Ed Coan did them, I think Kaz did as well. I still do them on occassion but I'm not strong.
I love the hammer strength gear. I would quite happily train on that equipment as a substitute for many of the free weight movements. The deadlift machine is brilliant and it's nearly impossible to get yourself bent out of shape during the movement.
I'm certainly no advocate for excessive cable/machine use. Heck, I use them sparingly, being a (tryhard) powerlifter not a bodybuilder. Having said that I have met people who use them almost exclusively and have excellent muscularity/physiques/strength. Granted most of them had plenty of experience with free weights for years to build a base.Just use a trap bar it gives u the same palms faceing grip for deads. I see guys week in week week out moving hundreds of kilos on levers and pulleys, and they all stay the same size wise. One just has to wonder how much of that cable weight translates in to real weight. I say use your machines but limit it to one machine per body part per session. Weather bulking or cutting u will get better results on free weights. Any one who disagrees should go back to school and learn physics.
So... let me get this straight: first you suggest that people go and study physics, then soon after, reveal a staggering lack of awareness of basic biomechanics. Now, that's not my field (of study) - nowhere near! - but I do know a few things... like this and this, for example. Just out of curiosity, what do *you* do to work the Biceps Femoris, Short Head? For starters.I don't see the point of leg curls
And hey, how much can you (strict) press overhead, for how many reps? Also, what's your reps and added weight like, for (strict, from a dead hang) chinups/pullups?What makes me cringe inside is seeing skinny dudes who want to get big bypass chins for lat pulls and shoulder presses ect for machine work. It's fair to say if you Are advanced by all means include them , but one should never prioritise them over free weights or discard the fundimentalS that got them there size in the first place.
Exactly.each to there own I guess
So... let me get this straight: first you suggest that people go and study physics, then soon after, reveal a staggering lack of awareness of basic biomechanics. Now, that's not my field (of study) - nowhere near! - but I do know a few things... like this and this, for example. Just out of curiosity, what do *you* do to work the Biceps Femoris, Short Head? For starters.
And hey, how much can you (strict) press overhead, for how many reps? Also, what's your reps and added weight like, for (strict, from a dead hang) chinups/pullups?
Exactly.
What's your point ? Who cares if I can ohp 20 or 120 the point is even if I do 20 I'm gunna get better results with a barbell on 20 than a machine on 120. It's called logic and common sense. Any way I'm over debating about junk machines..who cares about curls if I want to hit hammys ill do rdls and hyper extensions. I CBf bringing up countless study's ect like I said each to there own if u like machines by all means use then
So you OHP 20?
Just use a trap bar it gives u the same palms faceing grip for deads.
My favourite part of this thread was when you were challenged to explain/justify this statement, and dodged the question. Perhaps you should practice what you preach.Just use a trap bar it gives u the same palms faceing grip for deads. I see guys week in week week out moving hundreds of kilos on levers and pulleys, and they all stay the same size wise. One just has to wonder how much of that cable weight translates in to real weight. I say use your machines but limit it to one machine per body part per session. Weather bulking or cutting u will get better results on free weights. Any one who disagrees should go back to school and learn physics.
There ya go, then.
It's one of my pet theories that those who rail against machines and all that other "weak" stuff (training methodologies definitely included) are extremely likely to be highly opinionated powerlifter types and/or interweb blowhards who can lift fuck all, and probably look like it too.
Not saying I can lift all that much myself (yet), but hey, I'm not making dem dere claims.
My favourite part of this thread was when you were challenged to explain/justify this statement, and dodged the question. Perhaps you should practice what you preach.
I'm no expert on physics, but one issue I am aware of (and that has very easily observable influences on resistance training) is torque. Torque increases as an object moves further away from the line of gravity, making it effectively heavier.
Torque is why DB lateral raises are at their hardest right at the top -- with the DB hanging at your side, torque is very low, and so it doesn't take much muscle activation to keep the DB there; with the DB at arm's length away from the body, torque is very high, and so it takes a lot of work to hold the DB there. However, if you use a cable machine, with the pulley anchored off to the opposite side to the arm you're pulling with, the line of force is changed from straight up and down to diagonal, which influences torque in such a way as to require a more even amount of work in the deltoids throughout the ROM, rather than having minimal load at the bottom with the load escalating as you approach the top.
Another example: if you keep your elbows in the same place (not moving them backwards or forwards throughout the movement), DB/BB curls will experience the highest torque when the forearms are parallel to the floor. People will often use all kinds of body English to get past this point in the curl, because of the high torque. The high torque in this position and the lower torque at the top and bottom mean potentially less overall work throught the ROM. However machines may allow a line of force that produces more work throughout the full ROM.
Another example: heavy squats. There's a reason why good technique on squats means keeping the bar over the middle of your feet -- if you don't, torque escalates the effective load, and if you're squatting a heavy enough load to be able to expect improvements in size and strength, you can also expect that the increased load from the increased torque will bring you one step closer to epically failing.
Since squats are normally performed by deliberately minimising torque, machines that change the direction of force may not be of much benefit; however, for exercises that do use torque, machines that change the direction of force can add a whole new level to the workout.
Regardless of anything I've just written, one of the main ingrediants for growth is progressive overload of the muscles. If a machine allows you to apply progressive overload (and I can't recall ever touching an exercise machine that doesn't), then it has a place in bodybuilding. It may not be ideal or relevant to your goals/needs, but that doesn't mean it isn't a worthy tool for building muscle.
My favourite part of this thread was when you were challenged to explain/justify this statement, and dodged the question. Perhaps you should practice what you preach.
I'm no expert on physics, but one issue I am aware of (and that has very easily observable influences on resistance training) is torque. Torque increases as an object moves further away from the line of gravity, making it effectively heavier.
Torque is why DB lateral raises are at their hardest right at the top -- with the DB hanging at your side, torque is very low, and so it doesn't take much muscle activation to keep the DB there; with the DB at arm's length away from the body, torque is very high, and so it takes a lot of work to hold the DB there. However, if you use a cable machine, with the pulley anchored off to the opposite side to the arm you're pulling with, the line of force is changed from straight up and down to diagonal, which influences torque in such a way as to require a more even amount of work in the deltoids throughout the ROM, rather than having minimal load at the bottom with the load escalating as you approach the top.
Another example: if you keep your elbows in the same place (not moving them backwards or forwards throughout the movement), DB/BB curls will experience the highest torque when the forearms are parallel to the floor. People will often use all kinds of body English to get past this point in the curl, because of the high torque. The high torque in this position and the lower torque at the top and bottom mean potentially less overall work throught the ROM. However machines may allow a line of force that produces more work throughout the full ROM.
Another example: heavy squats. There's a reason why good technique on squats means keeping the bar over the middle of your feet -- if you don't, torque escalates the effective load, and if you're squatting a heavy enough load to be able to expect improvements in size and strength, you can also expect that the increased load from the increased torque will bring you one step closer to epically failing.
Since squats are normally performed by deliberately minimising torque, machines that change the direction of force may not be of much benefit; however, for exercises that do use torque, machines that change the direction of force can add a whole new level to the workout.
Regardless of anything I've just written, one of the main ingrediants for growth is progressive overload of the muscles. If a machine allows you to apply progressive overload (and I can't recall ever touching an exercise machine that doesn't), then it has a place in bodybuilding. It may not be ideal or relevant to your goals/needs, but that doesn't mean it isn't a worthy tool for building muscle.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?