Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Are free weights really better than machines?
- Thread starter b8b8b
- Start date
blut wump
New member
Yes.
Machines are fine for rehab and for isolation work if you're a Bodybuilder who needs to refine some aspect. Everyone else should be using free weights almost exclusively. Exceptions are the likes of pull-throughs and pulldowns if you're too heavy for chins or pullups.
The bottom line is that machines are restrictive and to train on them without also working the muscles with free weights will leave you with a lot of muscle imbalances that you won't even suspect you have. Your real-world strength will be just a fraction of your gym strength and correspondingly you're an injury waiting to happen.
Free weights work you much more and force your body to provide its own support and stability. You can get stronger on the machines but you'll do it faster and in a safer and more complete fashion with free weights.
Machines are fine for rehab and for isolation work if you're a Bodybuilder who needs to refine some aspect. Everyone else should be using free weights almost exclusively. Exceptions are the likes of pull-throughs and pulldowns if you're too heavy for chins or pullups.
The bottom line is that machines are restrictive and to train on them without also working the muscles with free weights will leave you with a lot of muscle imbalances that you won't even suspect you have. Your real-world strength will be just a fraction of your gym strength and correspondingly you're an injury waiting to happen.
Free weights work you much more and force your body to provide its own support and stability. You can get stronger on the machines but you'll do it faster and in a safer and more complete fashion with free weights.
I believe that there is a place for both.
And I'm not refering to the "machines" such as the ham curl machine or the pull down/press down. These have been around for 60 years. I'm refering to Hammer Strength and such that pattern themselves off traditional exercises.
Free weights provide the challenge of balance and control in addition to overcoming gravity. They are legend for building outstanding bodies and strength.
Machines offer safety and predetermined angles for maximum effort. They can allow a person who can not perform a traditional exercise such as bench presses, with an opportunity to develop power and size.
I follow a push/leg&ab/pull routine. Recently I've used free weights the first time through, and "machines" the second time through. It has kept my routine from being stale while still making gains. I like it and it is fun.
And I'm not refering to the "machines" such as the ham curl machine or the pull down/press down. These have been around for 60 years. I'm refering to Hammer Strength and such that pattern themselves off traditional exercises.
Free weights provide the challenge of balance and control in addition to overcoming gravity. They are legend for building outstanding bodies and strength.
Machines offer safety and predetermined angles for maximum effort. They can allow a person who can not perform a traditional exercise such as bench presses, with an opportunity to develop power and size.
I follow a push/leg&ab/pull routine. Recently I've used free weights the first time through, and "machines" the second time through. It has kept my routine from being stale while still making gains. I like it and it is fun.
bb079
New member
All the time I see guys in the gym working out like beasts on the machines, and later when they hit the free weights, they seem to be a bit more conservative on the weight. I do not know if this is a mental thing or not, but maybe they see the machines safer. Myself, I use free weights all the way, except on some leg exercises. But I guess whatever you feel comfortable with, go for it.
rbtrout
New member
Read blut's first post. The reason guys go real conservative with free weights, after being like animals on the machines, is because they have to. Machines isolate the specific muscle - Hammer strength chest press for example. You sit and push the weight away from your body. The basic muscle used is your chest (and a bit of shoulders). On a free weight bench press, chest, lats, shoulders, even the quads get hit. Also, all of the little stabilizer muscles get hit on free weights. You'll never know you have these muscles if all you do is machines.
If you want a bit more defenition on a particular body part, machines will really help. If you're looking for size and strength gains, then free weights are the only way to go.
If you want a bit more defenition on a particular body part, machines will really help. If you're looking for size and strength gains, then free weights are the only way to go.
bignate73
New member
machines isolate to a degree, but all you have to do is push, no regards for control or path of the motion. of course they can go harder. its like a car on tracks vs a car on a drag strip. you can put raw power forward if there is no risk of deviating from the path, but if you have to control where you are going, it takes a bit more work. hence the stabilizers, they are the steering.
blut wump
New member
Sorry to continue to harp on but, if it's still not clear, all of that unrestricted 'safe' pushing ever widens the gap between the force you are able to muster and the force you are able to control away from the machine when your stabilizers and support muscles are called upon to help and support in a real-world movement.
This is the part I meant about being an injury waiting to happen. Pushing some significant poundages on a machine doesn't mean that you can do the same to a free weight in the real world. A free-weight program will lead to a fuller, stronger, better-developed, functional body.
This is the part I meant about being an injury waiting to happen. Pushing some significant poundages on a machine doesn't mean that you can do the same to a free weight in the real world. A free-weight program will lead to a fuller, stronger, better-developed, functional body.
anotherbutters
New member
Blut Wump said:
This is probably the most articulate explanation of the difference between freeweights and machines I've ever read. We should start calling you maddog
Jim Ouini
New member
I've heard the crazed one go off on machines many many times. It might be stickied in the 5 x 5 thread somewhere, even.
But just for the sake of argument, don't dumbells take the stabilization and functional aspect a step further than even barbells?
You might say you can stimulate the body better with barbells due to the load, and at most gyms dumbells probably top out at 130 or 150 so practically speaking they top out before you can get high enough intensity.
Still, doesn't the load continuum go: machine>barbell>dumbell. And the stab/functional continuum go: dumbell>barbell>machine
i.e, a 500lb machine chest press doesn't stimulate the body as well as a 300lb barbell bench, due to stabilizers and such as explained very well above. Does a 300lb bench stimulate as well as 100lb dumbell chest press for the same reasons (or if you watch the infomercial, a does 100lb dumbell press stimulate as well as 50lb bowflex powerods
) ? Or is it just a case of dimishing returns?
Of course there's the practical aspect of getting the weight into position for, say, squatting. But this is just for argument
But just for the sake of argument, don't dumbells take the stabilization and functional aspect a step further than even barbells?
You might say you can stimulate the body better with barbells due to the load, and at most gyms dumbells probably top out at 130 or 150 so practically speaking they top out before you can get high enough intensity.
Still, doesn't the load continuum go: machine>barbell>dumbell. And the stab/functional continuum go: dumbell>barbell>machine
i.e, a 500lb machine chest press doesn't stimulate the body as well as a 300lb barbell bench, due to stabilizers and such as explained very well above. Does a 300lb bench stimulate as well as 100lb dumbell chest press for the same reasons (or if you watch the infomercial, a does 100lb dumbell press stimulate as well as 50lb bowflex powerods
) ? Or is it just a case of dimishing returns?Of course there's the practical aspect of getting the weight into position for, say, squatting. But this is just for argument
anotherbutters
New member
It's a fair point. But could it be the case that dumbbells go one step too far in their use of the stabilizer muscles? They may never get big enough to control a dumbbell heavy enough to give the main muscle a good workout.
Could you imagine a big powerlifter bench pressing two 300lb dumbbells?
Could you imagine a big powerlifter bench pressing two 300lb dumbbells?
danbo
New member
I would use free weights, but i have the following reasons for not doing it.
- I dont have a spotter
- My gym doesn't have a squat machine or a cage
- Some weights are simply too heavy to get them from the floor to where i want them. E.g. When i do calf raises i am lifting 160kg; i couldn't lift this from the floor onto my back (just behind shoulder blades) if i tried it
- Some of the weights i lift would put a big hole in the floor if i dropped them (calf raises would made a massive hole). Using machines prevents this
The machine does fine for calf raises. What most are talking about here is exercises like the bench press and shoulder press and even rowing movements. All of which free weights are superior to machines. Legs too like the squat. Theres no replacement for it.
This is a Great Quote----Totally true
"A free-weight program will lead to a fuller, stronger, better-developed, functional body."
This is a Great Quote----Totally true
"A free-weight program will lead to a fuller, stronger, better-developed, functional body."
Most people would say that free weights are better than machines. And in some ways, they are as far as recruiting more muscle fibers. But let me ask you this: Who has bigger pecs? a) The guy incline pressing 225, or the guy incline smith pressing 395?
Just a thought. You can take any exercise to its limit and gain. Strength is strength. Machine or not.
Just a thought. You can take any exercise to its limit and gain. Strength is strength. Machine or not.
bignate73
New member
bad argument....no correlation between a guy incline smith pressing 395 and the guy using 225. thats not a valid parallel carryover.
the guy incline pressing 395 had damn sure better be able to press 225 and more! likewise, i'm willing to bet that someone using 225 on incline isnt going to be able to magically throw 170 more lbs on the same movement by taking stability out of the movement.
the guy incline pressing 395 had damn sure better be able to press 225 and more! likewise, i'm willing to bet that someone using 225 on incline isnt going to be able to magically throw 170 more lbs on the same movement by taking stability out of the movement.
My point is that the guy incline smith pressing probably can do 225 on a bb press, but he chooses to use a smith. he has gotten very strong on that movement and has worked to 395 for "x" # of reps. So i'm willing to bet his chest is pretty big, regardless of whether or not he is using a machine. It could just as easily been an incline hammer press or whatever. The guy using 225 on the incline bb press, is strong yes, and probably has a lot of mass on his chest but more than likely not near as much as the guy using the smith. My point is strength is strength on whatever you are doing. I am only talking about bodybuilding here. I would not apply this training for a sport like football or basketball where free weights should without question be the basis for weight training.
Now back to my example, say incline bb boy works up to a 305 pound press, that great and he's going to have a lot more mass on his chest. But if incline smith boy keeps pushing at the same rate as mr. incline bb, he will still be bigger. Granted neither of these two hit a plateau and gain strength at the same rate.
Now back to my example, say incline bb boy works up to a 305 pound press, that great and he's going to have a lot more mass on his chest. But if incline smith boy keeps pushing at the same rate as mr. incline bb, he will still be bigger. Granted neither of these two hit a plateau and gain strength at the same rate.
What about the guy in the BowFlex ads?
(Joking ... )
(Joking ... )
blut wump
New member
To maintain the comparison shouldn't we be looking at the third guy who can bench 395 with a free weight?
Does anyone know of studies where they've taken groups of rookies and compared progress between free benchers and Smith pressers?
I think we're all agreed that for functional, real-world strength free weights are the only sensible option.
Does anyone know of studies where they've taken groups of rookies and compared progress between free benchers and Smith pressers?
I think we're all agreed that for functional, real-world strength free weights are the only sensible option.
I find freeweights to be the best overall as many have said. The stabilizer muscles get much more interaction. I started off on alot of machine work however. I made good gains over the years on machines as well. But Ive ALWAYS combined them with lots of freeweight work. These days I do all my heavy freeweight work first, then Ill finish off with machine work. There are exceptions depending on what I feel that day, but machines are always secondary to my routines. I like to exhaust the stabilizers first, then when I go to a machine I can focus solely on whats left of that muscle. That way I can systematically tear that shit apart. Thats why I like machines as a secondary exercise. Once the stabilizers are exhausted its time for some heavy machine work. Always training to failure. KILL THAT SHIT!!
1_more_rep
New member
danbo said:
i found that free weights are better. I don't have a spotter either. I use low weights for my first 4 sets (i do 5x5) then ask a guy next to me if hed mind spotting me for my last set of bench (i have yet to have a person say no - it only takes 25 seconds max for them to stop n help you out and most are great and willing to help n not just meatheads)
you don't NEED to drop them hard on the floor when you are done. It's better to go down slow after completing your exercise anywaysy for the full range of motion and best rep. Dropping it is plain disrespectful and won't help your training anyways
Blut Wump said:
Not to be obnoxious here, so dont take this the wrong way. You hear "real world strength" all the time. But what does that mean??? If you can hammer incline press 650 pounds, then you're going to be big time "real world strong". On the other hand if you can bench 650 lbs, you are going to be extremely "real world strong". Strength is strength. Free weights do not equal real world strong. strength it self equals real world strong.
As far as studies go, Look at the guys DC has trained that use machines as regular movements and got the weights on those machines incredibly high. I trained DC for 4 blasts and saw the quickest gains in the shortest amount of time due to the rapid increases in strength. I regularly used machines. I also had a lot of free weight movements, about a 50/50 ratio. Point being that machine or not, gains in muscle were the result of strength gains on all movements, machine and free weight. You can take a any movement and push yourself to the limit on it.
**I am only talking about bodybuilding here. Obviously this does not apply to football/basketball/etc players or any other sports**
Fury20 said:
first bolded statement -- you would think that you would be real world strong, but honestly the carry over really is nothing compared to if you train with freewiehgts. I used to be a warehouse manager and we had guys come in just like that, juiced to gills and trained with machines. I can honestly say that they were not much, if any better than guys that worked there who didn't work out. in fact I might say that they were worse workers because their endurance sucked and they ended up standing around.
second bolded statement -- DC training, although generally good, doesn't apply to most people. He advocates year round steroid use with cruise periods, as well as a diet containing 550-600 grams of protein per day. if you sub the machines for freewieghts in his program, the results are better.
third bolded statement -- simply put, you can train with less effort and intensity using freeweights than machines and get the same, if not better results. Try hooking your chest up to an EMG and measure the stimulus on a bench press vs a hammer strength machine press. you will quickly realize that the freewieght bench work is A LOT better.
machines have a time and a place, rehab work, focusing on a specific area to improve a CORE LIFT, and maybe for occasional aestithics. but realistically 90% of gains in the gym are driven from freeweight lifts. nuff said.
view said:
I'll be frequenting the all you can eat buffet at the Patterson Dorm about 10 minutes from mine. I am looking forward to it. I used the basic 5x5 program before DC. I am also training for the University Strength meet next year. There is a university bodybuilding show in April, but i strongly doubt i'll be ready. I am training for the events next year.
BTW, DC training can be applied by anyone willing to sacrifice. His program has worked wonders for many natural trainees, including myself. It takes a ton of work and the will to push yourself way past your own limits. The main factor is strength gains. One set to max failure training as frequently as possible. Many many many trainees have broken down barriers without gear using his program. It is strictly a bodybuilding program, bottom line it works. The results are out there for people to see. The problem i have now is PT, in that it ruins anything DC does me. With the running and pushups etc. I would overtrain in no time. I would still be training DC if i had not joined ROTC. I will support DC and the help/knowledge he has shared. The program is one of the best best bodybuilding programs out there. Like i said, the results are out there, and trainees who have FOLLOWED DC EXACTLY AS HE STATES IT. Too many people are quick to criticize his program as "<insert complaint here>".
**note this is meant towards those who down DC as "doesnt work". You have to follow it as he planned it and stay with it. Its just not a good time in my life for DC (notice i am emphasizing that point**
anyway i am looking forward to starr's 5x5 program. i had been doing a lot of reading on dual factor (for education/knowledge sake). I will move up from the single factor to dual factor once i feel i can handle it and support it.
Thanks for the encouragement view. I will start in about two weeks as our first PT Test will be next wednesday morning. Not looking forward to that. cheers.
DC training makes the assumption that the body can handle an ever increasing load over an infinite period of time. this clearly is not possible as fatigue will accumlate and overtraining will start to occur. If DC incorporated some form of deloading/strategic decondtioning into the program, it may have my grace, but it since it doesn't, it does not have my grace. that is what I would consider the programs tragic flaw -- change that and you have yourself something to work with.
BiggT
New member
I just saw this thread and I have to agree with the consensus......I have a good comparison.....Take two guys, same weight/strength levels......have one guy spend 6 months squatting and the other spend 6 months leg pressing.....the guy squatting can do 365x1 after 6 months, the guy leg pressing can do, say 800x1 after 6 months....NOW, take the squatter, he will be able to leg press 800x1......the leg presser? He will be absolutely crushed by trying to squat 365.......Thats 'real world' strength....strength that is transferrable to something other than just doing one thing in one plane of movement. Sure, guys can grow muscle in a hammer strength machine, and sure, a guy hammer strength pressing 400lbs is stronger than a guy benching 135, but that guy is NOT a 400lb presser, and his strength is useless unless he is engaged in an activity where he is seated in a hammer strength machine, pushing in the EXACT same plane of motion as he does in the machine.......again, I am from a strength training background and don't get why people choose form over function, so to me, training with free weights first and foremost is a no brainer.
Last edited:
Yes.
According to Fleck and Kraemer, with free weights, you have to maintain 3 way balance. Machines only require 1 way balance. So with weights, more muscle groups are involved in exercise.
I can always do more weight with machine compared to free weights.
By the way, dumb bells are better than bar bells for the same reason.
According to Fleck and Kraemer, with free weights, you have to maintain 3 way balance. Machines only require 1 way balance. So with weights, more muscle groups are involved in exercise.
I can always do more weight with machine compared to free weights.
By the way, dumb bells are better than bar bells for the same reason.
LoneTree said:
I finally agree with you on something. At least the first part where you say freeiweights are best.
I can see why you think db's could be better, because they are harder to do, but you are able to apply more poundages to the system with a BB. The difference is probably so small though that it wouldn't matter.
blut wump
New member
I guess there's a sliding scale from isolation and little required stabilization to compound and lots of stabilization.
The dumbells move even more work onto the stabilizers and, maybe, to the extent that they are swamped to the detriment of working the larger muscles. I haven't done much DB work except for side-bends in a long time.
The dumbells move even more work onto the stabilizers and, maybe, to the extent that they are swamped to the detriment of working the larger muscles. I haven't done much DB work except for side-bends in a long time.
Similar threads
