machines vs. free weights?

I'm with Calkid on this one - and it's just common sense - doing squats on a Smith machine will yield qualitativley different results from doing them barbell style. I'm not talking about magnitude of hypertrophy - i'm saying "balance skills" associated with a barbell squat will be developed that won't be with a Smith machine.

Now say you're out in the woods, and you want to squat a log onto your shoulder, which is not the same as a squat but similar - i'd bet that the barbell fella would be able to do so more easily than a smith machiner.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ([xeno]Julios @ July 24 2003,6:03)]I'm with Calkid on this one - and it's just common sense - doing squats on a Smith machine will yield qualitativley different results from doing them barbell style. I'm not talking about magnitude of hypertrophy - i'm saying "balance skills" associated with a barbell squat will be developed that won't be with a Smith machine.
Now say you're out in the woods, and you want to squat a log onto your shoulder, which is not the same as a squat but similar - i'd bet that the barbell fella would be able to do so more easily than a smith machiner.
Click to expand...
i think it's just a matter of practicality.

i mean, i know what you're saying too, but you basically just replaced 'barbell' with 'log' and said that a free weight 'log' squat would translate better than a machine equivalent. it's hard to disagree with that.

for general recreation/athletics, i really don't think it matters much, is all. if one is engaged in athletics, i'd think the bulk of proprioceptive/motor learning would come on the field, anyways. and if one were simply a layperson, i doubt they need to squat logs in the woods with any regularity.

note: i did say that the deadlift/squat were hard to approximate. i would favor these over any machine-type equivalent simply because they are fundamental movements and what imitations i have seen are kind of poor. but, say...for a bench press...

know what i mean? unless you wanna bench logs now too
tounge.gif
 
Ok, I'm in agreement - but don't underestimate real life functionality transferrence.

For instance, I worked as a truck stacker for a while, where I'd stack 50 pound boxes into 15 foot high trailers that were 40 feet deep. On a good day I'd stack 2 or 3 trucks.

I'm betting I'd be more efficient at that movement had I already been working out not only due to increased muscular strength, but also due to balance skills associated with military presses.

Now, as you correctly argue, this added benefit would be miniscule if I were a stacker, since I'd develop those skills in the field naturally - but what if I just one day happened to have to stack a truck - most likely I'd be better prepared to do so as a result of the balance skills developed through military pressing.

So for athletes, it's plausible to me (as someone who doesn't know much about biology/physiology/etc) that the gains aren't as much, but you never know when that emergency will arise...

could be a life and death situation goddamnit! - say you're on your honeymoon and you're with your wife on the edge of a cliff, things well... heat up... and all of a sudden a strong wind blows!

Now a couple that has done their homework and has been engaging in compound free weight activities, outside of the realm of kama sutra, will likely survive this ordeal and in fact it might add to the thrill.

Whereas the pair that had focused on machines too heavily, might end up on the healine news of the Hawaiian Herald :)

[/end grasping mode]
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]if one is engaged in athletics, i'd think the bulk of proprioceptive/motor learning would come on the field, anyways. and if one were simply a layperson, i doubt they need to squat logs in the woods with any regularity.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree at all. Some of the balance training I'd prescribe very much resembles plyometrics and multiplanar hops -- stuff that sports quite well approximates. But the layperson who doesn't do recreational sports typically has godawful balance.

I'm just saying, if it's a choice between machine weights and freeweights, it doesn't hurt to pick the free, and may just help. For me, that's reason enough to recommend them near exclusively (except for an extreme beginner client).
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Calkid @ July 24 2003,5:15)]But there also is a general sense of balance
Click to expand...
Seeing as your claims still go against the vast amount of research in the area of motor learning, I would like to see documented scientific proof that you can improve your "overall sense" or "general attribute" of balance.

IOW, show me good scientific proof!

No one ever produces such. It always ends up to be certification dogma.
 
The question causing all the trouble seems to be: does free weight training improve functional strength more efficiently than machine training?

Another question that is of much more interest to me (and probably many other people more inclined towards HST than SST): what is better for hypertrophy?

It has already been said that due to a more stable environment, there is more potential for overload with machines, which should result in more mechanical tension on the prime movers (let's just forget about stabilizers for a minute). Can this be of any use in a HST cycle?

Questions to consider:

Comparing the machine version and the free-weight version of an exercise, is there a greater difference between effective starting weight and repetition max in the former? :confused:

Would it be useful to start your cycle with free weights and switch over to machines during fives/negs? :confused:
 
What about spillover effect, or androgen receptor activity? - i'm stabbing in dark here, someone help me out.

Basically what i'm getting at - could stimulating say a large group of stabilizers perhaps effect a "leakage" of sorts? Maybe enhance the "satellite cell donation" to nearby tissue?
 
For the record, I would not treain exclusively with machines, barbells or dumbells. I would rotate. No matter what you use, your CNS is going to adapt to the "groove".

Also, the majority of "stabilizers" are still accutated for the machine counterpart (keep in mind, the term "stabilizer" is contextual and every muscle that acts as a stabilizer can be targeted as a prime mover in another machine motion).
 
Not that it matters much as far as stabalization, but exactly what machines are we talking about? The standard brainless machines you see normal shmoes on once in awhile when they decide to come in to the gym, or something along the lines of HammerStrength machines? The reason I'm asking this is that for the past few cycles I've been concentrating primarily on free weights, but this cycle I'm using pretty much HammerStrength machines. Just started so it's difficult to tell if there's going to be any difference in muscle growth, but I was assuming that there wouldn't be when going for hypertrophy.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Lil Popa Pump @ July 24 2003,10:11)]IOW, show me good scientific proof!
No one ever produces such. It always ends up to be certification dogma.
Click to expand...
*HUGEsigh* Painful but true.... gym myths are not just a product of in house gossip. ;)

My thinking has changed a lot on this subject recently. It really doesn't make sense that balance training would make a HUGE difference to a non-athlete if said non-athlete does nothing to challenge his sense of balance in normal daily activities.

However, there are still benefits to using free weights. It's a lot more fun for me to do free weight lifts, and fun is beneficial both physically and mentally. Then there's the coolness and/or showing off factor, not that a woman of my years would enjoy that
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif


Learning a new lift or correcting form on a familiar one poses a challenge for me, a mental and physical puzzle that I pursue with the same vigor I used to bring to my martial arts studies.

As with any question relating to resistance training, it's important to identify ones goals. Getting HUGER isn't the only reason I lift ;)

Happy hypertrophy!
Kate
 
One of the bigger values, in terms of learned motor skills/coordination/balance from doing free weights, is the the experience from just handling the stuff.

I never need to bench press anything, much less the weights I press with dumbells. But I also have to pick up the dumbells, get in position, put them down when tired -- that skill and coordination comes in hand any time I need to handle something heavy, which DOES happen.

The most valuable thing I learned in lifting is proper from when deadlifting, something I now use even when I pick up a piece of paper -- I never really understood flat back before.

So I think free weights are a valuable exercise simply in terms of bodywork/body mechanics practice. . . . And I did machines for many, many, many years before picking up free weights last year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top