2005/08/14, 04:04 PM
I just joined a gym and have been working there rather than in my basement. The gym had a wealth of options, including machines, as opposed to my basement in which I only had freeweights. I know free weights are supposed to be the best approach to lifting, and I understand why as they, unlike machines, utilize stability muscles.
But I was wondering if my mix is a good combo of free and machines or if i should ween off the machines completely. Examples:
Chest-
Bench
Incline Bench
DB flies
about 2 machine exercises
Legs-
Leg Press machine
Hack squat machine
2-3 other machines
(I feel it in my legs when I do these exercises, esp. thanks to the hack and press machines, but I guess I should start doing squats again, huh?)
Arms-
Bar curl
preacher curl machine
forearm curls
3-4 other machines
What do you think? Too dependent of machines?
|
|
|
2005/08/14, 04:28 PM
machines: safer, much faster to adjust, easier to learn....
why aren't they so great? they eliminate stabilizers, don't work on your balance, or transfer very well to everyday life uses....
I would avoid machines....or include maybe 1 as my last exercise for a body part....you'll be doing full stack on leg press with over 500lb but go ahead and try to do 225 for a full rep on a squat and you'll realize the difference....
|
2005/08/14, 04:57 PM
Basically what this is saying, if you don't really wanna participate in competitive lifting in the future, or don't really have a need for all that muscle youre putting on, and just wanna look good, then machines would be more your path....
============
Quoting from menace3000:
machines: safer, much faster to adjust, easier to learn....
why aren't they so great? they eliminate stabilizers, don't work on your balance, or transfer very well to everyday life uses....
I would avoid machines....or include maybe 1 as my last exercise for a body part....you'll be doing full stack on leg press with over 500lb but go ahead and try to do 225 for a full rep on a squat and you'll realize the difference....
=============
|
2005/08/14, 05:28 PM
machines are also much less efficient at building strength or muscle.....I have been working at a gym for a bit which concentrated on mostly machines....their whole freeweight area included 1 smith amchine and a bit of weights....and dumbells up to 75s.....as expected the members there were 95% out of shape and many have been coming there for over 30 years with little to show for it.....
if you want to be strong enough to not worry about your back while lifting groceries/moving furniture, or knees while playing sports, or when picking up your kid brother/sister or son/daughter, or doing a million others things in life....then freeweights are much better....machines are truly a poorman's version of free weights or even cables.....
|
2005/08/14, 05:30 PM
You will find Menace is exactly correct if you do alot of machines....you will be doing a hefty part of the stack, then go to freeweights, and lift a fraction of that. Machines take the stabilizers out of the equation. A mix is good, as both have some advantages. I usually start clients out with machines to get them acclimated, there is no "balancing", no initial awkwardness. The machines can get them in shape to get in shape! After that, I believe machines are well utilized, but more for specific movements that isolate. For compound movements, (strength and power and size)always freeweights are a better choice.
-------------- If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything....
bb1fit@freetrainers.com
|
2005/08/21, 01:48 PM
i dont totally agree with menace's first post. i think u DONT really need to learn balance thru freeweights cos u hardly need balance in ur day to day life. it will only be very useful if ur an athlete or sports player)eg martial arts player).but i think u dont need to learn a great deal of balance for ur day to day life..i mean what do u need it for, to balance ur shopping bags??:laugh:
|
2005/08/21, 01:51 PM
nevertheless, i think the best approach is to use a mixture of both machines and free wieghts
|