abductor/adductor machine

[ark]

Since I received such great info. on the smith machine, I thought I'd post about the adduction/abductor machine. What are your thoughts on this machine?

I talked to the same trainer (CSCS cert.) and he said these were good machines.........

[Q.]

You mean the "yes/no" machine?

[ark]

Originally Posted by Q.

You mean the "yes/no" machine?

Yep!

[kuri]

I see through his ruse...smart trainer...trying to get members not to busy up the squat racks or other useful equipment and keep them on those machines.

[Lisa~]

Inner Thigh Lies by Stephen Holt

[OldGuy]

Don't know if it's any good but I certainly like watching.

[Lisa~]

The abductor/adductor machines are not singled out for criticism as often as the leg press or Smith machine (but they do make great material for jokes!), but the problems are similar for most machine-based exercises. The machines often place you in a fixed plane of motion leading to potential pattern overload injuries. In most cases the muscles being targeted can be more effective trained using bodyweight or free weights which teach the body to move as a coordinated unit.

But they may be useful for specific purposes or situations. I'm having trouble thinking of a specific purpose , but I do remember one client of mine who had an ankle injury and during the time that she could not stand on her foot we used the abductor/adductor machines as well as the leg extension and leg curl. It was temporary however.

[ark]

Originally Posted by Lisa~

But they may be useful for specific purposes or situations. I'm having trouble thinking of a specific purpose , but I do remember one client of mine who had an ankle injury and during the time that she could not stand on her foot we used the abductor/adductor machines as well as the leg extension and leg curl. It was temporary however.

Thanks Lisa!

[Tony Gentilcore]

Something I stole from Eric Cressey:

Well, of most importance is the fixed line of motion present. The abductors and adductors are just as important in terms of frontal plane stability than they are in actually initiating movement. In other words, they're key stabilizers of the femur and pelvis in the frontal plane (deciding whether your hips and knee dip or hike). Why anyone would want to train stabilizing muscles in a fixed line of motion is beyond me. Moreover, these two muscle groups co-contract - meaning that there has to be equal contribution of the two when you're in single-leg stance - in order to establish/maintain frontal plane stability. When one is dominant and the other is weak (usually the adductor and abductors, respectively - although hockey players tend to go the other way), the positioning of the femur will be out of whack (knee usually falls inward). Obviously, this is related to a bunch of other weaknesses, but you get the picture.

Also, training adduction or abduction alone ignores several key roles of muscles. Very few muscles have only one function, so it's silly to force them into a single plane of motion. When you move in the sagittal plane with free weights, you're stabilizing in the frontal plane, but this isn't present when you're on a machine doing what is "seemingly" the same exercise.

Plop someone down on an abductor machine and you automatically put the gluteus maximus on a mechanical disadvantage, so the piriformis has to take up the bulk of the work in lateral rotation.

[ark]

The trainer I talked to has his CSCS. I was shocked that he would say the yes/no and the smith had its place. I don't know if he was defending his co-workers, not knowing that I knew better, or if he really believes in these machines. I did ask him if he personally uses them in his program and he said no.

[John Izzo]

Originally Posted by Tony Gentilcore

Something I stole from Eric Cressey:

So what is new?

I have been guilty of using the adductor (only) for some of my male clients for exactly what Tony mentioned. I found that alot of the younger men have no adductor strength whatsoever, and their lower body movements were predominately powered by quads and abductor and lateral hamstrings. Single leg exercises exposed the lack of adductor strength by the motion of the knee (as mentioned in Tony's post). So we did at times get on a "inner" machine to "wake up" the adductors. However, they were never a staple in our exercise program. They were used to get the client 'feeling' that muscle group work and was usually followed by a squat or lunge. Again, these are not athletes, but your average joe.

[Jean-Paul]

I think the exercise is important, but only when it's ground-based, balancing on one foot with the other ankle strapped to a cable or jump-stretch band, but I'm usually trying to strengthen the base leg's hip stabalizers more than the adducting legs inner thigh. I can't imagine a good reason to use a machine, although the women in my gym bug me to DEATH about getting one. I can safely say that will never happen!

[ark]

Originally Posted by Jean-Paul

I can't imagine a good reason to use a machine, although the women in my gym bug me to DEATH about getting one. I can safely say that will never happen!

Good for you! I wish my gym would have better standards. I've become really bothered by the lack of education the trainers have, the crappy equipment and classes. I like the gym because the childcare facility is exceptional and the gym is very family friendly, plus it's about 1/2 mile from my house .