# Why do people use machines when free weights are so much better and safer?



## jamesd (Feb 17, 2011)

I am convinced that people use machines because they want an ego boost. There are so many people who can load up the leg press machine with plates but can't even squat 135lbs or load up the shrug machine but can't even shrug light dumbbells. Machines have a fixed plane of motion which can cause shearing in your joints. Whereas free weights are able to move around to let your natural biomechanical movement take over. It's more challenging in a good way too. 


Do people use machines because they are lazy or want show off doing partial range of motion? Do they not realize free weights are actually safer and provide better results?


----------



## Kennnie (Oct 21, 2010)

:blank........................................... :blank .... .............. ..........


----------



## danberado (Apr 22, 2010)

I think it's just casual weightlifters who don't know all the free-weight techniques.

Though I will say, when I was in high school I was uncomfortable with having people spot for me due to the anxiety thing.


----------



## Kon (Oct 21, 2010)

Another one of those not certain stuff but here's one review suggesting no difference:

*FREE WEIGHTS AND MACHINES *

The Position Stand (ACSM) claims that multiple-joint exercises such as the bench press and squat are generally regarded as most effective for increasing overall muscular strength because they enable a greater magnitude of weight to be lifted (p. 36). Only a review by Stone et al. (4) is cited in an attempt to support that claim. 

The Position Stand claims that resistance exercise machines are safer to use, easier to learn, allow the performance of some exercises that may be difficult with free weights, help stabilize the body, and focus on the activation of specific muscles (p. 36). The only reference cited is an article by Foran (5), which is a brief opinion about machines that states nothing related to-and therefore does not support-the opinions expressed in the Position Stand. 

The Position Stand claims that resistance training with free weights results in a pattern of intra- and inter-muscular coordination that mimics the movement requirements of a specific task and that emphasis should be placed on free-weight exercises for advanced resistance training, with machine exercises used to complement the program (p. 36). There is no reference cited to support either opinion. 

Only a few studies (6) have compared the effects of free weights and machines on muscular strength. Boyer (6) randomly assigned 60 previously untrained females (19-37 years) to one of three resistance-training programs. All subjects performed 3 x 10 RM (i.e., 3 sets of 10 repetitions where RM denotes a maximal effort on the last repetition of a set) wk 1-3, 3 x 6 RM wk 4-6, and 3 x 8 RM wk 7-12 on two lower-body and five upper-body exercises 3x/wk for 12 weeks. They exercised similar muscle groups using free weights, Nautilus® machines, or Soloflex® machines, which utilize rubber weight straps for resistance. There was a significant pre- to post-training decrease in thigh (16.6, 14.5 and 14.5 %), arm (15.8, 8.9 and 17.1 %) and iliac (4.2, 7.3 and 9.6 %) skin-folds, and percent body fat (9.6, 6.2 and 9.6 %) for the free-weight, Nautilus® and Soloflex® groups, respectively, with no significant difference between the groups for any anthropometric variable. 

The free-weight group showed significantly greater gains than the Nautilus® group when tested on the equipment used for training: 1 RM bench press (24.5 and 15.3 %), behind-the-neck press (22.3 and 10.9 %), and leg sled (15.5 and 11.2 %), for free-weight and Nautilus® groups, respectively. The Nautilus® group showed significantly greater gains than the free-weight group when tested on the Nautilus® machines: bench press (23.3 and 47.2 %), lateral raise (19.4 and 46.8 %), and leg press (17.1 and 28.2 %), for the free-weight and Nautilus® groups, respectively. Overall, the average strength gain in the free-weight group was 20.4 % (Nautilus and free-weight equipment combined), while the Nautilus® group increased 26.6 % (Nautilus and free-weight equipment combined). Interestingly, the Soloflex® group significantly increased strength by 29.5 % when tested on the Soloflex® machine and 15.1 % when tested on the other modalities. 

*Boyer (6) concluded that although the strength gains were significantly greater when each group was tested on their training modality, the programs produced comparable changes in muscular strength and body composition. *

Sanders (7) randomly assigned 22 college students to a free-weight (bench press and behind-the-neck seated press) or Nautilus® (chest press and shoulder press machines) training group. All subjects performed 3 x 6 RM 3x/wk for five weeks. They were tested pre- and post-training for 3-minute bouts of rhythmic isometric exercise (maximal muscle actions every other second) for the elbow extensors at 90o and shoulder flexors at 135o. Initial and final strength levels were measured by using the average of three successive muscle actions at each 15-second time interval. A strength decrement during each test was obtained by subtracting the final strength from the initial strength. Results revealed that elbow extensor strength significantly increased in the free-weight (~22 %) and Nautilus® groups (~24 %). Shoulder flexor strength significantly increased following free weight training (~12 %) and Nautilus® training (~13 %). There was no significant difference between the free weight and Nautilus® groups for initial strength, final strength, or strength decrement. Sanders (7) concluded that free weights and Nautilus® machines were equally effective for developing muscular strength and endurance. 

Silvester et al. reported the results of two experiments comparing free weights and machines. In experiment #1, 60 previously untrained college-age males were randomly assigned to one of three groups who performed 1 x 4-16 RM for the lower-body exercises using a Nautilus® machine, Universal® machine (2 x 7-15), or free-weight squats (3 x 6). The intensity for the Universal® and free-weight groups was not specified. 

Nautilus® and free-weight groups completed each repetition in three seconds, while the Universal® group did not exceed two seconds for each repetition. The Universal® and free-weight groups trained 3x/wk for 11 weeks, while the Nautilus® group trained 3x/wk for the first six weeks and 2x/wk for the last five weeks. There was a significant increase in vertical jump height (0.2, 1.0, and 1.3 %, for Nautilus®, Universal®, and free-weight groups, respectively). Silvester et al. noted that it appeared that the Universal® and free-weight groups improved to a greater extent than the Nautilus® group, with no significant difference between the Universal® and free-weight groups. However, later in their Discussion they state that the increases in vertical jump were equal (p. 32). There was a significant increase in lower-body strength (8.6, 9.7, and 12.5 %, for Nautilus®, Universal®, and free-weight groups, respectively), with no significant difference among the groups. Different numbers of sets and repetitions, intensity, repetition duration, frequency of training, and types of equipment did not result in significantly different gains in strength. 

In experiment #2, Silvester et al. randomly assigned 48 previously untrained college-age males to one of four groups who performed barbell curls for either one set or three sets of six repetitions with 80 % 1 RM, or one set or three sets of 10-12 RM Nautilus® machine curls 3x/wk for eight weeks. The four groups significantly increased elbow-flexion strength at four angles (70, 90, 135, and 180°) after training with one set of barbell curls (23 %), three sets of barbell curls (30 %), one set of Nautilus® machine curls (25 %) or three sets of machine curls (19 %). There was no significant difference in strength gains among the groups at any angle. Silvester et al. concluded that one set is just as effective as three sets, and that it does not appear to matter which modality of resistance training (free weights or machines) is chosen. 

*In summary, there is no scientific evidence cited in the Position Stand to support the superiority of free weights or machines for developing muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance (Table 1). Either training modality or a combination of modalities appears to be effective.*


----------



## Noca (Jun 24, 2005)

Machines are only there to entertain us.


----------



## Ape in space (May 31, 2010)

I use the machine just for exercises where I can't get enough weight with the dumbbells.


----------



## Andrew1980 (Feb 28, 2009)

The machines are there so girls don't use our benches


----------



## pudz (May 15, 2011)

I use both free weights and machines. Free weights are used first until I'm too tired for coordination then I hop on a machine because it forces good form and it gets better concentration on the part Im lifting.


----------



## Lateralus (Oct 28, 2007)

I use about 75% free weights and 25% machines. The machines are good when you feel unsafe doing the equivalent free weight exercise without a spotter. Also the cables machine has several exercises with no free weight equivalent.


----------



## Zen Mechanics (Aug 3, 2007)

Kon said:


> Another one of those not certain stuff but here's one review suggesting no difference:
> 
> *FREE WEIGHTS AND MACHINES *


this study is silly. no **** if you spend however long lifting on a machine, you will get better.. at lifting on that machine. you can be repping out the whole stack on some chest machine but if you've never trained free weight bench press you will barely be able to lift the bar. this is because free weights train your stablisers and ancillary muscles. they will work your core and provide you with a lot greather strength -overall-. using machines is called 'isolation training' for a reason.

but that's not to say they are useless.. they allow your to target specfic muscles and also are a good change up for your routine when you plataue on a free weight exercise. i would say i do about 50/50 free weight vs machines, but when first working out machines are not as useful as you gain strength so quickly doing free weights.


----------



## VanDamMan (Nov 2, 2009)

They don't know what they are doing.


----------



## rctriplefresh5 (Aug 24, 2009)

people use machines because they are pussies.


----------



## Revenwyn (Apr 11, 2011)

Or because that's all their gym has.


----------



## Kon (Oct 21, 2010)

Zen Mechanics said:


> you can be repping out the whole stack on some chest machine but if you've never trained free weight bench press you will barely be able to lift the bar.


So you're basically saying that doing major weights on a machine will not be transefrable to strength demonstration in free bench. How about the reverse: does training free bench press exclusively result in less transference of strength when tested in machine bench press? That's a claim often made but does anybody have any real evidence? Just asking for the evidence. One pdf article would be useful.

Or even more appropriate does lifting free weights vs machines have better transference in demonstrating everyday strength in tasks like say, working in construction, landscaping, playing sports, etc? Are free weights better than machines for muscle gains? That's a claim often made but does anybody have any real evidence?



Zen Mechanics said:


> this is because free weights train your stablisers and ancillary muscles. they will work your core and provide you with a lot greather strength -overall-. using machines is called 'isolation training' for a reason.


There's a difference between compound machine exercises and isolation machine exercises (compare leg press machine versus leg extension). The former uses much more muscle mass.

How about a free weight dumbell calf raise? How much muscle growth will it stimulate? What do you think is more useful: a leg press/bench/pulldown machine or a free weight calf raise/tricep extension/arm curl? Free weights versus machine isn't the important factor. It's the amount of muscle mass that a particular exercise (whether free weight or machine) uses, that's crucial. Compound (multi-joint) exercises recruit more muscle mass irrespective of whether they involve machines or free weights.

With respect to stabilizers/ancillary muscles, even that is questionable because what's a stabilizer/ancillary muscle kind of depends on the exercise being performed. Take the squat. The lower back and abs are considered one of the stabilizers muscle for squats. Is one to assume that squats are better for abs and lower back than doing direct abdominal work or lower back work (back extension machines)? Why? Does anyone have any evidence that the former develops the abs and lower back muscles more than the latter? Maybe for learning to co-ordinate all the different muscles used in the squat but that is a different question, I think.


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

rctriplefresh5 said:


> people use machines because they are pussies.


I love this quote, i started laughing immediately when I saw it.

I do think machines are a joke compared to free weights, but I'm also a biased free weight lifter.


----------



## rctriplefresh5 (Aug 24, 2009)

ure a biased free weight lifter cause ure not a *****!
p.ussy is censored but not pussies?


----------



## JayDontCareEh (Jul 16, 2007)

The machines are for toning, and free weights are for bulking up.


At least that's what I've always thought.


----------



## Kon (Oct 21, 2010)

JayDontCareEh said:


> The machines are for toning, and free weights are for bulking up. At least that's what I've always thought.


It's a myth. Toning is a matter of fat loss. Doesn't have anything to do with using free weights versus machines. You can gain muscle mass on both free weights or machines. The amount of muscle gained is largely a function of genetics and of course training/diet.


----------



## modus (Apr 27, 2011)

I'm stuck on machines because I feel self-conscious about my form with free weights. I just don't know if I'm doing it right. I'm also worried about starting myself off with too much weight and having to bail =p


----------



## Kon (Oct 21, 2010)

exobyte said:


> I'm stuck on machines because I feel self-conscious about my form with free weights. I just don't know if I'm doing it right. I'm also worried about starting myself off with too much weight and having to bail =p


There's no difference with respect to gaining size. I've used both. At one time only free weights. At other times only machines. Here's an interesting discussion on the topic:

http://www.elitetrack.com/article_files/machinesfreeweights.pdf


----------



## JayDontCareEh (Jul 16, 2007)

Kon said:


> It's a myth. Toning is a matter of fat loss. Doesn't have anything to do with using free weights versus machines. You can gain muscle mass on both free weights or machines. The amount of muscle gained is largely a function of genetics and of course training/diet.


That does make sense, actually.

I guess I figured that having the support of the machines would allow you to target specific areas, whereas with free weights your stronger more dominant muscles would tend to take the strain.


----------



## 2Talkative (Nov 1, 2007)

The only machine in my work out is me.


----------



## modus (Apr 27, 2011)

2Talkative said:


> The only machine in my work out is me.


Now _that _is clever. Keep doin' your thing, bro!


----------



## Prodigal Son (Dec 11, 2005)

There is actually quite a big difference neurologically and biomechanically between many machines and free-weights where the loads on the body are different which results in different physiological adaptions. Remember most machines are set in a controlled movement pattern and will not transition as well to functional motor movements. 

You can get stronger and achieve good hypertrophy with machines and they have their place but a lot of people use machines simply because they are easier, ignorance, and they fear using free weights.


----------



## rctriplefresh5 (Aug 24, 2009)

are free weights really safver than machines? i mean on one hand ican see how they would be as they allow your body to move through it's natural groove, but on the other hand i can def see machines being safer than free weights.


----------



## LALoner (Dec 3, 2008)

Andrew1980 said:


> The machines are there so girls don't use our benches


lol.

I want to point out that some days I don't have the mental energy needed to do squats and deadlifts the right way and so using a machine to push out some heavy weights lets me get the workout I need. Have you ever tipped over in the squat cage? I did it once and that was enough for a lifetime.


----------



## Lateralus (Oct 28, 2007)

LALoner said:


> Have you ever tipped over in the squat cage? I did it once and that was enough for a lifetime.


Yeah not to mention trying to push that one last rep on your last set of bench without a spotter and not quite getting it....I don't prefer to experience that again.


----------



## Prodigal Son (Dec 11, 2005)

No safety bars? I have squatted for years and not once tipped over. 

The level of safety between machine and free weights depends on several variables. Form, lifting experience, current strength levels, body type, specific lift, the machine used, ROM, etc. Squat is a fairly basic lift but you can do it for years and always make improvements on your form, it should always be an ongoing process, even if small adjustments.


----------



## pita (Jan 17, 2004)

I use free weights like a boss.


----------



## Revenwyn (Apr 11, 2011)

Kon said:


> It's a myth. Toning is a matter of fat loss. Doesn't have anything to do with using free weights versus machines. You can gain muscle mass on both free weights or machines. The amount of muscle gained is largely a function of genetics and of course training/diet.


I used machines and I was RIPPED. Well as ripped as a woman can get. The weight I was in no way corresponded to the size I wore. I was 5'2" at the time, wore a size 10, and was 215 pounds. A woman that height and weight usually wears a 24.

I can still bench 250 pounds on a machine, or at least I could at the end of Spring semester. I can't get in again until Fall.

I'll admit I haven't tried free weights because I don't have a spotter, and the gym I used to go to wouldn't let me lift that much on a bar... the most they'd let a woman lift on a bar was 50 pounds...


----------



## Prodigal Son (Dec 11, 2005)

I have a very hard time believing you were ripped at 5 foot 2, 215 pounds, but I guess it depends on what your definition of ripped is. Being toned is a function of fat loss and bodyfat %. You achieved results with the machines but the adaption wasn't toning your muscle, at least the way it is often described. 

250 bench even if on a machine at your height is very strong for a female. You should work on bench tech and enter competitions.


----------



## Revenwyn (Apr 11, 2011)

Prodigal Son said:


> I have a very hard time believing you were ripped at 5 foot 2, 215 pounds, but I guess it depends on what your definition of ripped is. Being toned is a function of fat loss and bodyfat %. You achieved results with the machines but the adaption wasn't toning your muscle, at least the way it is often described.
> 
> 250 bench even if on a machine at your height is very strong for a female. You should work on bench tech and enter competitions.


Size 10 is a 28 inch waist. Most women of that height at 215 pounds are a size 24 and that is a 44-46 inch waist according to brand.

So yes, 215 pounds on a 28 inch waist. I wasn't even fully grown then. I got two inches taller.


----------



## Kon (Oct 21, 2010)

Prodigal Son said:


> There is actually quite a big difference neurologically and biomechanically between many machines and free-weights where the loads on the body are different which results in different physiological adaptions. Remember most machines are set in a controlled movement pattern and will not transition as well to functional motor movements.


Look at Carpinelli's arguments in the previous link I provided. He questions even such claims in his response to questions 4 and 5. An interesting quote on related stuff I posted below:​
Question 4: Discuss Briefly Your Interpretation of the Literature Regarding the Carryover of Strength Gains Achieved From Machines to Sports Performance​
Question 5: Discuss Briefly Your Interpretation of the Literature Regarding the Carryover of Strength Gains Achieved From Free Weights to Sports Performance


"Garhammer claims that as an athlete moves through the range of motion in which the optimal internal leverage produces the greatest internal torque, the barbell perfectly accommodates the increased internal (muscular) torque by accelerating at a greater rate. *The barbell does not accommodate*. *It responds to a larger force with a greater acceleration.* A greater applied force will produce a greater acceleration to a given mass, but the greater momentum makes the repetition less intense. During the execution of some multijoint free-weight exercises, such as the squat, military press, and bench press, greater torque can be generated during the last third of the concentric muscle action, as compared with the middle third-the sticking zone. If an athlete attempts to accelerate the barbell throughout the range of motion, the greater acceleration in the first third of the repetition produces greater barbell momentum. *The momentum helps the athlete through the sticking zone and makes that part of the repetition easier and the last third of the repetition-where he is the strongest-the easiest."*​


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

1. I don't have a friend that goes to the gym with me anymore to spot.
2. Time, I can get more reps in
3. A minor issue is safety

I use freeweights for curls and some chest exercises. But, for legs it is only machines. For abs, I can put a lot more weight 'on' with the machine.


----------



## 2Talkative (Nov 1, 2007)

rctriplefresh5 said:


> are free weights really safver than machines? i mean on one hand ican see how they would be as they allow your body to move through it's natural groove, but on the other hand i can def see machines being safer than free weights.


Machines will always be safer as you have limited ROM. Free weights however allow for more secondary muscle use.


----------



## King Moonracer (Oct 12, 2010)

hmm. I think machines offer you leverage, which make lifting easier! Hooray!


----------



## Kon (Oct 21, 2010)

2Talkative said:


> Machines will always be safer as you have limited ROM. Free weights however allow for more secondary muscle use.


I think I agree with the latter (assuming relatively similar exercises). But is that necessarily bad? Why would one want to distribute part of the load to other secondary muscles and hence off the primary muscle being trained, if one's goal is to provide the greatest training stimulus to a given muscle? Some argue that this is better for developing "functional" strength but even this isn't clear.

As for the first part, I don't think that's true. There's some machines that are very bad for many people with certain physical/biomechanical leverages/characteristics. With free weights, it's kind of easier to accomodate to one's characteristics (ie. sumo vs conventional deadlift, etc.). Just my opinion.


----------



## rctriplefresh5 (Aug 24, 2009)

2Talkative said:


> Machines will always be safer as you have limited ROM. Free weights however allow for more secondary muscle use.


how;s less rom safer though? i always go full rom...heck ic an imagine doing a half rep right now on bench press i feel like that would strain my elbows and cause a pec tear 

machines have their place in a workout dominated by free weights. i like the dip machine those are fun 
or the glutes machine


----------



## RenegadeReloaded (Mar 12, 2011)

Actually machines are safer, compare the two situation: last rep u lose control and drop the weight, if it is a free weight u risk being injured, if its a machine u don't.

Also as an example of the situation where machines are better than free weights: can u maintain the same tension of the weight when doing this with dumbells ?

http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/PectoralSternal/LVPecDeckFly.html

U can't. U lie on your back and do chest flys, at the beggining of the motion its damn hard to do it, and by the time the dumbell closes in to eachother at the top of the motion u can barely feel anything. So the machine provides the same force resistance through all the range of the motion.

If u ask me i use free wights like 70% of the time but there are specific situation like that that only a machine can stimulate the muscle eavenly through the whole motion.


----------



## Lateralus (Oct 28, 2007)

RenegadeReloaded said:


> Actually machines are safer, compare the two situation: last rep u lose control and drop the weight, if it is a free weight u risk being injured, if its a machine u don't.
> 
> Also as an example of the situation where machines are better than free weights: can u maintain the same tension of the weight when doing this with dumbells ?
> 
> ...


Yep that's one of the few exercises I almost always do on machine, and for that reason. I prefer the one where your arms are fully extended though. It will define that crease between your pecs.


----------



## VanDamMan (Nov 2, 2009)

King Moonracer said:


> hmm. I think machines offer you leverage, which make lifting easier! Hooray!


The point is that its not supposed to be easy.


----------



## Kon (Oct 21, 2010)

BPA free said:


> Now i do mostly body weight, sandbag and other "unconventional" exercises at home (saved me tons of money)


Can you describe your routine or provide a good link. I've been recently contemplating going that route because I hate spending money to go to the gym plus the convenience factor. I've done some body weight stuff (e.g. frog squats, push-ups, 1-legged calf raises, 1-legged, squats, etc.) but what I'm always worried about home exercising is progressive overload. The gym makes it so easy to monitor progress. Is there a way to do this with bodyweight exercises? I guess sandbags is any option. Are there any other options?

Edit: Thanks!


----------



## Nibbler (Nov 5, 2010)

you say safer wheres the support in free weights like there is on a machine?


----------



## rctriplefresh5 (Aug 24, 2009)

when i use to go to a public gym i loved this machine...used to use it in highschool all the time. just a lot of fun hahahaha. i used it for strength though with heavy weight even though it;s really just a shaping machine hahahaha.

but i dont know if id say there is constant tension on a machine and not constant tension on freeweights....i mean if your weakness is off the chest...the bottom will always be the hardest whether machine or free


----------



## Nae (Nov 10, 2003)

I'm under the impression that machines are 'better' for the same reasons they aren't: They control the range of motion. This makes them safer, and more effective at hitting targeting muscle. However, this also interferes with a person moving the weight in an efficient manner for whatever anatomical nuances that person has. Which also makes free weights more unsafe in that a movement can be made incorrectly.


----------



## Nae (Nov 10, 2003)

Revenwyn said:


> Size 10 is a 28 inch waist. Most women of that height at 215 pounds are a size 24 and that is a 44-46 inch waist according to brand.
> 
> So yes, 215 pounds on a 28 inch waist. I wasn't even fully grown then. I got two inches taller.


 The explanation is simple. Your bones must be encased in metal.


----------



## Hamtown (Jun 10, 2010)

I've never used the machines, i've only had freeweight equipment.You'd think the machines were safer because they go in one fixed motion right?Freeweights you can give yourself bad forms and postures, when you've only ever worked out alone you don't know what you may be doing wrong.But you do learn.


----------



## seraph1bk (Jun 21, 2011)

Why use anything? All you need is floor space. A free runner/traceur or gymnast definitely has me beat.


----------



## Lateralus (Oct 28, 2007)

Just floor space? I'm sure there are plenty of effective exercises you can do, but I would feel very confident that I'd be stronger in most areas than someone of equal size after an 8 week training schedule (me on free weights and them on their floor).


----------



## Prodigal Son (Dec 11, 2005)

Kon said:


> Look at Carpinelli's arguments in the previous link I provided. He questions even such claims in his response to questions 4 and 5. An interesting quote on related stuff I posted below:​
> Question 4: Discuss Briefly Your Interpretation of the Literature Regarding the Carryover of Strength Gains Achieved From Machines to Sports Performance​
> Question 5: Discuss Briefly Your Interpretation of the Literature Regarding the Carryover of Strength Gains Achieved From Free Weights to Sports Performance
> 
> ...


I don't think this addresses the neurological adaptions I was referencing in a previous post. Also, the stick point is not always in the middle third of the concentric phase of a lift nor is momentum necessarily a bad thing. We use momentum all the time with athletic and functional motor movements. Bar speed plays a factor with momentum, a fast eccentric action can change the impulse load demand of the concentric. Again, not necessarily a bad thing.

With respect to Carpinelli I don't think it is just exercise scientists, and S&C trainers who disagree with some of his claims but many biomechanic specialists as well. Important to note that training effects doesn't just depend on what exercise you choose to use but on overload, progression, form, intensity, volume, etc. Also, there is a lot of variety between machines, manufacturer, free-form/fixed types.

http://www.med.und.edu/depts/pt/PT Website/research/Plyo3/LegPressvsSquat.htm 
The old leg press! I couldn't find the study for greater quad hypertrophy (some studies suggest this) from the leg press as opposed to the squat. Just about anybody can put on more poundage on a standard leg press than the squat but it doesn't mean muscle activity would increase, probably because of the mechanical advantage of most leg press machines.

Although a lot of people can't squat correctly or keep a relative neutral spine the leg press is not a back safeguard. Rounding your back against the rest at the bottom of the eccentric is what a lot of people start doing with the leg press which can lead to injury.


----------



## Prodigal Son (Dec 11, 2005)

seraph1bk said:


> Why use anything? All you need is floor space. A free runner/traceur or gymnast definitely has me beat.


Depends on what your goals are, you can get 'in-shape' or ripped just via generic cardio and diet...pretty boring and with no strength training probably not the most optimal.

Training for specific performance goals or sport performance is a bit more tricky.


----------



## Prodigal Son (Dec 11, 2005)

If you're into the calisthenics, minimal equipment, do-it-at-home routines I used to do bodybyfish, older site but decent info: http://www.trainforstrength.com/workouts.shtml


----------



## Kon (Oct 21, 2010)

Prodigal Son said:


> http://www.med.und.edu/depts/pt/PT%20Website/research/Plyo3/LegPressvsSquat.htm
> The old leg press! I couldn't find the study for greater quad hypertrophy (some studies suggest this) from the leg press as opposed to the squat. Just about anybody can put on more poundage on a standard leg press than the squat but it doesn't mean muscle activity would increase, probably because of the mechanical advantage of most leg press machines.


Thanks. Interesting conclusion:

"The leg press provides the same level of muscle recruitment in the VL as does a squat exercise. However, the leg press does not recruit the ES, GM or BF to the extent that the squat exercise does. Therefore, we hypothesize that the leg press machine may be better for individuals who want to specifically strengthen their quadriceps musculature, but reduce possible strain on the low back that may be caused by the excessive activity of the ES musculature. However, if the training is aimed at training the ES, GM or BF; then the squat lift may provide a better training stimulus."

I remember buying a book called "muscle meets magnet" by Tesch. I think in some of his writings he mentioned that deadlifts recruit the most muscle mass followed by squat. I always get messed up in those exercises when I upped the load. They definitely target glutes much more than leg press. But the best experiment would not be EMG or MRI studies but just use 2 comparable experimental groups and get one to do squats , the other say Hammer Leg Press and placebo group. I wonder if such a study exists?


----------



## Dr Hobo Scratch MD (Jun 24, 2011)

its depends on the exercise, iam working with the ol 1980's soloflex so alot of the compound lifts i dont have to worry about including chin ups/pull ups. but with certain muscle groups free weights and other devices are best like forearms ,peak bicep work and peak medial delt work.


----------



## cold fission cure (Aug 31, 2010)

I read on a different forum that free weights are considered to be much more alpha (means that girls like you and men want to be like you) and machines are beta (code word for loser). If I get a gym membership in two years or so I'm going to make sure to only use the free weights. Do gyms put up a guide on how to use free weights?


----------



## Kon (Oct 21, 2010)

cold fission cure said:


> I read on a different forum that free weights are considered to be much more alpha (means that girls like you and men want to be like you) and machines are beta (code word for loser). If I get a gym membership in two years or so I'm going to make sure to only use the free weights. Do gyms put up a guide on how to use free weights?


Many young guys are into that mentality (as I was when I was in my teens/20s) that "free weights" are tough/cool/macho and machines are for "pussies" but I think that's just amoeboid thinking. When a guy wears gloves/spandex at the gym though, I do kind of laugh inside. Having said that, I doubt women care all that much about whether you use machines or free weights. I think, if they care, they care about results (e.g. how you look). Many (most) women don't even like the bodybuilder-look. Moreover, in my mind I think they care more about the size of your wang than the size of your bicep.


----------



## Dr Hobo Scratch MD (Jun 24, 2011)

cold fission cure said:


> I read on a different forum that free weights are considered to be much more alpha (means that girls like you and men want to be like you) and machines are beta (code word for loser). If I get a gym membership in two years or so I'm going to make sure to only use the free weights. Do gyms put up a guide on how to use free weights?


but thats just the process of muscle building,shouldnt the main focus be on the results ??? freeweights,machines,gophers,dead dogs,buckets of puke what it all comes down to is the right resistance at the right angle for the right muscle.


----------



## puffins (Mar 9, 2011)

i like both to be honest, i'm not one of those "free-weight" snobs...anymore  I do think that after an intense cardio workout free weights aren't an option for me as I'm running on a tiny bit of energy and just want to get a really quick, SAFE, toning routine in.


----------



## Charizard (Feb 16, 2011)

I don't really see how free weights could be considered better and safer. 

Machines make you use a specific range of motion. This is going to isolate the muscles used in the exercise (so that you're working on what you actually want to work on) and make it so that you aren't going to tear something due to poor technique.


----------



## edhoo (Feb 15, 2011)

Free weights are always to crowded to only focus on them. If I did I would be at the gym for hours upon hours.


----------



## rctriplefresh5 (Aug 24, 2009)

puffins said:


> i like both to be honest, i'm not one of those "free-weight" snobs...anymore  I do think that after an intense cardio workout free weights aren't an option for me as I'm running on a tiny bit of energy and just want to get a really quick, SAFE, toning routine in.


lift first.


----------



## VanDamMan (Nov 2, 2009)

........because it feels so good to do the thigh squeeze machine.


----------



## rctriplefresh5 (Aug 24, 2009)

i always felt lie i was getting a hernia when i tried those


----------



## seafolly (Jun 17, 2010)

I used machines because I didn't have the slightest clue how to use free weights properly in terms of form. I didn't want to risk injuring myself. However, I really do notice a huge difference with free weights (switched once a trainer showed me the proper methods). It uses more muscle groups and thus gives me more of a workout in less time I find. I never ever broke a sweat using machines. Sure my muscles would be tired but no sweating. Free weights...well you get the idea. I can only assume it's because I'm working more muscles at one time. 

Someone else brought up a valid issue that sometimes free weights just aren't available. My gym had them in very limited quantities. So go easy on those who use machines. Better than sitting on the couch!


----------



## jamesd (Feb 17, 2011)

Charizard said:


> I don't really see how free weights could be considered better and safer.
> 
> Machines make you use a specific range of motion. This is going to isolate the muscles used in the exercise (so that you're working on what you actually want to work on) and make it so that you aren't going to tear something due to poor technique.


It's because machines lock the movement into a specific track and can cause shearing in your joints. With free weights your joints and connective tissues get strengthened as well along with your muscles. Hence promoting joint and ligament integrity over the years.


----------



## bery (Jul 1, 2011)

Using weight loss machines is not wise enough as because there are more effective andd safer way to loose weight without any expenses.I am so disappointed that people are using machines to show off their status and unnecessary materialistic usages.From my side, the main cause to using machines is to show their economic status in front of others nothing else.


----------



## RetroDoll (Jun 25, 2011)

because they are fun.

guppy: you're not the end all be all in the decision of free weights vs. machines. therefore it's not a fact one way or the other, it's an opinion.


----------



## guppy88 (Nov 12, 2010)

it's a fact that machines suck. The hormonal reaction is less with machines because the CNS reaction is reduced way too much with any machine. Free weights, which are used by most successful professional athletes, are the way to go because it produces more skeletal loading and coordination which requires more nerves to respond which requires a better hormonal response which will provide more muscles. Lifting light weights is basically a waste of time if it's not PT.

And for anyone who's interested pick up a copy of Starting Strength by Mark Rippetoe. It'll be the best money you'll spend in your life.


----------



## MissElley (May 15, 2011)

I don't really like the free weights because at the gym I attend, their all located where the mirrors are and I really don't like to see my reflection when other people are around.. especially at the gym. So I tend to stay on the machines because there isn't any mirrors around, plus I've heard that you have to stand in front of the mirror to see if your techniques are right so you don't injure yourself. 
Well, that's my lowdown on free weights Vs. machines, don't know if it's relevant.


----------



## Kon (Oct 21, 2010)

guppy88 said:


> it's a fact that machines suck. The hormonal reaction is less with machines because the CNS reaction is reduced way too much with any machine.


There is quite a bit of debate whether the transient increase in hormones play a major role in hypertrophy. Here's some studies and reviews on that topic:

*We conclude that exposure of loaded muscle to acute exercise-induced elevations in endogenous anabolic hormones enhances neither muscle hypertrophy nor strength with resistance training in young men*.

*To the author's knowledge, the number of well designed studies that show causative relationships between hypertrophy and acute increases in hormonal concentration due to exercise is arguably zero.*

http://www.3dmusclejourney.com/reso...ges_on_Muscular_Hypertrophy_by_Eric_Helms.pdf

"We conclude that the transient increases in endogenous purportedly anabolic hormones do not enhance fed-state anabolic signalling or MPS (myofibrillar protein synthesis) following resistance exercise. Local mechanisms are likely to be of predominant importance for the post-exercise increase in MPS(myofibrillar protein synthesis)."​
http://jp.physoc.org/content/early/2009/09/04/jphysiol.2009.177220.full.pdf


----------



## loquaciousintrovert (May 23, 2011)

I use them because prior to this year I had absolutely no experience with any kind of weight training. *shrug* I also can't lift very much and feel weak.

Then again, considering I am 70 lbs overweight, this is hardly surprising.


----------



## RenegadeReloaded (Mar 12, 2011)

jamesd said:


> It's because machines lock the movement into a specific track and can cause shearing in your joints. With free weights your joints and connective tissues get strengthened as well along with your muscles. Hence promoting joint and ligament integrity over the years.


why woudlnt machine strenghten joints ? there is a small chance that on the machine the movement is not natural so you risk injury when using big weights

and what do u mean by connective tissues ? ligaments ? what else ? same thing happen to them as with joints

other than that, do u include stabilizers muscles into connective tissues ? if so, on machines stabilizers are kinda neglected compared to free weights where they interveen in balance and into the more complex/compound motion



bery said:


> Using weight loss machines is not wise enough as because there are more effective andd safer way to loose weight without any expenses.I am so disappointed that people are using machines to show off their status and unnecessary materialistic usages.From my side, the main cause to using machines is to show their economic status in front of others nothing else.


I'm sure you'll find the true reasons of using machines along with free weights in a few months if u kepp going to gym  If think you're taking about the machines in the gym, right ? not that scams 5 mins abs a day machine u buy at home that makes u lose 10 kg a month



guppy88 said:


> it's a fact that machines suck. The hormonal reaction is less with machines because the CNS reaction is reduced way too much with any machine. Free weights, which are used by most successful professional athletes, are the way to go because it produces more skeletal loading and coordination which requires more nerves to respond which requires a better hormonal response which will provide more muscles. Lifting light weights is basically a waste of time if it's not PT.
> 
> And for anyone who's interested pick up a copy of Starting Strength by Mark Rippetoe. It'll be the best money you'll spend in your life.


I agree with all u said except the first sentence. There are still some advantages of machines as well as there are advantages of free wieghts. They are meant to complement each other.


----------

