Stop using machines!

[Karky]

in my example you are doing squats, etc, you're working all the muscles, but you have some weaknesses and you use machines to bring them up since doing more sets of squats would be too tireing

I mentioned chest press lockouts to bring it into the machine realm.

 

[Ride_On]

in my example you are doing squats, etc, you're working all the muscles, but you have some weaknesses and you use machines to bring them up since doing more sets of squats would be too tireing

Agreed, but that still does not require machines. And that's a case of muscle imbalance, which was not really the focus of my discussion to begin with.

 

[illiniphase4]

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.

I have to disagree here. If an individual's squat form is poor, they have a far greater chance to causing acute or chronic injury. And by combining multiple leg exercises, you can essentially mirror the the squat. Of course, it's easier to just do a squat, and anytime you can do a closed-chain exercise instead of an open-chain exercise, you should go with the closed-chain because it usually provides better muscle activation.

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?

Yeah, just wanted to make sure that we were talking about different forms of functionality, and I agree that in terms of day-to-day life activity, functional training should involve a good deal of exercise that stimulates stability development.

 

[Karky]

Agreed, but that still does not require machines. And that's a case of muscle imbalance, which was not really the focus of my discussion to begin with.

What do you mean when you say muscle imbalance? If you're weak at the lockout of a bench, you have a muscle imbalance? how? It just means your weakness is probably in your triceps.. you will always have a weak spot (sticking point) in a movement..

 

[Ride_On]

What do you mean when you say muscle imbalance? If you're weak at the lockout of a bench, you have a muscle imbalance? how? It just means your weakness is probably in your triceps.. you will always have a weak spot (sticking point) in a movement..

I mean imbalance in terms of triceps holding back a bench, for example.

I have to disagree here. If an individual's squat form is poor, they have a far greater chance to causing acute or chronic injury. And by combining multiple leg exercises, you can essentially mirror the the squat.

Of course, if your form is bad than you have a greater risk of injury. But that's not the basis for an argument of machines vs. free weights. Do you really think it's better to let form be bad, switching over to machines, rather than fix your squat form and let your body move the way it's supposed to?

Of course, it's easier to just do a squat, and anytime you can do a closed-chain exercise instead of an open-chain exercise, you should go with the closed-chain because it usually provides better muscle activation.

You pretty much said it right there. If your form is bad, fix your form, don't move to machines. That's just completely avoiding the issue.

 

[Hoss]

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?

So you wouldn't even use a bb or db, you should strictly do odd object lifting since that's "real". A barbell is just a substitute for whatever you should "really" be lifting. And since you're not climbing any rocks or anything why do pull ups? And whens the last time you participated in a rowing event? So hell, why row? And unless you count that time you got stuck under a car (oh wait that hasn't happened), a bench press has no applicable "real life" use..

There's about 100 people in the world that could use the term "non-functional" and retain my respect, and believe me you're not one of them. These are the people that laugh at bb/dbs the same way you're trying to do so with machines. The people that pull trucks and flip tires exclusively... And even then (my point to every post in this thread) it's only functional because you're doing it. The only reason I feel the need to post in these threads is the prevalence of ignorance, way to much for me to handle on a forum I admin for.

 

[illiniphase4]

I mean imbalance in terms of triceps holding back a bench, for example.

I wouldn't necessarily refer to that as an imbalance. Muscle imbalance refers to a breakdown in bilateral parity. This is more of a function of weak triceps than anything else. Given that the same type of weakness can occur in a standard push-up, it's certainly an area in which a triceps extension machine could be useful.

Of course, if your form is bad than you have a greater risk of injury. But that's not the basis for an argument of machines vs. free weights. Do you really think it's better to let form be bad, switching over to machines, rather than fix your squat form and let your body move the way it's supposed to?

You pretty much said it right there. If your form is bad, fix your form, don't move to machines. That's just completely avoiding the issue.

Not necessarily. But sometimes using a targeted machine can be more efficient, in that it more directly targets a specific muscle group, not to mention safer, to directly address imbalances that may be affecting form by targeting them with specific machines, in order to speed adaptation and get an individual back to a point at which they can properly perform another lift.

 

[Ride_On]

So you wouldn't even use a bb or db, you should strictly do odd object lifting since that's "real". A barbell is just a substitute for whatever you should "really" be lifting. And since you're not climbing any rocks or anything why do pull ups? And whens the last time you participated in a rowing event? So hell, why row? And unless you count that time you got stuck under a car (oh wait that hasn't happened), a bench press has no applicable "real life" use..

There's about 100 people in the world that could use the term "non-functional" and retain my respect, and believe me you're not one of them. These are the people that laugh at bb/dbs the same way you're trying to do so with machines. The people that pull trucks and flip tires exclusively... And even then (my point to every post in this thread) it's only functional because you're doing it. The only reason I feel the need to post in these threads is the prevalence of ignorance, way to much for me to handle on a forum I admin for.

There is no ignorance here. You're just completely missing the point. Your argument doesn't even make sense in the context of the conversation. I can see why you're freaking out (I guess?), but you're just off the mark here. There are certainly applicable real life situations for the exercises that you said, but I'm not going to list them. And as for people laughing at bb/dbs, I don't know of any significant person in the fitness industry that would tout machines as generally superior to any type of free weight or kettlebell, do you?

I wouldn't necessarily refer to that as an imbalance. Muscle imbalance refers to a breakdown in bilateral parity. This is more of a function of weak triceps than anything else. Given that the same type of weakness can occur in a standard push-up, it's certainly an area in which a triceps extension machine could be useful.

Agreed. That's just a terminology miscue. The point is still there.

Not necessarily. But sometimes using a targeted machine can be more efficient, in that it more directly targets a specific muscle group, not to mention safer, to directly address imbalances that may be affecting form by targeting them with specific machines, in order to speed adaptation and get an individual back to a point at which they can properly perform another lift.

Can you give me an example that couldn't be accomplished using something other than machines?

I think more often than not machines are more dangerous than free weights (provided they are used correctly) because they restrict your natural range of motion, and in doing so, can cause your muscles and joints to move in ways which they were not designed to, which can sometimes lead to doing more harm than good.

This is really turning into more of an argument than a discussion, and unnecessarily so. That was not the intention, though that seems to have been lost in translation somewhere. I'm not completely dismissing the idea, I just think that they are much, much more geared towards rehab purposes, which, I might add, I have said several times throughout this thread. The argument towards using them for imbalance and rehab keeps coming back at me, and I already said that those are cases in which they can possibly be used. That being said, I still think the same can be done through free weights.

 

[Typhon]

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.

That's always been gripe of mine, I have a hell of a lot more use for strength than agility or speed so surely strength training must be the most functional training around.

Twice this month I've helped women carry their suitcases up the stairs on the underground but not once have I had to travel 26 miles in the fastest possible time with no possibility of traveling by car, bus or train

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.

The reason I said I'd never suggest them to a newb is that you always see them getting injured on machines. Most newbs can shift a lot more weight on a machine than they can with free weights which can encourage them to push too far too soon and get injured. Newbs are usually riddled with imbalances and I don't think machines are the best way to get around that.

 

[Karky]

Hoss never said machines are the best, he said they are another useful tool, and they are; they definitely have their use.

 

[Typhon]

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.

I'm assuming you mean behind the head pulldown?

What is your gripe with this? I regularly pull down behind the head, I also OH press behind the head too and get great results and have never had the slightest twinge of pain or long term injury.

The article only says it can be dangerous as a lot of people don't have enough shoulder mobility to have a proper ROM but what if you do? Why would that be dangerous?

Also, if you're using force then it must have a functional use as it's working the muscles. How can muscles be trained without having any kind of benefit?

 

[Karky]

If you have proper shoulder stability, mobility and the right acromion type, you can probably do BTN stuff pretty safely. But to know your acromion type you need an xray.

 

[Typhon]

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.

I often use machines now after a free weight compound for added volume, it's something I started doing after following the Wendler 5/3/1 programme (bodybuilding adaptation), so squats are followed by leg presses and high rep leg extensions

In that instance they definately allow me to continue hitting my legs once I've hit a point of physical exhaustion that would make coumpounds more difficult to perform with perfect form

 

[Typhon]

If you have proper shoulder stability, mobility and the right acromion type, you can probably do BTN stuff pretty safely. But to know your acromion type you need an xray.

LMAO, you need to google the words Hoss writes and I always need to google some of the stuff you write

There's an obvious hierarchy there

I'm googling acromion now

 

[flyinfree]

ride on,

i wasnt being an asshole i was just trying to understand why you would take such a position against machines. You are not making much sense to tell the truth. I am Mr. Hardheaded, but you are really taking a super strong stance against machines, you do not hear anyone elses support of the equipment.

Did you have a bad machine dream and get scared?

Fight the machine baby!

hugs

FF

 

[flyinfree]

And as for people laughing at bb/dbs, I don't know of any significant person in the fitness industry that would tout machines as generally superior to any type of free weight or kettlebell, do you?

.

this part rigth here... and this is following you telling Hoss he is off the mark...

you open this thread, even the subject line of "stop using machines"
you take a hard and fast stance, but then you are now talking abotu which is superior. LOL
you waffle

btw- Hoss may be out of the closet, but he aint off the mark

another point I have to make.
It is super cool to see somebody else liek this and it not be me.

 

[Hoss]

There is no ignorance here. You're just completely missing the point. Your argument doesn't even make sense in the context of the conversation. I can see why you're freaking out (I guess?), but you're just off the mark here. There are certainly applicable real life situations for the exercises that you said, but I'm not going to list them. And as for people laughing at bb/dbs, I don't know of any significant person in the fitness industry that would tout machines as generally superior to any type of free weight or kettlebell, do you?

You don't need to list them because they'll be movements that will require other lifts to stabilize and even more to actually cover all the muscles used. You're regressing, if you started this thread with "free weights are better than machines" you might have gotten a good response. With a title like "Stop using machines!" it just makes you sound like someone who hasn't gotten the big picture yet.

 

[illiniphase4]

I'm assuming you mean behind the head pulldown?

What is your gripe with this? I regularly pull down behind the head, I also OH press behind the head too and get great results and have never had the slightest twinge of pain or long term injury.

The article only says it can be dangerous as a lot of people don't have enough shoulder mobility to have a proper ROM but what if you do? Why would that be dangerous?

Also, if you're using force then it must have a functional use as it's working the muscles. How can muscles be trained without having any kind of benefit?

My comments are based upon the ROM and capacity of the Lats. With it being a lat exercise, you want to maximize muscle activation in order to maximize impact and subesquent adaptation. To fully activate the lat through it's full range of motion, you need to pull the bar down in front of your head, along with sitting with your upper body at a slight decline (no greter than 30 degrees). By pulling the weight down behind your head, you've essentially removed about 1/5 of the muscle's true ROM from the exercise. That's a whole fifth of the musculature that is not being properly activated. Certainly not worth sticking to old routines.

OH press is a different story. Your primary mover is the deltoids, so aside from the danger inherent in bearing a load over your cervical spine, the exercise itself doesn't face the same sort of ROM limitations.

 

[Karky]

This thread resulted from Ride_on taking the terminator movies a little too seriously.. JK.

In all seriousness, though, I agree with much of what the article you posted is saying, I'm not a fan of behind the neck stuff, nor the leg extension machine (though it has its uses) but I do think that there is a place for machines.

Most people don't need to do leg extensions, though, at least not newbies who are just starting to lift. They pretty much just need to do some squats, rows, pullups, bench, overhead pressing, deads, etc.

 

[Kraken]

My position stands. I've hurt myself doing heavy lifts on big machines due to my own ignorance. Most of my moves are done with free weights now. But I do some metabolic stuff on my machine.

I do squats on my POS machine cuz I don't own a squat rack. So they have their place. How else could you do lat pulls? cable pull downs? etc.

The key is knowing that everything has benefits when applied at the right time and place.

I agree with Hoss. Free weights are not functional at all. Functional strength would be putting a couple bundles of shingles on your shoulders and climbing a ****in ladder.