Free weights versus machine weights

[Guest guest]

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.

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA