Re: Quantifying The Degree of Difference Between Free Weights And Mach
 

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

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.

Re: Quantifying The Degree of Difference Between Free Weights And Mach
 

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.

Re: Quantifying The Degree of Difference Between Free Weights And Mach
 

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.

Re: Quantifying The Degree of Difference Between Free Weights And Mach
 

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?

Re: Quantifying The Degree of Difference Between Free Weights And Mach
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

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.

Re: Quantifying The Degree of Difference Between Free Weights And Mach
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]
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.

Re: Quantifying The Degree of Difference Between Free Weights And Mach
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

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.

Re: Quantifying The Degree of Difference Between Free Weights And Mach
 

"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...

Re: Quantifying The Degree of Difference Between Free Weights And Mach
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Quantifying The Degree of Difference Between Free Weights And Mach
 

[ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

and re machines

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

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.