Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Danimal77 on December 20, 2018, 07:29:57 PM
-
I've been saying this for a while. Today's guys have small chests because they use MACHINES today. Old school guys used free weights and benched heavy. Good listen:
-
Arnold and Lou had huge chests that would be impressive even today. Not anybody else stands out. I think the pecs don't look as big because the delts and arms are so huge. Also, the quads are way more massive on more bbers than ever before and less bbers squat than ever before. Platz-like quads are pretty common now.
How come this free weight theory doesn't hold for arms, delts and quads?
I don't know why tension from a barbell would be more effective than tension from a Hammer strength.
-
i feel kevin had a good plan of attack wth bbing
take lots of time off/breaks and then go back at it hard core 100%
-
i feel kevin had a good plan of attack wth bbing
take lots of time off/breaks and then go back at it hard core 100%
Most of the guys did this back in the old days, nothing new
-
I've been saying this for a while. Today's guys have small chests because they use MACHINES today. Old school guys used free weights and benched heavy. Good listen:
Today’s guys don’t have small chests, it’s the overdevelopment of arms and delts, the ones that have small chests are genetics like everything else
-
Arnold and Lou had huge chests that would be impressive even today. Not anybody else stands out. I think the pecs don't look as big because the delts and arms are so huge. Also, the quads are way more massive on more bbers than ever before and less bbers squat than ever before. Platz-like quads are pretty common now.
How come this free weight theory doesn't hold for arms, delts and quads?
I don't know why tension from a barbell would be more effective than tension from a Hammer strength.
No machine can mimic the natural path of resistance of a barbell or db's.
-
No machine can mimic the natural path of resistance of a barbell or db's.
Bobert chick built an amazing physique with just cable cross overs, hammer strength machines and light stretching
-
Kevin is talking horseshit.
I came up in the same era and gyms essentially had the same equipment they do now.
It’s the prevalence of drugs and the variety ... and willingness of so many to actually do them. And in insane amounts. This, in turn, has killed the mystique of ball-busting workouts. The actual training is an afterthought.
On a side note, is Levrone gonna try for an even lower placing at next year’s Olympia?
-
No machine can mimic the natural path of resistance of a barbell or db's.
It is always refreshing to hear the opinion of a real expert!
-
It is always refreshing to hear the opinion of a real expert!
Good to see you are opening your mind and taking the opinion of the real experts. 8)
-
Good to see you are opening your mind and taking the opinion of the real experts. 8)
Coach is the resident broscience expert and I guess that makes you the noscience expert. Congratulations.
-
Great interview. I agree. I see it everyday
-
No machine can mimic the natural path of resistance of a barbell or db's.
No barbell or dumbbell can mimic the path of resistance of, say the Hammer or Nautilus bicep machine. The difference is that the machine provides a full range of motion in a rotary fashion which is how your joints move. The cam also provides variable resistance to mimic the strength curve of your muscle as it is stronger in some positions and weaker in others. Free weight just provides resistance in an up and down fashion so you only get the full resistance, in the case of the barbell/dumbbell curl, when your forearm is parallel to the ground. You are also limited to the weight you can use when your joints are in the weakest position.
-
Coach is the resident broscience expert and I guess that makes you the noscience expert. Congratulations.
Ok, let’s debate.
-
Ok, let’s debate.
What exactly would the topic be? How about broscience?
-
Kevin is full of shit
-
What exactly would the topic be? How about broscience?
Go.
Every time we’ve tried this you’ve got your ass handed to you EVERY...FUCKING....TIME
g
-
Ok, let’s debate.
Remember the original Nautilus leg press machine? Jones, through the use of the cam, tried to mimic the natural strength curve of the pressing movement of the legs, i.e. how you are so much weaker in the full squat position and the resistance started to increase as you pushed forward allowing maximum load, or as close to it, during the full range of motion through the use of the cam.
With the barbell squat, you are limited to the amount of weight you can use when you are at the weakest position, in the bucket, the full squat position. So in practice, it is very hard getting out of the bucket and then it becomes relatively easy to lock out as you get so much stronger, or rather in a much stronger position, as you get closer to the top.
Furthermore, in the squat, the resistance is placed on the top of the spine, and has to travel down the very weak and unstable path of the spine and vertebrates which are designed more for mobility than stability, going to the lower back, then finally the strong heavy bones of the hips and legs.
With the leg press the resistance starts at your strongest foundation only having to travel past the large and strongest bones and joints of your femor and hips.
This is not to mention the instability inherent in balancing and moving with a heavy bar across your shoulders and spine and trying to maintain proper posture as you start to fatigue. With the leg press your body is naturally held in a stable position.
Exercise should enhance strength and functional ability and I don't think it is a coincidence that many, if not most, have to quit doing barbell squats as they get older because of the damage and unnatural strain it puts on the body. There's a lady in our gym in a wheelchair that is still able to do the Hammer or Hoist leg press.
-
I like how dave doesn’t attribute injuries to the way he trains heavy and says genetics, like most bbers they never admit that training heavy or using massive amounts of steriods do attribute to their body breaking down or health issues. It’s not entirely genetics like Dave makes it seem
-
Bobert chick built an amazing physique with just cable cross overs, hammer strength machines and light stretching
-
Go.
Every time we’ve tried this you’ve got your ass handed to you EVERY...FUCKING....TIME
g
Bump for debate.
-
They were both over 6 feet tall with large rib cages. Of course their pecs are going to be more massive than those of today’s midget bber.
Back in the day, I was a trainer in a gym where Arnold used to occasionally train. I personally saw him using the Cybex machine for chest.
Phil has shitty pecs for the same reason he has great arms: genetics.
-
Imagine saying that today's bodybuilders look like shit , you provide the news that X rays are in and your knees are in the shape of a 22 year old man .... Then you proceed to announce the biggest comeback in bodybuilding history!!! battle of the eras and place dead last ....
WoooSHHHHHHHHHHHH LEVRONEEEEEEEEE
-
Vince Basil is a fat old man and an expert in absolutely fuck all, he’s been in shape about 2 times in his life but never again in the 70 years since the handful of contests he did, no man who is an expert in anything spends 50 years of his life working on a pile of scrap that is of absolutely zero use or value to anyone, within minutes of him dying those around him will be phoning up the local scrap yard to pick up the monstrosity that the fat old fuck wasted his life working on
-
Vince Basil is a fat old man and an expert in absolutely fuck all, he’s been in shape about 2 times in his life but never again in the 70 years since the handful of contests he did, no man who is an expert in anything spends 50 years of his life working on a pile of scrapyard is of absolutely zero use or value to anyone, within minutes of him dying those around him will be phoning up the local scrap yard to pick up the monstrosity that the fat old fuck wasted his life working on
How dare you talk of the biceps supinator machine like that.It is a technological marvel.
-
I've been saying this for a while. Today's guys have small chests because they use MACHINES today. Old school guys used free weights and benched heavy. Good listen:
That would mean that all builders from the seventies had fabulous chests.
Many of them didn't
-
No barbell or dumbbell can mimic the path of resistance of, say the Hammer or Nautilus bicep machine. The difference is that the machine provides a full range of motion in a rotary fashion which is how your joints move. The cam also provides variable resistance to mimic the strength curve of your muscle as it is stronger in some positions and weaker in others. Free weight just provides resistance in an up and down fashion so you only get the full resistance, in the case of the barbell/dumbbell curl, when your forearm is parallel to the ground. You are also limited to the weight you can use when your joints are in the weakest position.
And nobody has the same length arms/ legs. This means the fixed machine creates a different path for different people. A free weight travels in a natural motion to each persons body.
-
They were both over 6 feet tall with large rib cages. Of course their pecs are going to be more massive than those of today’s midget bber.
Back in the day, I was a trainer in a gym where Arnold used to occasionally train. I personally saw him using the Cybex machine for chest.
Phil has shitty pecs for the same reason he has great arms: genetics.
these guys were short and they had great chests in the 50's and 60's.
-
;)
-
Remember the original Nautilus leg press machine? Jones, through the use of the cam, tried to mimic the natural strength curve of the pressing movement of the legs, i.e. how you are so much weaker in the full squat position and the resistance started to increase as you pushed forward allowing maximum load, or as close to it, during the full range of motion through the use of the cam.
With the barbell squat, you are limited to the amount of weight you can use when you are at the weakest position, in the bucket, the full squat position. So in practice, it is very hard getting out of the bucket and then it becomes relatively easy to lock out as you get so much stronger, or rather in a much stronger position, as you get closer to the top.
Furthermore, in the squat, the resistance is placed on the top of the spine, and has to travel down the very weak and unstable path of the spine and vertebrates which are designed more for mobility than stability, going to the lower back, then finally the strong heavy bones of the hips and legs.
With the leg press the resistance starts at your strongest foundation only having to travel past the large and strongest bones and joints of your femor and hips.
This is not to mention the instability inherent in balancing and moving with a heavy bar across your shoulders and spine and trying to maintain proper posture as you start to fatigue. With the leg press your body is naturally held in a stable position.
Exercise should enhance strength and functional ability and I don't think it is a coincidence that many, if not most, have to quit doing barbell squats as they get older because of the damage and unnatural strain it puts on the body. There's a lady in our gym in a wheelchair that is still able to do the Hammer or Hoist leg press.
Good post however I'll disagree and argue that the squat (and all lifts save for dumbell presses) starts at the strongest position/foundation, the lock out. Every lift is limited by an individual's strength in the weakest position even with the leg press.
I would also add that the squat is the most "athletic" lift of the non- Olympic lifts. The biggest issue for most people who attempt to perform a squat is balance and then flexibility. Even when teaching someone to free squat (with no weight) there are many difficulties just because of the coordination required.
Weight training is an unnatural strain on the body period. I agree many quit squatting as they age because it's no longer a "cost effective" (mobility and flexibility declines) exercise, and that's assuming they were able to squat properly before, but because the squat is more of an athletic movement it is also very difficult to continue performing it.
-
How dare you talk of the biceps supinator machine like that.It is a technological marvel.
Haha I’m sure Vince sees it that way, the supinatior reminds me of those ‘transformer’ toys that were about when we were a kid after the very first time you try and turn it from a car to a robot it ends up stuck as and unusable pile of utter shit
-
;) genetics plus hard work plus a little juice, no machines save some pulleys.=results
-
Not in total disagreement but...who had a pec torn off the bone again? Leeeevroneeee
-
No barbell or dumbbell can mimic the path of resistance of, say the Hammer or Nautilus bicep machine. The difference is that the machine provides a full range of motion in a rotary fashion which is how your joints move. The cam also provides variable resistance to mimic the strength curve of your muscle as it is stronger in some positions and weaker in others. Free weight just provides resistance in an up and down fashion so you only get the full resistance, in the case of the barbell/dumbbell curl, when your forearm is parallel to the ground. You are also limited to the weight you can use when your joints are in the weakest position.
Whenever this free weights vs. machines argument comes up people forget the neurological differences. Doing squats doesn't just require strength but balance as well. The stabilizer muscles are put to work as well and these are not activated in a fixed machine lift. Machine lifting makes you strong for that machine but that is all. Squatting makes you strong throughout the body.
No NFL or D1 college football teams use machines only for their strength training programs. No NHL hockey team or any Olympic athlete in a speed or power sport lifts with machines exclusively or even a majority of their strength training.
Arthur Jones as well as any other machine maker (including Vince Basil) has a financial motive to convince people machines are superior even though there are no examples they can use to prove their theories.
-
And nobody has the same length arms/ legs. This means the fixed machine creates a different path for different people. A free weight travels in a natural motion to each persons body.
But the machines aren't fixed. They are adjustable. The natural motion of the body is rotary. When you are doing a curl your hand and forearm is making an arc, a half circle. Free weights, entirely dependent on gravity, only provides resistance in a straight line in an up and down movement. You only get full resistance when the limb is perpendicular to the weight. In the case of the curl, when your forearm is parallel to the floor.
-
i feel kevin had a good plan of attack wth bbing
take lots of time off/breaks and then go back at it hard core 100%
Yes, Kevin was unique in this way.
-
Good post however I'll disagree and argue that the squat (and all lifts save for dumbell presses) starts at the strongest position/foundation, the lock out. Every lift is limited by an individual's strength in the weakest position even with the leg press.
I would also add that the squat is the most "athletic" lift of the non- Olympic lifts. The biggest issue for most people who attempt to perform a squat is balance and then flexibility. Even when teaching someone to free squat (with no weight) there are many difficulties just because of the coordination required.
Weight training is an unnatural strain on the body period. I agree many quit squatting as they age because it's no longer a "cost effective" (mobility and flexibility declines) exercise, and that's assuming they were able to squat properly before, but because the squat is more of an athletic movement it is also very difficult to continue performing it.
You are right on all points. From an athletic point of view, squats are superior. Squatting with a barbell requires some athletic skill and your body has to conform to the movement, meaning you have to develop some measure of flexibility and proper posture and body mechanics while in motion. Essential qualities in an athlete.
If your goal is primarily focused toward health and muscle strength and hypertrophy you want to minimize the skill aspect of a movement and be in the most stable position so you can focus primarily on contracting the targetted muscle.
-
But the machines aren't fixed. They are adjustable. The natural motion of the body is rotary. When you are doing a curl your hand and forearm is making an arc, a half circle. Free weights, entirely dependent on gravity, only provides resistance in a straight line in an up and down movement. You only get full resistance when the limb is perpendicular to the weight. In the case of the curl, when your forearm is parallel to the floor.
They are adjustable to your height but once you are locked in the weight only moves in the fixed direction of the cam. Take 2 identical twins and train one on machines only and the other on free weights only for 90 days. Then switch the training programs and you will see the twin who trained on free weights for the first 90 days will be stronger in both lifts (the machine and free weight squats) and the twin who did only machine work the first 90 days will be significantly weaker.
I always ask for examples of a professional NFL or NHL team that uses primarily machines for their strength training programs because none exist. Why is this so? If machines made athletes so much stronger why wouldn't a strength coach train his athletes that way?
-
Jorma Raty had a chest smaller than a lot of lifetime naturals
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4e/e5/32/4ee5326075df15c87581894e0a0f9a84.jpg)
-
They are adjustable to your height but once you are locked in the weight only moves in the fixed direction of the cam. Take 2 identical twins and train one on machines only and the other on free weights only for 90 days. Then switch the training programs and you will see the twin who trained on free weights for the first 90 days will be stronger in both lifts (the machine and free weight squats) and the twin who did only machine work the first 90 days will be significantly weaker.
I always ask for examples of a professional NFL or NHL team that uses primarily machines for their strength training programs because none exist. Why is this so? If machines made athletes so much stronger why wouldn't a strength coach train his athletes that way?
I cant speak for NHL but I know for a fact most NFL and NCAA football strength coaches rely on machines to build and maintain strength during the season and to rehabilitate injury, which was of pellius's points.
-
I cant speak for NHL but I know for a fact most NFL and NCAA football strength coaches rely on machines to build and maintain strength during the season and to rehabilitate injury, which was of pellius's points.
Sometimes machines are used but not the primary weights used. Just look at any NFL or college weight room they are overwhelming free weights. The machines are usually used for rehabbing injuries.
-
Sometimes machines are used but not the primary weights used. Just look at any NFL or college weight room they are overwhelming free weights. The machines are usually used for rehabbing injuries.
Yup. That's what I said.
The collegiate level is a little different, as the competition and size/strength level of elite athletes is superior to most opponents. They can train for maximum strength.
I know for most NFL teams maintaining strength, rehabilitation and injury prevention is the primary focus and that's why there are machined used almost exclusively in season.
-
They are adjustable to your height but once you are locked in the weight only moves in the fixed direction of the cam. Take 2 identical twins and train one on machines only and the other on free weights only for 90 days. Then switch the training programs and you will see the twin who trained on free weights for the first 90 days will be stronger in both lifts (the machine and free weight squats) and the twin who did only machine work the first 90 days will be significantly weaker.
I always ask for examples of a professional NFL or NHL team that uses primarily machines for their strength training programs because none exist. Why is this so? If machines made athletes so much stronger why wouldn't a strength coach train his athletes that way?
The idea of the cam is not about fixed or free direction but rather to provide variable resistance to match the strength curve of the joint movement.
You are incorrect in your analogy regarding twins and free weights versus machines. I did it on myself. At one point I was able to bench press 315 pounds for 7 strict reps. All the way down, touching the chest, and with a slight but distinct pause. I stopped benching for about three months doing a machine, I don't remember which one, that pretty much simulated the exact movement and picked a weight that I could do about 8 reps before failing at the 9th. I don't remember what weight but let's just say it was 200 lbs that I was using on the machine. I do remember that over that three month period I increase the resistance by about five plates for 8 reps, presumably, that was 50 lbs so let's say now I was doing 250 lbs.
When I went back to the bench press I found that I could barely eke out 4 reps. This made no sense to me. I mean, how could I have gotten weaker? I went from 200 to 250 lbs using the same muscles in pretty much the same way but now I can't bench like I use to. Anyway, that convinced me to stick to the bench press. No matter what logic told me the fact is I got weaker. Empirical evidence always trumps logic and reason.
It didn't take that long to get back my original strength performance on the bench. I was back to benching 315 for 7 reps in about five weeks. I was pretty much maxed out on the bench for my body type. I've long accepted the fact, albeit begrudgingly, that I was not built to perform great feats of strength. Then one day, maybe almost a year later, I went back to that bench machine just to mix things up a bit. Shockingly, I found that I could barely budge the 250 lbs for more than three reps! Again this made no sense to me. Did I get weaker again.
I believe that in both cases I didn't really get stronger or weaker per se but I got stronger or weaker in that particular movement. I think your body is very activity specific. Getting better, stronger, more stamina in one activity doesn't necessarily directly transfer to another. You lose that specific skill. You get "out of practice".
I always considered marathoners to be the ultimate endurance athletes. Compared to what they do, anything else, from a conditioning perspective, is a piece of cake. I remember training in BJJ with an avid marathoner. What shocked both him and myself was how winded he got. He couldn't keep up stamina wise. Now there is no way on Heaven and Earth that I could run a marathon but on the mat I made him look out of shape.
I've experienced this phenomenon, not just with weights where I would get "weaker" despite always being in training on a movement I stopped doing for a while, but also when I would switch up running stairs to running the sand hill. Or swimming versus jogging. I was able to do more for longer, or less for shorter, not necessarily because my conditioning improved or diminished. I was always in training and always in top shape. But because I simply got better or worse in that particular movement.
The legendary wrestler, Dan Gable, know for his superb conditioning and being tireless on the mat was once asked what is the best exercise to increase endurance and stamina for wrestling. He simply replied, "Wrestling".
-
The idea of the cam is not about fixed or free direction but rather to provide variable resistance to match the strength curve of the joint movement.
You are incorrect in your analogy regarding twins and free weights versus machines. I did it on myself. At one point I was able to bench press 315 pounds for 7 strict reps. All the way down, touching the chest, and with a slight but distinct pause. I stopped benching for about three months doing a machine, I don't remember which one, that pretty much simulated the exact movement and picked a weight that I could do about 8 reps before failing at the 9th. I don't remember what weight but let's just say it was 200 lbs that I was using on the machine. I do remember that over that three month period I increase the resistance by about five plates for 8 reps, presumably, that was 50 lbs so let's say now I was doing 250 lbs.
When I went back to the bench press I found that I could barely eke out 4 reps. This made no sense to me. I mean, how could I have gotten weaker? I went from 200 to 250 lbs using the same muscles in pretty much the same way but now I can't bench like I use to. Anyway, that convinced me to stick to the bench press. No matter what logic told me the fact is I got weaker. Empirical evidence always trumps logic and reason.
It didn't take that long to get back my original strength performance on the bench. I was back to benching 315 for 7 reps in about five weeks. I was pretty much maxed out on the bench for my body type. I've long accepted the fact, albeit begrudgingly, that I was not built to perform great feats of strength. Then one day, maybe almost a year later, I went back to that bench machine just to mix things up a bit. Shockingly, I found that I could barely budge the 250 lbs for more than three reps! Again this made no sense to me. Did I get weaker again.
I believe that in both cases I didn't really get stronger or weaker per se but I got stronger or weaker in that particular movement. I think your body is very activity specific. Getting better, stronger, more stamina in one activity doesn't necessarily directly transfer to another. You lose that specific skill. You get "out of practice".
I always considered marathoners to be the ultimate endurance athletes. Compared to what they do, anything else, from a conditioning perspective, is a piece of cake. I remember training in BJJ with an avid marathoner. What shocked both him and myself was how winded he got. He couldn't keep up stamina wise. Now there is no way on Heaven and Earth that I could run a marathon but on the mat I made him look out of shape.
I've experienced this phenomenon, not just with weights where I would get "weaker" despite always being in training on a movement I stopped doing for a while, but also when I would switch up running stairs to running the sand hill. Or swimming versus jogging. I was able to do more for longer, or less for shorter, not necessarily because my conditioning improved or diminished. I was always in training and always in top shape. But because I simply got better or worse in that particular movement.
The legendary wrestler, Dan Gable, know for his superb conditioning and being tireless on the mat was once asked what is the best exercise to increase endurance and stamina for wrestling. He simply replied, "Wrestling".
Doesn't your example prove my point?
-
I cant speak for NHL but I know for a fact most NFL and NCAA football strength coaches rely on machines to build and maintain strength during the season and to rehabilitate injury, which was of pellius's points.
In these discussions and debates, it is not, or should not be, an all or nothing argument. That only free weights or only machines are better. Some machines are beyond crappy and some free weight movements are not as good as a similar movement on the machines. There some great value to doing free weight movements not only for it's muscle building aspects but for the increase in real-world functional ability. The Romanian type deadlift, where both palms are facing you is a simple and very useful movement that one does on a regular basis in day to day life. Just picking something up off the floor. No machine can duplicate this movement. There may be machines that will better and more safely develop the lower back but not duplicate the proper function of picking things up off the floor.
The overhead dumbbell press is also another excellent free weight movement as you have full range movement with constant resistance as this stimulates the up and down movement of free weights due to gravity.
-
Doesn't your example prove my point?
Absolutely not. Read it again. Never mind, it's too long.
The point is that I got stronger with the machine doing the machine and weaker in the bench from not doing it.
I then got weaker in the machine and got my strength back on the bench because I stopped doing the machine and went back to the bench.
In either case, I got neither stronger or weaker as I was always in training but that I lost the skill, the activity specific movement, from doing or not doing that particular movement. I got "out of practice" doing the bench when I stopped doing it even though my strength "increased" on another similar, but not exact, movement. Shit, I use to bang out 50 pushups like it was nothing when I was in high school. Now, since I don't do pushups, 25 is a bit tough. And my bodyweight is only about 5-10 lbs heavier now than when I was in high school and I am definitely carrying more muscle now.
-
Whenever this free weights vs. machines argument comes up people forget the neurological differences. Doing squats doesn't just require strength but balance as well. The stabilizer muscles are put to work as well and these are not activated in a fixed machine lift. Machine lifting makes you strong for that machine but that is all. Squatting makes you strong throughout the body.
No NFL or D1 college football teams use machines only for their strength training programs. No NHL hockey team or any Olympic athlete in a speed or power sport lifts with machines exclusively or even a majority of their strength training.
Arthur Jones as well as any other machine maker (including Vince Basil) has a financial motive to convince people machines are superior even though there are no examples they can use to prove their theories.
Pellius is capable of logical thinking, the rest here not so much. Broscience survives on Getbig!
-
Quick read through this while I’m at work. Don’t compare bodybuilding training to athlete training/development. It’s two completely different animals.
-
Pellius is capable of logical thinking, the rest here not so much. Broscience survives on Getbig!
Dear Vince, kindly stfu. This is beyond you. Hope this helps
-
I train with mostly free weights but I will use some machines to supplement my workout, like the leg curl and preacher curl machines. The big difference with free weights is that you have to stabilize the weight.
-
Sounds like most getbiggers can outbench the average pro bb.
-
In these discussions and debates, it is not, or should not be, an all or nothing argument. That only free weights or only machines are better. Some machines are beyond crappy and some free weight movements are not as good as a similar movement on the machines. There some great value to doing free weight movements not only for it's muscle building aspects but for the increase in real-world functional ability. The Romanian type deadlift, where both palms are facing you is a simple and very useful movement that one does on a regular basis in day to day life. Just picking something up off the floor. No machine can duplicate this movement. There may be machines that will better and more safely develop the lower back but not duplicate the proper function of picking things up off the floor.
The overhead dumbbell press is also another excellent free weight movement as you have full range movement with constant resistance as this stimulates the up and down movement of free weights due to gravity.
This is true and a good point.
-
They are adjustable to your height but once you are locked in the weight only moves in the fixed direction of the cam. Take 2 identical twins and train one on machines only and the other on free weights only for 90 days. Then switch the training programs and you will see the twin who trained on free weights for the first 90 days will be stronger in both lifts (the machine and free weight squats) and the twin who did only machine work the first 90 days will be significantly weaker.
I always ask for examples of a professional NFL or NHL team that uses primarily machines for their strength training programs because none exist. Why is this so? If machines made athletes so much stronger why wouldn't a strength coach train his athletes that way?
To your point
-
Machines are just fine for building a great physique. They just have to fit you. Plus it doesnt take all day putting plates on a machine- half the time at my Gold’s the plates are spread all over the place. What a pain.
People seem to forget that the king of all gym lifts, the bench press, really didn’t become a common exercise until the 1940’s or so. There is nothing “functional” about lying on a bench and picking a weight off a rack. Read the history. Same goes with the back squat- until gyms came along nobody stood in a rack and then lowered a huge weight onto their shoulders. Both of these “functional” movements only exist because a primitive machine- a rack- was created.
About the only natural weighted exercises out there involve picking things up and/or putting them over your head.
-
Whenever this free weights vs. machines argument comes up people forget the neurological differences. Doing squats doesn't just require strength but balance as well. The stabilizer muscles are put to work as well and these are not activated in a fixed machine lift. Machine lifting makes you strong for that machine but that is all. Squatting makes you strong throughout the body.
No NFL or D1 college football teams use machines only for their strength training programs. No NHL hockey team or any Olympic athlete in a speed or power sport lifts with machines exclusively or even a majority of their strength training.
Arthur Jones as well as any other machine maker (including Vince Basil) has a financial motive to convince people machines are superior even though there are no examples they can use to prove their theories.
I almost forgot to address this very important post as I feel the topic is often fraught with confusion. Often the debate is about two different topics but first I want to quickly dismiss a couple of points you made.
This idea that machines only make you strong for that machine and "that is all" is not intuitively but empirically false. All a muscle does is contract. The bigger and stronger the muscle is the greater the force of contraction. As your strength increases significantly on a machine it therefore follows that your muscles have gotten stronger. How could it not? If you took someone who did no training at all and then have him embark on a total body weight-lifting program along with adequate nutrition for a year and he progressively increased the amount of resistance on the chosen exercises how could he not become a stronger overall human being? For example, by increasing his resistance by 50% on the leg press would he have more ability to say push a stranded car?
The notion that Jones had a financial motive is irrelevant. Some will do things just to make money and some will do things because they really believe it's a better product and will make life better along with enriching themselves. Financial success is one of the ways a society places value on a product that will improve their lives.
Because I am not a mind reader I am relunctant to access people's motives but just judge their actually behavior. What they actually do. Is it good or bad. Some rich guy may do a lot of charity work because he wants to look benevolent and generous and get a tax write off or he might really care about other people. I can't be sure. What I can be sure of is that he is donating money and making life better for others.
What you can say of Jones and his machines can very well be said of Weider and his free weights. He poo-poohed machines maybe because his business was with free weights. He was a good businessman but he was not even remotely close to Jones' genius and engineering abilities so he was not going to compete with him in equipment development. And though we can't be sure, knowing the history of both men I don't think it would be a stretch to suspect that Weider was far more concerned with the financial and marketing aspect of his business than Jones was.
I'll address the other more important issue you brought up regarding "neurological" differences and this concept of developing "stabilizer" muscles later on.
-
Machines are just fine for building a great physique. They just have to fit you. Plus it doesnt take all day putting plates on a machine- half the time at my Gold’s the plates are spread all over the place. What a pain.
People seem to forget that the king of all gym lifts, the bench press, really didn’t become a common exercise until the 1940’s or so. Their is nothing “functional” about lying on a bench and picking a weight off a rack. Read the history. Same goes with the back squat- until gyms came along nobody stood in a rack and then lowered a huge weight onto their shoulders. Both of these “functional” movements only exist because a primitive machine- a rack- was created.
About the only natural weighted exercises out there involve picking things up and/or putting them over your head.
I saw a kid two days ago at the gym who wanted to squat but both racks were being used. So he took a barbell to the corner of the gym, loaded it up, cleaned it, push-pressed it over his head and behind his neck and then proceeded to do squats. I smile broadly as it brought back (fond?) memories of how I use to do it as a kid. None of the kids today know what it means to "clean a barbell" other than with a rag and Windex. Just like Lou did in pumping iron before doing shoulder presses. It made me think how much training is lost because we don't "clean" the bars anymore.
Anyway, I congratulated the kid and he told that his dad showed him how to lift in his garage.
-
I saw a kid two days ago at the gym who wanted to squat but both racks were being used. So he took a barbell to the corner of the gym, loaded it up, cleaned it, push-pressed it over his head and behind his neck and then proceeded to do squats. I smile broadly as it brought back (fond?) memories of how I use to do it as a kid. None of the kids today know what it means to "clean a barbell" other than with a rag and Windex. Just like Lou did in pumping iron before doing shoulder presses. It made me think how much training is lost because we don't "clean" the bars anymore.
Anyway, I congratulated the kid and he told that his dad showed him how to lift in his garage.
Exactly! The clean is probably one of the the most athletic weight lifting movements there is. Pressing the weight and then lowering it onto your shoulders to do squats is even more so! Now that truly is functional strength.
-
Exactly! The clean is probably one of the the most athletic weight lifting movements there is. Pressing the weight and then lowering it onto your shoulders to do squats is even more so! Now that truly is functional strength.
While it's still used, O-lifts in an athletic setting is overrated
-
Dear Vince, kindly stfu. This is beyond you. Hope this helps
Coach, I like you. You can come over to my house and fuck my sister!
-
Coach, I like you. You can come over to my house and fuck my sister!
Lmfao ;D
-
Coach, I like you. You can come over to my house and fuck my sister!
Full Metal Jacket 😂
-
Full Metal Jacket 😂
Yes sir. The first half hour of that movie might have the best sound bytes in motion picture history.
-
Most of the guys did this back in the old days, nothing new
yep - 1970s to 1990s bbers did it - the ones today are on it full speed 24/7 and not good
-
Quick read through this while I’m at work. Don’t compare bodybuilding training to athlete training/development. It’s two completely different animals.
hence i look better than 99% of athletes out there cuz i train for bbing gains only/diet for bbing
and those athletes would all run circles around me, out hit me, out shoot me et
-
But the machines aren't fixed. They are adjustable. The natural motion of the body is rotary. When you are doing a curl your hand and forearm is making an arc, a half circle. Free weights, entirely dependent on gravity, only provides resistance in a straight line in an up and down movement. You only get full resistance when the limb is perpendicular to the weight. In the case of the curl, when your forearm is parallel to the floor.
To an extent. No machine is fully adjustable. I prefer heavy compound lifts with free weights as the anchor for my lifting and some machines here and there as I feel like.
-
I think that one of the main reasons guys looked better back in the day is because the magazines touted that you should use heavy result producing exercises to build a solid foundation for years coupled with eating big.
These days guys just jump right on a shit load gear and use pansy ass machines for the most part because they are easier, and look more impressive with a load of plates piled on without any balance issues whatsover.
This certainly doesn`t apply to everybody by any stretch of the imagination but they train like girls today for the most part with zero intensity of effort and rely mainly on boatloads of ger,
-
I think that one of the main reasons guys looked better back in the day is because the magazines touted that you should use heavy result producing exercises to build a solid foundation for years coupled with eating big.
These days guys just jump right on a shit load gear and use pansy ass machines for the most part because they are easier, and look more impressive with a load of plates piled on without any balance issues whatsover.
This certainly doesn`t apply to everybody by any stretch of the imagination but they train like girls today for the most part with zero intensity of effort and rely mainly on boatloads of ger,
Another thing is the amount of time people train. Newer trainees seem to think 45 minutes and you're body is toast. Back in the day they trained for hours, twice a day, everyday. The intensity and desire was much more impressive then, nowadays everyone wants instant results.
-
I think that one of the main reasons guys looked better back in the day is because the magazines touted that you should use heavy result producing exercises to build a solid foundation for years coupled with eating big.
These days guys just jump right on a shit load gear and use pansy ass machines for the most part because they are easier, and look more impressive with a load of plates piled on without any balance issues whatsover.
This certainly doesn`t apply to everybody by any stretch of the imagination but they train like girls today for the most part with zero intensity of effort and rely mainly on boatloads of ger,
We didn't have machines back in the day so everyone at least squatted and benched. Most gyms had basic compound movement pieces and at Pep's in Framingham MA where I started, it was all hand made. We did have a pull down and it was wall mounted with a T drilled in the concrete to hold you down.
There was camaraderie that doesn't exist today, a gym culture; bodybuilders trained with powerlifters to build their foundations. We encouraged one another and went to each others contests. Gear was basic pharm compounds and I didn't know anyone who used gh or slin. I chuckle at what people call trt now which would be a contest prep dose/cycle back then.
Jeff King is a great example.
(https://i.ibb.co/zGnXRcc/king.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Pwmchpp)
(https://i.ibb.co/m5Rj8xX/unnamed.jpg) (https://ibb.co/9HpDtMV)
(https://i.ibb.co/7SXXpWf/King-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/5166j80)
-
To an extent. No machine is fully adjustable. I prefer heavy compound lifts with free weights as the anchor for my lifting and some machines here and there as I feel like.
I think that is ideal. One should not be overly bogged down by think this is inherently better than that. With machines so much is dependant on the design. There are a lot of crappy machines out there. Conversely, through most of human history, athletes have developed great physiques and athletic ability through the use of the basic barbell and dumbbell. My first fifteen years of training always included squats, bench, overhead presses, barbell curl, tricep skull crushers.
Although I defend machines because I think they are unfairly dismissed by the old schoolers, I will have to admit that I do mostly machines now simply because it's easier as well as not able to do a lot of the basic barbell movements like bench and military press. But even something not as demanding as biceps I'll more often go to the Hammer curl than the barbell curl because it's so much easier. I'm not unaware of how I now tend to movements where I get to sit or lie down. There, I said it! But at least I'm there. I always justify to myself by saying it's better than nothing.
-
I will say this: if you take a current pro
Who uses mostly machines and who has a weak chest
and have him do nothing but barbell or dumbell
presses his chest is not going to become excellent.
Bodybuilding is mostly genetics! Serioulsy, how can this aspect be forgotten in this disussion - genetics is almost everything!
IMO there are still a lot of pros who squat and press freeweight very heavy. And some of them use loads that
almost no one in Levrone's era used. And many of them train way harder since the logbooking and beating your best became more popular after Yates. Several top coaches preach perfect form + constantly trying to beat you best weight and reps. This didn't use to be the case, it was perhaps trying to train til exhaustion moreso that trying to load heavier. And this is logical as load is THE prime driver of growth. Many will disagree with this but it's what I believe based oN science + observation. Volume will never compensate for "low" load. Increasing volume can increase growth but it's not primary.
-
I almost forgot to address this very important post as I feel the topic is often fraught with confusion. Often the debate is about two different topics but first I want to quickly dismiss a couple of points you made.
This idea that machines only make you strong for that machine and "that is all" is not intuitively but empirically false. All a muscle does is contract. The bigger and stronger the muscle is the greater the force of contraction. As your strength increases significantly on a machine it therefore follows that your muscles have gotten stronger. How could it not? If you took someone who did no training at all and then have him embark on a total body weight-lifting program along with adequate nutrition for a year and he progressively increased the amount of resistance on the chosen exercises how could he not become a stronger overall human being? For example, by increasing his resistance by 50% on the leg press would he have more ability to say push a stranded car?
The notion that Jones had a financial motive is irrelevant. Some will do things just to make money and some will do things because they really believe it's a better product and will make life better along with enriching themselves. Financial success is one of the ways a society places value on a product that will improve their lives.
Because I am not a mind reader I am relunctant to access people's motives but just judge their actually behavior. What they actually do. Is it good or bad. Some rich guy may do a lot of charity work because he wants to look benevolent and generous and get a tax write off or he might really care about other people. I can't be sure. What I can be sure of is that he is donating money and making life better for others.
What you can say of Jones and his machines can very well be said of Weider and his free weights. He poo-poohed machines maybe because his business was with free weights. He was a good businessman but he was not even remotely close to Jones' genius and engineering abilities so he was not going to compete with him in equipment development. And though we can't be sure, knowing the history of both men I don't think it would be a stretch to suspect that Weider was far more concerned with the financial and marketing aspect of his business than Jones was.
I'll address the other more important issue you brought up regarding "neurological" differences and this concept of developing "stabilizer" muscles later on.
1) "All a muscle does is contract": Yes but the stabilizer muscles don't contract in a machine. Example: Doing military presses with free weights works not only the shoulders but every upper body muscle including the whole core. Even legs are used in holding up the body and extra weight.
2) Financial incentive for Jones is totally relevant. Jones spent thousands of hours building his machines to sell to gyms. Do you think he's going to tell people "my machines aren't as effective as free weights but they are a pretty blue color so pay me thousands for each one." Also, Jones results were never replicated by anyone else. Again, no powerlifter, olympic weight lifter, NFL, NHL or track and field power athlete works exclusively with machines only but there are thousands who use just free weights.
3) Jones was a genius in marketing but not in science. Having a cam that puts stress on the muscle for the full range and eliminating gravity sounds great but has no effect on real athletes. Athletes compete on a mat or field that has gravity and their muscles have to move in all directions including circular motions. Most of Jones's presentations were to medical doctors who knew nothing about working muscles or engineering so he could say anything he wanted and it sounded good to them. He also insulted their intelligence probably because he had an inferiority complex over being the only non doctor in his family and the least educated.
4) As I said before take 2 people (preferably twins), put one on a free weights only routine and the other on a Nautilus only workout routine and who is going to be bigger, stronger and more athletic in the long run? It's not even close. The workout routine Jones's advocated doing full body and no rest between exercises is terrible as well but that's a whole different matter.
-
We didn't have machines back in the day so everyone at least squatted and benched. Most gyms had basic compound movement pieces and at Pep's in Framingham MA where I started, it was all hand made. We did have a pull down and it was wall mounted with a T drilled in the concrete to hold you down.
There was camaraderie that doesn't exist today, a gym culture; bodybuilders trained with powerlifters to build their foundations. We encouraged one another and went to each others contests. Gear was basic pharm compounds and I didn't know anyone who used gh or slin. I chuckle at what people call trt now which would be a contest prep dose/cycle back then.
Jeff King is a great example.
(https://i.ibb.co/zGnXRcc/king.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Pwmchpp)
(https://i.ibb.co/m5Rj8xX/unnamed.jpg) (https://ibb.co/9HpDtMV)
(https://i.ibb.co/7SXXpWf/King-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/5166j80)
Thanks WW........those top two pics are from Central City Gym in my hometown of Springfield Mass.
The middle pic is one I put online from my personal collection.
Great times with ball busting workouts and lots of big name contest winners when Spfld. was a veritable hotbed of bodybuilding and powerlifting as well as having 3 World Armwrestiling Champions.
-
I think the main difference between todays chumps and yesteryears champs is the result of the quantity and quality of drugs they take coupled with in the 70s and earlier if you took drugs you also took plenty of time off 'em. Some of my friends used to tell me that while being on the juice made them feel powerful, it also made them feel bloated and out breath, increased their blood pressure and more. It was what gave them that "edge". But they were smart enough to not want that same edge to cut their life short and so they took plenty of time off from it.
As for training and equipment? I use both machines and free weights. As I age, I have had to rely more upon machines. For me it's a matter of I cannot do certain movements with free weights anymore and so I use a machine instead. The most result producing exercise I have ever done has been the squat. For me it truly is the King of Exercises.
YMMV.
-
Pellius made some good points about exercise specificity. You get good at what you practice.
The best exercises with weights for overall strength and power are those done standing. Standing involves the stabilizer muscles along the spine and also the core muscles.
Bodybuilding is a different game as it's just concerned with looks. Perfectly achievable with machines.
Levrone is spouting nonsense.
-
Thought is was about Kevin Spacey. Equally as gay though.
-
In 2018 I think it is long overdue to collect and discard ALL barbells and dumbbells into a metal recycling dump!
-
In 2018 I think it is long overdue to collect and discard ALL barbells and dumbbells into a metal recycling dump!
After you pry them from my cold dead hands!! LOL :)
-
the interesting thing about training
training with free weights is more fun anyways too. bringing the heat with the weights in more enjoyable then cable crossovers.
i will say this... it is hard to bring the heat all the time so long breaks off, Heavy Duty training is the only way to do it long term.
I love to train heavy/low volume.
-
In 2018 I think it is long overdue to collect and discard ALL barbells and dumbbells into a metal recycling dump!
That’s exactly where your supinatior should have been 20+ years ago
-
In 2018 I think it is long overdue to collect and discard ALL barbells and dumbbells into a metal recycling dump!
Back for another beating? You're like the strawman of the G&O.
-
With machines so much is dependant on the design. There are a lot of crappy machines out there.
"Famed" BaaZills Biceps Suppinator is 1 of them 8)
-
Thanks WW........those top two pics are from Central City Gym in my hometown of Springfield Mass.
The middle pic is one I put online from my personal collection.
Great times with ball busting workouts and lots of big name contest winners when Spfld. was a veritable hotbed of bodybuilding and powerlifting as well as having 3 World Armwrestiling Champions.
Was there a Golds downtown? I remember training at one gym in Springfield in he late 80's then a warehouse gym opened in Ludlow. The guy who won teenage nationals worked the desk in Ludlow and I could swear Vic or some other guy who really popped was working at Golds.
-
1) "All a muscle does is contract": Yes but the stabilizer muscles don't contract in a machine. Example: Doing military presses with free weights works not only the shoulders but every upper body muscle including the whole core. Even legs are used in holding up the body and extra weight.
2) Financial incentive for Jones is totally relevant. Jones spent thousands of hours building his machines to sell to gyms. Do you think he's going to tell people "my machines aren't as effective as free weights but they are a pretty blue color so pay me thousands for each one." Also, Jones results were never replicated by anyone else. Again, no powerlifter, olympic weight lifter, NFL, NHL or track and field power athlete works exclusively with machines only but there are thousands who use just free weights.
3) Jones was a genius in marketing but not in science. Having a cam that puts stress on the muscle for the full range and eliminating gravity sounds great but has no effect on real athletes. Athletes compete on a mat or field that has gravity and their muscles have to move in all directions including circular motions. Most of Jones's presentations were to medical doctors who knew nothing about working muscles or engineering so he could say anything he wanted and it sounded good to them. He also insulted their intelligence probably because he had an inferiority complex over being the only non doctor in his family and the least educated.
4) As I said before take 2 people (preferably twins), put one on a free weights only routine and the other on a Nautilus only workout routine and who is going to be bigger, stronger and more athletic in the long run? It's not even close. The workout routine Jones's advocated doing full body and no rest between exercises is terrible as well but that's a whole different matter.
The first point, which I referred to earlier in response to another post you made I will address later as it is more involved.
I made it clear that financial success was and is a measure of success of a product or idea. I just wanted to dispute the notion that Jones was motivated primarily by profit. He was already rich and has been involved in a variety of projects throughout his life. Weider was also motivated by profit, and I believe more so than Jones, in promoting his line of equipment, i.e., free weights.
And there are examples of many who use Jones' training principles. Viator, Mentzer, and Yates being the most famous. Of course, nobody follows any program exactly as prescribed but puts there own tweaks into it. Even Jones incorporated the barbell squat in Casey Viator's routine during the Colorado experiment.
And you're right that no great athletes have been produced using machines only but that would be because no athletes trains exclusively on machines only, just like no athletes train exclusively with free weights. Even during the 70s they still had leg curl, leg extension machines, cable rows/pulldowns, seated/standing calf machines, leg press...
Jones was not a marketing genius. Everyone in the iron game knows who Joe Weider is and I have not met anybody under the age of forty that has ever heard of Jones and his development of the Nautilus Machines. He was a very difficult person to deal with and I think this hindered him from becoming even more successful and well know.
He was an extraordinary engineer and extremely intelligent. All the modern machines now being used are based on his basic designs: using cams for variable resistance, full range of motion, muscle isolation.
Now there is one point that you brought up that I can't really dispute but believe simply by faith and intuition. I believe, and it makes sense, that a muscle is better trained throughout its full range, ideally with a resistance that matches it's strength curve. A Nautilus curl seems to me intuitively superior to the barbell or dumbbell curl because of it's variable full range resistance. But does it really matter? Great arms have been built using just barbells and dumbbells. It is impossible to measure any difference in athletic performance when comparing both types of training but I would suspect it really wouldn't make much of a real world difference.
The best practical advantage I can make for the use of machines over free weights for the recreational fitness fanatic is that it is easier and safer. I want someone to be involved in weight training and fitness for their entire lives. Making it more enjoyable will make this more likely. I mean, even I, who has been training for over 45 years straight, sometimes avoid an exercise I was going to do because I didn't want to unload, load, and reload those plates. I just want to stick a pin in and get to it. Sorry, but I'm almost 60 years old now.
-
In 2018 I think it is long overdue to collect and discard ALL barbells and dumbbells into a metal recycling dump!
Barbells and dumbbells are all anyone ever needs.Some machines are good if injured or tired but nothing beats raw iron imo.
-
In 2018 I think it is long overdue to collect and discard ALL barbells and dumbbells into a metal recycling dump!
Serious question, have you ever been tested for any age related mental impairments?
-
In 2018 I think it is long overdue to collect and discard ALL barbells and dumbbells into a metal recycling dump!
Booz is talking ::)
-
In 2018 I think it is long overdue to collect and discard ALL barbells and dumbbells into a metal recycling dump!
That is possibly the most feminine sounding statement in the history of weightlifting
-
That is possibly the most feminine sounding statement in the history of weightlifting
;D ;D ;D
-
Serious question, have you ever been tested for any age related mental impairments?
Yes, and yes... wait -- are you talking to me?
-
Arthur Jones never bad mouthed free weights. He attempted to improve upon it. The vast majority of his writings was not in promoting his Nautilus equipment but to promote his style of training. High intensity, relatively low frequency, and low duration. This could all be achieved with barbells and dumbells.
"It was obvious to me that the barbell and dumbbell were almost miracles compared to all other forms of exercise -- calisthenics and the stuff they had us doing in school. These were worse than worthless."
"A Nautilus machine is nothing more or less than an improved barbell, a logical barbell, a rational barbell."
-- Arthur Jones
-
Thanks WW........those top two pics are from Central City Gym in my hometown of Springfield Mass.
The middle pic is one I put online from my personal collection.
Great times with ball busting workouts and lots of big name contest winners when Spfld. was a veritable hotbed of bodybuilding and powerlifting as well as having 3 World Armwrestiling Champions.
For fapping material?
-
That is possibly the most feminine sounding statement in the history of weightlifting
It has to be the soy talking.
-
In 2018 I think it is long overdue to collect and discard ALL barbells and dumbbells into a metal recycling dump!
Yes, they would be much better off with your bicep machine. ::)
-
Arthur Jones was a frail little man most of his life. Tired of seeing a picture of him for a very brief time in his life where he had some muscle. He was under 150lbs most of his life. He couldn't run around a block without getting tired when he was past 40 I bet.
Many of his machines were outstanding. Just a couple of notes. He didn't invent the cam for variable resistance on an exercise machine. The guy's name escapes me but when it comes to me I will alter this post. He didn't invent pre exhaust. Kennedy was the first to write of it. He didn't come up with the idea for selectorized plates for his Nautilus. It was Bill Pearl who told him to put it on his machines like the ones on Universal machines.
One thing for sure the body does not work in isolation of body parts. It works as a systemic unit. Doing a clean and jerk is far more beneficial to your body for increasing athletic attributes like speed, power and strength than training muscles in attempted isolation. The problem with Nautilus is everything is exercising seated and in isolation. When you do something as simple as a barbell curl your calves are tensing and adjusting to keep your balance. Your thighs are firing for the same reason. Your back is working to keep you upright and stabilized along with other muscles. Yes, your bicep is getting worked.
I also disagree with Jones saying body weight exercises are worthless. You turn the most built steroid guy into a mess quick with 20 minute body weight exercise session.
-
I also disagree with Jones saying body weight exercises are worthless. You turn the most built steroid guy into a mess quick with 20 minute body weight exercise session.
most big bbers cannot do many dips, pull ups, quality push ups. - that is for sure
-
nautilus leg extension machine is single best equipment machines imho
powerhouse gym in Joliet, IL had one back in the 1990s I miss that gym
-
One thing for sure the body does not work in isolation of body parts. It works as a systemic unit. Doing a clean and jerk is far more beneficial to your body for increasing athletic attributes like speed, power and strength than training muscles in attempted isolation. The problem with Nautilus is everything is exercising seated and in isolation. When you do something as simple as a barbell curl your calves are tensing and adjusting to keep your balance. Your thighs are firing for the same reason. Your back is working to keep you upright and stabilized along with other muscles. Yes, your bicep is getting worked.
I also disagree with Jones saying body weight exercises are worthless. You turn the most built steroid guy into a mess quick with 20 minute body weight exercise session.
What if practising your chosen sport is enough to coordinate the movements etc? I.e. you lift weights only to get muscles stronger period. I know some coaches do not believe in mimicking the athletes chosen sport during weight lifting, even with regard to exercise duration, you train low reps even if the athlete's sport is pretty endurance based
I'd like The Coache's thoughts on this. Should weightlifting movements mimic the sport's movements to have good transfer?
-
most big bbers cannot do many dips, pull ups, quality push ups. - that is for sure
What? Maybe not pullups because they're so heavy but you routinely see bbers do dips, not only weighing 250 llbs and more but also with dbs and chains hanging from their body.
They don't bother doing pushups because it's so easy, unless it's to warm up or pump up.
-
I had a football coach in college once tell me that all else (e.g., ability) being equal, the stronger athlete will win. Of course this is probably more in line with individual sporting events and not team based ones but he was probably right. I used DBs and cables to train shoulders and arms this morning.
I prefer to train H.I.T. but my reality right now is I cannot deal with heavier weights and so have decreased weight and increased reps accordingly.
-
What if practising your chosen sport is enough to coordinate the movements etc? I.e. you lift weights only to get muscles stronger period. I know some coaches do not believe in mimicking the athletes chosen sport during weight lifting, even with regard to exercise duration, you train low reps even if the athlete's sport is pretty endurance based
I'd like The Coache's thoughts on this. Should weightlifting movements mimic the sport's movements to have good transfer?
I think I said in this thread that O-lifts are overrated for sport, there are other more efficient ways to get an athlete just as if not more explosive. The only reason why I teach and implement o-lifts in my own schools program is for time constraints but if done properly, you get more bang for your buck when I have 45-50 athletes in my weight room and then all I program is what I would say are the two most important lifts, Power Clean and Clean Pulls.
I don't do 1RM's because I'm looking for more efficiency while trying to perfect technique. I never go beyond 5 reps staying with in the atp/cp energy system.
As to your point about practicing your chosen sport for movement, you're dead on. You CANNOT mimic a sport-specific movement in a weight room. A strength and conditioning mentor of mine said it perfectly, "The weight room is the facilitator to movement"
Our job is to get the athlete stronger in all areas (joints, stabilizers, flexibility, etc) that allows the athlete to move better, with power on the field with limited to no injuries. As far as speed (I personally think I have one of the best speed programs in the country per position) my philosophy has always been speed starts in the weight room, the technique is perfected on the field (movement)
We move, in general, multi-joint and never in isolation. When I, for example, program a bicep curl, it's usually in the way of a hammer curl, not for aesthetics but rather to help keep the elbows healthy. I won't back squat a QB with a regular straight bar because I want to protect his external rotation so we either us a yoke or front squat with a cross grip instead of a clean grip to protect his wrists. I always pair a pre-hab exercise with a main lift...
ex: 1A) Back Squat
1B) TKE (Terminal knee extension)
Like I said (and you) you can't duplicate a sport movement in the weight room.
-
Was there a Golds downtown? I remember training at one gym in Springfield in he late 80's then a warehouse gym opened in Ludlow. The guy who won teenage nationals worked the desk in Ludlow and I could swear Vic or some other guy who really popped was working at Golds.
No the Golds was and still is to my knowledge in West Springfield.
Teen age Nats winner as well as Mr America,USA,and Nabba Mr. Universe winner Matt Dufresne owns a Golds nerar Ludlow but it is still located in Springfield.
-
I think I said in this thread that O-lifts are overrated for sport, there are other more efficient ways to get an athlete just as if not more explosive. The only reason why I teach and implement o-lifts in my own schools program is for time constraints but if done properly, you get more bang for your buck when I have 45-50 athletes in my weight room and then all I program is what I would say are the two most important lifts, Power Clean and Clean Pulls.
I don't do 1RM's because I'm looking for more efficiency while trying to perfect technique. I never go beyond 5 reps staying with in the atp/cp energy system.
As to your point about practicing your chosen sport for movement, you're dead on. You CANNOT mimic a sport-specific movement in a weight room. A strength and conditioning mentor of mine said it perfectly, "The weight room is the facilitator to movement"
Our job is to get the athlete stronger in all areas (joints, stabilizers, flexibility, etc) that allows the athlete to move better, with power on the field with limited to no injuries. As far as speed (I personally think I have one of the best speed programs in the country per position) my philosophy has always been speed starts in the weight room, the technique is perfected on the field (movement)
We move, in general, multi-joint and never in isolation. When I, for example, program a bicep curl, it's usually in the way of a hammer curl, not for aesthetics but rather to help keep the elbows healthy. I won't back squat a QB with a regular straight bar because I want to protect his external rotation so we either us a yoke or front squat with a cross grip instead of a clean grip to protect his wrists. I always pair a pre-hab exercise with a main lift...
ex: 1A) Back Squat
1B) TKE (Terminal knee extension)
Like I said (and you) you can't duplicate a sport movement in the weight room.
Thanks. Sounds good.
-
Arthur Jones was a frail little man most of his life. Tired of seeing a picture of him for a very brief time in his life where he had some muscle. He was under 150lbs most of his life. He couldn't run around a block without getting tired when he was past 40 I bet.
Many of his machines were outstanding. Just a couple of notes. He didn't invent the cam for variable resistance on an exercise machine. The guy's name escapes me but when it comes to me I will alter this post. He didn't invent pre exhaust. Kennedy was the first to write of it. He didn't come up with the idea for selectorized plates for his Nautilus. It was Bill Pearl who told him to put it on his machines like the ones on Universal machines.
One thing for sure the body does not work in isolation of body parts. It works as a systemic unit. Doing a clean and jerk is far more beneficial to your body for increasing athletic attributes like speed, power and strength than training muscles in attempted isolation. The problem with Nautilus is everything is exercising seated and in isolation. When you do something as simple as a barbell curl your calves are tensing and adjusting to keep your balance. Your thighs are firing for the same reason. Your back is working to keep you upright and stabilized along with other muscles. Yes, your bicep is getting worked.
I also disagree with Jones saying body weight exercises are worthless. You turn the most built steroid guy into a mess quick with 20 minute body weight exercise session.
What are you talking about? Jones was hardly a frail man but extremely robust and live a varied adventurous life. You don't spend two year cruising Africa hunting and filming for his TV show.
He had a patent on his elliptical cam and never claimed to have invented pre exhaust training. I doubt he needed Bill Pearl to tell him about selectorized plates. They were not a rare sight.
Whether "stabilizing muscles", i.e., balancing, a physical skill and ability, is enhancing the stimulation of the targetted muscle is not entirely clear.
-
What if practising your chosen sport is enough to coordinate the movements etc? I.e. you lift weights only to get muscles stronger period. I know some coaches do not believe in mimicking the athletes chosen sport during weight lifting, even with regard to exercise duration, you train low reps even if the athlete's sport is pretty endurance based
I'd like The Coache's thoughts on this. Should weightlifting movements mimic the sport's movements to have good transfer?
The way you so tactfully present your questions betray what you already know and once again demonstrating why you are probably the most knowledgeable person on this board regarding these subjects.
Arthur Jones was very adamant in not performing resistance type training in a fashion that mimics an athletic movement or technique. In fact, he argued that the closer, the more similar, it simulated the athletic technique the worse it is.
I forgot what term he used but it was something to do with neurological confusion. For example, I had three different pin numbers for various computers/ATMs. They were all four digits but two of them differed by just one digit whereas the third was completely different. I was always confusing the two similar ones. Only when I changed it to something completely different was I able to get them all straight.
Strength training is, and should be, completely separate from skill training.
-
The way you so tactfully present your questions betray what you already know and once again demonstrating why you are probably the most knowledgeable person on this board regarding these subjects.
Arthur Jones was very adamant in not performing resistance type training in a fashion that mimics an athletic movement or technique. In fact, he argued that the closer, the more similar, it simulated the athletic technique the worse it is.
I forgot what term he used but it was something to do with neurological confusion. For example, I had three different pin numbers for various computers/ATMs. They were all four digits but two of them differed by just one digit whereas the third was completely different. I was always confusing the two similar ones. Only when I changed it to something completely different was I able to get them all straight.
Strength training is, and should be, completely separate from skill training.
I’m in total agreement Pellius. I’m a cyclist and weight train to help my sprint. The best sprinters on the cycling track (velodrome) in the world are currently UK riders. They practice skills on the bike and strength train doing heavy squats in the gym.
-
Serious question, have you ever been tested for any age related mental impairments?
I doubt many here have ever had an original idea about training, gym equipment or exercise physiology. What we have here is the incapacity of the Flotsam to entertain new theories. Thus, they cling to their old methods like drowning people cling to whatever is floating nearby. Confusion and chaos is all they know.
-
I doubt many here have ever had an original idea about training, gym equipment or exercise physiology. What we have here is the incapacity of the Flotsam to entertain new theories. Thus, they cling to their old methods like drowning people cling to whatever is floating nearby. Confusion and chaos is all they know.
Vince,
A lot of us rely on peer reviewed research to determine what is an effective training methodology. Where is the experimental data and peer reviewed analysis for your hypertrophy theory?
-
I doubt many here have ever had an original idea about training, gym equipment or exercise physiology. What we have here is the incapacity of the Flotsam to entertain new theories. Thus, they cling to their old methods like drowning people cling to whatever is floating nearby. Confusion and chaos is all they know.
I'm going to take it that's a "no"
-
I doubt many here have ever had an original idea about training, gym equipment or exercise physiology. What we have here is the incapacity of the Flotsam to entertain new theories. Thus, they cling to their old methods like drowning people cling to whatever is floating nearby. Confusion and chaos is all they know.
Do you ever think before typing this silliness? Your over-complicated bicep supinator machine is the answer to a question you alone posited. It is not as though you are totally without merit because as with all of us here, sometimes you do make sense and have posts that are actually quite good!
The quote above is not one of those times.
-
Vince,
A lot of us rely on peer reviewed research to determine what is an effective training methodology. Where is the experimental data and peer reviewed analysis for your hypertrophy theory?
That is the trouble. If those peers are not bodybuilders I doubt the research has much value. Show me any research done on maximizing hypertrophy.
-
Do you ever think before typing this silliness? Your over-complicated bicep supinator machine is the answer to a question you alone posited. It is not as though you are totally without merit because as with all of us here, sometimes you do make sense and have posts that are actually quite good!
The quote above is not one of those times.
Please explain how to simplify a biceps machine that has resistance in two degrees of freedom?
-
Arthur Jones as well as any other machine maker (including Vince Basil) has a financial motive to convince people machines are superior even though there are no examples they can use to prove their theories.
Arthur Jones definitely tried to convince everyone in the Iron game that his machines alone were superior to anything else used for size and strength.
I can tell you that the history of machines in gyms shows a gradual improvement in many ways such as pivot points. If the designers are not bodybuilders I doubt they will come up with designs that feel great for most bodybuilders. Take the pec deck. The Nautilus version suited individuals with wide shoulders. I have yet to see a pec deck that allows automatic adjustment so that the pivot point is in the correct position. What we find is that most manufacturers copy each other so that there is progress in making effective and functionally correct machines. There is still a way to go before excellent all round is achieved.
-
Please explain how to simplify a biceps machine that has resistance in two degrees of freedom?
Please explain why anyone should give an intercourse. I can do BB or DB curls, Preacher Bench Curls, incline DB curls, strict or cheat curls, hammer curls, reverse grip curls, high reps/low weight, low reps/high weight, Nautilus machine curls, ad nauseam. It ain't rocket science but you know that.
It's up to you to "sell" your ideas, not I nor anyone else here. I find you device to be over-complicated and unnecessary. Apparently a great many others do too.
If that truth hurts perhaps it is because your skin is thin but your skull is thick? You are far from stupid, but you're downright closing in on insufferable arrogance.
-
That is the trouble. If those peers are not bodybuilders I doubt the research has much value. Show me any research done on maximizing hypertrophy.
Poor old man :(
-
What are you talking about? Jones was hardly a frail man but extremely robust and live a varied adventurous life. You don't spend two year cruising Africa hunting and filming for his TV show.
He had a patent on his elliptical cam and never claimed to have invented pre exhaust training. I doubt he needed Bill Pearl to tell him about selectorized plates. They were not a rare sight.
Whether "stabilizing muscles", i.e., balancing, a physical skill and ability, is enhancing the stimulation of the targetted muscle is not entirely clear.
yea he was a well off businessman who also had a thing for bbing
-
Vince Basile is nuttier than a fruit bar.
-
I’m in total agreement Pellius. I’m a cyclist and weight train to help my sprint. The best sprinters on the cycling track (velodrome) in the world are currently UK riders. They practice skills on the bike and strength train doing heavy squats in the gym.
My brother is an avid hardcore cyclist and competes regularly. He's a Colonel in the Army and currently stationed in Germany. I don't know squat about cycling but here's his bike.
-
Arthur Jones definitely tried to convince everyone in the Iron game that his machines alone were superior to anything else used for size and strength.
I can tell you that the history of machines in gyms shows a gradual improvement in many ways such as pivot points. If the designers are not bodybuilders I doubt they will come up with designs that feel great for most bodybuilders. Take the pec deck. The Nautilus version suited individuals with wide shoulders. I have yet to see a pec deck that allows automatic adjustment so that the pivot point is in the correct position. What we find is that most manufacturers copy each other so that there is progress in making effective and functionally correct machines. There is still a way to go before excellent all round is achieved.
Have you ever tried the Medx machines? Virtually frictionless. No cable or pulleys but pushes from the bottom. Another Arthur Jones creation. Another work of genius.
-
Have you ever tried the Medx machines? Virtually frictionless. No cable or pulleys but pushes from the bottom. Another Arthur Jones creation. Another work of genius.
pellius you are right i got to work out on them a couple of times i swear the medx chest press is the best chest machine i ever got to use arthur jones and his son gary are literally behind all the great exercise machines out there.
-
The way you so tactfully present your questions betray what you already know and once again demonstrating why you are probably the most knowledgeable person on this board regarding these subjects.
Arthur Jones was very adamant in not performing resistance type training in a fashion that mimics an athletic movement or technique. In fact, he argued that the closer, the more similar, it simulated the athletic technique the worse it is.
I forgot what term he used but it was something to do with neurological confusion. For example, I had three different pin numbers for various computers/ATMs. They were all four digits but two of them differed by just one digit whereas the third was completely different. I was always confusing the two similar ones. Only when I changed it to something completely different was I able to get them all straight.
Strength training is, and should be, completely separate from skill training.
So all Major League Baseball players who use a doughnut at the end of the bat for warm up and golfers who warm up with weighted clubs are mistaken in their exercise methods?
-
Arnold and Lou had huge chests that would be impressive even today. Not anybody else stands out. I think the pecs don't look as big because the delts and arms are so huge. Also, the quads are way more massive on more bbers than ever before and less bbers squat than ever before. Platz-like quads are pretty common now.
How come this free weight theory doesn't hold for arms, delts and quads?
I don't know why tension from a barbell would be more effective than tension from a Hammer strength.
BULLSHIT!!!!!!!! Nubret, Fox, Coe, Franco, just to name a few more but I could go on and on all had tremendous pecs....your argument is invalid!!
-
That is the trouble. If those peers are not bodybuilders I doubt the research has much value. Show me any research done on maximizing hypertrophy.
Classic!
Here's an educated body builder who's spent whole life in the "industry" building equipment and touting his theory on hypertrophy for 30 years, the last 10 of which were spent online arguing with everyone who asks questions, and at no point did he ever take 10 people and test his theory to conclusion.
Only on Getbig......
-
Classic!
Here's an educated body builder who's spent whole life in the "industry" building equipment and touting his theory on hypertrophy for 30 years, the last 10 of which were spent online arguing with everyone who asks questions, and at no point did he ever take 10 people and test his theory to conclusion.
Only on Getbig......
He can't name a single person that has used his contraption and had results from it. But he's old as fuck so I can't be too hard on him.
-
He can't name a single person that has used his contraption and had results from it. But he's old as fuck so I can't be too hard on him.
It's so odd. Vince obviously is intelligent but I dont understand why he hasn't spent the time to prove his theory.
-
Key word being "theory" !!
-
It's so odd. Vince obviously is intelligent but I dont understand why he hasn't spent the time to prove his theory.
It's called bro science.
-
It's called bro science.
;D
And it's lesser known trans-sister, "schmo science".
-
;D
And it's lesser known trans-sister, "schmo science".
And the two like to cum together. :-\
-
;D
And it's lesser known trans-sister, "schmo science".
Bbers and gurus, the entire industry is built on bro science and schmoe science
-
Please explain why anyone should give an intercourse. I can do BB or DB curls, Preacher Bench Curls, incline DB curls, strict or cheat curls, hammer curls, reverse grip curls, high reps/low weight, low reps/high weight, Nautilus machine curls, ad nauseam. It ain't rocket science but you know that.
It's up to you to "sell" your ideas, not I nor anyone else here. I find you device to be over-complicated and unnecessary. Apparently a great many others do too.
If that truth hurts perhaps it is because your skin is thin but your skull is thick? You are far from stupid, but you're downright closing in on insufferable arrogance.
You haven’t used my machine so please refrain from any review of it.
-
You haven’t used my machine so please refrain from any review of it.
Well now, aren't you a smart, talented, unique person in demand.
You're not bitter. You're real bitter.
-
Well now, aren't you a smart, talented, unique person in demand.
You're not bitter. You're real bitter.
Not at all bitter, just fair minded and sensible.
-
Not at all bitter, just fair minded and sensible.
Nope. You are bitter. You're not ignorant but you come off as not so much an asshole but a whole ass. It happens to us all from time to time. You don't do this all the time but you are definitely doing it where your curling device is concerned.
-
You haven’t used my machine so please refrain from any review of it.
Your machine sucks and is overcomplicated. Useless tool from the mindless fool.
-
Your machine sucks and is overcomplicated. Useless tool from the mindless fool.
I expect no less from you, Chaos, well done!
-
Nope. You are bitter. You're not ignorant but you come off as not so much an asshole but a whole ass. It happens to us all from time to time. You don't do this all the time but you are definitely doing it where your curling device is concerned.
Typical of Getbiggers you discuss and attack personalities instead of theories and machines.
-
Typical of Getbiggers you discuss and attack personalities instead of theories and machines.
Typical of an "adult" playing at being a child. If you think what I said is an "attack" then you really are a moron. You are too feeble minded to do anything other than stick to your usual rote (look it up, kid).
Theories are just that. Theories. Must I provide a definition of the word "theory", kid?
Your machine is quite complicated for what it does. A DB or BB will more than suffice and it can be said with great certainty that Arthur Jones machines (yes, he had more than just a bicep curl machine) are far less (needlessly) convoluted than your "biceptual sybianator".
Jones was also a far better salesman than you. Given your apparent attitude here, you couldn't sell sperm flavored condoms and spermicidal BumGrease™ at a AIDS Awareness Orgy.
You bitter little manlet, you.
-
Typical of Getbiggers you discuss and attack personalities instead of theories and machines.
It would be easy for you to test your theory on others. Why don't you do it? Why don't you test your machine as well?
-
Typical of an "adult" playing at being a child. If you think what I said is an "attack" then you really are a moron. You are too feeble minded to do anything other than stick to your usual rote (look it up, kid).
Theories are just that. Theories. Must I provide a definition of the word "theory", kid?
Your machine is quite complicated for what it does. A DB or BB will more than suffice and it can be said with great certainty that Arthur Jones machines (yes, he had more than just a bicep curl machine) are far less (needlessly) convoluted than your "biceptual sybianator".
Jones was also a far better salesman than you. Given your apparent attitude here, you couldn't sell sperm flavored condoms and spermicidal BumGrease™ at a AIDS Awareness Orgy.
You bitter little manlet, you.
I talked to Arthur Jones in 1995. Interesting guy. He never built a biceps supinator but wrote about the desirability of such a machine because of the biceps having two insertions.
I am hardly trying to sell any of my gym equipment via the internet.
-
It would be easy for you to test your theory on others. Why don't you do it? Why don't you test your machine as well?
I have been testing my training method on myself for the last 20 years. It works. That is sufficient for me.
-
I have been testing my training method on myself for the last 20 years. It works. That is sufficient for me.
I actually trained with your hypertrophy method and just got sore elbows. I am in my 40's though.
-
Will Kevin be back ?
-
Barbells and dumbbells are all anyone ever needs.Some machines are good if injured or tired but nothing beats raw iron imo.
Only time I've ever injured myself in the gym has been on machines.
-
I have been testing my training method on myself for the last 20 years. It works. That is sufficient for me.
It's not sufficient for a scientific theory. If you were smarter, you'd know that.
-
you enjoy thinking up stuff like this
I have a sense of humor and an ability to write instead of just type. It's not nearly as good as some here (most notably, Kahn.N.Singh) but it suffices.
-
It's not sufficient for a scientific theory. If you were smarter, you'd know that.
Science isn't interested in bodybuilding. Hope this helps.
-
I have been testing my training method on myself for the last 20 years. It works. That is sufficient for me.
That’s because you’re an imbecile.
-
I have been testing my training method on myself for the last 20 years. It works. That is sufficient for me.
So after 20 years, what results have you noticed?
-
So after 20 years, what results have you noticed?
Just look at the pics. The training appears to build a lot of fat.
-
Typical of Getbiggers you discuss and attack personalities instead of theories and machines.
you have made personal attacks towards Vince Goodrum 100+ times, so brutal hypocrisy.
-
-
That's why I loved Jones. Just so no-nonsense. But it's also why he was so disliked and so few now ever heard of him even though all the machines they are using, the good ones, were based on his designs. He would be roundly rejected by the vast majority on this board that couldn't even design a skateboard.
"Fifteen years ago I said the best thing you can do for football would be to take the top 500 coaches in the country and put them into a 747 and fly them into a mountain."
-- Arthur Jones
(With apologies to Coach)
-
That’s because you’re an imbecile.
Careful, some snowflake will accuse you of elderly abuse!
-
Careful, some snowflake will accuse you of elderly abuse!
Chaos you are a peculiar specimen who astonishes many by how dense you are about ordinary matters such as lifting weights.
I don't need any assistance whatever to dispatch a veritable army of blokes like you. All would retreat like wounded hounds with
their tails between their legs! You somehow easily forget about the beatings you received and keep coming back for more
humiliation. You clearly are a masochist.
-
So after 20 years, what results have you noticed?
;D ;D ;D
-
Chaos you are a peculiar specimen who astonishes many by how dense you are about ordinary matters such as lifting weights.
I don't need any assistance whatever to dispatch a veritable army of blokes like you. All would retreat like wounded hounds with
their tails between their legs! You somehow easily forget about the beatings you received and keep coming back for more
humiliation. You clearly are a masochist.
*SNICKER*
-
Vince B is the most superior troll in all of getbig.
-
Chaos you are a peculiar specimen who astonishes many by how dense you are about ordinary matters such as lifting weights.
I don't need any assistance whatever to dispatch a veritable army of blokes like you. All would retreat like wounded hounds with
their tails between their legs! You somehow easily forget about the beatings you received and keep coming back for more
humiliation. You clearly are a masochist.
You don't even lift!!! Your "bicep supinator 2000" is a useless hunk of junk fit only to be a boat anchor.
-
"Violent Vince Of Peace"