4 ms·

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 dea

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?

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?