ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 4:22 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:50 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3984
Oh well golly gee, you can put your feet 12 inches forward and f*** your knees up. That sounds great! And 1 arm work locked into 1 plane of motion? How utterly pointless. Half the point of 1 arm is for it to be harder to stabilize. Just use a dumbbell.

How about refuting some of my points instead of just making asinine remarks with no basis in science?

Free weights are always better. Machines use levers and pulleys so they are easier. The core be damned! That has nothing to do with nothing. You get more recruitment of the muscle fiber and a much better ROM with free weights, compound or isolation.

Nothing you said proves your point. Free weights are always the best and machines have very limited application. Just due to the fact that they are not as effective.

I take care of isolation and symmetry with free weights. I rarely use machines. Other than calves of course because of the the limited ROM of the ankle. Free weights aren't just for beginners. In fact most people start with machines.

Just because it's in Flex and Muaclemag doesn't mean it's right. There is no science to support 3-5 sets of 3-5 exercises per body part with lots of isolation and machines as laid out by Joe "knucklehead trying to sell magazines" Wieder.


There is science for free weights, higher frequency and other training methods. But not that crap.



This board is NOT about beginners, or powerlifters or anything else you think it is about. It is about Science, provable facts, good theories and speculation about likely hypotheses. We also use the previously mentioned science to poke holes in myths, bro talk and other dogma. Just look around the site. It is very sciencey, and very encyclopedia like. Written by doctors, PHD's and people with at least a masters degree at a minimum. THAT is why it is like that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:34 am 
Offline
moderator
moderator

Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:27 am
Posts: 1115
Location: Kabutzkatura
Quote:
On posterior delts, lets try to isolate them to bring them up with the lateral and anterior delts. You could do BB or DB bent rows with arms flared, or you could do Reverse Pec Dec rows on a machine.
With Bent Rows you don't have to use that much weight so I don't think the core will be that much of a problem.


Quote:
But that doesn’t make them bad. There are practical applications for machines for the serious bodybuilder. Resistance is resistance. Most machines simply take out the core stabilizers while locking you into a specified ROM which is what you want for true isolation.
Was Arnold using a pec deck machine in his chest routine? He was said to have one of the greatest physiques and without the help of machines.

Quote:
True isolation.
True isolation sure but isn't that the reason for exercises like preacher curl or skull crushers instead of doing compound like rows or bp? Arn't those meant to be isolation exercises?

Quote:
Will idiot noobs flock to machines in a gym out of sheer ignorance? Probably.
Partially their fault and also societies fault. You go into a gym and a lot of them will be packed with a bunch of machines. Also the makers of those machines are the ones who create the commercials that say basically that they will get you stronger without the need of free weights.

Quote:
Same with Flex magazine. Everyone says it is just there to sell supplements. The mag has a ton of Ads, true. But NONE of the training articles written by the authors advocate any single name brand supplement. None. The training articles are actually ad free. That’s a fact.
Not true, I've read routines where they will have Jay Cutler explain his mass builder routines and then state how he used 'substance x' after workout. Also those magazines are only meant to sell supps. Those routines if they are any good you can find on the net for free.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:05 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3474
I guess an agreed conclusion is going to be difficult to reach on this one :roll:

But I would like to offer one anyway..

Machines CAN be a good ADDITION to free weights....??? (the 'CAN' indicating that not everyone should use them, but some people can benefit)

But since it's becoming a never ending thread anyway, I'll stir it up a little more and say...

"True Isolation" doesn't actually exist. However some exercises allow to focus on some muscles more than others... (which opens up a can of worms when it comes to fixed range of motions - what happens to other not so sexy muscles that no one thinks about?).

There's nothing you can achieve with a machine that you can't achieve with free weights. Excluding cables, which aren't the same anyway (you need to stabilise them). That doesn't make machines useless.

I like EMG data. I think it's very useful. But i don't believe it tells you everything. You can get increased hamstring activation from doing a lunge on an unstable surface, for example. But that doesn't mean it's a better hamstring exercise. All things considered, it's actually irrelevant (with potential negative effects over a longer time frame) to the healthy lifter, but for the injured lifter, increased activation of target muscles under these circumstances can be very beneficial...

What's this got to do with the topic(s) at hand? Nothing directly. I just think people take this EMG stuff too literally. If you could truly isolate muscles, and EMG data was the most important factor involved in building muscle or strength, then you would be able to JUST build big pecs, and nothing else. Or have one huge bicep, and leave all the other muscles un trained. You would see loads of mid to late teen boys with massive arms and chests, but no back and legs, because all they do is bench and curl. And i'm sure you would see the odd freak show with one huge glute and things like that. Don't get me wrong, you see plenty of people who clearly just do chest and arm workouts, but their chest and arms are never REALLY big,or even 'quite big', they just look 'trained'. Which also means that that logic alone does have an effect, but it can only take you so far (and not very far).

Please read that properly and know that i'm not saying EMG data is useless. It's extremely useful. But.... 'it is what it is'.

Lastly, why would anyone want to perform an exercise that puts their knees under a lot of unnecessary stress? It's not like it's the only thing you can do to achieve the same goal. You can't lift much when your injured. Along the same lines, why would anyone want to recommend an exercise that puts your knees under unnecessary stress? (hence, the strong opposition to smith squats). I actually know why people do the exercise anyway - because it's easier! It's far easier squatting on a smith machine than it is on a free squat which CAN emphasise the glutes and hams depending on how you squat. Unless of course, every powerlifter on the planet is getting it wrong! Check the position 'in the hole' of a Power lifter squatting, check the position 'on the box' of a box squat performed correctly, it's practically identical to the starting position of a dead lift, with the bar on the shoulders instead of the floor. I think one of the biggest myths in lifting is that the quads are the prime movers in a squat. The quads are underrated for strength, the posterior chain is where the strengths at, the quads just help out. Don't believe me? Squat with a closer stance, upright torso and break at the knees first (before the hips) and see how much you can lift...

The best of the smith machine example is that increased glute and ham emphasise normally means LESS stress on the knee joint! So what the hell happens in Smith Squats with the feet out front to completely change this? This is why things like this make no sense to people who are interested in looking after the joints. This argument isn't just exclusive to machines, I feel the same way about certain free weight exercises - why risk it? There's loads of other things you can do that carry less risk.

I'm on a rant again, so apologies, lol. I'll shut up now.

KPj


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:46 am 
Offline
Associate Member
Associate Member

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:13 pm
Posts: 407
Ironman wrote:
Just because it's in Flex and Muaclemag doesn't mean it's right. There is no science to support 3-5 sets of 3-5 exercises per body part with lots of isolation and machines as laid out by Joe "knucklehead trying to sell magazines" Wieder.


There is plenty of science showing multiple sets and high volume work is superior to low volume.

A few are here.

And while you may think machines have no use in weight training and have no science behind them, I'd advise you to please pay attention to all the medical reports such as those on PubMed and see how those studies are being conducted. Beleive it or not, many of them are done on......drum roll.......machines. If that isn't science, then I've no idea what else to tell you.

Further, as you look at sites like PubMed, try to find a study showing machines are pointless and should be avoided. Please, find just one study showing that machines are ineffective. Just one.

Until then, yours is just an opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:10 am 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6401
Location: Halifax, NS
Chris_A wrote:
Ironman wrote:
Just because it's in Flex and Muaclemag doesn't mean it's right. There is no science to support 3-5 sets of 3-5 exercises per body part with lots of isolation and machines as laid out by Joe "knucklehead trying to sell magazines" Wieder.


There is plenty of science showing multiple sets and high volume work is superior to low volume.

A few are here.

And while you may think machines have no use in weight training and have no science behind them, I'd advise you to please pay attention to all the medical reports such as those on PubMed and see how those studies are being conducted. Beleive it or not, many of them are done on......drum roll.......machines. If that isn't science, then I've no idea what else to tell you.

Further, as you look at sites like PubMed, try to find a study showing machines are pointless and should be avoided. Please, find just one study showing that machines are ineffective. Just one.

Until then, yours is just an opinion.


Those articles say that 3 sets are better than 1. Ironman was speaking about 3-5 sets of 3-5 exercises per body part. That's much different than the 3 sets vs 1 argument. If 3 are good that doesn't make 15 better.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:35 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3474
I agree with the results of the studies- 3 sets are better than one.

Not to mention that one was conducted on untrained lifters, which is a common problem with a lot of these studies. It's also interesting that they mention strength, but only use loads from 7RM - 10RM. But then again, they're untrained. They could use a 20RM and would still get stronger.

It's interesting as well since strength will normally be trained over several sets of low reps, but varying load when the number of sets is changed is another thing that is not considered. What about rest?

I'm just trying to emphasise that studies can be picked a part all day, although, some more than others. They're more of an indication of the 'why', as opposed to a conclusion of the 'how'. Again, very useful information, but it needs to be used correctly.

I would much rather follow the advice of a reputable coach than a study anyway....

KPj


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:01 am 
Offline
Associate Member
Associate Member

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:13 pm
Posts: 407
KPj wrote:
I'm just trying to emphasise that studies can be picked a part all day, although, some more than others. They're more of an indication of the 'why', as opposed to a conclusion of the 'how'. Again, very useful information, but it needs to be used correctly.


That's true. And I've yet to see a study saying machines are ineffective.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:06 am 
Offline
Associate Member
Associate Member

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:13 pm
Posts: 407
ironmaiden708 wrote:
Not true, I've read routines where they will have Jay Cutler explain his mass builder routines and then state how he used 'substance x' after workout. Also those magazines are only meant to sell supps. Those routines if they are any good you can find on the net for free.


The articles that detail EMG studies on various exercises, why CLA works, what types of fat to eat and which to avoid, etc, aren't trying to sell supplements. But yeah, most of that info can be found on the net anyway. The perk to the mag is to follow the BB sport and see how the contests are going. Not to mention, even if the info is on the net, the mag brings it up and gets you thinking about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:29 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3474
I don't think anyone said they were ineffective... As far as I could tell, the general thought was 'they have their place'. Or, they are not 'as effective' as free weights.

I certainly would be a hypocrite to say machines are ineffective, because I use them from time to time.

I think it was more case of debating whether they were a necessity or not. Variety is always good, and machines can add variety, but you don't need machines to add variety. They can come in handy though.

And the Smith Squat example - admittedly biased, I would question whether it was true that it hit the posterior chain more. But even if it's true, it's hardly efficient if it can potentially wreck your knees. You do need to excuse my 'over thinking' habit. But for starters, there's so many variations of DL form it's unbelievable, in the study with smith-feet-out squat vs DL, which one did they use? How does it compare to other variations. What about load? How much load can use in comparison the DL? And how do you work out the load in a machine with fixed ROM. 200lbs on a Smith Machine doesn't feel like 200lbs... Can you really compare a fixed ROM load to a free load? And load is a big part of building muscle....

I think these are all valid questions. Wouldn't surprise me if that study was funded by Technogym or Life Fitness or someone that sells smith machines...

KPj


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:27 am 
Offline
Associate Member
Associate Member

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:13 pm
Posts: 407
Here’s an interesting study that shows a Smith Machine squat allowed greater gains than free weight squats.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15705030

Here’s another study using a Smith Machine.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15574092

And one using the Leg Press versus a BB Squat. Notice they determined that while the squat is a better workout for the quads, it also produces more force in the knees than the leg press meaning the leg press is safer for your knees.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11528346

Here is very interesting study using a squat machine with a fixed linear ROM (Smith Machine) that shows moving the feet forward reduces force on the knees and shifts it to the hips.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12423179

So, as you can see, science has no problems at all with machines. In fact, it relies on the machines, and favors them in many cases. In fact, it is constantly being shown that machines are safer.

Interestingly enough, on a side note, here is an article that says you should actually allow your knees to drift over your toes during a squat. Quite a bit different from the conventional lore of keeping your knees behind your toes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14636100

And here is another interesting study saying that you shouldn’t squat below parallel.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11194098

Those last two studies just go to show that “conventional wisdom” and age old gym lore don’t always match what science is reporting.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:36 am 
Offline
Associate Member
Associate Member

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:13 pm
Posts: 407
ironmaiden708 wrote:
Was Arnold using a pec deck machine in his chest routine? He was said to have one of the greatest physiques and without the help of machines.

I've never heard of Arnold using a Pec Dec. Did they have those back then? But I do know he used a LOT of other machines. He did Leg Press, Seated Calf, Leg Extension, Leg Curls, Cable Raises for delts, Pulldowns for lats, seated rows for back, etc, etc, etc.

Arnold even used this little toy which I'm sure some will say is a stupid waste of money. Yet, Arnold was one of the first BBs credited with breaking through the 22" mark for arm measurements.
http://www.armblaster.com/
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000GAWF7U?smi ... nkCode=asn

Arnold had a great physique, and he used machines to get there. Thanks for bringing that up. :grin:


Last edited by Chris_A on Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:39 am 
Offline
Associate Member
Associate Member

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:13 pm
Posts: 407
KPj wrote:
I don't think anyone said they were ineffective... As far as I could tell, the general thought was 'they have their place'. Or, they are not 'as effective' as free weights.

Ironman says they are "utterly pointless" and a waste of time. I'd call that ineffective, wouldn't you?

Here’s a look at what Ironman has had to say.

Quote:
But I don't use machines because they suck.

I have to disagree on the smith squat. It puts excessive sheering force on the knees.

Like I said, bad for the knees. It locks you into a bad ROM and it takes out stabilizers.

Oh well golly gee, you can put your feet 12 inches forward and f*** your knees up.

How utterly pointless.


Yet, the studies I’ve shown indicate that a smith squat with feet forward REDUCES force on the knees. Further, Smith Squats have been shown to be more effective for some trainees.

If he can't prove they are utterly pointless, and concedes they are effective for gains, then there is nothing left to discuss since I've already said 100 times over that machines are a nice ADDITION to free weights for variety and special work.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:17 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3474
These are quite interesting, though I would respond...

Chris_A wrote:
Here’s an interesting study that shows a Smith Machine squat allowed greater gains than free weight squats.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15705030


Unless you linked the wrong one, it actually just compared 1RM loads from the smith machine to free weights, "These findings provide equations for converting between SM and FW equipment for training."


Chris_A wrote:
Here’s another study using a Smith Machine.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15574092


Maybe I read that wrong, but it's using a sith squat with vibrations vs a smith squat without... Not really relevant.

Chris_A wrote:
And one using the Leg Press versus a BB Squat. Notice they determined that while the squat is a better workout for the quads, it also produces more force in the knees than the leg press meaning the leg press is safer for your knees.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11528346


Either Cressey or Roberston covered this a while ago (i'll try and dig out the article). The leg Press saves the knees, but at the expense of the lower back. Don't think it's ever been debated that the Leg Press is hard on the knees, but leg extensions are often scrutinised for this. Leg Press is widely debated, it's agreed that it has no carryover, but BB's swear by it for mass gains... It's a different issue anyway (but it's the never ending thread anyway)

Chris_A wrote:
Here is very interesting study using a squat machine with a fixed linear ROM (Smith Machine) that shows moving the feet forward reduces force on the knees and shifts it to the hips.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12423179


Don't mean to sound like an a$$hole, but I wanted to stop reading after this part,

"A biomechanical model of a squat exercise performed on a device using a bar that is restricted to a linear motion was developed."

Chris_A wrote:
So, as you can see, science has no problems at all with machines. In fact, it relies on the machines, and favors them in many cases. In fact, it is constantly being shown that machines are safer.


Machines are clearly safer in terms of dropping weights on your head and things like that. In terms of the muscles involved, the lack of stabiliser use makes it blatantly obvious that they are not safer over the long term and potentially dangerous in the short term for people who have poor stabliser function, strength, and poor connective tissue strength. It would take a very expensive and controversial study to watch a beginner go in and use machines almost exclusively and monitor the effects over a few years. However, if you read anything by reputable coaches who are 'in the know', and specialise in injury prevention and rehabilitation, you will see that machines are NOT a safer option. However, even during rehabilitation, they have their place. (ever get the impression we're debating the same point....)


Chris_A wrote:
Interestingly enough, on a side note, here is an article that says you should actually allow your knees to drift over your toes during a squat. Quite a bit different from the conventional lore of keeping your knees behind your toes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14636100


The knees over toes thing was shot down a while ago, as far as i know, although I guess it depends on which sources you use. What happens if your tall, with long limbs, short torso, and small feet? That alone convinces me it's nonsense - 'no knees over toes' is basically saying that shoe size should dictate your squat depth, if you twist it the right way. But really, the logic behind it doesn't take ankle mobility into consideration... If ankles are restricted, and you start going into dorsiflexion, wheres the extra ROM going to come from? If you have adequate ankle and hip ROM, knees over toes is fine. If not, then knees will be picking up some of the slack.


Chris_A wrote:
Those last two studies just go to show that “conventional wisdom” and age old gym lore don’t always match what science is reporting.


I agree. Science doesn't always match what Science is reporting, either. There's so many variables when it comes to training that it's unbelievable. I certainly wouldn't like the job of the scientists! The last study on going below parallel wasn't a blanket statement in my opinion. What I took from it was - the squat is a safe exercise, and can even be used during rehabilitation, but injury risk is increased when you go past parallel.

Anyway, good info, I enjoyed reading through the studies you posted (don't think i've blinked in a while, though).

KPj


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:44 pm 
Offline
Associate Member
Associate Member

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:13 pm
Posts: 407
KPj wrote:
Unless you linked the wrong one, it actually just compared 1RM loads from the smith machine to free weights, "These findings provide equations for converting between SM and FW equipment for training."


It says "The squat 1RM was greater for the SM than the FWs;". The 1RM was greater with the Smith Machine than Free Weights. More weight means more work which means more gains.

Quote:
Maybe I read that wrong, but it's using a sith squat with vibrations vs a smith squat without... Not really relevant.


The point was that "science", which Ironman demanded, uses the Smith Machine all the time. So it is not the evil posture destroying catabolic monster he implies.

Quote:
Either Cressey or Roberston covered this a while ago (i'll try and dig out the article). The leg Press saves the knees, but at the expense of the lower back. Don't think it's ever been debated that the Leg Press is hard on the knees, but leg extensions are often scrutinised for this. Leg Press is widely debated, it's agreed that it has no carryover, but BB's swear by it for mass gains... It's a different issue anyway (but it's the never ending thread anyway)


Again, the point is that a machine is effective and it does not F*** up your knees as Ironman said.

Quote:
Don't mean to sound like an a$$hole, but I wanted to stop reading after this part,

"A biomechanical model of a squat exercise performed on a device using a bar that is restricted to a linear motion was developed."


You missed the best part then. And not all studies will be written in street language.

Quote:
Machines are clearly safer in terms of dropping weights on your head and things like that. In terms of the muscles involved, the lack of stabiliser use....


Lack of stabilizers is irrelevant since this discussion does not exclude free weights at all, but instead INCLUDES machines. You’ll get your stabilizer workout with your basic compound lifts. The machines will not catabolise your stabilizers.

Quote:
The knees over toes thing was shot down a while ago, as far as i know, although I guess it depends on which sources you use.


As can be said of all studies. But at least with a study you get some scientific measurements instead of opinion, anecdotal reports, and age old gym lore.

Quote:
What I took from it was - the squat is a safe exercise, and can even be used during rehabilitation, but injury risk is increased when you go past parallel.


Yep, but it was admonished that beyond parallel subjects you to the danger of injury. So science indicates you shouldn't go "A$$ to the grass" as you risk injury. Yet, gym lore says you have to go low for the best results. Ain't science grand! :smile:

What I'm trying to show is that people have a tendency to pick and chose what they want to believe. There are plenty of anecdotal reports of machines being super effective and even necessary in a BB workout. There are even studies showing that machines are effective and safe.

Yet, in the face of all that, there are some that scream machines are catabolic monsters that will ruin your life and they should be avoided like an angry mother-in-law. And those same people are believers in anecdotal reports on how to squat, what rep & set pattern to use, etc.

It’s a bit hypocritical to pick and chose like that.....but that is what an opinion is after all. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 1:26 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3474
I don't even know where to start with that one to be honest..

I've tried my best to keep personal opinion out of it. Hypocritical? :twisted:

I'll have you know I despise machines. I would never use them if it were not for the odd occasion and lack of options. I think they're stupid. They're for people who are too lazy or intimidated to get on the floor and lift some real weights. I think they teach poor motor patterns. I think attempting to take stabilisers or the core out of exercises is just an all round stupid concept, and makes no sense.

But when i'm being unbiased, or open minded, I can see that machines, AGAIN, 'have their place'.

Chris A wrote:
It says "The squat 1RM was greater for the SM than the FWs;". The 1RM was greater with the Smith Machine than Free Weights. More weight means more work which means more gains.


Was it not less on the bench press (there's inconsistency if ever I've saw it)? More weight that your lifting with help from the machine. The study clearly wasn't comparing gains. Like I said with the EMG data - "it is what is". It's trying to determine a way of converting loads used on a SM to FW. Why do you need to take any more than that away from it?

I though it was the smith machine we were talking about in relation to knees, not the leg press.

Chris A wrote:
You missed the best part then. And not all studies will be written in street language.


Pfff. In advance, Apologies to the moderators for taking this beyond a debate, but the street language thing really pi$$ed me off. What was the best part, then? Did the biomechanical model jump to attention and declare "johnny five, IS ALIVE".

I also CLEARLY said i 'wanted' to stop reading, not that I actually stopped. I took the time to read the studies you posted out of respect.

Don't tell me anyone here is going to claim I don't have a point on the biomechanical model thing?


Chris A wrote:
Lack of stabilizers is irrelevant since this discussion does not exclude free weights at all, but instead INCLUDES machines. You’ll get your stabilizer workout with your basic compound lifts. The machines will not catabolise your stabilizers.


Lack of stabilisers isn't relevant to discussion on machines, or safety? What is relevant, then? If you've read anything I've said, I've cleary stated that machines have there place. I blatantly agree with you in saying they are a good addition to the 'toolbox'. 'catobolising' them has nothing to do with it. Stabilisers can get weak, or lazy. Then can fire at the wrong time during movement, causing a host of compensation. Machines ENFORCE this, not CAUSE it, ENFORCE it.

However, I agree 100% that if your training is based around compound movements, then the effects I just described are irrelevant.

Chris A wrote:
Yep, but it was admonished that beyond parallel subjects you to the danger of injury.


Again, your interpretation baffles me. Increases risk of injury, and subjecting you to injury are entirely different things. Window cleaners are more at risk of serious injury than firemen, it doesn't mean you'll get seriously injured if you become a Window Cleaner, it means you should be careful.

Chris A wrote:
What I'm trying to show is that people have a tendency to pick and chose what they want to believe.


Tell me about it.

Ya' know, if studies dictate your training, your going to be severely limited. Studies confirm what great lifters and coaches have known for years. Find the great lifters, find the great coaches, and learn from them. Use studies to enforce what you think or believe, to HELP disprove or prove whatever your opinion is and to provide insight into exisiting techniques and principles, paving the way for further refinement of said techniques and principles.

However, Talent is very different from knowledge. Pro bodybuilders, who are talented, aren't necessarily good coaches. It sure as hell sells magazines when they write articles in them, but it doesn't mean the information is any good.

And again, as I have said from the start, machines have their place, I never disputed that.

KPj


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group