Machines

[Oniw17]

I've never been fond of machines. Am I neglecting anything that can't be trained by other means? Er, rather, what am I missing that gives everyone else so much faith in machines?

I mean weight machines, not that lame stuff that they sell on TV at 4 in the morning.

[stuward]

Weight machines are easier to teach. They also directly stimulate the target muscles without engaging many stabilizing muscles. This gives the illusion of strength gains with little effort. This is appealing to novices and other people who want something for nothing.

[Stephen Johnson]

I've never been fond of machines. Am I neglecting anything that can't be trained by other means? Er, rather, what am I missing that gives everyone else so much faith in machines?

It's a matter of individual preference. The typical person who joins a commercial gym would rather use machines than free weights. Machines are easier to use and have a high tech look to them that many trainers find more appealing than barbells and dumbbells.

Circuit training is much easier to do with machines than free weights

And there are a few exercises - leg curls and calf raises come to mind - that are hard to do with free weights.

Most studies continue to suggest that free weights are superior to machines for building functional strength. But then again, serious audiophiles consider vinyl LPs to be superior in sound quality to CDs. That hasn't helped the LPs market share. Hell, CDs are being ousted by the lower quality MP3s. It all comes down to convenience and ease of use.

[stuward]

... But then again, serious audiophiles consider vinyl LPs to be superior in sound quality to CDs. That hasn't helped the LPs market share

The initial drop in LP sales was because the record companies could make more money off a CD than an LP so they stopped making LPs. It had nothing to do with lack of demand. Those of us that were collecting LPs at the time were forced to make a change that we did not want to make. Lets not rewrite history.

[Oniw17]

Same reason VHS outlived betamax and dvd will outlive blue ray.

[ephs]

machines only have one advantage: you can't injure yourself in most of the machines. but machines of this kind http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/Ere ... nsion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; are very dangerous. i think deadlifting 1000 kg is saver than using this machine.

[KenDowns]

I'm not so sure about that business with not injuring yourself on machines. You can do a number on your lower back with a leg press.

If you're moving, you can hurt yourself. If you're moving against resistance you can hurt yourself. The more weight, the more damage you can do.

This is not a scientific fact, just a gut feeling.

Also there's that business with not requiring stabilizers to get strong on machines, so if you move to real life or free weights you are more likely to get injured because of weak stabilizers.

[ephs]

it's right, you can injure yourself at the leg press, also if you extend your legs too much, then your knees get fv(k up.

but you can say: it takes one instruction to master a machine, but it can take years to master a barbell exercise.

[Stephen Johnson]

Those of us that were collecting LPs at the time were forced to make a change that we did not want to make.

As someone who has a collection of over 700 LPs, I can empathize with the feeling of betrayal audiophiles have towards the record companies for pulling the plug prematurely on LPs in the 1990s. But the record companies core group of consumers (kids between 15-24) had already moved away from vinyl in favor of CDs greater portability, convenience and durability. The same group has moved on from CDs to MP3s a decade later for the same reasons. That time, the record companies wound up on the receiving end of tech change pain. Poetic justice.

[Oscar_Actuary]

aside from the anticpation that cracking and popping sound gives you with an lp, I'll go for CDs, for sound quality and convenience.
After years, I have caved to MP3s, trying to stay with less compressed versions. At some point (300 +CDs, 150 Lps, etc), I cant justify getting the full CD for Cher Lloyd's "Want You Back" single
Ya dig?

[Jungledoc]

HIJACK!

[Jungledoc]

machines only have one advantage: you can't injure yourself in most of the machines. but machines of this kind http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/Ere ... nsion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; are very dangerous. i think deadlifting 1000 kg is saver than using this machine.

Elaborate?

[ephs]

machines are static, you just have to hold the position, where are you sitting in and if you aren't doing crazy things, then you won't injure yourself.

i used this machine from the link, i think this machine is very dangerous, if you don't use the optimal distance from seat to the pad on your back, cause you can easily round your back in that machine and this is totally fv(k up your lower back. this machine should be forbidden, seriously.

[Stephen Johnson]

i used this machine from the link, i think this machine is very dangerous.

The link in question is to an older model of the lever back extension machine. Newer models like this one secure your hips/back in the right position at the start of the exercise.

Back extension machines of this newer type are common in commercial gyms in the US. If a lawyer could sniff a lawsuit out of this you better believe that gyms would remove them.

[ephs]

i don't know which one they have in the gym where i train, but i think machines like this are dangerous. with a good instruction and a spotting gym owner it's maybe no problem. but, this machines are also senseless. why not performing a safer 45 degrees hyperextension instead?