All machines vs. All weights... who wins?

[saucetradomous]

they'd probably look fairly similar, but the first guy would be a hell of a lot more athletic. given the unlimited possibilities of freeweights we could have one guy doing all Oly lifts and variations and he'd be in terrifyingly good shape. there's nothing a machine can do that will replace power cleans or push presses.

olympic lifts will not generally make lifter A look like a bodybuilder, so if lifter A were just doing olympic style lifts I say TinyTit B would look bigger.

[saucetradomous]

what a bunch of morons....

different kinds of exercices dont give a different shape to a given muscle group...

the muscles are genetically designed to have a predetermined shape whatever the way you train em, so it makes this whole thread just another useless and retarded  of shit in the ocean of bullcrap this board is.

maybe so, but I'd say you get there a bit quicker using free weights which makes this thread still relevant.

[Cap]

olympic lifts will not generally make lifter A look like a bodybuilder, so if lifter A were just doing olympic style lifts I say TinyTit B would look bigger.

Generally a lot of athletes who only do Olympic lifts will look like BBers.  Some will later do arm exercises and look real big.

[saucetradomous]

Generally a lot of athletes who only do Olympic lifts will look like BBers.  Some will later do arm exercises and look real big.

examples?

[MisterMagoo]

olympic lifts will not generally make lifter A look like a bodybuilder, so if lifter A were just doing olympic style lifts I say TinyTit B would look bigger.

you're right, but that's just it. the free weights offer a myriad of possibilities. you can train for anything you want. it's possible, given every machine on the planet, that one can get the same bodybuilder-style APPEARANCE that one can get with freeweights, but in no way could anyone training for any other purpose achieve their goals limited to simply machines.

so sure, if you set two twins down with the goal of getting 20" arms and sculpted quads or whatever the two would probably progress in a similar manner. but if you took them and said "you two are training for college wrestling" or pretty much anything else it just wouldn't fly.

also, are we avoiding machines that REPLICATE free weights? there are chest press and leg press machines out there that are designed in order to feel like freeweights, which to me is just admitting that freeweights are better but pepole want to hide behind the "safety" thing in order to sell $4000 machines.

[pumpster]

maybe so, but I'd say you get there a bit quicker using free weights which makes this thread still relevant.

Since Oliva himself said that machines win when it comes to development. If someone who was an olympic lifter can say that, who cares about recycled theories here as to free weight ominpotence, clearly machines are at least comparable. IMO better in many cases, and getting better as designs improve-it's like computer vs. man in chess, the tide is turning.

I laugh at anyone who claims weights are alwaysbetter. The stabilizer argument is mainly a marketing thing, there's no proof it makes a difference for development plus there are counter-arguments the other way, in favor of machines that free weight proponents never mention.

-Standing/seated calf raises - who the %%$# cares if it's a machine with no stabilizers..lol

-Hack squat - who the %%$  cares if there are no stabilizers in the better machine version.

-Pullover - no one cares about stabilizers, machine wins.

-Various Hammer machines-the muscles are fried in ways i never got with free weights.


The only reason this doesn't extend to every exercise is machine design, future designs will get better.

Cables only for refining, finishing etc. that's just a myth that some continue to buy due to close-mindedness.

[Cap]

examples?

I personally know people that you don't (no name guys in college) who built there bodies using just free weights and the guys generally look like BBers, especially the black dudes.  The only machines at our gym were pulldowns, cables for arms if you wanted, and a leg press for ancillary strength.  The same can be said for most other athletes we see.

[flagadajones]

machines were first designed for disabled/handicaped people in order to reeducate em if im not mistaken?  Correct me if i'm wrong?

or they've been created by bodybuilders THEN used by physical reeducators?

[Soundness]

This one is interesting to me - I saw a thread about it here, and I recall in the gym, actually tonight, a fairly well built guy telling a smaller new guy to avoid the machines and only use free weights.  Is it as simple as weight moved?  Or do 'stabilizer muscles' matter, as the mags tell us?

Let's say you get a set of twins in the gym.  They're 18, with identical genes, nutrition, and work ethic.  You set them loose for 2 years. 

Twin A is stuck in the freeweight section, where he can only use movements like Bench, military press, squat, deadlifts, rows, and dumbbell movements.  He can use no machines.

Twin B is limited only to machines and cables, but just like his bro, he can use unlimited weights with it.

In 2 years, which guy carries more muscle?

The twin who wins is the twin who manages to push himself the hardest.

Whether he uses free weights or machines is irrelevant. It's a matter of intensity achieved, that's it.

[pumpster]

Whether he uses free weights or machines is irrelevant. It's a matter of intensity achieved, that's it.

This is more improtant but the actual exercises do matter.

[pumpster]

I personally know people that you don't (no name guys in college) who built there bodies using just free weights and the guys generally look like BBers, especially the black dudes.  The only machines at our gym were pulldowns, cables for arms if you wanted, and a leg press for ancillary strength.  The same can be said for most other athletes we see.

Imperfect example that proves nothing unless compared to another group that used mainly  machines.

[GoneAway]

different kinds of exercices dont give a different shape to a given muscle group...

the muscles are genetically designed to have a predetermined shape whatever the way you train em

Take a look at Larry Scott from the 1960's when he was Mr. Olympia and then view him from the 2000's. He was able to change his naturally full biceps into peaked biceps through different training methods.

[The Coach]

Not one person in this thread specified what the goals were for anything, be it machines or otherwise.

[The Coach]

This one is interesting to me - I saw a thread about it here, and I recall in the gym, actually tonight, a fairly well built guy telling a smaller new guy to avoid the machines and only use free weights.  Is it as simple as weight moved?  Or do 'stabilizer muscles' matter, as the mags tell us?

Let's say you get a set of twins in the gym.  They're 18, with identical genes, nutrition, and work ethic.  You set them loose for 2 years. 

Twin A is stuck in the freeweight section, where he can only use movements like Bench, military press, squat, deadlifts, rows, and dumbbell movements.  He can use no machines.

Twin B is limited only to machines and cables, but just like his bro, he can use unlimited weights with it.

In 2 years, which guy carries more muscle?

WHAT IS THE GOAL??

[pumpster]

Take a look at Larry Scott from the 1960's when he was Mr. Olympia and then view him from the 2000's. He was able to change his naturally full biceps into peaked biceps through different training methods.

If that change means anything here, it was essentially created by the use of machines in very isolated contexts coupled with a clear and intense focus to change things.

[240 is Back]

WHAT IS THE GOAL??

answer as if the goal is performance (sports or powerlifting)
then
answer as if the goal is appearance (bbing)

[pumpster]

Not one person in this thread specified what the goals were for anything, be it machines or otherwise.

On a BB forum, take a guess.

[Cap]

Proves nothing unless compared to another group who only used machines.

I was just answering his post where he said that those lifts will not make a guy look like a BBer.  

I'm not saying one is better than another because what works for one certainly does not work for another.  I know guys who only used machines and got great results.  Genetics and intensity sure will work.  Depending on how you define intensity though, I would say you will build muscle quicker with compounds.

[leonp1981]

I've always thought that people who've built their physique primarily using free weights have a denser, more complete look to them than people who've used machines more.

[GoneAway]

If that change means anything here, it was essentially created by the use of machines in very isolated context coupled with a clear intent to change things.

You claimed it was due to the focus on spider curls. If you have any more information, feel free to share it. My intention was only to disprove the quoted statement; not get into a battle of free weights vs. machines.

[pumpster]

 Depending on how you define intensity though, I would say you will build muscle quicker with compounds.

The compounds thing is another one of those internet fallacies, just like the free weights thing. Those who believe in one generally follow the other as well.

[Soundness]

Take a look at Larry Scott from the 1960's when he was Mr. Olympia and then view him from the 2000's. He was able to change his naturally full biceps into peaked biceps through different training methods.

If you look at the pictures, it's the same bicep with the same shape, he simply rotated his forearm differently to make the biceps appear to have a different shape...

Flex your biceps and rotate your fist... If you rotate your fist away from you (clockwise/to the front), your biceps will appear more "full" (longer). If you rotate your fist towards you (counter-clockwise/to the rear), your biceps will appear to have a higher "peak" despite being not as "full."  

Bodybuilders used to flex them in the more full, less peaked way. Sergio is one example if you look at his pictures. It's just a matter of how contracted you make the muscle by rotating your forearm when you flex it. Larry Scott used to flex his biceps for a fuller look, then later flexed them in the peaked way. The muscle didn't actually change, the way he flexed it did.

[Alex23]

Ron: could you thematize a thread on the G&O?
240 (for short): "at your service, master (wipping his 'mouth')",right away sir, I just read A23 + meso + many others and ready for my own threading, even thought I'm a tattooed loser who's being blankly hanging out on here for the last 5 years for no apparent reasons.

A23 = king of all star-struck weaknesses.

[The Coach]

answer as if the goal is performance (sports or powerlifting)

All weights for sports performance with the exeption of leg curls and reverse hypers

then
answer as if the goal is appearance (bbing)

80/20 in favor of weights

[The Coach]

On a BB forum, take a guess.

He didn't specify in the original post.