1. Free-weight vs. Machines
by: Chris Thibaudeau <gestion.thima@marche.com>
2. RE: HIT Digest, digest #59
by: Turner, Darius <dturner@anatec.com>
3. Re: Krieger: Machines vs. Free Weights
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
4. Re: Stabilizers
by: Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@onr.com>
5. experiment with routines
by: M.E.B.vandeWetering <mvweteri@wi.leidenuniv.nl>
6. Full Squats
by: M.E.B.vandeWetering <mvweteri@wi.leidenuniv.nl>
7. Bench Press and Creatine
by: PatChief <PatChief@aol.com>
8. Last free weights v machines from me.
by: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@mailbox.uq.edu.au>
9. Re: machines/free weights
by: Sonofsquat <Sonofsquat@aol.com>
10. Re: Stabilizers
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
11. Re: Free Weights vs Machines
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 06:46:53 -0500
From: "Chris Thibaudeau" <gestion.thima@marche.com>
Subject: Free-weight vs. Machines
It's true, free-weights have adantages over machines, and machines DO have
advantages over free-weights (note that by machines I include cable
movements).
It is a common saying that machine provide resistance adjusted toward one's
strength curve. It is a fact. Unfortunately it is grossely misunderstood,
which lead to more confusion.
Let me explain it this way: To induce maximum growth in your muscles you
have to apply maximum resistance throughout the biggest range of motion
possible. Maximum resistance mean that, in any given position you are
exercing strength against direct resistance, it's simple physics, if the
resistance is not directly opposite to your effort the amount of 'real'
weight lifted (by that I mean the actual amount of stress received by the
targeted muscles) is inferior, and by a lot.
Now, for the most part, free-weights exercises don't allow you to have this
'opposite' resistance through the whole range of motion. Why? because with
free-weights the resistance is, and will always be, straigth toward the
ground. Why? A simple thing called gravity. Every mass is attracted toward
the ground.
So, for an a free-weight exercise to be effective toward the whole range of
motion it must be oriented perpendicular to the ground at all time. E.g.
The bench press, the squat, the deadlift.
Every other moements are less effectives when done with free-weights. Why? That's where the redirected resistance come into play.
Machines, even the worst of them, all redirect the natural reistance (which is always toward the ground) to fit, more or less, the motion you do.
Granted that we all have differant physiological caracteristics and all
machines are not designed equal. But even if a machine would fit only 4% of
your strength
curve it would still be twice as good as most free-weights exercises (which
fit about 1.8-2% of your strength curve), of course excluding the
free-weights exercises that use a vertical motion.
But in most machines the match is 60% or higher and some of them go up to
85-90%, you do the math.
Now you'll say that barbell exercises stress the stabilising muscles. E.g. The bench press use lats and traps as stabilisers. Barbell curls use lower back as stabilisers etc. That's true, I can't argue about that. But let me add this...Welll first let me say that I'm a convinced low-volume man, while not a true hiter I strongly believe in the concept of oertraining.
Now I can't help but wonder: If a muscle already receive a lot of stress
when directly hit is put in a situation where he receive some more, doesn't
it risk entering a state of overtraining?
There is two possibles answers:
1) Yes, the additional stress is a factor that could lead to overtraining.
2) No, the stress is not large enough to lead to overtraining.
So if it is a factor toward overtraining, than it should be aoided like the
plague, we don't need that!
But you will say: ''Common, this stress isn't intense enough to cause inroads and lead to overtraining'' (or words to that effect).
Well let me tell you this, if the stress isn't big enough why botter to
state it as an advantage of free-weights in the first place? I mean, if the
stress isn't intense enough to produce results than where does the
advantage lies?
The only adantvantage of free-weights that I can see now is, and it's a long shot, it give better stimulation to the neuro-muscular connections. Free-weights movements are supposed to make those connections more effective, thus giving you more speed-strength. Like I said it's a long shot, I don't believe it's been proven without a doubt, but it's a theory.
If your goal is only to put on muscle mass and get a better physique then
where does that help you? As a powerlifter or olympic weightlifter I can
see, but for a bodybuilder?
That's pretty much it... Go ahead I'm waiting for your flames...
[Maybe on other lists...but not this one! Iron Mike]
Chris Thibaudeau
''If a man speak in a forrest and there is no women to hear him...is he
still wrong?''
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 09:41:39 -0600
From: "Turner, Darius" <dturner@anatec.com>
Subject: RE: HIT Digest, digest #59
I'm about 6 ft. tall about 260-265. I'm pretty well built, but I would like to trim down to about 250. In addition I would like to trim down around the abs. I'm aware of the fact the dieting is very important, but how can a HIT program aid me. If you have any suggestions I would really like to here them. I want more tone and less bulk.
>----------
>From: cyberpump@geocities.com[SMTP:cyberpump@geocities.com]
>Sent: Thursday, December 11, 1997 5:39 AM
>To: HIT Digest
>Subject: HIT Digest, digest #59
>
>
>
>
>
>Oops...the header message above might be the same as last issue. Sorry.
>Techo difficulties -
>my forgetting to change it! HAH! IM
>
>
>This digest contains the following messages:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>************************************************************
>List/Digest Commands
>SUBSCRIBE - subscribes you to the digest.
>UNSUBSCRIBE - unsubscribes you from the digest.
>
>To post to the list, send a message to cyberpump@geocities.com
>
>To issue a command/request to the server:
>
>Send a message with the command you wish executed as the
>subject of the message to cyberpump@geocities.com
>
>If you have any problems with the digest contact the moderator Rob
>Spector at rspector@earthlink.net
>
>************************************************************
>Copyright 1997 Cyberpump!
>All rights reserved. No part of this digest may be reproduced or
>transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical
>including but not limited to any information storage and
>retrieval system, except as may be permitted by the copyright act
>as amended or in writing by Cyberpump.
>
>No liability is assumed for the information provided on the HIT Digest.
>The opinions are those of the contributors to the digest.
>************************************************************
>
>
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 09:00:07 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Krieger: Machines vs. Free Weights
<< 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. >>
The traps are not "stabilizers" or "balancing" muscles in this exercise, but are directly under load, and contracting statically throughout the movement.
To say that free weights are more effective than properly designed machines for the purpose of stimulating muscular strength increases is utter nonsense; the same as saying that the horse and buggy are more effective at getting one from point A to point B than an automobile. The next thing you know, the NSCA and others who have deluded themselves into believing they're experts in this subject will be telling everyone to go back to training with rocks and logs.
Andrew M. Baye
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 10:44:21 -0600 (CST)
From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald)
Subject: Re: Stabilizers
At 5:39 AM 12/11/97, cyberpump@geocities.com wrote:
>Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:20:47 +1000
>From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@mailbox.uq.edu.au>
>Subject: Re: Stabilizers
>> 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.
What about the mulifidus and other deep spinal muscles? The are generally spinal stabilizers. Yes, it's primarily during axial loading but they have a role during movement in all planes. The only way to really challenge these muscles is to force them to actively stabilize the spine.
>> 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].
But if you are working in a comletely controlled environmen where you can
absolutely control execution style and rate of progression, this works. By
using a basic progression of low back exercises, you can progress someone
with a spinal bulge to stabilize the spine quite well and be able to
function in activities of daily living (ADL). Otherwise they will have to
act like mummies, never putting ANY stress on the back to avoid injury.
Then, the one time their body is put into a bad situation, for lack of
controlled training, they WILL get injured.
For example, we always hear to lift with a slightly arched (lordotic) back.
Why? Because it puts relatively more stress on the lumbar erectors and
relatively less on the posterior ligaments of the spine. A muscle strain
takes several days to heal, a tendon sprain several weeks. So a muscular
injury is relatively less bad than a tendon injury. Ok, so we train
everybody in lordosis, allowing the strength of the posterior ligamentous
system (engaged during kyphotic lifting) to atropy from disuse. What
happens when this trainee has to pick something heavy up in a kyphotic
posture (i.e. lifting groceries out of most car trunks will not allow
lordotic lifting). Lack of ligament strength causes an injury. Whereas
training the posterior ligaments through controlled progressive overload
would have prevented it.
Lyle McDonald, CSCS
"If a mime falls in an empty forest, does he make a sound?"
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 17:39:54 +0100 (MET)
From: mvweteri@wi.leidenuniv.nl (M.E.B.vandeWetering)
Subject: experiment with routines
Hello
Because I want to establish which type of routine works best for me I
want to experiment with 3 types of routines: full-body, 2-way split
(upper/lower body or push/pull) and a 3-way split (back/bis, legs,
chest/tris).
Say that with my recovery ability I would need 7 days of rest to recuperate
in between full-body workouts, what would then be a good estimate of the
number of rest days in between workouts of 2-way split routines and 3-way
split routines assuming that the total volume of each routine remains the
same (i.e. each routine has the same total number and type of excercises)?
I guess the more workouts the excercises are divided over the fewer restdays
I will require in bewteen workouts. But I don't think that you can simply say
that that the number of restdays in between workouts is simply n/x (n = number
of restdays required to recuperate in between full-body workouts, x = number
of different workouts in routine) thereby making sure every bodypart is
trained every n days (say 7 in my case). Because in the extreme of a 7-way
split that would mean that training every day would be productive for me,
which I can't imagine it can be. Can somebody tell me a better way to look at
it (theoretically or out of experience).
Elbert
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 17:45:41 +0100 (MET)
From: mvweteri@wi.leidenuniv.nl (M.E.B.vandeWetering)
Subject: Full Squats
Hello
Starting next year I want to try doing the full-squat instead of the regular
(thighs to parallel) squat. Since I never done the full-squat before I'm not
sure on the differences bewteen the regular and the full squat. For instance
should I change my stance compared to the regular squat, what reduction in
poundage should I (approximately) expect, what are the differences in targeted
muscles etc.
Are there people on this digest who have performed full-squats and can give me
advice on them?
Elbert
-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 18:33:22 EST
From: PatChief <PatChief@aol.com>
Subject: Bench Press and Creatine
I am thinking about using Shawn Phillips " How to increase your Bench
Press 50 lbs." Has anyone out there used it and gotten results. It seems
impossible to gain that musch in 7 weeks.
Also what is a good supplement to stack with Creatine? I am currently
using it and I'm getting good results but it doesn't match the claims of other
users.
Thanks in advance,
Pat Rogers
-------------------- 8 --------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 10:22:06 +1000
From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@mailbox.uq.edu.au>
Subject: Last free weights v machines from me.
Hi guys,
This will be the last post about free weights v machines from me as if
I'm getting tiresome of the subject I can imagine that many others will
be far more so.
> -------------------- 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.
People vary for sure but they are more similar than they are dissimilar
and so much so that all will find no resistance at the fully contracted
or extended position of the biceps curl provided the movement arm is at
0 and 180 degrees. A cam enables resistance to be given for both of
these positions. Anyone can try it out for themselves and the physics
will clearly illustrate the phenomena.
[Andrew Baye mentioned something to the effect that most machines are
crap]
[James Krieger stated previously that one of the Nautilus machines was
not designed correctly]
> 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.
While Andrew does support the use of Nautilus machines I can only
imagine that he like those at Nautilus who once aware of the bad design
were no longer supportive and remedied the situation. I can not see
blind adherence coming from Andrew at all.
> -------------------- 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.
>
Wrt "our" training philosophy the use of machines I think would be
considered a derivative according to Mentzer so if I'm right and they do
provide a more effective and efficient stimulus this may count against
their use if the trainee were overtraining. I've read about some
trainees of Mentzer's who once on the consolidation routine which
incorporated at least 2 free weights exercises made tremendous gains
when training more infrequently and reducing the volume.
Wrt to your other comments about the studies there are so many variables
that need to be taken into account. How frequently, what volume, what
machines, what subjects, did they go to failure? It was found that one
of Mentzer's clients reduced volume and training to ridiculous levels
only then was he able to make gains. If he were included in the study
he would probably not gain on any of the protocols because even "HIT"
routines were too much and the machine vs free weights issue would
becomes irrelevant.
>
[Me on why I thought machines were great]
>
> 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.
>
With some machines that is true. To tell you the truth myself and a
fellow subscriber just went to the gym yesterday and we were not that
impressed with Hammer although we were definitely with MedX. I found
the Medx machines to be very comfortable and highly adjustable. The
Medx machines being very adjustable did not force my body to go in any
direction that felt uncomfortable at all and especially so after I had
set it for my body type. Try them if you have the chance, you might just
like them.
Wrt your comments on studies, it's not that I don't like them per se.
It's just hard to control all of the variables and just to tell what
caused what. For example is my being alive causing the sun to "rise"
everyday. I think so because every day that I have been alive there has
been daylight :).
I like machines and they provide considerable benefits but can they help
those who can't see the forest for the trees. Can you get big and
strong without them? Of course. Do they have benefits and little
disadvantages? I think so and I think we'll have to agree to disagree
and let it rest at that.
Cya
Teri
-------------------- 9 --------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 19:30:16 EST
From: Sonofsquat <Sonofsquat@aol.com>
Subject: Re: machines/free weights
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The main problem with machines is that so many of them do not literally fit
all people. This has brought up several times I realize, and yes, some
machines are adjustable to fit a variety of body sizes. However, too many are
not.
Anyone remember the Hammer Equipment ad which featured Shaq? He looked
perfectly comfortable in that machine! However, I have seen 5'0" gymnasts sit
in the very piece Shaq was modeling (a chest press) and she looked literally
overwelmed! Likewise, I have seen some of my basketball players not able to
get a full range of motion in a lat pulldown.
I will score one for machines in that sometimes it is nearly impossible for an individual to do some exercises without them. Some women I train cannot do a pull up or a dip -- heck, some linemen I have seen can't either!
Machines are great for injured folks as well. Someone with a strained lower
back or sprained ankle could never do a squat. Likewise, a person with a
broken wrist would have a hard time training his or her chest. It is possible
to train these bodyparts with multi hip machines, leg curl machines and pec
decks.
I do believe the "stablizer" issue is valid in that over time (long periods of time) some stabilizers will benefit from free weights. The pectoralis minor (a series of three muscles which originates in the ribs and inserts in the head of the humorus) as well as the subclavius (1st rib to the posterior subclavical) are examples during the bench press. These muscles will be worked while using machines, but I suspect (through my own thought process -- I have no studies for documentation) they will work much harder when using dumbbell benches. By the way, The latissimus dorsi is not a stabilizer in the bench press. I believe it is more of a synergist. "stabilizers" stabilize the body or a part of the body and offer no help as actual "movers" (or very little help) while synergists actually help move the body part in question.
One other advantage of free weights is this simple point: You can train
almost every muscle with a single dumbbell. Some muscles such as the
hamstrings and lats you would be hard pressed to do so, and you certainly
couldn't isolate them, but you can! To get a full body workout with machines,
you'd need to spend several thousand dollars to buy every piece needed (I am
not speaking to gym members on this one, but the folks who wish to train at
home).
There are other advantages and disadvantages to both free weights and
machines... But this post is in danger of becoming too long! Just wanted to
throw my two cents in!
Fred Hatfield II
-------------------- 10 --------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 21:59:52 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Stabilizers
> From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@mailbox.uq.edu.au>
>
> I contend that the "stabiliser" muscles would gain greater strength
> increases by targeting them separately and training them intensely.
Well, then what do you say we do about the transverse abdominus? This is
not a muscle you can target directly. What about muscles such as the
rhomboid minor or subscapularis?
These muscles are very difficult to target directly.
> 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.
If this was true, then people would have trouble building size with
compound movements, since compound movements are always limited by the
weakest muscle groups. Leg size would be difficult to build with squats,
chest size would be difficult to build with benches, etc. We all know this
is not true in real life. In real life, the best exercises are the
compound movements.
>
> > 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.
While you are entitled to your opinion to Louie Simmons protocols, he has
produced many champion powerlifters, which goes to show something for his
training programs. Also, I have never seen an elite powerlifter,
bodybuilder, or other athlete who reached their levels primarily with
variable-resistance machines.
[Steve Scalpini (sp?) squatted in the high 700's using only a squat machine until JUST
before a contest. He also pulled 800 at 198. He is an ADFPA record holder and won
the nationals - IM]
> > 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].
Such as using a machine which forces your joints to move in a manner that
they may not like.
James Krieger
-------------------- 11 --------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 22:09:24 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Free Weights vs Machines
> From: Beber0190 <Beber0190@aol.com>
>
> 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
It has been demonstrated in the laboratory that a machine does not allow
one to "focus" more on the prime mover (1). Actually, free weights have
showed a tendency towards greater muscle activity (1), although numerous
individual variations exist.
Also, the statement you make is based on an assumption that training to failure will somehow cause faster muscle growth, which science has yet to demonstrate. If getting the prime movers to fail was necessary for stimulating muscle growth, then compound movements would not be very effective for building size, since such movements are limited by the weakest muscle groups. However, real life evidence indicates that compound movements are the best exercises for stimulating increases in size.
> or free weights. Also, is there any way to isolate lats without a
Nautilus or
> Hammer Pullover machine? I can't think of any.
If isolation was as important as some people believe, then leg extensions would be the best way to build huge quads. However, we all know that nothing beats the squat when it comes to building leg size.
On a personal note, many people comment me on my back development, yet I have never, ever done a single isolation exercise for my back. It has always been worked with compound movements, such as chins and rows.
1. McCaw, S.T., and J.J. Friday. A comparison muscle activity between a
free weight and machine bench press. J. Strength and Cond. Res.
8(4):259-264. 1994.
James Krieger