 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / August 2004The Bally's adventure
With a bit of encouragement from a good friend here in ASD, I finally started to use that membership. Day 1. After fiddling with it for a while, I finally got one of the treadmills to cooperate enough to let me do a brisk mile up a low incline. After this warm up, I took a walk around the place wondering what to do next. This club didn't have the fancy computerized machines like I saw at the other location I checked, and realizing that I'm way over my head here, I talked to a couple of people there and found out that new members get an orientation session with one of the trainers, so I made an appointment with one. Day 2. Met with the trainer. He started me out with a quarter mile on a treadmill, then took me into a small exercise room for some work with the smaller weights. Afterwards, we went and he stretched me out on a few of the machines, which evidently worked since I'm now sitting here with a couple of hot packs on my shoulders. The subject of hiring him came up, but at $200 down and $350 a month for 2 sessions a week, I think I'll be doing this on my own. I learned how to use a few of these torture devices today, but the rest are still a mystery to me. What I need now is some kind of book, video, web site or whatever that shows these kind of machines and how to use them. I figure that if I just do a warm up then go down the line using each contraption, that should give me a good enough workout. I don't think I'll even be going near the weight room. That place looked like a suspension bridge was disassembled and the parts stacked up there. Those elliptical gizmos look interesting, I'll have to try and tackle one of those next. Smokey It's a good pain > Day 2. Met with the trainer. He started me out with a quarter mile on a > treadmill, then took me into a small exercise room for some work with the > smaller weights. Afterwards, we went and he stretched me out on a few of the > machines, which evidently worked since I'm now sitting here with a couple of > hot packs on my shoulders. You want ice packs, dear. :-) And expect to be sore tomorrow. It's called DOMS. Keep working your muscles (gently) through the pain and you'll get past it faster. > The subject of hiring him came up, but at $200 down and $350 a month for 2 > sessions a week, I think I'll be doing this on my own. I learned how to use > a few of these torture devices today, but the rest are still a mystery to > me. What I need now is some kind of book, video, web site or whatever that > shows these kind of machines and how to use them. http://www.exrx.net/Lists/Directory.html Also, go back to Krista's site and look under "Starting" http://www.stumptuous.com/weights.html > I figure that if I just do > a warm up then go down the line using each contraption, that should give me > a good enough workout. I don't think I'll even be going near the weight > room. That place looked like a suspension bridge was disassembled and the > parts stacked up there. I encourage you to figure it out. Really. Look into whether your gym has some sort of "beginning weight-training" class. Mine teaches an 8 week class several times a year for beginners in the free weight room. > Those elliptical gizmos look interesting, I'll have to try and tackle one of > those next. Yup. Cross-training is one of the "four food groups" of exercise. (The other ones are interval training, weight-training and cardio.) > Smokey > > It's a good pain Yup. Glad you think so, too. Dally > What I need now is some kind of book, video, web site or whatever that > > shows these kind of machines and how to use them. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Also, go back to Krista's site and look under "Starting" > http://www.stumptuous.com/weights.html Thanks. I checked them both out, but I didn't see anything about the machines themselves. > Thanks. I checked them both out, but I didn't see anything about the > machines themselves. Most serious weight lifters seem to *hate* machines and prefer free weights. Just like most serious martial artists hate tae bo and probably for the same reasons. I never did any serious body building, but I did build muscles through martial arts and the like. My intuition would be that what you build through getting your body through the moves is that superior to what you build from sticking it in a machine and having it forced through the moves. The muscles from my martial arts era might have melted (pretty surprisingly, not all of them), but the neural paths I built are still there, like the ability to keep my equilibrium (nothing like being a beginner obese rollerskater *but* being the only beginning standing on his feet while all the other slim people are on their four :p), have a proper mental image of my body position, addressing precise muscles independently (neat trick with the abs, belly dancing is a nice social trick :p) and stuff like this. I guess that's the kind of neural paths you build on top of the muscles with free weights, while machines only build muscles. You involve your whole body instead of being guided and "passive" through the moves. Besides, once you have the training, the day you are not able to go to a gym anymore, you can just buy a few inexpensive free weights and practice as home. There is probably a much better explanation than mine burried somewhere on Krista's site ;) > > Thanks. I checked them both out, but I didn't see anything about the > > machines themselves. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > getting your body through the moves is that superior to what you build from > sticking it in a machine and having it forced through the moves. If the machines are anything like the ones at my gym they don't force you through the moves :) You have to supply the power and they prevent you from dropping the weights, etc. I do both but prefer the machines when I attempt heavier weights. Beverly >The muscles > from my martial arts era might have melted (pretty surprisingly, not all of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > There is probably a much better explanation than mine burried somewhere on > Krista's site ;) > If the machines are anything like the ones at my gym they don't force you > through the moves :) You have to supply the power and they prevent you from > dropping the weights, etc. I do both but prefer the machines when I attempt > heavier weights. That's the main reason that I want to stick to the machines. I still have no idea what I'm doing, the trainer had to show me how to lift with each exercise, and the way my hands sweat, I'll most likely end up dropping a 25 pound dumbbell on my face. Damn, I wish these trainers weren't so freakin' expensive. And to think that I used to feel like a pirate when I had to charge $60 for a service call (just to ring the door bell) and another $75/hr labor. Then there's the 300% markup on the parts... >>Thanks. I checked them both out, but I didn't see anything about the >>machines themselves. > > Most serious weight lifters seem to *hate* machines and prefer free weights. Nautilus type machines work muscles in a very specific direction. Muscles grow strong in that direction but the supporting muscles do not. This can yield a false feeling of strength that can lead to injury. All it takes is a slight movement off axis of what one is used to and *rip* something’s hurt. These injuries often happen outside of the gym when doing normal chores or household maintenance. “Seems light.”, “Push or pull a lot more than this at the gym” one little movement outside what the muscle is used to and *ouch*. Free weights work the supporting muscles for balance. Hopefully, under the same dangerous conditions mentioned above, these balance muscles can re-center the load back to the strength zone and avoid injury. >> Most serious weight lifters seem to *hate* machines and prefer free >> weights. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > something’s hurt. These injuries often happen outside of the gym when > doing normal chores or household maintenance. LOL, you make it sound positively DANGEROUS to get too close to a Nautilus machine! > Free weights work the supporting muscles for balance. Hopefully, under > the same dangerous conditions mentioned above, these balance muscles can > re-center the load back to the strength zone and avoid injury. Free weights are indeed better. And running a five minute mile is better than running a fifteen minute mile. But you have to start somewhere. In my opinion, Curves is an excellent place for an out-of-shape woman to get an intro to reistance training in a supportive environment. My YMCA has a similar set-up for out-of-shape people called a "personal fitness program" where they've got a special room with curtains so us jocks can't gawk at the fat people. (LOL, I love being one of the jocks instead of the fat people in that sentence!) Anyway, the thing is, you graduate. You go from NOT moving to moving in ways that seem accessible to you then to trying new things. I totally agree that free weights are best - for all the reasons you said - but Nautilus is an accessible step. I did Nautilus for a full eight years before I graduated to free weights. And I doubt I would have moved into free weights if my gym hadn't offered an "Intro to Free Weights" class that turned all the surrealistic furniture into equipment I knew and understood. There was a definite learning curve. Worth it, but not negligible. So - way to go Smokey. This week you took a great step. And you'll keep taking steps over and over again until you've become a slender person! Way to go! Dally >>> Most serious weight lifters seem to *hate* machines and prefer free >>> weights. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > LOL, you make it sound positively DANGEROUS to get too close to a > Nautilus machine! Sorry, that was merely to explain one reason “serious weight lifters” use free weights. I didn’t mean to scare people away from Nautilus as a starting point. Perhaps when the settings get heavier, it’s time to move on. Can’t say that I ever did Curves (wrong parts), but I did Life Fitness (Nautilus type) for two years. The switch to free weights quickly showed me how weak my supporting/balance muscles were. I agree with what you said about having to start somewhere. Curves is an easy and private way to start a resistance workout. Several of my female friends started at Curves. None of them still attend as they now like the free weights or exercise classes at the local gyms. Curtains is an interesting concept I haven’t seen. The privacy complaints I hear about are more of women not covering-up in the locker rooms. Apparently women just don’t appreciate another woman putting lotion on their ankles in the locker room naked. Women are a bit more modest than men I guess. >> Free weights work the supporting muscles for balance. Hopefully, >> under the same dangerous conditions mentioned above, these balance [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Dally > Curtains is an interesting concept I haven?t seen. The privacy > complaints I hear about are more of women not covering-up in the locker > rooms. Why does a certain scene from Porky's immediately come to mind? LOL >Apparently women just don?t appreciate another woman putting > lotion on their ankles in the locker room naked. Women are a bit more > modest than men I guess. It's a lot easier for guys. Don't look around at all, and if you really feel you need to, don't get caught. You can't complain without admitting that you've been peeking. ;-] >>Curtains is an interesting concept I haven’t seen. The privacy >>complaints I hear about are more of women not covering-up in the locker [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > you need to, don't get caught. You can't complain without admitting that > you've been peeking. ;-] Peeking? Like the guys wearing thier glasses in a gang shower? What's up with THAT? > Nautilus type machines work muscles in a very specific direction. Muscles pull levers around joint axis. > Muscles grow strong in that direction but the supporting muscles do not. Nope. > This can yield a false feeling of strength that can lead to injury. Are you a PT? > All it takes is a slight movement off axis of what one is used to and > *rip* something’s hurt. These injuries often happen outside of the gym > when doing normal chores or household maintenance. “Seems light.”, > “Push or pull a lot more than this at the gym” one little movement > outside what the muscle is used to and *ouch*. lol > Free weights work the supporting muscles for balance. Hopefully, under > the same dangerous conditions mentioned above, these balance muscles can > re-center the load back to the strength zone and avoid injury. What a load of crap. >>Nautilus type machines work muscles in a very specific direction. > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > What a load of crap. Nope, not a physical trainer, but ask them plenty of questions while I frequent the gym. I started on Circuit type machines, moved to free weights, took a big step backwards for safety and finally got my weight numbers back to where they were on the Nautilus type machines. Apparently I didn’t describe the balance concept well enough. A typical Flat Bench Press machine offers resistance in a vertical push direction. It allows motion up and down to accomplish the repetitions. It does not allow movement on any horizontal axis because the mechanical coupling or hinge restricts it. It can only move up or down. Using a typical Free Weight bench and barbell, the weight is still supposed to move up and down but there is nothing preventing it from shifting left, right, forward or backward. This is the “balance” that requires supporting muscles I was trying to describe. Supporting muscles must keep the weight from going any direction but up and down. It’s fairly impossible to move a Flat Bench Press machine left, right, forward or backward without physically damaging the machine. A typical Forearm Curl machine offers resistance in rotating pulling motion. During this rotation the wrists are usually held steady on a handle bar. Swap this exercise with a Free Weight type dumbbells and the wrist rotation support is gone. This makes a large difference in the muscle used. As an example, lift an object palm up. Now lift that same object thumb up. Notice the change in the forearm muscles used? If you didn’t, try wrapping your opposite hand around the lifting forearm. Now repeat the exercise again. Feel a difference. The dumbbell exercise must focus on either of the muscles since wrist rotation could happen at any time during the lift. Move the dumbbells to the above mentioned bench press exercise and it adds wrist rotation to the before mentioned horizontal axis issues. Dumbbells require more balance strength than barbells. Barbells require more balance strength than Circuit machines. Of course all Circuit type machines are not created equal and somebody undoubtedly will let me know of one that functions just like dumbbells. This was a general explanation as to why free weights are preferred over Circuit machines for heavy lifting. I hope this helped. > Nope, not a physical trainer, but ask them plenty of questions while I > frequent the gym. You just made two mistakes; asking then believing. > Apparently I didn’t describe the balance concept well enough. I have no idea what that is. > A typical Flat Bench Press machine offers resistance in a vertical push > direction. It allows motion up and down to accomplish the repetitions. No, except for machine created friction, gravity is the resistance in a f=ma mode. > It does not allow movement on any horizontal axis because the > mechanical coupling or hinge restricts it. It can only move up or down. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > shifting left, right, forward or backward. This is the “balance” that > requires supporting muscles I was trying to describe. Which "supporting muscles" do you mean? Name a "supporting muscle" and tell me how it supports. > Supporting > muscles must keep the weight from going any direction but up and down. > It’s fairly impossible to move a Flat Bench Press machine left, right, > forward or backward without physically damaging the machine. Then a "J" hook bench lift is one where these supporting muscles are checking in and out? > A typical Forearm Curl machine offers resistance in rotating pulling > motion. During this rotation the wrists are usually held steady on a > handle bar. Swap this exercise with a Free Weight type dumbbells and > the wrist rotation support is gone. This makes a large difference in > the muscle used. As an example, lift an object palm up. Now lift that > same object thumb up. Notice the change in the forearm muscles used? Any change of joint axis in relation to its original positioning will require the firing of different muscle groups to complete an action. This is a dynamic and also changes without a joint axis change as momentum and other physical forces come into play. INO, any human motion is a result of a complex seies of neuromuscular events that can be graphed over time to show a myriad of muscular activities. evr changing, moment ot moment within the same lift. > If you didn’t, try wrapping your opposite hand around the lifting > forearm. Now repeat the exercise again. Feel a difference. The > dumbbell exercise must focus on either of the muscles since wrist > rotation could happen at any time during the lift. Ok, all well and good but the same muscles that you claim are prevented from palm supination/pronation don't simply lie down dead when the wrist is locked. > Move the dumbbells to the above mentioned bench press exercise and it > adds wrist rotation to the before mentioned horizontal axis issues. > Dumbbells require more balance strength than barbells. There are many strengths defined in sports science. Balance strength is not one of them. > Barbells require > more balance strength than Circuit machines. > > Of course all Circuit type machines are not created equal and somebody > undoubtedly will let me know of one that functions just like dumbbells. Not if the machine is attached to the load being functioned upon.Free is free' not free is not free. > This was a general explanation as to why free weights are preferred > over Circuit machines for heavy lifting. I don't know that they are. I don't know exactly what a circuit machine is but ime I have seen heavy lifters spend as much time on various machines as free weights especially if the final outcome is hypertrophy cosmetics. And why not? Machines load faster, are more easily changed, rarely require "spotting" or assistance. >>Nope, not a physical trainer, but ask them plenty of questions while I >>frequent the gym. > > You just made two mistakes; asking then believing. If I read, then believe, am I so much better off? >>>Nope, not a physical trainer, but ask them plenty of questions while I >>>frequent the gym. >> >> You just made two mistakes; asking then believing. > > If I read, then believe, am I so much better off? You are better off when you have knowledgeable, intelligent sources from which to choose what you wish to believe. >>Free weights work the supporting muscles for balance. Hopefully, under >>the same dangerous conditions mentioned above, these balance muscles can >>re-center the load back to the strength zone and avoid injury. > > What a load of crap. Do tell, Mu. Exactly what were your credentials again? Rob is 100% right in everything he says. I disagreed on his emphasis away from Nautilus for beginners (and he actually didn't mean that anyway) but he's not wrong about the supporting muscles or the superior injury prevention available from free-weights. But just to show that I have hope that you can be less of an idiot someday, here's a link: http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/PectoralSternal/BBBenchPress.html If you need help with those big words of "synergists" and "stabilizers" click on the word and it'll bring you to the definitions page. Dally >>> Free weights work the supporting muscles for balance. Hopefully, >>> under the same dangerous conditions mentioned above, these balance [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Dally Thank you! Both for defending my point and clarifying “balance” muscles with "synergists" and "stabilizers". >>>Free weights work the supporting muscles for balance. Hopefully, under >>>the same dangerous conditions mentioned above, these balance muscles can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Do tell, Mu. Exactly what were your credentials again? Google is your friend. Be freindly with Google. > Rob is 100% right in everything he says. Not even close to 100%. > I disagreed on his emphasis > away from Nautilus for beginners (and he actually didn't mean that > anyway) but he's not wrong about the supporting muscles or the superior > injury prevention available from free-weights. Yes, he is wrong empirically, technically, phsiologically, biomechnically, anatomically and scientifically. And so are you if you agree with him. > But just to show that I have hope that you can be less of an idiot > someday, here's a link: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you need help with those big words of "synergists" and "stabilizers" > click on the word and it'll bring you to the definitions page. Seen the site a hundred times. As to synergists ans stabilizers, I quote: Synergist A muscle that assists another muscle to accomplish a movement. **All muscles then are synergists** Stabilizer A muscle that contracts with no significant movement. **Muscles don't move; objects move; muscles only pull (on) levers. Dynamic Stabilizer A biarticulate muscle that simultaneously shortens at the target joint and lengthens at the adjacent joint with no appreciable difference in length. Dynamic stabilization occurs during many compound movements. **Does not reflect the true anatomy or physiology of a musculotendon complex. Target joint, ok; adjacent joint, have no idea what that means. The terms distal and proximate are the terms used by those who understand human kinesiology and joint mechnisms. Biarticulate is not a muscle property it is the expression that claims there are two and only two joints involved. Which is rarely, if ever, the case.*** Antagonist Stabilizer A muscle that contracts to maintain the tension potential of a biarticulate muscle at the adjacent joint. The antagonist stabilizer may be contracted throughout or at only one extreme of the movement. **this one is unintelligible. >>>>Free weights work the supporting muscles for balance. Hopefully, under >>>>the same dangerous conditions mentioned above, these balance muscles can [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Yes, he is wrong empirically, technically, phsiologically, biomechnically, > anatomically and scientifically. And so are you if you agree with him. So, if I can bench press 250 lbs on a Life Circuit machine, I can also flat bench press 250 lbs with a barbell or flat bench press two 125 lb dumbbells. All is equal? What if the Life circuit machine has a wide grip vs. a narrow grip on the barbell or dumbbells? All is the same? Perhaps it’s time to forget Google for a day and hit the gym for a couple hours. Try all those identical weights you’re suggesting for yourself. A little piece of safety advice before you do, use a spotter! When that barbell heads rapidly towards your neck or waist instead of your chest after a rough dismount from the rack you’ll be glad there’s a spotter. When those dumbbells don’t launch correctly off your thighs and up to their resting point above your chest, you might want someone there to help. I’ll bet that Life Circuit machine keeps that weight coming straight down and straight back up. I’ll bet you can put the most weight on Life Circuit machine for this reason. I’ll bet you need to decrease that weight substantially before trying the same exercise on a flat bench. I’ll bet you’ll have to decrease the weight even further when splitting it between dumbbells. But what do I know. >> Yes, he is wrong empirically, technically, phsiologically, biomechnically, > > anatomically and scientifically. And so are you if you agree with him. > So, if I can bench press 250 lbs on a Life Circuit machine, I can also > flat bench press 250 lbs with a barbell or flat bench press two 125 lb > dumbbells. All is equal? I have seen the same however all is not equal from machine to machine or lift to lift, for that matter. > What if the Life circuit machine has a wide grip vs. a narrow grip on > the barbell or dumbbells? All is the same? See above. > Perhaps itʼs time to forget Google for a day and hit the gym for a > couple hours. Try all those identical weights youʼre suggesting for > yourself. A little piece of safety advice before you do, use a spotter! Thanks, I "hit" the gym at my house where I have a complete training facility for athletes in particular. As to lifts, I prefer the OL variations for the most part. No spotters needed. > When those dumbbells donʼt launch correctly off your thighs > and up to their resting point above your chest, you might want someone > there to help. I don't perform DB Hang Cleans. Don't know anyone in their right mind who does. Don't understand the point you are trying to make with a lift that makes no sense to perform. It's a nonsensical nonargument. <lol> > Iʼll bet that Life Circuit machine keeps that weight > coming straight down and straight back up. Iʼll bet you can put the > most weight on Life Circuit machine for this reason. Iʼll bet you need > to decrease that weight substantially before trying the same exercise on > a flat bench. Iʼll bet youʼll have to decrease the weight even further > when splitting it between dumbbells. But what do I know. Not much although I would agree with most of this last paragraph. >>When those dumbbells don't launch correctly off your thighs >>and up to their resting point above your chest, you might want someone [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > does. Don't understand the point you are trying to make with a lift that > makes no sense to perform. It's a nonsensical nonargument. <lol> How would you perform a dumbbell press, either flat, incline or decline? You said you don’t use a spotter. How do the dumbbells get from the rack to a position ready for a press? > >>When those dumbbells don't launch correctly off your thighs > >>and up to their resting point above your chest, you might want someone [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > does. Don't understand the point you are trying to make with a lift that > > makes no sense to perform. It's a nonsensical nonargument. <lol> > How would you perform a dumbbell press, either flat, incline or decline? First, I don't do decline presses of any kind. Second, all near 1RM DB presses require spotting. Third, once the DB press reaches a certain weight, DB are forsaken. Last, if the DB press is not near to 1 RM, they can be easily "swung" into place. > You said you donʼt use a spotter. How do the dumbbells get from the > rack to a position ready for a press? I never said I don't use a spotter for DB presses. I don't perform DB presses very often. I don't require a spotter for OL variants as I do not perform near or 1RMs of these movements. <snip> >>How would you perform a dumbbell press, either flat, incline or decline? > > First, I don't do decline presses of any kind. Second, all near 1RM DB > presses require spotting. Third, once the DB press reaches a certain > weight, DB are forsaken. Last, if the DB press is not near to 1 RM, they > can be easily "swung" into place. You bashed me because I felt Nautilus type machines isolated muscles more than free weights did. I used the term “balance” muscles, which you took exception to. Now you’re telling me of free weight exercises that require a spotter. I’ve seen personal trainers, but never a spotter at a Nautilus type machine. Something must be different. The spotter helps as the press fails, correct? When the press fails, does it always go the opposite direction of the press? Doesn’t it sometimes go left, right, forward or back on failure? The spotter is also watching for a failure in those directions, which I called “balance”. Could those motions EVER happen on a Nautilus type machine? Sometimes a spotter will prepare the weight before the set, a “lift off” for instance. Isn’t that moving the weights, which are at an angle, to a vertical position before the press? Avoiding the use of “balance” muscles to concentrate on the vertical press? Have you ever given someone a “lift off” on a Nautilus type machine? By bringing up spotters, it seems we are both reinforcing the point I was originally bashed for stating. There is a difference between free weights and Nautilus type machines. Through this discussion we can now add complexity to the differences. >> First, I don't do decline presses of any kind. Second, all near 1RM DB > > presses require spotting. Third, once the DB press reaches a certain > > weight, DB are forsaken. Last, if the DB press is not near to 1 RM, they > > can be easily "swung" into place. > You bashed me because I felt Nautilus type machines isolated muscles > more than free weights did. I "bashed" you because you handed out incorrect advice. Again, and I repeat, there is no such thing as an isolated muscle in human movement. > I used the term “balance” muscles, which > you took exception to. Because there is no such thing as a "balancing" muscle. Movements are "balanced". >Now you’re telling me of free weight exercises > that require a spotter. This is news to you? > I’ve seen personal trainers, but never a > spotter at a Nautilus type machine. Something must be different. Yes, you are inexperienced. Spotters on machines are not uncommon. > The > spotter helps as the press fails, correct? One of many duties. > When the press fails, does it always go the opposite direction of the press? No. > Doesn’t it sometimes go left, right, forward or back on failure? Yes. > The spotter is also watching for a failure in those directions, which I > called “balance”. Call it doggymodoggy, if you will, but muscles aren't "balancers", plain and simple. > Could those motions EVER happen on a Nautilus type machine? Which motions? > Sometimes a spotter will prepare the weight before the set, a “lift off” > for instance. So.. > Isn’t that moving the weights, which are at an angle, to a vertical > position before the press? Yes, so... > Avoiding the use of “balance” muscles to > concentrate on the vertical press? There are no balance muscles. > Have you ever given someone a “lift off” on a Nautilus type machine? Yes. > By bringing up spotters, it seems we are both reinforcing the point I > was originally bashed for stating. There is a difference between free > weights and Nautilus type machines. Never said there wasn't a difference. > Through this discussion we can now > add complexity to the differences. To what are you adding complexity? Let me summarize. Great strength is attainable on machines. Free weights add different dimensions to lifting. Each has its own place depending on the goals to be achieved. Both machines and free weights can or cannot require spotting. Muscles act on levers and these levers are most often the human skeletal system. Muscles are never isolated in human movements. There is no such thing as a "balancing" muscle, only a movement that is properly performed. Neuromuscular activity is a dynamic, ever changing phenomenon that cannot be simplified by convenient clichés. Joints are the focus of human movements and muscles produce movements about the axis of these joints and in doing so, their contribution to movements is dynamic and constantly modified at each and every change of joint geometry and torque. All of these human movements are driven by the human brain and its "partners" in the human body, that is, the feed forward and feedback mechanisms of the nervous system. Muscles are nothing more than actors who are given directions to do this and that and never act in isolation or unto themselves. <snip> >Most serious weight lifters seem to *hate* machines and prefer free weights. <snip> My original post to this comment was a non-technical explanation trying to convey that more synergist muscles are required when using free weights than when using machines since the weight isn’t confined to an axis. This might explain why there aren’t many “serious” female weight lifters at Curves or machines at weight lifting competitions. Right or wrong, I tried. Instead of offering your “expert” opinion on this subject you opted to use it to discredit mine. Congratulations, you’ve probably accomplished your goal if that is what you were after. At this point I doubt that you have any intentions of commenting on the original post and I see no reason that I should further justify my opinion, right or wrong. I’m sorry that instead of others finding advice in this thread, a petty argument must be be read. >>Most serious weight lifters seem to *hate* machines and prefer free > weights. > My original post to this comment was a non-technical explanation trying > to convey that more synergist muscles are required when using free > weights than when using machines since the weight isn’t confined to an > axis. I'll save both of us a lot of copying archived posts to this thread and only comment that your non-technical terminologies were inaccurate and your advise misleading. Period. > This might explain why there aren’t many “serious” female weight > lifters at Curves or machines at weight lifting competitions. Right or > wrong, I tried. That's like trying to explain why Formula One drivers are not abundant at carnival kart rides or why there are no ladders for Olympic pole vaulters. > Instead of offering your “expert” opinion on this subject you opted to > use it to discredit mine. My expertise corrected your attempts to foster incorrect information that you offered without a second thought. Here's the point; if you aren't an expert, don't act like one. > Congratulations, you’ve probably accomplished > your goal if that is what you were after. I'm after nothing more than making certain that the truth of things are discussed and you were being untruthful. > At this point I doubt that you have any intentions of commenting on the > original post I'd be happy to. Please repost it. > and I see no reason that I should further justify my > opinion, right or wrong. I’m sorry that instead of others finding > advice in this thread, a petty argument must be be read. Petty to you, not petty to the facts. People get hurt in fitness clubs every day listening to BS artists who read this book or website and vault themselves immediately into consultation mode. It's a zoo out there and it is an unregulated environment where health and wealth are equally squandered. I would suggest that you spend more of your time either on things you know and understand or on studying the human body in motion as I have. You have one other very important choice to make. you can drop your ego and learn from me, and others like me, or you can tuck your tail and limp away claiming how Mu treated you so horribly. Many on Usenet will come to wipe away your tears and solace you with "Mu is an a.shole, let's hate him together". It's your choice. > you can drop your ego and learn from me, and others like me, And there would be good reasons to accept what you say? Like... Go ahead. Name a few. Do include some credentials. Self-taught training health care workers don't actually qualify as experts. Googleing only turns up combative posts with scant effort at imparting information and, of course, FAQ's with many good reasons to simply reject everything you say. <http://tinyurl.com/hdex> <http://www.geocities.com/tanirevek/Roose.html> <http://tinyurl.com/royd> What were you saying about learning from you? Learning what. Bad writing, sour disposition, TROLLING, inflating life experiences and SPAMMING? Did everything get covered? Oh, I forgot lying. Sorry to leave out your biggest qualification. Who, exactly are "others like [you]?" Bob > Googleing only turns up combative posts with scant effort at imparting > information and, of course, FAQ's with many good reasons to simply [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > <http://www.geocities.com/tanirevek/Roose.html> > <http://tinyurl.com/royd> Huh! So, Mu is actually Roose! How interesting. Here I thought he was just a pathetic egomaniac, now I learn he's a pathetic egomaniacal a.s who goes through great lengths to ... what? What the hell motivates this guy, anyway? It's certainly not to help others. Even more curious is that Andrew, the well-meaning Christian servant of Buddha, seems to hang out with the guy. Curious indeed. > What were you saying about learning from you? Learning what. Bad > writing, sour disposition, TROLLING, inflating life experiences and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Bob >Huh! So, Mu is actually Roose! You didn't know that? I filter out every new incidence of the "harvest mu_n" so I don't have to see him. Course, I can't stop all of you from actually answering his posts. Has it ever occurred to you that if you just KF'd him or ignored him, he'd just go away? Barbara Hirsch, Publisher OBESITY MEDS AND RESEARCH NEWS The latest in obesity research and weight loss drug development http://www.obesity-news.com/ >>Huh! So, Mu is actually Roose! > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Has it ever occurred to you that if you just KF'd him or ignored him, > he'd just go away? Of course, but he just changes his name and comes right back. But look at all the variations of MU_ I'd never get to use. And how many times I get him riled up so he protests his wisdom and tells us all over again how smart and skilled and praised and awarded and etc. with nary a shred of proof. See him bluster and step all over his peepee when he attacks people for their spelling or grammar and makes even more egregious blunders. You can't buy that kind of slapstick entertainment. He's more fun than the 3 stooges and Scooby Doo all rolled into one when he says his silly stuff. I love watching him poke himself in the eye and say nyuk, nyuk with no outside help. Remember when he was SUT and Roos and Roose and arete? That last one was my favorite so far. Poor sap didn't know it meant "fishbone" in French. <LOL> He changed it in a hurry when I posted that. Hasn't mentioned it once since. It's interesting what kinds of correlations can be derived when you have the power of computers at hand, isn't it? Here's a speculation that has a bit behind it. Just think for a minute. Could MU be his initials in the real world...? He does answer to Mike... Bob >I love watching him poke himself in the eye and say nyuk, nyuk with no >outside help. Remember when he was SUT and Roos and Roose and arete? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >correlations can be derived when you have the power of computers at >hand, isn't it? If that's your definition of fun. Me, I'd rather be at the gym or on the skating rink. So I filter out Mu and any other idiot that just wants to troll and not post anything useful. I don't know why you're so obsessed with this guy, and who he might really be. I know I don't give a crap. Barbara Hirsch, Publisher OBESITY MEDS AND RESEARCH NEWS The latest in obesity research and weight loss drug development http://www.obesity-news.com/ > >I love watching him poke himself in the eye and say nyuk, nyuk with no > >outside help. Remember when he was SUT and Roos and Roose and arete? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I don't know why you're so obsessed with this guy, Obsession is irrational. There is no why. Truth is simple. Servant to the humblest person in the universe, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ ** Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048 What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48 Is this spam? http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867 > Obsession is irrational. There is no why. > > Truth is simple. <LOL> This from a guy who compulsively posts this same extended, self-forgiving and self-aggrandizing sig. OCD poster boy, Chung. Bob > Servant to the humblest person in the universe, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Is this spam? > http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867 > So I filter out Mu and any other idiot that just > wants to troll and not post anything useful. Oh, Babs, if you killfile then claim to know what is being said, makes you a hypocrite, Babs, a really bad one at that. > I don't know why you're so obsessed with this guy, Bob, and who he might > really be. Yeah, why is that? > I know I don't give a crap. Nor will I be accepting any from you, Babs. Leave it in the toilet. > Here's a speculation that has a bit behind it. Just think for a > minute. Could MU be his initials in the real world...? A sleuth among us! >He does answer > to Mike... You rang? > You have one other very important choice to make. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It's your choice. This concept may come as a complete surprise to you, but I choose friendship over knowledge every time. They're IN, you're OUT! In my grand scheme of life, it’s not how much knowledge I gain before my death, rather how many attended my funeral. >> You have one other very important choice to make. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> It's your choice. > This concept may come as a complete surprise to you, but I choose > friendship over knowledge every time. They're IN, you're OUT! I have no idea what you are talking about. > In my grand scheme of life, itʼs not how much knowledge I gain before my > death, rather how many attended my funeral. The number of your "friends" that will attend is directly related to the weather. > > Thanks. I checked them both out, but I didn't see anything about the > > machines themselves. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > while machines only build muscles. You involve your whole body instead of > being guided and "passive" through the moves. Not really. To know why free weights are superior to the machines, you have to look at what the machines do. Take a bench press, for example. If you use the machine, you are basically pushing on a bar that goes up and down. The machine guides the bar for you. If you're doing free weights, not only do you have to supply the force to move the bar up and down, but you also have to use your muscles to stabilize the bar so that it doesn't fall forward on you or behind your head. Curling is another good example. If you use a machine to do a curl, you're simply pulling forward on the machine using your biceps. If you use a free weight, you're using your abs, your shoulder muscles, and your biceps to keep the weight moving in the right direction. In short, machines are good for exercises that require total isolation of the muscle you're working on, but do a horrible job at building strength and muscle overall because they take away too much of the exercise away from secondary muscles. Machines are a good starting point for people who are really out of shape. Once you're in relatively good condition, switch to the free weights and you'll see quicker improvements. GregoryD > Take a bench press, for example. If you use the machine, you are basically > pushing on a bar that goes up and down. The machine guides the bar for you. > If you're doing free weights, not only do you have to supply the force to > move > the bar up and down, but you also have to use your muscles to stabilize the > bar so that it doesn't fall forward on you or behind your head. Works for me in a rudimentary sense. > Curling is another good example. If you use a machine to do a curl, you're > simply pulling forward on the machine using your biceps. If you use a free > weight, you're using your abs, your shoulder muscles, and your biceps to > keep > the weight moving in the right direction. All those are in use in both lifts albeit the directional control of the load is more so depending on the machine. Many machine supply little directional control or guidance as per the movement itself. > In short, machines are good for exercises that require total isolation of > the > muscle you're working on, but do a horrible job at building strength and > muscle > overall because they take away too much of the exercise away from secondary > muscles. There is no such thing as an isolated muscle, or a movement that isolates a muscle from other muscles. (Great) Strength can be built very satisfactorily with either machines or free weights. > Machines are a good starting point for people who are really out of shape. People who are really out of shape use free wieghts all the time. It's called their body. > Once you're in relatively good condition, switch to the free weights and > you'll > see quicker improvements. Completely depends on what improvements are sought. > > What I need now is some kind of book, video, web site or whatever that > > > shows these kind of machines and how to use them. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Thanks. I checked them both out, but I didn't see anything about the > machines themselves. It's not really about the machines as it is about the muscles and the exercises. You need to exercise your main muscle groups (chest, back, shoulders, arms, abdomen, quads, calves, hamstrings, etc.). You go to the site, look at exercises say for the chest - it gives you different exercises based on what kind of equipment you want to use (barbell, cable, dumbbell, etc.). I take the ones that look interesting, study the video for a bit, then print out the directions. I'm lucky though because my gym is small and the owner is also the trainer and he'll answer questions for free :). There are weight machines at my gym that I've never used in the 8 months I've been going there. Keep up the good work! Jenn > Day 2. Met with the trainer. He started me out with a quarter mile on a > treadmill, then took me into a small exercise room for some work with the > smaller weights. Afterwards, we went and he stretched me out on a few of the > machines, which evidently worked since I'm now sitting here with a couple of > hot packs on my shoulders. When he didn't start you out with a thourough medical history questionnaire, you should have run like a rabbit. > I figure that if I just do > a warm up then go down the line using each contraption, that should give me > a good enough workout. I don't think I'll even be going near the weight > room. That place looked like a suspension bridge was disassembled and the > parts stacked up there. Now that is funny. > With a bit of encouragement from a good friend here in ASD, I finally > started to use that membership. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > orientation session with one of the trainers, so I made an appointment with > one. I don't know how it is at your gym but the trainers at mine (Bally's, too) are always glad to answer questions or assist you when you're there. > Day 2. Met with the trainer. He started me out with a quarter mile on a > treadmill, then took me into a small exercise room for some work with the > smaller weights. Afterwards, we went and he stretched me out on a few of the > machines, which evidently worked since I'm now sitting here with a couple of > hot packs on my shoulders. I promise they'll feel better in a couple days - just keep moving! > The subject of hiring him came up, but at $200 down and $350 a month for 2 > sessions a week, I think I'll be doing this on my own. I didn't realize it cost so much. I've never checked into their rates as I just ask one of the employees when I want to learn a new machine. Most of the classes are included in the membership and those that aren't included are just a few bucks for each session. A lot of the other members are always willing to give you a few pointers on the equipment, too. >I learned how to use > a few of these torture devices today, but the rest are still a mystery to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Those elliptical gizmos look interesting, I'll have to try and tackle one of > those next. Let me know how it goes with the elliptical machine. I've not used the ones at my gym. Beverly > Smokey > > It's a good pain >Those elliptical gizmos look interesting, I'll have to try and tackle one of >those next. > >Smokey Sounds great!!!! :) Try the elliptical :) When I first started I could only do 5 min at a time and I was sucking wind at the end of the 5 min. Now I do 60 min at a time and then move on to the wt. machines. Good luck! :) ~Kat "help is on the way" ~John Kerry > >Those elliptical gizmos look interesting, I'll have to try and tackle one > >of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "help is on the way" > ~John Kerry I love the elliptical too. I actually bought one instead of a treadmill. I do both slow and fast workouts (walking and running) just like I would on the treadmill, only there is no impact on my knees. Go for it Smokey! Jenn Hi, Smokey! I'm no fitness expert, but I believe that all machines at the gym have instructions on how to use them. If you're interested in free weights, you can observe some of the pros at the gym. Also, you can ask any trainer at the gym to show you how to use particular machines or weights. I don't think they'll charge you for this. I agree with the notion that free weights are better than machines. Machines target specific muscles, which is great, but free weights also involve other groups of muscles for balance, etc, so you actually get a better workout. If you're a beginner, however, you'll see results either way. It took me about 6-8 weeks to see visible results. A body-builder friend of mine prefers bicycles with resistance as a warm-up - he says that they raise the heart reate and offer a nice workout for the legs. I, personally, do different cardio every day. In any case, anything you do is better than nothing, so don't be afraid to start, and you'll get more and more comfortable with the gym equipment every day! Good luck! Elana > What I need now is some kind of book, video, web site or whatever that > shows these kind of machines and how to use them. > Those elliptical gizmos look interesting, I'll have to try and tackle one of > those next. They really work for me cardio-wise, but are less effective for fatburn, since they are quite intense. I don't manage to work them without having a heart rate over 80%. However, they burn calories like crazy, so I usually combine elliptical with some low-impact biking or walking. I do recommend using them with a heart monitor the first few times.  Signature-- Boemsi 207 - 197 - 180 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.