Hammer Strength Machine Question

[musclemom]

On another board I'm use someone asked if a hammer strength bench press was a "legitimate" measure of strenght versus a free weight bench press.

I don't work out in a gym so I don't know machines, I'm curious, IS it the same thing?

EDIT:

1. IMO, you generally can't compare machines to free weights, if the machine takes over for stabilizing muscles then it provides advantage so it's not a fair measure of strength.

2. IMO, squats and deads are a better measure of overall strength, not benchpresses because benchpresses are so darn leverage oriented.

 

[enigma4dub]

absolutely not!!!! the fact that the hammer strength is plate loaded is where any comparisons end. all hammer strength equipment is a joke.

 

[SgtSlaughter]

No it's not the same thing.

You are right. He/She is wrong.

 

[Tweakle]

Going from 225 to 315, to 405 on a HS machine means you got stronger. Does it mean you'll be better at the flat bench? no, of course not unless you do both at the same time you'll lose the skill to perform one.

There's a nice clip of Inhuman from IM.com doing hammer inclines with 7 plates a side for reps... a world away from the average skinny college kid doing HS presses when his tag-team bench partner isn't around

 

[SgtSlaughter]

Going from 225 to 315, to 405 on a HS machine means you got stronger. Does it mean you'll be better at the flat bench? no, of course not

Great point. There is no carry over of strength from HS to Flat Barbell Bench... but the inverse is true.

 

[musclemom]

Like I said, this was from another board ... this person performed a 1 RM of 430 on the hammer strength machine. I got the impression he was looking for confirmation that the hammer smith was the same as performing a 430 benchpress.

After looking the machine up on the web ... it's not a legitimate comparison, we're not even talking apples and oranges, we're talking apples and potatoes.

 

[uamaverick]

Simply put, you don't have to stabilize the weight on the HS. Therefore, you can press more weight. Same principle applies to why you can dumbbell press as much as you can on the barbell. The more you have to stabilize the weight the less you can lift.

IMO dumbbell presses are not used enough by most people, because they can't lift as much and so they don't want to look like a puss by pressing only 60 lb dumbbells. In my case, I've gained a good bit of size AND cuts, largely in part because of doing a lot of core lifts with dumbbells.

 

[fortunatesun]

So also,then, I wouldn't be disagreeing with anyone here if I said that Hammer Strength Press is a legitimate test of strength if you're comparing strength as a function of Hammer Strength Presses.
Just trying to more precisely answer the question...

 

[musclemom]

Simply put, you don't have to stabilize the weight on the HS. Therefore, you can press more weight. Same principle applies to why you can dumbbell press as much as you can on the barbell. The more you have to stabilize the weight the less you can lift.

IMO dumbbell presses are not used enough by most people, because they can't lift as much and so they don't want to look like a puss by pressing only 60 lb dumbbells. In my case, I've gained a good bit of size AND cuts, largely in part because of doing a lot of core lifts with dumbbells.

I couldn't possibly agree with you more!

One of my biggest regrets is that the bench I have can't take trays, and I've made a pretty good investment in equipment already. Hindsight being 20/20, I would have bought a good bench that also declines and has attached trays and one of those adjustable dumbell sets, far more effective and would take up a lot less space. I've had a couple of people ask me what do they need to create a good home gym, and I said adjustable dumbells and a good bench with trays, they basically go ho-hum, I wanna do BENCHPRESSES!

 

[uamaverick]

Yep, I lift with a guy who changed to a dumbbell-only workout format. He trains all body parts with dumbbells for the time being. He's been on it for about a month, and within that time he's gotten noticeably stronger and bigger. You have to sacrifice a good amount of weight if you really want to lift dumbbells with correct range of motion and form, but it apparently works like a charm for him.

 

[al420]

Simply put, you don't have to stabilize the weight on the HS. Therefore, you can press more weight. Same principle applies to why you can dumbbell press as much as you can on the barbell. The more you have to stabilize the weight the less you can lift.

IMO dumbbell presses are not used enough by most people, because they can't lift as much and so they don't want to look like a puss by pressing only 60 lb dumbbells. In my case, I've gained a good bit of size AND cuts, largely in part because of doing a lot of core lifts with dumbbells.

Wow - your muscles got "cut" from doing DB's - that is amazing, impossible, but still amazing

 

[SgtSlaughter]

Wow - your muscles got "cut" from doing DB's - that is amazing, impossible, but still amazing

lol.

let me clarify.

Calories In < Calories Out = Weight loss/Less Fat/More "Cuts"

If nothing to diet/way of eating was changed, just more calories were burned during activities (more cardio... more sex... whatever).

 

[uamaverick]

Wow - your muscles got "cut" from doing DB's - that is amazing, impossible, but still amazing

Not really. Of course you get "cut" because of a lesser fat %, but DB work triggers more secondary muscles, such as your brachialis when you're working the chest or shoulders. As a result, those muscles are more likely to become visible provided you're burning fat %, and moreso than what you would get from BB work.

 

[blut wump]

The machine->barbell->dumbell situation is an interesting one. I think it's worth doing some DB work as part of your overall regimen but the extra load available using a barbell is typically favoured. A machine takes that a step further: allowing for yet greater load but with even less requirement to use the stabilizing muscles.

Many view the true measure as being how well one carries over to the others after a reasonable period of acclimatizing. I've found that going from a barbell either to a machine or to dumbells has very good carry-over. Going from DBs back to barbell, I think has less carryover than BB->DB and so I'd view DB as the inferior exercise.

Machines hardly enter into that equation since machine carry-over is pitiful. It can take months to wait for the stabilizers to catch up.

 

[blut wump]

BiggT gave an example that stuck in my mind a year or so back. Getting to be a 360 squatter takes about the same amount of time and dedication to be a 900 leg-presser.

If you ask the 360 squatter to attempt the 900 press he'd have a decent shot at it. With a little acclimatization, he'd do it. If the 900 presser attempted a 360 squat, he'd get squished.

 

[musclemom]

The machine->barbell->dumbell situation is an interesting one. I think it's worth doing some DB work as part of your overall regimen but the extra load available using a barbell is typically favoured. A machine takes that a step further: allowing for yet greater load but with even less requirement to use the stabilizing muscles.

Many view the true measure as being how well one carries over to the others after a reasonable period of acclimatizing. I've found that going from a barbell either to a machine or to dumbells has very good carry-over. Going from DBs back to barbell, I think has less carryover than BB->DB and so I'd view DB as the inferior exercise.

Machines hardly enter into that equation since machine carry-over is pitiful. It can take months to wait for the stabilizers to catch up.

I have to agree with you, but I do think for the "average" individual -- as opposed to someone who intends on competing, particularly in powerlifting -- someone who's working out to stay fit, and PARTICULARLY for a person who's had an injury I think DB only work can be some seriously good stuff and it's unfortunate that DBs get ... I dunno, dismissed.

I wouldn't be able to do a lot of exercises at all if it weren't for the flexibility that DB allow, for example, I cannot do a simple seated shoulder press with a BB, my injured shoulder doesn't move in the same ROM as the uninjured one. However, I CAN do the same exercise with DBs because it allows an adjustment of how I hold my arm. A small adjustment makes a world of difference.

I see what you're saying about carryover, though, and it does make absolute sense, you just can't power as much weight with DBs, you will never get those little stabilizers as strong, so you're not going to get as strong, period. The ideal situation is you mix it up, short and sweet. That way you work the stabilizers and then you have the power thing with the BB.

 

[al420]

BiggT gave an example that stuck in my mind a year or so back. Getting to be a 360 squatter takes about the same amount of time and dedication to be a 900 leg-presser.

If you ask the 360 squatter to attempt the 900 press he'd have a decent shot at it. With a little acclimatization, he'd do it. If the 900 presser attempted a 360 squat, he'd get squished.

So true