[quote]scottiscool wrote:
My function is to be a largely muscled individual eventually. Leg presses get the job done just as well as back squats do, and arguably better since lower back fatigue isn’t a factor. I train to absolute positive failure and do so alone, machines are letting me get the job done when it’s not safe for me to use a free weight exercise.
About 7-8 months ago I hit a certain weight on the leg press for a heavy deep double, now I’m doing a 25 a side more for twenty and my legs don’t fit into 80% of my pants anymore. I deem leg presses 100% functional for my goals.
Reverse grip presses in the smith have gone up 75 lbs over a similar time frame and my arms are up just shy of 1.5 inches larger now(with horrible biceps. Let’s not dismiss machines and the like just yet when it comes to bodybuilding, ie the section of the forum we are in. [/quote]
I think leg presses are the most under estimated exercise of all. Squats are definately superior with all things considered, but a leg press machine lets you work the last bit of energy out of your legs after your back has been shot with sqauts.
There is reason the leg press makes it’s way in to many professional athletes’ training regimens.
[quote]FightingScott wrote:
<<< Being Able to load up a machine with weights doesn’t really display any significant amount of strength. >>> [/quote]
Is that so? Well it certainly won’t win you any meets, but to say that a guy with a bunch of plates on each side of a Hammer Strength type machine is not displaying any significant strength is just wrong. Hell, when I see Ronnie Coleman pinning 45’s to the stack on the leg extension machine, call me crazy, but that just strikes me as a display of strength as does his moving a literal ton on the press.
There’s nothing wrong with this statement other than the fact that you make it a prescription of dogma.
I promise you there are very large, very strong people in this world who routinely violate your dearly held, here stated beliefs.
I’m personally in the “both” category, as my goals are to gain as much size and strength as possible.
I also feel that free weight exercises are generally the better choice, when it is safe to use them of course. But, that doesn’t mean that machines aren’t effective as well.
Honestly, the people suggesting that machines aren’t good for strength sound a lot like the “functional strength” guys. Didn’t we already establish (in many a thread on the “functionality” of strength) that strength was strength and what made it “functional” was both the desired function and practicing the given activity?
If your leg press goes from 200 lbs for a set of 20 to 800 lbs for a set of 20, don’t you think that this is going to mean a huge improvement in strength? No, you may not be able to squat 800 lbs, but there will still be some carry over.
For instance when Zadrunas Savickas first entered the strongman circuit, he got his ass handed to him, even though he may have been “stronger” than most of the other competitors. He simply hadn’t yet learned to transfer his strength to the specific demands of strongman. Now, he’s arguably the best strongman in the world and holds several records in several events.
What changed over that period? Was it that he somehow gained a huge amount of strength (more so than any of his fellow competitors)? No, he was probably already stronger than the other guys. What has happened is that he has learned how to apply his strength efficiently to the strongman events.
The same thing can happen with machines. Does anyone doubt Ronnie Coleman’s leg strength after watching him leg press 2300 lbs, simply because it’s a machine and not free weights? I know I don’t.
For anyone who cares, here’s my take:
Most people completely miss the point when it comes to this. It’s got nothing to do with whether free weights are better than machines; the question is what works better for YOU right now. People are different from each other, and even individuals have different experiances at different times, which isn’t usually taken into account.
For example, I have some very serious shoulder problems stemming from a couple of conditions I guess I was born with. My glenoid fossa is flat and doesn’t cup (basically my shoulder socket is more like a plate than a bowl) and on top of that I have hyperextensible ligaments. This makes overhead work extremely difficult/dangerous for me, since the only thing holding my shoulders in place at that angle is the rotator cuff.
When I first started lifting, I used only machines with things like the shoulder press and incline press, because I was afraid of injury. My gains leveled off pretty quickly. I switched to doing barbell/dumbell stuff for overhead work (with really really low weight) and made gains there. The other day I was burnt out, so I did machine shoulder press instead of barbell, and I doubled my old PR. Which means I can now get a lot more stimulation and growth out of the machine overhead press than with the much lesser amount I was doing with the bar.
I know not everyone has joint issues like me, but the point is that machines and freeweights both have a really important part to play in my training at different points in time. I don’t give a damn if someone says I’m not working the deltoid as optimally in the machine, just like I don’t care at all if some ass (with healthy shoulders) thinks he’s better than me because I’m only working with a quarter a side for the OH press. I know what works for me.
Tribulus you missed my point. I don’t doubt that CaliforniaLaw can put on enough plates on a Power Squat machine to injure my back. Anyone who can put 45s on a plate loaded machine can manage that. Yeah it takes strength to move those weights but it doesn’t take much to put them on the machine.
And Yeah, there are big, strong people who use single-joint machines besides the rear-delt machine and the calf raise machines but they’d be better off if they did their isolation moves with free weights instead.
[quote]FightingScott wrote:
Tribulus you missed my point. I don’t doubt that CaliforniaLaw can put on enough plates on a Power Squat machine to injure my back. Anyone who can put 45s on a plate loaded machine can manage that. Yeah it takes strength to move those weights but it doesn’t take much to put them on the machine.
And Yeah, there are big, strong people who use single-joint machines besides the rear-delt machine and the calf raise machines but they’d be better off if they did their isolation moves with free weights instead. [/quote]
First, I could be wrong, but I believe the implication that Calilaw was making was that the amount of weight that he can power squat would injure your back. Once again, could be wrong, but that’s what I think he meant.
Second, why do you think that big strong people who use single joint machines would be “better off” if they did their isolation moves with free weights? Using the machines has gotten them big and strong, which I take was their goal. Therefore the machines served their purpose (obviously at least sufficiently).
Another interesting fact with this whole “free weights are better for real world strength” argument is that there are some pretty convincing examples of when machines worked as well (if not possibly better) for building strength and conditioning than free weights.
For instance, I recall reading in Chris Shugart’s interview with Dr. Darden that Arthur Jones trained the 1972 Miami Dolphins using his Nautilus Machines. And for anyone who doesn’t know, that’s the year that the Dolphins became the only team (since the invention of the “Super Bowl”) to ever go undefeated. In fact Jones supposedly trained the Dolphins in 1971, 1972, and 1973. The Dolphins were Super Bowl champs in both 72 and 73.
I’d have to say that going undefeated (and being the only team to ever do so) is a pretty good argument for machine training being at least fairly effective in their carry over to “real world” strength.
[quote]scottiscool wrote:
But sentoguy you can’t use examples like that, they… they… they don’t agree with the T-Nation authours![/quote]
Clearly they agree with at least one author featured on T-Nation: Dr. Ellington Darden. One of the nice things about T-Nation is that they provide points of view from all over and let you make up your own mind.
[quote]scottiscool wrote:
I’d say Dr. Darden is a pretty unpopular person around here judging by the responses his articles always get. [/quote]
Yeah, I know what you mean, but he is an author here so that viewpoint is represented. There are lots of times that I call ‘bullshit’ when reading an article on T-Nation, but then I read comments from people who say that it was the best program they’ve ever been on.
As an example, I know Chad Waterbury is a popular author around here (and also very unpopular with some people), but I HATED the Waterbury Summer Project when I tried it. It actually made me stop training for a couple of months. I don’t think that means Mr. Waterbury is a bad coach, it just means that one particular program wasn’t for me.
Likewise I’m not a fan of HIT, but I still read and enjoy Dr. Darden’s articles here; and clearly HIT has worked very well for him and others. Too many people just ‘Drink the Koolaid’ rather than finding what works for them.
I will just add this. I have seen guys who could bench X amount of weight on the Smith machine like 300 pounds and couldn’t do that amount with a barbell. Not saying it’s always the case, but definitely true in many cases.
[quote]scottiscool wrote:
I’d say Dr. Darden is a pretty unpopular person around here judging by the responses his articles always get. [/quote]
I Love Dr. Darden. That doesn’t mean I’m an incurable HITohlic sycophant, but that guy has been around while some serious ground was broken and muscle was built. He’s been in this game since Before Castro took power and deserves some common respect. My ears are always open when he speaks.
I’m lost in the debate between California Law and Fighting Tiger.
One thing that absolutely kills me is the mentality that California Law was alluding to where guys get it in their minds that certain practices, methods, equipment, exercises etc. are just not cool or macho enough for them. The one and only standard by which I choose any of the above is whether it contributes to the achievement of my goals.
I don’t use gloves, wraps or a belt. I train barefoot, even on leg day, but use a pad for squats because it’s more comfortable. Here’s another confession. I own a bosu ball and have found that when my shoulders are acting up it is great for doing presses on. It supports the back of the girdle and allows me to work better.
I use whatever exercises work my muscles how I want regardless of how hip n groovy they may or may not be. That happens to be 75-80% big compound movements and 70% or so free weights. It may be something completely different for somebody else, like Ramo for instance who knows exactly what he’s doing and for whom my methods are a recipe for disaster.
People need to spend more time learning to interpret what their own bodies are telling them and less time worrying about external consensus. A lot of debates would never have to happen.
I like Dr. Darden too and if he didn’t get such a sour response to every article I’d imagine we’d get some more insight from a guy who’s been around the block a couple times.
People do like to develop the “macho” attitude and denounce others who don’t train their way and it’s totally silly. We will have this conversation come up within the next week most likely since the general attitude won’t change but slowly some start to get it and wise up(like me).
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
scottiscool wrote:
I’d say Dr. Darden is a pretty unpopular person around here judging by the responses his articles always get.
I Love Dr. Darden. That doesn’t mean I’m an incurable HITohlic sycophant, but that guy has been around while some serious ground was broken and muscle was built. He’s been in this game since Before Castro took power and deserves some common respect. My ears are always open when he speaks.
I’m lost in the debate between California Law and Fighting Tiger.
One thing that absolutely kills me is the mentality that California Law was alluding to where guys get it in their minds that certain practices, methods, equipment, exercises etc. are just not cool or macho enough for them. The one and only standard by which I choose any of the above is whether it contributes to the achievement of my goals. I don’t use gloves, wraps or a belt. I train barefoot, even on leg day, but use a pad for squats because it’s more comfortable. Here’s another confession. I own a bosu ball and have found that when my shoulders are acting up it is great for doing presses on. It supports the back of the girdle and allows me to work better.
I use whatever exercises work my muscles how I want regardless of how hip n groovy they may or may not be. That happens to be 75-80% big compound movements and 70% or so free weights. It may be something completely different for somebody else, like Ramo for instance who knows exactly what he’s doing and for whom my methods are a recipe for disaster.
People need to spend more time learning to interpret what their own bodies are telling them and less time worrying about external consensus. A lot of debates would never have to happen.[/quote]
You are absolutely correct and people should do what brings them results in regard to their goals. Where the ultimate debate arises largely from is ego in relation to ultimate strength. If your goal is to be a strong bastard and one says hey, my smith machine bench or squat is this big! Many are going to then ask what can you do with the free weights?
One cannot dispute that it takes more strength to bench or squat a huge amount of weight with the free bar then it would to do the same weight on the Smith machine. If one doesn’t care about this and is just concerned with hypertrophy and strength gains, but not comparing their strength to a free weight lifter and the machine is bringing the results wanted then great and they should disregard any negative opinion on machines.
[quote]Dedicated wrote:
I will just add this. I have seen guys who could bench X amount of weight on the Smith machine like 300 pounds and couldn’t do that amount with a barbell. Not saying it’s always the case, but definitely true in many cases.
D [/quote]
That would be because of one the bar on the smith weighs nothing because it is counter balanced, and two because if your weaker in one arm the smith machine along with other machines will still push both sides equally. I would say it 99% of the case.
I equate differences in strenght on A) the fact that machines and free weights aren’t the same and B) potentially being unfamiliar with the movement.
I played soccer for most of my life and therefore got pretty darn good at kicking a soccer ball. I was playing around with the varsity kicker for the football team and hit some 30-40 yard field goals with him. He hit a 45+ yard field goal and I couldn’t match him. Being frustrated I took him over to the soccer field for some redemption and had him kick a soccer ball from the penalty box out towards the other goal. He hit it just short of midfield in the air.
I came up next and hit it a good 20+ yards farther. Who had the stronger leg? Depends on what discipline it was because I was better at what I’ve done(be it soccer or machines) and he was better at what he’s done(football or free weights). Does that make sense or am I just rambling haha?
The person pressing 5 plates a side on the HS incline press isn’t “weak” and I think he knows he likely can’t do 495 on a barbell. But someone who trains with a barbell might struggle on the HS to match the weights of someone more familiar with it.
[quote]Dedicated wrote:
I will just add this. I have seen guys who could bench X amount of weight on the Smith machine like 300 pounds and couldn’t do that amount with a barbell. Not saying it’s always the case, but definitely true in many cases.
D [/quote]
This is definately the case for me, but when my smith machine bench goes up, so does my free weight bench. Proportionately.
[quote]scottiscool wrote:
I equate differences in strenght on A) the fact that machines and free weights aren’t the same and B) potentially being unfamiliar with the movement.
I played soccer for most of my life and therefore got pretty darn good at kicking a soccer ball. I was playing around with the varsity kicker for the football team and hit some 30-40 yard field goals with him. He hit a 45+ yard field goal and I couldn’t match him. Being frustrated I took him over to the soccer field for some redemption and had him kick a soccer ball from the penalty box out towards the other goal. He hit it just short of midfield in the air.
I came up next and hit it a good 20+ yards farther. Who had the stronger leg? Depends on what discipline it was because I was better at what I’ve done(be it soccer or machines) and he was better at what he’s done(football or free weights). Does that make sense or am I just rambling haha?
The person pressing 5 plates a side on the HS incline press isn’t “weak” and I think he knows he likely can’t do 495 on a barbell. But someone who trains with a barbell might struggle on the HS to match the weights of someone more familiar with it. [/quote]
Likewise I’m not a fan of HIT, but I still read and enjoy Dr. Darden’s articles here; and clearly HIT has worked very well for him and others. Too many people just ‘Drink the Koolaid’ rather than finding what works for them.
[/quote]
I get the feeling that there are a lot of people around here who look at all the different flavors of koolaid and yell at each other over which flavor is better, but they always stay thirsty.
[quote]fightingtiger wrote:
I get the feeling that there are a lot of people around here who look at all the different flavors of koolaid and yell at each other over which flavor is better, but they always stay thirsty.[/quote]
That sounded really deep, but now I just want to drink kool-aid. GRAPE!
