Does using machines instead of free weights make you lose muscular coordination?

[Deicide]

Someone I know who is pretty good at bodybuilding things told me that.

?

[The Coach]

Someone I know who is pretty good at bodybuilding things told me that.

?

On a 1-10 scale, machines fall into the 1-2 stage of being non-functional. Fine for bodybuilding, horrible for athletes for the most part. Simply put......people who train athletes on machines don't have a clue on how to train athletes.

[pumpster]

Weights are probably better overall but plenty of football players love and use machines, get great results. The whole stabilizer muscle claim that's trotted out in unquestioning fashion every time without recognizing that there are actually viable pros and cons to any means of lifting highlight the free weight only mantras of the many sheep out there.

Hammer Strength is an example of the various machine companies that are huge in college athletics. They work, period.

[Deicide]

Weights are probably better overall but plenty of football players love and use machines, get great results. The whole stabilizer muscle claim that's trotted out in unquestioning fashion every time without recognizing that there are actually viable pros and cons to any means of lifting highlight the free weight only mantras of the many sheep out there.

Hammer Strength is an example of the various machine companies that are huge in college athletics. They work, period.

So for your average Joe like me, if forced to use them for a year or so, it wouldn't be a big deal?

[The Coach]

On a 1-10 scale, machines fall into the 1-2 stage of being non-functional. Fine for bodybuilding, horrible for athletes for the most part. Simply put......people who train athletes on machines don't have a clue on how to train athletes.

This isn't even up for debate. Just to reiterate, read the highlighted.

[Cap]

This isn't even up for debate. Just to reiterate, read the highlighted.

What's weird is that college coaches don't really include much machine work but I have read about pro strength coaches including it, which surprises me.  The only time I have seen college athletes using machines is when they do their own lifting on the side...arms, lat pulldowns, Hammer rows.

[pumpster]

So for your average Joe like me, if forced to use them for a year or so, it wouldn't be a big deal?

Who would you believe, Sergio Oliva who says they were more effective than weights overall, or some of the "experts" here still stuck in 1948?

Most important thing is having the guts to push ahead and improve your numbers over time, and finding exercises that work for you. Machine, weights or anything else.

For sports applications i used both, it really didn't matter. There are pros and cons to each, personally i prefer machines.

[Reign Down]

Weights are probably better overall but plenty of football players love and use machines, get great results. The whole stabilizer muscle claim that's trotted out in unquestioning fashion every time without recognizing that there are actually viable pros and cons to any means of lifting highlight the free weight only mantras of the many sheep out there.

Hammer Strength is an example of the various machine companies that are huge in college athletics. They work, period.

I generally agree but after a period of using machines, I find that it is harder to stabilise the free weights i'm using. I'm really talking about pressing movements

[pumpster]

I generally agree but after a period of using machines, I find that it is harder to stabilise the free weights i'm using. I'm really talking about pressing movements

What you're describing is simply the usual short-term period of aclimation back to using weights. That period of time take no time at all and doesn't mean much, because relearning to balance weights isn't the goal unless the end is itself weight lifting competitions. The goal is either development or sports applications, not balancing weights.

The whole stabilizer muscle theory's unproven, but it's in vogue and is accepted as gospel by many of the unquestioning. Besides which there are pluses and minus to enlisting stabilizer muscles and to avoiding their use in lifts, which is always neglected and unknown to those who push the stabilizer idea. If stabilizer muscles were really as essential as many claim, everyone would avoid barbells and use only dumbbells, which enlist more stabilizers.

[The Coach]

Ok Pumpster, we need to get Ron to give us our own debate board, a round table if you will. The stabilizer therorie has been proven time and time again not only in clinical case studies but practical application as well. One other thing, I NEVER say anything on here I can't back up. So what your saying Pumpster, is you can train an athlete the same as a bodybuilder?

[Cap]

I wouldn't really say that people are stuck in the 1940's but rather there is a certain approach that works better.  I've seen over 300 collegiate athletes train and the only ones doing machine work are doing it after their established workouts, so for "sport specific training" I say think that free weights are the way to go for the training.  Anything else I have seen is guys wanting to build their arms or adding in movements that mimic their sport (stiff pulldowns=swimming, hack squats facing the pad=football, etc).

[The Coach]

I'm not saying machines dont have there place, they do, but the ratio between mach vs. Freeweight should be about 80/20. Ex; leg extentions shouldn't be used in an athletic weight room but leg curls are ok. I would replace regular hypers for reverse hypers and/or glute/ham raise.

[Cap]

I'm not saying machines dont have there place, they do, but the ratio between mach vs. Freeweight should be about 80/20. Ex; leg extentions shouldn't be used in an athletic weight room but leg curls are ok. I would replace regular hypers for reverse hypers and/or glute/ham raise.

The D1 weight room I lifted in didn't even have leg curls and certainly didn't have leg ext.  The only machines they had were a lat pull machine, two leg presses, two hack squats, 3 HS machines and another two pulley stations for some upper body movements.  Unlike an average gym, they are almost never in use and these guys and girls are far more muscular than most on here.

[Deicide]

My only issue is: can I still grow, maintain, diet or get stronger with machines; if the answer is yes then that is good.

[jpm101]

You may lose a little coordination if only using machines. But than again quite a few  BB'ers I come in contact with have trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time. Really does not matter that much to most of them anyway. Just want to look good.

The stabilization element is fact, not theory.That is just basic 101 knowledge.  BB's/DB's can be used as opposed to machine training only, where you must follow the fixed  path of that machine. All this with regards to coordination and stabilization. But machine can have a very important place for true BB'ers. A combo of both can be used for great results. This may also apply to cable work, which brings in a whole new demand on the stabilization muscles, joints, ligaments and tendons. .

Been to quite a few high school and college (mostly PAC-10) gyms. Olympic and PL'ing exercise are stress for football players. That is the key element, by far, for development of football players.

The better full gyms (depending on the athletic budget) will have some type of leverage device or weight style sled for the players to use. These are alone the line of developing quickness, as well as speed and strength. Mostly linemen will use these (which I confess, I was once one). These will give a truer power angle when coming off a three point stance (or whatever). In theory anyway. There can be neck, leg/leg curl and lower back machines mainly.  These are auxiliary pieces of equipment that may be included in some of the players programs, to handle individual weaknesses. Or even to rehab a bit. Good Luck.

Side Bar: One of the best equipped college athletic training gym I ever saw was at the U of Nebraska. Went there on a recruitment trip from high school (nearly 20 years ago).  Probably some better ones around now. But at that time, an outstanding place. Another thing that impressed me at that time were the  steak houses in Lincoln and Omaha.

[nodeal]

i love using both but if i had a choice i would pick free weights over machines. something about lifting pure weight, fighting nothing but gravity. simple, raw, awesome. gives you something i dont quite get from machines.

as far as muscular coordination...i did a months worth of HIT training which was basically all machines. i did lose some muscular coordination but regained it back quickly after starting up free weights again. i dont know if that loss of coordination was from the use of machines or the unconventional way HIT training works.