5 ms·

I get the logic and intent behind these kind of articles but at the same time they infuriate me, because this is the kind of crap that people read and use as ye

I get the logic and intent behind these kind of articles but at the same time they infuriate me, because this is the kind of crap that people read and use as yet-another-reason as to why they don't try to get fit. Sure, machines aren't perfect, and they railroad your form, but it's better than nothing. I train on machines, _and_ with free weight, _and_ doing bodyweight / crossfit stuff. They all have their place. There's no way I'd try to pull the rep max on a free barbell that I would on a smith machine, but it says nothing about how effective one or the other is. It's like the whole internet self defense huff. A billion words written on the technicalities of all the different martial arts but most fights are won by punching the other guy repeatedly hard enough to stop him hitting you. Sure it's not perfect, but its taking action and it gets results.

sliverstorm 16y ago
There's no way I'd try to pull the rep max on a free barbell that I would on a smith machine Why not? So long as you're not being stupid, a spotter and/or the safeties built into the cage/rack or bench should do fine.
- Hyphen-ated 16y ago
  You'd be almost guaranteed to fail the lift. Smith machines let you use higher weight because you don't have to spend energy stabilizing the barbell. With safety bars failing isn't a huge deal, it's just pointless.
  - billswift 16y ago
    As the original article pointed out, the effect of strengthening the stabilizing muscles is WHY free weights are superior for fitness.
  - sliverstorm 16y ago
    Oh, he's talking about raw numbers. I guess in retrospect, that's obvious, but when I replied I thought he was saying he doesn't push himself as hard with free weights.
    - momotomo 16y ago
      Yeah, can see how it read lol. There's no cage, just a smith machine at my local gym (and there's only two in town), so I do freeweight squats at home, then smith there, going for the max on each.
DuncanIdaho 16y ago
ummm, No! From anecdotal experience - the training plan he describes is something I did when I started out mountainbiking and ran straight into a probably best coach in vicinity. My training program was a lot like the one described in the article - It was longer, but I was too lazy to do all of it - so I landed right where he suggests 3-4 times lifting weights a week. And boy did I get strong. But then I started fiddling out with trendy programs and fuxxored it all. :) I guess that not using machines wont make such a difference, its more the training regime (reps, measuring your maximum, doing the pyramid). It's just that they are unnecessary. So there are 3 things I have learned about fitness: 1. Your basic training / off season training should be exactly as described in this article. 2. Most people work out waaay too much. 3. If you are serious about your sport: do interval training twice a week (max). That's it - that's all are there is. Everything else you can do your sport or whatever.
- momotomo 16y ago
  My gripe is about "getting fit" as in coming from baseline / nothing to being a reasonable human being. When I was pushing 310 pounds (as in ass weight, not bench weight), this is the kind of thing I would read and go, hey, yeah! Super clever mountain man training! That's the stuff, screw the gym, I'm all over this, I'm so pro! Not a unique attitude at all. What got me down to the 200 mark though was just joining a gym, pushing out squats / deadlifts / presses (on machines for the first few months), utilizing the trainers, getting some buddies on board, eating less and getting the job done. Average joe doesn't have room for gear at home, or the motivation to independently structured programs, or they just flat out get intimidated by hanging around training camps or gyms. I don't think there's room to discourage anything that has potential benefit for people.
jpr 16y ago
> this is the kind of crap that people read and use as yet-another-reason as to why they don't try to get fit. I wonder if we read the same article?
- momotomo 16y ago
  Well I took the /print off the link because it kept crashing chrome, but apart from that we probably did. I'm talking about non-motivated, non-pro kind of people (see other response, I was 310 pounds and happily googling super fitness techniques while smashing cheeseburgers all night). Overweight people don't need any reason to not turn up a gym or think they know better. Anything that provides benefit is better than nothing. If the entry barrier is signing up to a gym and having a trainer run you through a program, that's pretty low. If it's finding obscure training venues with hardcore types and being broken down as a weakling (which yeah, works better than anything out there, and it's what I sign up for these days), then people won't touch it with a hundred foot pole. Most uber-chunkers already feel like shit day in day out without coming up against further entry barriers or reams of information. Just find the closest venue or activity that will make you sweat and do it.
rdouble 16y ago
Smith machines are especially bad for squats because they will let you put up more weight than your back can really support. Same with the other squat replacement machines like hip sleds. Eventually, you will either crush your discs in the machine itself, or doing a regular squat with too much weight.

sliverstorm 16y ago

There's no way I'd try to pull the rep max on a free barbell that I would on a smith machine Why not? So long as you're not being stupid, a spotter and/or the safeties built into the cage/rack or bench should do fine.

Hyphen-ated 16y ago
You'd be almost guaranteed to fail the lift. Smith machines let you use higher weight because you don't have to spend energy stabilizing the barbell. With safety bars failing isn't a huge deal, it's just pointless.
- billswift 16y ago
  As the original article pointed out, the effect of strengthening the stabilizing muscles is WHY free weights are superior for fitness.
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  Oh, he's talking about raw numbers. I guess in retrospect, that's obvious, but when I replied I thought he was saying he doesn't push himself as hard with free weights.
  - momotomo 16y ago
    Yeah, can see how it read lol. There's no cage, just a smith machine at my local gym (and there's only two in town), so I do freeweight squats at home, then smith there, going for the max on each.

DuncanIdaho 16y ago

ummm, No! From anecdotal experience - the training plan he describes is something I did when I started out mountainbiking and ran straight into a probably best coach in vicinity. My training program was a lot like the one described in the article - It was longer, but I was too lazy to do all of it - so I landed right where he suggests 3-4 times lifting weights a week. And boy did I get strong. But then I started fiddling out with trendy programs and fuxxored it all. :) I guess that not using machines wont make such a difference, its more the training regime (reps, measuring your maximum, doing the pyramid). It's just that they are unnecessary. So there are 3 things I have learned about fitness: 1. Your basic training / off season training should be exactly as described in this article. 2. Most people work out waaay too much. 3. If you are serious about your sport: do interval training twice a week (max). That's it - that's all are there is. Everything else you can do your sport or whatever.

momotomo 16y ago
My gripe is about "getting fit" as in coming from baseline / nothing to being a reasonable human being. When I was pushing 310 pounds (as in ass weight, not bench weight), this is the kind of thing I would read and go, hey, yeah! Super clever mountain man training! That's the stuff, screw the gym, I'm all over this, I'm so pro! Not a unique attitude at all. What got me down to the 200 mark though was just joining a gym, pushing out squats / deadlifts / presses (on machines for the first few months), utilizing the trainers, getting some buddies on board, eating less and getting the job done. Average joe doesn't have room for gear at home, or the motivation to independently structured programs, or they just flat out get intimidated by hanging around training camps or gyms. I don't think there's room to discourage anything that has potential benefit for people.

jpr 16y ago

> this is the kind of crap that people read and use as yet-another-reason as to why they don't try to get fit. I wonder if we read the same article?

momotomo 16y ago
Well I took the /print off the link because it kept crashing chrome, but apart from that we probably did. I'm talking about non-motivated, non-pro kind of people (see other response, I was 310 pounds and happily googling super fitness techniques while smashing cheeseburgers all night). Overweight people don't need any reason to not turn up a gym or think they know better. Anything that provides benefit is better than nothing. If the entry barrier is signing up to a gym and having a trainer run you through a program, that's pretty low. If it's finding obscure training venues with hardcore types and being broken down as a weakling (which yeah, works better than anything out there, and it's what I sign up for these days), then people won't touch it with a hundred foot pole. Most uber-chunkers already feel like shit day in day out without coming up against further entry barriers or reams of information. Just find the closest venue or activity that will make you sweat and do it.

rdouble 16y ago

Smith machines are especially bad for squats because they will let you put up more weight than your back can really support. Same with the other squat replacement machines like hip sleds. Eventually, you will either crush your discs in the machine itself, or doing a regular squat with too much weight.