3 ms·

> it's pretty widely accepted now that free weights are more effective than machines. I don't buy that. The people who say that stuff are the same ones who go

> it's pretty widely accepted now that free weights are more effective than machines. I don't buy that. The people who say that stuff are the same ones who go on about stabilizer muscles, when there's no such thing. Machines are safer than barbells. For overhead and pull-down stuff the good machines minimize dangerous shoulder stress. Barbell squats and deadlifts quite simply are somewhat dangerous and even very experienced people manage to tweak their backs.

HelloMcFly 12y ago
Between you believing the deadlift has no athletic benefit, and thinking machines are more effective than free weights, I'm wondering what your background in fitness is. I think the debate about safety is reasonable though.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  I didn't say machines are more effective. I said they're safer, and that free weights are not magically more effective than machines. I also didn't say the deadlift has no athletic benefit. I said it is fetishized and its usefulness is blown out of all proportion. It's seductive because a beginner can rapidly increase loads. But mostly it builds mass that is not very useful for real sports and impairs endurance. Always betting against the puffed up fighter has been a reliable betting strategy. If you want to spend your training capacity building up to a 500# deadlift, go for it. Just don't kid yourself that it's particularly impressive or will help you do much else other than deadlift.
  - HelloMcFly 12y ago
    Your comment said you doubt the increased effectiveness of free weights over machines, which seems hard to doubt. Like I said, I think debating the claim that free weights are safer is totally fair; it seems the real conversation is about which type of safety the other is talking about. As for the deadlift, I get your point. I do think that you are making it an either-or thing, in that you're either piling on mass with the deadlift or your not getting stronger. Athletes don't do starting strength, they should be using the deadlift as part of a well-rounded training routine rather than trying to set PR after PR. I agree with you that a singular focus on deadlifts/squats for most athletes is detrimental, but that doesn't mean it has no place whatsoever. I'd also bet against the athlete who focused on it in such a way. Anecdotally though, I've found the deadlift to be very functional for me. And who are you to say that someone moving from 135 to a 350lb deadlift, and then maybe to 500lbs isn't impressive? I'm impressed with anyone that can motivate themselves to some sort of physical goal. I think it's your derision that I find most off-putting. Deadlifting is hard work that takes time, so kudos to anyone that sticks with and improves themselves in a way that makes them happy. Yeah, almost everyone can do it, but most people don't. Is running a marathon impressive? What about a triathlon? Biking a century? Or are the only things worth being impressed by the things genetics make impossible for the masses?
VLM 12y ago
Machines ARE safer strictly with respect to sitting in the machine. Outside the machine, I have personal experience that your shoulder, leg, and arm muscles might be able to trivially lift a mere concrete block but your back muscles (luckily in my case not a ligament) were not strengthened by the machine to a similar level leading to quite a bit of pain and damage. Which is the short version of life experiences explaining why I'll probably never go back to machines in the future. Given an infinite number of machines, presumably one for every muscle or so, and an infinite amount of knowledge such that you strengthen your back to always be 5% stronger than your arms or whatever, then machines would be safer than free weights. Of course given spherical cows I'd have the same level of knowledge and safety of free weights. You certainly could hurt your back without any relationship to strength training at all. Or even hurt yourself after freeweights. But it is more likely after machine work. There is also a practical matter of scale. Lets be realistic. A really bad day of lifting won't be much worse than naturally happens to fat couch potatoes every day, so its no really big deal. On the other hand a "really bad day" of bicycling means getting turned into grease under the wheels of a truck, or a "really bad day" of hiking means hunters find your body after a couple months. Its not in practice a serious concern, compared to other human activities. Not that opposition to machines is some kind of amish / historical re-enactor philosophical opposition. Not using a squat rack when squatting is probably an excellent way to hurt yourself. Someone should invent a machine or technique to do bench presses safely while alone.

HelloMcFly 12y ago

Between you believing the deadlift has no athletic benefit, and thinking machines are more effective than free weights, I'm wondering what your background in fitness is. I think the debate about safety is reasonable though.

a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
I didn't say machines are more effective. I said they're safer, and that free weights are not magically more effective than machines. I also didn't say the deadlift has no athletic benefit. I said it is fetishized and its usefulness is blown out of all proportion. It's seductive because a beginner can rapidly increase loads. But mostly it builds mass that is not very useful for real sports and impairs endurance. Always betting against the puffed up fighter has been a reliable betting strategy. If you want to spend your training capacity building up to a 500# deadlift, go for it. Just don't kid yourself that it's particularly impressive or will help you do much else other than deadlift.
- HelloMcFly 12y ago
  Your comment said you doubt the increased effectiveness of free weights over machines, which seems hard to doubt. Like I said, I think debating the claim that free weights are safer is totally fair; it seems the real conversation is about which type of safety the other is talking about. As for the deadlift, I get your point. I do think that you are making it an either-or thing, in that you're either piling on mass with the deadlift or your not getting stronger. Athletes don't do starting strength, they should be using the deadlift as part of a well-rounded training routine rather than trying to set PR after PR. I agree with you that a singular focus on deadlifts/squats for most athletes is detrimental, but that doesn't mean it has no place whatsoever. I'd also bet against the athlete who focused on it in such a way. Anecdotally though, I've found the deadlift to be very functional for me. And who are you to say that someone moving from 135 to a 350lb deadlift, and then maybe to 500lbs isn't impressive? I'm impressed with anyone that can motivate themselves to some sort of physical goal. I think it's your derision that I find most off-putting. Deadlifting is hard work that takes time, so kudos to anyone that sticks with and improves themselves in a way that makes them happy. Yeah, almost everyone can do it, but most people don't. Is running a marathon impressive? What about a triathlon? Biking a century? Or are the only things worth being impressed by the things genetics make impossible for the masses?

VLM 12y ago

Machines ARE safer strictly with respect to sitting in the machine. Outside the machine, I have personal experience that your shoulder, leg, and arm muscles might be able to trivially lift a mere concrete block but your back muscles (luckily in my case not a ligament) were not strengthened by the machine to a similar level leading to quite a bit of pain and damage. Which is the short version of life experiences explaining why I'll probably never go back to machines in the future. Given an infinite number of machines, presumably one for every muscle or so, and an infinite amount of knowledge such that you strengthen your back to always be 5% stronger than your arms or whatever, then machines would be safer than free weights. Of course given spherical cows I'd have the same level of knowledge and safety of free weights. You certainly could hurt your back without any relationship to strength training at all. Or even hurt yourself after freeweights. But it is more likely after machine work. There is also a practical matter of scale. Lets be realistic. A really bad day of lifting won't be much worse than naturally happens to fat couch potatoes every day, so its no really big deal. On the other hand a "really bad day" of bicycling means getting turned into grease under the wheels of a truck, or a "really bad day" of hiking means hunters find your body after a couple months. Its not in practice a serious concern, compared to other human activities. Not that opposition to machines is some kind of amish / historical re-enactor philosophical opposition. Not using a squat rack when squatting is probably an excellent way to hurt yourself. Someone should invent a machine or technique to do bench presses safely while alone.