1. Re: Myth of the Superiority of Free Weights
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
2. Re: HIT Digest, digest #58
by: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@mailbox.uq.edu.au>
3. Re: More about machines and free weights
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
4. Re: Machines, skills, and free weights
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
5. Re: Super Squats - help
by: Don Pendergraft <dpendergraft@beckett.com>
6. how am I doing?
by: Zimmerman, William F. <William.Zimmerman@lexis-nexis.com>
7. Re: HIT Digest, digest #58
by: Beber0190 <Beber0190@aol.com>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 18:03:20 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Myth of the Superiority of Free Weights
> From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
>
> While additional muscular structures would be required to work to balance
the
> weight or stabilize the body during free weight exercises, the degree of
> effort required to do so would be minimal, hardly enough to stimulate
growth
> in such muscles.
Really? During a deadlift, the trapezius is not a prime mover and performs
no mechanical work at all. Yet, deadlifts can cause growth in the traps.
During a squat, the transverse abdominus compresses and stabilizes the
spine, and performs no mechanical work, and beltless squats can help
strengthen the transverse abdominus.
> The ONLY things a barbell provides which can not be provided by a
properly
> designed machine are a much lower cost, and by performing barbell
exercises
> one will improve their skills in the performance of those particular
barbell
> exercises, for whatever that is worth.
The idea that a "properly designed" machine can be superior to a barbell or
dumbbell may look good on paper (at least to some people. To me, the idea
really doesn't fly well at all). However, this has yet to be adequately
demonstrated in real life, and no matter how something looks good on paper,
if it doesn't apply, then what good is it?
James Krieger
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:20:47 +1000
From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@mailbox.uq.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Stabilizers
This is in response to Adam's Stabiliser post. I'll only respond to
those areas where my comments were directly addressed as I'm sure Andrew
Baye is quite capable of defending his own points.
>
> > From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@mailbox.uq.edu.au>
> > Subject: Re: Response to J Krieger, Machines, Free weights and skills
> > Stabilisers are muscles and are not something unique to the human body.
> > What may be a "stabiliser" in one exercise may be the one directly
> > targeted in another.
>
> The difference is, in a situation where a muscle is 'targeted,' it is
> being asked to function as a prime mover [correct?]. In a situation
> where a muscle has a stabilizer function, it is being asked to function
> as a stabilizer [also correct?]
I'm quite aware of the above. The point I'm trying to get across is
that there are only stabilisers in respect to a certain exercise
performance and not to the human body in general. It's therefore
ridiculous to say "Oh today I'm doing stabiliser training". It's more
accurate to say that "I will be involving muscles in a supportive role
in a highly skill based activity that probably won't be trained very
intensely at all".
> > Wrt the above it's the skill component that makes
> > the dumbbell exercise more difficult and the others easier.
>
> Yes, it is the fact that you are asking muscles to function as
> stabilizers and neutralizers. Since you may or may not be used to this
> requirement, under such loads, you will likely find it more difficult to
> perform such exercises. This will be much moreso for the individual who
> has primarily used machines for the majority of their training. Again,
> it has to do with facilitation; machines build prime movers w/o
> coordinating stabilizer and neutralizer functions *in the nervous
> system*, which must be done in order to work with those muscles. If
> such is not done, if basic movements are performed in a stable
> environment, stabilizer function will diminish due to the new demands of
> such exercises.
I contend that the "stabiliser" muscles would gain greater strength increases by targeting them separately and training them intensely. The back in the Squat can be worked at different degrees of intensity according to the angle of forward torso hold, but what is the purpose of the training? I say that what ever failures first in a compound movement will not stimulate the other muscles as had they all been worked to failure. Some machines are built so that all muscles of a compound movement are worked almost equally hard according to individual differences. Are they perfect, no. Do they impose a stimulus that matches the strength curve far more than free weights? yes.
> > Now it's
> > possible to become more proficient in dumbbell presses and not not have
> > increased one's strength at all.
>
> I don't have the foggiest idea what you are trying to say here. I think
> it means the same as, "Now, it's possible to become more proficient in
> machine presses and not have increased one's strength at all."
>
What I'm saying is with highly skilled based training it's possible to
co-ordinate the different muscles groups so that the performance
increases through practice. E.g. learning to through with my left hand
would increase the distance thrown, even 2xing it without any strength
increases being demonstrated in the curl for example.
> Let us return to productive comments. As long as you are adding reps
> and or weight to an exercise, you are gaining strength. Most people
> return far stronger in more stable exercises after a period of more
> unstable training. This is why, for instance, Simmons has implemented
> swiss ball training in his PL programs...
I'll restrain myself here as my thoughts on the above training protocol
are not complimentary in the least.
> Certainly, however, I will agree that free weight and "unstable"
> movements will make one's joints more resistant to injury (more
> specifically, those injuries related to joint stabilization). This is
> supported by the great success of such movements (incliding
> swiss/stability balls, etc) in rehab situations.
Putting a joint, muscle etc. in a position of potential injury seems like the best way to rehabilitate it to me as well [not].
> If machines are clearly so much better (light years ahead, according to
> what I snipped from your post), then obviously you will be able to
> point-out those athletes who do and do not use machines, in the NFL or
> the NBA or whatever sport another poster suggested.
>
> Unfortunately, without being informed beforehand, I do not think you
> will be able to perform such a task. So clearly the difference is quite
> minute (and considering the fact that squats, deadlifts, and benches all
> directly oppose the definition of the most 'effective tools' as you
> detailed above, and are all considered the most productive movements, I
> think your proposition had very little going for it from the outset)...
I think that your deduction cannot follow as many sports have
considerable skill and speed components built into them . Which of my
arms is more accurate in playing marbles. Well that arm must of been
trained with free weights [not]. Once you have the strength gains
applying them through skill practice will make them so much more
effective. In saying this free weights do work and are readily
available to most people so don't fret. Wrt strength curves and free
weights, it may be possible to say, exercise the arms for e.g. where an
incline bench is used so that there is resistance in all positions and
move the weight slower in easier parts of movement and faster in harder
parts. Just a thought. These ideas can apply to many exercises so you
may want to try them out.
Cya
Teri
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 18:14:25 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: More about machines and free weights
> From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
>
> Strength curves do not vary significantly among healthy individuals. A
> properly designed machine with a cam which provides a strength curve
which
> closely matches the average will still be far superior than a barbell
exercise
> which provides a strength curve which in no way resembles the proper one
for
> any particular exercise.
Please offer me evidence to support this opinion.
> <<No variable-resistance machines examined in two studies (1-2)
> could match the strength curve of any of the subjects. Some machines
even
> have totally incorrect force curves on them.>>
>
> Which machines? Most of the machines currently on the market are not
worth
> half their weight in scrap metal, and do have totally incorrect
resistance
> curves. I am referring to a properly designed machine. Since most of what
is
> being marketed as exercise equipment is complete garbage, so poorly
designed
> it would not receive a passing grade in a high school shop class, it is
important that we
> distinguish between such junk and PROPERLY DESIGNED machines when
discussing
> this issue. I agree, that compared to most of the crap out there,
barbells are
> much better, BUT, compared to a properly designed machine, such as many
of
> those sold by MedX and the new Nautilus 2ST line, barbells have to take
2nd
> place.
I would like to point out that one of the studies that I referenced used Nautilus machines. While they may not be the 2ST line, they are Nautilus, and from my understanding, you are a supporter of Nautilus equipment.
James Krieger
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 18:40:56 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Machines, skills, and free weights
> From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@mailbox.uq.edu.au>
>
> While a "machine" will never be able to match the strength curve of ALL
> individuals or maybe not even one of them, the variable resistance is
> light years more in tune with the strength curve than a barbell for
> nearly every exercise.
My point is, so what? It has yet to be demonstrated on a consistent basis
in the laboratory that a variable resistance machine can produce
significantly superior results. Superior strength curve does not
necessarily mean superior results.
> >
> > All research that has been done comparing
> > the two types of training have demonstrated equivocal results (3).
> >
> > 3. Fleck, S.J., and W.J. Kraemer. Designing Resistance Training
Programs.
> > Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 1987.
> >
> Remember James I'm the guy that listens to reason, not studies and we've
> both covered that territory more than enough for most peoples
> satisfaction. I take it that the Authors also advocate Periodisation.
If you were to read this source, you would find that the authors review
numerous studies comparing variable resistance machines to free weights.
The authors were not involved in any of these studies at all. One study
they referenced showed a superiority in variable-resistance. Another
showed a superiority in free weights. Four others showed no difference at
all. The fact that these authors advocate periodization has no bearing on
this discussion.
> I on the other hand want it known that because of the rotary , variable,
> balanced and direct resistance, combined with resistance in the position
> of full muscular contraction and unrestricted speed of movement that the
> machines are the most safe and effective tools that we have.
My question to you is, if we have an injured individual who acquires pain
while using a machine, how do we modify the exercise so that the individual
can exercise pain-free? We can't with a machine, but we can with free
weights. This brings into doubt the relative safety of machines, since
they force joints to move in ways they may not want to. The only safety
benefit that machines have over free weights is the lack of a need for
supervision.
For example, I acquire pain in my acromioclavicular joint when I do barbell
benches and bring the bar to my lower chest and touch it. However, if I
bring the bar to my upper chest and do not attempt to touch my chest, I can
do this exercise with no pain. Such adjustments are not possible, or very
difficult, with a machine.
Another argument with machines is that they allow you to work prime movers
more effectively due to the lack of stabilization requirements. Now, I
know you don't like studies, but McCaw et al (1) found a tendency for
greater muscle activity in prime movers in free weights, not machines.
They also found great variation in muscle activity among subjects,
suggesting that some people may experience greater muscle activity with a
machine, but some people will experience greater muscle activity with free
weights.
1. McCaw, S.T., and J.J. Friday. A comparison of muscle activity between
a free weight and machine bench press. J. Strength and Cond. Res.
8(4):259-264. 1994.
James Krieger
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 08:39:44 -0600
From: dpendergraft@beckett.com (Don Pendergraft)
Subject: Re: Super Squats - help
First, I would say that yes one set of 20 rep breathing squats a week is enough. If you do anymore, you are likely to become overtrained. Secondly, I have the book Super Squats that you are referring to. You really don't need it. It has some good pointers on the squat, but the rest is simply proving the efficacy of his program and telling you to drink so much milk a day that it shoots out of your nose! Well, maybe not that much, but he does really push the milk. I did the program and I didn't gain thirty pounds. Maybe I didn't eat enough, but I doubt it. I did, however, gain about 10 so I can't really complain. I used Strossen's routine for my first 3 months before I switched to Mike Mentzer's Heavy Duty 2 routine which I like even better. I no longer do the 20 rep squats and instead alternate 8-10 rep leg presses with 8-10 rep squats. I superset them with leg extensions also. I like the 20 rep squat, but as you probably know since you do them, you are liable to get seriously gassed cardio-wise before your muscles go to absolute failure. Now that I only do 8-10 reps, I do them in a squat rack and go until I cannot get the weight up and strain against it awhile and just drop down and collapse, letting the crossbars of the power rack catch the weight. Basically Strossen's routine is full body using compound exercises once a week. It is a very good program. I just prefer Mentzer because he doesn't do full body so it is much easier to keep up intensity for only 3-5 exercises instead of 9-10. You can always try both! You can buy Heavy Duty 2 from Mike's web site. www.mikementzer.com Good luck!
Don P.
P.S. Your English is excellent.
>-------------------- 3 --------------------
>Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 22:35:25 +0100
>From: "Manuel António Tavares Silva Ferreira" <manant@mail.telepac.pt>
>Subject: Super Squats - help
>
>Hello,
>Sorry by my English i am from Portugal.
>My name is Manuel and i have been using the HIT principles for quite
>some time and i have been making awesome gains.
>I have been doing one set of 20 rep breathing squats every week. It's
>hard but i love it.
>Is it enough one set per week ?
>I have heard a book called "Super Squats - How to Gain 30# of Muscle in
>6 weeks " by RandallJ.Strossen , is it good ?
>I can't find the book in Portugal.
>I have some family in Toronto - Canada but they can't find to.
>Can someone tel me is program ? (sets, reps...)
>Help me please, i want to try the routine.
>
>Any help would be greatly appreciated,
>Manuel António Ferreira
>manant@mail.telepac.
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:42:21 -0500
From: "Zimmerman, William F." <William.Zimmerman@lexis-nexis.com>
Subject: how am I doing?
Hi,
I am a 36 year old M, 6'2, who started a HIT program in the last week of
August 97 at 225 pounds, after several predominantly sedentary years. I
started with basically no upper body muscles (although my legs have always
been pretty well defined) and am feeling some strength and tone gains. My
weight is up to 233 and my wife says I look fitter. But I seem to be making
slower progress in some exercises than in others and would like a "status
check" on how my program is designed.
I started keeping a training log in October when I realized (after reading this list) that I really couldn't measure my progress without one. (I have appended it in csv format.) I've increased 25-40% in strength in a couple of the leg exercises and about 10-15% in most of the upper body exercises. I do the exercises in the order shown, i..e big leg exercises first, then complex upper body, then isolated upper body. I feel that I'm having trouble gaining strength with the isolated upper bodies because they come at the end of the workout when my arms are already getting tired.
Am I about on track--am I making progress the way I should? Or should I be
doing something different?
Thanks HITTERs,
Fred Z.
-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:40:07 EST
From: Beber0190 <Beber0190@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Free Weights vs Machines
In a message dated 97-12-10 07:38:49 EST, you write:
<<
If machines are clearly so much better (light years ahead, according to
what I snipped from your post), then obviously you will be able to
point-out those athletes who do and do not use machines, in the NFL or
the NBA or whatever sport another poster suggested.
Unfortunately, without being informed beforehand, I do not think you
will be able to perform such a task. So clearly the difference is quite
minute >>
By logical extension, you couldn't pick out free weight exercisers from
machine exercisers either by appearance or strength or skill, so why critizice
machines? It is obvious that the only practical difference is a) Machines
will let you focus on one muscle, the prime mover. This allows you to take
that muscle to failure more readily, causing growth at a faster rate in the
target muscle b)Machines are much more expensive than free weights. For at
least 50% of trainees, this is not a real difference, since 50% of trainees
are members of gyms, and pay one price regardless of whether they use machines
or free weights. Also, is there any way to isolate lats without a Nautilus or
Hammer Pullover machine? I can't think of any.