"Every NFL and NBA football team trains on Hammer Strength equipment"

[ribonucleic]

I came across this remarkable claim on the web site for a California health club...

http://www.southyubaclub.com/pages/facilities.html

Do you suppose it's true?    If so, I would consider that the ultimate endorsement of their line of products.

Even a relatively hardcore Gold's Gym might make its purchasing decisions based on discounting, service plans, whatever.

But an NFL franchise is going to be dead serious about getting the best - and have essentially unlimited funds to acquire it.

[Bluto]

dont know but i remember when dorian yates used to promote hammer strength, you would image they put a shitload of money into that or that he actually had a big interest in it, turns out from what i can tell they just gave him a few machines for his gym... i doubt he ever got a lot of money for it, yet that was at the time the single factor why people was going for hammer strength over other brands... "dorian uses it!"

[natural al]

I'd rather use the old nautilus stuff if I had an option.  There's a gym down the road from where I live and they have about 5 of the old machines and they're all great, very unique set ups but they work great.  Hell, I'd buy them myself if I could find em.

[pumpster]

I'd rather use the old nautilus stuff if I had an option.  There's a gym down the road from where I live and they have about 5 of the old machines and they're all great, very unique set ups but they work great.  Hell, I'd buy them myself if I could find em.

Both the old Nautilus and some of the new stuff's equally good IMO.

[Redwingenator]

I came across this remarkable claim on the web site for a California health club...

http://www.southyubaclub.com/pages/facilities.html

Do you suppose it's true?    If so, I would consider that the ultimate endorsement of their line of products.

Even a relatively hardcore Gold's Gym might make its purchasing decisions based on discounting, service plans, whatever.

But an NFL franchise is going to be dead serious about getting the best - and have essentially unlimited funds to acquire it.

The gym is attempting to deceive people.  Of course all of the major sport teams have some hammer strength equipment.  They don't say that pro teams only use Hammer Strength, but they are hoping people reading their webpage will infer that.  Professional teams have the most complete and advanced training facilities in the world so it is not an option to leave out standard equipment.  The gym doesn't mention that all pro teams have free weights, treadmills, exercise balls, hot-tubs, etc.  Hammer Strength is biomechanically very similar to most weight training machines except that the arms act independently and the "slingshot" affect you get with plate machines is reduced.  In my opinion hammer strength is quality equipment but it is still a machine and in most ways inferior to freeweights.

[pumpster]

Actually Hammer and other machines like it aren't the same biomechanically as free weights, in terms of either the ROM or resistance curves. The resistance curves are the biggest advantage IMO, better and more intense depending on the exercise. The classic example is machine pullovers, which blows free weights out of the water. Using that as just one example, there's no way to claim that free weights are always better when sometimes it's the opposite. The Flex Leverage flat & incline BP machines are excellent, a little better than free weights IMO. Vic Martinez loves those.

As far as the tired stabilizer muscle argument, it's rarely mentioned that this is only part of the equation. Many football players prefer the rigidity of machines, which by taking balance out of it allows them to focus even more on pure power and to go to failure with lower risk than with  weights.

It IS marketing to make it sound like it's the only thing used when in fact they use everything, on the other hand it and other brands are ubiquitous in college and pro gyms because they're both effective and safer than free weights.

[Redwingenator]

Actually Hammer and other machines like it aren't the same biomechanically as free weights, in terms of either the ROM or resistance curve. The resistance curve is the biggest advantage IMO, it's often better and more intense with plate loaded, depending on the exercise. The classic example is machine pullovers, which blow free weights out of the water. Using that as just one example there's no way to always be able say that free weights are better.

It IS marketing to make it sound like it's the only thing used when in fact they use everything, on the other hand it and other brands are ubiquitous in college and pro gyms because they're good.

You are absolutely correct about the pullover, but I never said that free weight are always better.  With Hammer Strength stabilization muscles are not worked like they are with dumbells, and being locked into a specific plane of motion is generally harder on the joints than a dumbell motion.  The major benefits of H.S. is a reduced risk of injury over freeweights, and that the arms work independently of each other.  H.S. is good equipment and an excellent addition to any gym, but it can't completely replace standard freeweights.

[pumpster]

You are absolutely correct about the pullover, but I never said that free weight are always better.  With Hammer Strength stabilization muscles are not worked like they are with dumbells, and being locked into a specific plane of motion is generally harder on the joints than a dumbell motion.  The major benefits of H.S. is a reduced risk of injury over freeweights, and that the arms work independently of each other.  H.S. is good equipment and an excellent addition to any gym, but it can't completely replace standard freeweights.

-You said that in your opinion that machines were "in most ways" inferior, which is pretty strong & fairly similar to "always". I offered a more balanced assessment.

-You've just made the common mistake i already pointed out, of assuming that stabilization muscles are the only factor and work against machines, when in fact the absence of the need for stabilizing muscles can be an advantage. If stabilizing muscles were so essential, no one would use barbells, only dumbbells. I haven't seen anyone actually prove that stabilization muscles are essential for development, have you? The stabilization thing is usually over-emphasized as part of a marketing strategy, in much the same way HS mentions the strengths of it's equipment.

-The major benefits of HS are several, one of which is potentially more effective workouts and another is greater safety, not just one or the other.

-As far as completely replacing free weights, no one is suggesting this, i'm not sure why you brought that up. However, Sergio Oliva said that overall he thought machines were more effective, not equal.

-The pullover machine's but one example - i hope you're not assuming that it's the only one?

-Locked into a particular ROM doesn't necessarily hurt the joints, where did you get this? In fact, some use machines in lieu of free weights because it can be easier on the body - Arthur Jones makes a line now called Med-X, for rehab purposes. Yates switched to Smith squats because they were easier on the body, then found that they were also more effective. Case by case.
http://www.medxonline.com/

[natural al]

Both the old Nautilus and some of the new stuff's equally good IMO.

I've never seen thier new stuff....I've gone to the nautlus website and didn't see a thing, maybe I'm missing something.

[Redwingenator]

-You said that in your opinion that machines were "in most ways" inferior, which is pretty strong & fairly similar to "always". I offered a more balanced assessment.

-You've just made the common mistake i already pointed out, of assuming that stabilization muscles are the only factor and work against machines, when in fact the absence of the need for stabilizing muscles can be an advantage. If stabilizing muscles were so essential, no one would use barbells, only dumbbells. I haven't seen anyone actually prove that stabilization muscles are essential for development, have you? The stabilization thing is usually over-emphasized as part of a marketing strategy, in much the same way HS mentions the strengths of it's equipment.

-The major benefits of HS are several, one of which is potentially more effective workouts and another is greater safety, not just one or the other.

-As far as completely replacing free weights, no one is suggesting this, i'm not sure why you brought that up. However, Sergio Oliva said that overall he thought machines were more effective, not equal.

-The pullover machine's but one example - i hope you're not assuming that it's the only one?

-Locked into a particular ROM doesn't necessarily hurt the joints, where did you get this? In fact, some use machines in lieu of free weights because it can be easier on the body - Arthur Jones makes a line now called Med-X, for rehab purposes. Yates switched to Smith squats because they were easier on the body, then found that they were also more effective. Case by case.
http://www.medxonline.com/

Great explanation from an HIT perspective.  When dealing with football players I would argue that doing lifts that require more stabilization would be more advantageous due to the rule of specificity, or training in a style similar to the action you're training for.  Freeweights especially dumbells also enhance prioprioceptive neurofacilitation which is vital for athletes.  However this opens up a never-ending discussion of HIT verses everything else.  It is an argument that nobody wins because everyone ends up making valid points in favor of training styles that are all effective. 

[pumpster]

I've never seen thier new stuff....I've gone to the nautlus website and didn't see a thing, maybe I'm missing something.

I didn't mean specifically Nautilus' new equipment, though it's good too, as is Med-X. The old Nautilus classics would be cheaper.
http://www.nautilus.com/nautilus_brand_commercial_equipment/productcategories/strength.jsp?lid=Strength

[natural al]

I didn't mean specifically Nautilus' new equipment, though it's good too, as is Med-X. The old Nautilus classics would be cheaper.
http://www.nautilus.com/nautilus_brand_commercial_equipment/productcategories/strength.jsp?lid=Strength

I did look on the site and they have some new stuff that kinda looks like the old equipment...I wish they'd just bring back the old stuff

[NoCalBbEr]

I think its a saety thing.  they can load up the machine with plates and do a 1rm without worrying about the safety issue. it helps to make both sides of your body work equally. but nothing beat the  225 lb bench press and squats.

thats my guys. but it doesn't build size tho

[pumpster]

I think its a saety thing.  they can load up the machine with plates and do a 1rm without worrying about the safety issue. it helps to make both sides of your body work equally. but nothing beat the  225 lb bench press and squats.

thats my guys. but it doesn't build size tho

Safety's part of it, not just for obvious reasons but also because it can allow the muscle to be further fatigued to failure without worrying about getting stuck under a weight. Even with spotters i think weights are still more risky. Easier to know out partials on something like squats on a machine.

Effectiveness is just as important, as i said Oliva confirmed that he found them more effective, not equal.

[benchmstr]

i love hammer strength machines,and they are also the only machines i use outside of cables(for pushdown only)

bench

[Bluto]

i like some of the hammer machines and some of the nautilus ones. sometimes the new models sometimes the older models. problem is when nautilus is trying to improve and bring out new models they might change things that was better before. just like fifa 2007 might add things and take away things that was better with fifa 2006 videogame 
mostly it comes down to what suits my body the best. older nautilus pullover had a beet feel to it than the newer model for example.

[Moen]

Pumpster said it best guys

I have always fought against this false logic, these 'stabilizer' muscles people talk so profoundly off, you guys know that in any press the stabilizer muscles are the SMALL WEAK rotator cuff muscles ?

Do you think these muscles have much hypertrophy potential ?

Do you think overemphasizing muscles that are 1000 times smaller than the big main muscle groups is going to help ypur development ?

[Redwingenator]

Pumpster said it best guys

I have always fought against this false logic, these 'stabilizer' muscles people talk so profoundly off, you guys know that in any press the stabilizer muscles are the SMALL WEAK rotator cuff muscles ?

Do you think these muscles have much hypertrophy potential ?

Do you think overemphasizing muscles that are 1000 times smaller than the big main muscle groups is going to help ypur development ?

You are absolutely correct from a bodybuilding perspective.  Bodybuilders could care less about the having a ripped subscapularis muscle, but athletes on the other hand are working to improve athletic performance which requires more than pounds and pounds of perfectly sculpted muscle.  A quarterback needs to develop their supscapularis along with improving the speed in which their muscles respond to subtle changes in resistance.