For those of you who are firm believers that free weights are better, let me ask a question to get a handle on how much better.

Hypothetical scenario. You are in good shape, have no afflictions and are an expert at this stuff. Possibly one of the emp brothers. You have access to a great gym and all the time in the world. Plus spotters and any kind of bench for free weights. Chains too.

You have general fitness goals but nothing so specific such as Olympic Weightlifting where free weights or machines would have more or less of an advantage than usual.

You are asked to design your optimum workout in your opinion for both machines and free weights (if there are any gizmos that could be considered hybrids, skip them). No mixing.

After two years you claim better results with the free weights. My question is this: Suppose I said that if you use your optimum free weight workout you must cut it by a third. Across the board. And stop two reps short of failure when you otherwise would not have. Would you still surpass the results you would get from your optimum machine workout?

People are going to say alot of stuff like you dont need to train to failure. Which is true, but I think everyone is just going to jump on you for saying failure which alot of people that post on here dont lift to failure.

I see what your saying though. Just assume that any workout you design is going to be to failure. M-chest, tues-legs, type of workout where you will be doing 15 sets or whatever to failure.

I still think free weights will be better. They use all the stabilizer muscles while you are lifting.

How are you judging results? looking more muscular? strength? Would you judge strength on a machine or free weights.

I think people are going to hate on this question alot, they are going to say stuff like machines can lead to injury by being a unnatural motion.

They're too supportive. Because you have so much support, you use fewer muscle groups at the same time. This means you burn less calories and work the body in a less functional way.


They don't allow the body to work naturally. Because many machines work on a fixed path, there's not much room for working the body throughout different planes of motion.

Free weights will prolly be better in the long run.

If you said how much workout you have to cut before I would go to machines I dont know.

I have been rambling alot, because I really dont know what to say. I havent used that many machines.

i was going to put in a long detailed reply, but its not worth it. free weights win under almost any conditions and stipulations

Srs question did you get banned from NVG or something?

the only time i can see machines being more useful is under special circumstances such as a competitive bodybuilder needing to isolate a specific muscle in order to maintain balance/symmetry or a very tall person seeing more quad hypertrophy through leg pressing rather than squatting...but i think that the average person gets more out of having a natural range of motion and development of stabilizing muscles than the smaller benefit of a constant range load...

Yes.

I lifted for three years exclusively using free weights and had developed a few routines that I really liked and got great results from. Then I hurt my lower back, didn't work out for months, and when I got back to it, I couldn't do free weights any more. I switched to do machines only and was prepared for much diminished results, but i was actually very impressed. now i involve both in my workout and I think that is optimal (especially since im still worried about my back).

Not sure what this adds, but just wanted to say that if you use machines right and don't just go through the motions you can still get a very intense workout with great results.

Some of the free-weight zeal is over the top.

It depends how you measure results. If the measure is some functional strength move, such as how much weight can you squat, I think the freeweight trainer will win even at 2/3 the workouts. On the other hand if the measure is just amount of lean body mass gained, the machine guy will probably win, because giving up 1/3 of your training (whatever that means) is too much to overcome.

BTW if you set it up another way :

Machine guy takes X time to do his workouts. Freeweight guy can do whatever workouts he wants but only gets 2/3 X time to do workouts - then freeweight guy will easily win. (but this is also counting stretching and warmups as not part of workout time)

You're saying that free weights take more time than machines? I've been getting ready to transition to free weights, but time is a consideration for me.

No, I'm saying you can get a harder workout in less time. eg. this whole reduce by 1/3 thing is pretty hard to specify, but if it's a time limit or limit on # of reps then freeweight guy can win because you can get a harder full body workout faster using compound freeweight moves.

Yes. (A guess.)

Part of this hinges on how one both defines and verifies/measures superior results.

Likewise the idea of devising an optimum program and then reducing the volume and/or intensity 1/3 is much less coherent than I suspect you imagine it.

You wave your hands and attempt to assume away things that diverge from however/wherever you want to lead discussion and it is folly. It mattered that Socrates was the guy leading Socratic dialogue.

If one values hypertrophy over all else versus what it is in vogue to call functional strength then I suspect the answer will be different.

At some point doing less with free weights offsets whatever advantages free weights have in those areas where free weights have advantages. I don't know what that point is. Practical considerations of what motivates a specific individual to make any sort of decision associated with a positive health outcome are more important and useful in my opinion than this speculative masturbation about ill-defined theoretical optima.

This isn't just a theoretical question. Suppose you are some rich old guy who can put several machines in his house, or just use a barbell, dumbells, an adjustable bench and squat rack without a spotter.

Dammit would you just get that $14,712 4-minute workout machine thing and report back? I need to know if it lives up to the hype.

I think we are all better off doing exercises with more transference to daily life. That doesn't leave much of a role for most machines.

I also think machines come up short as far as providing a diversity of stimuli-- despite providing 473 different exercise opportunities. And that is one of the several reasons that folks last longer in regimes less dependent on them.

Ultimately it is individual-- whatever works, works, and anything, including machines, potentially can. The success rate of those machines makes me wonder if they are a hindrance to that potentiality, however.

These are my personal biases. I'm far from expert on this or any other topic. A squat rack, barbell, plates, odds and ends like pull-up bars, jump rope, kettlebells, rings, parallettes, etc., do create interior design challenges, but I think those can be overcome.

Is there anything this rich old man enjoys, hates, wants to improve, fitness wise?

You don't need a spotter if you have a squat rack because you can set the pins to a level where if you do fail, the bars will catch the weight.

Yeah the only thing you can't do without a spotter is barbell bench press. But that's not a big deal since you could use dumbbells instead.

You can set the pins so that you can safely bench. I'm not sure how useful bench press is for most of us, but that's another topic.

"I'm not sure how useful bench press is for most of us, but that's another topic. "

benching is a great exercise for anyone, although for some it won't be the great chest exercise they hope for...its like total upper body workout though...shoulder, upper back, chest, tris all get hit...

but when random people ask "how much can you lift?" what will you tell them???? what will you tell them????

and re machines

Plus, not lifting to failure isn't really a loss anyway, but actually a net boon.

The best thing to do with weights is full-body exercises, and if you concentrate on strength, you don't need to spend much time at it either. I'd be surprised if most people at gyms couldn't cut the time they spend there dramatically even while getting in better shape.

David's 10-minute machine - video

lollllllllllllllllllllllll

i see ad for that all the time in magz. are they really legit?

Use the "click to look inside" feature to read pages 4 and 5. Therein lies the explanation of why free weights rule and machines suck.

http://www.amazon.com/Starting-Stren...5035742&sr=8-1

Strong bump.