Machines vs. Free Weights

[Humble Narcissist]

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.

[pellius]

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.

[Humble Narcissist]

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.

[illuminati]

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.

[Griffith]

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.

[ratherbebig]

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

[ratherbebig]

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

[chaos]

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.

[pellius]

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.

[pellius]

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.

[pellius]

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?

[ratherbebig]

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)

[Humble Narcissist]

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.

[Griffith]

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.

[illuminati]

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.

[deadz]

I incorporate both into my workouts. Both serve a purpose.

[IroNat]

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.

[pellius]

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.

[Primemuscle]

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?

[pellius]

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.

[Humble Narcissist]

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.

[ratherbebig]

not all leg extension machines are equal.

and how many people use them properly? people tend to kick rather than press/squeeze

[pellius]

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.

[IroNat]

So the consensus on leg extensions is...

And if load is the crucial factor then what load/rep range is best?

[pellius]

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.