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 f

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?