Another related Leg Press Question.... - JP Fitness Forums

rem1956 · 03-12-2008, 07:05 AM

I know and understand the thinking behind not using leg press machines. But I can't help but wonder....I see two types in my gym. The first type, your body is stationary and you press against a moving platform with your legs to move a weight stack. The other type, you press against a stationary platform with your legs, and a sled holding your body, and an attached weight stack will both move. Any advantages or disadvantages over either one? I see the trainers use both of them alot, as well as many other people working out.

Tony Gentilcore · 03-12-2008, 07:55 AM

Trust me when I say this: ANY leg press is about as useful as a used tampon. You can try to justify it's use any way you'd like (trainers use it, members use it, Jessica Alba uses it), but the fact of the matter is......it's an inferior piece of equipment that has no functional carry-over to every day, real-life events.

1. You're placing the body in a fixed plane of motion which it's just not designed to do.

2. You're putting tons more shear force on the lumbar spine (ouch).

3. It's allows for people who aren't strong in the first place to boost their ego. "Look mom, I can leg press 500 lbs!" Place 135 lbs on their back and I guarantee that person wouldn't be able to complete a full squat.

The leg press sucks. Point. Blank. Period.

Jean-Paul · 03-12-2008, 08:13 AM

What Tony said!

(used tampons? Ewwww!)

PowerManDL · 03-12-2008, 08:17 AM

Define "functional carryover" and why this must always be relevant to every person in every situation. Not everyone is an athlete, and not all exercises "must" be "functional" (as much as I really do hate that term, because it is meaningless).

1) is irrelevant, if individual goals are accounted for and the program is designed properly. If you're already squatting in a program and use the leg press for assistance work to build thigh hypertrophy, who cares about a fixed plane of motion?

2) is correct only if they're doing it incorrectly. Any and all exercises are dangerous without proper instruction.

3) has nothing to do with the effectiveness of an exercise.

C'mon guys, put some thought into your absolute black/white arguments. This is how myths get started.

gobbla · 03-12-2008, 08:52 AM

Agreed w\ Matt. For "functionality" *most* people don't incorporate any movement(s) that have a direct link to real life...and probably don't need to if you want to get right down to it. If someone (Joe Adult that isn't participating in athletics) wanted to be more "functional" they might start doing drills, mb\sb exercises, or something that uses their body in a way that they will most likely use it in real life. Not too many people are going to have a loaded bar to pick up or press or have placed on their back in their day to day activities, making the squat\bench only slightly more "functional" than a sled or smith machine.

Charles Staley once had (when asked this question) something along the lines of "You take two people. One squats 5x5. One uses the sled 5x5. At the end of three months both add 50lbs to their lifts. Which one got stronger? They both did....duh."

PowerManDL · 03-12-2008, 09:04 AM

The problem is that the "functional" guys confuse sport-specific with neuromuscular functionality.

Functional, properly defined, means one thing: improving motor output for a given activity.

If you want to carry the "functional" argument to its logical conclusion, people should never do anything but the exact activity they want to improve in. This obviously is nonsensical, as we know that other exercises can and do augment motor proficiency. As the saying goes, specificity is not simulation.

Truth of the matter is that functionality is entirely context-dependent. What is functional for some needs (say, hypertrophy of the legs) may not be functional for something else (power or skill proficiency). Leg pressing most assuredly can and will improve neuromuscular functionality for a variety of tasks; it just depends on the goal or task in question.

Realistically speaking, the leg press is only slightly more "functional" than a squat. You have more degrees of freedom due to a squat being closed-chain vs. a leg press, but compare that to a sprint or the moves done on a football field. Neither one of them has any "functional carryover"; we know which road that leads down, and it's straight to the Land of Stupid. Specificity is not simulation.

Tony Gentilcore · 03-12-2008, 11:35 AM

I hate the word "functional" as much as the next guy; so I wouldn't necessarily call myself a "functional guy." I mean come on, I'm not having people perform lunges on a foam pad while holding a body blade above their head....;o)

I just feel with my own experiences with the clients whom I have specifically dealt with, that the leg press is pretty much useless. Sure it can be utilized to add mass on the thighs, but I also look at certain exercises as having a cost/benefit. In my eyes, the fixed plane of motion and the shear stress on the lumbar spine just aren't worth it. I can have someone do lunge variations, glute ham raises, pull-throughs, etc which I feel is time better spent. Just my opinion.

However, I do agree with a lot of what you had to say Matt. I "get" your rationale.

gregl515 · 03-12-2008, 12:05 PM

I use a leg press in the gym and do squats. I have one leg which limits the amount I can squat due to balance issues. I am no expert but I feel the squat, even if I can only do it with a bar at present, or dumbbell squat works the support muscles and the leg press helps me develop some strength since balance is not an issue.

I realize that for an able bodied person a leg press may not be as useful, but it is helpful to me.

trainerty · 03-12-2008, 12:07 PM

I like the word functional. I think it has gained a bad rep because so many lawyer up and warp the many definitions it has.

There is no contest between a good squatter and a good leg presser, nor how many more receptors are recruited during the two lifts.

As far as simply gaining mass without the respect or care for joint health, pattern overload, and motor skill .... that's fine and bodybuilder like, but not functional.

I lean towards Gary Grey, Chuck Wolfe, and Stuart McGills perspective on function. The body was made to move and use as many joints as possible under stressors. Isolating machines and machines that attempt to mimic closed chain movments simply are not functional in my opinion.

PowerManDL · 03-12-2008, 12:28 PM

Tony I know that you know better, which is why I threw out the counter-point. It's not the exercise that's bad; it's how it is used, and it's a distinction that needs to be made.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trainerty

I like the word functional. I think it has gained a bad rep because so many lawyer up and warp the many definitions it has.

There is no contest between a good squatter and a good leg presser, nor how many more receptors are recruited during the two lifts.

Why can't someone be both? It's a false dilemma to assume one has to take one or the other to the extreme. Both can and ideally should be options, within context of the person's goals.

Quote:

As far as simply gaining mass without the respect or care for joint health, pattern overload, and motor skill .... that's fine and bodybuilder like, but not functional.

Again...functional for what? It's not helpful to talk about people mis-using the word "functional" then misuse it yourself.

Quote:

I lean towards Gary Grey, Chuck Wolfe, and Stuart McGills perspective on function. The body was made to move and use as many joints as possible under stressors. Isolating machines and machines that attempt to mimic closed chain movments simply are not functional in my opinion.

Of course. So how does this point eliminate the utility of using varied movements for varied goals?

Specificity is not simulation. Training to enhance motor function is variable "functional" depending on the context.

Rawgrip · 03-12-2008, 12:33 PM

People abusing the phrase "functional" and "non functional" training is getting out of hand, all training is functional in my eyes. Any training to our bodies makes them more physically aware but some lifts are more complex and carry over better on the field or sport than others. Even though people say isolating muscle is useless it has its time and place, most high school athletes cant contract there glutes during major compound lifts.

rem1956 · 03-12-2008, 01:00 PM

Functional or not....this discussion, while interesting, is swaying from the original question.

The original question was....of the two machine designs, what are the advantages/disadvantages of them, if any. Not once did I ever ask if the machines themselves were practical, useful or worth using. My very first statement should have driven that point home.

trainerty · 03-12-2008, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rem1956

Functional or not....this discussion, while interesting, is swaying from the original question.

The original question was....of the two machine designs, what are the advantages/disadvantages of them, if any. Not once did I ever ask if the machines themselves were practical, useful or worth using. My very first statement should have driven that point home.

Excuse the hijack. I'd love to dig in to this a bit more on who is misusing what, but to get back on track.

I would think if you are able to hold decent posture to keep from lumbar problems (like Tony stated) it would be better than the machine you would not be able to do so on and still get the ROM you want.

As far as adavantages when it comes to hypertophy. I'm swayed by the force velocity aspect. It really will come down to the machine that you can overload your muscles on during the eccentric phase of the lift.

For strength, they all suck

ninja · 03-12-2008, 02:08 PM

I think the hijack is great in this case.

Keep hijacking. Here's a box cutter.

Cynic · 03-13-2008, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PowerManDL

Again...functional for what? It's not helpful to talk about people mis-using the word "functional" then misuse it yourself.

One last hijack:

Well, let's see...sitting, standing, hiking (weight on the back), carrying injured people, lifting a heavy object from a low to a high position (mostly overhead squat type move), heaving a heavy object into the back of a semi (I've done this).

I think the only time I'd be using anything close to a leg press is if The Penguin was trying to crush me in the Walls of Death.

Rem, I think perhaps the best advantage is for someone who has a lost a portion of stabilizing control (for whatever reason) and must work in a defined plane. I'd say, if your legs and lower body joints are healthy, some form of free-weight squats should be a first choice. But, I could be talking out my ass.

gobbla · 03-13-2008, 05:30 AM

Rem - I'd go with the second (where you're moving). It'd shift the load points of contact to your shoulders and feet VS. hips and feet. I always found it easier to be in a more "natural\comfortable" position.

Cynic - For practical purposes, how in shape do you need to be to sit or stand? At what point would would training "functionally" be overkill for those purposes? Just playing with %'s, how many people hike w\ loads, carry injured people or load heavy objects onto a semi (from their back)?

I agree that free weights should be included, for the reasons mentioned, I just don't think that everyone "needs" to squat. It's a great life...but it's one lift. There are other ways to accomplish similar goals. If you're training for every day life squatting BW+300lbs might not be necessary.