Yes, but you always have blood flow in your muscles unless you're dead Wink
Of course you have blood in your muscles unless you are dead. But if you are a smoker, you constict your blood vessels right? Thereby leading to hypertension, and worse. But what about the nutrients? Wouldn't this constriction also affect that?
It's not a waste of energy. The ATP is stored in each muscle fibre directly! The different muscles do not share an ATP pool located somewhere outside the fibres. If this would be the case, then it would be a waste of energy.
Made a mistake there, thanks for correcting me. Total energy is lost, not ATP.
No. Muscles are designed to work synergistic.
(Our body is capable of doing different things at the same time (providing energy to muscles and brain, coordinating nerves and muscles, while the kidneys are filtering the blood, the liver synthesizes protein and so on). )
I doubt you have more energy for the isolated muscle than you'd have for it using free weights. Plus you can add some slightly cheated reps after reaching muscle failure if you wish.
And i believe the risk of injury is no less due to the unnatural and forced movement.
Yes that is true and I agree with you. Even if you use machines, other muscles will be involved. But if you are lagging behind on a certain bodypart and want to catch up, why would you want to involve other muscles if you are just focusing on that? If you target is the biceps and biceps alone, why involve other muscles if they are not what your goal is? Why make things more complicated than you need to?
Heres some quotes of what I am trying to explain:http://www.naturalstrength.com/features ... icleID=477
Another plus for machines is the fact that you can isolate an area that needs more emphasis. The synergistic effect mentioned earlier with free weight training isn't always desirable. In our opinion, there is a need to heighten the stimulation to a target area in order to force those muscles to perform the brunt of the workhttp://www.24hourfitness.com/html/fitne ... w_vs_mach/
Resistance machines are designed to emphasize a specific muscle or group of muscles. Free weights also emphasize a specific muscle but additionally they require the use of "stabilizing” muscles for support and control during an exercise. http://www.bodytrends.com/articles/stre ... inesvs.htm
If you want to train one specific muscle group, machines aid in focus. It is difficult to do certain exercises (like a leg curl) with free weights, and a machine will hone right in on your desired goal.http://www.webefit.com/articles/article ... sfree.html
Isolation of muscle groups. You can work on specific body parts without engaging other supporting areas. Machines are sometimes the only option for clients with neck, back or leg problems.
If you have quotes, feel free to use them.
There is a limit to that. At some point you would need huge weights for the isolation movement, which would consume time and energy to work with. You have only so much resources to spend on training and regeneration. Compound exercises are economic compared to isolation work, because they work more muscles in the same time. So while you'd be focusing on one part, you'd be losing on other parts, because you wouldn't be able to keep up the intensity in the main exercises.
Most people make the mistake of combining too much isolation work with compound exercises, which is too much for their regenerational ability.
And i think this is theoretical, because you cannot isolate a muscle in any movement. There will always be other muscles involved, even when you do machines.
Nobody grows huge arms (natural at least) doing only machine curls.
But my argument is that you are cycling isolation for a certain muscle group. This isn't something that you will be doing for 3 months straight. And plus I am talking about one muscle group, not involving 2 3 or even 4 into this, just one.
You are right that there will always be muscles involved, but at what lengths? Machine will cancel out whatever possible muscles that don't need to be used, thereby leaving more focus on the bodypart.
1 - you still contract other muscles on machines.
2 - the concentration on a muscle is a minor growth stimulus, if any. If you could grow by just concentrating, the atlas-program would be the only one in use Wink You'd just stand there and contract your biceps as hard as you can. Then the triceps. Then the pecs etc. But this doesn't work, for it lacks the major stimulus for growth - weight. Weight moved is a growth stimulus, especially controlled negative with heavy weights. So while isolating your biceps on the preacher machine, you feel it being pumped but the microtrauma are less. Probably because you don't have to controll the movement!!!
1 - Discussed above
2 - How is the microtrauma less, and only talking about the microtrauma on the bicep. The control of the movement if you are doing curls are going to be the stabilization via the shoulders, the biceps have no control besides flexing the elbow and supination of the forearm. The rest of the control is taken by the shoulders.
Which is true. Then it comes down to what you want: isolation or weight. Doing an isolation exercise without proper form makes no sense, because then you don't isolate anymore. Rather do barbell rows with 80 than cheated curls with 40kg Wink
But rather do strict curls with 30kg than cheated with 40 when you want to isolate the biceps! (Cheating is a good way to injuries Wink )
Which is what I am trying to say. Like you mentioned, more than likely you will be able to do more weight (and lets say that the weight that you are on the machine is relative to the dumbbell and there are no limiting factors), which would lead to more growth stimulus as you put, which will lead to a better development of the muscles, correct? Correct me if I made a mistake in saying what you "said", I am thinking off the top of my head of what we talked about so far that's why, and I may have made a mistake.
Don't call these jerks bodybuilders please Razz
People who rely on drugs have no clue what kind of training really builds muscle!
Thats like me saying that people on supplements have no idea what real training is. I think theres a line that varies for each person. I still think that they do hard work even though they do take drugs.
Because roids make the muscle fibres grow, but at the same time make your connective tissue brittle. Why do you think do pro bodybuilders tear their pecs or biceps so often? Because they use so much weight? It's because the weight is too much for their fragile connective tissue, which did not grow adequately together with the muscle fibres. When you gain strength natural, your connective tissue will strengthen accordingly.
Ok that makes a lot of sense, thank you for clearing that up. I never thought of it that way so thanks!
So let me see if I get this right. The steroids only work on building muscle, but not connective tissue? Steroids are also catabolic for fats. However, the muscle gets bigger, while connective tissue stays the same? Thereby, the ratio (lets just call it that) of the muscle and connective tissue is no longer 1:1, but something like 4:1?
Laughing I'm glad that i said something decent at last Very Happy
No, you have been saying a lot of good things, but I think that one was the best of em all
I don't get your explanation. WHY does a guy who benches 300lbs on a machine NOT have a bigger chest than the guy who benches them free?
I see your explanation why you can use more weight on the machine, but why doesn't make this grow you more? You have better focus on the muscles after all! According to your theory, they should grow big, only the stabilizers would remain weak.
Can you explain that?
Even guys that bench on free are sometimes lagging. Theres a lot of factors that come into the equation as I mentioned. Also the timing of your reps, and stuff like that. Sometimes the weight doesn't even equate to the same thing, as the example that I gave with Tricep Pulldowns.
Like I said, lets say we live in a perfect world and the weights are relatively the same for each, with no limiting factors. The weights are the same, just that the involvement in the exercises are switched from stabilization and the intended muscle, to just the muscle alone.
Or do you finally see that i'm right and you're wrong?! Razz
Although you make valid points, no. I think we will keep on debating this no matter what, and we aren't the only ones to debate on this subject either. However I think that theres a place and time for machines, not to use them all the time. I'm not sure if you have read that in my posts, but I am talking about cycling isolation with machines, not doing them all the time.
Have a good one!