Kevin speaks the truth why todays guys look like shit

[Hulkotron]

Sounds like most getbiggers can outbench the average pro bb.

[Dave D]

In these discussions and debates, it is not, or should not be, an all or nothing argument. That only free weights or only machines are better. Some machines are beyond crappy and some free weight movements are not as good as a similar movement on the machines. There some great value to doing free weight movements not only for it's muscle building aspects but for the increase in real-world functional ability. The Romanian type deadlift, where both palms are facing you is a simple and very useful movement that one does on a regular basis in day to day life. Just picking something up off the floor. No machine can duplicate this movement. There may be machines that will better and more safely develop the lower back but not duplicate the proper function of picking things up off the floor.

The overhead dumbbell press is also another excellent free weight movement as you have full range movement with constant resistance as this stimulates the up and down movement of free weights due to gravity.

This is true and a good point.

[Coach is Back!]

They are adjustable to your height but once you are locked in the weight only moves in the fixed direction of the cam.  Take 2 identical twins and train one on machines only and the other on free weights only for 90 days.  Then switch the training programs and you will see the twin who trained on free weights for the first 90 days will be stronger in both lifts (the machine and free weight squats) and the twin who did only machine work the first 90 days will be significantly weaker.

I always ask for examples of a professional NFL or NHL team that uses primarily machines for their strength training programs because none exist.  Why is this so?  If machines made athletes so much stronger why wouldn't a strength coach train his athletes that way?

To your point

[Hypertrophy]

Machines are just fine for building a great physique. They just have to fit you. Plus it doesnt take all day putting plates on a machine- half the time at my Gold’s the plates are spread all over the place. What a pain.

People seem to forget that the king of all gym lifts, the bench press, really didn’t become a common exercise until the 1940’s or so. There is nothing “functional” about lying on a bench and picking a weight off a rack. Read the history. Same goes with the back squat- until gyms came along nobody stood in a rack and then lowered a huge weight onto their shoulders. Both of these “functional” movements only exist because a primitive machine- a rack- was created.

About the only natural weighted exercises out there involve picking things up and/or putting them over your head.

[pellius]

Whenever this free weights vs. machines argument comes up people forget the neurological differences.  Doing squats doesn't just require strength but balance as well.  The stabilizer muscles are put to work as well and these are not activated in a fixed machine lift.  Machine lifting makes you strong for that machine but that is all.  Squatting makes you strong throughout the body.

No NFL or D1 college football teams use machines only for their strength training programs.  No NHL hockey team or any Olympic athlete in a speed or power sport lifts with machines exclusively or even a majority of their strength training.

Arthur Jones as well as any other machine maker (including Vince Basil) has a financial motive to convince people machines are superior even though there are no examples they can use to prove their theories.

I almost forgot to address this very important post as I feel the topic is often fraught with confusion. Often the debate is about two different topics but first I want to quickly dismiss a couple of points you made.

This idea that machines only make you strong for that machine and "that is all" is not intuitively but empirically false. All a muscle does is contract. The bigger and stronger the muscle is the greater the force of contraction. As your strength increases significantly on a machine it therefore follows that your muscles have gotten stronger. How could it not? If you took someone who did no training at all and then have him embark on a total body weight-lifting program along with adequate nutrition for a year and he progressively increased the amount of resistance on the chosen exercises how could he not become a stronger overall human being? For example, by increasing his resistance by 50% on the leg press would he have more ability to say push a stranded car?

The notion that Jones had a financial motive is irrelevant. Some will do things just to make money and some will do things because they really believe it's a better product and will make life better along with enriching themselves. Financial success is one of the ways a society places value on a product that will improve their lives.

Because I am not a mind reader I am relunctant to access people's motives but just judge their actually behavior. What they actually do. Is it good or bad. Some rich guy may do a lot of charity work because he wants to look benevolent and generous and get a tax write off or he might really care about other people. I can't be sure. What I can be sure of is that he is donating money and making life better for others.

What you can say of Jones and his machines can very well be said of Weider and his free weights. He poo-poohed machines maybe because his business was with free weights. He was a good businessman but he was not even remotely close to Jones' genius and engineering abilities so he was not going to compete with him in equipment development. And though we can't be sure, knowing the history of both men I don't think it would be a stretch to suspect that Weider was far more concerned with the financial and marketing aspect of his business than Jones was.

I'll address the other more important issue you brought up regarding "neurological" differences and this concept of developing "stabilizer" muscles later on.

[pellius]

Machines are just fine for building a great physique. They just have to fit you. Plus it doesnt take all day putting plates on a machine- half the time at my Gold’s the plates are spread all over the place. What a pain.

People seem to forget that the king of all gym lifts, the bench press, really didn’t become a common exercise until the 1940’s or so. Their is nothing “functional” about lying on a bench and picking a weight off a rack. Read the history. Same goes with the back squat- until gyms came along nobody stood in a rack and then lowered a huge weight onto their shoulders. Both of these “functional” movements only exist because a primitive machine- a rack- was created.

About the only natural weighted exercises out there involve picking things up and/or putting them over your head.

I saw a kid two days ago at the gym who wanted to squat but both racks were being used. So he took a barbell to the corner of the gym, loaded it up, cleaned it, push-pressed it over his head and behind his neck and then proceeded to do squats. I smile broadly as it brought back (fond?) memories of how I use to do it as a kid. None of the kids today know what it means to "clean a barbell" other than with a rag and Windex. Just like Lou did in pumping iron before doing shoulder presses. It made me think how much training is lost because we don't "clean" the bars anymore.

Anyway, I congratulated the kid and he told that his dad showed him how to lift in his garage.

[Hypertrophy]

I saw a kid two days ago at the gym who wanted to squat but both racks were being used. So he took a barbell to the corner of the gym, loaded it up, cleaned it, push-pressed it over his head and behind his neck and then proceeded to do squats. I smile broadly as it brought back (fond?) memories of how I use to do it as a kid. None of the kids today know what it means to "clean a barbell" other than with a rag and Windex. Just like Lou did in pumping iron before doing shoulder presses. It made me think how much training is lost because we don't "clean" the bars anymore.

Anyway, I congratulated the kid and he told that his dad showed him how to lift in his garage.

Exactly! The clean is probably one of the the most athletic weight lifting movements there is. Pressing the weight and then lowering it onto your shoulders to do squats is even more so! Now that truly is functional strength.

[Coach is Back!]

Exactly! The clean is probably one of the the most athletic weight lifting movements there is. Pressing the weight and then lowering it onto your shoulders to do squats is even more so! Now that truly is functional strength.

While it's still used, O-lifts in an athletic setting is overrated

[AbrahamG]

Dear Vince, kindly stfu. This is beyond you. Hope this helps

Coach, I like you.  You can come over to my house and fuck my sister!

[Coach is Back!]

Coach, I like you.  You can come over to my house and fuck my sister!

Lmfao 

[Royalty]

Coach, I like you.  You can come over to my house and fuck my sister!

Full Metal Jacket 😂

[AbrahamG]

Full Metal Jacket 😂

Yes sir.  The first half hour of that movie might have the best sound bytes in motion picture history.

[tres_taco_combo]

Most of the guys did this back in the old days, nothing new

yep - 1970s to 1990s bbers did it - the ones today are on it full speed 24/7 and not good

[tres_taco_combo]

Quick read through this while I’m at work. Don’t compare bodybuilding training to athlete training/development. It’s two completely different animals.

hence i look better than 99% of athletes out there cuz i train for bbing gains only/diet for bbing

and those athletes would all run circles around me, out hit me, out shoot me et

[chaos]

But the machines aren't fixed. They are adjustable. The natural motion of the body is rotary. When you are doing a curl your hand and forearm is making an arc, a half circle. Free weights, entirely dependent on gravity, only provides resistance in a straight line in an up and down movement. You only get full resistance when the limb is perpendicular to the weight. In the case of the curl, when your forearm is parallel to the floor.

To an extent. No machine is fully adjustable. I prefer heavy compound lifts with free weights as the anchor for my lifting and some machines here and there as I feel like.

[wes]

I think that one of the main reasons guys looked better back in the day is because the magazines touted that you should use heavy result producing exercises to build a solid foundation for years coupled with eating big.

These days guys just jump right on a shit load gear and use pansy ass machines for the most part because they are easier, and look more impressive with a load of plates piled on without any balance issues whatsover.

This certainly doesn`t apply to everybody by any stretch of the imagination but they train like girls today for the most part with zero intensity of effort and rely mainly on boatloads of ger,

[chaos]

I think that one of the main reasons guys looked better back in the day is because the magazines touted that you should use heavy result producing exercises to build a solid foundation for years coupled with eating big.

These days guys just jump right on a shit load gear and use pansy ass machines for the most part because they are easier, and look more impressive with a load of plates piled on without any balance issues whatsover.

This certainly doesn`t apply to everybody by any stretch of the imagination but they train like girls today for the most part with zero intensity of effort and rely mainly on boatloads of ger,

Another thing is the amount of time people train. Newer trainees seem to think 45 minutes and you're body is toast. Back in the day they trained for hours, twice a day, everyday. The intensity and desire was much more impressive then, nowadays everyone wants instant results.

[WalterWhite]

I think that one of the main reasons guys looked better back in the day is because the magazines touted that you should use heavy result producing exercises to build a solid foundation for years coupled with eating big.

These days guys just jump right on a shit load gear and use pansy ass machines for the most part because they are easier, and look more impressive with a load of plates piled on without any balance issues whatsover.

This certainly doesn`t apply to everybody by any stretch of the imagination but they train like girls today for the most part with zero intensity of effort and rely mainly on boatloads of ger,

We didn't have machines back in the day so everyone at least squatted and benched. Most gyms had basic compound movement pieces and at Pep's in Framingham MA where I started, it was all hand made.  We did have a pull down and it was wall mounted with a T drilled in the concrete to hold you down.

There was camaraderie that doesn't exist today, a gym culture; bodybuilders trained with powerlifters to build their foundations. We encouraged one another and went to each others contests. Gear was basic pharm compounds and I didn't know anyone who used gh or slin. I chuckle at what people call trt now which would be a contest prep dose/cycle back then.

Jeff King is a great example.

[pellius]

To an extent. No machine is fully adjustable. I prefer heavy compound lifts with free weights as the anchor for my lifting and some machines here and there as I feel like.

I think that is ideal. One should not be overly bogged down by think this is inherently better than that. With machines so much is dependant on the design. There are a lot of crappy machines out there. Conversely, through most of human history, athletes have developed great physiques and athletic ability through the use of the basic barbell and dumbbell. My first fifteen years of training always included squats, bench, overhead presses, barbell curl, tricep skull crushers.

Although I defend machines because I think they are unfairly dismissed by the old schoolers, I will have to admit that I do mostly machines now simply because it's easier as well as not able to do a lot of the basic barbell movements like bench and military press. But even something not as demanding as biceps I'll more often go to the Hammer curl than the barbell curl because it's so much easier. I'm not unaware of how I now tend to movements where I get to sit or lie down. There, I said it! But at least I'm there. I always justify to myself by saying it's better than nothing.

[Van_Bilderass]

I will say this: if you take a current pro
Who uses mostly machines and who has a weak chest
and have him do nothing but barbell or dumbell
presses his chest is not going to become excellent.
Bodybuilding is mostly genetics! Serioulsy, how can this aspect be forgotten in this disussion - genetics is almost everything!

IMO there are still a lot of pros who squat and press freeweight very heavy. And some of them use loads that
almost no one in Levrone's era used. And many of them train way harder since the logbooking and beating your best became more popular after Yates. Several top coaches preach perfect form + constantly trying to beat you best weight and reps. This didn't use to be the case, it was perhaps trying to train til exhaustion moreso that trying to load heavier. And this is logical as load is THE prime driver of growth. Many will disagree with this but it's what I believe based oN science + observation. Volume will never compensate for "low" load. Increasing volume can increase growth but it's not primary.

[Humble Narcissist]

I almost forgot to address this very important post as I feel the topic is often fraught with confusion. Often the debate is about two different topics but first I want to quickly dismiss a couple of points you made.

This idea that machines only make you strong for that machine and "that is all" is not intuitively but empirically false. All a muscle does is contract. The bigger and stronger the muscle is the greater the force of contraction. As your strength increases significantly on a machine it therefore follows that your muscles have gotten stronger. How could it not? If you took someone who did no training at all and then have him embark on a total body weight-lifting program along with adequate nutrition for a year and he progressively increased the amount of resistance on the chosen exercises how could he not become a stronger overall human being? For example, by increasing his resistance by 50% on the leg press would he have more ability to say push a stranded car?

The notion that Jones had a financial motive is irrelevant. Some will do things just to make money and some will do things because they really believe it's a better product and will make life better along with enriching themselves. Financial success is one of the ways a society places value on a product that will improve their lives.

Because I am not a mind reader I am relunctant to access people's motives but just judge their actually behavior. What they actually do. Is it good or bad. Some rich guy may do a lot of charity work because he wants to look benevolent and generous and get a tax write off or he might really care about other people. I can't be sure. What I can be sure of is that he is donating money and making life better for others.

What you can say of Jones and his machines can very well be said of Weider and his free weights. He poo-poohed machines maybe because his business was with free weights. He was a good businessman but he was not even remotely close to Jones' genius and engineering abilities so he was not going to compete with him in equipment development. And though we can't be sure, knowing the history of both men I don't think it would be a stretch to suspect that Weider was far more concerned with the financial and marketing aspect of his business than Jones was.

I'll address the other more important issue you brought up regarding "neurological" differences and this concept of developing "stabilizer" muscles later on.

1)  "All a muscle does is contract":  Yes but the stabilizer muscles don't contract in a machine.  Example: Doing military presses with free weights works not only the shoulders but every upper body muscle including the whole core.  Even legs are used in holding up the body and extra weight.

2) Financial incentive for Jones is totally relevant.  Jones spent thousands of hours building his machines to sell to gyms.  Do you think he's going to tell people "my machines aren't as effective as free weights but they are a pretty blue color so pay me thousands for each one."  Also, Jones results were never replicated by anyone else.  Again, no powerlifter, olympic weight lifter, NFL, NHL or track and field power athlete works exclusively with machines only but there are thousands who use just free weights.

3) Jones was a genius in marketing but not in science.  Having a cam that puts stress on the muscle for the full range and eliminating gravity sounds great but has no effect on real athletes.  Athletes compete on a mat or field that has gravity and their muscles have to move in all directions including circular motions.  Most of Jones's presentations were to medical doctors who knew nothing about working muscles or engineering so he could say anything he wanted and it sounded good to them.  He also insulted their intelligence probably because he had an inferiority complex over being the only non doctor in his family and the least educated.

4)  As I said before take 2 people (preferably twins), put one on a free weights only routine and the other on a Nautilus only workout routine and who is going to be bigger, stronger and more athletic in the long run?  It's not even close.  The workout routine Jones's advocated doing full body and no rest between exercises is terrible as well but that's a whole different matter.

[wes]

We didn't have machines back in the day so everyone at least squatted and benched. Most gyms had basic compound movement pieces and at Pep's in Framingham MA where I started, it was all hand made.  We did have a pull down and it was wall mounted with a T drilled in the concrete to hold you down.

There was camaraderie that doesn't exist today, a gym culture; bodybuilders trained with powerlifters to build their foundations. We encouraged one another and went to each others contests. Gear was basic pharm compounds and I didn't know anyone who used gh or slin. I chuckle at what people call trt now which would be a contest prep dose/cycle back then.

Jeff King is a great example.

Thanks WW........those top two pics are from Central City Gym in my hometown of Springfield Mass.

The middle pic is one I put online from my personal collection.

Great times with ball busting workouts and lots of big name contest winners when Spfld. was a veritable hotbed of bodybuilding and powerlifting as well as having 3 World Armwrestiling Champions.

[The Scott]

I think the main difference between todays chumps and yesteryears champs is the result of the quantity and quality of drugs they take coupled with in the 70s and earlier if you took drugs you also took plenty of time off 'em.  Some of my friends used to tell me that while being on the juice made them feel powerful, it also made them feel bloated and out breath, increased their blood pressure and more.  It was what gave them that "edge".  But they were smart enough to not want that same edge to cut their life short and so they took plenty of time off from it.

As for training and equipment?  I use both machines and free weights.  As I age, I have had to rely more upon machines.  For me it's a matter of I cannot do certain movements with free weights anymore and so I use a machine instead.  The most result producing exercise I have ever done has been the squat.  For me it truly is the King of Exercises.

YMMV.

[IroNat]

Pellius made some good points about exercise specificity.  You get good at what you practice.

The best exercises with weights for overall strength and power are those done standing.  Standing involves the stabilizer muscles along the spine and also the core muscles.

Bodybuilding is a different game as it's just concerned with looks.  Perfectly achievable with machines.

Levrone is spouting nonsense.

[XFACTOR]

Thought is was about Kevin Spacey. Equally as gay though.