Jump to content

Any of you mastered almost all machines in the gym?


Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 .

 

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?

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

If that is the case, then it makes sense that if you are using other muscles, thereby not focusing on a muscle in particular, then you wouldn't be working that muscle as much as you could via isolation.

 

Stabilizer muscles would be involved, which would take the load off of the intended muscle.

 

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?

 

Hrmm, I messed up there Sorry about that one, dunno what happened there. Well lets change the scenario a bit for the first one since I did mess up. Lets change it to where the triceps are bigger than the bicep. Erase what I first said in regards to the biceps overshadowing the triceps, and replace that with triceps overshadowing the bicep. Sorry again. But since I did start off with Tricep, I'll give another scenario.

 

You can do Tricep overhead extensions with a dumbbell. Obviously when you are doing it, the shoulder needs to stabilize the arm in place in order to keep your position. If you were to do this on a machine, there would be little stress on the shoulder, thereby limiting the shoulder from actually helping you get up the weight, and using more of your triceps.

 

Sorry again. As for making it grow less, that would be atrophy and that's not a good thing to lose muscle tissue. If you are in a situation like that, basically you would either:

 

1) Maintain what you do have on the triceps, by doing the same weight, same exercise and same rep scheme for the triceps until your biceps catch up.

 

or

 

2) Work on lean muscle body mass, thereby gaining Type 1 muscle fibers (endurance and aerobic) and losing Type 2 muscle fibers (anaerobic, what we use for resistance training). You can accoplish this by lowering the weight and upping up the rep scheme to 15 and beyond if you like. You wont lose muscle, just that you will be gaining a different type of muscle, and losing another type of muscle in order to gain. Hrmmm that sounded confusing, did you get that?

 

 

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

 

Theres definition (losing body fat), and theres definition (sculpting the body parts). You can work out a certain way and just get a mass, but not really have the muscle defined and sculpted. Does that make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

taking into account what you are saying above kol, it is still going to be better to build muscle using free weights than with machines. you can easily achieve the same goals (ie great physique - example alex, as well as many others) but you will do it with stronger, and more stable muscles. you are then going to be less liable to injure yourself, and you will be most probably be stronger.

 

jonathan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

taking into account what you are saying above kol, it is still going to be better to build muscle using free weights than with machines. you can easily achieve the same goals (ie great physique - example alex, as well as many others) but you will do it with stronger, and more stable muscles. you are then going to be less liable to injure yourself, and you will be most probably be stronger.

 

jonathan

 

It's easy to to see. If you are involving other muscles, while you are trying to build a certain muscle, obviously you won't be putting as much as you could on the certain muscle by having the workout already stabilized via machines.

 

Just look at the idea of "focus" in general. Of course you would do better if you just focused at what was at hand. If you were to add another material into it, then your focus would not be totally on what was there in the beginning. So instead of 100% of your attention, you would probably have anywhere from 90%-50% of your attention on one material, and 50% to 10% on the other. Your mind won't be focused on what it should be because it would have its focus drawn away.

 

Same goes in accordance with the machines. The machines stabilize the exercise already for you, so you can focus on a certain body part.

 

 

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 never said that they have a benefit over it, but it has it's purpose just as free weights do. Free Weights are better to add more mass, but isolation would be better to sculpt that muscle. Like I gave in the example I told Jonathan, the same applies.

 

Preacher c*rl with a machine is way different from a bar. When you use a bar, you stimulate your legs, your back, and your shoulders, and then your biceps. If it's on the machine, those are cancelled out, therefore leaving more focus on the biceps.

 

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

 

Well there is more ROM with cables than Dumbbells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy to to see. If you are involving other muscles, while you are trying to build a certain muscle, obviously you won't be putting as much as you could on the certain muscle by having the workout already stabilized via machines.

I know what you mean, but i don't agree.

The key stimulus for growth is the number of microtrauma to the muscle fibres. The higher the weight and the more often you lift it, the higher the growth stimulus.

Now if you do triceps extensions with 35kg in a machine and use only the triceps, the total stress is still less than when you do close grip bench press with 70kg. On the bench, you need many more muscles to help with the movement, but the major worked muscle is the triceps, which has to contract against the weight of 70kg instead of 35.

 

Same goes in accordance with the machines. The machines stabilize the exercise already for you, so you can focus on a certain body part.

Yes, that's why you get a better pump and a burning sensation in the worked muscle.

But that has got nothing to do with growth.

 

 

I never said that they have a benefit over it, but it has it's purpose just as free weights do. Free Weights are better to add more mass, but isolation would be better to sculpt that muscle.

I don't get your concept of sculpting a muscle.

To me, sculpting means either reducing the BF% to actually see the muscle and/or to increase it's size. I don't believe you can influence the shape of a muscle by certain exercises. You can stretch a muscle, you can work a muscle - that's it.

 

Preacher c*rl with a machine is way different from a bar. When you use a bar, you stimulate your legs, your back, and your shoulders, and then your biceps.

I wonder how you do preacher curls???

 

 

And even IF you stimulate your legs, back and shoulders - so what? These muscles are far stronger than the biceps, which leaves the biceps as the weak part of the chain, the part that will get the most out of the exercise.

 

 

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

 

Well there is more ROM with cables than Dumbbells.

The only advantage of the cables would be the different resistance curve, but nobody can get me to believe that you build muscle with cable cross. I do dumbell flies, but only to work the pecs in the stretched position. The mass builders are the pressing movements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what you mean, but i don't agree.

The key stimulus for growth is the number of microtrauma to the muscle fibres. The higher the weight and the more often you lift it, the higher the growth stimulus.

Now if you do triceps extensions with 35kg in a machine and use only the triceps, the total stress is still less than when you do close grip bench press with 70kg. On the bench, you need many more muscles to help with the movement, but the major worked muscle is the triceps, which has to contract against the weight of 70kg instead of 35.

 

Microtrauma to that SPECIFIC muscle fibers.

 

Tricep Extention compared to a close grip bench press is a totally different angle as well as exercise. This is why I was trying to pin up the same exericise compared to using it via free weights or with machine to make more sense. Of course at different exercises you will get a different feeling to it.

 

Yes, that's why you get a better pump and a burning sensation in the worked muscle.

But that has got nothing to do with growth.

 

Better pump = more blood flow right?

 

Which = vasodilation?

 

If this is the case, right there it proves enough that it is good, just based on that. If you have more blood flow, then you have more nutrients going in of the tissues and more waste products coming out.

 

Thats the basis of Nitric Oxide.

 

I don't get your concept of sculpting a muscle.

To me, sculpting means either reducing the BF% to actually see the muscle and/or to increase it's size. I don't believe you can influence the shape of a muscle by certain exercises. You can stretch a muscle, you can work a muscle - that's it.

 

For example biceps. You have the long head and the short head. If you do this with free weights, more than likely you will be using both, even though you are just trying to focus on one because, just like the stabilization below, it will end up picking up whatever slack is left, even if you don't recognize it when you are working out. The same applies to the triceps as it has three heads, and you can work out each one individually. You can also control how much bigger you want, say the lateral head triceps compared to the long head of the triceps. Yes you can isolate this with free weights, but like I said, it wont be focused fully on that as it could be on machines.

 

Question

I wonder how you do preacher curls??? Confused

 

 

And even IF you stimulate your legs, back and shoulders - so what? These muscles are far stronger than the biceps, which leaves the biceps as the weak part of the chain, the part that will get the most out of the exercise.

 

I had the impression that you were talking about standing curls since you said the bar? That is why I said you stimulate the legs, back, etc. because I had the idea that you meant standing curls. Sorry about that.

 

But to still answer your question, the shoulders are still used when curling. It holds the arm in place and therefore would lend a bit while doing the curl. If you are using a machine, it takes out that factore, therefore leaving more for the biceps to do. You wont ever need to rely on other muscles to help you lift the weight. And if these muscles are stronger than the biceps, most of the time these end up taking up the slack when you try and do heavier weights, which leads to bad posture and possibly injury.

 

The only advantage of the cables would be the different resistance curve, but nobody can get me to believe that you build muscle with cable cross. I do dumbell flies, but only to work the pecs in the stretched position. The mass builders are the pressing movements.

 

Build muscle? You build muscle as you put on more resistance that your body is not used to. I know you know this principle but let me just explain it. If you are doing cable curls at 45 lbs. In a month you are able to do 65 lbs. Either you are lifting this weight via Neurological patterns or with new muscle that has been built over to handle this weight. Muscle has been built in order to accomadate the weight. It's a known principle and that is the reason why people increase the weight to meat the demands and the biological response.

 

As far as the mass builders being the pressing movements, thats not entirely correct. The pectorals major has several movements that it can do. The clavicular pectorals can do; Internal Rotation, Horizontal adduction, flexion abduction, and adduction of glenohumeral joint. The sternal pectorals can do; internal rotation, horizontal adduction, extension, and adduction of glenohumeral joint.

 

Doing cables builds mass also, it's not just press. It's all a matter of the resistance, how you workout, as well as how you schedule your workouts so you don't plateau

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply!

Good discussion here .)

 

Now, i should go to bed, so just thsi last reply for today...

 

Microtrauma to that SPECIFIC muscle fibers.

 

Tricep Extention compared to a close grip bench press is a totally different angle as well as exercise. This is why I was trying to pin up the same exericise compared to using it via free weights or with machine to make more sense. Of course at different exercises you will get a different feeling to it.

Right, i agree.

BUT why do triceps extensions anyway? I'll come back to that, see below.

 

 

Better pump = more blood flow right?

 

Which = vasodilation?

 

If this is the case, right there it proves enough that it is good, just based on that. If you have more blood flow, then you have more nutrients going in of the tissues and more waste products coming out.

 

Thats the basis of Nitric Oxide.

Right. But blood flow only gets you so far. It HELPS with growth, with nutritients and waste as you said, but it alone doesn't STIMULATE growth. I have nothing against pump, but bodybuilders only aiming for it miss the important part.

 

Your leg muscles for example get a high blood flow from running (not pump)

 

 

But to still answer your question, the shoulders are still used when curling. It holds the arm in place and therefore would lend a bit while doing the curl. If you are using a machine, it takes out that factore, therefore leaving more for the biceps to do. You wont ever need to rely on other muscles to help you lift the weight. And if these muscles are stronger than the biceps, most of the time these end up taking up the slack when you try and do heavier weights, which leads to bad posture and possibly injury.

Of course, i'm talking about proper and strict form.

 

But that's exactly the PROBLEM with the machines - they isolate muscles. This is seldom a benefit. You won't be able to transfer that gained strength to "real life", use it for lifting or other athletic activities. You'd be lacking the synergistic muscle strength and stabilizers.

 

 

Build muscle? You build muscle as you put on more resistance that your body is not used to.

(...)

It's a known principle and that is the reason why people increase the weight to meat the demands and the biological response.

(...)

It's all a matter of the resistance, how you workout, as well as how you schedule your workouts so you don't plateau

Right, those are true. Now.

 

How does a program for good muscle gains look? And how do you possibly incorporate cable cross for pecs into that?

And exercises for both heads of the biceps? And all three of the triceps? The inner and outer calves? The 4 heads of the quads, the two hamstrings...

 

You can put muscle on your pecs with cable cross - if you're a beginner.

When you already do pressing movements, cable work is just waste of time and other resources. A workout should be short and intense. A few movements that work all major muscle groups.

 

With only 3-4 exercises (-> heavy squats (that work the glutes, hamstrings, lower back, quads among MANY other stabilizing muscles), dips (pecs, shoulders, triceps mainly), chin ups or rowing (lats, middle back, serratus, biceps) and deadlifts (core strength, lower back, traps, forearms, plus the squat muscles) ) you can work the whole body effective and heavy. You'll make great strength and mass gains.

When you add flies for pecs, curls for biceps, triceps extensions, lateral raises, leg extensions, leg curls, lat machine, shrugs, pullovers, and whatever machine to work every muscle again, you'll have worked every muscle twice, once in a compound exercise and once isolated, but you'll have more than twice the number of exercises. This would prolong your workouot AND regeneration time and bring no benefit for the muscle at the same time. (Split training was invented )

 

Sometimes isolation work makes sense, for example if you want to target specific disbalances.

But you can find an isolation exercise for everything with free weights, and i believe it will always be at least as good as the machine - because weights are fitting for everyone, machine seldom are. You have to adjust them, and they are never perfect.

 

 

The pectorals major has several movements that it can do. The clavicular pectorals can do; Internal Rotation, Horizontal adduction, flexion abduction, and adduction of glenohumeral joint. The sternal pectorals can do; internal rotation, horizontal adduction, extension, and adduction of glenohumeral joint.

*yawn* Please, Koll, i know all that... that is aside of the point. You don't need to work every muscle in every possible way and angle - that's impossible!

It's what secures trainers their jobs, though Everyone wants to write a book about training, everyone invents new exercises "to shake things up"

Specific exercises are only necessary to treat injuries and imbalances.

 

Good night

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't use any machines, except for calves.

 

Same with me. Doing one leg calf raises never gives me the same burn as the calf extension machine. I also like the twist machine (for obliques). Asides from those two machines, for all the other muscle groups I like using my bodyweight (pullups, dips, one leg squats, etc) or dumbbells (flyes, lunges, situps).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. But blood flow only gets you so far. It HELPS with growth, with nutritients and waste as you said, but it alone doesn't STIMULATE growth. I have nothing against pump, but bodybuilders only aiming for it miss the important part.

 

Your leg muscles for example get a high blood flow from running Wink (not pump)

 

What I was saying is that if you have vasodilation, via the pump, that is one step to growing muscle. And you are saying that that has nothing to do with growth? If you don't take the waste out of the tissues, its obvious whats going to happen. And what if you don't get enough nutrients? Blood flow is important in growing muscle.

 

Of course, i'm talking about proper and strict form.

 

But that's exactly the PROBLEM with the machines - they isolate muscles. This is seldom a benefit. You won't be able to transfer that gained strength to "real life", use it for lifting or other athletic activities. You'd be lacking the synergistic muscle strength and stabilizers.

 

That is why I said:

 

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.

 

I am not saying to do it all the time, only for specific cycles. If I said that you would have to do this all the time, then I would be going against the principle that states to create variations in your routine.

 

And if you are focusing on a specific body part, why would you ever want to include another body part in it? For example, if you are trying to make your biceps standout more because it is being overshadowed by the delts, why would you want to work out the deltoids more than you have to?

 

Remember, I am talking cycles here.

 

How does a program for good muscle gains look? And how do you possibly incorporate cable cross for pecs into that?

And exercises for both heads of the biceps? And all three of the triceps? The inner and outer calves? The 4 heads of the quads, the two hamstrings...

 

You stated that you can't grow muscle with Cables, and that is why I responded because you can.

 

A workout should be short and intense. A few movements that work all major muscle groups.

 

I agree with that. Sure compount exercises are good, and I am not disputing that. But if you just do that all the time, you will end up getting plateaued. You need to cycle things according to your goals. If you want to focus on biceps, why would you even continue to use this type of cycle? You have to change it to match what you are trying to gain.

 

With only 3-4 exercises (-> heavy squats (that work the glutes, hamstrings, lower back, quads among MANY other stabilizing muscles), dips (pecs, shoulders, triceps mainly), chin ups or rowing (lats, middle back, serratus, biceps) and deadlifts (core strength, lower back, traps, forearms, plus the squat muscles) ) you can work the whole body effective and heavy. You'll make great strength and mass gains.

When you add flies for pecs, curls for biceps, triceps extensions, lateral raises, leg extensions, leg curls, lat machine, shrugs, pullovers, and whatever machine to work every muscle again, you'll have worked every muscle twice, once in a compound exercise and once isolated, but you'll have more than twice the number of exercises. This would prolong your workouot AND regeneration time and bring no benefit for the muscle at the same time. (Split training was invented Very Happy )

 

I don't think you understand what I am saying. If you are focusing on the biceps, you would work out the biceps in that fashion. Not necessarily all the body parts. Split Training is good though. People grow diifferently and different training methods work for different people.

 

Sometimes isolation work makes sense, for example if you want to target specific disbalances.

But you can find an isolation exercise for everything with free weights, and i believe it will always be at least as good as the machine - because weights are fitting for everyone, machine seldom are. You have to adjust them, and they are never perfect.

 

It still doesn't make sense. If you are focusing on biceps, why would you want to include other muscles if those could be the ones overshadowing what you are trying to work out?

 

*yawn* Please, Koll, i know all that... that is aside of the point. You don't need to work every muscle in every possible way and angle - that's impossible!

It's what secures trainers their jobs, though Wink Everyone wants to write a book about training, everyone invents new exercises "to shake things up" Very Happy

Specific exercises are only necessary to treat injuries and imbalances.

 

My point in stating that was because you said you can't build muscle by doing cables.

 

So are you bad mouthing me now? I have been paying attention to the rolling eyes as well as your last statement?

 

BTW, I am getting a bit apprehensive of posting on this topic. If I am going to be mocked however slightly then I don't wanna talk. I don't take kindly to that. So I hope I understand what your points were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

at my old gym in PA I mastered all the machines there. I was a strong dude. I was incline benching about 350 on the machines, curling 200lbs, legpresses 800lbs or whatever it went up to. donkey calf raise on 450lbs,

you name it I did it.

now I am struggling to maintain my strength since I have a fractured ankle. but my uppe body is getting strong again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theres definition (losing body fat), and theres definition (sculpting the body parts). You can work out a certain way and just get a mass, but not really have the muscle defined and sculpted. Does that make sense?

Sure, we all know it possible to be big without being defined. But I'm not really sure what you mean by the muscle being sculpted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...