machine with a square weight attached to a cable, or a round weight on the end of a bar.
they just know contraction and failure.
it's ALL good if you are doing it right, if you are a pussy and have shit genetics, nothing will work.
300lbs on a smith machine is not the same as 300lbs on an olympic bar.
-
300lbs on a smith machine is not the same as 300lbs on an olympic bar.
Exactly, and a free squat activates more fibers in the targeted muscles (proof (http://www.ergo-log.com/freebarbellsquat.html))
-
Time to ungay this thread.
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/massturbater/jc_rc_8954.jpg)
-
Time to ungay this thread.
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/massturbater/jc_rc_8954.jpg)
Thats only ungaying if you want it to ;)
-
The main reason there is no resolution or agreement is because of differing theories, beliefs, attitudes and explanations. There is too much at stake for participants to abandon cherished ideas and beliefs.
"On that note, I do believe that our muscles need to "recover" in order to grow. Whether or not I choose to discuss how the Central Nervous System is an integral part of that "recovery" process would be dependent on how interested one was in understanding the process, not whether or not I could explain it correctly."
Why do you continue to believe this when there is evidence that refutes this? I cite swimmers, runners and skaters who train daily yet improve. How is that possible if recovery has to occur before improvement and growth? Read about the fowl experiments where weights were fastened on one wing of the experimental group. Some researchers, Antonio for example, managed to generate 300% growth in an anterior latissimus dorsi muscle of his group in 30 days! How is such rapid growth possible if recovery is required? Answer: that is a false premise.
Do a thought experiment and apply evolution to our primitive ancestors. Suppose these primitive creatures were hungry and needed to hunt and on one day got into a fight but failed to get anything to eat. The muscles the next day would be very sore from the extreme exertion. Do you think the creature would be unable to hunt again in an acute fashion because of those sore muscles? If so, then such creatures would not have survived. Thus, creatures that could function with sore muscles had an advantage and that is probably why it is possible to train with sore muscles and cause rapid growth.
The reason we haven't subscribed to this theory is because most do not believe it could be true. Because widespread negative beliefs exist does not refute a true theory. In fact, research has shown that the body once recovered is resistant to further change. They call this the repeated bout effect and we should try to avoid it at all costs. Do not let the muscle recover is mandatory for rapid growth. I mean in the sense of sustained rapid growth.
Great reply. I could have hoped for nothing less.
Surely we could enjoy discussion away from the board.
Let me adress one comment. Since I swam AAU and then USA for 13 years (and now train these same swimmers) I have to agree that they can improve daily--if you cycle their training. You also have to adress their nutrition with increasing objectivity (towards recovery and increased efficiency)
Now, in the water, the swimmers aren't just improving musculature (growing). They are also improving on their technique. As you stated, there are many innumerable variables. A butterflier may be diving a little more, kicking a little harder, breathing a little more efficiently--maybe he tilts his head to breathe and scrapes the top of the water with his chin as opposed to bringing his whole neck up. All of these increases in efficiency will make a faster and more improved swimmer (and of course, lap time)-- I wouldnt really expect to see him grow more muscle unless he was working out in a gym, and taking the time to recover enough to grow.
Question: should we talk about improvement and growth at the same time? They may not be one and the same.
When we are talking specifically about bodybuilding, we are truly only concentrating on growth. Even if a BB wants to get stronger and mixes his training with powerlifting philosophies, his main objective is still growth.
I don't know that the hunter and the swimmer have to grow to improve. The "sore" hunter the next day may find himself hunting with less physical effort, which essentially is 'improvement'... He may not necessarily 'grow' until after recovery, and when he does, he is now stronger, bigger and improved because of recovery, efficiency and experience. He may not necessarily have to become bigger to become a stronger, faster and more efficient hunter. I am being redundant here. I think you get my point. What do you think?
I have never been dogmatic about strength equating to growth. Logic would imply that the two indeed go hand-in-hand, but empirical data proves otherwise.
I am not close-minded. The only way I can improve is to continue to learn... and I don't like doing it the hard way.
-
Louie Simmons, Dave Tate, Charles Poliquin, Chad Waterbury and Mike Boyle all need to re-think their training methodologies, re-write their published books and renig on their entire training manifesto after the golden nuggets of training info revealed by the resident experts in this thread! ;D
-
Ronnie will always be on in Jay's head...Cause even though he beat him, he beat an old and beaten up Coleman...But a wins a win right? ::)
Ronnie is a 1st teir Mr. O, Jay is a 2nd tier Mr. O.
-
Ronnie will always be on in Jay's head...Cause even though he beat him, he beat an old and beaten up Coleman...But a wins a win right? ::)
Ronnie is a 1st teir Mr. O, Jay is a 2nd tier Mr. O.
I just dont Wiggs just dont know ???
-
300lbs on a smith machine is not the same as 300lbs on an olympic bar.
So if you put 300 lbs from a Smith on a scale and a 300 lbs barbell on a scale they would read differently?
Don't you mean that lifting (pressing or squatting 300 lbs on either a Smith or a barbell) is not the same?
-
So if you put 300 lbs from a Smith on a scale and a 300 lbs barbell on a scale they would read differently?
Don't you mean that lifting (pressing or squatting 300 lbs on either a Smith or a barbell) is not the same?
Of course thats what I mean. But 300lbs on a smith would come up about 30lbs lighter since a smith is built with a counter weight and a pully system on guides.
-
And to further expand...let me address the whole "stabilizing muscles" horseshit. If i'm squatting 400 llbs in a smith machine....i can guaran-fucking-tee you EVERY SINGLE muscle in my body is under a great deal of stress...down to my toes. and that includes these mythical "stabilizers".
The only difference is I'm not balancing the weight, but i am keep it going smoothly up and down, which will recruit the same muscles.
What Basile says is 100% on the money....some writer who thinks he knows something writes an article 30 years ago and people take it as the gospel, this goes for every aspect of the sport. It all depends on what resonates with you, that's what you will believe.
"Mythical stabilizers" Seriously, you're joking right? If you're not joking then you to re-evaluate your knowledge of training besides getting it from a bodybuilding rag and to be fair, they have even written some pretty good articals on the subject. Things are a little more advanced than just pushing a weight up and down than they we're 30 years ago.
-
Of course thats what I mean. But 300lbs on a smith would come up about 30lbs lighter since a smith is built with a counter weight and a pully system on guides.
I'm not sure about that because if you unrack 300 lbs off the Smith it's still 300 pounds.
Also, it might be "heavier" to press up because of the friction inherent in the machine. Traditional squats are harder because it is harder to stabilize free weights than on a machine. More muscles are being activated to stabilize the weight. I don't think it necessarily translates into greater stimulation and overload in the targeted muscle group but it will certainly leave you sucking wind more than an equivalent set with the Smith.
BTW, you're OK in my book (soon to be published). Anyone who can survive being a God fearing Republican in Southern Ca is my kind of guy. You deserve a Nobel prize. Not necessarily for anything you've actually done but for what you say you are going to do. As long as your intentions are good results don't matter.
-
"Mythical stabilizers" Seriously, you're joking right? If you're not joking then you to re-evaluate your knowledge of training besides getting it from a bodybuilding rag and to be fair, they have even written some pretty good articals on the subject. Things are a little more advanced than just pushing a weight up and down than they we're 30 years ago.
I've asked this before: is there a separate unique class of stabilizing muscles?
It seems to me that all muscles act as stabilizers simply to keep you from crumbling to the ground. But does this necessarily translate into greater stimulation of the targeted muscle group? Squatting on a Swiss ball requires far more effort to stabilize yourself but does this translate to better stimulation and overload in the targeted muscle group? Does an unstable environment make for more optimal workouts? Should we all head to the gym during an earthquake?
-
"Mythical stabilizers" Seriously, you're joking right? If you're not joking then you to re-evaluate your knowledge of training besides getting it from a bodybuilding rag and to be fair, they have even written some pretty good articals on the subject. Things are a little more advanced than just pushing a weight up and down than they we're 30 years ago.
No they're not....that's my whole point.
I haven't read a BBing "rag" in 15 years, and even back then i took them with a grain of salt.
Contraction is contraction no matter what device you choose to contract the muscle. Are you telling me that the bio mechanics of the human body have "advanced" in the last 30 years?
If you want to squat 300 lbs on a smith, add the extra 30 lbs of counterbalance....proble m solved.
-
Read about the fowl experiments where weights were fastened on one wing of the experimental group. Some researchers, Antonio for example, managed to generate 300% growth in an anterior latissimus dorsi muscle of his group in 30 days! How is such rapid growth possible if recovery is required?
I always wanted to take a falcon like bird, like a American Kestrel or another type of raptor and train it to fly with weights strapped to it's legs. Each week the weight would get progressively heavier.
-
I've asked this before: is there a separate unique class of stabilizing muscles?
It seems to me that all muscles act as stabilizers simply to keep you from crumbling to the ground. But does this necessarily translate into greater stimulation of the targeted muscle group? Squatting on a Swiss ball requires far more effort to stabilize yourself but does this translate to better stimulation and overload in the targeted muscle group? Does an unstable environment make for more optimal workouts? Should we all head to the gym during an earthquake?
That's what I'm saying Smellius.
And to add, why are these "stabilizers" so fucking important? If I'm training my quads.... activating my Serratus really isn't a priority.
And like I said before...If you've got 400 lbs on your back, every fucking muscle in your body is "activated" no matter what the apparatus is.
I've only managed to get up to 260...so what the fuck do i know.
-
It seems to me that all muscles act as stabilizers simply to keep you from crumbling to the ground. But does this necessarily translate into greater stimulation of the targeted muscle group? Squatting on a Swiss ball requires far more effort to stabilize yourself but does this translate to better stimulation and overload in the targeted muscle group?
In case you define 'greater stimulation' as 'more muscle fibres involved' : yes. I've already provided a link to a source, but in case you missed it, it's http://www.ergo-log.com/freebarbellsquat.html (Google for EMG and squat and you see a lot more references)
-
Ok Groink, so just to clarify, you don't think that there are certain (smaller) muscles in the body that are used to stabilize?
-
In case you define 'greater stimulation' as 'more muscle fibres involved' : yes. I've already provided a link to a source, but in case you missed it, it's http://www.ergo-log.com/freebarbellsquat.html (Google for EMG and squat and you see a lot more references)
Yes, I am familiar with that study and again I concede that the free weight squat works more muscles in your body because you have to stabilize the weight. All else being equal it is a much harder exercise and will do more for overall strength and conditioning for your body than any other exercise. In this study they pointed out that the calves and outer quads are worked harder and the only ones that were statistically significant. Of course you'll never achieve optimal calf development just doing squat so we can dismiss that (assuming we are primarily concerned about quad development).
I read a critique of this study, or something similar (which I will try to dig up). They pointed out some subtle points to be considered. The subjects were required to do 8 reps on both movements but none of these sets were taken to failure or even high intensity. To keep the measurements accurate all reps had to be performed in a clean, strict and consistent form. Why is this important? Because when squatting with free weights, as the reps get more difficult you start to lean forward putting more stress on the lower and back and glutes. This shifts the stress away from the targeted muscle group.
But what do I know? In shorts I look like I have polio.
-
Ok Groink, so just to clarify, you don't think that there are certain (smaller) muscles in the body that are used to stabilize?
Again, to reiterate, all muscles act to some extent as stabilizers. But is there a unique class of stabilizing muscles? It's often referred to as your "core" which someone defined here as all your muscles minus you arms an legs. OK. So you are working your traps and abs when you do squats. I get that. But is squats the optimal movement for working you abs and traps? A lot of what a trainer refers to as "stabilizers" is simply the skill of balancing and controlling a weight when doing a specific movement (such as doing dumbbell bench presses on a Swiss ball). This is great if you are trying to develop the skill in pushing weight on a Swiss ball and I'm sure you are using more muscles than just doing a traditional bench press but the unstable environment compromises using maximum resistance on the pec muscles and makes that movement less than optimal for developing the pecs (assuming that is your goal).
-
Yes, I am familiar with that study and again I concede that the free weight squat works more muscles in your body because you have to stabilize the weight.
This study isn't so much about more supporting/balancing/whatever-you-name-them muscles, but about the recruitment of fibres.
All else being equal it is a much harder exercise and will do more for overall strength and conditioning for your body than any other exercise. In this study they pointed out that the calves and outer quads are worked harder and the only ones that were statistically significant. Of course you'll never achieve optimal calf development just doing squat so we can dismiss that (assuming we are primarily concerned about quad development).
A small correction: this study talks about vastus medialis activation which is more the inner quadriceps, the outer quad is called vastus lateralis. The study also says: "Taking all the muscles together, they worked 43 percent harder during the free squat."
I read a critique of this study, or something similar (which I will try to dig up). They pointed out some subtle points to be considered. The subjects were required to do 8 reps on both movements but none of these sets were taken to failure or even high intensity. To keep the measurements accurate all reps had to be performed in a clean, strict and consistent form. Why is this important? Because when squatting with free weights, as the reps get more difficult you start to lean forward putting more stress on the lower and back and glutes. This shifts the stress away from the targeted muscle group.
In case the subjects trained with the same techniques and intensity during the Smith machine version I don't consider this as relevant.
But what do I know? In shorts I look like I have polio.
;D
-
This study isn't so much about more supporting/balancing/whatever-you-name-them muscles, but about the recruitment of fibres.
A small correction: this study talks about vastus medialis activation which is more the inner quadriceps, the outer quad is called vastus lateralis. The study also says: "Taking all the muscles together, they worked 43 percent harder during the free squat."
In case the subjects trained with the same techniques and intensity during the Smith machine version I don't consider this as relevant.
;D
You got me on that vastus medialus thing. But again that is dependent of the stance you adopt. Narrow stance will hit the outers more.
But really, in a way, it's all moot. I've done infinitely more barbell squats than Smiths and I'm still a twink. I think if you have the genetics you'll get big quads doing either Smiths or barbell and the difference will probably be insignificant. A friend of mine, bless with brutal Samoan genetics, calves are twenty inches and his quads measure 30 and it's all muscle. He doesn't have the definition to step on stage but when he flexes his quads you see the blurry separation in his quads. And he's done the exact same amount of squats with a barbell as with a Smith machine which in both cases is zero.
And people wouldn't why I'm such a spiteful, bitter man.
-
Again, to reiterate, all muscles act to some extent as stabilizers. But is there a unique class of stabilizing muscles? It's often referred to as your "core" which someone defined here as all your muscles minus you arms an legs. OK. So you are working your traps and abs when you do squats. I get that. But is squats the optimal movement for working you abs and traps? A lot of what a trainer refers to as "stabilizers" is simply the skill of balancing and controlling a weight when doing a specific movement (such as doing dumbbell bench presses on a Swiss ball). This is great if you are trying to develop the skill in pushing weight on a Swiss ball and I'm sure you are using more muscles than just doing a traditional bench press but the unstable environment compromises using maximum resistance on the pec muscles and makes that movement less than optimal for developing the pecs (assuming that is your goal).
Now your getting it. Yes there are. You have movers and stabilizers. Movers are what the name implies, those are the muscles that move bodyparts so to speak, stabilizers are the muscles are the ones that hold your bodyparts in place and prevent you from being damaged while the movers are moving you. A good example would be your rotator cuff, a stabilizer and mover would be delts. Damage your rotator and see how much movement you have left?
-
Now your getting it. Yes there are. You have movers and stabilizers. Movers are what the name implies, those are the muscles that move bodyparts so to speak, stabilizers are the muscles are the ones that hold your bodyparts in place and prevent you from being damaged while the movers are moving you. A good example would be your rotator cuff, a stabilizer and mover would be delts. Damage your rotator and see how much movement you have left?
Barbell and Dumbells a few hammer strength and nautilus machines its all good.
-
One of the main protocols we do before we train anyone is joint stabilization before we add any significant loads to the primary movers.
-
"Most muscleheads believe more crap than they would even comprehend"
I'm having a hard time with this statement. How does one believe in something if they don't comprehend it? They may comprehend it with a somewhat limited perception, but I don't think this statement makes clear sense.
Ambiguous. Random. Call it what you will. It doesn't even 'sound' good.
Believe: to suppose or assume; understand
Comprehend: to understand
Are we being redundant, or am I missing something?
i think you ARE missing something. Its a very true statement...muscleheads believe more crap....
they make up some comprehension that suits them or explains it to themselves and most times its completely wrong and doesnt go deep enough to the root cause of the concept.
Ambiguous and Random are completely different. Ambiguity is something that is unclear. Random is something that is chance based. Believe does not mean "understand" - at all!
and comprehend- is more an ability to understand the language or ones own rationale- it doesnt mean that they understand the true concept.
-
You got me on that vastus medialus thing. But again that is dependent of the stance you adopt. Narrow stance will hit the outers more.
But really, in a way, it's all moot. I've done infinitely more barbell squats than Smiths and I'm still a twink. I think if you have the genetics you'll get big quads doing either Smiths or barbell and the difference will probably be insignificant. A friend of mine, bless with brutal Samoan genetics, calves are twenty inches and his quads measure 30 and it's all muscle. He doesn't have the definition to step on stage but when he flexes his quads you see the blurry separation in his quads. And he's done the exact same amount of squats with a barbell as with a Smith machine which in both cases is zero.
And people wouldn't why I'm such a spiteful, bitter man.
You're correct about that stance and targeted areas. I presume(!) they performed squats with a regular stance; heels on hip width with the toes a little outside.
Right now we're talking about finetuning the choice of exercises, but with good genetics or not, I believe any healthy person can build quad size, no matter which quad exercise is performed. I can't judge why you can't. Maybe it's your intensity, frequency, volume, lack of protein consumption, etc.... but there has got to be a reason other than only the genetic part.
-
Now your getting it. Yes there are. You have movers and stabilizers. Movers are what the name implies, those are the muscles that move bodyparts so to speak, stabilizers are the muscles are the ones that hold your bodyparts in place and prevent you from being damaged while the movers are moving you. A good example would be your rotator cuff, a stabilizer and mover would be delts. Damage your rotator and see how much movement you have left?
Well, you did present the one example that I have to concede. But the shoulder is a unique joint because, other than perhaps the neck and ankle, it preforms in a rotary fashion rather the push/pull bend/straighten of the rest of the joins. Most muscles (except the rotator cuff) will act as movers or stabilizers depending on what they are doing. Your abs, obliques and lower back act primarily as stabilizers with practically anything you do except if you start doing side bends, crunches/situps or good mornings.
I know what it is like to damage my rotator cuff as I tore them on both shoulders and had surgery on both. In the case of my right shoulder it couldn't be repaired as the tendon had retracted into the joint and they couldn't fish it out. My shoulder was virtually useless and I couldn't raise my arm more than say 10 degrees from waist level. But I just kept exercising it as best I could which first started with me raising it as far as I could and just doing a static hold and always trying to get higher and higher. Also, I would use my other arm to raise my dead arm and try to do negative reps. It was a long haul but by a year and a half I could start using weights and by three years I was pretty much back to where I was though I get pain if I over do explosive movements (which always happens when rolling on the mat so I can't roll like I use to and always have to guard my arm).
If you look at this photo of me taken last October you can see a distinct gap between my front and side deltoid where the muscle has atrophied (what looks like my left shoulder is actually my right since the photo was taken from the mirror). I was able to strengthen the surrounding muscles to regain full use. I avoid taking falls now because if I post on my right arm I fear it will dislocate and had a few close calls.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=295769.0;attach=336370;image)
-
Not really. Anyone who has been around the Irongame for a long time realizes that a lot of beliefs are held like people hold religious convictions. Opinions and attitudes spread in various ways and they guide behaviour, beliefs, theories and so on. We believe lots of things we don't comprehend. Eg., a muscle needs to recover to grow. That, in my opinion, is false, but most gym goers believe it. The actual physical processes that occur in muscles are very complicated. The discipline of exercise science is exceedingly difficult, and most here, including myself, don't have the vocabulary to comprehend it. That doesn't stop us from formulating theories based on our experience. However, that usually isn't very solid for evidence that the theories work and are true.
If what I am saying is true is it any wonder that there is so much disagreement in bodybuilding? Go to any muscle forum and there are still debates about training.
Vince... Instead of offering a very long-winded and meandering post bemoaning the supposed lack of intellectual veracity of your fellow Getbiggers, and Iron Brothers, why don't you actually take some time and post a thesis on hypertrophy?
Until then you are just beating your chest, without any substance behind it.
-
Vince... Instead of offering a very long-winded and meandering post bemoaning the supposed lack of intellectual veracity of your fellow Getbiggers, and Iron Brothers, why don't you actually take some time and post a thesis on hypertrophy?
Until then you are just beating your chest, without any substance behind it.
Not a chance. He's been doing this for many years now.
-
Not a chance. He's been doing this for many years now.
That's what I am afraid of... :-\
-
Vince... Instead of offering a very long-winded and meandering post bemoaning the supposed lack of intellectual veracity of your fellow Getbiggers, and Iron Brothers, why don't you actually take some time and post a thesis on hypertrophy?
Until then you are just beating your chest, without any substance behind it.
Like I said, Vince never actually says anything. How about just a theory, or something we could try in the gym? No go.
Vince always says how stupid people on getbig are. But there's a reason why he found a home here. He was branded an idiot on the more serious training boards, the boards where the nerds theorize. Even there the debates never lead anywhere and no one would recognize his expertise and genius. :'(
-
Again, to reiterate, all muscles act to some extent as stabilizers. But is there a unique class of stabilizing muscles? It's often referred to as your "core" which someone defined here as all your muscles minus you arms an legs. OK. So you are working your traps and abs when you do squats. I get that. But is squats the optimal movement for working you abs and traps? A lot of what a trainer refers to as "stabilizers" is simply the skill of balancing and controlling a weight when doing a specific movement (such as doing dumbbell bench presses on a Swiss ball). This is great if you are trying to develop the skill in pushing weight on a Swiss ball and I'm sure you are using more muscles than just doing a traditional bench press but the unstable environment compromises using maximum resistance on the pec muscles and makes that movement less than optimal for developing the pecs (assuming that is your goal).
What he said.
-
Well, you did present the one example that I have to concede. But the shoulder is a unique joint because, other than perhaps the neck and ankle, it preforms in a rotary fashion rather the push/pull bend/straighten of the rest of the joins. Most muscles (except the rotator cuff) will act as movers or stabilizers depending on what they are doing. Your abs, obliques and lower back act primarily as stabilizers with practically anything you do except if you start doing side bends, crunches/situps or good mornings.
I know what it is like to damage my rotator cuff as I tore them on both shoulders and had surgery on both. In the case of my right shoulder it couldn't be repaired as the tendon had retracted into the joint and they couldn't fish it out. My shoulder was virtually useless and I couldn't raise my arm more than say 10 degrees from waist level. But I just kept exercising it as best I could which first started with me raising it as far as I could and just doing a static hold and always trying to get higher and higher. Also, I would use my other arm to raise my dead arm and try to do negative reps. It was a long haul but by a year and a half I could start using weights and by three years I was pretty much back to where I was though I get pain if I over do explosive movements (which always happens when rolling on the mat so I can't roll like I use to and always have to guard my arm).
If you look at this photo of me taken last October you can see a distinct gap between my front and side deltoid where the muscle has atrophied (what looks like my left shoulder is actually my right since the photo was taken from the mirror). I was able to strengthen the surrounding muscles to regain full use. I avoid taking falls now because if I post on my right arm I fear it will dislocate and had a few close calls.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=295769.0;attach=336370;image)
Ok...(and Devon97, feel free to add if I missed something). You have to think of your hips in the same way you think of a rotator cuff as it's a rotator as well (hip rotators)..with stabilizers. Stabilizers in that case would be rectus femoris and TFL, gluteus minimus, pectineus, gluteus medius, piraformis and psoas (IMO the most important). Now think about when your on a smith or having to stabilize a bar on your back on whether what muscles (stabilizers) are going to be used most. Which brings me to my other point when doing a smith squat vs. a regular squat. You have two different types of muscle, tonic and phasic (on/off) it's what fires most if at all. In order for us to get the most out of our lower body exercises, we will use activation methods to turn those muscles "on". A perfect example of an phasic/tonic muscle would in fact be "glutes" and the "psoas". The way I see it, doing a smith (or just about any machine) you have limited stabilizers being used, you might have strong movers but if the stabilizers are weak, your chance for injury increases if these muscles are being attended too.
Stabilizers in the hip are NOT being strengthen using a machine (smith for example) as they would by using free weights. Lets face it, you can to a smith squat without holding on to the bar there for there is minimal stability involved.
Activation, strengthening of the stabilizers, etc is almost another article/thread because that should be added before you add heavy loads and this thread would turn into a 500 page thread.
-
Dropping Plates seems to be the only exercise scientist in this thread. Dyslexis knows how to debate in a sensible fashion and has read a lot of the literature. Pellius means well but is confused. DME has pet theories and holds them no matter what. That is the opposite of having a scientific mind. In science you pretty much have to assume you are wrong and go from there with your best hunch.
Presenting a complete theory of hypertrophy would be pointless on Getbig. Most do not have the background to assess such theories for validity and truth. In other words, what is the test for the truth of an hypertrophy-hyperplasia theory that explains all growth and lack of growth from training? If we could agree on the test that should be where we start. Without such a test all debates on discussion boards result in a me vs you opinion and there is no way to distinguish who is correct and who is in error. The state of the art re hypertrophy suggests that at best most of us will be partly right. How much of the true theory we possess is unknown. Obviously for practicing, highly motivated natural male bodybuilders it is easy to come up with a test. Does the training result in daily, measureable muscular growth? If so, the trainee is doing something right. If no growth results then the trainee is not growing rapidly and must try something else. Nutrition goes hand in hand with hypertrophy training but is not being considered here. Pellius, for example, does some martial arts and keeps his bodyweight low to stay in a weight category. Nothing he does re hypertrophy training will result in additional size. Why is he even interested in the subject? A mystery except to show he is an expert in the area.
I have presented a practical method to apply my theory. Most muscleheads are not intelligent enough to apply a theory to the practice of growth training. This is not my problem but theirs. They literally wouldn't know the formula if it was right in front of them. You see, they have imprinted in their brains theories and facts that prevent them from growing. That seems bizarre but is true, nevertheless.
Does the sun rise in the morning? No, the sun has never risen in the morning! How can that be when experience proves otherwise? Well, the truth is the sun appears to rise in the morning. The fact is the sun is more or less stationary relative to the earth and the earth rotates and moves around the sun. Yet we still talk about the sun rising.
-
BTW, the talk about stabilizers is a complete waste of time re hypertrophy training. It is up there with the free weights vs machines debate. The first ends up being semantics while the second, while important, reveals the primitive beliefs held by muscleheads.
-
Dropping Plates seems to be the only exercise scientist in this thread. Dyslexis knows how to debate in a sensible fashion and has read a lot of the literature. Pellius means well but is confused. DME has pet theories and holds them no matter what. That is the opposite of having a scientific mind. In science you pretty much have to assume you are wrong and go from there with your best hunch.
Presenting a complete theory of hypertrophy would be pointless on Getbig. Most do not have the background to assess such theories for validity and truth. In other words, what is the test for the truth of an hypertrophy-hyperplasia theory that explains all growth and lack of growth from training? If we could agree on the test that should be where we start. Without such a test all debates on discussion boards result in a me vs you opinion and there is no way to distinguish who is correct and who is in error. The state of the art re hypertrophy suggests that at best most of us will be partly right. How much of the true theory we possess is unknown. Obviously for practicing, highly motivated natural male bodybuilders it is easy to come up with a test. Does the training result in daily, measureable muscular growth? If so, the trainee is doing something right. If no growth results then the trainee is not growing rapidly and must try something else. Nutrition goes hand in hand with hypertrophy training but is not being considered here. Pellius, for example, does some martial arts and keeps his bodyweight low to stay in a weight category. Nothing he does re hypertrophy training will result in additional size. Why is he even interested in the subject? A mystery except to show he is an expert in the area.
I have presented a practical method to apply my theory. Most muscleheads are not intelligent enough to apply a theory to the practice of growth training. This is not my problem but theirs. They literally wouldn't know the formula if it was right in front of them. You see, they have imprinted in their brains theories and facts that prevent them from growing. That seems bizarre but is true, nevertheless.
Does the sun rise in the morning? No, the sun has never risen in the morning! How can that be when experience proves otherwise? Well, the truth is the sun appears to rise in the morning. The fact is the sun is more or less stationary relative to the earth and the earth rotates and moves around the sun. Yet we still talk about the sun rising.
LOL....if you're referring to me you must think I'm pulling my theories out of my ass. Wake up and quit reading research (providing you do research) from the 50's.
-
BTW, the talk about stabilizers is a complete waste of time re hypertrophy training. It is up there with the free weights vs machines debate. The first ends up being semantics while the second, while important, reveals the primitive beliefs held by muscleheads.
Times change Vince, people want to avoid injuries when training, whether it's for hypertrophy or athletics. Geez, Vince...keep up with the times.
-
Ok...(and Devon97, feel free to add if I missed something). You have to think of your hips in the same way you think of a rotator cuff as it's a rotator as well (hip rotators)..with stabilizers. Stabilizers in that case would be rectus femoris and TFL, gluteus minimus, pectineus, gluteus medius, piraformis and psoas (IMO the most important). Now think about when your on a smith or having to stabilize a bar on your back on whether what muscles (stabilizers) are going to be used most. Which brings me to my other point when doing a smith squat vs. a regular squat. You have two different types of muscle, tonic and phasic (on/off) it's what fires most if at all. In order for us to get the most out of our lower body exercises, we will use activation methods to turn those muscles "on". A perfect example of an phasic/tonic muscle would in fact be "glutes" and the "psoas". The way I see it, doing a smith (or just about any machine) you have limited stabilizers being used, you might have strong movers but if the stabilizers are weak, your chance for injury increases if these muscles are being attended too.
Stabilizers in the hip are NOT being strengthen using a machine (smith for example) as they would by using free weights. Lets face it, you can to a smith squat without holding on to the bar there for there is minimal stability involved.
Activation, strengthening of the stabilizers, etc is almost another article/thread because that should be added before you add heavy loads and this thread would turn into a 500 page thread.
OK Coach, I'm definitely going to have to reread this much more closely when my chi is flowing more smoothly (usually later in the night. It's still only 2:35 PM here in Hawaii). I think there is something to learn here.
Thanks for taking the time. Say hi to Kongo for me. Tell him to be a better sport the next time. Win, lose or draw you can never go wrong when you conduct yourself with a little bit of class, dignity and humility.
-
Times change Vince, people want to avoid injuries when training, whether it's for hypertrophy or athletics. Geez, Vince...keep up with the times.
Absolutely. If you get injured your bodybuilding career will stall or end. You have to train sub-maximally re resistance to avoid injuries. Thus, powerlifting has no place in bodybuilding. Doing things for less than 10 reps is probably not required and probably dangerous. Humans have 10 fingers so naturally like that number. The exact beneficial and efficient number of reps for maximum growth is unknown but might be higher than 10.
-
;)
-
Vince, I'm interested in muscle hypertrophy because I find it interesting. You don't have to be a bodybuilder to be interested in what makes a muscle grow. You're a shining example of that as I assume you have abandoned any efforts to grow bigger muscles though you claim age is not a prohibiting factor.
I'm also interested in machines vis-a-vis free weights as evidence in some parts of this thread (Coach's last post to me) it's possible to learn something. But it's not like I can put this into any practical use as this is the gym where I do most of my weight training (believe me I would love to train at a gym that you built and established and I promise I will never do tricep pushdowns with a rope):
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=295769.0;attach=336365;image)
-
Absolutely. If you get injured your bodybuilding career will stall or end. You have to train sub-maximally re resistance to avoid injuries. Thus, powerlifting has no place in bodybuilding. Doing things for less than 10 reps is probably not required and probably dangerous. Humans have 10 fingers so naturally like that number. The exact beneficial and efficient number of reps for maximum growth is unknown but might be higher than 10.
Well, there you go. A broken clock is right twice a day (sorry Vince, I had to get in a shot).
-
Vince, I'm interested in muscle hypertrophy because I find it interesting. You don't have to be a bodybuilder to be interested in what makes a muscle grow. You're a shining example of that as I assume you have abandoned any efforts to grow bigger muscles though you claim age is not a prohibiting factor.
I'm also interested in machines vis-a-vis free weights as evidence in some parts of this thread (Coach's last post to me) it's possible to learn something. But it's not like I can put this into any practical use as this is the gym where I do most of my weight training (believe me I would love to train at a gym that you built and established and I promise I will never do tricep pushdowns with a rope):
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=295769.0;attach=336365;image)
pellius how much for a membership to this gym I want to join, Blood and Guts baby
-
Absolutely. If you get injured your bodybuilding career will stall or end. You have to train sub-maximally re resistance to avoid injuries. Thus, powerlifting has no place in bodybuilding. Doing things for less than 10 reps is probably not required and probably dangerous. Humans have 10 fingers so naturally like that number. The exact beneficial and efficient number of reps for maximum growth is unknown but might be higher than 10.
So you're saying that doing bench presses and squats have no place in bodybuilding?
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=295769.0;attach=336365;image)
Is that your homegarden gym?
-
pellius how much for a membership to this gym I want to join, Blood and Guts baby
Agreed, Pellis can you post a pic of the inside?
-
So you're saying that doing bench presses and squats have no place in bodybuilding?
No, it's just assuming you define powerlifting as performing your 1 rep max. Demonstrating strength and developing strength are two different things.
-
pellius how much for a membership to this gym I want to join, Blood and Guts baby
It's free. It's adjacent to a Baptist church that serves as a half way house. 90% of the member are ex-cons trying to reintegrate into society. You just sort of show up, train, and mind your own business and after a while, if they decide not to kick your ass, you are part of the crew.
Any gym minus cardio equipment and air conditioning will keep out the foo foo trainers. Throw in some ex-cons as members and you drive away what is frequently becoming the most insidious parasites to infect the modern gym environment: the shadow boxers/TapOut crowd.
-
No, it's just assuming you define powerlifting as performing your 1 rep max. Demonstrating strength and developing strength are two different things.
Sorry, I was referring to Vince. The way he said powerlifting has no business in bodybuilding I assumed he meant powerlift exercises.
-
Agreed, Pellis can you post a pic of the inside?
LOL! There is no inside. The only other part of the gym you can't see is slightly to the left where the squat rack (how apropos) is cut off.
-
It's free. It's adjacent to a Baptist church that serves as a half way house. 90% of the member are ex-cons trying to reintegrate into society. You just sort of show up, train, and mind your own business and after a while, if they decide not to kick your ass, you are part of the crew.
Any gym minus cardio equipment and air conditioning will keep out the foo foo trainers. Throw in some ex-cons as members and you drive away what is frequently becoming the most insidious parasites to infect the modern gym environment: the shadow boxers/TapOut crowd.
Now thats a gym fuck fancy machines a such 8)
-
i think you ARE missing something. Its a very true statement...muscleheads believe more crap....
they make up some comprehension that suits them or explains it to themselves and most times its completely wrong and doesnt go deep enough to the root cause of the concept.
Ambiguous and Random are completely different. Ambiguity is something that is unclear. Random is something that is chance based. Believe does not mean "understand" - at all!
and comprehend- is more an ability to understand the language or ones own rationale- it doesnt mean that they understand the true concept.
Good reply. It was not my intention to imply that the two terms were synonymous, one with the other.
Of course "belief" does not mean 'comprehend'-- this is why we come up with words like "faith".... no?
-
Now thats a gym fuck fancy machines a such 8)
Believe me, I'm all for trying to act like mister no bones tough guy but there are days when I look at that rusty old squat rack and wish for one of those nice shiny Nautilus leg press machines. The one where you sit upright like when you are driving a car. I never care for the traditional 45 degree angle leg press where you lie on your back.
But at least you get to use chaulk and it has that platform where you can just dump the bar and nobody gives you a second look. And you don't have those annoying guys always around you cleaning stuff and sweeping like they did at the 24 Hour in Cali. I mean, I shouldn't bag on those guys because I'm sure they hate having to sweep around you but their boss is always on their ass about keeping the place spotless.
-
Believe me, I'm all for trying to act like mister no bones tough guy but there are days when I look at that rusty old squat rack and wish for one of those nice shiny Nautilus leg press machines. The one where you sit upright like when you are driving a car. I never care for the traditional 45 degree angle leg press where you lie on your back.
But at least you get to use chaulk and it has that platform where you can just dump the bar and nobody gives you a second look. And you don't have those annoying guys always around you cleaning stuff and sweeping like they did at the 24 Hour in Cali. I mean, I shouldn't bag on those guys because I'm sure they hate having to sweep around you but their boss is always on their ass about keeping the place spotless.
X2 hardcore man
-
Sorry, I was referring to Vince. The way he said powerlifting has no business in bodybuilding I assumed he meant powerlift exercises.
Deadlifts really heavy are dangerous and shouldn't be done by bodybuilders. Period. You can tear biceps doing it plus damage your spine. I tore my right biceps doing a heavy deadlift. Enough said.
Bench pressing is a dangerous exercise. Eventually you will have sore shoulders. If you do it ballistically and heavy you might tear a pec. Way too many bodybuilders have torn pecs.
Seeing how much you can deadlift or bench press is lunacy. Ditto for squats or arm wrestling.
You see, the beliefs are part of the vocabulary of bodybuilding. Nothing I say will change things for people like JME. He can't learn because of what he accepts as the truth.
-
Deadlifts really heavy are dangerous and shouldn't be done by bodybuilders. Period. You can tear biceps doing it plus damage your spine. I tore my right biceps doing a heavy deadlift. Enough said.
Bench pressing is a dangerous exercise. Eventually you will have sore shoulders. If you do it ballistically and heavy you might tear a pec. Way too many bodybuilders have torn pecs.
Seeing how much you can deadlift or bench press is lunacy. Ditto for squats or arm wrestling.
You see, the beliefs are part of the vocabulary of bodybuilding. Nothing I say will change things for people like JME. He can't learn because of what he accepts as the truth.
Yes Vince, because I have no idea what I'm talking about!
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e196/Intenseone/DSCN0010.jpg)
-
Deadlifts really heavy are dangerous and shouldn't be done by bodybuilders. Period. You can tear biceps doing it plus damage your spine. I tore my right biceps doing a heavy deadlift. Enough said.
Bench pressing is a dangerous exercise. Eventually you will have sore shoulders. If you do it ballistically and heavy you might tear a pec. Way too many bodybuilders have torn pecs.
Seeing how much you can deadlift or bench press is lunacy. Ditto for squats or arm wrestling.
You see, the beliefs are part of the vocabulary of bodybuilding. Nothing I say will change things for people like JME. He can't learn because of what he accepts as the truth.
Anything can be dangerous if performed incorrectly with an inadequate warmup.
-
Deadlifts really heavy are dangerous and shouldn't be done by bodybuilders. Period. You can tear biceps doing it plus damage your spine. I tore my right biceps doing a heavy deadlift. Enough said.
Bench pressing is a dangerous exercise. Eventually you will have sore shoulders. If you do it ballistically and heavy you might tear a pec. Way too many bodybuilders have torn pecs.
Seeing how much you can deadlift or bench press is lunacy. Ditto for squats or arm wrestling.
You see, the beliefs are part of the vocabulary of bodybuilding. Nothing I say will change things for people like JME. He can't learn because of what he accepts as the truth.
Yes ,
deadlifts ,are hard for your back and biceps
benchpress ,hard on your shoulders,triceps and elbows and pecs
squat, hard on your back ,knees and ass
shoulder press hard on your shoulders
curls,.....................................................
Vince is right from now on I'm staying at home , fuck working out ,it's too dangerous ::)
-
Deadlifts really heavy are dangerous and shouldn't be done by bodybuilders. Period. You can tear biceps doing it plus damage your spine. I tore my right biceps doing a heavy deadlift. Enough said.
Bench pressing is a dangerous exercise. Eventually you will have sore shoulders. If you do it ballistically and heavy you might tear a pec. Way too many bodybuilders have torn pecs.
Seeing how much you can deadlift or bench press is lunacy. Ditto for squats or arm wrestling.
You see, the beliefs are part of the vocabulary of bodybuilding. Nothing I say will change things for people like JME. He can't learn because of what he accepts as the truth.
I agree with the going-to-heavy mistake. Most fibres are recruited during a 60-80% rep/max workload. As long you can train with good form I don't think the ballistic aspect would be an issue with the possible exception during low carb periods.
This whole machine vs free weight discussion is similar like this (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=312290.0) one about an interesting article Bob Chick once wrote.
-
Yes ,
deadlifts ,are hard for your back and biceps
benchpress ,hard on your shoulders,triceps and elbows and pecs
squat, hard on your back ,knees and ass
shoulder press hard on your shoulders
curls,.....................................................
Vince is right from now on I'm staying at home , fuck working out ,it's too dangerous ::)
LOL.......that about sums it up doesn't it?
-
Coach why are you wearing straps while doing barbell curls? >:(
-
Coach why are you wearing straps while doing barbell curls? >:(
I like them for certain exercises. I sometimes ware them when I bench as well, makes me feel secure since I use a false grip. My preference.
-
Coach walking the walk. Pretty damn impressive.
-
I don't understand why the traditional bench press has gotten such a bad rap lately. Nobody, as far as I know, considers push-ups to be a bad or dangerous exercise when it's movement is virtually identical to the bench. I think the problem is using excessive weight, poor form, and using explosive movements.
-
I don't understand why the traditional bench press has gotten such a bad rap lately. Nobody, as far as I know, considers push-ups to be a bad or dangerous exercise when it's movement is virtually identical to the bench. I think the problem is using excessive weight, poor form, and using explosive movements.
X2
-
Well, the bench press is something we all grew up with. So it was part of every program. It doesn't take a great mind to be aware of the immense forces on the deltoid muscles doing bench presses. Matter of fact, the bench is a great exercise for the front deltoids. The problem is the rotator cuff can get damaged by those heavy weights. Once that happens you get pain when you bench. Goodbye bench press. If I had to do it all again I wouldn't do bench pressing. At the least I would keep reps above 8 and maybe even 12. It did nothing for my upper pecs. Bev Francis loved bench pressing and did well over 330 pounds weighing 180. She had great upper pecs from that movement. The thing is we have to stop copying stuff we hear and see and figure out how to actually build our own muscles. Guys like Gironda and Larry Scott and even Ray Mentzer studied the body and knew how to target individual muscles. There is no substitute for analysis and experience. The technology of bodybuilding is just as important as the theory.
Pellius is right. You don't have to want to get big to be a student of hypertrophy. It helps, though, to actually do hypertrophy training. Only then can you get enough feedback at various stages to know what to keep and what to change. Some exercises work up to a point then no further progress is made using it. That is experience. Eg., triceps pressdowns don't usually do much for arms over 17 1/2 inches.
The coach has paid his dues. Maybe a barbell fell on his head doing bench pressing? Gyms can be like that. I think something like that happened to me because Joe Gold knocked on his wooden desk when I told him I wanted to bulk up like Malcolm Brenner. I never did get as big as Brenner did.
-
I like them for certain exercises. I sometimes ware them when I bench as well, makes me feel secure since I use a false grip. My preference.
dont lie, thats you doing deadlifts. :D ;)
-
dont lie, thats you doing deadlifts. :D ;)
Beat me to it!! ;D
-
Yes Vince, because I have no idea what I'm talking about!
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e196/Intenseone/DSCN0010.jpg)
Chaos, if u didnt like Coach, as I do as well, critique this picture for me. ;D
-
Well, the bench press is something we all grew up with. So it was part of every program. It doesn't take a great mind to be aware of the immense forces on the deltoid muscles doing bench presses. Matter of fact, the bench is a great exercise for the front deltoids. The problem is the rotator cuff can get damaged by those heavy weights. Once that happens you get pain when you bench. Goodbye bench press. If I had to do it all again I wouldn't do bench pressing. At the least I would keep reps above 8 and maybe even 12. It did nothing for my upper pecs. Bev Francis loved bench pressing and did well over 330 pounds weighing 180. She had great upper pecs from that movement. The thing is we have to stop copying stuff we hear and see and figure out how to actually build our own muscles. Guys like Gironda and Larry Scott and even Ray Mentzer studied the body and knew how to target individual muscles. There is no substitute for analysis and experience. The technology of bodybuilding is just as important as the theory.
Pellius is right. You don't have to want to get big to be a student of hypertrophy. It helps, though, to actually do hypertrophy training. Only then can you get enough feedback at various stages to know what to keep and what to change. Some exercises work up to a point then no further progress is made using it. That is experience. Eg., triceps pressdowns don't usually do much for arms over 17 1/2 inches.
The coach has paid his dues. Maybe a barbell fell on his head doing bench pressing? Gyms can be like that. I think something like that happened to me because Joe Gold knocked on his wooden desk when I told him I wanted to bulk up like Malcolm Brenner. I never did get as big as Brenner did.
Well Vince, you're getting closer, your half right. As far as the rotator cuff.....those are some of those "stabilizers" that I often refer too. Stabilize the joint first, then add progressive loads. As for rotator cuff problems while benching, don't confuse rotator cuff tears with labral injuries or tears. Since machines are primarly isolation movements, your chances of injury are greater when going heavier. Vince, EVERYTHING I've talked about in this thread were not only based on research but published case studies along with 35 years of training, training others and flat out commonsense. I'm not pulling shit out of my ass Vince, if you look hard enough, the research is there.
-
Chaos, if u didnt like Coach, as I do as well, critique this picture for me. ;D
Aahhh shit...here we go! Sorry you don't like me TacoBell.
-
Chaos, if u didnt like Coach, as I do as well, critique this picture for me. ;D
Brutal double underhand grip with straps to deadlift 135lbs, epic 1990's "Fox" hat pulled down too low by a 50 year old that thinks he's still 30, monster wearing a shirt 2 sizes smaller than normal cause a normal sized shirt would look like a dress, dynamic still being on the juice despite claiming you quit months ago, pathetically being so short the curl rack is above your waist, epic gyno poking through your shirt, monster wearing a belt under your shirt to hold in your fat gut, gayly listening to an I-pod with beyonce and lagy gaga blaring in your ears to help you feel "hip", strangely struggling to hold onto the bar and not drop it while the picture is being taken, epic taking your camera to the gym to prove to Vince "fat bastard" Basile that you actually workout, terrible ego lifting for no practical purpose.....
-
Brutal double underhand grip with straps to deadlift 135lbs, epic 1990's "Fox" hat pulled down too low by a 50 year old that thinks he's still 30, monster wearing a shirt 2 sizes smaller than normal cause a normal sized shirt would look like a dress, dynamic still being on the juice despite claiming you quit months ago, pathetically being so short the curl rack is above your waist, epic gyno poking through your shirt, monster wearing a belt under your shirt to hold in your fat gut, gayly listening to an I-pod with beyonce and lagy gaga blaring in your ears to help you feel "hip", strangely struggling to hold onto the bar and not drop it while the picture is being taken, epic taking your camera to the gym to prove to Vince "fat bastard" Basile that you actually workout, terrible ego lifting for no practical purpose.....
ROTFLMAO......THAT was funny.....
dick
-
Aahhh shit...here we go! Sorry you don't like me TacoBell.
I meant I do like you. :)
Chaos, that was beautiful. Happy new year fellas.
-
ROTFLMAO......THAT was funny.....
dick
:)
I meant I do like you. :)
Chaos, that was beautiful. Happy new year fellas.
Happy New Year to you too Taco.
-
I meant I do like you. :)
Chaos, that was beautiful. Happy new year fellas.
Thanks bud, same to you!
-
Don't forget to use a full R.O.M on those curls. Believe in the science. Arnold did.
(http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i56/tricepora/arnoldcheatcurling.jpg)
-
Don't forget to use a full R.O.M on those curls. Believe in the science. Arnold did.
(http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i56/tricepora/arnoldcheatcurling.jpg)
Holy crap..LOL!
-
One question, JME, while I regroup. What is with wearing the hat in the gym? Sets a bad example for young fellas you know. Belt, wraps, hat, ipod, did I miss anything?
-
One question, JME, while I regroup. What is with wearing the hat in the gym? Sets a bad example for young fellas you know. Belt, wraps, hat, ipod, did I miss anything?
I forgot my spandex training tights, do-rag and fanny pack that day.
-
A bit off topic, but since I have the eyes and ears of some seasoned vets (even you Basile) what is your opinion of wearing a belt? I don't like it because it hinders breathing and I want to be in the habit of breathing deeply through my diaphragm rather then my chests. But is it useful as a support and "stabilizer"? I mean, all the big muscle men wear them and I like when Ronnie would brace it against a rack and pull it real tight. And I mean Ronnie Coleman Mr. Olympia so it's got to be good, right?
-
I forgot my spandex training tights, do-rag and fanny pack that day.
LMAO - looking pretty massive there Coach...(no homo)
-
Lift,Eat,Rest,Repeat !!
-
What is with wearing the hat in the gym? Sets a bad example for young fellas you know.
What's so awful about the hat?
-
Just stirring!
-
Didn't want to start a new thread but wanted to share so I will post it here: Yesterday I took a shower and put on my gym clothes and was ready to go workout then I felt tired and wanted to take a nap. Planned on taking a hour long nap but spent like 4 hrs intead. I felt rested. Has this ever happened to you guys where you get ready to go and at the last second you instincually decide to stay home and rest?
-
Didn't want to start a new thread but wanted to share so I will post it here: Yesterday I took a shower and put on my gym clothes and was ready to go workout then I felt tired and wanted to take a nap. Planned on taking a hour long nap but spent like 4 hrs intead. I felt rested. Has this ever happened to you guys where you get ready to go and at the last second you instincually decide to stay home and rest?
More often than I wish, but I see it as a sign. You can't train like an animal without enough rest.
-
Lift,Eat, Olive Oil ,Rest,Repeat !!
Fixed
-
Don`t forget the grape juice bro!! :)
-
Don`t forget the grape juice bro!! :)
Make sure that is administered by IV, bro. Only way it works. ;)
-
A bit off topic, but since I have the eyes and ears of some seasoned vets (even you Basile) what is your opinion of wearing a belt? I don't like it because it hinders breathing and I want to be in the habit of breathing deeply through my diaphragm rather then my chests. But is it useful as a support and "stabilizer"? I mean, all the big muscle men wear them and I like when Ronnie would brace it against a rack and pull it real tight. And I mean Ronnie Coleman Mr. Olympia so it's got to be good, right?
I use a belt for heavy deads and squats only
wrap my knees on the heavy squats too
-
Powerlifters, fat and where its at!!
(http://www.elitefts.com/images/PICTURES/fat_bastard.jpg)
-
which powerlifter has the best physique and what are his lifts like ?
i keep hearing powerlifters aren't all fat guys - but no one ever post a pic of these guys with great physiques.
-
which powerlifter has the best physique and what are his lifts like ?
i keep hearing powerlifters aren't all fat guys - but no one ever post a pic of these guys with great physiques.
IMO one of the aspects of a good physique are good proportions. Most lifters have overpowered traps & chests and hanging delts.