Re: Free weights versus machine weights

[Guest guest]

Colleagues,

I don't believe there's evidence showing that machines (guided resistance) are

more dangerous than free weights (unguided resistance).. The consensus emerging

from the literature is that 1) the perception that free weights are more

dangerous isn't necessarily true, and 2) unguided-resistance equipment is

superior in most regards, particularly when used with qualified instruction and

supervision. There seem to be multiple reasons for this. These provide useful

criteria for selecting training equipment and exercises that challenge athletes'

coordinative abilities - which is generally a good thing to do.

Here are some reviews on the subject (disclosure: I contributed to the latter

two):

sey M.C., Harman E.A., M.J. Resistance training modes: specificity

and effectiveness. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 27(5): 648-660,

1995.

Nosse L.J., Hunter G.R. Free weights: a review supporting their use in

rehabilitation.. Athletic Training 20(4): 206-209, 1985.

Stone M.H., Borden R.A. Modes and methods of resistance training. Strength and

Conditioning 19(4): 18-24, 1997.

Stone M.H., D., Plisk S.S., Haff G., Stone M.E. Training principles:

evaluation of modes and methods of resistance training. Strength and

Conditioning Journal 22(3): 65-76, 2000.

Stone M., Plisk S., D. Training principles: evaluation of modes and

methods of resistance training — a coaching perspective. Sports Biomechanics

1(1): 79-103, 2002.

Regards,

Plisk

Excelsior Sports • Shelton CT

www.excelsiorsports.com

Prepare To Be A Champion!

======================

wrote:

Okay, as Lee requested, put your cards on the table folks. Show us that

machine weights are injurious or useless. If you wish, make a

distinction between fixed path machines and those with a less than

fixed path, eg, cable machines.

==========================

[Guest guest]

Colleagues,

I don't believe there's evidence showing that machines (guided resistance) are

more dangerous than free weights (unguided resistance).. The consensus emerging

from the literature is that 1) the perception that free weights are more

dangerous isn't necessarily true, and 2) unguided-resistance equipment is

superior in most regards, particularly when used with qualified instruction and

supervision. There seem to be multiple reasons for this. These provide useful

criteria for selecting training equipment and exercises that challenge athletes'

coordinative abilities - which is generally a good thing to do.

Here are some reviews on the subject (disclosure: I contributed to the latter

two):

sey M.C., Harman E.A., M.J. Resistance training modes: specificity

and effectiveness. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 27(5): 648-660,

1995.

Nosse L.J., Hunter G.R. Free weights: a review supporting their use in

rehabilitation.. Athletic Training 20(4): 206-209, 1985.

Stone M.H., Borden R.A. Modes and methods of resistance training. Strength and

Conditioning 19(4): 18-24, 1997.

Stone M.H., D., Plisk S.S., Haff G., Stone M.E. Training principles:

evaluation of modes and methods of resistance training. Strength and

Conditioning Journal 22(3): 65-76, 2000.

Stone M., Plisk S., D. Training principles: evaluation of modes and

methods of resistance training — a coaching perspective. Sports Biomechanics

1(1): 79-103, 2002.

Regards,

Plisk

Excelsior Sports • Shelton CT

www.excelsiorsports.com

Prepare To Be A Champion!

======================

wrote:

Okay, as Lee requested, put your cards on the table folks. Show us that

machine weights are injurious or useless. If you wish, make a

distinction between fixed path machines and those with a less than

fixed path, eg, cable machines.

==========================

[Guest guest]

Well I'd like to post an opinion AND observation on the fixed path machines at

least.

They aren't built to accommodate small to average sized WOMEN for one thing!

The leverages on most machines in use do not suit women - they find they are not

in the proper position - e.g. feet flat to floor or leverage length adjustments.

SMALL women and yes, very small MEN do not fit the machines and must find ways

to alter the form to fit THEM.

Whereas a FREE weight knows no such restriction....the only limiter being hand

size perhaps, but that is not limited to small people lol. I know of at least

one man of SHW size who had undersized palms...and thus never deadlifted what

people thought he should for his other strengths lol.

Straps can be used to help overcome this particular size issue if required.

But the fact is, a lot of the machines - cybex, hammer strength

(trademarks/brands names both) cannot be adjusted to proper use by small

individuals, the majority of whom are women.

The Phantom

aka Schaefer, CMT, CSCS, competing powerlifter

Denver, Colorado, USA

----------------------------------

-------------- Original message --------------

>

> Wow Gordon! You make statements about these machines making athletes

slow and unco-ordinated, causing injuries etc. I trust you have formal

studies and research to prove your statements. Or is it just your

opinion, which you are certainly entitled to?

I was just about to post a similar request. I had a quick look in the

archives but I can't see an extended discussion about either the

dangers of using machine weights or the comparative benefits of free

weights versus machine weights. ( might find something.)

This is what the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) has to say

in their position stand summary:

" Free weights and machines. In general, weight machines have been

regarded as safer to use and easy to learn, and allow the performance

of some exercises that may be difficult with free weights (e.g., leg

extension, lat pull down) (73). In essence, machines help stabilize the

body and limit movement about specific joints involved in synergy and

focus the activation to a specific set of prime movers (73).

Unlike machines, free weights may result in a pattern of intra- and

intermuscular coordination that mimics the movement requirements of a

specific task. For novice to intermediate training, it is recommended

that the resistance training program include free-weight and machine

exercises.

For advanced strength training, it is recommended that emphasis be

placed on free-weight exercises, with machine exercises used to

complement the program needs. "

Progression Models in Resistance Training for Healthy Adults. Med. Sci.

Sports Exerc. Vol. 34, No. 2, 2002, pp. 364–380. Kramer W.J. et al.

This position seems widely held: that machine weights are either 1)

dangerous, or 2) useless.

Now bearing in mind that although this forum is called " Supertraining " ,

I am sure there are many readers who are novices, seniors, people

wanting to lose weight, diabetics and others for whom starting out with

5X5 deadlift, bench and squat -- as recommended here for beginners in a

previous thread -- would have them quickly out of the gym never to

return. If you don't believe that, your head is in the clouds -- or

maybe up some orifice of dubious distinction.

Okay, as Lee requested, put your cards on the table folks. Show us that

machine weights are injurious or useless. If you wish, make a

distinction between fixed path machines and those with a less than

fixed path, eg, cable machines.

=========================================

[Guest guest]

> >

> > Wow Gordon! You make statements about these machines making

athletes

> slow and unco-ordinated, causing injuries etc. I trust you have

formal

> studies and research to prove your statements. Or is it just your

> opinion, which you are certainly entitled to?

>

> I was just about to post a similar request. I had a quick look in

the

> archives but I can't see an extended discussion about either the

> dangers of using machine weights or the comparative benefits of

free

> weights versus machine weights.

> Okay, as Lee requested, put your cards on the table folks. Show us

that

> machine weights are injurious or useless. If you wish, make a

> distinction between fixed path machines and those with a less than

> fixed path, eg, cable machines.

****

The below may be relevant and generate further discussion (Taken from

the book Supertraining and archives):

" " They are making machines that treat the body as a machine, when in

fact the primary principle of all muscle training is that the muscles

are controlled by the central nervous system, All training involves

the CNS, so although the patterns of those machines may be similar it

is not analogous to the way the body behaves in free space or how the

CNS behaves controlling those movements. " "

Neural Changes with Training

The fact that neuromuscular stimulation is fundamental to all

athletic training is emphasized further by recent findings that

sensory experience results in enlargement and other changes in the

cerebral cortex. Earlier hypotheses that the central nervous system

cannot change after adulthood have now been proved to be incorrect.

It was generally recognized that the young brain has a great capacity

to adapt to changes such as injury or disease, but that neural tissue

in the mature animal is unable to display this plasticity. Rosenzweig

(1984) has concluded that the capacity for plastic neural changes is

present not only early in life, but throughout most, if not all, of

the human lifespan. These changes become particularly evident if one

is exposed to a sufficiently rich environment providing novel,

complex, and cognitively challenging stimulation, a finding which

stresses the importance of not limiting one's training to simple,

largely unchallenging repetitive patterns of training with exactly

the same weights or machines. This is one of the main reasons why

this text emphasizes the importance of planned variation utilizing

numerous different means, methods and exercises which draw on

integrative whole body disciplines. The work of Rosenzweig, Diamond

and colleaguesat Berkeley has not only revealed that neural changes

occur in adulthood, but that these changes can occur easily and

rapidly. Greenough at the University of Illinois found that these

alterations in the central nervous system not only increase mass, but

other structural changes such as the formation of new cell

synapses and dendrites. These findings have profound implications for

athletic training, particularly the following :

1) Athletic training not only causes physiological and functional

changes in the motor and cardiovascular systems, but also in the

central nervous system.

2) Strength training on machines that restrict the movements of

joints involved in producing a specific sporting action can modify

the circuitry and programming of the brain and thereby reduce the

functional capability of many of the muscles used to execute that

movement.

3) The rapidity of changes produced in the brain by repeated stimuli

means that even short periods of inappropriate patterns of strength

training can be detrimental to sporting performance. The importance

of understanding the complexities of prescribing concurrent and

sequential methods of training in the short and the long term then

becomes obvious. This necessitates a thorough knowledge of phenomena

such as the delayed training effect, the long term delayed training

effect, and the conjugate sequence method.

4) Over-reliance on ergogenic devices such as lifting belts, hand

grips, bandages for the joints, special shoe inserts, wedges under

the heels for squatting and elasticized training suits can modify the

neuromuscular system to such an extent that efficient of safe

training without them becomes difficult.

5) The avoidance of certain exercises (such as those often condemned

by popular fitness training organizations) and the use of

compensatory muscle action can alter the dynamic balance between

interactive muscle groups and alter neural programmes so as to reduce

the capability of handling certain functional movements efficiently

and safely in sport and daily activities.

6) If the likelihood of total rehabilitation of an injury is

remote, than the teaching of compensatory muscular

action can be valuable in maintaining a high level of function.

7) The existence of individual style reveals that each person will

program the central nervous system in subtly different ways, so that

attempts to impose stereotyped, highly general patterns of movement

may prevent an athlete from ever reaching his true potential.

=============

" Injury is not caused by a function of an exercise, but incorrect

execution of the exercise. "

Archives:

" There are no contra-indicated exercises, only contra-indicated

people " . If you use a sound technique, progress carefully, then the

chance of injury is minimized.

======================

Carruthers

Wakefield, UK

[Guest guest]

,

Great point. This brings us to a useful rule of thumb: Our athletes are the

high-tech hardware. Keep the equipment simple, and use it intelligently!

Regards,

Plisk

Excelsior Sports • Shelton CT

www.excelsiorsports.com

Prepare To Be A Champion!

Carruthers wrote:

The below may be relevant and generate further discussion (Taken from

the book Supertraining and archives):

" " They are making machines that treat the body as a machine, when in

fact the primary principle of all muscle training is that the muscles

are controlled by the central nervous system, All training involves

the CNS, so although the patterns of those machines may be similar it

is not analogous to the way the body behaves in free space or how the

CNS behaves controlling those movements. " "

[Guest guest]

That info from Supertraining was excellent.

Yes it is my opinion but as I stated in an earlier post (not sure if it's up yet

on the site) I say it is an educated opinion based on experience and trying to

learn from the best in the field and I do not know of any top

trainer/coach/therapist that would do squats or Olympic lifts on a Smtih.

There may be studies backing up what I say, I just don't have time to search

them out (right now anyway). You would need to search more in motor learning

research & CNS therapy to find what I am saying. I do not know of any published

free weight vs. machine studies that show definitively free weights are better.

Rmember I am talking about athletes & later stage therapy patient who can

support their own weight standing. I am NOT talking about bodybuilding or people

only interested in asthetics. Think of basic physics, the machine is a lever

used to lift a greater weight. Have a person do 200lb chest press on a machine &

then load up a bar with 200lb and see what happens. Machine training is EGO

training. Machines are the reason big chain health clubs pay trainers crap! They

figure the machines train the people and the trainer does not need to be skilled

or educated (think how hard it is to teach Olympic lifts vs. sit here, put the

pin on the hole, pull this handle!). I can say this for I was a Fitness Director

of a commercial gym for 6 years and saw it all 1st. hand. - Thank God I am out

of that nightmare!

The reason companies push machines is money. They will pay for studies proving

their machines are better because they can afford to. The more moving parts and

things that need to be replaced the more money the company makes from parrts &

service calls and when the machine wears out or becomes outdated you need to buy

a new one!

When was the last time you saw a dumbbell, kettlebell or Olympic bar wear out

from use (proper use!). Why do think equipment reps push selling cardio

equipment? It's expensive & they get a big commission and it wears out the

FASTEST in health clubs and needs to be replaced (another BIG comission!!).

Here's what you need for cardio,: dumbbells, barbells, kettlebells, bodyweight &

a stopwatch! If you need additional aerobics buy sneakers or running shoes and

go outside!

I know there are great trainers & coaches on this site, so I hope some will back

me up - just like the other who already have, THANKS!. Maybe we can eventually

change this industry back to what it should be!

" Machines are just dumbbells waiting to be re-incarnated " - Chek.

Gordon Waddell

NJ. USA

==========================================

To: Supertraining@...: Carruthersjam@...: Sun, 13 Jan

2008 18:26:06 +0000Subject: Re: Free weights versus machine

weights

> >> > Wow Gordon!

You make statements about these machines making athletes > slow and

unco-ordinated, causing injuries etc. I trust you have formal > studies and

research to prove your statements. Or is it just your > opinion, which you are

certainly entitled to?> > I was just about to post a similar request. I had a

quick look in the > archives but I can't see an extended discussion about either

the > dangers of using machine weights or the comparative benefits of free >

weights versus machine weights. > Okay, as Lee requested, put your cards on the

table folks. Show us that > machine weights are injurious or useless. If you

wish, make a > distinction between fixed path machines and those with a less

than > fixed path, eg, cable machines.****The below may be relevant and generate

further discussion (Taken from the book Supertraining and archives): " " They are

making machines that treat the body as a machine, when in fact the primary

principle of all muscle training is that the muscles are controlled by the

central nervous system, All training involves the CNS, so although the patterns

of those machines may be similar it is not analogous to the way the body behaves

in free space or how the CNS behaves controlling those movements. " " Neural

Changes with TrainingThe fact that neuromuscular stimulation is fundamental to

all athletic training is emphasized further by recent findings that sensory

experience results in enlargement and other changes in thecerebral cortex.

Earlier hypotheses that the central nervous system cannot change after adulthood

have now been proved to be incorrect. It was generally recognized that the young

brain has a great capacityto adapt to changes such as injury or disease, but

that neural tissue in the mature animal is unable to display this plasticity.

Rosenzweig (1984) has concluded that the capacity for plastic neural changes is

present not only early in life, but throughout most, if not all, of the human

lifespan. These changes become particularly evident if one is exposed to a

sufficiently rich environment providing novel, complex, and cognitively

challenging stimulation, a finding which stresses the importance of not limiting

one's training to simple,largely unchallenging repetitive patterns of training

with exactly the same weights or machines. This is one of the main reasons why

this text emphasizes the importance of planned variation utilizing numerous

different means, methods and exercises which draw on integrative whole body

disciplines. The work of Rosenzweig, Diamond and colleaguesat Berkeley has not

only revealed that neural changesoccur in adulthood, but that these changes can

occur easily and rapidly. Greenough at the University of Illinois found that

these alterations in the central nervous system not only increase mass, but

other structural changes such as the formation of new cellsynapses and

dendrites. These findings have profound implications forathletic training,

particularly the following :1) Athletic training not only causes physiological

and functional changes in the motor and cardiovascular systems, but also in the

central nervous system.2) Strength training on machines that restrict the

movements of joints involved in producing a specific sporting action can modify

the circuitry and programming of the brain and thereby reduce the functional

capability of many of the muscles used to execute that movement.3) The rapidity

of changes produced in the brain by repeated stimuli means that even short

periods of inappropriate patterns of strength training can be detrimental to

sporting performance. The importance of understanding the complexities of

prescribing concurrent and sequential methods of training in the short and the

long term then becomes obvious. This necessitates a thorough knowledge of

phenomena such as the delayed training effect, the long term delayed training

effect, and the conjugate sequence method.4) Over-reliance on ergogenic devices

such as lifting belts, hand grips, bandages for the joints, special shoe

inserts, wedges under the heels for squatting and elasticized training suits can

modify theneuromuscular system to such an extent that efficient of safe training

without them becomes difficult.5) The avoidance of certain exercises (such as

those often condemned by popular fitness training organizations) and the use of

compensatory muscle action can alter the dynamic balance betweeninteractive

muscle groups and alter neural programmes so as to reduce the capability of

handling certain functional movements efficiently and safely in sport and daily

activities.6) If the likelihood of total rehabilitation of an injury isremote,

than the teaching of compensatory muscularaction can be valuable in maintaining

a high level of function.7) The existence of individual style reveals that each

person will program the central nervous system in subtly different ways, so that

attempts to impose stereotyped, highly general patterns of movement may prevent

an athlete from ever reaching his true potential.============= " Injury is not

caused by a function of an exercise, but incorrect execution of the

exercise. " Archives: " There are no contra-indicated exercises, only

contra-indicated people " . If you use a sound technique, progress carefully, then

the chance of injury is minimized.======================

CarruthersWakefield, UK

[Guest guest]

, I have been a reader of this forum for some time and am slowly starting

to develop my own philosophy, as I learn from reading the exchanges and apply my

" real-world " experiences.

I know the title of this group is " Supertraining " , which, for all I know, might

necessarily relate to the goal or methodology or just marketing, to be as big as

you can or lift as much as you can, as if that should be the goal of all

training... Meaning, in the lifting part of the training, the amount of weight

you can lift. I know that is how you are judged in Olympic competitions, so, it

might flow from there... as a legitimate train of thought in training.

I hear what you are saying " ...FREE weight knows no such restriction... " Of

course. But since most gyms are not staffed with qualified professionals and

even most serious gym-rats are injury prone, even if restricted to working out

in the free-weights area, doesn't the lack of restriction in free-weights also

mean an increased risk of just lifting without regard to any body to weight-lift

relational form? If a person is totally lacking in physiological information,

where would you rather cut them loose, in a free-weight area with a bunch of

bulking, big-talking, plate-dropping, testosterone induced machismo or in a

machine-room filled where there is some proforma attention to proper form and

training localization? Put another way, if you put a person totally ignorant,

technique and long-term goal rationalization into a gym, where can they hurt or

help themselves the most? As rhetorical a question as this sounds, I am truly

curious, aside from the lack of consideration

of " leverages on most machines " you spoke below about, of how deeply you agree

with the useless adjective being thrown at this whole segment of fitness

equipment.

And are there grounds for considering that super training could also refer to

acquiring super shape, endurance, as in being as fit as possible into older age,

etc.? It seems to me, in reading many of these posts, as well as observances of

serious and recreational " training " , that emphasis is too often put on how much

weight vs. short and long term goals. Certainly, my ignorant opinion, at this

point, is that nothing in Olympic goals or training or many of the writings

here, are as considerate of the wear & tear endurance that training can either

add or take away from the maintenance or probability of maintaining fitness into

older age from where we are trying (and preoccupied) to peak... I am not only

talking about bulking up to the massing or a muscular foundation from which you

can lift, bench, drive the most weight or resistance. I am taking about the

effect on the body's ability to continue " training " past any peak performance

goals that people are pre-occupied

with in the short-term, as it effects self-image, functional performance and

injury-free living. I know this might be an individual-goal oriented

question, but do you think that there is a tendency to dwell to the detriment of

future performance and health, on the amount on should be able to lift? Do you

believe there should be other primary drivers, considerations, in body

conditioning with in the weight-room? Even in Olympic judging and score

measuring, after all these years, is there anything that we have learned about

the human body, fitness, aging, endurance, psychology, that might call for a

refinement on how or what is judged in Olympic weight-lifting competitions?

Even as an example to kids and people who want to get in shape, the language and

phrases used seems to imply that your mis-guided if you are not trying to

increase weight vs. improve form, agility, endurance, and, injury-free fitness.

Steve Nuin

Miami, FL USA

========================================

deadliftdiva@... wrote: Well I'd like to post an opinion AND observation

on the fixed path machines at least.

They aren't built to accommodate small to average sized WOMEN for one thing!

The leverages on most machines in use do not suit women - they find they are not

in the proper position - e.g. feet flat to floor or leverage length adjustments.

SMALL women and yes, very small MEN do not fit the machines and must find ways

to alter the form to fit THEM.

Whereas a FREE weight knows no such restriction....the only limiter being hand

size perhaps, but that is not limited to small people lol. I know of at least

one man of SHW size who had undersized palms...and thus never deadlifted what

people thought he should for his other strengths lol.

Straps can be used to help overcome this particular size issue if required.

But the fact is, a lot of the machines - cybex, hammer strength

(trademarks/brands names both) cannot be adjusted to proper use by small

individuals, the majority of whom are women.

The Phantom

aka Schaefer, CMT, CSCS, competing powerlifter

Denver, Colorado, USA

----------------------------------

-------------- Original message --------------

From: " sregor99 "

>

> Wow Gordon! You make statements about these machines making athletes

slow and unco-ordinated, causing injuries etc. I trust you have formal

studies and research to prove your statements. Or is it just your

opinion, which you are certainly entitled to?

I was just about to post a similar request. I had a quick look in the

archives but I can't see an extended discussion about either the

dangers of using machine weights or the comparative benefits of free

weights versus machine weights. ( might find something.)

This is what the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) has to say

in their position stand summary:

" Free weights and machines. In general, weight machines have been

regarded as safer to use and easy to learn, and allow the performance

of some exercises that may be difficult with free weights (e.g., leg

extension, lat pull down) (73). In essence, machines help stabilize the

body and limit movement about specific joints involved in synergy and

focus the activation to a specific set of prime movers (73).

Unlike machines, free weights may result in a pattern of intra- and

intermuscular coordination that mimics the movement requirements of a

specific task. For novice to intermediate training, it is recommended

that the resistance training program include free-weight and machine

exercises.

For advanced strength training, it is recommended that emphasis be

placed on free-weight exercises, with machine exercises used to

complement the program needs. "

Progression Models in Resistance Training for Healthy Adults. Med. Sci.

Sports Exerc. Vol. 34, No. 2, 2002, pp. 364–380. Kramer W.J. et al.

This position seems widely held: that machine weights are either 1)

dangerous, or 2) useless.

Now bearing in mind that although this forum is called " Supertraining " ,

I am sure there are many readers who are novices, seniors, people

wanting to lose weight, diabetics and others for whom starting out with

5X5 deadlift, bench and squat -- as recommended here for beginners in a

previous thread -- would have them quickly out of the gym never to

return. If you don't believe that, your head is in the clouds -- or

maybe up some orifice of dubious distinction.

Okay, as Lee requested, put your cards on the table folks. Show us that

machine weights are injurious or useless. If you wish, make a

distinction between fixed path machines and those with a less than

fixed path, eg, cable machines.

=========================================

[Guest guest]

I understand this language, sounds more objective... thanks .

Steve Nuin

Miami, FL USA

=========================

Casler wrote: Gordon

Waddell wrote:

" Machines are just dumbbells waiting to be re-incarnated " - Chek.

Casler writes:

If we look at both machines, and free weights all as " force loading

devices " , then we can more clearly evaluate each individually, and apply it

to the goals and needs of the application.

Restricted paths and stabilization supplied by some machines and benches

provide the ability to use larger loadings to specific areas.

The more free and unstable actions afforded by some free weight and cable

applications have a tendency to involve mover and stabilizer complexes to

the advantage of training an area of or a complete kinetic chain.

Even the very aspect of a barbell being more stable than two dumbbells has

elements that challenge the stability of the action and give us a choice to

what advantages that stability or instability might offer to our goals.

So as has already been stated, NO device is " inherently " bad or good, but

each can be better suited or lesser suited to the goal and conditioning

task.

Machines certainly offer some unique abilities, in the form of things like

the application of force at, other than purely vertical force (as in free

weights only apply force toward the earth for the most part)

Even Benches, stools, racks, and other devices allow us to position

ourselves in ways that might allow such forces. Imagine a 400# bench press

without a bench.

It is no secret that large strength increases can occur with added

stability. It is also no secret that ignoring the stabilizers can create

" mover to stabilizer " imbalances that can offer challenges.

So in the end, strength, function, hypertrophy, endurance and any number of

goals and complexed goals can be accommodated via looking for the right tool

(load device) for the job.

==================================

[Guest guest]

That's the most sensible and concise exposition of this subject I've

seen. Your point about barbells and dumbbells was one that had not

gone unnoticed by me in this context. Thanks .

Gympie, Australia

>

> " Machines are just dumbbells waiting to be re-incarnated " -

Chek.

>

> Casler writes:

>

> If we look at both machines, and free weights all as " force loading

> devices " , then we can more clearly evaluate each individually, and

apply it

> to the goals and needs of the application.

>

> Restricted paths and stabilization supplied by some machines and

benches

> provide the ability to use larger loadings to specific areas.

>

> The more free and unstable actions afforded by some free weight and

cable

> applications have a tendency to involve mover and stabilizer

complexes to

> the advantage of training an area of or a complete kinetic chain.

>

> Even the very aspect of a barbell being more stable than two

dumbbells has

> elements that challenge the stability of the action and give us a

choice to

> what advantages that stability or instability might offer to our

goals.

>

> So as has already been stated, NO device is " inherently " bad or

good, but

> each can be better suited or lesser suited to the goal and

conditioning

> task.

>

> Machines certainly offer some unique abilities, in the form of

things like

> the application of force at, other than purely vertical force (as

in free

> weights only apply force toward the earth for the most part)

>

> Even Benches, stools, racks, and other devices allow us to position

> ourselves in ways that might allow such forces. Imagine a 400#

bench press

> without a bench.

>

> It is no secret that large strength increases can occur with added

> stability. It is also no secret that ignoring the stabilizers can

create

> " mover to stabilizer " imbalances that can offer challenges.

>

> So in the end, strength, function, hypertrophy, endurance and any

number of

> goals and complexed goals can be accommodated via looking for the

right tool

> (load device) for the job.

>

> Regards,

>

> Casler

> TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

> Century City, CA

>

[Guest guest]

> ========================================

>

> deadliftdiva@... wrote: Well I'd like to post an opinion AND observation on

the fixed path machines

at least.

>

> They aren't built to accommodate small to average sized WOMEN for one thing!

>

> The leverages on most machines in use do not suit women - they find they are

not in the proper

position - e.g. feet flat to floor or leverage length adjustments. SMALL women

and yes, very small

MEN do not fit the machines and must find ways to alter the form to fit THEM.

>

> Whereas a FREE weight knows no such restriction....the only limiter being hand

size perhaps, but

that is not limited to small people lol. I know of at least one man of SHW size

who had undersized

palms...and thus never deadlifted what people thought he should for his other

strengths lol.

>

> Straps can be used to help overcome this particular size issue if required.

>

> But the fact is, a lot of the machines - cybex, hammer strength

(trademarks/brands names both)

cannot be adjusted to proper use by small individuals, the majority of whom are

women.

>

> The Phantom

> aka Schaefer, CMT, CSCS, competing powerlifter

> Denver, Colorado, USA

****

To answer ,

we have " small " women that we fit perfectly into our selectorized machines that

are

getting measurable results. You might be right in some cases, but with our

particualr situation, we

have no such problem.

Regards

Landau,

Aventura, Florida

[Guest guest]

Gordon Waddell wrote,

I have never heard of or seen an offset machine to allow for proper

back positioning in squats etc ---------- Like all machines, any will

decrease stabilizer activation, disrupt coordinated movement patterns and place

an

unnatural load across joints.

The way I look at it: Poliquin, Boyle, Cosgrove, Cook, , Hartman -

none of these well known coaches/therapists ever recommend a -for

squats-----

“.

“-------------much deleted------------------‘

Plisk wrote;

Colleagues,

I don't believe there's evidence showing that machines (guided resistance)

are more dangerous than free weights (unguided resistance). The consensus

emerging from the literature is that 1) the perception that free weights are

more

dangerous isn't necessarily true, and 2) unguided-resistance equipment is

superior in most regards, particularly when used with qualified instruction and

supervision. -------

---- much deleted including many references.

Casler wrote;

If we look at both machines, and free weights all as " force loading

devices " , then we can more clearly evaluate each individually, and apply it

to the goals and needs of the application.-----------------much

deleted--------“

So in the end, strength, function, hypertrophy, endurance and any number of

goals and complexed goals can be accommodated via looking for the right tool

(load device) for the job.

wrote;

This position seems widely held: that machine weights are either 1)

dangerous, or 2) useless.

“-------------- much deleted -------------------‘

Okay, as Lee requested, put your cards on the table folks. Show us that

machine weights are injurious or useless. -------------------“

*************

Jerry Telle writes;

Greetings iron scientists,

As the above authors express there is general agreement of many well known

iron practitioners that “free weights,†with the experience of the lifter

and

under proper supervision, is superior to any guided resistance.

I must question this belief that a constrained resistance is inherently

harmful to the involved joints -- especially in movements like the squat or

maybe

even the deadlift. I base my inquiry on the lack of quantified measurement and

the observation that there are many joints involved in said lifts.

Because of the relative functions of so many joints it seems to me that any “

unnatural†movement -- if such a concept is applicable here -- is compensated

for through out the lift by continuous joint adjustment. In some exercises the

use of guided resistance is a must. For instance I have yet to see anyone

doing “free†resistance heel raises. Yet no one has submitted any negative

anecdotal, much less quantified, observations in protest.

As such the squat, as used in many applications such as the development of

power or horizontal acceleration/velocity, or absolute strength (depending on

ones definition of strength) maybe best addressed by constrained resistance.

With constrained resistance the athlete can more intently focus on the power or

pure strength elements of the exercise. Admittedly a good deal of

biomechanical efficiency must be present -- as a function of athlete experience

and

supervision.

On the other hand it has been my experience that the Olympic lifts require

such an elite performance, that many athletes have not the time, proper

supervision and or athletic ability to learn these movements to the point of

productivity. Many even have problems with productive nonnconstrained squat

performance! Yet given the use of a properly designed leaper or smith machine

these

limitations were, anecdotally, more easily resolved.

One problem with the use of non traditional equipment is the lack of

quantified research or even anecdotal observation. The purported advantages of

productive equipment are not easy manifestations to demonstrate. ANY increase in

speed, horizontal elevation or functional sstrength, e.g., offensive or

defensive

line performance, is desirable. Yet we are interested in small increases in

improvement. Increasing a corner backs speed from a 4.5 40 to a 4.47 is the

difference in wining and loosing. Three 100 ths of a second (30 mills). equates

to

about 6-8 inches of travel at a 4.5 per 40 yds/mtrs. velocity. Yet this is

*only* a 4-6% increase in performance – a fairly hard task to anecdotally

validate.

It is my contention that various types of constrained inertial resistance are

better than “free weight†equivalents in the production of speed, power and

pure strength. The use of force plates, video and EMG measures may be an

investigative beginning.

It is also my contention that the “coordination and synergistic†aspects of

performance are more productively addressed via more action specific avenues.

You might ask yourself how much velocity and height issues can be addressed

squatting on a Swiss ball! However, the attempt at or performance of such

incredible feats, using a gymnastic safety harness, may be performance -- as in

balance -- useful?

So given the above treatise in speculation – and as J Casler expresses “

------------- strength, function, hypertrophy, endurance and any number of goals

and complexed goals can be accommodated via looking for the right tool.†And

with lee and admonishments to “put your cards on the table folks. Show us

that machine weights are injurious or uselessâ€, ---its time to measure when

and

what happens when the rubber meets the road. Ultimate performance and safety

are the beneficiaries.

Jerry

Jerry Telle

Lakewood CO USA

[Guest guest]

We continue struggling with a Nautilus pullover. People around 5'4 "

must have an additional piece of seating added, while under 5'1 "

requires two layers of seating. One size does not fit all. Even

average height persons (5'9 " ) have to dink around with the pullover

since it does not properly fit their arm length. Guys above 6'3 " have

no problem with it. High chair build ups also required for the Lateral

machine. Good news is the Nautilus ab machine has broken down so we

can get rid of it.

The Icarion line of machines is a living nightmare. Looks as if they

knocked off someone else's appearance of a design without

understanding the biomechanics in the slightest. We also have a life

of old LifeLine machines evidencing poor sense of biomechanics.

The solution? Barbells, dumbbells, JC Predator bands, stability balls,

medicine balls - implementing Abel's hybrid and MET training and

JC Santana's hybrid ideas.

Ken O'Neill

Austin, Texas

Well I'd like to post an opinion AND

observation on the fixed path machines

> at least.

> >

> > They aren't built to accommodate small to average sized WOMEN for

one thing!

> >

> > The leverages on most machines in use do not suit women - they

find they are not in the proper

> position - e.g. feet flat to floor or leverage length adjustments.

SMALL women and yes, very small

> MEN do not fit the machines and must find ways to alter the form to

fit THEM.

> >

> > Whereas a FREE weight knows no such restriction....the only

limiter being hand size perhaps, but

> that is not limited to small people lol. I know of at least one man

of SHW size who had undersized

> palms...and thus never deadlifted what people thought he should for

his other strengths lol.

> >

> > Straps can be used to help overcome this particular size issue if

required.

> >

> > But the fact is, a lot of the machines - cybex, hammer strength

(trademarks/brands names both)

> cannot be adjusted to proper use by small individuals, the majority

of whom are women.

> >

> > The Phantom

> > aka Schaefer, CMT, CSCS, competing powerlifter

> > Denver, Colorado, USA

>

> ****

> To answer ,

>

> we have " small " women that we fit perfectly into our selectorized

machines that are

> getting measurable results. You might be right in some cases, but

with our particualr situation, we

> have no such problem.

>

> Regards

> Landau,

> Aventura, Florida

>

[Guest guest]

HI Jerry

In your response you wrote

" On the other hand it has been my experience that the Olympic lifts require

such an elite performance, that many athletes have not the time, proper

supervision and or athletic ability to learn these movements to the point of

productivity. Many even have problems with productive nonnconstrained squat

performance! Yet given the use of a properly designed leaper or smith

machine these

limitations were, anecdotal, more easily resolved. "

I'm not sure but I seem to be able to teach Olympic lifts to a good level

fairly quickly , form is good with in weeks. Is this the optimal time line

who knows, but it seems to help athletes, who have a long term goals, as

training is not about next week, but about my plan for the season, the next

season the Olympics. There are different uses for machines and I have

recently started training with one designed specifically for rugby scrums,

that has great carry over to leg drive and hip extension required in scrums,

rucks and mauls. However I would unlikely ever stop using exercizes like

squats, cleans, overhead squats, lunges etc as they a very valuable tools.

The whole stability thing has a continuum. Low instability guided movement

at one end and highly unstable circus tricks at the other. For most

athletes time constraint seems to be the issue. In my mind using exercises

that capture more training uses are better. When selecting a barbell squat

for example, as opposed to a smith machine squat or a Swiss ball squat, I do

this because it challenges the muscle with large loads, which is not

possible with a swiss ball squat, but it has stability elements that

challenge the athlete to stabilise the weight (while producing force) that

the Machine does not challenge. Overhead squatting challenges the

stability function more than back squats, but force development is reduced

as less weight can be handled. So I select the lifts for a reason, time

effectiveness.

A problem that I have (not what you wrote but a point that it raises) " that

many athletes have not the time, proper supervision and or athletic ability

to learn these movements " Is that is exactly the problem, poor supervision

and poor teaching ability. I hope that groups like this and others are

impacting on the strength community to improve supervision for athletes

and are improving industry skills. To say that we invent machines because

people are unable to learn is living with the problem not fixing the

problem, putting a band aid on not stitching the cut. Machines invented to

do specific task are useful, but lifting a barbel and some weights is a

cheap and easy way to equip a gym. a platform and some rubber training

discs and you are away. I have yet (with the exception of the para-Olympic

athletes) to see athletes who have not mastered squats, dead lifts and some

form of Olympic lift variation to productivity. Even Pistorious (no

legs) learned to snatch at some point. Even non sporting clients with

aesthetic goals can learn these basic lifts.

As a question about heel raises, have you noticed that during a clean,

snatch or squat jump, high pulls the athlete or trainee trains heel raises

as part of the movement, is there a need to train heel raises specifically?

Do we need machines do do this. If the athlete needs this training you can

stand on a step holding dumbbells (touch a wall if balance is an issue), a

barbell on your shoulders teaches balance too that a machine may not, yet

you could load the weight to develop the movement concerned.

Tools are tool, but it seems that argues in favour of machines as he

sells them. I fabricate and sell a machine called the ScrumTruk (under

licence from Australia), that is very useful for some rugby related

strengths (and other sports e.g. bob sledding although we don't get much

snow around here), but I sell this not as a replacement for classical weight

training but as an enhancement for it. Yet the gym where I trained did not

have machines until a recent upgrade of facility and change of location (no

space). The new tools, cable machine mostly and a ScrumTruck and leg

press, we have improved the offering, but the basics remain, in my mind at

least, firmly in place at the platform.

Best Regards

Nick Tatalias

Johannesburg

South Africa

>

> Gordon Waddell wrote,

>

> I have never heard of or seen an offset machine to allow for proper

> back positioning in squats etc ---------- Like all machines, any

> will

> decrease stabilizer activation, disrupt coordinated movement patterns and

> place an

> unnatural load across joints.

>

> The way I look at it: Poliquin, Boyle, Cosgrove, Cook, , Hartman -

> none of these well known coaches/therapists ever recommend a -for

> squats-----

> " .

>

> " -------------much deleted------------------'

>

> Plisk wrote;

>

> Colleagues,

>

> I don't believe there's evidence showing that machines (guided resistance)

>

> are more dangerous than free weights (unguided resistance). The consensus

> emerging from the literature is that 1) the perception that free weights

> are more

> dangerous isn't necessarily true, and 2) unguided-resistance equipment is

> superior in most regards, particularly when used with qualified

> instruction and

> supervision. -------

> ---- much deleted including many references.

>

> Casler wrote;

>

> If we look at both machines, and free weights all as " force loading

> devices " , then we can more clearly evaluate each individually, and apply

> it

> to the goals and needs of the application.-----------------much

> deleted-------- "

>

> So in the end, strength, function, hypertrophy, endurance and any number

> of

> goals and complexed goals can be accommodated via looking for the right

> tool

> (load device) for the job.

>

> wrote;

>

> This position seems widely held: that machine weights are either 1)

> dangerous, or 2) useless.

>

> " -------------- much deleted -------------------'

>

> Okay, as Lee requested, put your cards on the table folks. Show us that

> machine weights are injurious or useless. ------------------- "

>

> *************

> Jerry Telle writes;

>

> Greetings iron scientists,

>

> As the above authors express there is general agreement of many well known

>

> iron practitioners that " free weights, " with the experience of the lifter

> and

> under proper supervision, is superior to any guided resistance.

>

> I must question this belief that a constrained resistance is inherently

> harmful to the involved joints -- especially in movements like the squat

> or maybe

> even the deadlift. I base my inquiry on the lack of quantified measurement

> and

> the observation that there are many joints involved in said lifts.

>

> Because of the relative functions of so many joints it seems to me that

> any "

> unnatural " movement -- if such a concept is applicable here -- is

> compensated

> for through out the lift by continuous joint adjustment. In some exercises

> the

> use of guided resistance is a must. For instance I have yet to see anyone

> doing " free " resistance heel raises. Yet no one has submitted any negative

>

> anecdotal, much less quantified, observations in protest.

>

> As such the squat, as used in many applications such as the development of

>

> power or horizontal acceleration/velocity, or absolute strength (depending

> on

> ones definition of strength) maybe best addressed by constrained

> resistance.

> With constrained resistance the athlete can more intently focus on the

> power or

> pure strength elements of the exercise. Admittedly a good deal of

> biomechanical efficiency must be present -- as a function of athlete

> experience and

> supervision.

>

> On the other hand it has been my experience that the Olympic lifts require

>

> such an elite performance, that many athletes have not the time, proper

> supervision and or athletic ability to learn these movements to the point

> of

> productivity. Many even have problems with productive nonnconstrained

> squat

> performance! Yet given the use of a properly designed leaper or smith

> machine these

> limitations were, anecdotally, more easily resolved.

>

> One problem with the use of non traditional equipment is the lack of

> quantified research or even anecdotal observation. The purported

> advantages of

> productive equipment are not easy manifestations to demonstrate. ANY

> increase in

> speed, horizontal elevation or functional sstrength, e.g., offensive or

> defensive

> line performance, is desirable. Yet we are interested in small increases

> in

> improvement. Increasing a corner backs speed from a 4.5 40 to a 4.47 is

> the

> difference in wining and loosing. Three 100 ths of a second (30 mills).

> equates to

> about 6-8 inches of travel at a 4.5 per 40 yds/mtrs. velocity. Yet this is

>

> *only* a 4-6% increase in performance – a fairly hard task to anecdotally

> validate.

>

> It is my contention that various types of constrained inertial resistance

> are

> better than " free weight " equivalents in the production of speed, power

> and

> pure strength. The use of force plates, video and EMG measures may be an

> investigative beginning.

>

> It is also my contention that the " coordination and synergistic " aspects

> of

> performance are more productively addressed via more action specific

> avenues.

> You might ask yourself how much velocity and height issues can be

> addressed

> squatting on a Swiss ball! However, the attempt at or performance of such

> incredible feats, using a gymnastic safety harness, may be performance --

> as in

> balance -- useful?

>

> So given the above treatise in speculation – and as J Casler expresses "

> ------------- strength, function, hypertrophy, endurance and any number of

> goals

> and complexed goals can be accommodated via looking for the right tool. "

> And

> with lee and admonishments to " put your cards on the table folks.

> Show us

> that machine weights are injurious or useless " , ---its time to measure

> when and

> what happens when the rubber meets the road. Ultimate performance and

> safety

> are the beneficiaries.

>

> Jerry

>

> Jerry Telle

> Lakewood CO USA

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> We continue struggling with a Nautilus pullover. People around 5'4 "

> must have an additional piece of seating added, while under 5'1 "

> requires two layers of seating. One size does not fit all. Even

> average height persons (5'9 " ) have to dink around with the pullover

> since it does not properly fit their arm length. Guys above 6'3 " have

> no problem with it. High chair build ups also required for the Lateral

> machine. Good news is the Nautilus ab machine has broken down so we

> can get rid of it.

> The Icarion line of machines is a living nightmare. Looks as if they

> knocked off someone else's appearance of a design without

> understanding the biomechanics in the slightest. We also have a life

> of old LifeLine machines evidencing poor sense of biomechanics.

>

> The solution? Barbells, dumbbells, JC Predator bands, stability balls,

> medicine balls - implementing Abel's hybrid and MET training and

> JC Santana's hybrid ideas.

>

Greetings Ken,

An appropriate? criticism of any type of rotary machine designed as a

function of specific joint center rotation is open to biomechanical scrutiny.

That is

-- most machines such as the pullover, pec deck and lateral raise rotate

about a fixed axle. This is a consideration because each of these exercises is a

multi joint movement, i.e., the GH, SC and the CS (as the old song goes " the

arm bone interfaces with the shoulder blade bone -- the shoulder blade bone

interfaces with the collar bone and the collar bone interfaces with the breast

bone " ).

If one uses an athlete without resistance and traces the arc of movement, at

the elbow for instance, and measures the translation of the center of rotation

of the primary joint, e.g., the glenohumeral -- the possible problem becomes

apparent. A typical primary joint translation is about 2-3+ inches. The rotary

machine severely constrains primary joint translation disrupting the

" natural " rhythm of the involved joints forcing the head of the humerous to

interface

with the glenoid cavity in an unnatural relationship. It seems to me that such

conditions unnecessarily stress the cartilage and probably inhibit the full

recruitment of the targeted musculature.

The dysfunctional aspects of said relationships may take years to manifest. I

have an artificial knee and shoulder due, in large part, to the use of poorly

designed equipment *and* improper exercise technique (machines and free

weights). Regardless it makes more sense to perform these exercises with free

weights. The learning curve is not much more difficult with the above exercises

than with machines.

Further more machines also limit the exerciser to one fixed resistance

pattern. If one is to address the changing force capabilities of a fatiguing

muscle

then free weights are again much more efficient.

While the advantages of most single rotation/joint machines is moving a

greater population through exercise programs quicker -- the functional

advantages

of free weights makes the use of these machines obsolete to any devoted

trainer.

Jerry Telle

Lakewood CO USA

[Guest guest]

Outside of the wonderland of Mr. Landau's perfectly fitted machines, the rest of

us still have trouble getting people to fit existing frames and properly working

within the ROM's they are given. If I visit, does this mean I can't bring my

chalk and deadlift? Do you have a machine for that?

What marvel of the machine world is he using, seeing as Ken and I both have seen

a good deal of problem with machines in our gyms and smaller people?

Leverages on shoulder and biceps machines too are completely out of sync with

arm length and height of the person in several cases...and I've seen lat

pulldowns where the lifter could not put their feet flat AND still reach the bar

to pull it down.

Years ago, I suffered with a universal machine that was supposedly a military

press. As I'm 5'9 " and long armed, I couldn't see how anybody shorter could

engage it properly...without a BOX?

Maintenance of cable sets and other headaches where something abruptly JERKS or

causes other disruptions....

Free weights are still the best form for everyone as a whole, outside of injury

rehab and someone whose balance is so completely gone they cannot stand or sit

reasonably to perform moves.

My knees killed me on the machine for nearly 2 years. The free weight

squat not only had me using more weight, but also a true sense of

proprioception, which I did not learn on the . Because the was not a

TRUE squat, requiring balance and all the other things present in the real back

squat, I had to start with HALF the weight and learn the real move. When I quit

the , I had quite a bit on there too...the irony? people used to come up

and say " wow, you're strong, are you a POWERLIFTER " ? based on the SMITH " SQUAT " .

(My sport clearly needs more exposure on what it IS ....? sheesh!)

There are far too many athletes succeeding in places with a bar, a bench, and a

sq rack to say free weights are not superior even as machines to fixed

machines....

The Phantom

aka Schaefer, CMT, CSCS, competing powerlifter

Denver, Colorado, USA

-------------- Original message --------------

We continue struggling with a Nautilus pullover. People around 5'4 "

must have an additional piece of seating added, while under 5'1 "

requires two layers of seating. One size does not fit all. Even

average height persons (5'9 " ) have to dink around with the pullover

since it does not properly fit their arm length. Guys above 6'3 " have

no problem with it. High chair build ups also required for the Lateral

machine. Good news is the Nautilus ab machine has broken down so we

can get rid of it.

The Icarion line of machines is a living nightmare. Looks as if they

knocked off someone else's appearance of a design without

understanding the biomechanics in the slightest. We also have a life

of old LifeLine machines evidencing poor sense of biomechanics.

The solution? Barbells, dumbbells, JC Predator bands, stability balls,

medicine balls - implementing Abel's hybrid and MET training and

JC Santana's hybrid ideas.

Ken O'Neill

Austin, Texas

Well I'd like to post an opinion AND

observation on the fixed path machines

> at least.

> >

> > They aren't built to accommodate small to average sized WOMEN for

one thing!

> >

> > The leverages on most machines in use do not suit women - they

find they are not in the proper

> position - e.g. feet flat to floor or leverage length adjustments.

SMALL women and yes, very small

> MEN do not fit the machines and must find ways to alter the form to

fit THEM.

> >

> > Whereas a FREE weight knows no such restriction....the only

limiter being hand size perhaps, but

> that is not limited to small people lol. I know of at least one man

of SHW size who had undersized

> palms...and thus never deadlifted what people thought he should for

his other strengths lol.

> >

> > Straps can be used to help overcome this particular size issue if

required.

> >

> > But the fact is, a lot of the machines - cybex, hammer strength

(trademarks/brands names both)

> cannot be adjusted to proper use by small individuals, the majority

of whom are women.

> >

> > The Phantom

> > aka Schaefer, CMT, CSCS, competing powerlifter

> > Denver, Colorado, USA

>

> ****

> To answer ,

>

> we have " small " women that we fit perfectly into our selectorized

machines that are

> getting measurable results. You might be right in some cases, but

with our particualr situation, we

> have no such problem.

>

> Regards

> Landau,

> Aventura, Florida

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Nick,

let me first point out errors in your post.--------------

Having said that what I would like to see is someone compare what I believe

to be an Ideal freeweight protocol (probably your design) and one using both

free weights and specific machines. I believe machines have their place and may

even be required for max performance.

I am now more inclined, after your post, to believe if a coach can't teach a

free weight squat and power clean s/he probably cant teach proper " machine "

performance either.

Jerry

Jerry Telle

Lakewood CO USA

> HI Jerry

>

> In your response you wrote

> " On the other hand it has been my experience that the Olympic lifts require

> such an elite performance, that many athletes have not the time, proper

> supervision and or athletic ability to learn these movements to the point of

>

> productivity. Many even have problems with productive nonnconstrained squat

> performance! Yet given the use of a properly designed leaper or smith

> machine these

> limitations were, anecdotal, more easily resolved. "

>

> I'm not sure but I seem to be able to teach Olympic lifts to a good level

> fairly quickly , form is good with in weeks.  Is this the optimal time line

> who knows, but it seems to help athletes, who have a long term goals, as

> training is not about next week, but about my plan for the season, the next

> season the Olympics.  There are different uses for machines and I have

> recently started training with one designed specifically for rugby scrums,

> that has great carry over to leg drive and hip extension required in scrums,

> rucks and mauls. However I would unlikely ever stop using exercizes like

> squats, cleans, overhead squats, lunges etc as they a very valuable tools.

>

> The whole stability thing has a continuum.  Low instability guided movement

> at one end and highly unstable circus tricks at the other.  For most

> athletes time constraint seems to be the issue.  In my mind using exercises

> that capture more training uses are better.  When selecting a barbell squat

> for example, as opposed to a smith machine squat or a Swiss ball squat, I do

> this because it challenges the muscle with large loads, which is not

> possible with a swiss ball squat, but it has stability elements that

> challenge the athlete to stabilise the weight (while producing force) that

> the Machine does not challenge.  Overhead squatting challenges the

> stability function more than back squats, but force development is reduced

> as less weight can be handled. So I select the lifts for a reason, time

> effectiveness.

>

> A problem that I have (not what you wrote but a point that it raises) " that

> many athletes have not the time, proper supervision and or athletic ability

> to learn these movements "   Is that is exactly the problem, poor supervision

> and poor teaching ability.  I hope that groups like this and others are

> impacting on the strength community to improve supervision for athletes

> and are improving industry skills.  To say that we invent machines because

> people are unable to learn is living with the problem not fixing the

> problem, putting a band aid on not stitching the cut.  Machines invented to

> do specific task are useful, but lifting a barbel and some weights is a

> cheap and easy way to equip a gym.  a platform and some rubber training

> discs and you are away.  I have yet (with the exception of the para-Olympic

> athletes) to see athletes who have not mastered squats, dead lifts and some

> form of Olympic lift variation to productivity. Even Pistorious (no

> legs) learned to snatch at some point. Even non sporting clients with

> aesthetic goals can learn these basic lifts.

>

> As a question about heel raises, have you noticed that during a clean,

> snatch or squat jump, high pulls the athlete or trainee trains heel raises

> as part of the movement, is there a need to train heel raises specifically?

> Do we need machines do do this.  If the athlete needs this training you can

> stand on a step holding dumbbells (touch a wall if balance is an issue), a

> barbell on your shoulders teaches balance too that a machine may not, yet

> you could load the weight to develop the movement concerned.

>

> Tools are tool, but it seems that argues in favour of machines as he

> sells them.  I fabricate and sell a machine called the ScrumTruk (under

> licence from Australia), that is very useful for some rugby related

> strengths (and other sports e.g. bob sledding although we don't get much

> snow around here), but I sell this not as a replacement for classical weight

> training but as an enhancement for it.  Yet the gym where I trained did not

> have machines until a recent upgrade of facility and change of location (no

> space).  The new tools, cable machine mostly and a ScrumTruck and leg

> press, we have improved the offering, but the basics remain, in my mind at

> least, firmly in place at the platform.

>

> Best Regards

> Nick Tatalias

> Johannesburg

> South Africa

>

[Guest guest]

Jerry,

About 12 and 13 years ago I assisted Mike Burgener when he put on some strength

training clinics for prep school football coaches. These big burly coaches

routinely maintained that Olympic Weightlifting was too technical and time

intensive to teach to their prep athletes. Mike's daughter Sage was 5 years old

at the time, and after the coaches would give us the " EXCUSE " , Mike would have

Sage demonstrate the Olympic lifts. She used a special light bar, but her

technique was very good. It always got very quite after Sage finished

demonstrating both the snatch and clean and jerk (she would split jerk). Sage

would get very pumped from all the attention and execute several reps very

quickly and in rapid succession. Invariably the room got very quiet when Sage

stopped. No further excuses were forthcoming.

All objections had been overcome, all excuses rendered moot, no more BS reasons

for not teaching Olympic Weightlifting. The fact was these coaches simply did

not know how to coach Weightlifting. At that time there were probably

three or four prep schools with coaches teaching Olympic Weightlifting in

Southern California. Sage is now a senior in high school and in that time Mike

has now got dozens of schools on board with Weightlifting and represented in the

annual High School Clean and Jerk Championship. Schools like Mater Dei not only

enter their entire football teams, basketball team, wrestling team and track

athletes, but their cheerleaders compete. Have I made my point? Time, energy and

equipment are BS excuses. Weightlifting is the most time and cost effective

power training modality extent.

As I have previously stated several times in this forum, there is virtually no

machine based resistance exercise that can't be done more effectively with free

weights by an apparently healthy individual.

Machines are beneficial primarily for rehabilitation and essentially unnecessary

and inappropriate when training athletes.

The one possible exception would be the leg press machine, which I had occasion

to use when I was training the Men's National Volleyball Team in order to

increase leg strength while not introducing any further stress to the volleyball

players lower backs. They spent 4 hours a day 5 days a week jumping in a very

old, cold, mildewed gym with very hard floors. The leg press was expedient and

convenient, not necessarily better.

Safety is a non issue. Weightlifting is well documented to be very safe when, as

mentioned many times previously, properly coached and supervised.

As for the closeness of high level competition, as the strength coach of

numerous Olympic athletes I am acutely aware that the difference between 5th

and an Olympic Championship may be minuscule. Further reason to utilize the most

efficient and effective training modalities available, the single most essential

modality, in my experience, being Weightlifting.

As for anecdotal evidence, the 150 lb., Rudy/Cartman of his school presented

himself to me on my first day as strength coach for a small private school and

insisted he wanted to play football. In four months, through a combination of

proper nutrition and Weightlifting, he weighed 185 lbs. In 6 months, 200 lbs. He

not only started, but also played both sides of the ball for the next three

years. Now at 24, he weighs 235 lbs, does 3RM 425 lb ATG squats and can press

350 lbs and very successfully participates in MMA.

As far as I'm concerned, machines just don't feed the bulldog,

W.G.

Ubermensch Sports Consultancy

San Diego CA.

====================================

Nick Tatalias wrote: HI Jerry

In your response you wrote

" On the other hand it has been my experience that the Olympic lifts require

such an elite performance, that many athletes have not the time, proper

supervision and or athletic ability to learn these movements to the point of

productivity. Many even have problems with productive nonnconstrained squat

performance! Yet given the use of a properly designed leaper or smith

machine these

limitations were, anecdotal, more easily resolved. "

I'm not sure but I seem to be able to teach Olympic lifts to a good level

fairly quickly , form is good with in weeks. Is this the optimal time line

who knows, but it seems to help athletes, who have a long term goals, as

training is not about next week, but about my plan for the season, the next

season the Olympics. There are different uses for machines and I have

recently started training with one designed specifically for rugby scrums,

that has great carry over to leg drive and hip extension required in scrums,

rucks and mauls. However I would unlikely ever stop using exercizes like

squats, cleans, overhead squats, lunges etc as they a very valuable tools.

The whole stability thing has a continuum. Low instability guided movement

at one end and highly unstable circus tricks at the other. For most

athletes time constraint seems to be the issue. In my mind using exercises

that capture more training uses are better. When selecting a barbell squat

for example, as opposed to a smith machine squat or a Swiss ball squat, I do

this because it challenges the muscle with large loads, which is not

possible with a swiss ball squat, but it has stability elements that

challenge the athlete to stabilise the weight (while producing force) that

the Machine does not challenge. Overhead squatting challenges the

stability function more than back squats, but force development is reduced

as less weight can be handled. So I select the lifts for a reason, time

effectiveness.

A problem that I have (not what you wrote but a point that it raises) " that

many athletes have not the time, proper supervision and or athletic ability

to learn these movements " Is that is exactly the problem, poor supervision

and poor teaching ability. I hope that groups like this and others are

impacting on the strength community to improve supervision for athletes

and are improving industry skills. To say that we invent machines because

people are unable to learn is living with the problem not fixing the

problem, putting a band aid on not stitching the cut. Machines invented to

do specific task are useful, but lifting a barbel and some weights is a

cheap and easy way to equip a gym. a platform and some rubber training

discs and you are away. I have yet (with the exception of the para-Olympic

athletes) to see athletes who have not mastered squats, dead lifts and some

form of Olympic lift variation to productivity. Even Pistorious (no

legs) learned to snatch at some point. Even non sporting clients with

aesthetic goals can learn these basic lifts.

As a question about heel raises, have you noticed that during a clean,

snatch or squat jump, high pulls the athlete or trainee trains heel raises

as part of the movement, is there a need to train heel raises specifically?

Do we need machines do do this. If the athlete needs this training you can

stand on a step holding dumbbells (touch a wall if balance is an issue), a

barbell on your shoulders teaches balance too that a machine may not, yet

you could load the weight to develop the movement concerned.

Tools are tool, but it seems that argues in favour of machines as he

sells them. I fabricate and sell a machine called the ScrumTruk (under

licence from Australia), that is very useful for some rugby related

strengths (and other sports e.g. bob sledding although we don't get much

snow around here), but I sell this not as a replacement for classical weight

training but as an enhancement for it. Yet the gym where I trained did not

have machines until a recent upgrade of facility and change of location (no

space). The new tools, cable machine mostly and a ScrumTruck and leg

press, we have improved the offering, but the basics remain, in my mind at

least, firmly in place at the platform.

Best Regards

Nick Tatalias

Johannesburg

South Africa

>

> Gordon Waddell wrote,

>

> I have never heard of or seen an offset machine to allow for proper

> back positioning in squats etc ---------- Like all machines, any

> will

> decrease stabilizer activation, disrupt coordinated movement patterns and

> place an

> unnatural load across joints.

>

> The way I look at it: Poliquin, Boyle, Cosgrove, Cook, , Hartman -

> none of these well known coaches/therapists ever recommend a -for

> squats-----

> " .

>

> " -------------much deleted------------------'

>

> Plisk wrote;

>

> Colleagues,

>

> I don't believe there's evidence showing that machines (guided resistance)

>

> are more dangerous than free weights (unguided resistance). The consensus

> emerging from the literature is that 1) the perception that free weights

> are more

> dangerous isn't necessarily true, and 2) unguided-resistance equipment is

> superior in most regards, particularly when used with qualified

> instruction and

> supervision. -------

> ---- much deleted including many references.

>

> Casler wrote;

>

> If we look at both machines, and free weights all as " force loading

> devices " , then we can more clearly evaluate each individually, and apply

> it

> to the goals and needs of the application.-----------------much

> deleted-------- "

>

> So in the end, strength, function, hypertrophy, endurance and any number

> of

> goals and complexed goals can be accommodated via looking for the right

> tool

> (load device) for the job.

>

> wrote;

>

> This position seems widely held: that machine weights are either 1)

> dangerous, or 2) useless.

>

> " -------------- much deleted -------------------'

>

> Okay, as Lee requested, put your cards on the table folks. Show us that

> machine weights are injurious or useless. ------------------- "

>

> *************

> Jerry Telle writes;

>

> Greetings iron scientists,

>

> As the above authors express there is general agreement of many well known

>

> iron practitioners that " free weights, " with the experience of the lifter

> and

> under proper supervision, is superior to any guided resistance.

>

> I must question this belief that a constrained resistance is inherently

> harmful to the involved joints -- especially in movements like the squat

> or maybe

> even the deadlift. I base my inquiry on the lack of quantified measurement

> and

> the observation that there are many joints involved in said lifts.

>

> Because of the relative functions of so many joints it seems to me that

> any "

> unnatural " movement -- if such a concept is applicable here -- is

> compensated

> for through out the lift by continuous joint adjustment. In some exercises

> the

> use of guided resistance is a must. For instance I have yet to see anyone

> doing " free " resistance heel raises. Yet no one has submitted any negative

>

> anecdotal, much less quantified, observations in protest.

>

> As such the squat, as used in many applications such as the development of

>

> power or horizontal acceleration/velocity, or absolute strength (depending

> on

> ones definition of strength) maybe best addressed by constrained

> resistance.

> With constrained resistance the athlete can more intently focus on the

> power or

> pure strength elements of the exercise. Admittedly a good deal of

> biomechanical efficiency must be present -- as a function of athlete

> experience and

> supervision.

>

> On the other hand it has been my experience that the Olympic lifts require

>

> such an elite performance, that many athletes have not the time, proper

> supervision and or athletic ability to learn these movements to the point

> of

> productivity. Many even have problems with productive nonnconstrained

> squat

> performance! Yet given the use of a properly designed leaper or smith

> machine these

> limitations were, anecdotally, more easily resolved.

>

> One problem with the use of non traditional equipment is the lack of

> quantified research or even anecdotal observation. The purported

> advantages of

> productive equipment are not easy manifestations to demonstrate. ANY

> increase in

> speed, horizontal elevation or functional sstrength, e.g., offensive or

> defensive

> line performance, is desirable. Yet we are interested in small increases

> in

> improvement. Increasing a corner backs speed from a 4.5 40 to a 4.47 is

> the

> difference in wining and loosing. Three 100 ths of a second (30 mills).

> equates to

> about 6-8 inches of travel at a 4.5 per 40 yds/mtrs. velocity. Yet this is

>

> *only* a 4-6% increase in performance – a fairly hard task to anecdotally

> validate.

>

> It is my contention that various types of constrained inertial resistance

> are

> better than " free weight " equivalents in the production of speed, power

> and

> pure strength. The use of force plates, video and EMG measures may be an

> investigative beginning.

>

> It is also my contention that the " coordination and synergistic " aspects

> of

> performance are more productively addressed via more action specific

> avenues.

> You might ask yourself how much velocity and height issues can be

> addressed

> squatting on a Swiss ball! However, the attempt at or performance of such

> incredible feats, using a gymnastic safety harness, may be performance --

> as in

> balance -- useful?

>

> So given the above treatise in speculation – and as J Casler expresses "

> ------------- strength, function, hypertrophy, endurance and any number of

> goals

> and complexed goals can be accommodated via looking for the right tool. "

> And

> with lee and admonishments to " put your cards on the table folks.

> Show us

> that machine weights are injurious or useless " , ---its time to measure

> when and

> what happens when the rubber meets the road. Ultimate performance and

> safety

> are the beneficiaries.

>

[Guest guest]

Regarding many of the current discussions on strength training, perhaps one

of Mel's older tongue-in-cheek insights might be helpful:

" Since the ACSM, NSCA, HIT, OL, and other approaches to strength training

ALL have come under criticism, why don't we all just avoid strength training

with weights and machines and opt for wrestling, which, in less that 15 minutes

a day three times a week will increase multidimensional strength, speed,

local muscle endurance, agility, and hypertrophy to a very acceptable degree?

Let's push bodies, not weights! "

Ken Jakalski

Lisle High School

Lisle, Illinois USA

[Guest guest]

It is not necessarily the tool, but it is said the use of a tool. According

to many here a barbell/dumbbell is a far superior tool than a machine. The

fixed plain argument is always a favorite here, but try bench pressing at an

angle 10 degrees either way from the norm and see what happens. Seems many in

this group carry a certain bias against machines. If I took a few of your

personal machines away from you, you would find life a little difficult - say

for

example your computer and your cell phone and replace them with an antique

crank phone and a typewriter. Many machine designs are questionable, but the

far most important factor is their USE as well as with " free weights. "

The suggested use of Olympic Lifting (Sport) for the supplementary

training of athletes is just plain silly. Teaching the skill of hurling a

barbell upward for football players is akin to teaching your swimmers blocking

and tackling. If the swim coach was ever seen " coaching " his or her swimmers to

do so, you could be sure the coach would be carted away by the men in white

coats.

Landau,

Aventura, Florida

[Guest guest]

The key consideration is teaching the athlete powerful and coordinated

hip extension, knee extension and plantar flexion. I don't think you

have to teach the entire lift to do so, but a snatch high pull makes a

lot of sense for many athletes that are looking to improve these

movements. Most athletes I know would just as soon learn to clean - they

enjoy the movement and athleticism of the lifts themselves.

I certainly wouldn't advocate nothing, but the olympic lifts. But in a

well-developed program of training for football players (and many other

athletes) they can be a valuable exercise.

Having said that, it certainly isn't the only way. IMO it is one of the

best, but there are many roads that lead to excellence.

Exarchives@... wrote:

> The suggested use of Olympic Lifting (Sport) for the supplementary

> training of athletes is just plain silly. Teaching the skill of hurling a

> barbell upward for football players is akin to teaching your swimmers

> blocking

> and tackling. If the swim coach was ever seen " coaching " his or her

> swimmers to

> do so, you could be sure the coach would be carted away by the men in

> white

> coats.

>

>

>

--

Hobman

Saskatoon, CANADA

[Guest guest]

Hi all,

since it was my dislike of the machine that caused a lot of this debate, I

have been reading all the subsequent posts. There has not been one validated

argument for machine training in place of free weights in athletics or proper

training. They may have some uses in rehab and bodybuilding (which we all know

is NOT as sport).

Can anyone name any current national or world class coaches/ athletes (that are

NOT being paid huge endorsements) that advocate machine training for athletes,

let alone people wanting to move and function better?? I have found through

personal experience that it is poorly educated or lazy trainers / coaches

(mostly trainers in commercial gyms) that use machine training for you don't

have invest time learning and teaching proper lifting, it takes little program

design knowledge and it allows you to train more people in a day which equals a

bigger paycheck!

I know that it is mentally & physically exhausting designing, preparing and

teaching REAL exercises. I get a great workout all day just lifting dumbbells,

kettlebells, plates etc. for my clients / athletes. How much effort and

knowledge does it take to move a selector pin and say sit here?

It comes down to money as usual - salesmen get big commissions selling machines

with pads and parts that wear out and need to be replaced (more money) and

trainers do not need skill or knowledge to use a machine which allows them to

train more people which again is more money. Many clients are scared of free

weights or told by gym sales people the machines are better - it is up to the

trainer to dispell these myths and give real training but they don't for fear of

losing a paying client. (or they just don't know how to train). I never had to

sell a client a line of BS, I always told the truth and let the quality of the

workout sell its self.

In my previous life as a commercial gym Fitness Director I was forced by the GM

& Owner to hire MANY poorly skilled trainers for: we needed bodies on the floor,

they looked good, they were good at sales or they were a friend of the powers

that be. Every basic knowledge test I gave, the trainers scored poorly on - My

one essay question was describe how to do a barbell squat, the answers were

ridiculous!!

Since the tests scores were so poor I started borrowing a test from Alwyn

Cosgrove; it consists of only 1 oral question: " If I hire you today and you

start tomorrow and you come in at 6:00am and find the gym empty (all the

equipment gone - you have the client & 4 walls) what would you do? " The pathetic

answers ranged from: Call immediately and apologize, offer free sessions, extra

month on the membership, try to rent equipment etc. The only CORRECT answer is:

TRAIN THE CLIENT with bodyweight exercises!! For over 4 years - NO ONE passed

the test!

If you need always need machines to train a person, then you are not a trainer

but a babysitter or " rent-a-friend " for an hour.

Thanks to all the great coaches and trainers who are putting up the great

responses to as the superiority of free weights!

" Machines were created to keep the geeks of the free weights! " - not sure who

said it first but it is brilliant!

Gordon Waddell

NJ, USA

To: Supertraining

From: kshobman@...

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:55:18 -0600

Subject: Re: Free weights versus machine weights

The key consideration is teaching the athlete powerful and

coordinated

hip extension, knee extension and plantar flexion. I don't think you

have to teach the entire lift to do so, but a snatch high pull makes a

lot of sense for many athletes that are looking to improve these

movements. Most athletes I know would just as soon learn to clean - they

enjoy the movement and athleticism of the lifts themselves.

I certainly wouldn't advocate nothing, but the olympic lifts. But in a

well-developed program of training for football players (and many other

athletes) they can be a valuable exercise.

Having said that, it certainly isn't the only way. IMO it is one of the

best, but there are many roads that lead to excellence.

Exarchives@... wrote:

> The suggested use of Olympic Lifting (Sport) for the supplementary

> training of athletes is just plain silly. Teaching the skill of hurling a

> barbell upward for football players is akin to teaching your swimmers

> blocking

> and tackling. If the swim coach was ever seen " coaching " his or her

> swimmers to

> do so, you could be sure the coach would be carted away by the men in

> white

> coats.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> You write

>

> " ----------- These big burly coaches routinely maintained that Olympic

> Weightlifting was too technical --------Mike's daughter Sage was 5 years old

at

> the time, -------- her technique was very good. --------- No further excuses

> were forthcoming. " "

>

> All objections had been overcome, [at least the comments stopped] all

> excuses rendered moot, no more BS reasons for not teaching ---------- these

coaches

> simply did not know how to coach Weightlifting. At that time there were

> probably

> three or four prep schools with coaches teaching Olympic Weightlifting

> ---------------- their cheerleaders compete. Have I made my point? Time,

energy

> and equipment are BS excuses. Weightlifting is the most time and cost

effective

> power training modality extent.

Telle – very impressive. My only first hand anecdotal experience comparing the

effectiveness of Olympic lifting was in the Elway era Bronco's football

teams. My introduction to the experience was via Stan the defensive line

and strength coach. Stan was a resistance training pioneer during his 13 years

as a player in the NFL (7 years as a pro bowl selection -- now hall of famer)

and as a strength coach for many years. Stan had a brilliant mind for many

things one of which was football specific exercise. His basic exercises included

free weight dumbbells and straight bar squats, bench press' and cleans -- using

dumbbells as much as possible. He even designed special defensive line apparatus

for strength football specific movements. He constantly sought and evaluated

training methods and used Olympic lifts in the process.

In the course of events I introduced him to a leaper I had designed. The machine

could incorporate both inertial and hydraulic resistance or either one

separately. Its primary function was the development of football specific power.

A typical training protocol involved performing 10 squat leaps in 13 seconds --

increasing weight when 10 reps were performed in less then 13 seconds. Training

was twice a week off season and once in season. I'd like to say this was

overwhelmingly better then squats but I cant. I can say that the players who did

use it (it was an optional exercise as indeed was most of the weight training)

believed it to be a valuable tool. The Broncos soon thereafter hired a fulltime

strength coach who was sold on Olympic lifting as the primary vehicle for

strength and power.

He had many experts give clinics and so on. One thing I do remember clearly was

the trouble most athletes had with limit lifts and fatigue related coordination

loss even during free weight squat training. I believe Elway had the

greatest clean and jerk effort -- 340 lbs. At that time, and now, it seems to me

that other, much larger and inherently stronger players, would have lifted more

than 340 lbs if athletic ability were not a factor.

Bill wrote:

" As I have previously stated several times in this forum, there is virtually no

machine based resistance exercise that can't be done more effectively with free

weights by an apparently healthy individual. Machines are beneficial primarily

for rehabilitation and essentially unnecessary and inappropriate when training

athletes. "

Telle writes:

I have to disagree here-- a properly designed leaper is probably as effective or

even more so in the expression of and acquisition of power and strength. A

properly designed leaper;

1. Has machine shoulder “yoke†interfaces which apparently expedites greater

vertical forces. (whatever happened to the power squat bar -- with the shoulder

yokes)?

2. Is guided to the point were fatigue related coordination failures are greatly

reduced.

3. Is guided to the point where maximal power and strength efforts are not

technique constrained as with free weights.

4. Is not limited by hand, shoulder or trunk strengths.

5. Is much easier and safer to eccentrically overload.

I bet if you compared any given lifters ability to perform power and or strength

via free squats vs. machine squats that the machine efforts are significantly

greater -- which of course is pretty much academic until on field performance is

compared -- a much harder measure.

Bill wrote:

" The one possible exception would be the leg press machine, which I

had occasion to use when I was training the Men's National Volleyball Team in

order to increase leg strength while not introducing any further stress to the

volleyball players lower backs. They spent 4 hours a day 5 days a week jumping

in a very old, cold, mildewed gym with very hard floors. The leg press was

expedient and convenient, not necessarily better. "

Telle writes:

So I assume you are saying muscle recruitment and strength expression

are relatively similar across squats, jumps and leg press'? I also assume you

meant to increase *hip* and leg strength as opposed to just " leg strength " ? If

so, I have many reservations with your assumptions.

It also seems apparent that your machine exposure is limited to the leg press?

Bill wrote:

> “As for the closeness of high level competition, as the strength

> coach of numerous Olympic athletes I am acutely aware that the difference

> between 5th and an Olympic Championship may be minuscule. Further reason to

utilize

> the most efficient and effective training modalities available, the single

> most essential modality, in my experience, being Weightlifting.’

Telle writes:

No question there -- if one were constrained to “the single most efficient

modalityâ€

“As for anecdotal evidence, the 150 lb., etc-------“

>

> Telle. Everyone, including Nautilus and associated believers, has such

> examples.

In summary I believe a properly designed squat leaper is more efficient at

developing vertical power and strength than free weight equipment.

Cheers,

Jerry Telle

Lakewood CO USA

==========================================

> Jerry,

> About 12 and 13 years ago I assisted Mike Burgener when he put on some

> strength training clinics for prep school football coaches. These big burly

> coaches routinely maintained that Olympic Weightlifting was too technical and

time

> intensive to teach to their prep athletes. Mike's daughter Sage was 5 years

> old at the time, and after the coaches would give us the " EXCUSE " , Mike would

> have Sage demonstrate the Olympic lifts. She used a special light bar, but

> her technique was very good. It always got very quite after Sage finished

> demonstrating both the snatch and clean and jerk (she would split jerk). Sage

> would get very pumped from all the attention and execute several reps very

> quickly and in rapid succession. Invariably the room got very quiet when Sage

> stopped. No further excuses were forthcoming.

>

> All objections had been overcome, all excuses rendered moot, no more BS

> reasons for not teaching Olympic Weightlifting. The fact was these coaches

simply

> did not know how to coach Weightlifting. At that time there were probably

> three or four prep schools with coaches teaching Olympic Weightlifting in

> Southern California. Sage is now a senior in high school and in that time Mike

> has now got dozens of schools on board with Weightlifting and represented in

> the annual High School Clean and Jerk Championship. Schools like Mater Dei

> not only enter their entire football teams, basketball team, wrestling team

and

> track athletes, but their cheerleaders compete. Have I made my point? Time,

> energy and equipment are BS excuses. Weightlifting is the most time and cost

> effective power training modality extent.

>

> As I have previously stated several times in this forum, there is virtually

> no machine based resistance exercise that can't be done more effectively with

> free weights by an apparently healthy individual.

>

> Machines are beneficial primarily for rehabilitation and essentially

> unnecessary and inappropriate when training athletes.

> The one possible exception would be the leg press machine, which I had

> occasion to use when I was training the Men's National Volleyball Team in

order to

> increase leg strength while not introducing any further stress to the

> volleyball players lower backs. They spent 4 hours a day 5 days a week jumping

in a

> very old, cold, mildewed gym with very hard floors. The leg press was

> expedient and convenient, not necessarily better.

>

> Safety is a non issue. Weightlifting is well documented to be very safe

> when, as mentioned many times previously, properly coached and supervised.

>

> As for the closeness of high level competition, as the strength coach of

> numerous Olympic athletes I am acutely aware that the difference between 5th

and

> an Olympic Championship may be minuscule. Further reason to utilize the most

> efficient and effective training modalities available, the single most

> essential modality, in my experience, being Weightlifting.

> As for anecdotal evidence, the 150 lb., Rudy/Cartman of his school presented

> himself to me on my first day as strength coach for a small private school

> and insisted he wanted to play football. In four months, through a combination

> of proper nutrition and Weightlifting, he weighed 185 lbs. In 6 months, 200

> lbs. He not only started, but also played both sides of the ball for the next

> three years. Now at 24, he weighs 235 lbs, does 3RM 425 lb ATG squats and

> can press 350 lbs and very successfully participates in MMA.

>

> As far as I'm concerned, machines just don't feed the bulldog,

> W.G.

> Ubermensch Sports Consultancy

> San Diego CA.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

You make valid points about machines not being fit to every body type however

I don't thing that means there is absolutely no place for machines for anybody

anywhere. Now I may have missed it but was there a post by someone saying that

machines are superior to free weights? If so I would disagree with them as well.

For the AVERAGE person in todays gyms a combination of free weights and machines

would be quite useful to increase their health and fitness levels. For someone ,

such as yourself, free weight training is the obvious choice because it allows

you to train the way you compete.

I guess what it comes down to is people will use what works best for them.

While some may not agree with anothers training methods, provided they are safe

and that person is happy with the results, and they stay motivated to train

isn't that what is important?

Lee Robillard

Mississauga, Ontario

Canada

==============================

deadliftdiva@... wrote:

Outside of the wonderland of Mr. Landau's perfectly fitted machines,

the rest of us still have trouble getting people to fit existing frames and

properly working within the ROM's they are given. If I visit, does this mean I

can't bring my chalk and deadlift? Do you have a machine for that?

What marvel of the machine world is he using, seeing as Ken and I both have seen

a good deal of problem with machines in our gyms and smaller people? Leverages

on shoulder and biceps machines too are completely out of sync with arm length

and height of the person in several cases...and I've seen lat pulldowns where

the lifter could not put their feet flat AND still reach the bar to pull it

down.

Years ago, I suffered with a universal machine that was supposedly a military

press. As I'm 5'9 " and long armed, I couldn't see how anybody shorter could

engage it properly...without a BOX?

Maintenance of cable sets and other headaches where something abruptly JERKS or

causes other disruptions....

Free weights are still the best form for everyone as a whole, outside of injury

rehab and someone whose balance is so completely gone they cannot stand or sit

reasonably to perform moves.

My knees killed me on the machine for nearly 2 years. The free weight

squat not only had me using more weight, but also a true sense of

proprioception, which I did not learn on the . Because the was not a

TRUE squat, requiring balance and all the other things present in the real back

squat, I had to start with HALF the weight and learn the real move. When I quit

the , I had quite a bit on there too...the irony? people used to come up

and say " wow, you're strong, are you a POWERLIFTER " ? based on the SMITH " SQUAT " .

(My sport clearly needs more exposure on what it IS ....? sheesh!)

There are far too many athletes succeeding in places with a bar, a bench, and a

sq rack to say free weights are not superior even as machines to fixed

machines....

The Phantom

aka Schaefer, CMT, CSCS, competing powerlifter

Denver, Colorado, USA

-------------- Original message --------------

We continue struggling with a Nautilus pullover. People around 5'4 "

must have an additional piece of seating added, while under 5'1 "

requires two layers of seating. One size does not fit all. Even

average height persons (5'9 " ) have to dink around with the pullover

since it does not properly fit their arm length. Guys above 6'3 " have

no problem with it. High chair build ups also required for the Lateral

machine. Good news is the Nautilus ab machine has broken down so we

can get rid of it.

The Icarion line of machines is a living nightmare. Looks as if they

knocked off someone else's appearance of a design without

understanding the biomechanics in the slightest. We also have a life

of old LifeLine machines evidencing poor sense of biomechanics.

The solution? Barbells, dumbbells, JC Predator bands, stability balls,

medicine balls - implementing Abel's hybrid and MET training and

JC Santana's hybrid ideas.

Ken O'Neill

Austin, Texas

Well I'd like to post an opinion AND

observation on the fixed path machines

> at least.

> >

> > They aren't built to accommodate small to average sized WOMEN for

one thing!

> >

> > The leverages on most machines in use do not suit women - they

find they are not in the proper

> position - e.g. feet flat to floor or leverage length adjustments.

SMALL women and yes, very small

> MEN do not fit the machines and must find ways to alter the form to

fit THEM.

> >

> > Whereas a FREE weight knows no such restriction....the only

limiter being hand size perhaps, but

> that is not limited to small people lol. I know of at least one man

of SHW size who had undersized

> palms...and thus never deadlifted what people thought he should for

his other strengths lol.

> >

> > Straps can be used to help overcome this particular size issue if

required.

> >

> > But the fact is, a lot of the machines - cybex, hammer strength

(trademarks/brands names both)

> cannot be adjusted to proper use by small individuals, the majority

of whom are women.

> >

> > The Phantom

> > aka Schaefer, CMT, CSCS, competing powerlifter

> > Denver, Colorado, USA

>

> ****

> To answer ,

>

> we have " small " women that we fit perfectly into our selectorized

machines that are

> getting measurable results. You might be right in some cases, but

with our particualr situation, we

> have no such problem.

>

> Regards

> Landau,

> Aventura, Florida

>

[Guest guest]

" but try bench pressing at an angle 10 degrees either way from the norm and

see what happens. "

Change the angle of the bench? Yes but the machine does not replicate the

line of the bench which starts just above your sternum and ends above your

mouth. The bench does not go in a straight line.

To equip a gym you need a bench, squat stand and a bar and discs. Machines

needed, many. Cost that one. My cell phone is a useful device, since the

advent of industrialised machines the list of redundant machines would be

long, just because a machine exists doesn't mean it is useful.

Regards

Nick Tatalias

Johennesburg

South Africa

>

> It is not necessarily the tool, but it is said the use of a tool.

> According

> to many here a barbell/dumbbell is a far superior tool than a machine. The

>

> fixed plain argument is always a favorite here, but try bench pressing at

> an

> angle 10 degrees either way from the norm and see what happens. Seems many

> in

> this group carry a certain bias against machines. If I took a few of your

> personal machines away from you, you would find life a little difficult -

> say for

> example your computer and your cell phone and replace them with an antique

>

> crank phone and a typewriter. Many machine designs are questionable, but

> the

> far most important factor is their USE as well as with " free weights. "

> The suggested use of Olympic Lifting (Sport) for the supplementary

> training of athletes is just plain silly. Teaching the skill of hurling a

> barbell upward for football players is akin to teaching your swimmers

> blocking

> and tackling. If the swim coach was ever seen " coaching " his or her

> swimmers to

> do so, you could be sure the coach would be carted away by the men in

> white

> coats.

>

> Landau,

> Aventura, Florida

[Guest guest]

Gordon,

I understand you have a passionate dislike of machines of any kind

in the fitness field.

No problem there. However when you decide to trash any trainer who advocates

any use of a machine as poorly educated/or lazy thats a big problem. Your

attitude borders on arrogance! No doubt you have many years in the field both

training others and yourself but no amount of experience or number of

certifications/degrees/diplomas etc provides you the right to be offensive.

I too have followed some of Alwyn Cosgroves training ideas. He is a terrific

source of information. The question, however, of what to do if you show up at

the gym and all the equipment is gone is rather rediculous if you think

logically. I'm not sure what others think but if that happened to me your bloody

right I'd be on the phone...to the police and the owners! Then I'd put together

the workout for the client.

So you don't get the wrong idea Gordon. I don't advocate the use of machines

in place of free weights. I do believe there is a place for both " tools " if used

correctly. As for machines breaking and needing repair and salesman etc. It

seems to me that free weights get damaged, bent , broken. the have to be

replaced as well. Which means a call to the respective salesman.

Yes there are trainers that are not up to par. Just as there are plumbers,

doctors, lawyers, proffs etc. that don't make the grade (with appologies anyone

in this group from those various professions...I'm a cop so feel free to make

donut jokes).

Sorry to have rambled on here for so long but the point I'm trying to get too

is, this group as I understand it, is to allow the sharing of information so we

can all learn with the goal of improving our own trainnig and that which we do

for others. When we start attacking people in general or personally it realy

detracts from the intent of the group.

Lee Robillard

Mississauga, Ontario

Canada

=============================================

gordon waddell wrote:

Hi all,

since it was my dislike of the machine that caused a lot of this debate, I

have been reading all the subsequent posts. There has not been one validated

argument for machine training in place of free weights in athletics or proper

training. They may have some uses in rehab and bodybuilding (which we all know

is NOT as sport).

Can anyone name any current national or world class coaches/ athletes (that are

NOT being paid huge endorsements) that advocate machine training for athletes,

let alone people wanting to move and function better?? I have found through

personal experience that it is poorly educated or lazy trainers / coaches

(mostly trainers in commercial gyms) that use machine training for you don't

have invest time learning and teaching proper lifting, it takes little program

design knowledge and it allows you to train more people in a day which equals a

bigger paycheck!

I know that it is mentally & physically exhausting designing, preparing and

teaching REAL exercises. I get a great workout all day just lifting dumbbells,

kettlebells, plates etc. for my clients / athletes. How much effort and

knowledge does it take to move a selector pin and say sit here?

It comes down to money as usual - salesmen get big commissions selling machines

with pads and parts that wear out and need to be replaced (more money) and

trainers do not need skill or knowledge to use a machine which allows them to

train more people which again is more money. Many clients are scared of free

weights or told by gym sales people the machines are better - it is up to the

trainer to dispell these myths and give real training but they don't for fear of

losing a paying client. (or they just don't know how to train). I never had to

sell a client a line of BS, I always told the truth and let the quality of the

workout sell its self.

In my previous life as a commercial gym Fitness Director I was forced by the GM

& Owner to hire MANY poorly skilled trainers for: we needed bodies on the floor,

they looked good, they were good at sales or they were a friend of the powers

that be. Every basic knowledge test I gave, the trainers scored poorly on - My

one essay question was describe how to do a barbell squat, the answers were

ridiculous!!

Since the tests scores were so poor I started borrowing a test from Alwyn

Cosgrove; it consists of only 1 oral question: " If I hire you today and you

start tomorrow and you come in at 6:00am and find the gym empty (all the

equipment gone - you have the client & 4 walls) what would you do? " The pathetic

answers ranged from: Call immediately and apologize, offer free sessions, extra

month on the membership, try to rent equipment etc. The only CORRECT answer is:

TRAIN THE CLIENT with bodyweight exercises!! For over 4 years - NO ONE passed

the test!

If you need always need machines to train a person, then you are not a trainer

but a babysitter or " rent-a-friend " for an hour.

Thanks to all the great coaches and trainers who are putting up the great

responses to as the superiority of free weights!

" Machines were created to keep the geeks of the free weights! " - not sure who

said it first but it is brilliant!

Gordon Waddell

NJ, USA

To: Supertraining

From: kshobman@...

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:55:18 -0600

Subject: Re: Free weights versus machine weights

The key consideration is teaching the athlete powerful and coordinated

hip extension, knee extension and plantar flexion. I don't think you

have to teach the entire lift to do so, but a snatch high pull makes a

lot of sense for many athletes that are looking to improve these

movements. Most athletes I know would just as soon learn to clean - they

enjoy the movement and athleticism of the lifts themselves.

I certainly wouldn't advocate nothing, but the olympic lifts. But in a

well-developed program of training for football players (and many other

athletes) they can be a valuable exercise.

Having said that, it certainly isn't the only way. IMO it is one of the

best, but there are many roads that lead to excellence.

Exarchives@... wrote:

> The suggested use of Olympic Lifting (Sport) for the supplementary

> training of athletes is just plain silly. Teaching the skill of hurling a

> barbell upward for football players is akin to teaching your swimmers

> blocking

> and tackling. If the swim coach was ever seen " coaching " his or her

> swimmers to

> do so, you could be sure the coach would be carted away by the men in

> white

> coats.

>

>

>