Hoss
1
Exactly, and this leads me a conclusion: Functional = ****ing badass.
Stop using machines!
- Thread starter Ride_On
- Start date
Exactly, and this leads me a conclusion: Functional = ****ing badass.
To be sure. But if people could function like this on a day to day scale, they wouldn't need to train
! Athletes would just get up and do their thing.That's why function-specific training is often broken down into components. That way the entire system can operate loads greater than what the whole is capable of doing, and training adaptation can occur more quickly. Also one of the reasons that machines-based training can be an important part to integrated functional training, by improving strength capacities independent of other muscle groups and systems.
To be sure. But if people could function like this on a day to day scale, they wouldn't need to train
That's why function-specific training is often broken down into components. That way the entire system can operate loads greater than what the whole is capable of doing, and training adaptation can occur more quickly. Also one of the reasons that machines-based training can be an important part to integrated functional training, by improving strength capacities independent of other muscle groups and systems.
perfect example of why the rep system should still exist. Meaning "good point"
Last edited:
To be sure. But if people could function like this on a day to day scale, they wouldn't need to train
That's why function-specific training is often broken down into components. That way the entire system can operate loads greater than what the whole is capable of doing, and training adaptation can occur more quickly. Also one of the reasons that machines-based training can be an important part to integrated functional training, by improving strength capacities independent of other muscle groups and systems.
yeah I have to agree. Illinphase has made some great points in this thread (as well as some others). It would have been nice to just rep him, but Just so you know, I agree with FF...Good point.....
I pretty much stated a lot of reasons for my stance against them, and quite frankly, they all make sense. Whether you agree with them or not is not the same as not making sense. I do hear the other opinions, I just have a different one.
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.
Ok, I won't argue with that. Bad start to the thread. I guess I got a little excited because I really think don't like machines, unless necessary for rehab (which I still don't think ever rules of free weights), and I think that a lot of people use them in the wrong way and are doing more harm than good.
Last edited:
This is exactly what I mean by "functional training," training the body as a whole, as a system of movements, rather than isolation.
Functional training - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Functional training - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
that was a good read, truly!
it "could" go on to say that isolation contributes to furthering functional performance.
Query... are we all to a point where we can "all just get along!?" because check this out...
A USC (University of Southern California) college football player was benching (no machine involved), was being spotted, and dropped the bar on his throat. How much weight was not mentioned, but he required emergency surgery.
I expect now a bunch of Chicken Littles to run around claiming the sky is falling too.:grinning:
Lesson: it doesn't matter if it's free weights or machines, to each their own, but good form and safety are important either way.
Geeze... i sound like a Mom.. hahahaha
A USC (University of Southern California) college football player was benching (no machine involved), was being spotted, and dropped the bar on his throat. How much weight was not mentioned, but he required emergency surgery.
I expect now a bunch of Chicken Littles to run around claiming the sky is falling too.:grinning:
Lesson: it doesn't matter if it's free weights or machines, to each their own, but good form and safety are important either way.
Geeze... i sound like a Mom.. hahahaha
yeah I have to agree. Illinphase has made some great points in this thread (as well as some others). It would have been nice to just rep him, but Just so you know, I agree with FF...Good point.....
Thanks guys.
That's why I love these forums... plenty of varied viewpoints, and short of someone telling someone to do something with the completely wrong form, there are no wrong answers around here, and there's a ton of knowledge to be shared. I definitely remember getting into it with Karky a while back about steady state vs HIIT, but I definitely learned a ton from the dialogue.
For a start, you shouldn't really use wikipedia as a source, for all we know you could have just gone and written that yourself (not suggesting you have as that would be a bit sad but I'm sure you get the point). The fact that it has the word 'Yup' at the end of a paragraph on strength training should be a warning sign that it probably wasn't written by an expert.
It also quotes a study of people training with a functional only programme compared to a group using machines. That's pretty pointless, not many people will use one or the other, the point a lot of people have tried to make here is that machines have their place and uses.
I'm not a great fan personally but I use them for assistance work at the end of my heavier compounds and find them to be very effective
Although I am quite glad it points to functional training being used for rehabilitation which is the point I was trying to make earlier. I can't imagine why so many people have said that machines are good for rehab, wtf?
Machines even have their place in rehabilitation. Particularly for some shoulder and knee injuries, there is significant literature that still supports the use of isokinetic rehabilitation utilizing machines. Even beyond those highly specific and expensive machines, machines can be effectively utilized to prevent excessive atrophy in patients with severe joint damage.
So while machines aren't typically used for day-to-day rehabilitation any more (in favor of closed-chain, functional, and proprioceptively enhanced exercises), they still have their place in rehabilitation as well.
Just one study I found after a quick search:
I'll have to see if I can find some more stuff online later. Though I've had a chance to read a some of the literature on file at the physical therapy firm that I at now. In some joint injuries, isokinetic exercise offers a greater degree of force stabilization at the site of injury.
And obviously few people have access to isokinetic systems, but I was referring to the clinical rehab setting. The place I'm working at is a relatively smaller firm, and we have a cybex iso-unit.
just from reading the abstract that doesn't say anything about whether isokinetic is better than anything else. It compares open chain and closed chain exercises on cruciate ligament forces.
It concludes that squats are safer for the ACL than isokinetic or isometric extension, though isokinetic or isometric flexion can be used, as these don't load the ACL much either.
It concludes that squats are safer for the ACL than isokinetic or isometric extension, though isokinetic or isometric flexion can be used, as these don't load the ACL much either.
The end of the abstract states that iso should be used for early PCL rehab.
cant believe this has gone on for 5 pages.
RIDE ON
no one on here would argue (and hasnt as far as i can see) that free weights are the basis for all weights routines,but machines have there place and are a usefull tool,and to say which you did that they have no use at all is going to get peoples backs up.
RIDE ON
no one on here would argue (and hasnt as far as i can see) that free weights are the basis for all weights routines,but machines have there place and are a usefull tool,and to say which you did that they have no use at all is going to get peoples backs up.
Yeah I know, and normally I never would, but I figured it would suffice being that I didn't really require any studies behind it or anything. I was just trying to clarify the definition of what I meant when I say functional training, regardless of what wiki further describes.
yeah.. well, I can't read the full text from home, but I'll have to check out why the article says isokinetic and not isokinetic or isometric or what ever else.
In speaking with one of the therapists I work with, apparently isokinetic rehab is preferred for ACL repairs in which the graft used in repair is taken from the patella, because closed-chain exercises end up typically causing pain and sometimes further trauma at the donor site. If the graft is taken from another site then close-chain exercises are still prefered. In PCL injuries isokinetic extension exercises are also still prefered, but I didn't get a chance to ask why.
I think my main point overall is that almost no piece of equipment should be "forsaken" when research constantly changes how we think and treat the body.