Vegan Bodybuilding & Fitness

Healthy Food Defines You
It is currently Thu Aug 21, 2014 7:09 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Any of you mastered almost all machines in the gym?
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:00 pm 
Offline
Elephant

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 1448
Have any of you lifted all the weight on almost all, if not all the machines in the gym?

If so, isn't it a great feeling?

This includes Hammer Strength (where you add on plates) as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:21 pm 
Offline
Elephant

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 10:57 pm
Posts: 1242
Location: Portland, OR
The only one I max is the squat machine it tops out at 500 I think. I might be able to max the abs. But I dunno.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:30 pm 
Offline
Elephant

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 1448
Aaron wrote:
The only one I max is the squat machine it tops out at 500 I think. I might be able to max the abs. But I dunno.


WHOA! We don't have those types of machines here but that sounds heavy. Congratz on it Aaron.

How far does your ab machine go? Is it the one where you sit down, and place cross your arms on a pad and push down?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:46 pm 
Offline
Stegosaurus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 3072
Location: Waukesha, WI
I haven't used machines regularly in a long time since they never gave me anywhere near the gains that a bar and some plates did. When I used to use machines at my old gym it was pretty well only the Hammer Strength plate loaded ones, and I maxed or near-maxed all of them, making it kind of pointless to go on. That, and nothing felt worse than a Hammer Strength decline machine - if anything will rip your shoulder out the socket on a short 8" ROM that'll be the one!

There's something I found pretty silly about being able to knock out 360 for 6-8 reps on a Hammer Strength incline and 450+ on the decline and yet could only manage 4-5 reps with 220 on a real incline bench and 275 for a triple on a decline at the same time. Sure, the added weight was an ego booster, but the carryover to other lifts really sucked when I dumped the machines. Once I gave them up I've progressed ten times faster. Some people really do well with machines, but I don't count myself in that group.

Honestly, the only Hammer Strength macines I would still touch are the incline for a secondary exercise after freeweight stuff and the Hammer bilateral pulldown. The pulldown one is still kind of fun to use as a finisher on back day, but all their other stuff I could live without!

Ryan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:51 pm 
Offline
Elephant

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 1448
VeganEssentials wrote:
I haven't used machines regularly in a long time since they never gave me anywhere near the gains that a bar and some plates did. When I used to use machines at my old gym it was pretty well only the Hammer Strength plate loaded ones, and I maxed or near-maxed all of them, making it kind of pointless to go on. That, and nothing felt worse than a Hammer Strength decline machine - if anything will rip your shoulder out the socket on a short 8" ROM that'll be the one!

There's something I found pretty silly about being able to knock out 360 for 6-8 reps on a Hammer Strength incline and 450+ on the decline and yet could only manage 4-5 reps with 220 on a real incline bench and 275 for a triple on a decline at the same time. Sure, the added weight was an ego booster, but the carryover to other lifts really sucked when I dumped the machines. Once I gave them up I've progressed ten times faster. Some people really do well with machines, but I don't count myself in that group.

Honestly, the only Hammer Strength macines I would still touch are the incline for a secondary exercise after freeweight stuff and the Hammer bilateral pulldown. The pulldown one is still kind of fun to use as a finisher on back day, but all their other stuff I could live without!

Ryan


Very good point. There are a few factors regarding that:

1. The cable or rope that connects to the machine
2. The condition of the weights
3. The stabilization of the muscles

Theres a big difference in machine chest press and real bench press. Machine stabilizes all the muscles while with the bar, you are focusing on more muscles.

If your goal is to get more definition and or to isolate a body part, machines would be the definite way to go.

Knowing a big guy like you, machines aint got nothin' on ya :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:48 am 
Offline
Gorilla
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 12:51 pm
Posts: 638
Location: Vienna, Austria
kollision wrote:
If your goal is to get more definition and or to isolate a body part, machines would be the definite way to go.

When I think of definition I think low BF, and I don't see how machines would be particularly helpfull for that? Or have I missunderstood what definition means in this context?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:50 am 
Offline
Elephant

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 1448
bronco wrote:
kollision wrote:
If your goal is to get more definition and or to isolate a body part, machines would be the definite way to go.

When I think of definition I think low BF, and I don't see how machines would be particularly helpfull for that? Or have I missunderstood what definition means in this context?


The reason being is that you wont need to focus on the stabilizing muscle groups, which would take away energy that could be used for the particular muscle that you are trying to focus on.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:51 am 
Offline
Elephant

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 10:57 pm
Posts: 1242
Location: Portland, OR
I wouldn't try it with a regular bar. I'm sure it's sort of a useless thing. I just do it cuz its fast and easy and gets me a bit of leg resistance workout.

Otherwise I use dumbbells for everything.

I haven't looked at the ab machines. I just know I've been able to max a few before. One rep though. On that stupid leg machine I do a ton.

You know on second thought I think it's a leg-press machine.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 2:12 am 
Offline
Stegosaurus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 3072
Location: Waukesha, WI
kollision - I do agree that machines will definitely have different value depending on your goals. I'm never going to be aesthetically pleasing in a bodybuilding sense, but if I were to go that route, I'd likely incorporate more machines into what I'd do. Years ago when I did train for appearance over strength machines did their job, so by no means do I think that they're necessarily bad - just bad for what I myself am training to accomplish :D

And you're quite correct about the machine itself being a widely varying factor - for example, with leg press machines I'd gone from one where 900x8 was difficult one week to a different gym where I did 1350x5 with the same level of difficulty - every machine's specific angles, cable/pulley system, weight stack, condition and such will make the difference from how one feels to the next. That's why I love good old freeweights so much - the change from one set of equipment to the next is slight at most, and what you put into it with intensity and form will ultimately determine your progress with an exercise.

I do have to admit, I hope one day to max the 1-arm pulldowns on the plate-loaded Hammer Strength machine with 225 lbs. per arm for a few reps (maxed out at 205 for 2 last time I tried). That's the last machine-based frontier I hope to conquer in the next year!

Ryan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 2:43 am 
Offline
Elephant

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 1448
O ya Vegan, I knew you know what I was talking about. I just thought that I should elaborate on what I was talking about for others in case they didn't know :wink:

Wow, 205 on One Arm Pulldowns? Man that is crazy! I have never seen a Lat Pulldown Hammer Strength before, but I was doing it for awhile on the stack. It's not an easy feat I can tell you that, so man you must have a good amount of strength bro. Good luck on conquering that man.

The cable machines that can be used for chest, biceps, deltoids or triceps that have the removal clamps on the top and bottom are one of the machines that gets to me. The 150 on that is easy. I try tricep pulldowns on the machine to the side of it, the 100 lbs is way harder than the 150. I really think that these makers of the machines need to find a common ground with each other in terms of making them and all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 3:33 am 
Offline
Elephant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 3:39 pm
Posts: 1108
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
i have trained at home for over a year, and so have had no access to machines. i really dont rate them. you develop more useful, stable and balanced muscle using freeweights. machines do leave you open to injury aswell. i would never use them, except for, as ryan says, one or two of the hammer strength machines.

as regards definition, i am pretty defined, i dont think you need machines for that.

jonathan

_________________
Squat
Press
Eat
Repeat


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:09 am 
Offline
Gorilla
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 12:51 pm
Posts: 638
Location: Vienna, Austria
kollision wrote:
bronco wrote:
kollision wrote:
If your goal is to get more definition and or to isolate a body part, machines would be the definite way to go.

When I think of definition I think low BF, and I don't see how machines would be particularly helpfull for that? Or have I missunderstood what definition means in this context?


The reason being is that you wont need to focus on the stabilizing muscle groups, which would take away energy that could be used for the particular muscle that you are trying to focus on.

I'm not really following you, why would isolating the muscle improve definition more than training it with compound exercises?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:22 am 
Offline
Elephant

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 1448
bronco wrote:
kollision wrote:
bronco wrote:
kollision wrote:
If your goal is to get more definition and or to isolate a body part, machines would be the definite way to go.

When I think of definition I think low BF, and I don't see how machines would be particularly helpfull for that? Or have I missunderstood what definition means in this context?


The reason being is that you wont need to focus on the stabilizing muscle groups, which would take away energy that could be used for the particular muscle that you are trying to focus on.

I'm not really following you, why would isolating the muscle improve definition more than training it with compound exercises?


Compound exercises works out more than one muscle group. Meaning that there are other muscles working together, the resistance is not placed only on one muscle.

Compound exercises are good, but say for example you need to make your triceps bigger and more defined because it is being overshadowed by biceps, you would tend to try and isolate the biceps when working them. Such as preacher c*rl machine instead of regular preacher curls that would stress other muscles besides the biceps. A lot of people tend to do standing c*rls and they flex the trapezius as well, as is coming whenever holding something. So you would go use the machine Preacher curls which would eliminate that as well as any stress on the deltoids while curling. Did that make sense?

Definition in this sense isn't necessarily Low Body Fat. It's beyond that.


At the same time, generally when you start out, you start from machines, and then go to free weights. That is typical of someone starting out. However like I mentioned, you would also go back to machines for that. That's what a lot of bodybuilders do when they are prepping. A lot of reasons why you will see them using cables.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:28 am 
Offline
Elephant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 3:38 pm
Posts: 1869
Location: Vegan Strength Cult, German HQ
I don't use any machines, except for calves. I use the max weight on that one.

I don't think that machines have benefits over free weights. If you want to do isolation work, you can do that with free weights also. Doing preacher curls in a machine probably won't do your biceps any better than doing them with a bar.
I don't like machines for they dictate the way of movement, feels awkward.

I guess the reason that some bodybuilders switch to machines when prepping is that machines are easier and on diet you're weaker.

I can't help but smile when i see someone in the gym do cable cross for chest :roll:

_________________
No one said it would be easy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:15 am 
Offline
Gorilla
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 12:51 pm
Posts: 638
Location: Vienna, Austria
kollision wrote:
bronco wrote:
I'm not really following you, why would isolating the muscle improve definition more than training it with compound exercises?


Compound exercises works out more than one muscle group. Meaning that there are other muscles working together, the resistance is not placed only on one muscle.

Yes, that's why they are called compound exercises ;).

Quote:
Compound exercises are good, but say for example you need to make your triceps bigger and more defined because it is being overshadowed by biceps, you would tend to try and isolate the biceps when working them. Such as preacher c*rl machine instead of regular preacher curls that would stress other muscles besides the biceps. A lot of people tend to do standing c*rls and they flex the trapezius as well, as is coming whenever holding something. So you would go use the machine Preacher curls which would eliminate that as well as any stress on the deltoids while curling. Did that make sense?

Not sure. Did you mean to say that I would use isolation exercises for the triceps? Or are you saying that if I wanted my triceps to catch up with my biceps I would train the biceps with isolation exercises, thereby making it grow less and allow the triceps to catch up?

Quote:
Definition in this sense isn't necessarily Low Body Fat. It's beyond that.

Oh, now we're getting to the point :). What is it more then?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  



{ ASACP_CREDITS }
{ ASACP_CREDITS }
{ ASACP_CREDITS } Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group