Machines vs. Free Weights

[ratherbebig]

bill, bill! you need to throw in some machines in your training routine! stop training with free weights only!

said noone ever.

[pellius]

is this going to be one of those "see, he did use leg extensions so he didnt 100% use free weights!" shitty kinda of arguments?

youre esentially saying a winning physique cannot be had without the aid of at least one or more machines.

No, don't put words in my mouth. I said that I think it is possible to build a contest winning physique, provided you have the genetics (the most important factor), using just modern day machines than just limiting yourself to free weights only. Just because it's never been done doesn't mean it can't be done.

And it is not a shitty argument to dispute the assertion that a contest winning physique was built using just free weights when they all used machines to some extent. Even if it's just one machine like the leg extension, that invalidates your argument. Remember, in logic, if you state a universal statement or theorem as true all you need is one, just one example to the contrary, to invalidate that assertion.

[pellius]

and injured himself in the process.

Are you implying that only those who trained to failure injured themselves?

[pellius]

bill, bill! you need to throw in some machines in your training routine! stop training with free weights only!

said noone ever.

Basile has said that. Arthur Jones said that.

All you need is just one example to the contrary to invalidate a universal statement or theory.

[ratherbebig]

No, don't put words in my mouth. I said that I think it is possible to build a contest winning physique, provided you have the genetics (the most important factor), using just modern day machines than just limiting yourself to free weights only. Just because it's never been done doesn't mean it can't be done.

but according to you nobody is, or have ever been, limited themselves to free weights only.

And it is not a shitty argument to dispute the assertion that a contest winning physique was built using just free weights when they all used machines to some extent. Even if it's just one machine like the leg extension, that invalidates your argument. Remember, in logic, if you state a universal statement or theorem as true all you need is one, just one example to the contrary, to invalidate that assertion.

yeah i know youre in love with that saying, maybe it makes you feel smart, i dont know.

but it's just nitpicking. because when people say all, they generally dont mean all, but rather nearly all, or most. to point out something like "aha! so he DID use leg extensions as a warm up before he went on stage for mr olympia!" is just moronic. and misses the point. and does not invalidate the argument.

[ratherbebig]

Are you implying that only those who trained to failure injured themselves?

failure doesnt seem to be a smart or necessary training protocol.

dorian yates and ronnie coleman = injuries.

jay cutler, phil heath, shawn rhoden = not so much.

[robcguns]

failure doesnt seem to be a smart or necessary training protocol.

dorian yates and ronnie coleman = injuries.

jay cutler, phil heath, shawn rhoden = not so much.

If heavily juiced you dont need to train to failure yet i think natural needs failure to force growth.When juicing its more finessing muscle growth and natty forced muscle growth.

[pellius]

but according to you nobody is, or have ever been, limited themselves to free weights only.

Actually I said, "You're right that no one has built and won a serious physique competition just using machines. Just as no one has built and won a serious physique competition just using free weights."

yeah i know youre in love with that saying, maybe it makes you feel smart, i dont know.

but it's just nitpicking. because when people say all, they generally dont mean all, but rather nearly all, or most. to point out something like "aha! so he DID use leg extensions as a warm up before he went on stage for mr olympia!" is just moronic. and misses the point. and does not invalidate the argument.

It's always nitpicking when it applies to you. I take people at their word. If you want to make statements with exceptions then simply say so. It's not about "feeling" smart or being "in love" with a statement or concept. It's simply a matter of whether it is true or not.

[ratherbebig]

Actually I said, "You're right that no one has built and won a serious physique competition just using machines. Just as no one has built and won a serious physique competition just using free weights."

It's always nitpicking when it applies to you. I take people at their word. If you want to make statements with exceptions then simply say so. It's not about "feeling" smart or being "in love" with a statement or concept. It's simply a matter of whether it is true or not.

just more pointless reasoning.

if someone is using 100 exercises, 99 of them being free weights, then its reasonable to say "that guy used only free weights" there's no point whatsoever in being a smart ass saying "no he didn't, 1 outta the 100 exercises he used was leg extensions!" what does that add to the discussion? nothing.

[pellius]

failure doesnt seem to be a smart or necessary training protocol.

dorian yates and ronnie coleman = injuries.

jay cutler, phil heath, shawn rhoden = not so much.

It may not be necessary but I don't know if it's not smart. There is no way on Heaven and Earth I could have worked full time supporting myself and putting myself through college training every day for two hours like most pro bodybuilders. There's no way I could have trained and competed in Jiu-Jitsu if I had to spend so much time in the gym. There is no way I could be in my present above average physical condition yet still have time to enjoy other things in life if I had to spend so much time in the gym instead of my current twice a week protocol.

As I so clearly and logically pointed out, you don't get hurt through hard training. I don't recall Mentzer or Viator getting hurt training HIT. Far more people have injured themselves training in the more traditional way that doing HIT though it's probably because of a far greater number train in that fashion.

BTW, Ronnie didn't train HIT nor did he hurt himself training hard. He used extremely sloppy form and using weights far heavier than was necessary to build his physique. Arthur Jone use to make clear that there was a very big difference in building strength and demonstrating strength. I'm not sure how much those 800 lb squats did for his already massive quad development that couldn't be done with 500 lbs. I wonder how heavy Ramy goes on squats.

[pellius]

just more pointless reasoning.

if someone is using 100 exercises, 99 of them being free weights, then its reasonable to say "that guy used only free weights" there's no point whatsoever in being a smart ass saying "no he didn't, 1 outta the 100 exercises he used was leg extensions!" what does that add to the discussion? nothing.

Another cop out when you can't contradict a point using logic and reason.

And no it is not reasonable to say that someone does something 100% of the time when it is not 100% of the time. It seems pointless to you because you don't believe in making precise points. That makes you a sloppy thinker with more concern about winning an argument than discovering the truth and gaining some knowledge and even wisdom.

[ratherbebig]

It may not be necessary but I don't know if it's not smart. There is no way on Heaven and Earth I could have worked full time supporting myself and putting myself through college training every day for two hours like most pro bodybuilders. There's no way I could have trained and competed in Jiu-Jitsu if I had to spend so much time in the gym. There is no way I could be in my present above average physical condition yet still have time to enjoy other things in life if I had to spend so much time in the gym instead of my current twice a week protocol.

assuming there's no other training protocol than twice a week at most and going to failure and to train for 2 hours. maybe there is. i would say it's even likely that there is. so maybe thats not really a good comparison. it is not hard to think of other possible training scenarios. how about training 2 times a week but just 1 hour? or 1 hour and a half? how about 45 minutes?

As I so clearly and logically pointed out, you don't get hurt through hard training.

hard training needs to be defined.

BTW, Ronnie didn't train HIT nor did he hurt himself training hard. He used extremely sloppy form and using weights far heavier than was necessary to build his physique.

how do you know this? whatabout dorian, you got something to say about his form?

[ratherbebig]

Another cop out when you can't contradict a point using logic and reason.

And no it is not reasonable to say that someone does something 100% of the time when it is not 100% of the time. It seems pointless to you because you don't believe in making precise points. That makes you a sloppy thinker with more concern about winning an argument than discovering the truth and gaining some knowledge and even wisdom.

whats the point of making a precise point if making a precise point is pointless?

[pellius]

assuming there's no other training protocol than twice a week at most and going to failure and to train for 2 hours. maybe there is. i would say it's even likely that there is. so maybe thats not really a good comparison. it is not hard to think of other possible training scenarios. how about training 2 times a week but just 1 hour? or 1 hour and a half? how about 45 minutes?

hard training needs to be defined.

how do you know this? whatabout dorian, you got something to say about his form?

You know, I got a PM the other asking me why I bother debating people like you. People that are obviously not deep thinkers, not particularly educated, and seem to have a lot of free time on their hands. I replied that I was just thinking about that too. I get easily sucked into it because I like to debate and share ideas and I just assume the person I'm talking and debating with is reasonable and capable of rational thought. Call it projecting. As Basile and Prime have accused me of, I take people here and the board too seriously. I need to be better at distinguishing the reasonable and rational ones from the ones that are just a joke and are better dealt with by a pat on the head, a gummy bear, and sent on their way.

[Vince B]

This debate overlooks an import fact. Machine design and function have evolved over the decades. Before 1982 Smith machines used chains to keep the bar horizontal. I believe I was the first to use linear bearings in a Smith Machine about 1982. The use of those low friction bearings forever changed those machines and friction was no longer an issue. Chains were discarded. Over the years some versions of those machines were angled about 10 to 15 degrees to give a better movement in squats and bench presses, etc. Some machines used counterweights to allow lower resistance on the apparatus.

When we discuss machines vs free weights it is imperative to specify what machines and who manufactured them. Not all machines are equal and few are 'perfect'. However, companies have been copying each other and there has been a convergence to more or less proper pivot points and movements.

I doubt any company makes a line that is the best of each apparatus. A super gym might have many versions of arm machines from several companies for example.

There is also the issue of fads in machine lines. Over 40 years ago people started using Nautilus machines. Bodybuilders as a group didn't favour them. If you trained at Golds Venice super gym you would know that the second room that had the Nautilus machines wasn't frequented much by muscleheads. They preferred the converging machines made by Hammer Strength. Soon enough Hammer was accepted as great machines by bodybuilders and even gym owners. The truth is some of those machines are great and others not so great.

So this discussion is way more complex that most here imagine. Let us take dumbbells versus biceps machines. Well, which biceps machines? There is only one biceps-supinator machine that I know of so how can any discussion be fair without assessing the worth of all such biceps machines? Nautilus made a few different biceps machines. The position of the user is important as well in these machines. The user can replicate seated dumbbell curls or they can have pads at 45 degrees, or pads at 90 degrees to the user or even pads adjacent to the head. When I designed my biceps machine I concluded that the seated position replicating dumbbell curls is the strongest position.  

My point here is a well designed machine with the proper motion and pivot points will be just as good as dumbbells and probably better for many reasons. What has never been established by the free weight advocates is how are they superior to all machines? Arthur Jones wrote volumes about how his machines were superior to barbells. Sometimes he claimed his machines were barbells but improved barbells. From my experience as a designer and builder of gym equipment I would say that the best machines are superior to free weights. Eventually bodybuilders will gravitate to using whatever helps them improve their physiques. That is exactly what we see champion bodybuilders using. Plenty of machines and some free weights. Could these champions use only machines. Absolutely.

[ratherbebig]

You know, I got a PM the other asking me why I bother debating people like you. People that are obviously not deep thinkers, not particularly educated, and seem to have a lot of free time on their hands. I replied that I was just thinking about that too. I get easily sucked into it because I like to debate and share ideas and I just assume the person I'm talking and debating with is reasonable and capable of rational thought. Call it projecting. As Basile and Prime have accused me of, I take people here and the board too seriously. I need to be better at distinguishing the reasonable and rational ones from the ones that are just a joke and are better dealt with by a pat on the head, a gummy bear, and sent on their way.

dont think the above adds to the discussion regarding machines vs free weights, training to failure etc. maybe you can try again. or not.

[pellius]

This debate overlooks an import fact. Machine design and function have evolved over the decades. Before 1982 Smith machines used chains to keep the bar horizontal. I believe I was the first to use linear bearings in a Smith Machine about 1982. The use of those low friction bearings forever changed those machines and friction was no longer an issue. Chains were discarded. Over the years some versions of those machines were angled about 10 to 15 degrees to give a better movement in squats and bench presses, etc. Some machines used counterweights to allow lower resistance on the apparatus.

When we discuss machines vs free weights it is imperative to specify what machines and who manufactured them. Not all machines are equal and few are 'perfect'. However, companies have been copying each other and there has been a convergence to more or less proper pivot points and movements.

I doubt any company makes a line that is the best of each apparatus. A super gym might have many versions of arm machines from several companies for example.

There is also the issue of fads in machine lines. Over 40 years ago people started using Nautilus machines. Bodybuilders as a group didn't favour them. If you trained at Golds Venice super gym you would know that the second room that had the Nautilus machines wasn't frequented much by muscleheads. They preferred the converging machines made by Hammer Strength. Soon enough Hammer was accepted as great machines by bodybuilders and even gym owners. The truth is some of those machines are great and others not so great.

So this discussion is way more complex that most here imagine. Let us take dumbbells versus biceps machines. Well, which biceps machines? There is only one biceps-supinator machine that I know of so how can any discussion be fair without assessing the worth of all such biceps machines? Nautilus made a few different biceps machines. The position of the user is important as well in these machines. The user can replicate seated dumbbell curls or they can have pads at 45 degrees, or pads at 90 degrees to the user or even pads adjacent to the head. When I designed my biceps machine I concluded that the seated position replicating dumbbell curls is the strongest position.  

My point here is a well designed machine with the proper motion and pivot points will be just as good as dumbbells and probably better for many reasons. What has never been established by the free weight advocates is how are they superior to all machines? Arthur Jones wrote volumes about how his machines were superior to barbells. Sometimes he claimed his machines were barbells but improved barbells. From my experience as a designer and builder of gym equipment I would say that the best machines are superior to free weights. Eventually bodybuilders will gravitate to using whatever helps them improve their physiques. That is exactly what we see champion bodybuilders using. Plenty of machines and some free weights. Could these champions use only machines. Absolutely.

I still think friction is still a factor on most machines. The machines that are using cables and pulleys. I think that what is good about the plate loaded Hammer machines. As the weight gets heavier and if you don't raise and lower the weight at a very deliberate pace, friction does not play a huge role but it's still there. It increased the positive resistance and decreases the negative resistance which is the opposite of what you want.

Have you ever had the opportunity to use the Medx line? Those really come pretty darn close to eliminating friction. They raise the weight from the bottom rather than pulling from the top of the weight stack. Another Arthur Jones invention and another example of his genius.

[pellius]

dont think the above adds to the discussion regarding machines vs free weights, training to failure etc. maybe you can try again. or not.

A cop friend of mine was relating a recent incident he had on his shift dealing with someone he pulled over for speeding. He made a comment that resonated with me. He said that you can tell a lot about a person just by the way they talk. They're level of education, disposition, income level...

The same can be said for how a person writes. His spelling, grammar, punctuation, sentence construction... It's really a sad testament as to what our public schools are producing these days.

Now, I don't expect to read polish prose on a bbing message board but Jesus H. Christ! Just go back and read the way you write and frame arguments.

Tell me, when was the last time you ever read a book?   

[Vince B]

A cop friend of mine was relating a recent incident he had on his shift dealing with someone he pulled over for speeding. He made a comment that resonated with me. He said that you can tell a lot about a person just by the way they talk. They're level of education, disposition, income level...

The same can be said for how a person writes. His spelling, grammar, punctuation, sentence construction... It's really a sad testament as to what our public schools are producing these days.

Now, I don't expect to read polish prose on a bbing message board but Jesus H. Christ! Just go back and read the way you write and frame arguments.

Tell me, when was the last time you ever read a book?   

Their level of education....

[Vince B]

I still think friction is still a factor on most machines. The machines that are using cables and pulleys. I think that what is good about the plate loaded Hammer machines. As the weight gets heavier and if you don't raise and lower the weight at a very deliberate pace, friction does not play a huge role but it's still there. It increased the positive resistance and decreases the negative resistance which is the opposite of what you want.

Have you ever had the opportunity to use the Medx line? Those really come pretty darn close to eliminating friction. They raise the weight from the bottom rather than pulling from the top of the weight stack. Another Arthur Jones invention and another example of his genius.

The amount of friction present in most modern machines is very low. The coefficient of friction of linear bearings is tiny. What I did for my machines was use larger pulleys and two sealed bearings....8 inch pulleys for pulldown machines. If you sat nearby when someone was training on one of my machines you wouldn't hear much from the machine. They are almost silent. I use linear bearings on the weight stacks which is an overkill but that is the standard I set for myself.

I like some of the MedX machines. Arthur Jones was a true genius and it is amazing that he was behind two lines of gym equipment. I like the MedX triceps machine which provides increasing resistance near the end of the movement where it is needed. I must get around to building my own triceps machine.

[Coach is Back!]

bill, bill! you need to throw in some machines in your training routine! stop training with free weights only!

said noone ever.

I trained with the man for 4 years and that pretty much sums it up although we did train on some machines nautilus leg curl, extension, bicep/triceps machine and 90degree leg press (45degree wasn’t invented then but I would say the the ratio between free weight and machines was about 80/20

[pellius]

The amount of friction present in most modern machines is very low. The coefficient of friction of linear bearings is tiny. What I did for my machines was use larger pulleys and two sealed bearings....8 inch pulleys for pulldown machines. If you sat nearby when someone was training on one of my machines you wouldn't hear much from the machine. They are almost silent. I use linear bearings on the weight stacks which is an overkill but that is the standard I set for myself.

I like some of the MedX machines. Arthur Jones was a true genius and it is amazing that he was behind two lines of gym equipment. I like the MedX triceps machine which provides increasing resistance near the end of the movement where it is needed. I must get around to building my own triceps machine.

Well, I have to admit that this topic is a bit, if not way, over my head. I don't even know what linear bearings are. But it's true that a lot, though not all, the machines have improved tremendously and I think, hope, will continue to get better. Because of shoulder issues I am pathetically weak on a lot of shoulder movements. I can only press 3 lbs over my head with my left arm for about 5 reps before I need assistance. I can do maybe 15 lbs with my right. So when I do the lateral raise on the Life Fitness machine I just use one plate. Unless the machine is well maintained and oiled (which it never is. In fact, I squirt a little WD-40 on the rails and joints prior to my set), I still feel the bit of drag because the weight I am using is so light. Using the Free Motion cable system is the worse compared to regular cable set you get on those combo affairs with the cable cross-overs, overhead pull-down, and low cable row. The friction seems much less on those cable systems though the starting 20 lbs is too heavy for me to do single arm laterals. With the Free Motion, I just have to pick a weight heavy enough that minimizes or cancels out the friction of the cable and pulleys and pretty much do force reps from the beginning. Meaning, since the weight is too heavy for me to do on my own I have to assist on the very first rep and beyond with my other arm in doing one arm side laterals. In a way, that may be advantages because that would mean I am at a maximum intensity from the first rep rather than having to get to the end of the set before I need to do forced reps and other intensity variables.

[Vince B]

Well, I have to admit that this topic is a bit, if not way, over my head. I don't even know what linear bearings are. But it's true that a lot, though not all, the machines have improved tremendously and I think, hope, will continue to get better. Because of shoulder issues I am pathetically weak on a lot of shoulder movements. I can only press 3 lbs over my head with my left arm for about 5 reps before I need assistance. I can do maybe 15 lbs with my right. So when I do the lateral raise on the Life Fitness machine I just use one plate. Unless the machine is well maintained and oiled (which it never is. In fact, I squirt a little WD-40 on the rails and joints prior to my set), I still feel the bit of drag because the weight I am using is so light. Using the Free Motion cable system is the worse compared to regular cable set you get on those combo affairs with the cable cross-overs, overhead pull-down, and low cable row. The friction seems much less on those cable systems though the starting 20 lbs is too heavy for me to do single arm laterals. With the Free Motion, I just have to pick a weight heavy enough that minimizes or cancels out the friction of the cable and pulleys and pretty much do force reps from the beginning. Meaning, since the weight is too heavy for me to do on my own I have to assist on the very first rep and beyond with my other arm in doing one arm side laterals. In a way, that may be advantages because that would mean I am at a maximum intensity from the first rep rather than having to get to the end of the set before I need to do forced reps and other intensity variables.

WD40 now comes in many forms. The kind that unlocks things isn't good for most gym equipment because it evaporates the oil or other lubrication. Use a product that is a spray grease. For linear bearings use only sewing machine oil....these bearings don't need lubricating to operate but need oil to prevent rust forming. Never use silicone products on shafts since they tend to clog the system.

Linear bearings are used mainly on shafts. Imagine an enclosure that allows rows of ball bearings to circulate. These bearings require a tiny space to operate so that is why when installed properly have almost zero friction.

I don't advocate training a limb/muscle that is very weak. Find an exercise that targets the muscle indirectly. In your case it shouldn't be necessary to any direct shoulder exercises. If you have been doing these for months or even years without improvement then it is pointless to continue doing them.

[pellius]

WD40 now comes in many forms. The kind that unlocks things isn't good for most gym equipment because it evaporates the oil or other lubrication. Use a product that is a spray grease. For linear bearings use only sewing machine oil....these bearings don't need lubricating to operate but need oil to prevent rust forming. Never use silicone products on shafts since they tend to clog the system.

Linear bearings are used mainly on shafts. Imagine an enclosure that allows rows of ball bearings to circulate. These bearings require a tiny space to operate so that is why when installed properly have almost zero friction.

I don't advocate training a limb/muscle that is very weak. Find an exercise that targets the muscle indirectly. In your case it shouldn't be necessary to any direct shoulder exercises. If you have been doing these for months or even years without improvement then it is pointless to continue doing them.

Hah! I had a feeling WD-40 wasn't the best to use. It does work while I do my set.

At my age, I am not looking so much to improve but to maintain and delay the ravages of age. When I don't train my shoulders, or any muscle for that matter, it starts to atrophy.

[illuminati]

Well, I have to admit that this topic is a bit, if not way, over my head. I don't even know what linear bearings are. But it's true that a lot, though not all, the machines have improved tremendously and I think, hope, will continue to get better. Because of shoulder issues I am pathetically weak on a lot of shoulder movements. I can only press 3 lbs over my head with my left arm for about 5 reps before I need assistance. I can do maybe 15 lbs with my right. So when I do the lateral raise on the Life Fitness machine I just use one plate. Unless the machine is well maintained and oiled (which it never is. In fact, I squirt a little WD-40 on the rails and joints prior to my set), I still feel the bit of drag because the weight I am using is so light. Using the Free Motion cable system is the worse compared to regular cable set you get on those combo affairs with the cable cross-overs, overhead pull-down, and low cable row. The friction seems much less on those cable systems though the starting 20 lbs is too heavy for me to do single arm laterals. With the Free Motion, I just have to pick a weight heavy enough that minimizes or cancels out the friction of the cable and pulleys and pretty much do force reps from the beginning. Meaning, since the weight is too heavy for me to do on my own I have to assist on the very first rep and beyond with my other arm in doing one arm side laterals. In a way, that may be advantages because that would mean I am at a maximum intensity from the first rep rather than having to get to the end of the set before I need to do forced reps and other intensity variables.

Just a thought - Could you not use a light dumbbell or small weight disc if the machine friction is too much.
Doing a light weight for a few more reps may help with getting some blood in the area before doing
Forced / assisted reps.

Or as Vince says maybe try working them indirectly

Injuries are the worst to deal with & work around - Very Frustrating