PDA

View Full Version : Ration to Machines to Barbell & Dumbells to Barbells



CrazyDan
04-24-2001, 10:41 PM
Like how much easier is it to do bench press on a machine instead of using a barbell, and how much harder is dumbells to bench press than and using a barbell?

IronFist
04-25-2001, 01:59 AM
Ok, using freeweights (ie benchpress instead of benchpress machine) works not only the muscles involved (chest, front deltoid, triceps), but also the stabilizer muscles of the torso, legs, forearms, etc, becuase not only are you pushing the weight "up", but you must also balance it and keep it on the right path.

Using a machine will isolate only the muscles involved, no stabilizer muscles.

Free weights are generally regarded to build more overall strength and power, when compared with machines.

Bench (freeweights) vs. Dumbell press:

Using dumbells each arm has to move independently, so it's a bit harder than moving a bar in which both hands control the same bar. Also, using dumbells allows your hands to go lower on the down portion of the movement, so your muscle gets a better stretch and is worked through a larger range of motion (= more strength).

As for which is superior, bench press or dumbells, it's usually personal prefrence.

If you can bench 200, chances are you will not quite be able to handle two 100lb dumbells for the same amount of reps, because of the characteristics I mentioned earlier.

Dumbells are also harder to "set up" prior to pounding out the reps. A bench press you just take the bar off the rack, or have someone assist you. With, dumbells, you have to lay back on your own, it's a bit harder.

Experiment and see which you like better.

But stay away from the machines, in my opinion :)

With one possible exception. If you finish a few sets of bench press, you can use a machine with lighter weight to further exhaust your pecs, but this is generally done more by bodybuilders and less by MA. Read the discussion a few threads down called "my strength advice from a powerlifter" for more info about weights and bodybuilding vs. martial arts.

Hope this helps.

Iron

SevenStar
04-25-2001, 08:20 AM
I posted this in your other thread about weight lifting help:

Qualms with machines
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For general conditioning, bowflex is awesome. My only problem with machines is that they "assist" in the work. You can make greater strength gains with free weights as you have to stabilize the weight on your own, and that actually adds alot to your workouts. I have a body building background as well as MA, and I've found that machines are better suited for definition, and not major gains. if you are trying to get cut up, machines are excellent. for size and power, free weights are the choice. In particular, the bench press, squat and deadlift.

"A wise man speaks because he has something to say; A fool speaks because he has to say something."

Ford Prefect
04-25-2001, 03:19 PM
Machines also lock you into one range of motion (ROM) which may be damaging to your joints and connective tissue. Freeweights, bro. Make no exceptions.

"Who's house?"
"I said RUN's house."

CrazyDan
04-25-2001, 05:07 PM
Thanks for the info... but mainly i was wondering lets say someone can machine bench 250, how much would they be able to get on free weights about, and say someone could dumbell press 180 (TOTAL, not 180 in each hand), how much could they get on free weights

Ford Prefect
04-25-2001, 08:13 PM
That really depends on the machine. I think the general number is you can DB press 70-80% of what you can barbell press.

"Who's house?"
"I said RUN's house."

IronFist
04-26-2001, 02:13 AM
Sevenstar, I mean you no disrespect at all, but I'm going to tear your post apart :)

"I have a body building background as well as MA, and I've found that machines are better suited for definition, and not major gains. if you are trying to get cut up, machines are excellent. "

Ok, this is a classic error in thought. First of all, machines are not better "for getting cut up." Getting "cut up" (ie, seeing individual fibers are striations and stuff) is ENTIRELY a result of two things: 1) Genetics and 2) Low bodyfat percentage. A typical thought is that "cable crossovers bring out the striations in the chest." Do you think your muscles go "hey, we're doing cable crossovers so let's show our striations?" No. Striations are visible if and ONLY if one's bodyfat is low enough to see them. I am speaking about striations so much because that's generally what people refer to when they talk about "getting cut up" (ie having definition. If striations are present then obviously one has good definition and most likely seperation as well).

Thinking that machines do this better than free weights is simply not the case. Just like 99% of people who work out think that for some reasons the abs are different from every other muscle and therefore must be worked with 100's of reps. Again, it's all based on false beliefs.

Some people think that "higher" reps, such as 10-14 reps per set will bring out definition and get you "cut up" more so than using a heavier weight at 4-6 reps. Whether or not this is true generally depends on the individual. But regardless, 90% of being "cut" having definition and seperation between muscles, and seeing striations is dependent on having a low enough body fat percentage that they are visible.

Before when I mentioned genetics, I meant that some people genetically can bring out more striations than others. Just as some people have naturally wide shoulders and others have narrow shoulders.

But, "machines at high reps will bring out definition" can be proved false by all the fat people at gyms who do tons of reps on machines and never get any definition, much less lose weight.

90% of bodybuilding (ie, working out for the main purpose of altering how you look) is diet. If you work out like a bodybuilder, but don't eat well, guess what, you're not going to see results.

You can do reps on machines all day long and if your diet sucks you won't see any defintion or seperation.


"for size and power, free weights are the choice. In particular, the bench press, squat and deadlift."

Generally :) Size and power are not directly correlated, however. For size, you want to train your muscles to failure, using progressive sets to exhaust as many fibers as you can, while keeping the reps around 4-8 (which can vary by individual). With 30-90 seconds in between sets.

For power, you want fewer sets with longer rest inbetween (3-5 minutes) with more weight and less reps, say, 1 (but not all the time,a s this can be dangerous) 2, or 3.

Unless you have a specific reason to do so, it's generally better to avoid machines.

Additionally, i would say 80% personal trainers don't know their butt from their elbows, so be VERY critical of any advice that you may be given in a gym, even by "certified personal trainers."

Flame on!

Iron

SevenStar
04-26-2001, 06:35 AM
Good post! But you know I have to say something back, my friend. :) You said some things that I agree with and others that I don't...

< flame >

"Thinking that machines do this better than free weights is simply not the case. Just like 99% of people who work out think that for some reasons the abs are different from every other muscle and therefore must be worked with 100's of reps. Again, it's all based on false beliefs."

machines are designed to always work the same muscles with the same range of motion. Free weights allow a free range of motion and work
more of the muscles that you use for stability and
balance. There is a reason why body builders use free weights to gain mass. Pro Bodybuilder Chris Cormier wrote an article for flex magazine on the 10 basics of mass. Guess what rule numero uno was -

USE FREE WEIGHTS FOR ALL HEAVY SETS
As heavy as some machines might feel, they do not involve as much of the ancillary muscles areas as do free weights and, therefore, do not build as much compound mass.

"Some people think that "higher" reps, such as 10-14 reps per set will bring out definition and get you "cut up" more so than using a heavier weight at 4-6 reps. Whether or not this is true generally depends on the individual. But regardless, 90% of being "cut" having definition and seperation between muscles, and seeing striations is dependent on having a low enough body fat percentage that they are visible."

Of course body fat percentage matters, but in order to get "cut", you need to stimulate the appropriate fibers.
Slow twitch muscle fibers are "endurance" muscles. They are more oxidative and contract more slowly than their fast twitch counterparts. Fast twitch muscles are generally developed doing low repetitions of explosive exercise working the muscle you intend to develop through the range of motion you want to make stronger.

"Before when I mentioned genetics, I meant that some people genetically can bring out more striations than others. Just as some people have naturally wide shoulders and others have narrow shoulders. But, "machines at high reps will bring out definition" can be proved false by all
the fat people at gyms who do tons of reps on machines and never get any definition, much less lose weight."

I agree there, to a point. I am a mesomorph, but by working high rep sets I have been able to get cut up. Genes play a factor, but
they don't totally limit you. an ectomorph can work to get a little bigger, and a mesomorph can get a little more cut. As for the fat people, that's where aerobics come into play. If they do aerobic activity in conjunction with high rep
training, in say, the form of circuit training and proper diet, they can and will lose weight. Diet wasn't part of the original post, so I left that aspect out. Of course proper diet is key to ANY program.

< / flame > :cool:

"A wise man speaks because he has something to say; A fool speaks because he has to say something."

Ford Prefect
04-26-2001, 04:16 PM
I have to agree with Ironfist on the this one, SevenStar. The "high-reps are better for definition" was scientifically disproven a long time ago with the old spot reduction myth. The only thing that I will disagree with Iron about is that definition actually conists of three things: 1) Genetics 2) Body fat 3) risidual tension of the given muscle. Although #3 is influenced by genetics, it is something that can be trained for as well.

"Who's house?"
"I said RUN's house."

Abstract
04-26-2001, 04:40 PM
I am at work & will have to read everything slower & post later, but, I used to bodybuild as a teenager & to this day---put me on a machine for benchpress & I can stack the entire thing w/out a problem a few times. Free weight? There is no way I'm benching 290lbs......maybe 225-230 once or twice...so all that to say free weights are better (to me) for raw strength.

c-ya! :D

IronFist
04-26-2001, 07:35 PM
Sevenstar, you are partially right, but I feel I must correct you on two things ;)

"There is a reason why body builders use free weights to gain mass. Pro Bodybuilder Chris Cormier wrote an article for flex magazine on the 10 basics of mass. Guess what rule numero uno was -"

Umm... flex magazine, eh? I'm not sure about this particular article, but 99.9% of bodybuilding articles written by "pros" are ghost written, meaning they are written by someone else and then the pro's name is put on the article. I know there are 1 or 2 exceptions to this, and I'm not sure if Cormier is or not. Perhaps I will check on this.

As far as BB magazines go, the only ones that haven't sold out are... oh wait, I forgot, there aren't any. They all publish the same training articles just regurgatated every couple months. They give training regimens that would seriously overtrain anyone who isn't on gear (steroids). The only real reason to buy a BB mag is to see pics and results of an Olympia or something like that. That being said, there are mags that work for natural athletes, and have decent articles, but anything like Flex, MuscleMedia, etc., are all a waste of money.

"Of course body fat percentage matters, but in order to get "cut", you need to stimulate the appropriate fibers.
Slow twitch muscle fibers are "endurance" muscles. They are more oxidative and contract more slowly than their fast twitch counterparts. Fast twitch muscles are generally developed doing low repetitions of explosive exercise working the muscle you intend to develop through the range of motion you want to make stronger."

I was under the assumption that the "endurance" fibers were the ones you used running a marathon--a little more than 12 reps. I know that people have a genetically predisposed number of fast twitch to slow twitch muscle fibers, which is why some people excel at powerlifting while others excel at endurance sports.

FordPrefect, this next part is for you :)

"3) risidual tension of the given muscle. Although #3 is influenced by genetics, it is something that can be trained for as well."

As for definition resulting from residual muscular tension... partially, but then again on stage at a BB show, even when the judge says "relaxed" everyone is still flexing everything as hard as they can, they are just in a relaxed pose. Any BB who lets up, even for a second on stage, will find himself in last place. I'm not sure I agree with "residual tension of the given muscle" being genetic at all. That really doesn't make sense to me. Residual tension is a result of a muscle not being able to achieve a true state of "relaxed" and usually is only in effect an hour or so after workout (similiar to the "pump" you get). Please correct me if I am wrong.

This is a good thread, let's keep the discussion going.

Iron

Ford Prefect
04-26-2001, 10:38 PM
Iron,

Good questions. I'm at work right now, but I'll fish through my files at home this weekend, so I can give you a better answer.

"Who's house?"
"I said RUN's house."

dumog93
04-27-2001, 06:01 AM
I read your posts and agree with them except for a couple of things.First off,to build power you do 4-8 reps with 30-90 seconds rest between sets? Not me.Not any of the powerlifters i know either for that matter.Try 1-5 reps,and i take up to 5-6 minutes.I've known some fairly stout heavyweights to even go eat a protein bar and take 10.I would just break down strength into two seperate categories in my mind at least.The first would be power for single reps.The second would be the type of power building that allows you to do 12-20 reps.A good example would be Fred Hatfield vs. Tom Platz in the squat.Fred kills him in single lift power.Tom can do more weight than him for higher reps though.I'm not saying you can't get strength from doing things with higher reps,but for us of the lighter bodyweights with the quicker metabolisms,we need to do low reps with high weight.Most of the precontest workouts i have seen are the basic 5 weeks of 5's,3 weeks of 3's,2 2's,off week,then compete or a variation of that basic formula.I do a workout that is basically 5 singles and 5 sets of 5 with some warm-ups thrown in.1 is strength building at it's greatest.The down side is you wear joints out fast doing nothing but singles,so you have to mix it up a bit.Ranting a bit,but i just thought i would skew the power talk back down to the reps i've been used to hearing around the "power" crowd.I don't neccessarily use my power on a constant basis in a grappling contest.I am cruising and going in spurts,so i use my strength more as a sprinter would rather than keeping constant pressure an entire match.I would guess higher reps would be the way to go,or maybe even massive amounts of bodyweight type exercises for "muscular endurace" so to speak.BAck to the original topic,i don't like machines unless i am rehabbing an injury and need the machine to support my gimped body until it has healed enough to do the real deal.I have no problem with dumbbells at all except that i don't have a full set at my house like the gym does.While i'm at it,any 180 pounders out there been through knee problems and care to share some tips on healing them up without slacking on the training?

-Devildog

[This message was edited by dumog93 on 04-27-01 at 09:13 PM.]

SevenStar
04-27-2001, 09:14 AM
Am I in aggreance with you on something? :)

"Residual tension is a result of a muscle not being able to achieve a true state of "relaxed" and usually is only in effect an hour or so after workout (similiar to the "pump" you get). "

That's what I thought too.

"A wise man speaks because he has something to say; A fool speaks because he has to say something."

SevenStar
04-27-2001, 09:23 AM
Anyone tried this? If so, what results did you get?

"A wise man speaks because he has something to say; A fool speaks because he has to say something."

IronFist
04-27-2001, 10:08 AM
Dumog:

"I read your posts and agree with them except for a couple of things.First off,to build power you do 4-8 reps with 30-90 seconds rest between sets? "

Where did I say this? Perhaps I mistyped something, but if you refrence any of my other posts you'll see that I agree with what you said. Let me sum it up again for clarification purposes.

Power: 1-3 reps, long breaks between sets (5 minuts plus or minus).

Size: 4-8 or 10, depending on the individual. 30-90 seconds rest or so. Many more sets, so the greatest possible numbers of fibers are exhausted, thus resulting the the most hypertrophy (muscle growth). This method will result in increases in overall power, but less than training in 1-3 reps (like a powerlifter).

Endurance: 10-14 or so reps. You'll gain endurance from this, and probably get some mad vascularity too (veins popping out), but no substantial increases in power or size will be noticed.

"A good example would be Fred Hatfield vs. Tom Platz "

Good call. This illustrates the differences in training and results between elite level powerlifters and bodybuilders. (For those who don't know who Platz is, do a search on him. He's got the most massive, ripped legs of any BB. Plus, he's flexible as heck! I have a few pictures of him doing the splits in a book). which, as a side note, DISPROVES the theory that bulky bodybuilders are inflexible. Most MA can't even do the splits, so I find it pretty cool that someone as huge as Tom Platz can.

SevenStar:

(about residual muscle tension)
"Am I in aggreance with you on something?"

Yes, I believe you are! :D :cool: :D

"Ripped Fuel..."

I'm sure you already know this, but Ripped Fuel is another ECA stack (ephedrine, caffiene, asprin). My friend has used it in the past with pretty good results. Keep in mind it will speed up your metabolism a little, but that's not an excuse to slack of in the cardio/diet department.

You may also want to try something called "Dymetadrine Extreme" which seems to be a lot of BB favorite (legal) fat burning ECA stack, or something else new called T3 which is supposed to be good as well. Oops, wait T3 might be illegal I'm not sure... and then somethine else called Adipokinetix (i think that's what it's called) is supposed to be really good as well. Tomorrow I'll ask around and see what is generally regarded to be the best (and I don't mean I'll ask the people at GNC, they suck). I'll ask some BB'ers. I don't really know myself cuz I'm an ectomorph and burning excess fat isn't really a problem of mine :) On the other hand, the opposite is true; when I get sick (like the past few days) and don't eat as much I can lose 4 or 5 pounds a day. It's crazy, I tell you.

I'm off to bed. Good discussion, still :)

Iron

Lost_Disciple
04-28-2001, 09:48 PM
Back to the original issue, not sure if we've addressed it enough for crazy dan; but dumbells SHOULD equal more weight on both the machine and the barbell bench press.

Personally, I am pretty sure I can crank out a 200 pound barbell bench press, i've done 220 in the past and don't think I'm much weaker than I was then. However, normally I do dumbell presses, and I think my 6-rep-max with them is somewhere around 120 (60s) and 140 (70s). I don't see why someone benching 180 (90s) couldn't put up over 200 with a barbell; and much more than that with a machine.
If you take the leg press as an example, on a machine I've been able to do the whole stack (400) for up to 10 reps with good form; I've done about the same (400) with the conventional leg press sled that you ad free weights to. However, my squat has always been weak. I don't think I've ever squated much more than 300. I failed recently trying a 1RM of 275; but that was on my 4th set, 2 sets after i'd done a 1RM with 225. Crawling out from under the bar, resting on the side rails of the rack was embarassing, but I'll do better next time.

Moral of the story: like someone said earlier it's personal preference, but dumbells get the stabilizer muscles involved much more than a barbell bench. Personally, I want those stabilizer muscles involved. As a general rule, the more muscles you involve in a lift, the more calories you burn; and the more GH your body produces to increase total lean body mass. I'm looking to be lean and a bit ripped, so that's my preference. Power lifters usually do seperate exercises for their stabilizer muscles, to help them in competition. Flame me if I'm wrong, I'd like to learn.

BTW Iron- I know you're not much into mags. I know t-mag blatantly promotes Biotest products and could be considered a "sell out"; but the workouts described in there are not given by professional body builders, but strength coaches and people genuinely interested in the science of bodybuilding. FYI. I also get a kick out of reading stuff by Ian King, Charles Poliquin, and Tsatoulis (sp?)

dumog93
04-29-2001, 06:32 AM
Hey,i had deadlifted that night and was probably still light-headed,good thread though.As for the last couple of posts...ephedrine/caffeine stacks seem to be a drug of diminishing returns,i.e. more and more to get the same effect.The first couple of times i used ultimate orange or something with caffeine/ephedrine it helped quite a bit,but i've pretty much given up on it myself.Then again,i'm not using it to cut up,but rather to get my motor kick-started when i'm having a particularly sluggish day and can't get moving like i'm used to.I'm picking up a few olympic lifts this week to start on and see how they affect my training now that i have a power base to start with.Hopefully they will help me more with balancing my agility and strength more than powerlifting and working on agility seperately.It seems to be an uphill battle at this point.

-Devildog

IronFist
04-29-2001, 09:57 AM
As far as I know, Ultimate Orange is slightly different from your typical ECA stack, right? I've never used it, but isn't it used for getting energy before a workout? I don't know why, but for some reason in my head it seems to be different.

It seems that people prefer Dymetadrine Extreme and Xenadrine for their choice ECA stacks. I think for increased metabolism effects you're supposed to take 1 pill 5 times throughout the day, or if you're just using them to fuel workouts, then it's 2 an 45 minutes or an hour before you train.

Oh yeah, I think I remember in an add for Dymetadrine extreme that they bashed Ultimate Orange by name. As far as diminishing returns goes, I have heard that you shouldn't take it every day. I dunno. I've also heard that if you stay on ECA too long when you come off you can get pretty depressed. This is what I do to get jacked up for a workout:

Drink a Mt. Dew! See, I have no tolerance for caffiene because I never drink coffee or anything, so when I have a Dew before a workout it really affects me. But hey, to each his own.

And for the record, I did try two Dymetadrine Extremem pills before a workout once, and I seriously added 10 lbs to my bench that day. I was wired. I tried using them a few other times (weeks later) but there was barely a noticable effect. Perhaps it was based on my diet (I didn't know that much about diet when I used them) or perhaps it's bad quality control. Either way, I would recommend it to you as a way to get boosted when you are having a "low energy day." :)

Good luck

Iron

Ford Prefect
04-29-2001, 03:23 PM
Hi Iron,

I had a crazy weekend so I wasn't able to go over as much I would have liked. However for a short answer to your questions, here we go:

"Residual tension is a result of a muscle not being able to achieve a true state of "relaxed" and usually is only in effect an hour or so after workout (similiar to the "pump" you get). "

That "residual tension" is not what I was speaking of. The reason why many people feel pumped-up after a workout to failure is because their muscles are stiff due to the lack of ATP.

"I'm not sure I agree with "residual tension of the given muscle" being genetic at all."

Me neither. I was talking out of my arse. Sorry about that.

Now, onto what I was trying to get across. You are right in saying that the residual tension is actually just the muscle staying in a semi-flexed state. As I stated before, it is not the post-workout ATP-deprivation, but this is commonly a neuro-muscular phenomena caused from consistent heavy lifting. (1-5 reps) This is also the reason why the lighter weight powerlifters have incredible physiques... because of the heavy loads that the heandle day in and day out. I'll post the actual scientific info on this later this week. It slipped my mind because it's not something I frequently rehash.

"Who's house?"
"I said RUN's house."

Ford Prefect
05-01-2001, 05:37 PM
Okay. I still haven't had an oppurtunity to actually look into it, but after pondering the concept of lifting heavy often and the type of hypertrophy that a muscle undergoes from such stimuli, I believe I have the answer. (it sounds familiar too) As you most likely, there are two common types of muscle hypertrophy: sarcoplasmic and myofabrillar. In sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, which is brought about by training to failure or with a high volume, the actual number of muscle fibers grows as well as a jelly like filler substance. This is why many bodybuilders will look stronger than they actually are because while the muscle grows, it actually loses some of its density.

Myofabrillar hypertrophy, which is brought about by training like a power lifter (high intensity, low volume, lots of rest), results in a strengthening of the existing contractile proteins themselves and thus makes a muscle denser. When the muscle is denser, it is less likely to have it's shape deformed by the skin/fascia, so it "appears" to retain more of it's "definition".

Some of the termonology might be off because I'm writing this off the top of my head, but I think I get the point across. While genetics and body fat play a large role in a "cut" look, one can add to the look by making their muscles denser thus looking more cut even when completely relaxed.

IronFist
05-01-2001, 07:42 PM
Ford Prefect said:

"one can add to the look [being cut] by making their muscles denser thus looking more cut even when completely relaxed."

A good example of this is Bruce Lee. His muscles were very hard and dense, yet still relatively small, and he was very ripped (partially because of his constant unheathily low bodyfat percentage (which I say because I've been told that naything below 5% for extended periods of time can be unhealthy)). On the other hand tho, dense (powerlifter) muscles tend to be smaller in size than bigger, less dense (bodybuilder) muscles. People just need to find their happy medium :)

Good post, Ford Prefect,

Iron

CrazyDan
05-06-2001, 04:51 AM
Thanks to all who replied, I appreciate the info! :)

GunnedDownAtrocity
05-07-2001, 06:49 PM
oh wait my mistake . . .

this is still on the first page along with that one post from 1993 . ..


hahahahahahaha. ..

ok ill get some sleep.

where's my beer?

CrazyDan
05-08-2001, 01:21 AM
Errr i just realized this thread said Ration i meant it to be Ratio hehehe