Your body adapts for what it needs to. If you strictly use machines, then you'll adapt less balancing muscles (and CNS, etc...). If your goal is a pure BBer then all machines will probably work for you. If you're an athlete or worried about performance then free weights will most likely carry over better.
I understand that both of you are pushing for a mix, but if you're limited in training time and you have a choice between another free weight exercise or a machine, IMHO you'll get better results from the free weights.
This is going to stir the pot a bit but I think most of the balancing muscle talk is bullshit. You get someone stronger, they will have more balance. In over 10 years of training people and over 20 years of personal lifting I have found that people do not have balance simply because their legs are weak. You take a female client who is 140 lbs who can only squat 95 lbs and has issues with balance. I assure you that when she can squat over 140lbs she will have no issues with balance. I used to go to yoga classes all of the time and at 240lbs and a 600+ squat my balance was far superior than even the instructors. My flexibility was better as well.
For some reason it's not popular to promote balance through increasing relative strength right now b/c that doesn't sell fancy gagets or fancy training.
Study motor learning a bit and you will see the error of what you are saying. Your statements are logical, but not how the body works in the sense that a free weight squat will only have a neural impact on a that specific movement.
For instance, someone who can hit a tennis ball really well will not automatically be good at badminton. Two very similar movements at face value, but very different from a motor learning perspective.
All I have is anecdotal, but I used to hang out with some semi-pro hockey players. While they weren't tiger woods or anything they could all play golf quite well. It seemed like very similar skills were required to hit a puck and hit a golf ball. Who knows if getting better at one helped them with the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by perrogrande007
This is going to stir the pot a bit but I think most of the balancing muscle talk is bullshit. You get someone stronger, they will have more balance. In over 10 years of training people and over 20 years of personal lifting I have found that people do not have balance simply because their legs are weak. You take a female client who is 140 lbs who can only squat 95 lbs and has issues with balance. I assure you that when she can squat over 140lbs she will have no issues with balance. I used to go to yoga classes all of the time and at 240lbs and a 600+ squat my balance was far superior than even the instructors. My flexibility was better as well.
For some reason it's not popular to promote balance through increasing relative strength right now b/c that doesn't sell fancy gagets or fancy training.
Now, of course pertains to healthy people.
I think you're assuming that all balance issues are strength related. Balance is related to muscle strength and control. Before tearing (and fixing) my ACL I was much stronger in my squat than I am now. Rehab put me through a ton of balance work that I had never done before and now even though I'm not as strong as I was, my balance is much better. I'm not advocating squatting on bosu balls or anything , but free weights will give most people the best bang for the buck for their training time.
__________________
"Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." -- T.S. Eliot
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act, but a habit."-- Aristotle
free weights will give most people the best bang for the buck for their training time.
Oh, without a doubt I believe this as well.
As far as the balance thing, I have found that it usually is a strength issue for most people. Now, following ACL surgery, sure, that's an exception, like I said it's usually the issue for healthy people. Not referring to victims of strokes, ACL surgeries, etc. I do think the balance thing has gotten out of hand. I can see the value of one leg squats and unilateral training, but IMO it should still remain a very small part of most programs unless you are in an unstable sport such as surfing, skateboarding, etc...I have no insight into training for those sports, I'm totally clueless there. Most of my training is strength and conditioning and physique, and old farts.
All I have is anecdotal, but I used to hang out with some semi-pro hockey players. While they weren't tiger woods or anything they could all play golf quite well. It seemed like very similar skills were required to hit a puck and hit a golf ball. Who knows if getting better at one helped them with the other.
I think you're assuming that all balance issues are strength related. Balance is related to muscle strength and control. Before tearing (and fixing) my ACL I was much stronger in my squat than I am now. Rehab put me through a ton of balance work that I had never done before and now even though I'm not as strong as I was, my balance is much better. I'm not advocating squatting on bosu balls or anything , but free weights will give most people the best bang for the buck for their training time.
How do you judge your personal improvement in balance?
Study motor learning a bit and you will see the error of what you are saying. Your statements are logical, but not how the body works in the sense that a free weight squat will only have a neural impact on a that specific movement.
For instance, someone who can hit a tennis ball really well will not automatically be good at badminton. Two very similar movements at face value, but very different from a motor learning perspective.
I am studying motor learning. Are you saying that all physio therapy after an injury would only help for the exercises you are doing, and nothing else? I understand that things are very specific. But I seriously doubt you can prove that training the feedback systems in your body with a squat won't translate to anything other than the squat itself. If everything is 100% specific, then training won't help for anything but the exact exercises you are doing, and if that is the case, then all athletes except those who lift should just drop lifting.
The fact with motor learning remains that we really don't know jack about it. It's all theories and very little facts (if there even is such a thing as a fact, blablabla)
The fact with motor learning remains that we really don't know jack about it. It's all theories and very little facts (if there even is such a thing as a fact, blablabla)
lol, welcome to science. Everything we know is theory.
Allow yourself a little experiment. Vow to ONLY used machines for 2 months. Then test your hand-0eye coordination and see if you think there is ANY decline. I promise you will see NONE.
Chris
When I mentioned HEC in my post I meant to use it in an all around training sense not that lifting weights had any profound effect on it. I get most of my training from bodyweight (push ups, pull ups, dips, leg work, speed work, agility work) and then use certain dumbbell exercises for strength (snatches, swings, single leg work) I only use barbells for deads and front squats.
And please remember that this is coming from a performance point of view and not body transformation. The use of machines for that purpose goes without saying.
I appreciate your offer to try it out, but every time I try one of those things I'm immediately aware of the lack of a certain feed back that I depend on. It just doesn't feel complete. I prefer the sensation of having a load acting through various vectors at once. One only has to do push ups with their feet firmly planted to a wall at various heights to know what I mean.
I am studying motor learning. Are you saying that all physio therapy after an injury would only help for the exercises you are doing, and nothing else? I understand that things are very specific. But I seriously doubt you can prove that training the feedback systems in your body with a squat won't translate to anything other than the squat itself. If everything is 100% specific, then training won't help for anything but the exact exercises you are doing, and if that is the case, then all athletes except those who lift should just drop lifting.
The fact with motor learning remains that we really don't know jack about it. It's all theories and very little facts (if there even is such a thing as a fact, blablabla)
No, your stated outcome based upon the proposed premise is not even close to correct.
Athletes should use resistance training to increase the force production capability of the contractile myofibrils in their skeletal muscles, especially those relevant to their sport. They should then take the increased forced production potential and practice sport specific movements in order to translate the power potential to on the field performance enhancement.
Athletes can also use resistance training for generalized hypertrophy if their sport dictates it as a benefit (an offensive lineman for example).
I would not say motor learning is 100% specific, but pretty close in most cases. Obviously, it does vary, but I can tell you that a power clean will not make one a better football player with the exception of the above (concerning increased force production capacity), and in that case it is a poor choice.
No, your stated outcome based upon the proposed premise is not even close to correct.
Athletes should use resistance training to increase the force production capability of the contractile myofibrils in their skeletal muscles, especially those relevant to their sport. They should then take the increased forced production potential and practice sport specific movements in order to translate the power potential to on the field performance enhancement.
Athletes can also use resistance training for generalized hypertrophy if their sport dictates it as a benefit (an offensive lineman for example).
I would not say motor learning is 100% specific, but pretty close in most cases. Obviously, it does vary, but I can tell you that a power clean will not make one a better football player with the exception of the above (concerning increased force production capacity), and in that case it is a poor choice.
Let's take a look at this:
You teach somenoe bulgarian split squats, they have horrible balance and have trouble standing like that on one leg while moving up and down. But they practice and get good balance. Then you teach them a reverse lunge. The movements are similar, but different. Now are you telling me that the balance they trained with the split squats does not transfer to the reverse lunge at all? Will doing the split squat make the person better at catching a football? no, but I do think the balance would carry over.
How do you explain how one kid needs 2 tries to do a forward roll while another never gets it down. Even if they are the same size, etc. Is it genetic?
And if all strength training helps is with myofibrillar hypertrophy, are all the neural adaptions to strength training just a waste and won't help with sport at all? I don't even think anyone can answer that with certainty, since we don't know that much about neural adaptions to training.. And bu neural adaptions I'm not just talking about learning the movement, but being able to recruit more MUs, etc.
And perrogrande007, don't be rude, I'm not rude to you, so try to have some common decency. With a lot of science we have a much better idea of what is going on that we have with motor learning. Also, you obviously didn't read the last part of my post.
How do you judge your personal improvement in balance?
My surfing and wakeboarding were actually better over the last summer, even with a knee that isn't fully recovered yet. I was surprised, but the balance work actually transfered over to balance oriented sports.
I also see guys in BJJ all the time who are big and strong, yet have balance issues and little muscle control. Obviously I don't know all of their training, but in my experience balance relies on more than just strength.
__________________
"Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." -- T.S. Eliot
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act, but a habit."-- Aristotle
Let's take a look at this:
You teach somenoe bulgarian split squats, they have horrible balance and have trouble standing like that on one leg while moving up and down. But they practice and get good balance. Then you teach them a reverse lunge. The movements are similar, but different. Now are you telling me that the balance they trained with the split squats does not transfer to the reverse lunge at all? Will doing the split squat make the person better at catching a football? no, but I do think the balance would carry over.
How do you explain how one kid needs 2 tries to do a forward roll while another never gets it down. Even if they are the same size, etc. Is it genetic?
And if all strength training helps is with myofibrillar hypertrophy, are all the neural adaptions to strength training just a waste and won't help with sport at all? I don't even think anyone can answer that with certainty, since we don't know that much about neural adaptions to training.. And bu neural adaptions I'm not just talking about learning the movement, but being able to recruit more MUs, etc.
And perrogrande007, don't be rude, I'm not rude to you, so try to have some common decency. With a lot of science we have a much better idea of what is going on that we have with motor learning. Also, you obviously didn't read the last part of my post.
Read what I wrote again... I said there may be some transfer, but not much and it varies.
The kid who gets the roll the first time may be a more active child who had practiced a roll or something very similar during play. He or she may also have a greater natural sense of bodily coordination.
The neural adaptations to training certainly do serve a purpose, but it isn't going to make you better at a given sport unless you are a weightlifter or powerlifter. The neural adaptations allow for us to more effectively recruit MUs to include recruiting a higher percentage of them at any given time which certainly can be of benefit to contractile myofibril hypertrophy.
So, one last time, I think there is some level of transfer, but it isn't much and it isn't the reason for resistance training.
Read what I wrote again... I said there may be some transfer, but not much and it varies.
The kid who gets the roll the first time may be a more active child who had practiced a roll or something very similar during play. He or she may also have a greater natural sense of bodily coordination.
The neural adaptations to training certainly do serve a purpose, but it isn't going to make you better at a given sport unless you are a weightlifter or powerlifter. The neural adaptations allow for us to more effectively recruit MUs to include recruiting a higher percentage of them at any given time which certainly can be of benefit to contractile myofibril hypertrophy.
So, one last time, I think there is some level of transfer, but it isn't much and it isn't the reason for resistance training.
That's pretty much what I'm thinking. I think we kinda agree, but we just don't know it.
, but free weights will give most people the best bang for the buck for their training time.
Linear Mode
