Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: SF1900 on January 03, 2019, 10:44:53 AM
-
Unless one is a powerlifter/bodybuilder/Olympic Lifter/Superior Athlete, what is the point of using heavy free weight or compound movements, that will destroy your body in the end? If you're just training to stay in shape and healthy, machines will give you exactly what you need, while saving your joints and overall body.
There is zero rationale for using heavy free weights for overall fitness and health.
What you, getbig?!!?!?!!???!
-
the only reason you favore machines is because of your electric dildo
-
The only machine that is worth something.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=394408.0;attach=428409;image)
-
Unless one is a powerlifter/bodybuilder/Olympic Lifter/Superior Athlete, what is the point of using heavy free weight or compound movements, that will destroy your body in the end? If you're just training to stay in shape and healthy, machines will give you exactly what you need, while saving your joints and overall body.
There is zero rationale for using heavy free weights for overall fitness and health.
What you, getbig?!!?!?!!???!
This is shit that beginners ask.
-
This is shit that beginners ask.
i just started to lift weights last week, Sherlock.
-
i just started to lift weights last week, Sherlock.
Is that true?
-
Unless one is a powerlifter/bodybuilder/Olympic Lifter/Superior Athlete, what is the point of using heavy free weight or compound movements, that will destroy your body in the end? If you're just training to stay in shape and healthy, machines will give you exactly what you need, while saving your joints and overall body.
There is zero rationale for using heavy free weights for overall fitness and health.
What you, getbig?!!?!?!!???!
Why not lift light to moderate free weights? Machines are shit. You can do medium to high reps with free weights which works all direct muscles plus stabilizer muscles while forcing you to use balance and you can change the angle in the middle of the set. Machines are a gimmick to get beginners or idiots to join gyms because they think machines are more scientific. How much better would Steve Reeves or John Grimek had they only had machines? ::)
-
why not stay natural?
go out and lift and work with what mother nature provides.
there's branches, trees, rocks...
nature provides it all for us.
-
How do machines save your joints ???
They are worse for the most part...
-
Is that true?
yes.
-
Unless one is a powerlifter/bodybuilder/Olympic Lifter/Superior Athlete, what is the point of using heavy free weight or compound movements, that will destroy your body in the end? If you're just training to stay in shape and healthy, machines will give you exactly what you need, while saving your joints and overall body.
There is zero rationale for using heavy free weights for overall fitness and health.
What you, getbig?!!?!?!!???!
It's their choice. And why would you only have to be a "superior" athlete to use compound movements?
-
It's their choice. And why would you only have to be a "superior" athlete to use compound movements?
because no sense otherwise.
-
why not stay natural?
go out and lift and work with what mother nature provides.
there's branches, trees, rocks...
nature provides it all for us.
Yes but rocks and branches are uneven in weight distribution. They do work the body well though. Read the book Dinosaur Training by Brooks Kubik and he covers lifting heavy uneven rocks and sandbags, etc.
-
because no sense otherwise.
So you're saying that there is no reason for non "superior" athletes to use heavy weights or compound movements....am I understanding this correctly?
-
So you're saying that there is no reason for non "superior" athletes to use heavy weights or compound movements....am I understanding this correctly?
Correct.
-
Why not lift light to moderate free weights? Machines are shit. You can do medium to high reps with free weights which works all direct muscles plus stabilizer muscles while forcing you to use balance and you can change the angle in the middle of the set. Machines are a gimmick to get beginners or idiots to join gyms because they think machines are more scientific. How much better would Steve Reeves or John Grimek had they only had machines? ::)
lift the whole stack on the machines.
-
lift the whole stack on the machines.
You still won't build much strength overall.
-
Free weights are far superior in the long run mixed in of course with a smattering of machines.
This is beginners stuff son! :)
-
Correct.
I see, and what's your reasoning?
-
Unless one is a powerlifter/bodybuilder/Olympic Lifter/Superior Athlete, what is the point of using heavy free weight or compound movements, that will destroy your body in the end? If you're just training to stay in shape and healthy, machines will give you exactly what you need, while saving your joints and overall body.
There is zero rationale for using heavy free weights for overall fitness and health.
What you, getbig?!!?!?!!???!
free weights only machines I use pull downs. row machine push downs ... leg press extensions leg curls..
-
Free weights are far superior in the long run mixed in of course with a smattering of machines.
This is beginners stuff son! :)
x 100000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 00000001
nuff said close thread
-
Free weights are far superior in the long run mixed in of course with a smattering of machines.
This is beginners stuff son! :)
But the argument is which is better. Of course you can do both but if you could only do one which would it be?
-
But the argument is which is better. Of course you can do both but if you could only do one which would it be?
free weights of course he didn't say machines with a little free weights added in
-
The only machine that is worth something.
Locked away in Aussie area 51 warehouse near military airport ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Google : Richmond airport ,Sydney ........................ .. ;)
-
Locked away in Aussie area 51 warehouse near military airport ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Google : Richmond airport ,Sydney ........................ .. ;)
Yes, that machine is only used by the super elite military spec ops, spy agencies and aliens.
-
Yes, that machine is only used by the super elite military spec ops, spy agencies and aliens.
+ Aussie federal police ;)
(don't go there after dark)
-
Unless one is a powerlifter/bodybuilder/Olympic Lifter/Superior Athlete, what is the point of using heavy free weight or compound movements, that will destroy your body in the end? If you're just training to stay in shape and healthy, machines will give you exactly what you need, while saving your joints and overall body.
There is zero rationale for using heavy free weights for overall fitness and health.
What you, getbig?!!?!?!!???!
Machines never pin you to the floor -
(https://j.gifs.com/JqVwyg.gif).
-
Yes, that machine is only used by the super elite military spec ops, spy agencies and aliens.
Space-travelers and shape-shifters
-
-
Free weights are far superior in the long run mixed in of course with a smattering of machines.
This is beginners stuff son! :)
Broscience.
There is no difference between machines vs free weights for overall health and fitness, as I initially stated.
Is there any evidence that lifting free weights causes a reduction in heart attacks, strokes, alzheimers, diabetes, hypertensions, vs. machines?
As I said, for overall health and fitness, machines work perfectly fine and free weights are not needed to lead a healthy lifestyle and reduce the risk of a variety of diseases.
-
Broscience.
There is no difference between machines vs free weights for overall health and fitness, as I initially stated.
Is there any evidence that lifting free weights causes a reduction in heart attacks, strokes, alzheimers, diabetes, hypertensions, vs. machines.
As I said, for overall health and fitness, machines work perfectly fine and free weights are not needed to lead a healthy lifestyle and reduce the risk of a variety of diseases.
You can buy some free weights for cheap or just do calisthenics at home. Spend a fraction of the money and you don't have to go to a gym and get the same results.
-
+ Aussie federal police ;)
(don't go there after dark)
Basile's machine helped build my arms.
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2vtd4b8.jpg)
-
You can buy some free weights for cheap or just do calisthenics at home. Spend a fraction of the money and you don't have to go to a gym and get the same results.
No, I do like to work out with machines, which I do not want to put in my place. Plus, I enjoy driving to the gym and getting out and things like that. I have zero intention of working out at home on a regular basis.
Though, at times, I do workout with resistant bands and some free weights at home, but its minimal.
-
I see, and what's your reasoning?
Only superior athletes need to use compound movements because they are competing at the elite level.
Most people will never get that far and will do fine working out on machines or with resistant bands or light kettle bells.
-
99.9% of the things you said in the video were incorrect.
-
free weights only machines I use pull downs. row machine push downs ... leg press extensions leg curls..
You will eventually break an arm or leg. Mark my words.
-
Locked away in Aussie area 51 warehouse near military airport ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Google : Richmond airport ,Sydney ........................ .. ;)
Last I heard, they were placing Basile's Bicep Supination Machine in the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan.
They will have round the clock security guards with AK-47's and the Machine will be placed in bullet proof glass.
-
You will eventually break an arm or leg. Mark my words.
I've worked almost exclusively with free weights since age 12 and have never had an injury like that.
-
Free weights are probably more effective. But for old men like me, machines are safer. I can say that I've never sustained an injury using either.
-
what a stupid question to ask!
its like asking girls vs boys
why not just enjoy both?
sure there's something to a pussy, but a young boys asshole is not bad either !
-
Free weights are probably more effective. But for old men like me, machines are safer. I can say that I've never sustained an injury using either.
Using lighter weights would be equivalent to machines, no?
-
Enjoy this video instead of wasting time arguing about nonsense.
-
He doesn't even lift!
-
He doesn't even lift!
Neither does this guy. But he sure can play the guitar.
-
Heavy free weights are the only way!
-
you make this sound like its about bodybuilding and actual weight lifting
surely machines vs free weights is just a metaphore
we're talking getting your dick sucked by a girl vs a guy right?
right?
???
-
you make this sound like its about bodybuilding and actual weight lifting
surely machines vs free weights is just a metaphore
we're talking getting your dick sucked by a girl vs a guy right?
right?
???
Probably 1/2 of the guys on this site are.
-
i’ve learned a lot in this thread.
thanks guys!
-
Heavy free weights are the only way!
the only way for what?
-
Free weights are probably more effective. But for old men like me, machines are safer. I can say that I've never sustained an injury using either.
More effective for what?
If you want to stay fit and in shape, why do you need freeweights over machines?
-
Sitting in machines will never be the same as standing and exercising. Even Gary Jones the son of Arthur Jones recognized this. What will make you a better athlete? Sitting in machines trying to isolate individual muscles or doing a clean and jerk? The latter will generate power, balance, and strength. It will increase your vertical leap and sprinting speed. Sitting in machines is not going to give you any advantage in trying to take down an opponent in football or wrestling. Your body from a Kinesiological view works with muscles in coordination and not in in attempted isolation as in sitting machines body parts.
-
For me it depends which muscle i work
For chest, arms, shoulders i prefer free weights (barbell/dumbell) and classic pulley exercises
For back i like seated row machines.
For legs i prefer various machines.
-
i’ve used all machines the past week and i’m sore and jacked!
-
yes.
:-\ :-\ :-\ FORTY-ONE THOUSAND POSTS ON A BODYBUILDING FORUM AND YOU JUST STARTED LIFTING WEIGHTS LAST WEEK.
:-X :-X :-X :-X :-X
I guess it's true what they say about the average Getbigger. :D
-
Got to hit those stabilizer muscles with the free weights
-
Got to hit those stabilizer muscles with the free weights
My stabilizers are getting huge.
-
:-\ :-\ :-\ FORTY-ONE THOUSAND POSTS ON A BODYBUILDING FORUM AND YOU JUST STARTED LIFTING WEIGHTS LAST WEEK.
:-X :-X :-X :-X :-X
I guess it's true what they say about the average Getbigger. :D
Excuse me, but its 41,617 posts.
-
Sitting in machines will never be the same as standing and exercising. Even Gary Jones the son of Arthur Jones recognized this. What will make you a better athlete? Sitting in machines trying to isolate individual muscles or doing a clean and jerk? The latter will generate power, balance, and strength. It will increase your vertical leap and sprinting speed. Sitting in machines is not going to give you any advantage in trying to take down an opponent in football or wrestling. Your body from a Kinesiological view works with muscles in coordination and not in in attempted isolation as in sitting machines body parts.
Not everyone is working out to become a better athlete or to take down an opponent. For those who are, free weights may be the better choice.
-
Excuse me, but its 41,617 posts.
41,618
-
Not everyone is working out to become a better athlete or to take down an opponent. For those who are, free weights may be the better choice.
Exactly.
For every day health and fitness, there is likely zero benefit to using free weights vs. machines.
-
at the gym now. back day!
All machines!!!
-
at the gym now. back day!
All machines!!!
https://www.instagram.com/p/BsMpxjgA7yb/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=rilwvvm29420
-
https://www.instagram.com/p/BsMpxjgA7yb/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=rilwvvm29420
it’s a start.
now drop the PEDs and red meat.
-
it’s a start.
now drop the PEDs and red meat.
Quit buying into myth and hyperbole
-
Exactly.
For every day health and fitness, there is likely zero benefit to using free weights vs. machines.
Why use an inferior method? If you are going to workout anyway you may as well get the most bang for your buck. Workout at home with free weights and bodyweight exercises. Train in secret like the old Okinawan Karate masters. Why train in a gym and make a spectacle of yourself? Women are impressed with guys who look great but aren't consumed with training. For some reason most women are more attracted to muscular guys who don't work out (or they think they don't).
-
Why use an inferior method? If you are going to workout anyway you may as well get the most bang for your buck. Workout at home with free weights and bodyweight exercises. Train in secret like the old Okinawan Karate masters. Why train in a gym and make a spectacle of yourself? Women are impressed with guys who look great but aren't consumed with training. For some reason most women are more attracted to muscular guys who don't work out (or they think they don't).
because i like the variety of machines in the gym.
-
because i like the variety of machines in the gym.
It's only your second day training...ever. How would you know?
-
because i like the variety of machines in the gym.
a Total pussy right here
-
It's only your second day training...ever. How would you know?
;D ;D ;D
I had a Planet Fitness trainer tell me all there is to know about training!
-
a Total pussy right here
You tell me, Sherlock!
-
No, I do like to work out with machines, which I do not want to put in my place. Plus, I enjoy driving to the gym and getting out and things like that. I have zero intention of working out at home on a regular basis.
Though, at times, I do workout with resistant bands and some free weights at home, but its minimal.
i walk barefooted to the gym , who needs flip/flops ......... 8)
-
Last I heard, they were placing Basile's Bicep Supination Machine in the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan.
They will have round the clock security guards with AK-47's and the Machine will be placed in bullet proof glass.
That junk should be in the Museum of Horror in Transylvania .................... ;)
-
Quit buying into myth and hyperbole
No myths.
Look at all the bodybuilders who die from PEDs.
Stop buying into the "genetic abnormality" myth.
I'm worried about you, Coach. I love you and do not want to see anything bad happen to you. :'( :'( :'(
-
You tell me, Sherlock!
You are Sherlock... you are still searching for clues about training on “machines vs free weights”. ::) You are in your 40’s, and STILL asking beginner-type questions. Your detective work is really paying off. ::) Keep searching for training clues, but let’s be honest... You are a pussy who would will never get worthwhile results.
-
You are Sherlock... you are still searching for clues about training on “machines vs free weights”. ::) You are in your 40’s, and STILL asking beginner-type questions. Your detective work is really paying off. ::) Keep searching for training clues, but let’s be honest... You are a pussy who would will never get worthwhile results.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/ba2ab44dd88872f912149f94ba34acbd/tenor.gif)
-
(https://media.tenor.com/images/ba2ab44dd88872f912149f94ba34acbd/tenor.gif)
This thread is all the proof that we need that you are a dummy who has never figured out how to train.
-
This thread is all the proof that we need that you are a dummy who has never figured out how to train.
You cracked it!!
-
4th page, has anyone explained to sf that free weights > machines?
-
4th page, has anyone explained to sf that free weights > machines?
Maybe that’s why he didn’t squat with us...lol
J/k
-
Maybe that’s why he didn’t squat with us...lol
J/k
;D
-
Maybe that’s why he didn’t squat with us...lol
J/k
ZING!!! ;D ;D
I actually stopped squatting because of a previous double hernia.
But, yeah, I wouldn't squat these days anyway.
-
ZING!!! ;D ;D
I actually stopped squatting because of a previous double hernia.
But, yeah, I wouldn't squat these days anyway.
You don't need to train legs. You're asian. You guys all are bottom heavy.
-
You don't need to train legs. You're asian. You guys all are bottom heavy.
He pretended to be Asian. He is a white guy in his 40’s.
-
He pretended to be Asian. He is a white guy in his 40’s.
Bullshit. Ask Coach. I heard he brought Coach homemade Sushi after they trained together.
-
There isn't an IFBB pro who doesn't work out nearly exclusively on machines.
-
Bullshit. Ask Coach. I heard he brought Coach homemade Sushi after they trained together.
;D
Royalty cracked it!
-
You don't need to train legs. You're asian. You guys all are bottom heavy.
wtf? since when does getbig allow asians on here? with the exception of mr taiwan
-
;D
Royalty cracked it!
You're old like Miyagi!
-
Lets see:
I'm Asian, I'm White, I'm in my 30's, I'm also in my 40's. I lift weights, but I also don't lift weights.
I also have multiple gimmicks (Nether Animal, DaAnimal77, El Diablo Blanco, etc).
;D ;D ;D
-
Phil Heath using mostly machines and hes 7x Mr. Olympia
-
Phil Heath using mostly machines and hes 7x Mr. Olympia
Already addressed this
-
Already addressed this
where?
-
where?
Over there>>>>
-
Locked away in Aussie area 51 warehouse near military airport ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Google : Richmond airport ,Sydney ........................ .. ;)
Im assembling a team to go get that machine as we speak now that you have located for me.
-
Lets see:
I'm Asian, I'm White, I'm in my 30's, I'm also in my 40's. I lift weights, but I also don't lift weights.
I also have multiple gimmicks (Nether Animal, DaAnimal77, El Diablo Blanco, etc).
;D ;D ;D
Yes, you are all of these and so much more. ;D ;D ;D
-
You guys might remember David Feathers who use to post as "Ergo" on this board. He now has a youtube thing going where he features all the machines he owns, which is quite extensive. He's a collector of various equipment and his gym on Kauai (a side business, he's in the oil business and is loaded) isn't big enough to house all the machines he has so he also has quite a collection at his home and also some he donated to a YMCA in another state that he travels to a lot of business. He even imported a whole line of "David" equipment from Germany. Really state of the art stuff and very high end. I can only imagine what he paid for the line of machines not to mention the shipping and trucking costs. Some guys collect guns, he collects high-end exercise machines. I've even considered moving to Kauai just to train at his gym (also Kauai is beautiful and I have family there).
He was a serious competitor in his twenties and through his early forties. As all bbers from his generation, he cut his teeth exclusively on free weights with the calf, leg extension and leg curl --and maybe the Smith machine being exceptions. There are some movements that simply can't be done effectively using just free weights.
While in his early fifties he decided to turn it up again and see if he could improve on an already advanced competition level physique. Using only machines and following a modified HIT program, high intensity/low volume, he added an additional twenty-five pounds of muscle. Again this was on an already advanced physique, using only machines, and in his fifties.
Although I believe that good machines based on the designs of Arthur Jones are superior to free weights, I am not as extreme as Basile and Ergo who both seem to be anti-free weights. Even Jones recognized the usefulness of free weights. Ergo has stated that, despite decades of squatting, he now believes it is the worse compound movement anybody can do.
Agree or disagree, the results are there. Again, this guy is in his mid fifties when these pics were taken. Machine only training on an already advance physique.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=569393.0;attach=609636;image)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=569393.0;attach=609635;image)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=569393.0;attach=609637;image)
-
no reason to avoid free weights altogether, throw in a couple of sets of dumbbell curls in there
-
You guys might remember David Feathers who use to post as "Ergo" on this board. He now has a youtube thing going where he features all the machines he owns, which is quite extensive. He's a collector of various equipment and his gym on Kauai (a side business, he's in the oil business and is loaded) isn't big enough to house all the machines he has so he also has quite a collection at his home and also some he donated to a YMCA in another state that he travels to a lot of business. He even imported a whole line of "David" equipment from Germany. Really state of the art stuff and very high end. I can only imagine what he paid for the line of machines not to mention the shipping and trucking costs. Some guys collect guns, he collects high-end exercise machines. I've even considered moving to Kauai just to train at his gym (also Kauai is beautiful and I have family there).
He was a serious competitor in his twenties and through his early forties. As all bbers from his generation, he cut his teeth exclusively on free weights with the calf, leg extension and leg curl --and maybe the Smith machine being exceptions. There are some movements that simply can't be done effectively using just free weights.
While in his early fifties he decided to turn it up again and see if he could improve on an already advanced competition level physique. Using only machines and following a modified HIT program, high intensity/low volume, he added an additional twenty-five pounds of muscle. Again this was on an already advanced physique, using only machines, and in his fifties.
Although I believe that good machines based on the designs of Arthur Jones are superior to free weights, I am not as extreme as Basile and Ergo who both seem to be anti-free weights. Even Jones recognized the usefulness of free weights. Ergo has stated that, despite decades of squatting, he now believes it is the worse compound movement anybody can do.
Agree or disagree, the results are there. Again, this guy is in his mid fifties when these pics were taken. Machine only training on an already advance physique.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=569393.0;attach=609636;image)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=569393.0;attach=609635;image)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=569393.0;attach=609637;image)
That guy is juiced to the gills plus built his mass originally with free weights.
-
That guy is juiced to the gills plus built his mass originally with free weights.
I knew someone would say this and just ignore what I tried so clearly to articulate so I'll repeat: he was a competitive bber so he was always juiced. Yes, he built a lot of mass originally with free weights, that's why I was very specific in stating that he put on an ADDITIONAL twenty five pounds of muscle on an ALREADY advance physique while in his early fifties using just machines.
It's like when people claim that Mentzer built his mass originally with free weights when it is blindingly clear that he got bigger when he started training with Arthur Jones.
And if you want to make the argument that Ergo simply took more drugs in his fifties than when he was competing, the point is was that he stopped using free weights completely for various reasons (injuries and joints being some of them) and added additional muscle mass training exclusively on machines. You can add muscle using just machines and max out your potential using just machines.
-
no reason to avoid free weights altogether, throw in a couple of sets of dumbbell curls in there
Dumbbell curls would definitely be one of the movements I would not do for biceps as machines provide full range rotary style resistance which is how your joints move. With the dumbbell curl, you only get direct bicep resistance when your forearm is parallel to the floor as free weights provide resistance only in a downward plane. Same with dumbbell laterals. The Nautilus-style side delt machine is vastly superior. Something like a dumbbell/barbell shoulder presses would provide full range resistance and is worth doing with free weights. Also, Romanian style deadlift is a very practical movement as picking up things is something you do in real life.
-
I knew someone would say this and just ignore what I tried so clearly to articulate so I'll repeat: he was a competitive bber so he was always juiced. Yes, he built a lot of mass originally with free weights, that's why I was very specific in stating that he put on an ADDITIONAL twenty five pounds of muscle on an ALREADY advance physique while in his early fifties using just machines.
It's like when people claim that Mentzer built his mass originally with free weights when it is blindingly clear that he got bigger when he started training with Arthur Jones.
And if you want to make the argument that Ergo simply took more drugs in his fifties than when he was competing, the point is was that he stopped using free weights completely for various reasons (injuries and joints being some of them) and added additional muscle mass training exclusively on machines. You can add muscle using just machines and max out your potential using just machines.
I'm not doubting what you say I'm just saying for a natty this guy would not be a good example of what is possible with machine only training.
-
I'm not doubting what you say I'm just saying for a natty this guy would not be a good example of what is possible with machine only training.
I'm not following. Would he be a good example if it was only free weight training? If so, how so?
Putting athletic performance aside, I believe you can reach your full potential for muscle mass using just machines. The same cannot be said for free weights. There are some movements that cannot be performed optimally using just free weights. Leg curl and calf machine being examples.
-
I'm not following. Would he be a good example if it was only free weight training? If so, how so?
Putting athletic performance aside, I believe you can reach your full potential for muscle mass using just machines. The same cannot be said for free weights. There are some movements that cannot be performed optimally using just free weights. Leg curl and calf machine being examples.
Leg extensions are terrible for your knees. You can reach your peak easier using free weights only as opposed to machines only plus you can train at home easier using free weights as machines are very expensive.
The Germans did an experiment decades ago using 3 groups of subjects. Group 1 used steroids and lifted weights Group 2 just lifted Group 3 just used steroids. As expected Group 1 made the best gains. What was surprising was that Group 3 made almost identical gains to Group 1. Group 2 made the least gains. This is why I say a bodybuilder using gear is not a good example for natties regardless if using machines or free weights.
The bodybuilder you featured is using plus has muscle memory adding him.
-
Some machines are very good others not so
As to what’s Better or more productive - Machines or Free Weights
To many variables involved.
A muscle either contracts or it dosent - How many muscle fibres it recruits is down to neuro muscular efficiency & Number of reps to some degree.
As in almost all endeavours Genetics & Desire/ Will have an enormous effect.
-
The only times I've ever twinged a muscle or injured myself in the gym has been with machines. Never with free weights.
With free weights the body and limbs can go through a natural motion instead of a rigid path, the set path of the machine can increase risk of injury. Other muscles and stabilisers need to compensate and work too to distribute some of the load instead of putting all the stress on a smaller area, especially the joint.
-
Dumbbell curls would definitely be one of the movements I would not do for biceps as machines provide full range rotary style resistance which is how your joints move. With the dumbbell curl, you only get direct bicep resistance when your forearm is parallel to the floor as free weights provide resistance only in a downward plane. Same with dumbbell laterals. The Nautilus-style side delt machine is vastly superior. Something like a dumbbell/barbell shoulder presses would provide full range resistance and is worth doing with free weights. Also, Romanian style deadlift is a very practical movement as picking up things is something you do in real life.
i never pick up things in real life
i dont even tie my own shoes, i use velcro
-
I'm not following. Would he be a good example if it was only free weight training? If so, how so?
Putting athletic performance aside, I believe you can reach your full potential for muscle mass using just machines. The same cannot be said for free weights. There are some movements that cannot be performed optimally using just free weights. Leg curl and calf machine being examples.
good thing needer leg curl or calf machines are necessary
-
You can add muscle using just machines and max out your potential using just machines.
Bullshit. Never been done. You said yourself, the solid base and competitive muscle was put on with free weights (and probably machines) to jump to the conclusion that you can max out your potential with machines is silly.
-
Leg extensions are terrible for your knees. You can reach your peak easier using free weights only as opposed to machines only plus you can train at home easier using free weights as machines are very expensive.
The Germans did an experiment decades ago using 3 groups of subjects. Group 1 used steroids and lifted weights Group 2 just lifted Group 3 just used steroids. As expected Group 1 made the best gains. What was surprising was that Group 3 made almost identical gains to Group 1. Group 2 made the least gains. This is why I say a bodybuilder using gear is not a good example for natties regardless if using machines or free weights.
The bodybuilder you featured is using plus has muscle memory adding him.
I always hear that about leg extensions but every rehab center incorporates that movement. I have been approved for knee replacements on both knees. I can't do squats and can only do leg press movements if I position my feet high enough to take the stress off the joints. The leg extension is the only movement I can do normally without any pain.
You claim that you can reach your peak "easier" if you train with free weights as opposed to machines. How do you know this? Has this been proven? And what do you mean by "easier"? You don't have to train as hard with free weights as you would with machines?
Equipment cost and convenience is another issue entirely.
What muscle memory? The example is of someone who has continuously trained. Who was continuously cycling. Was a competitive and recreational bber for his entire adult life. There was no "rebuilding" muscle memory phase. He got bigger, meaning added more lean muscle mass, while in his fifties using ONLY machines. The difference was in his training protocol. He went from the traditional every day 15-25 sets per body part to a modified HIT protocol drastically cutting volume but upping the intensity. More along lines of Dorian Yates than Arthur Jones.
-
The only times I've ever twinged a muscle or injured myself in the gym has been with machines. Never with free weights.
With free weights the body and limbs can go through a natural motion instead of a rigid path, the set path of the machine can increase risk of injury. Other muscles and stabilisers need to compensate and work too to distribute some of the load instead of putting all the stress on a smaller area, especially the joint.
So what does that prove? I am the exact opposite. I've never hurt myself on a machine but have using free weights. Your body and limbs can go through a natural motion with free weights IF you allow it. Because it is not stabilized by the machine, the "rigid path" as you put it, there is far more room for error. Watch someone bench or squat for the first time. See how awkward they look. With the bench you can lower the bar too high or too low. One arm will push further than the other. With the squat -- forget about it. One of the most difficult exercise to perform properly. With, say, the Nautilus leg press it's way easier. Just get the right position for depth and foot spacing and push. No balancing the barbell or hunching forward as the reps get harder. The leg press is safe and easier because it IS in a fixed ridged path. And the resistance travels through the heavier stable bones of the shin, femur, and hips rather than down through the much less stable and weaker platform of the spine before reaching the heavy bones of the hips and femur.
It takes far more skill training with free weights than using a machine. With machines, you just have to have the proper setting and not worry about balancing the barbell or keeping it even or within the proper plane of motion.
-
Bullshit. Never been done. You said yourself, the solid base and competitive muscle was put on with free weights (and probably machines) to jump to the conclusion that you can max out your potential with machines is silly.
What's never been done? Putting on muscle using machines?
I never use the term "base" as in "base" muscle development. Muscle is muscle. Taking two exact clones, there would be zero difference in their muscle if one built a twenty-inch arm using just free weights compared to the other who built the exact same arm using machines.
Yes, using Ergo as my example, he built, I believe it was a 220 lb competitive physique using primarily free weights. If you want to call that 220 lb physique a "base" that's fine with me. I just call it a 220 lb physique. He then, while in his fifties, using only machines, built his physique up to 250 lbs.
I don't know why you think that I believe that one can reach their maximum genetic potential using just machines is silly. Why?
Let's take a very specific example here for both simplicity and clarity. Say, you get our two clones. One does the Scott curl using a barbell and the other does the exact same movement using the Nautilus machine since the set up is identical, i.e., forearms and elbows resting and stabilized in place by an angled platform. They do the exact same protocol whatever that may be. Three sets, five sets, once a week, twice a week... everything they do is the same. Lifestyle, diet, activities all the exact same. The only difference is one is using a barbell where the resistance only goes in a downward straight line direction perpendicular to the ground. The other is performing a movement where there is a complete full range variable resistance in a rotary fashion mimicking the movement of the joint, which moves in a rotary fashion.
What would be the result of both after, say, six months? Six years? Would the person using free weights have better results than his clone?
-
the answer is: it depends.
few people been so exercise-obsessesive as dorian yates, there's a reason he prefered the pullover machine to anything else. or that he didnt do bench presses. (and vice versa on some free weight movements)
-
I always hear that about leg extensions but every rehab center incorporates that movement. I have been approved for knee replacements on both knees. I can't do squats and can only do leg press movements if I position my feet high enough to take the stress off the joints. The leg extension is the only movement I can do normally without any pain.
You claim that you can reach your peak "easier" if you train with free weights as opposed to machines. How do you know this? Has this been proven? And what do you mean by "easier"? You don't have to train as hard with free weights as you would with machines?
Equipment cost and convenience is another issue entirely.
What muscle memory? The example is of someone who has continuously trained. Who was continuously cycling. Was a competitive and recreational bber for his entire adult life. There was no "rebuilding" muscle memory phase. He got bigger, meaning added more lean muscle mass, while in his fifties using ONLY machines. The difference was in his training protocol. He went from the traditional every day 15-25 sets per body part to a modified HIT protocol drastically cutting volume but upping the intensity. More along lines of Dorian Yates than Arthur Jones.
Look at bodybuilders who trained before steroids existed and before machines. Can you say there is any natty in your gym that uses only machines that looks as good as a natty who only lifts free weights?
Leg extensions for someone recovering from a serious injury or stroke can't be compared to healthy people lifting. Over development of the quads does nothing to aid in speed or athletic prowess but does cause torn quads which is an injury almost unheard of before the invention of the machine. How many times has Triple H torn his quads?
Unless a trainer is natural you can't determine if drugs or the training protocol are why gains are made.
-
So what does that prove? I am the exact opposite. I've never hurt myself on a machine but have using free weights. Your body and limbs can go through a natural motion with free weights IF you allow it. Because it is not stabilized by the machine, the "rigid path" as you put it, there is far more room for error. Watch someone bench or squat for the first time. See how awkward they look. With the bench you can lower the bar too high or too low. One arm will push further than the other. With the squat -- forget about it. One of the most difficult exercise to perform properly. With, say, the Nautilus leg press it's way easier. Just get the right position for depth and foot spacing and push. No balancing the barbell or hunching forward as the reps get harder. The leg press is safe and easier because it IS in a fixed ridged path. And the resistance travels through the heavier stable bones of the shin, femur, and hips rather than down through the much less stable and weaker platform of the spine before reaching the heavy bones of the hips and femur.
It takes far more skill training with free weights than using a machine. With machines, you just have to have the proper setting and not worry about balancing the barbell or keeping it even or within the proper plane of motion.
If it works well for you, great.
Personally I believe many of these machines are joint wreckers. Recently two knee surgeons told me that everyone should stay away from leg extensions, it puts massive unneeded stress on the patella, the tendons and knee joint.
Another also told me that squats are better for knees than the leg press, because the whole body compensates and there is far less strain on the joint. With the leg press, all that force is going straight on the joint and in a rigid path which is not a natural movement like a squat.
I would not say the squat is difficult, a wider powerlifting stance should be taught instead of the narrow stance which most people don't have the flexibility for. Most people can easily go down in a wider stance and it's not necessary to keep the back completely upright like many trainers insist.
-
Picking up and carrying things is a natural thing to do
And the body has free movement to stabilise it’s self.
I don’t see how being locked into a fixed movement in a machine is going to be less
Harmful to your body than picking free things up as in a natural environment.
There are no exercise / lifting machines in nature.
A muscle contracting under load doesn’t know it’s in a free movement or a machine
Movement, it just contracts & relaxes.
As for machines or free weights being more productive at stimulating muscular growth
As stated Previously there are far to many variables involved.
The argument is futile - just get on & enjoy your training whatever it be.
-
I incorporate both into my workouts. Both serve a purpose.
-
For bodybuilding purposes (looks) machines are just as good as free weights.
Instead of dividing exercises machine or free weights, I divide them by seated/lying down vs. standing.
For strength purposes, exercises done while standing are superior because they require you to balance the weight and yourself. This involves all those little muscles along the spine that stabilize it.
In the real world when you lift something while standing the core (spine and abs) is always involved.
Doing exercises while seated or lying down doesn't involve the core as much.
Some machine exercises are done standing and involve the core (standing cable curls).
Free weight exercise done lying down (bench press) do not involve the core much.
-
Look at bodybuilders who trained before steroids existed and before machines. Can you say there is any natty in your gym that uses only machines that looks as good as a natty who only lifts free weights?
Leg extensions for someone recovering from a serious injury or stroke can't be compared to healthy people lifting. Over development of the quads does nothing to aid in speed or athletic prowess but does cause torn quads which is an injury almost unheard of before the invention of the machine. How many times has Triple H torn his quads?
Unless a trainer is natural you can't determine if drugs or the training protocol are why gains are made.
No, I can't as I've never tried. Nor can I say that a natty who trained exclusively on free weights looks better than a natty who trained exclusively on machines. It's not a practical nor a valid theoretical comparison. There are too many factors in comparing two different individuals. I mean, I'm sure I can find a natty who has never trained at all look better than someone who has trained exclusively on machines, free weights, or both.
I can say, the in the case of Ergo, that he made remarkable improvement on an already advanced physique at an advanced age using just machines.
Again, I don't know where this idea of leg extensions are so bad for your joints. If something is not harmful to an injured person why on earth would it be for a healthy person? And from a practical standpoint and personal experience, I can say this: I have horrible knees. I am supposed to get both knees replaced. I cannot do squats as the pain in my knee joints are unbearable. I can't even do a full body weight squat without pain. I can go maybe parallel. I can do leg extensions pain-free. I can do the Hammer and Hoist leg press pain-free.
I would think that if something was bad for the joints it would eventually cause pain. I've been doing leg extensions for longer than most people have been alive in of this board. There have been many occasions due to injury where I could do ONLY leg extensions to exercise my quad muscles.
And as far as your last point, you can always make a fair and accurate comparison as long as the other factors I kept constant. You can compare fairly and accurately two protocols if both are natural and you can compare fairly and accurately two protocols if both are on the same PEDS. The results will be skewed as individual response varies. This is why the larger the testing pool the more accurate the results. In the case of the example I gave, it's an almost ideal situation as we are comparing the same person: Ergo when he was on PEDS using primarily free weights, and Ergo on PEDS using exclusively machines. The main margin for error as he did the machine-only phase when he was over fifty years old and past his physical prime. I would expect this would have hindered his progress, and it may have. He may have gained 45 lbs of muscle if he did this while in his late twenties/early thirties. But the fact of the matter is that he made very good gains using just machines when he thought he had maxed out on a more traditional free weight program.
-
Leg extensions are terrible for your knees. You can reach your peak easier using free weights only as opposed to machines only plus you can train at home easier using free weights as machines are very expensive.
The Germans did an experiment decades ago using 3 groups of subjects. Group 1 used steroids and lifted weights Group 2 just lifted Group 3 just used steroids. As expected Group 1 made the best gains. What was surprising was that Group 3 made almost identical gains to Group 1. Group 2 made the least gains. This is why I say a bodybuilder using gear is not a good example for natties regardless if using machines or free weights.
The bodybuilder you featured is using plus has muscle memory adding him.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but when I had arthroscopic knee surgery to repair the meniscus on my right knee, my physical therapist included bodyweight leg-extensions to help recover and maintain flexibility. For strength recovery, I did leg presses. Based on this experience, I concluded that the movement was not the issue so much as the load was. Am I wrong?
-
If it works well for you, great.
Personally I believe many of these machines are joint wreckers. Recently two knee surgeons told me that everyone should stay away from leg extensions, it puts massive unneeded stress on the patella, the tendons and knee joint. Basically a knee wrecker.
Another also told me that squats are better for knees than the leg press, because the whole body compensates and there is far less strain on the joint. With the leg press, all that force is going straight on the joint and in a rigid path which is not a natural movement like a squat.
I would not say the squat is difficult, a wider powerlifting stance should be taught instead of the narrow stance which most people don't have the flexibility for. Most people can easily go down in a wider stance and it's not necessary to keep the back completely upright like many trainers insist.
I would be interested to know how much hands-on real-life experience these surgeons have in resistance training and it's long-term effects.
I've already addressed in my previous post regarding squats versus leg press. I would think that if squats put less stress on the joint than a leg press then I would feel the pain while doing leg presses and not when doing squats.
You may not think squatting with a weighted barbell on the back of your neck is difficult as you've probably been doing them for years. But think that a complete newbee can just as easily perform a barbell squat as a leg press just does not comport with common sense. We have a member of my gym on a wheelchair that needs assistance from her trainer just to get into the Hoist leg press. Once in position, she is able to do some decent presses going just below parallel although with very little resistance. The idea of her even attempting to squat with a barbell positioned on the back of her neck
is beyond being realistic whatever the width of her stance.
-
I'm not disagreeing with you, but when I had arthroscopic knee surgery to repair the meniscus on my right knee, my physical therapist included bodyweight leg-extensions to help recover and maintain flexibility. For strength recovery, I did leg presses. Based on this experience, I concluded that the movement was not the issue so much as the load was. Am I wrong?
I doubt it. Injuries from leg extensions come from using a heavy weight and training to failure.
-
not all leg extension machines are equal.
and how many people use them properly? people tend to kick rather than press/squeeze
-
I doubt it. Injuries from leg extensions come from using a heavy weight and training to failure.
Not exactly. It's explosive movements and poor form that causes injury not necessarily heavy weights. It's the difference between velocity and acceleration. You can push your fist as hard as you want against a brick wall and not injure yourself. Punch a brick wall as hard as you can and you break your fist.
And it's not training to failure that will cause injury. In fact, as you the reps get closer and closer to failure it actually becomes less likely you will injure yourself provided your form is good. Those last few reps are actually the safest reps.
-
So the consensus on leg extensions is... ???
And if load is the crucial factor then what load/rep range is best?
-
So the consensus on leg extensions is... ???
And if load is the crucial factor then what load/rep range is best?
If you perform the movement in a deliberate and controlled fashion then it does not matter what the load or rep range is in regard to preventing injury.
-
closer and close to failure means youre more tired both mentally and physically, which means it gets more difficult to use proper form which leads to higher risk of injury.
-
I've been following this thread closely and gathering data. Based on my statistical analysis and use of SPSS, these are the results I have come up with. In order to build a superior physique, this is the breakdown:
Genetics: 70%
Drugs: 28%
Dieting: 2%
Machines or free weights: doesn't matter
-
What's never been done? Building a competitive physique.
What would be the result of both after, say, six months? Six years? Would the person using free weights have better results than his clone? We have no idea, it's never been done.
Most people logically use free weights and machines. Free weights can't be beat for large, compound lifts. Squats > leg press and so on.
-
I've been following this thread closely and gathering data. Based on my statistical analysis and use of SPSS, these are the results I have come up with. In order to build a superior physique, this is the breakdown:
Genetics: 70%
Drugs: 28%
Dieting: 2%
Machines or free weights: doesn't matter
Drugs will make you huge and muscular but your physique might not be aesthetic.
-
Most people logically use free weights and machines. Free weights can't be beat for large, compound lifts. Squats > leg press and so on.
Because something has never been done does not discount speculating on a hypothetical scenario. For example, say Basile actually lifted weights instead of lecturing us on how to lift weights, would there be any qualitative difference in his physique after, say, six months?
-
closer and close to failure means youre more tired both mentally and physically, which means it gets more difficult to use proper form which leads to higher risk of injury.
Getting injured due to poor form and execution is quite a different issue than getting injured from high intensity training. You don't have to train hard or to failure to use sloppy form and get injured. That's why machines are safer. It forces you to maintain that plane of resistance. For example, with the hack squat machine, you don't start bending forward risking a back injury as you would with the barbell squat as you start to fatigue.
My point was that intensity per se, training to failure, does not increase your risk for injury. If anything, those last few reps that you can barely eek out are actually the safest reps. Again assuming your form has not been compromised
-
let's say people do 8 reps of an exercise.
my guess is that more people, of those who injured themselves, did that on the last reps, not the first.
so no i wouldnt agree that the last reps are the safest.
-
Torn muscles usually occur during the first rep or two but degenerative injuries probably not.
-
Torn muscles usually occur during the first rep or two but degenerative injuries probably not.
even when using high rep-range like 8-12? someone who would easy bang out 10 reps on bench, would then hurt himself on his first reps when he's the most rested, focused and have the most energy to perform perfect reps
-
even when using high rep-range like 8-12? someone who would easy bang out 10 reps on bench, would then hurt himself on his first reps when he's the most rested, focused and have the most energy to perform perfect reps
I think it is because of having the most energy and contraction in the first rep that makes it the most dangerous. The first couple reps should be the slowest and speed up as the set progresses. At least that is my bro science opinion.
-
let's say people do 8 reps of an exercise.
my guess is that more people, of those who injured themselves, did that on the last reps, not the first.
so no i wouldnt agree that the last reps are the safest.
I can see how it would seem counter-intuitive to claim that the last most difficult reps are actually safer than the initial "easier" reps. After all, just look at our hypothetical trainee taking those 8 reps to absolute failure unable to do a 9th despite his best efforts. He's relatively cruising in the beginning whereas toward the end he's grimacing, straining and even groaning at those last few reps. It would seem obvious that in that state of great effort, the highest intensity level, he would hurt himself.
It reminds me of my days taking Physic classes how things seemed so obvious whereas in fact I was completely wrong on how things worked in nature.
The majority of injuries in resistance training is when the upper limits of a muscle or tendon tensile strength and integrity are exceeded. This can happen due to poor form and a joint is placed in a vulnerable position, say, for example, the knee is subject to a twisting type of stress rather than the bend and straighten hinge-type movement it was designed for. But since the argument is whether extreme effort, intensity, is more likely to injure someone rather than low-intensity effort we will put the issue of poor and sloppy form aside for now though it is absolutely correlated, though not limited to, with the intensity of effort.
The reason for this is the relationship, rather the inverse relationship, between force and intensity. The force generated in moving the weight in the course of a set, and the intensity, the cognitive and physical effort, required to move that weight as the set progresses.
Taking our example of a person performing eight reps to absolute failure, with say, 200 lbs, unable to do a ninth rep despite his best effort. The first rep will be quite easy. He easily generates over 200 pounds and does so with ease. So during the first, and subsequent initial reps, the force is relatively high and the intensity is low. As the set progresses, as the reps start to increase, his strength starts to go down, the force he is able to generate diminishes, while at the same time his intensity increases. His intensity of effort starts to increase dramatically as the force he is able to generate, his momentary strength starts to diminish.
So since injury occurs when one generates too much force on a muscle or tendon, those last reps actually become safer because you are simply too weak to injure yourself.
Again this is only to address the safety or increased risk as it pertains to intensity of effort. It does not take into account sloppy form which can occur whether you are fresh or tired. And, of course, your form is much more likely to get sloppy as you fatigue but that just means it's sloppy form, and not fatigue per se, that causes injury. That's why that the very thing that many claim why machine training makes one more likely to get injured, you are forced into a fixed unnatural plane of motion, which is true, but it is actually the very aspect as to what makes training on a machine safer -- you are forced into a fixed and stable plane of motion.
As you fatigue during a set of squats. As the strength and force you are able to generate from your hips and thighs begins to diminish as the set progressives, you start to bend forward as the bar isn't moving up as easily so you start to bend forward, essentially crushing your body as the bar slows down or remains stationary in mid-air, folding your body in half putting undue strain on the much weaker and vulnerable muscles of the lower back. With, say, the machine Hack squat, your body and back are fixed, i.e., forced into a fixed and stable plane of motion, to remain upright and stable no matter how much stress is put your quads. The worse that would happen is that you would not be able to rise up and have to replace the pins in the lower position.
-
Free weights make me much bigger and stronger.I usually free weight as hard an heavy as possible for 8-10 months then hit machines for a month or two when im burnt out or injured.But nothing builds size and strength like free weight.
-
Because something has never been done does not discount speculating on a hypothetical scenario. For example, say Basile actually lifted weights instead of lecturing us on how to lift weights, would there be any qualitative difference in his physique after, say, six months?
You weren't speaking in hypotheticals, you were speaking as though it was fact based off of one supposed instance.
-
Free weights make me much bigger and stronger.I usually free weight as hard an heavy as possible for 8-10 months then hit machines for a month or two when im burnt out or injured.But nothing builds size and strength like free weight.
Could that be what logicians call a "false cause"?
I'm not disputing free weights' usefulness. I would argue that it's especially hard to improve upon weighted dips and chin ups.
However, I have read your posts for awhile now, and even though you are clean, you are quite big and strong, and making fairly regular progress, nay? I would posit that the fact you hammer a particular exercise for a bunch of sets, routinely get stronger and (I presume) eat a lot is what's helping you to kick so much ass lately...in other words, you could be benching on an Icarian or similar get-up with comparable intensity, and all things being equal, the actual muscle development would be the same.
Just out of curiosity, would you be so kind as to walk me through a typical bench session? Do you not failure often, etc. I am genuinely curious because, like Pellius and The Scott, you seem to be more interested in talking training than trannies :D
-
You weren't speaking in hypotheticals, you were speaking as though it was fact based off of one supposed instance.
No, I was referring to two scenarios. When one posits a universal theory ("always" or "never") as Basile rightly points out, it's either right or wrong. If you find just one example to the contrary then the whole theory goes out the window.
You're right that no one has built and won a serious physique competition just using machines. Just as no one has built and won a serious physique competition just using free weights. But we, or at least some, can speculate given past findings and examples. We have an example where a high-level competitive bber improved on an already advanced physique, at an age where he was past his physical prime. I don't think it would be a great leap in logic that it would suggest that he could have attained that same physique he had while actively competing using the same protocol, using just free weights, that he did later in life.
One of the reasons I believe, and again it's never been proven nor do I think it will in our lifetime, that one can achieve the same, and probably greater, level of development using just machines is that there are some muscles that cannot be optimally targeted and stimulated using just free weights. With modern, and continually advancing, machines every muscle can be optimally targeted and stimulated.
-
massive overthinking in this thread. machines - free weights each have their pros and cons. you can build an excellent physique with either or a mixture of both.
phill heath apparently mainly used machines, the dominant champion before that mainly used free weights.
i remember seeing phil heath saying something like he only eats fish in the closing stages of a contest prep because it gives him thin skin. BBing isn't a sport that requires some great level of thinking or understanding to excel.
just lift up heavy sht and put it down. if you're hitting every muscle group with equal intensity it's really going to make very little difference whether you use free weights or machines.
-
Could that be what logicians call a "false cause"?
I'm not disputing free weights' usefulness. I would argue that it's especially hard to improve upon weighted dips and chin ups.
However, I have read your posts for awhile now, and even though you are clean, you are quite big and strong, and making fairly regular progress, nay? I would posit that the fact you hammer a particular exercise for a bunch of sets, routinely get stronger and (I presume) eat a lot is what's helping you to kick so much ass lately...in other words, you could be benching on an Icarian or similar get-up with comparable intensity, and all things being equal, the actual muscle development would be the same.
Just out of curiosity, would you be so kind as to walk me through a typical bench session? Do you not failure often, etc. I am genuinely curious because, like Pellius and The Scott, you seem to be more interested in talking training than trannies :D
Just did a bench routine today and it went like this 135 for 30,225x5,275x3,315x2,then work sets are always to failure 365x10,405x4,405x3,405x3,365x8,365x7,365x6,365x5,315x10,315x9,315x8,275 paused for 3-5 seconds for 10,225 paused for 15 same as last set.So yeah i hammer certin exercises if i like them and feel them as i dont waste anytime with movements i dont like and dont feel in the desired area.I do eat a good amount,not as much as i used to but around 3k.
i suppose if i used hammer strength and went at it as hard as i do free weight i couod maybe get close to what i get from free weight.
All work sets taken to failure,i used to take all sets including warm ups to failure but lately wanted to bench more so only do warm ups sets for a few.
-
Just as no one has built and won a serious physique competition just using free weights.
oh i think quite a few have.
-
Because something has never been done does not discount speculating on a hypothetical scenario. For example, say Basile actually lifted weights instead of lecturing us on how to lift weights, would there be any qualitative difference in his physique after, say, six months?
Bottle of Paniolo 4 U ;)
Mahalo
-
whats with this failure business? jay cutler dont train to failure, 4x mr olympia!!
-
No useless biceps suppinators in Steve Reves, Steve Stanko & John Grimek time !?.
-
oh i think quite a few have.
Name one.
-
Name one.
is this going to be one of those "see, he did use leg extensions so he didnt 100% use free weights!" shitty kinda of arguments?
youre esentially saying a winning physique cannot be had without the aid of at least one or more machines.
-
whats with this failure business? jay cutler dont train to failure, 4x mr olympia!!
But Dorian did. And?...
-
But Dorian did. And?...
and injured himself in the process.
-
bill, bill! you need to throw in some machines in your training routine! stop training with free weights only!
said noone ever.
(https://www.greatestphysiques.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/bp7-793x1024.jpg)
-
is this going to be one of those "see, he did use leg extensions so he didnt 100% use free weights!" shitty kinda of arguments?
youre esentially saying a winning physique cannot be had without the aid of at least one or more machines.
No, don't put words in my mouth. I said that I think it is possible to build a contest winning physique, provided you have the genetics (the most important factor), using just modern day machines than just limiting yourself to free weights only. Just because it's never been done doesn't mean it can't be done.
And it is not a shitty argument to dispute the assertion that a contest winning physique was built using just free weights when they all used machines to some extent. Even if it's just one machine like the leg extension, that invalidates your argument. Remember, in logic, if you state a universal statement or theorem as true all you need is one, just one example to the contrary, to invalidate that assertion.
-
and injured himself in the process.
Are you implying that only those who trained to failure injured themselves?
-
bill, bill! you need to throw in some machines in your training routine! stop training with free weights only!
said noone ever.
(https://www.greatestphysiques.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/bp7-793x1024.jpg)
Basile has said that. Arthur Jones said that.
All you need is just one example to the contrary to invalidate a universal statement or theory.
-
No, don't put words in my mouth. I said that I think it is possible to build a contest winning physique, provided you have the genetics (the most important factor), using just modern day machines than just limiting yourself to free weights only. Just because it's never been done doesn't mean it can't be done.
but according to you nobody is, or have ever been, limited themselves to free weights only.
And it is not a shitty argument to dispute the assertion that a contest winning physique was built using just free weights when they all used machines to some extent. Even if it's just one machine like the leg extension, that invalidates your argument. Remember, in logic, if you state a universal statement or theorem as true all you need is one, just one example to the contrary, to invalidate that assertion.
yeah i know youre in love with that saying, maybe it makes you feel smart, i dont know.
but it's just nitpicking. because when people say all, they generally dont mean all, but rather nearly all, or most. to point out something like "aha! so he DID use leg extensions as a warm up before he went on stage for mr olympia!" is just moronic. and misses the point. and does not invalidate the argument.
-
Are you implying that only those who trained to failure injured themselves?
failure doesnt seem to be a smart or necessary training protocol.
dorian yates and ronnie coleman = injuries.
jay cutler, phil heath, shawn rhoden = not so much.
-
failure doesnt seem to be a smart or necessary training protocol.
dorian yates and ronnie coleman = injuries.
jay cutler, phil heath, shawn rhoden = not so much.
If heavily juiced you dont need to train to failure yet i think natural needs failure to force growth.When juicing its more finessing muscle growth and natty forced muscle growth.
-
but according to you nobody is, or have ever been, limited themselves to free weights only.
Actually I said, "You're right that no one has built and won a serious physique competition just using machines. Just as no one has built and won a serious physique competition just using free weights."
yeah i know youre in love with that saying, maybe it makes you feel smart, i dont know.
but it's just nitpicking. because when people say all, they generally dont mean all, but rather nearly all, or most. to point out something like "aha! so he DID use leg extensions as a warm up before he went on stage for mr olympia!" is just moronic. and misses the point. and does not invalidate the argument.
It's always nitpicking when it applies to you. I take people at their word. If you want to make statements with exceptions then simply say so. It's not about "feeling" smart or being "in love" with a statement or concept. It's simply a matter of whether it is true or not.
-
Actually I said, "You're right that no one has built and won a serious physique competition just using machines. Just as no one has built and won a serious physique competition just using free weights."
It's always nitpicking when it applies to you. I take people at their word. If you want to make statements with exceptions then simply say so. It's not about "feeling" smart or being "in love" with a statement or concept. It's simply a matter of whether it is true or not.
just more pointless reasoning.
if someone is using 100 exercises, 99 of them being free weights, then its reasonable to say "that guy used only free weights" there's no point whatsoever in being a smart ass saying "no he didn't, 1 outta the 100 exercises he used was leg extensions!" what does that add to the discussion? nothing.
-
failure doesnt seem to be a smart or necessary training protocol.
dorian yates and ronnie coleman = injuries.
jay cutler, phil heath, shawn rhoden = not so much.
It may not be necessary but I don't know if it's not smart. There is no way on Heaven and Earth I could have worked full time supporting myself and putting myself through college training every day for two hours like most pro bodybuilders. There's no way I could have trained and competed in Jiu-Jitsu if I had to spend so much time in the gym. There is no way I could be in my present above average physical condition yet still have time to enjoy other things in life if I had to spend so much time in the gym instead of my current twice a week protocol.
As I so clearly and logically pointed out, you don't get hurt through hard training. I don't recall Mentzer or Viator getting hurt training HIT. Far more people have injured themselves training in the more traditional way that doing HIT though it's probably because of a far greater number train in that fashion.
BTW, Ronnie didn't train HIT nor did he hurt himself training hard. He used extremely sloppy form and using weights far heavier than was necessary to build his physique. Arthur Jone use to make clear that there was a very big difference in building strength and demonstrating strength. I'm not sure how much those 800 lb squats did for his already massive quad development that couldn't be done with 500 lbs. I wonder how heavy Ramy goes on squats.
-
just more pointless reasoning.
if someone is using 100 exercises, 99 of them being free weights, then its reasonable to say "that guy used only free weights" there's no point whatsoever in being a smart ass saying "no he didn't, 1 outta the 100 exercises he used was leg extensions!" what does that add to the discussion? nothing.
Another cop out when you can't contradict a point using logic and reason.
And no it is not reasonable to say that someone does something 100% of the time when it is not 100% of the time. It seems pointless to you because you don't believe in making precise points. That makes you a sloppy thinker with more concern about winning an argument than discovering the truth and gaining some knowledge and even wisdom.
-
It may not be necessary but I don't know if it's not smart. There is no way on Heaven and Earth I could have worked full time supporting myself and putting myself through college training every day for two hours like most pro bodybuilders. There's no way I could have trained and competed in Jiu-Jitsu if I had to spend so much time in the gym. There is no way I could be in my present above average physical condition yet still have time to enjoy other things in life if I had to spend so much time in the gym instead of my current twice a week protocol.
assuming there's no other training protocol than twice a week at most and going to failure and to train for 2 hours. maybe there is. i would say it's even likely that there is. so maybe thats not really a good comparison. it is not hard to think of other possible training scenarios. how about training 2 times a week but just 1 hour? or 1 hour and a half? how about 45 minutes?
As I so clearly and logically pointed out, you don't get hurt through hard training.
hard training needs to be defined.
BTW, Ronnie didn't train HIT nor did he hurt himself training hard. He used extremely sloppy form and using weights far heavier than was necessary to build his physique.
how do you know this? whatabout dorian, you got something to say about his form?
-
Another cop out when you can't contradict a point using logic and reason.
And no it is not reasonable to say that someone does something 100% of the time when it is not 100% of the time. It seems pointless to you because you don't believe in making precise points. That makes you a sloppy thinker with more concern about winning an argument than discovering the truth and gaining some knowledge and even wisdom.
whats the point of making a precise point if making a precise point is pointless?
-
assuming there's no other training protocol than twice a week at most and going to failure and to train for 2 hours. maybe there is. i would say it's even likely that there is. so maybe thats not really a good comparison. it is not hard to think of other possible training scenarios. how about training 2 times a week but just 1 hour? or 1 hour and a half? how about 45 minutes?
hard training needs to be defined.
how do you know this? whatabout dorian, you got something to say about his form?
You know, I got a PM the other asking me why I bother debating people like you. People that are obviously not deep thinkers, not particularly educated, and seem to have a lot of free time on their hands. I replied that I was just thinking about that too. I get easily sucked into it because I like to debate and share ideas and I just assume the person I'm talking and debating with is reasonable and capable of rational thought. Call it projecting. As Basile and Prime have accused me of, I take people here and the board too seriously. I need to be better at distinguishing the reasonable and rational ones from the ones that are just a joke and are better dealt with by a pat on the head, a gummy bear, and sent on their way.
-
This debate overlooks an import fact. Machine design and function have evolved over the decades. Before 1982 Smith machines used chains to keep the bar horizontal. I believe I was the first to use linear bearings in a Smith Machine about 1982. The use of those low friction bearings forever changed those machines and friction was no longer an issue. Chains were discarded. Over the years some versions of those machines were angled about 10 to 15 degrees to give a better movement in squats and bench presses, etc. Some machines used counterweights to allow lower resistance on the apparatus.
When we discuss machines vs free weights it is imperative to specify what machines and who manufactured them. Not all machines are equal and few are 'perfect'. However, companies have been copying each other and there has been a convergence to more or less proper pivot points and movements.
I doubt any company makes a line that is the best of each apparatus. A super gym might have many versions of arm machines from several companies for example.
There is also the issue of fads in machine lines. Over 40 years ago people started using Nautilus machines. Bodybuilders as a group didn't favour them. If you trained at Golds Venice super gym you would know that the second room that had the Nautilus machines wasn't frequented much by muscleheads. They preferred the converging machines made by Hammer Strength. Soon enough Hammer was accepted as great machines by bodybuilders and even gym owners. The truth is some of those machines are great and others not so great.
So this discussion is way more complex that most here imagine. Let us take dumbbells versus biceps machines. Well, which biceps machines? There is only one biceps-supinator machine that I know of so how can any discussion be fair without assessing the worth of all such biceps machines? Nautilus made a few different biceps machines. The position of the user is important as well in these machines. The user can replicate seated dumbbell curls or they can have pads at 45 degrees, or pads at 90 degrees to the user or even pads adjacent to the head. When I designed my biceps machine I concluded that the seated position replicating dumbbell curls is the strongest position.
My point here is a well designed machine with the proper motion and pivot points will be just as good as dumbbells and probably better for many reasons. What has never been established by the free weight advocates is how are they superior to all machines? Arthur Jones wrote volumes about how his machines were superior to barbells. Sometimes he claimed his machines were barbells but improved barbells. From my experience as a designer and builder of gym equipment I would say that the best machines are superior to free weights. Eventually bodybuilders will gravitate to using whatever helps them improve their physiques. That is exactly what we see champion bodybuilders using. Plenty of machines and some free weights. Could these champions use only machines. Absolutely.
-
You know, I got a PM the other asking me why I bother debating people like you. People that are obviously not deep thinkers, not particularly educated, and seem to have a lot of free time on their hands. I replied that I was just thinking about that too. I get easily sucked into it because I like to debate and share ideas and I just assume the person I'm talking and debating with is reasonable and capable of rational thought. Call it projecting. As Basile and Prime have accused me of, I take people here and the board too seriously. I need to be better at distinguishing the reasonable and rational ones from the ones that are just a joke and are better dealt with by a pat on the head, a gummy bear, and sent on their way.
dont think the above adds to the discussion regarding machines vs free weights, training to failure etc. maybe you can try again. or not.
-
This debate overlooks an import fact. Machine design and function have evolved over the decades. Before 1982 Smith machines used chains to keep the bar horizontal. I believe I was the first to use linear bearings in a Smith Machine about 1982. The use of those low friction bearings forever changed those machines and friction was no longer an issue. Chains were discarded. Over the years some versions of those machines were angled about 10 to 15 degrees to give a better movement in squats and bench presses, etc. Some machines used counterweights to allow lower resistance on the apparatus.
When we discuss machines vs free weights it is imperative to specify what machines and who manufactured them. Not all machines are equal and few are 'perfect'. However, companies have been copying each other and there has been a convergence to more or less proper pivot points and movements.
I doubt any company makes a line that is the best of each apparatus. A super gym might have many versions of arm machines from several companies for example.
There is also the issue of fads in machine lines. Over 40 years ago people started using Nautilus machines. Bodybuilders as a group didn't favour them. If you trained at Golds Venice super gym you would know that the second room that had the Nautilus machines wasn't frequented much by muscleheads. They preferred the converging machines made by Hammer Strength. Soon enough Hammer was accepted as great machines by bodybuilders and even gym owners. The truth is some of those machines are great and others not so great.
So this discussion is way more complex that most here imagine. Let us take dumbbells versus biceps machines. Well, which biceps machines? There is only one biceps-supinator machine that I know of so how can any discussion be fair without assessing the worth of all such biceps machines? Nautilus made a few different biceps machines. The position of the user is important as well in these machines. The user can replicate seated dumbbell curls or they can have pads at 45 degrees, or pads at 90 degrees to the user or even pads adjacent to the head. When I designed my biceps machine I concluded that the seated position replicating dumbbell curls is the strongest position.
My point here is a well designed machine with the proper motion and pivot points will be just as good as dumbbells and probably better for many reasons. What has never been established by the free weight advocates is how are they superior to all machines? Arthur Jones wrote volumes about how his machines were superior to barbells. Sometimes he claimed his machines were barbells but improved barbells. From my experience as a designer and builder of gym equipment I would say that the best machines are superior to free weights. Eventually bodybuilders will gravitate to using whatever helps them improve their physiques. That is exactly what we see champion bodybuilders using. Plenty of machines and some free weights. Could these champions use only machines. Absolutely.
I still think friction is still a factor on most machines. The machines that are using cables and pulleys. I think that what is good about the plate loaded Hammer machines. As the weight gets heavier and if you don't raise and lower the weight at a very deliberate pace, friction does not play a huge role but it's still there. It increased the positive resistance and decreases the negative resistance which is the opposite of what you want.
Have you ever had the opportunity to use the Medx line? Those really come pretty darn close to eliminating friction. They raise the weight from the bottom rather than pulling from the top of the weight stack. Another Arthur Jones invention and another example of his genius.
-
dont think the above adds to the discussion regarding machines vs free weights, training to failure etc. maybe you can try again. or not.
A cop friend of mine was relating a recent incident he had on his shift dealing with someone he pulled over for speeding. He made a comment that resonated with me. He said that you can tell a lot about a person just by the way they talk. They're level of education, disposition, income level...
The same can be said for how a person writes. His spelling, grammar, punctuation, sentence construction... It's really a sad testament as to what our public schools are producing these days.
Now, I don't expect to read polish prose on a bbing message board but Jesus H. Christ! Just go back and read the way you write and frame arguments.
Tell me, when was the last time you ever read a book?
-
A cop friend of mine was relating a recent incident he had on his shift dealing with someone he pulled over for speeding. He made a comment that resonated with me. He said that you can tell a lot about a person just by the way they talk. They're level of education, disposition, income level...
The same can be said for how a person writes. His spelling, grammar, punctuation, sentence construction... It's really a sad testament as to what our public schools are producing these days.
Now, I don't expect to read polish prose on a bbing message board but Jesus H. Christ! Just go back and read the way you write and frame arguments.
Tell me, when was the last time you ever read a book?
Their level of education....
-
I still think friction is still a factor on most machines. The machines that are using cables and pulleys. I think that what is good about the plate loaded Hammer machines. As the weight gets heavier and if you don't raise and lower the weight at a very deliberate pace, friction does not play a huge role but it's still there. It increased the positive resistance and decreases the negative resistance which is the opposite of what you want.
Have you ever had the opportunity to use the Medx line? Those really come pretty darn close to eliminating friction. They raise the weight from the bottom rather than pulling from the top of the weight stack. Another Arthur Jones invention and another example of his genius.
The amount of friction present in most modern machines is very low. The coefficient of friction of linear bearings is tiny. What I did for my machines was use larger pulleys and two sealed bearings....8 inch pulleys for pulldown machines. If you sat nearby when someone was training on one of my machines you wouldn't hear much from the machine. They are almost silent. I use linear bearings on the weight stacks which is an overkill but that is the standard I set for myself.
I like some of the MedX machines. Arthur Jones was a true genius and it is amazing that he was behind two lines of gym equipment. I like the MedX triceps machine which provides increasing resistance near the end of the movement where it is needed. I must get around to building my own triceps machine.
-
bill, bill! you need to throw in some machines in your training routine! stop training with free weights only!
said noone ever.
(https://www.greatestphysiques.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/bp7-793x1024.jpg)
I trained with the man for 4 years and that pretty much sums it up although we did train on some machines nautilus leg curl, extension, bicep/triceps machine and 90degree leg press (45degree wasn’t invented then but I would say the the ratio between free weight and machines was about 80/20
-
The amount of friction present in most modern machines is very low. The coefficient of friction of linear bearings is tiny. What I did for my machines was use larger pulleys and two sealed bearings....8 inch pulleys for pulldown machines. If you sat nearby when someone was training on one of my machines you wouldn't hear much from the machine. They are almost silent. I use linear bearings on the weight stacks which is an overkill but that is the standard I set for myself.
I like some of the MedX machines. Arthur Jones was a true genius and it is amazing that he was behind two lines of gym equipment. I like the MedX triceps machine which provides increasing resistance near the end of the movement where it is needed. I must get around to building my own triceps machine.
Well, I have to admit that this topic is a bit, if not way, over my head. I don't even know what linear bearings are. But it's true that a lot, though not all, the machines have improved tremendously and I think, hope, will continue to get better. Because of shoulder issues I am pathetically weak on a lot of shoulder movements. I can only press 3 lbs over my head with my left arm for about 5 reps before I need assistance. I can do maybe 15 lbs with my right. So when I do the lateral raise on the Life Fitness machine I just use one plate. Unless the machine is well maintained and oiled (which it never is. In fact, I squirt a little WD-40 on the rails and joints prior to my set), I still feel the bit of drag because the weight I am using is so light. Using the Free Motion cable system is the worse compared to regular cable set you get on those combo affairs with the cable cross-overs, overhead pull-down, and low cable row. The friction seems much less on those cable systems though the starting 20 lbs is too heavy for me to do single arm laterals. With the Free Motion, I just have to pick a weight heavy enough that minimizes or cancels out the friction of the cable and pulleys and pretty much do force reps from the beginning. Meaning, since the weight is too heavy for me to do on my own I have to assist on the very first rep and beyond with my other arm in doing one arm side laterals. In a way, that may be advantages because that would mean I am at a maximum intensity from the first rep rather than having to get to the end of the set before I need to do forced reps and other intensity variables.
-
Well, I have to admit that this topic is a bit, if not way, over my head. I don't even know what linear bearings are. But it's true that a lot, though not all, the machines have improved tremendously and I think, hope, will continue to get better. Because of shoulder issues I am pathetically weak on a lot of shoulder movements. I can only press 3 lbs over my head with my left arm for about 5 reps before I need assistance. I can do maybe 15 lbs with my right. So when I do the lateral raise on the Life Fitness machine I just use one plate. Unless the machine is well maintained and oiled (which it never is. In fact, I squirt a little WD-40 on the rails and joints prior to my set), I still feel the bit of drag because the weight I am using is so light. Using the Free Motion cable system is the worse compared to regular cable set you get on those combo affairs with the cable cross-overs, overhead pull-down, and low cable row. The friction seems much less on those cable systems though the starting 20 lbs is too heavy for me to do single arm laterals. With the Free Motion, I just have to pick a weight heavy enough that minimizes or cancels out the friction of the cable and pulleys and pretty much do force reps from the beginning. Meaning, since the weight is too heavy for me to do on my own I have to assist on the very first rep and beyond with my other arm in doing one arm side laterals. In a way, that may be advantages because that would mean I am at a maximum intensity from the first rep rather than having to get to the end of the set before I need to do forced reps and other intensity variables.
WD40 now comes in many forms. The kind that unlocks things isn't good for most gym equipment because it evaporates the oil or other lubrication. Use a product that is a spray grease. For linear bearings use only sewing machine oil....these bearings don't need lubricating to operate but need oil to prevent rust forming. Never use silicone products on shafts since they tend to clog the system.
Linear bearings are used mainly on shafts. Imagine an enclosure that allows rows of ball bearings to circulate. These bearings require a tiny space to operate so that is why when installed properly have almost zero friction.
I don't advocate training a limb/muscle that is very weak. Find an exercise that targets the muscle indirectly. In your case it shouldn't be necessary to any direct shoulder exercises. If you have been doing these for months or even years without improvement then it is pointless to continue doing them.
-
WD40 now comes in many forms. The kind that unlocks things isn't good for most gym equipment because it evaporates the oil or other lubrication. Use a product that is a spray grease. For linear bearings use only sewing machine oil....these bearings don't need lubricating to operate but need oil to prevent rust forming. Never use silicone products on shafts since they tend to clog the system.
Linear bearings are used mainly on shafts. Imagine an enclosure that allows rows of ball bearings to circulate. These bearings require a tiny space to operate so that is why when installed properly have almost zero friction.
I don't advocate training a limb/muscle that is very weak. Find an exercise that targets the muscle indirectly. In your case it shouldn't be necessary to any direct shoulder exercises. If you have been doing these for months or even years without improvement then it is pointless to continue doing them.
Hah! I had a feeling WD-40 wasn't the best to use. It does work while I do my set.
At my age, I am not looking so much to improve but to maintain and delay the ravages of age. When I don't train my shoulders, or any muscle for that matter, it starts to atrophy.
-
Well, I have to admit that this topic is a bit, if not way, over my head. I don't even know what linear bearings are. But it's true that a lot, though not all, the machines have improved tremendously and I think, hope, will continue to get better. Because of shoulder issues I am pathetically weak on a lot of shoulder movements. I can only press 3 lbs over my head with my left arm for about 5 reps before I need assistance. I can do maybe 15 lbs with my right. So when I do the lateral raise on the Life Fitness machine I just use one plate. Unless the machine is well maintained and oiled (which it never is. In fact, I squirt a little WD-40 on the rails and joints prior to my set), I still feel the bit of drag because the weight I am using is so light. Using the Free Motion cable system is the worse compared to regular cable set you get on those combo affairs with the cable cross-overs, overhead pull-down, and low cable row. The friction seems much less on those cable systems though the starting 20 lbs is too heavy for me to do single arm laterals. With the Free Motion, I just have to pick a weight heavy enough that minimizes or cancels out the friction of the cable and pulleys and pretty much do force reps from the beginning. Meaning, since the weight is too heavy for me to do on my own I have to assist on the very first rep and beyond with my other arm in doing one arm side laterals. In a way, that may be advantages because that would mean I am at a maximum intensity from the first rep rather than having to get to the end of the set before I need to do forced reps and other intensity variables.
Just a thought - Could you not use a light dumbbell or small weight disc if the machine friction is too much.
Doing a light weight for a few more reps may help with getting some blood in the area before doing
Forced / assisted reps.
Or as Vince says maybe try working them indirectly
Injuries are the worst to deal with & work around - Very Frustrating
-
Tell me, when was the last time you ever read a book?
your lengthy posts are the closest thing to a book that i read these days.
and just like a book, they make me feel sleepy.
-
This debate overlooks an import fact. Machine design and function have evolved over the decades. Before 1982 Smith machines used chains to keep the bar horizontal. I believe I was the first to use linear bearings in a Smith Machine about 1982. The use of those low friction bearings forever changed those machines and friction was no longer an issue. Chains were discarded. Over the years some versions of those machines were angled about 10 to 15 degrees to give a better movement in squats and bench presses, etc. Some machines used counterweights to allow lower resistance on the apparatus.
When we discuss machines vs free weights it is imperative to specify what machines and who manufactured them. Not all machines are equal and few are 'perfect'. However, companies have been copying each other and there has been a convergence to more or less proper pivot points and movements.
I doubt any company makes a line that is the best of each apparatus. A super gym might have many versions of arm machines from several companies for example.
There is also the issue of fads in machine lines. Over 40 years ago people started using Nautilus machines. Bodybuilders as a group didn't favour them. If you trained at Golds Venice super gym you would know that the second room that had the Nautilus machines wasn't frequented much by muscleheads. They preferred the converging machines made by Hammer Strength. Soon enough Hammer was accepted as great machines by bodybuilders and even gym owners. The truth is some of those machines are great and others not so great.
So this discussion is way more complex that most here imagine. Let us take dumbbells versus biceps machines. Well, which biceps machines? There is only one biceps-supinator machine that I know of so how can any discussion be fair without assessing the worth of all such biceps machines? Nautilus made a few different biceps machines. The position of the user is important as well in these machines. The user can replicate seated dumbbell curls or they can have pads at 45 degrees, or pads at 90 degrees to the user or even pads adjacent to the head. When I designed my biceps machine I concluded that the seated position replicating dumbbell curls is the strongest position.
My point here is a well designed machine with the proper motion and pivot points will be just as good as dumbbells and probably better for many reasons. What has never been established by the free weight advocates is how are they superior to all machines? Arthur Jones wrote volumes about how his machines were superior to barbells. Sometimes he claimed his machines were barbells but improved barbells. From my experience as a designer and builder of gym equipment I would say that the best machines are superior to free weights. Eventually bodybuilders will gravitate to using whatever helps them improve their physiques. That is exactly what we see champion bodybuilders using. Plenty of machines and some free weights. Could these champions use only machines. Absolutely.
But dumbbells weigh the same regardless of the company that makes them.
-
Just a thought - Could you not use a light dumbbell or small weight disc if the machine friction is too much.
Doing a light weight for a few more reps may help with getting some blood in the area before doing
Forced / assisted reps.
Or as Vince says maybe try working them indirectly
Injuries are the worst to deal with & work around - Very Frustrating
It's not really an injury per se but it is a result of an injury. I tore the rotator cuff but the tendon retracted into the joint on both shoulders and could not be reattached. So part of the muscle is unable to function.
And yes, I do thoroughly warm up the area starting with performing various shoulder movements with no weights at all before moving to the 2.5 lb plate and the 5 pounders but that I need to assist. I don't have an issue with the first 45 degrees with the lateral raise or any angle. It's after that as I start to get to shoulder level that strength drops off considerably. So if I use a weight that I can get to shoulder level it would be way too light in the beginning part of the movement as to be worthless. So I use a weight that is challenging for the first 45 degrees of motion and then assists myself the rest of the way and try to fight the negative portion of the movement as much as I can.
-
I must get around to building my own triceps machine.[/color]
Will sell in 10 000's , just like "biceps suppinator machine" ::)
but gym is needed ;D ;D ;D