Stop using machines!

[illiniphase4]

They are bodybuilders. That's a completely different story.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree here. Machines suck for most things and for most people.

That's a fairly odd statement.

Machines certainly have their place, particularly for individuals who are new to resistance training. If you look at the NASM OPT model, machines have their place when supersetted with more functional exercises that emphasize proprioceptive development.

I do agree that for a couple of the machines listed in the article, the cons do outweigh the pros.

Seated Leg Extension: Also bad because typically most of those machine types brace the thigh just above the knee, which generally causes excessive forces that drive the patella into the joint groove and, over a period of time, can cause cartilage damage.

Behind the knee lat pulldown: Seeing as how I've never seen a machine labeled this way, it's not really the fault of the machine. Lat pulldowns are a perfectly fine exercise, so long as they are done correctly (ie. in front of the body). Pulling the bar down behind the head have no functional use, and prevents the exerciser from utilizing the muscle through its full range of motion.

Seated rotation machine: Outside people with spinal issues, it's a useful machine for individuals that do not have the experience or ability to do more functional exercises. To say that because a resistance machine doesn't "fight fat" renders the machine useless is about the dumbest thing I think I've ever heard in my life.

Pec Deck: Yes it sucks as your primary piece of chest exercise equipment, but it shouldn't be your primary piece of exercise equipment. The machine is useful if it is used as a superset exercise.

Smith Machine: The smith machine isn't any more dangerous than any other machine. Saying it is sounds about as ridiculous as people who claim that squatting is dangerous.

The long and the short here is that the majority of machines aren't dangerous if you use them correctly. Particularly in novice exercisers, machines can help to establish a base of strength, and should be coupled with functional exercises that emphasize joint stability.

Rather than dog on a couple pieces of exercise equipment, Men's Health would have done its readers far greater service by showing them how to use such machines correctly as part of an overall training plan.

 

[Ride_On]

That's a fairly odd statement.

Machines certainly have their place, particularly for individuals who are new to resistance training. If you look at the NASM OPT model, machines have their place when supersetted with more functional exercises that emphasize proprioceptive development.

I do agree that for a couple of the machines listed in the article, the cons do outweigh the pros.

Seated Leg Extension: Also bad because typically most of those machine types brace the thigh just above the knee, which generally causes excessive forces that drive the patella into the joint groove and, over a period of time, can cause cartilage damage.

Behind the knee lat pulldown: Seeing as how I've never seen a machine labeled this way, it's not really the fault of the machine. Lat pulldowns are a perfectly fine exercise, so long as they are done correctly (ie. in front of the body). Pulling the bar down behind the head have no functional use, and prevents the exerciser from utilizing the muscle through its full range of motion.

It's not odd. I said most people, most of the time. And I believe that to be very much true. Limiting your natural ROM is only good if you're doing some type of rehab.

Exactly like you said, they're restrictive and usually don't have functional use.

Seated rotation machine: Outside people with spinal issues, it's a useful machine for individuals that do not have the experience or ability to do more functional exercises. To say that because a resistance machine doesn't "fight fat" renders the machine useless is about the dumbest thing I think I've ever heard in my life.

For people who can't do functional exercises, how will they learn without doing them? I know you're gonna give me the "have to crawl before you can walk thing," but here's my thought on that. You can still do functional free weight work and just start lighter. Additionally, there are countries where people don't crawl before they walk, literally

Pec Deck: Yes it sucks as your primary piece of chest exercise equipment, but it shouldn't be your primary piece of exercise equipment. The machine is useful if it is used as a superset exercise.

How do you figure?

Smith Machine: The smith machine isn't any more dangerous than any other machine. Saying it is sounds about as ridiculous as people who claim that squatting is dangerous.

I disagree. That's probably one of the most restrictive ones to use, especially for squats. It's a recipe for knee problems IMO.

The long and the short here is that the majority of machines aren't dangerous if you use them correctly. Particularly in novice exercisers, machines can help to establish a base of strength, and should be coupled with functional exercises that emphasize joint stability.


Rather than dog on a couple pieces of exercise equipment, Men's Health would have done its readers far greater service by showing them how to use such machines correctly as part of an overall training plan.

Again, I see no point in starting with machines that restrict your motion and than progressing to your natural motion. It just doesn't add up. Start slow, get your form down in YOUR ROM, and then work up from there. They are teaching you how to train correctly, which is not using the machines

Bottom line, IMO, is that I can't think of any machine exercise that is superior to free weights (or kettlebells - that's for your Karky) as far as functional training and muscular development goes. And if you're not a bodybuilder or figure model, than what you really want, or at least should want, is functional development. Otherwise, what's the point of training?

Final note: I'm all for kettlebells, and when I say machines, I am excluding cable exercises.

 

[illiniphase4]

It's not odd. I said most people, most of the time. And I believe that to be very much true. Limiting your natural ROM is only good if you're doing some type of rehab.

Exactly like you said, they're restrictive and usually don't have functional use.

I think you're forgetting though that functional is a relative term. When you look at real-life movements, there are no set functional movements that apply to every exercise for a specific muscle group.

For people who can't do functional exercises, how will they learn without doing them? I know you're gonna give me the "have to crawl before you can walk thing," but here's my thought on that. You can still do functional free weight work and just start lighter. Additionally, there are countries where people don't crawl before they walk, literally

This is sometimes true. But as a personal trainer who has worked with both general and special populations, there are a large number of people that need fully stabilized muscle strengthening, either prior to, or in conjunction with, proprioceptively enhanced exercise.

On top of this, there are many situations in which destabilized functional training could cause injury. There is always risk vs reward in exercise, and sometimes the risk of injury during destabilized or functional training does outweigh the immediate rewards.

How do you figure?

Any machine can be useful for supersetting. One of the purposes of a superset is to spur further adaptation by driving a muscle group to greater exhaustion. Most any machine can effectively meet this requirement, especially considering the fact that an individual can often lift more weight on a machine then they can with free weights.

I disagree. That's probably one of the most restrictive ones to use, especially for squats. It's a recipe for knee problems IMO.

As with any piece of weight equipment, there is a right way and a wrong way to utilize a smith machine. Particularly with respect to protecting your knees, it's no different then a stability ball wall squat or even a standard body squat. Form is more important in protecting the knee then anything else. You can protect the knee effectively by emphasizing proper hip flexion and glut activation and keeping the knees from moving forward of the toes, and this can easily still be done with a smith machine. I would also argue that the smith machine is a better machine than a leg press, because it is a closed-chain movement, and far more functional than an open-chain leg press machine.

Again, I see no point in starting with machines that restrict your motion and than progressing to your natural motion. It just doesn't add up. Start slow, get your form down in YOUR ROM, and then work up from there. They are teaching you how to train correctly, which is not using the machines

I don't think that you're looking at ROM in its full scope. There are two ways to look at it. There is the full ROM of a muscle, and then there is functional ROM for a specific activity or movement. Take the pectoralis major; a machine is capable of working the muscle through its full and natural range of motion in a single plane effectively. In fact, most free-weight exercises only work a muscle through a single plane of its range of motion. A machine will not provide the kind of proximal joint stability training that most free-weight exercises do, but there is still some joint stabilization occurring.

And as I alluded to earlier, you must also realize that many novice exercisers do not have the protagonistic and antagonistic muscle strength to properly support a resistance load under destabilized conditions. In these individuals, it can be downright dangerous to immediately implement destabilized training.

Bottom line, IMO, is that I can't think of any machine exercise that is superior to free weights (or kettlebells - that's for your Karky) as far as functional training and muscular development goes. And if you're not a bodybuilder or figure model, than what you really want, or at least should want, is functional development. Otherwise, what's the point of training?

Final note: I'm all for kettlebells, and when I say machines, I am excluding cable exercises.

I never said that machines were superior. I believe that free-weights, cables, medicine/kettle balls, and body weight training can be more effective. That doesn't mean that machines are not useful or do not serve a purpose.

 

[Ride_On]

Any machine can be useful for supersetting. One of the purposes of a superset is to spur further adaptation by driving a muscle group to greater exhaustion. Most any machine can effectively meet this requirement, especially considering the fact that an individual can often lift more weight on a machine then they can with free weights.

That's kind of a non sequitir. It doesn't mean that a freeweight can't do it more effectively.

And personally, i think that lifting more weight on a machine is a negative aspect because you can't really gauge where you're at. Ex: Back when I had no clue what I was doing, I could leg press ~450+, but I couldn't even squat 225.

I think you're forgetting though that functional is a relative term. When you look at real-life movements, there are no set functional movements that apply to every exercise for a specific muscle group.

With this, I must disagree. There are set functional movements that certainly apply specifically to real-life situations, namely the squat or DL. How often do you squat down to pick something up? How often do people do it wrong and bend over at the hips rather than the knees? Also, you can't really work your entire posterior chain very well with a squat in a smith machine, or at least I don't see how.

On that same note, when are you ever going to be sitting down without having to use your back muscles and pressing something upward with your legs? Or curling something up with your legs? Etc etc.

If you're that gung ho about the destabilization issue, than I will submit to that, but only based on the fact that you are a trainer and I hope that you would know more than I in that aspect. I still disagree for the most part. I still think that you should learn to do the destabilizing movements from the get go, but again, you have more experience here.

 

[johnny83]

Dang, you guys are debating now like which is better, coke or pepsi ? Its personal preference dependin on the goals and abilities of the person using said equipment, and you cant win an e-battle ! Agree to disagree already !

 

[oicdn]

As said, BBs use machines. Who really cares which is "better"? They're all tools used in the "trade".

Like saying using a wrench vs a socket. They both have their places, and a mechanic can't do every job with one or the other, efficiently.

Key word: efficiency. Not: better or useless.

 

[Ride_On]

As said, BBs use machines. Who really cares which is "better"? They're all tools used in the "trade".

Like saying using a wrench vs a socket. They both have their places, and a mechanic can't do every job with one or the other, efficiently.

Key word: efficiency. Not: better or useless.

Point is that a lot, well, MOST, people are using them for entirely the wrong reasons. We can leave bodybuilders out of this because that is a completely different category, and as stated before, the strongest BBers probably didn't get there using a pec deck, my friend, ridiculous oly lifter and pro BBer.

Go watch Stan Efferding:

 

[oicdn]

Point is that a lot, well, MOST, people are using them for entirely the wrong reasons. We can leave bodybuilders out of this because that is a completely different category, and as stated before, the strongest BBers probably didn't get there using a pec deck, my friend, ridiculous oly lifter and pro BBer.

Go watch Stan Efferding:

Of course, there's always, and in this case, many people who use machines for the wrong reasons. But to lump out machines altogether is absurd.

I'm completely aware that they didn't get there by machines alone, and I think most everybody else is as well. But you can't leave out body builders when ironically, that's really in one way or another what we're all doing. Building our bodies. You could also say the flip side and say "they didn't get there using weights alone".

I personally don't dig machines either, but they have their place, and I do integrate them into my regimen.

 

[Ride_On]

Of course, there's always, and in this case, many people who use machines for the wrong reasons. But to lump out machines altogether is absurd.

I'm completely aware that they didn't get there by machines alone, and I think most everybody else is as well. But you can't leave out body builders when ironically, that's really in one way or another what we're all doing. Building our bodies. You could also say the flip side and say "they didn't get there using weights alone".

I personally don't dig machines either, but they have their place, and I do integrate them into my regimen.

Agreed. We are nothing like bodybuilders though. They are strictly training for aesthetics. I guess I shouldn't say we, but I sure as hell don't care about nonfunctional strength/hypertrophy.

 

[Ride_On]

I had to do this just because I came across it . Actually, it's a link from one of our main stickies here.

"Reason #4: Machines. They really serve no purpose in any resistance training program outside of a rehabilitation setting (and even that's pushing it). Let's take the prone leg curl for example, a staple hamstring exercise in most training programs.

The hamstrings serve as both knee flexors, hip extensors, and are also an eccentric resistor of knee extension during sprinting. Leg curls work knee flexion, in a nonfunctional capacity (you're on your stomach, curling a weight in a fixed plane of motion).

I can't think of a sport or an "everyday event" where you're going to have to perform that particular motion. As such, machines do very little as far as improving inter- and intramuscular coordination, and they do nothing for improving core strength."

 

[Hoss]

Agreed. We are nothing like bodybuilders though. They are strictly training for aesthetics. I guess I shouldn't say we, but I sure as hell don't care about nonfunctional strength/hypertrophy.

"Non-functional strength"... :laughing2: You have no idea what you're talking about, I've come to this conclusion by these 3 words.

 

[Ride_On]

"Non-functional strength"... :laughing2: You have no idea what you're talking about, I've come to this conclusion by these 3 words.

Well that's a fairly ignorant conclusion, don't you think? Number one, you can't tell anything about a person from three words. Number two, why do you think it's impossible to have non-functional strength?

Pro bodybuilders are a perfect example of that. They have structural hypertrophy, but not so much functional. Sure, Ronnie Coleman can bench 500+, but ask him to take an agility test or play any other sport besides lifting huge weights and my guess is, he probably sucks at it. That's what I mean when I say that.

 

[Karky]

So functional = agility?
Functional means that it has a function.. I'm pretty sure Coleman wouldn't have much trouble helping his buddy move a big ass freezer out of his basement, etc. He can definitely use his strength for "functional" things.

The body doesn't work in functional and non-functional; it's not black and white.
Say I do leg pressing, I'll build muscle (myofibrillar hypertrophy), and I will be able to use that strength in real life. The neural adaption side of things will probably be more specific. But what if what was holding me back from being able to lift that freezer before wasn't really my leg strength, it was my lower back? Then I was simply training the wrong thing. Will training leg press, core stability, ankle stability, etc, separately be as good as doing simply training squats when it comes to lifting a freezer? I don't know.. I'd guess not, since when you use the squats you also train how to integrate all of these into one movement (though this could be argued against). It would also take a lot of time to train all the attributes separately, so squats would save you a lot of time.
Personally I think free weights will have more transferability to real world tasks like moving a freezer, but that doesn't mean machines don't help at all. Also, not a lot of people advocate only training with machines.. most bodybuilders do a lot of free weights.

A situation in which machines are very useful is if you want to stimulate your muscles some more without getting overly tired.
I know my quads really get it after leg presses, but I'm not as generally tired after them as I am with squats. same with chest press and bench press.. so what if I want some more volume on a muscle group to make it grow but I want to be able to go to the gym tomorrow as well?
IMO machines are great in that way, you can use them to manage fatigue.

 

[flyinfree]

it is almost certain that any certainty is uncertain for sure

I use free weights primarily, and I am big on olympic lifts

However- if i want to really nail; a bicept, or a traps, or, or or or. a nice machine that isolates that bad boy is the way to go

I have seen many people in free weighgts, swinging dumbells, over extending, even nearly bending over backwards trying to lift weights that are too hevey for them. With that in mind- if they were sitting in say a "sitting-curl" machine, they could work a bicept without throwing out their lower back lol.

90% of a gyms floor space is covered in nice high tech equipment that defies natural ranbge of mmotion "in order to develop, stretch, and train the body" to perform BETTER THAN IT WOULD NATURALLY.

Non-functional strength was a funny one!

For the OP - maybe you don't have a membership to any gyms, so you justify yourself by saying the equipment is no good.
And two- you want that "non-funtional" for appearance only strength and don;t have it- so you down it.

To Typhon- i think machines are good for new "atrophied" trainees. Such as recovery from injury, or age, or slothful living. The machine allows them to use a lighter weight until they can get in the groove a bit. Like leg curls and extensions. But I think they should come off them quickly so they can develop some stability.

I also like the hammer strength machine Mom2- man oh man can you ever split a chest wide open with a series of all 3 hammer strengths.

Havnt posted in awhile, figured I throw my .02 in on this topic.

Sweat Daily
FF

 

[illiniphase4]

Number two, why do you think it's impossible to have non-functional strength?

Pro bodybuilders are a perfect example of that. They have structural hypertrophy, but not so much functional. Sure, Ronnie Coleman can bench 500+, but ask him to take an agility test or play any other sport besides lifting huge weights and my guess is, he probably sucks at it. That's what I mean when I say that.

This is where you keep getting into the weeds. You're view on functional strength training is far too narrow.

Granted most body builders (that use machines) will not have the same sort of daily functional strength that you are alluding too, but in relation to what they are training for, and what they are using their strength for, their strength training is fully functional.

Take your example. It can be argued that because sport-specific agility doesn't truly carry over as functional in daily activities and tasks, it's not functional with regards to such tasks. On the flip side, a 40-something house wife doing propioceptively-enhanced training in order to preserve functional capacity for daily activity is not going to be functionally able to perform sport-based requirements.

Either you need to widen your scope of functional strength, and realize that functional capacity changes depending on the requirements, or you need to make your view as narrow as possible, and refer to as it is viewed upon in the majority of the literature: the strength and stability required to meet or exceed the requirements present in daily lifestyle activities. It's not going to win you any arguments trying to exist in the middle ground.

 

[Ride_On]

For the OP - maybe you don't have a membership to any gyms, so you justify yourself by saying the equipment is no good.
And two- you want that "non-funtional" for appearance only strength and don;t have it- so you down it.

This idiotic and quite frankly, you're just being an asshole. So instead of insulting you, I will just tell you that I do have a gym membership, I think they are way to overloaded with machines and the ONLY reason why they do is to get customers. People see machines and their eyes light up. If you walk into a gym full of free weights you eliminate about 90% of women, tons of people who don't know what they're doing, and a whole lot of older people. More machines = more money, so basing your argument on that is a pretty poor one.

I would never want anything non-functional. That's completely pointless. It's like having a corvette without the keys. Why have it if you can't use it?

But what if what was holding me back from being able to lift that freezer before wasn't really my leg strength, it was my lower back? Then I was simply training the wrong thing. Will training leg press, core stability, ankle stability, etc, separately be as good as doing simply training squats when it comes to lifting a freezer? I don't know..

My point is that if you DID squat, you wouldn't have to worry about the imbalance there. You would train it all. And the only time you really HAVE to worry about that, is usually for some type of rehab where you really need to isolate a particular muscle group. And you do know the answer to that questions. Less press is not getting you any of that stuff. That's what I'm saying. [/quote]

This is where you keep getting into the weeds. You're view on functional strength training is far too narrow.

Granted most body builders (that use machines) will not have the same sort of daily functional strength that you are alluding too, but in relation to what they are training for, and what they are using their strength for, their strength training is fully functional.

Take your example. It can be argued that because sport-specific agility doesn't truly carry over as functional in daily activities and tasks, it's not functional with regards to such tasks. On the flip side, a 40-something house wife doing propioceptively-enhanced training in order to preserve functional capacity for daily activity is not going to be functionally able to perform sport-based requirements.

Either you need to widen your scope of functional strength, and realize that functional capacity changes depending on the requirements, or you need to make your view as narrow as possible, and refer to as it is viewed upon in the majority of the literature: the strength and stability required to meet or exceed the requirements present in daily lifestyle activities. It's not going to win you any arguments trying to exist in the middle ground.

Yeah this is where the misstep was made on my part. By functional, I mean that helps you in everyday life, not that is going to cause hypertrophy without you being able to use those muscles correctly for your normal activities and survival. Hopefully that clears up where I am coming from?

 

[Karky]

I hope you read my entire post and not just the part you quoted. I posed many critical questions and arguments to your opinion.

 

[Ride_On]

I hope you read my entire post and not just the part you quoted. I posed many critical questions and arguments to your opinion.

Yes, I did. You aren't as tired generally because you're not working all of the other muscles that you would in a squat or bench press. Sure, that sounds great because you're isolating your quads or pecs, but you're also not working your muscles the way they are meant to be worked. As you obviously know, there's a lot more to squatting and benching than just quads and chest, so you're really not doing yourself any favors by isolating those two muscles. When, in real life, are you ever going to do anything that involves such an isolation. Don't you think you would be better suited to move the muscles the way they are supposed to be moved (you can throw the natural ROM argument in this here too)?

Anything I didn't address?

 

[Karky]

I don't think you understood what I meant.. I meant to supplement the benching and squatting with machine movements to get more stimuli on the agonist muscles without the high fatigue of squats and bench pressing. You can induce more muscle stimuli that way without the systemic fatigue you get with more squats and bench pressing.

But like I said, I believe free weights will have more transferability to "real life" tasks, but that doesn't mean machines have none.
The above reasoning for machine use to get some more muscle stimuli without the fatigue is probably more related to getting bigger than to getting stronger, though it could help you get stronger too. You can use the same argument with the triceps in bench pressing. Say you notice that your tris are your weak spot.. what do you do? Close grip bench presses, lockouts, triceps pushdowns or some kind of triceps machine?
CGBP and lockouts would probably fit the bill best.. but those are pretty taxing movements. You'll choose and exercise based on how your work out is, how big a priority your bench is and how far behind you think your triceps are lagging. If you want to include CGBP in addition to your benching, you might not be able to recover in time for your next workout.. you might *gasp* overtrain. But adding some triceps pushdowns, skullcrushers, (exercises that are often seen as unfunctional) ,or to fit this argument better, chest press lockouts, would give you some extra muscle stimuli with less fatigue than the big functional lifts would.

I don't have any research on this.. there isn't a lot of this direct applied research done on strength training. This is based on experience and logical mechanisms.

 

[Ride_On]

I don't think you understood what I meant.. I meant to supplement the benching and squatting with machine movements to get more stimuli on the agonist muscles without the high fatigue of squats and bench pressing. You can induce more muscle stimuli that way without the systemic fatigue you get with more squats and bench pressing.

Right, but that's still neglecting the other muscles that I referred to.

But like I said, I believe free weights will have more transferability to "real life" tasks, but that doesn't mean machines have none.
The above reasoning for machine use to get some more muscle stimuli without the fatigue is probably more related to getting bigger than to getting stronger, though it could help you get stronger too. You can use the same argument with the triceps in bench pressing. Say you notice that your tris are your weak spot.. what do you do? Close grip bench presses, lockouts, triceps pushdowns or some kind of triceps machine?
CGBP and lockouts would probably fit the bill best.. but those are pretty taxing movements. You'll choose and exercise based on how your work out is, how big a priority your bench is and how far behind you think your triceps are lagging. If you want to include CGBP in addition to your benching, you might not be able to recover in time for your next workout.. you might *gasp* overtrain. But adding some triceps pushdowns, skullcrushers, (exercises that are often seen as unfunctional) ,or to fit this argument better, chest press lockouts, would give you some extra muscle stimuli with less fatigue than the big functional lifts would.

I don't have any research on this.. there isn't a lot of this direct applied research done on strength training. This is based on experience and logical mechanisms.

All good examples, but notice how none of them were related to machines? I'm still all for not restricting your natural ROM, and that's my biggest issue here.

You're right, they're not always bad all the time. I stand by the fact that they are for most people, most of the time. There is usually a better way to go about it (again, rehab aside) and your body should be trained the way it is used. Muscle imbalances, as you suggested, require a different approach, but still not machines.