CT,
Noticed you haven’t done the training log in awhile, I get it. It would be helpful to get a feel of how you went at the “machine/cable “ approach you mentioned as potentially being superior to free weights for muscle growth. If not what you did, maybe how you might generally suggest it.
Not CT.
I think machines compliment compound work extremely well… I often do compound movements first (strength focus), then machine movements afterwards for hypertrophy w/ accentuated eccentrics.
Fingers crossed this thread doesn’t get dogpiled with the age old “Free Weights vs Machines” argument.
I think what he was getting at is that volume is a (if not the) primary driver of hypertrophy. Barbells are relatively more fatiguing, rep for rep, than machines. If your goal is strictly hypertrophy, you’re going to be able to push your weekly volume a bit on machines.
So if you were going to do 60-80 total weekly sets, maybe you’re on the lower end if using primarily barbell work and on the higher end if using machines. In that hypothetical, you’ve increased your weekly volume by a ~third by prioritizing machine work; if volume is our driver, that was a more efficient approach.
I know that’s not his training log, and I’m not sure if I’m being helpful, but once you pick your volume targets you can fill them in with whatever movements you feel the most in your target muscle (machine presses, leg press, etc.) and incrementally increase your volume week to week.
1 Like
Volume is the main driver for hypertrophy, but it’s not as much as you think.
For those of you who have been reading up on CT’s and Tom Sheppard’s (a super smart guy with a great sense of humor who’s really growing on me) articles, you should know by know that hypertrophy is achieved by accumulating enough maximally effective reps (these are what you’d call the last 5-6 repetitions before you reach failure).
The latest research has shown that somewhere between 15-25 maximally effective reps per muscle group (IN ONE WORKOUT, meaning for maximum hypertrophy you need to get 30-50 maximally effective reps per muscle group per week which can be achieved simply by training each muscle group twice per week) is sufficient to stimulate muscle growth (beginners will grow on the lower end, intermediates in the 20-25 range and advanced lifters with a high level of training experience might need to go up to 40 maximally effective reps to get growth but these guys/girls are the ones who already look like tanks and are potentially super strong).
Research and bodybuilding experience has also shown that these maximally effective reps can be achieved both by training to failure with LOW volume, training 1-2 reps shy of failure with MODERATE volume and training 2-3 reps shy of failure with HIGH volume. So, the primary driver of hypertrophy is volume but this is referring to the volume of MAXIMALLY EFFECTIVE REPS (a super important detail that’s often left out and leaves so many lifters confused as they’re trying to decide which approach is better for hypertrophy).
Which approach (low, medium or high volume) you use depends on your personal training preference.
The reason why machines and cables work so well for (and probably are superior to barbell or dumbbell exercises) hypertrophy purposes is that they take away one element that can hinder your efforts to grow muscle: stability requirements. Machines and cables (if you’re seated, locked in or supported on a bench) require a much lower effort to stabilize yourself, which makes it easier to create a lot of mechanical tension in the target muscle group(s). This is why, for example, your leg press will always be much heavier in weight than your back squat.
Mechanical tension (= how much load is placed on a muscle) is the main driver of hypertrophy. Metabolic stress (= the buildup of hydrogen ions which gives you that burning sensation inside a muscle) is like the cherry on the cake but much less effective to drive growth. It’s mainly used for pump work or small muscle groups with a lot of FT I en IIa fibers (like shoulders or biceps for example) that have smaller/weaker tendons and are also trained with exercises that are not suited to train super heavy.
That’s where compounds come in, they allow you to do the heavy work because the load is spread over several joints and tendons. Doing sets of biceps curls with 90% of 1RM won’t be effective for muscle growth and you’ll only get 4 maximally effective reps per set if you take every set to failure (which would be a very stupid combo) so you would need to do 5 sets of biceps curls with 90% of 1 RM to achieve an adequate training effect. Can you imagine what this amount of work would do to your bicep tendon? Also, with this amount of weight it will be very challenging to maintain correct form. The same goes for rear delt or lateral raises for example. They’re just not meant to be trained at near maximal loads.
Now, integrating biceps work into a supinated grip chinup does allow you to train biceps effectively with near maximal loads because the back muscles are supporting the movement as well. This creates far less stress on the tendons and still allows proper stimulation for growth. For shoulders it would be OH press or heavy db presses.
That’s why metabolic stress is applied next to mechanical tension work on machines and cables in hypertrophy programs: to give neglected muscle groups more attention and to be able to train them properly whilst minimizing the risk of injuries and form breakdown. In other words, high mechanical tension can be achieved by both compound and isolation (if you train close to failure) exercises, but metabolic stress is a much better tool for isolation work than compound work.
Thanks everyone. In my late 20’s I capped out genetic potential just using machines/cables/dumbbells… never touched a barbell or any big/functional lift that nowadays seem to be the answer to everything. Have been playing the barbell game for a few years and considering just going back to my old school ways for awhile.
I haven’t read all the comments, so I might be repeating things that have already been said.
The main reason why machines can have an advantage over free-weights is a more focused neural drive.
The motor cortex sends an excitatory signal to the muscles (neural drive), the stronger the drive, the more high threshold motor units you recruit. These HTMU are connected to fast-twitch fibers and these are the fibers with the greatest growth potential.
So we can say that the more fast-twitch fibers we recruit, the more hypertrophy we can trigger.
Take an exercise like a squat. The neural drive starts from the motor cortex and is sent to all the muscles involved. In a squat that involves not only A LOT of muscles, but also complex actions (which require more neural drive) and postural control (which also need the neural drive).
Imagine that the neural drive is a large river and each muscle or function is a smaller river that branches out. Each branch out reduces the strength of water flow by taking water volume out of the main river.
If you do a hack squat instead, you have less muscles involved, less coordination and less postural control: it’s like having less smaller rivers branching out.
If you divide the neural drive less, you can send a stronger neural drive to the muscles involved which means that you can more easily recruit the fast twtich fibers or do it will less neurological drain.
Free weight movements (especially compound movements) are interesting because they are efficient: they all you to stimulate more things at the same time. They are also effective at developing your capacity to coordinate complex actions.
Machines are better at imposing a stronger stimulus on fewer muscles at a time though.
5 Likes
That is absolutely idiotic and not at all how the body works or adapt to stress. It is one of the most shockingly incorrect statements I’ve ever heard.
It’s not like you have XYZ possible gains from machines, ABC possible gains from barbells, HIJ possible gains from pulleys, KLM possible gains from kettlebells, etc.
The stimulus for hypertrophy is muscle tension, period.
When you perform a loaded exercise the muscle fibers produce a high level of tension. This is sensed by the mechanoreceptors on the fibers which trigger a myriad of growth signals increasing protein synthesis which leads to an accrual of muscle tissue.
The body doesn’t differentiate AT ALL the origin of the tension. All it knows is tension (tension when the muscle is lengthening, tension when the muscle is stretched and tension when the muscle contracts). At an equal level of intramuscular tension over an equivalent range of motion, you will stimulate the same hypertrophy regardless of the tool you used.
You CAN have a short-time increase in progress when switching tools, mostly because some tools will involve more secondary muscles or simply because you are using your body is a different way that it is used to.
But when reporting gains when switching almost exclusively to barbells after having trained only with machines, it is more likely due to:
-
Changing your style of training. When moving from more machines, pulleys, isolation work etc to the big lifts with free-weight, one also often change his training style from more volume/higher reps to lower reps and heavier weights. Every change in training style, provided that it stays effective, will spark new growth… you’d see the same thing if you switched from only doing the big basic barbell lifts to machines with higher reps.
-
You are more motivated by your new way of training (or got bored by your old one). Mental state plays a huge role in progress; the more motivated or driven you are, the harder you’ll train and the more progress you’ll make.
I am NOT saying that the big basic free-weight exercises are no good, they are. I’m a big basics kinda guy (most of the time). But believing that you “topped out” the possible gains from a training tool and that you need a new tool to continue gaining is ludicrous, especially in your late 20s.
4 Likes
Yeah, your right, I probably could have done more. Hard to think though, went from 165 to 205/210 with low body fat. Killed myself eating and training, all natural. Had a buddy who played college ball and we trained 5/6 days a week to stupid levels of failure and intensity, so I reflect thinking that I couldn’t do much more but probably could have. Thanks for the thoughts and insight.
I have so much beef with this statement it’s USDA certified.
Have you gone carnivore? 
1 Like
More Carnivore than LiverKing 
I bid and won a 1/2 cow at a charity auction, splitting it with a friend. He’s given me all the liver and heart. I just don’t know if I can make beef heart and make it tasty
1 Like
I don’t think machines are superior. But they can take much less time than free weights. And they are good for adding volume once fatigued. You can do a bunch of pull-ups, say, then some more on the Gravitron. I wouldn’t do this in every phase. Not every workout should be balls-to-the-wall and machines can be good for lighter workouts. Some are much more useful then others - I love the Smith machine for overhead work (with a few Olympic lifts and overhead carries). I used to love the Nautilus pullover machine one old gym had. And it is hard to overdo stuff like lats, so the machine is a quick way to do them several times a week.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.