Paul Dilette - Freak

[pellius]

The answer is not just free weights but how an exercise is performed. 

Balancing the weight while standing involves many more muscles.  Lifting weights while standing on your feet, pushing against an unsupported weight involves the muscles that align and support the spine. 

Machines do not require you to balance the weight because you are pushing against a braced object. 

For example, a barbell squat develops superior strength as compared to a leg press.

A standing barbell press develops superior strength compared to a machine press.

Spend your time doing machine presses and then try the same weight with a barbell.  You'll fail. 

Some NFL teams jumped all over the Nautilus machines when they came out but after a few years of their players getting crushed by teams that used the old standbys (power cleans, barbell squats, free weight bench presses, etc.) those Nautilus machines were relegated to rehab/prehab.

Balancing a weight does involved more muscles. Sure you are using more muscles to properly preform over head dumbell presses that you would on a machine. But why and how does recruiting these anncillary muscles to maintain stability make it a better deltoid exercise? It seems to me that having other muscle help and support the movement takes aways from the targeted muscle.

The "skill" and technique to performing a particular movement is independent to actual muscle strength. That's why one can increase the resistance of a particular movement with zero corresponding increase in strength simply by doing it better and more efficiently.

This is the reason Athur Jones, when measuring strength increases before and after the experiment, used the Universal weight station. One, is that he felt measuring strength just  using his machines gave the appearance of bias, and, two, the Universal weight station duplicated traditional barbell exercise but took skill, having to balance a free weight, out of the equation.

[IroNat]

Balancing a weight does involved more muscles. Sure you are using more muscles to properly preform over head dumbell presses that you would on a machine. But why and how does recruiting these anncillary muscles to maintain stability make it a better deltoid exercise? It seems to me that having other muscle help and support the movement takes aways from the targeted muscle.

The "skill" and technique to performing a particular movement is independent to actual muscle strength. That's why one can increase the resistance of a particular movement with zero corresponding increase in strength simply by doing it better and more efficiently.

This is the reason Athur Jones, when measuring strength increases before and after the experiment, used the Universal weight station. One, is that he felt measuring strength just  using his machines gave the appearance of bias, and, two, the Universal weight station duplicated traditional barbell exercise but took skill, having to balance a free weight, out of the equation.

For aesthetic purposes (bodybuilding), machines are just as good.  Some are better even.

Jones did say his machines were superior in strength building to free weights because of the cam.

I'm only saying machines are better for total body power and strength.  For athletics you want total body power, the body expressing power and strength as one unit. 

The Universal machines Jones used did not require you to balance the weight.  I trained a lot on the original Zinkin Universal machines in college and high school.  I made good gains from a bodybuilding perspective using them but compared to free weights the strength developed was inferior since you are forced to move the weight in a fixed plane for the pressing exercises and the leg press.

They were/are excellent machines though.  If I had the space I'd like to have one of them.

[escrima]

The answer is not just free weights but how an exercise is performed. 

Balancing the weight while standing involves many more muscles.  Lifting weights while standing on your feet, pushing against an unsupported weight involves the muscles that align and support the spine. 

Machines do not require you to balance the weight because you are pushing against a braced object. 

For example, a barbell squat develops superior strength as compared to a leg press.

A standing barbell press develops superior strength compared to a machine press.

Spend your time doing machine presses and then try the same weight with a barbell.  You'll fail. 

So, it's really the way an exercise is performed.  You could do free weight exercises in a supported fashion and get a less optimum result.

Some NFL teams jumped all over the Nautilus machines when they came out but after a few years of their players getting crushed by teams that used the old standbys (power cleans, barbell squats, free weight bench presses, etc.) those Nautilus machines were relegated to rehab/prehab.

do not argue with Pellius, he is an expert on everything
however i do agree with him on some of Jones theories
notice i said some
isolation of any muscle is not possible, not in a strict sence
athletic performance is in most cases better trained with free weights

[IroNat]

do not argue with Pellius, he is an expert on everything
however i do agree with him on some of Jones theories
notice i said some
isolation of any muscle is not possible, not in a strict sence
athletic performance is in most cases better trained with free weights

We are not arguing, we are discussing.  The original Nautilus machines were great, probably the best machines ever made, but I haven't used current modern machines so I can't really say.  The bicep supinator is certainly up there at the top.

The best of all worlds is to use machines and free weights, whatever is best for your purposes.

[pellius]

For aesthetic purposes (bodybuilding), machines are just as good.  Some are better even.

I'm only saying machines are better for total body power and strength.  For athletics you want total body power, the body expressing power and strength as one unit. 

The Universal machines Jones used did not require you to balance the weight.  I trained a lot on the original Zinkin Universal machines in college and high school.  I made good gains from a bodybuilding perspective using them but compared to free weights the strength developed was inferior since you are forced to move the weight in a fixed plane for the pressing exercises and the leg press.

I did say that Jones chose the Universal station precisely because it didn't require balancing, a skill, the weight being moved.

"I'm only saying machines are better for total body power and strength.  For athletics you want total body power, the body expressing power and strength as one unit."

I really don't understand what you mean by this. Machines give you total body power and strength. For athetics, and I presume you are now talking about training with free weights, you want total body power "expressed" with power and strength as a single unit.

How is machine power different from free weight power? If you got two clones both training as boxers following the exact same training program except one trained with free weights and the other on Natilus machines how would their, say, right hook differ in terms of "power". How are they're actual muscle involved in the movement contracting differently?

[escrima]

We are not arguing, we are discussing.  The original Nautilus machines were great, probably the best machines ever made, but I haven't used current modern machines so I can't really say.  The bicep supinator is certainly up there at the top.

The best of all worlds is to use machines and free weights, whatever is best for your purposes.

it starts that way
before you know it you will be a punk,bitch & will know he is a BJJ expert

[pellius]

We are not arguing, we are discussing.  The original Nautilus machines were great, probably the best machines ever made, but I haven't used current modern machines so I can't really say.  The bicep supinator is certainly up there at the top.

The best of all worlds is to use machines and free weights, whatever is best for your purposes.

I do feel that once Jones sold off Nautilus it took a downward turn, or at least didn't improve as I believe it would have under Jones. When Jones developed the MedX line it was a marked improvement over Nautilus. It solved, or drastically reduced, the problem of friction where the resistance in relation to the weight stack increases during the concentric phase of the movement and acted as a brake on the eccentric portion. Ideally you'd want the opposite. To have the eccentric phase increase rather than decrease during the course of the movement. Jone's son, Gary, improved on this by his free weight based Hammer machines. With MedX the resistance is initiated from the bottom rather than pulled from the top and the weight stack stroke is greatly reduced. In other words, the weight stack doesn't move nearly as much in relation the full range motion it is providing resistance to. Less time dragging on the glides.

If you ever have an opportunity to try a MedX machine, jump on it. It's like greased lighting. Too bad few gyms carry the equipment and it is mostly found in medical rehab facilities.

[pellius]

it starts that way
before you know it you will be a punk,bitch & will know he is a BJJ expert

Please ignore this midget troll. It is obvious he is not very intelligent and having any kind of rational discussion is impossible.

I'm mean, just look at the way he writes. His grammar and punctuation. Note he likes to write in italics and goes through the trouble of noting this but instead of using just one italic notation to cover his whole post he goes line by line. You can see this when you quote him. He just hasn't figured it out.

[escrima]

I did say that Jones chose the Universal station precisely because it didn't require balancing, a skill, the weight being moved.

"I'm only saying machines are better for total body power and strength.  For athletics you want total body power, the body expressing power and strength as one unit."

I really don't understand what you mean by this. Machines give you total body power and strength. For athetics, and I presume you are now talking about training with free weights, you want total body power "expressed" with power and strength as a single unit.

How is machine power different from free weight power? If you got two clones both training as boxers following the exact same training program except one trained with free weights and the other on Natilus machines how would their, say, right hook differ in terms of "power". How are they're actual muscle involved in the movement contracting differently?

let us use your example of your 500lb squats
why then can you use double that weight on a leg press machine

[escrima]

Please ignore this midget troll. It is obvious he is not very intelligent and having any kind of rational discussion is impossible.

I'm mean, just look at the way he writes. His grammar and punctuation. Note he likes to write in italics and goes through the trouble of noting this but instead of using just one italic notation to cover his whole post he goes line by line. You can see this when you quote him. He just hasn't figured it out.

not important
I do get under your skin
you are now trying to be rational
you will lose it

[bigbychoices]

            I have a machine just like that one in my home gym.  I had 2 but i recently sold 1 of them.  i also have the old blue nautilus line of machines including the pullover. again i had 2 but sold 1 a year ago. I also have cybex wateman titan and others. Plus i have free weights dumbells both hex and prostyle up to 120 lbs.  I use machines more now than free weights and let me tell you there is no comparision between machine strength and free weight strength.  The amount of weight you can move on a machine is so much higher than free weights its not even funny.

                                  Strength is not equal. There is much more to it than what one crazy know it all poster seems to think.  Free weights mimic the bodys natural movement and uses more other muscles to help. You have to stabilize it balance it learn the movement etc. Machines you just push or pull. Also does anyone notice you can do more with pull DOWNS than you can with pull UPS.  Big difference. and pull UPS are way more superior than pull DOWNS.   doing pull UPS is using the body in the natural way its meant. your actually pulling the weight (you) upward.  pull DOWNS your doing an unnatural movement (pulling a weight down)  . i love my machines and you can get great awesome workouts but nothing beats free weights. NOTHING                 

[bigbychoices]

                   But remember bodybuilding is not strength training. We get stronger as a side effect of building our bodies. If you train just for strength all the time you will improve your body somewhat but nothing like you will if you bodybuild. So train hard (but dont kill yourself thinking there is a heavy duty way to get there faster. lmao) use the type of equipment and exercises that YOU like or feel works for YOU. Dont copy or do what others do  find what works for you.  (Unlike the one know it poster on here who thinks there is one type fits all weight training strategy. ) But some helpful hints  eat good FOOD ( and no not supplements nothing but expensive garbage) sleep as much as your body needs ( some need 10 hours or 8 etc . i need 5 hours or less) reach your genetic potential BEFORE you experiment with steroids if you so decide to.

[harmankardon1]

For aesthetic purposes (bodybuilding), machines are just as good.  Some are better even.

Jones did say his machines were superior in strength building to free weights because of the cam.

I'm only saying machines are better for total body power and strength.  For athletics you want total body power, the body expressing power and strength as one unit. 

The Universal machines Jones used did not require you to balance the weight.  I trained a lot on the original Zinkin Universal machines in college and high school.  I made good gains from a bodybuilding perspective using them but compared to free weights the strength developed was inferior since you are forced to move the weight in a fixed plane for the pressing exercises and the leg press.

They were/are excellent machines though.  If I had the space I'd like to have one of them.

Fuck that's jogged an old memory for me....^

I had a mate in high school I would work out in his old mans gym, he had a well equipped good sized shed setup..

In it was that very machine you just posted. Seems almost exact, it was a solid well built machine I had some great early workouts on it! Cheers for posting..

[IroNat]

I did say that Jones chose the Universal station precisely because it didn't require balancing, a skill, the weight being moved.

Sorry, my bad.  I read that wrong.

[IroNat]

I did say that Jones chose the Universal station precisely because it didn't require balancing, a skill, the weight being moved.

"I'm only saying machines are better for total body power and strength.  For athletics you want total body power, the body expressing power and strength as one unit."

I really don't understand what you mean by this. Machines give you total body power and strength. For athetics, and I presume you are now talking about training with free weights, you want total body power "expressed" with power and strength as a single unit.

How is machine power different from free weight power? If you got two clones both training as boxers following the exact same training program except one trained with free weights and the other on Natilus machines how would their, say, right hook differ in terms of "power". How are they're actual muscle involved in the movement contracting differently?

I can't really explain it better than I did.

[Van_Bilderass]

Something I noticed a long time ago is how the resistance profile of most back machines is crappy.
This dude explains why:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CENQ_d4DWzP/?igshid=1pqi2hx2mryl8

You can typically do "twice" as much weight for the first part of the movement on most machines so the whole whole movement doesn't get overloaded optimally.

[Humble Narcissist]

I did say that Jones chose the Universal station precisely because it didn't require balancing, a skill, the weight being moved.

"I'm only saying machines are better for total body power and strength.  For athletics you want total body power, the body expressing power and strength as one unit."

I really don't understand what you mean by this. Machines give you total body power and strength. For athetics, and I presume you are now talking about training with free weights, you want total body power "expressed" with power and strength as a single unit.

How is machine power different from free weight power? If you got two clones both training as boxers following the exact same training program except one trained with free weights and the other on Natilus machines how would their, say, right hook differ in terms of "power". How are they're actual muscle involved in the movement contracting differently?

Using the boxer example I think the one who lifted free weights would develop more punching power because of the work of the stabilizer muscles.  When you lift free weights it isn't just the resistance but also the balancing and the other muscles involved like the core to keep you up and holding that weight.  With machines like Nautilus that focus on 1 muscle only you are only strengthening that 1 muscle.

[Van_Bilderass]

Let's say you should strengthen the "stabilizers" during your weight training if you are an athlete. So a free weight squat is better than a smith squat. Well, say you are an MMA fighter, you get into a lot of weird positions. Would a squat where you also round your back and twist your upper body be even better than a standard squat? Perhaps lift one foot off the floor during your reps? The "stabilizers" would work even harder.

I'm not an expert on training athletes but I've seen a bunch of trainers say to keep your muscle strengthening and skill development separate and that the stabilizer stuff is outdated. Though I'm sure there are other opinions out there still.

I've seen some have issue with the term stabilizer muscles itself, as there's no such thing really. There's just muscles. Though I sort of get what people mean.

[Humble Narcissist]

Let's say you should strengthen the "stabilizers" during your weight training if you are an athlete. So a free weight squat is better than a smith squat. Well, say you are an MMA fighter, you get into a lot of weird positions. Would a squat where you also round your back and twist your upper body be even better than a standard squat? Perhaps lift one foot off the floor during your reps? The "stabilizers" would work even harder.

I'm not an expert on training athletes but I've seen a bunch of trainers say to keep your muscle strengthening and skill development separate and that the stabilizer stuff is outdated. Though I'm sure there are other opinions out there still.

I've seen some have issue with the term stabilizer muscles itself, as there's no such thing really. There's just muscles. Though I sort of get what people mean.

Boxers, wrestlers and MMA fighters do all kinds of exercises for stabilizers.  Farmer's walk, pushing sleds, lifting sand bags, plyometrics, calisthenics, etc, etc.  No fighter trains for strength exclusively on machines and most never use weight machines at all.

[Pet shop boys]

End of thread




WHOSHHHHHHHHHHHHHH  TANAKA

[pellius]

not important
I do get under your skin
you are now trying to be rational
you will lose it

Coming from a guy that threatened me over PMs. You've already lost it. Nobody takes you seriously. Nobody is going to have a serious discussion with you. Nobody here even likes you other than your other gimmick Roast Beef Pecs.

[pellius]

Boxers, wrestlers and MMA fighters do all kinds of exercises for stabilizers.  Farmer's walk, pushing sleds, lifting sand bags, plyometrics, calisthenics, etc, etc.  No fighter trains for strength exclusively on machines and most never use weight machines at all.

Are you able to point out specific muscles that are "stabilizers" as oppose to just skeletal muscles? Is there a specific class of muscles classified as stabilizers? To me, all muscles in a sense are stabilizers in that they hold your body together along with the skeleton. But if all muscles are stabilizers then it is a meaningless term. It's just muscle.

The argument I hear is that because free weights require "stabilizing" muscles they are harder to do and therefore more productive. So the implication being is that the more unstable the environment the more productive the exercise.

If I want to target my quads, it seems to me that the more unstable the environment the less I am able to target my quads because other muscles are taking over to maintain this stable environment. If recruiting more stabilizing muscles is a good thing to stimulate hypertrophy on a targetted muscle, shouldn't squatting on a Swiss ball be more productive than typical barbell squats? Certainly, squatting on a Swiss ball is much more difficult but is it more productive? It is if your goal is to enhance your ability, your skill, in Swiss ball squatting but because all these other "stabilizing" muscles are needed to perform the movement it takes away from maximizing resistance, and therefore stimulating an adaptive response, for your quads -- again assuming that you are squatting to increase the size and strength of you quads.

Mike Mentzer once joked that if he knew how important "stabilizing" muscles were and how an unstable environment promotes this, he would have hit the gym during an earthquake instead of seeking cover.

[Van_Bilderass]

Boxers, wrestlers and MMA fighters do all kinds of exercises for stabilizers.  Farmer's walk, pushing sleds, lifting sand bags, plyometrics, calisthenics, etc, etc.  No fighter trains for strength exclusively on machines and most never use weight machines at all.

Sure, but there's really no such thing as a stabilizer muscle. I would say a farmer walk or pushing a sled is more conditioning work. Some powerlifters do those too, they call it GPP training, general physical preparedness, general endurance. What would be a stabilizer involved in pushing a sled that can't be trained with a machine? Pushing a sled is calves, quads... pulling is like a leg extension for quads and so on. Farmers walk might involve lots of obliques, but you could do side bends on a smith machine as well. So an athlete could train on machine more for pure strength and do those other things for endurance, not so much for a particular "stabilizer", which I haven't really seen defined anywhere. Any muscle on the body could be a stabilizer, if you do a machine press your quads and glutes could be stabilizing your body during the exercise  -  but here's the thing, the advantage with machines is in fact that you don't need as much stabilizing. Why is it an advantage? Because this will increase the output of the target muscle! Say a seated leg curl, the hams can be hit harder due to you being locked in so the stimulus for the hamstring will be higher = faster, better results.


https://www.instagram.com/p/CDyrldFDxDj/?igshid=1csz8w8hmyxxr

Edit: didn't see Pellius's post as I was writing mine at the same time, he said much the same things.

[oldschoolfan]

Are you able to point out specific muscles that are "stabilizers" as oppose to just skeletal muscles? Is there a specific class of muscles classified as stabilizers? To me, all muscles in a sense are stabilizers in that they hold your body together along with the skeleton. But if all muscles are stabilizers then it is a meaningless term. It's just muscle.

The argument I hear is that because free weights require "stabilizing" muscles they are harder to do and therefore more productive. So the implication being is that the more unstable the environment the more productive the exercise.

If I want to target my quads, it seems to me that the more unstable the environment the less I am able to target my quads because other muscles are taking over to maintain this stable environment. If recruiting more stabilizing muscles is a good thing to stimulate hypertrophy on a targetted muscle, shouldn't squatting on a Swiss ball be more productive than typical barbell squats? Certainly, squatting on a Swiss ball is much more difficult but is it more productive? It is if your goal is to enhance your ability, your skill, in Swiss ball squatting but because all these other "stabilizing" muscles are needed to perform the movement it takes away from maximizing resistance, and therefore stimulating an adaptive response, for your quads -- again assuming that you are squatting to increase the size and strength of you quads.

Mike Mentzer once joked that if he knew how important "stabilizing" muscles were and how an unstable environment promotes this, he would have hit the gym during an earthquake instead of seeking cover.

pellius the med x chest press , was the best chest press i have ever used, unfortunately only seen it one time.

[escrima]

I can't really explain it better than I did.

you explained it fine
some people Just can't understand simple explanations