Ration to Machines to Barbell & Dumbells to Barbells

[CrazyDan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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."