16 replies to this topic

[Shepard]

Have them tell that to Ross:


http://www.rosstrain...les/budget.html

[senseix]

All i can say is WOW!!!!!

[Shepard]

Another respectable event dealing with Ross Enamait:

There was a discussion on his board where he was called out by a member. Ross said that even though he did not deadlift, he knew that he could pull 400 lbs. The other guy (Dr. Boots) said that he would send Ross $100 if he could prove that he could pull 400. The result:

Note the double overhand grip, too. I need to start climbing more ropes, apparently.

[senseix]

I lift myself, but nothing like this guy, he is just amazing, his size i think i read he's only 170lbs, which is close to where i'm at, and to see him lift like he does is mind blowing.

[wydell]

Have them tell that to Ross:


http://www.rosstrain...les/budget.html

It would be an understatement to say that guy is in shape.

I might give the triple clap push up a try and maybe start it as a double. It may be more of a function of speed on the claps than power on the push, but it sure looks impressive.

[porthose]

sigh...

the simple fact is that you can only reach your true athletic potential by lifting athletic or olympic style lifts - which is what Ross does. He also uses bands, sledgehammers, tyres, odd object lifting etc etc etc.

but make sure you stay away from machine weights. From Bob Young, quoted in Patrick O'Shea's, Ed.D, book Quantum Strength Fitness II Gaining the Winning Edge "Machine Training, the easy way out and easier is NOT the to athletic success."

[Shepard]

the simple fact is that you can only reach your true athletic potential by lifting athletic or olympic style lifts
but make sure you stay away from machine weights.

Define 'athletic potential'.

Why should anyone reject all machines?

[wydell]

I think the only way to reach your true athletic potential is to train specifically for your sport, which will probably involve a combination of machines and free weights in most cases.

Many world class athletes use machines, free weights, plyometrics, stretching, sport specfic drills, reaction time drills, core exercises, endurance training (where appropriate) and mental training. My guess is that most use a combination of training methodologies rather than just one mode of training. If your theory was correct, then perhaps non-machine purists would take over the sporting world.

Personally, I like a diverse training routine.

sigh...

the simple fact is that you can only reach your true athletic potential by lifting athletic or olympic style lifts - which is what Ross does. He also uses bands, sledgehammers, tyres, odd object lifting etc etc etc.

but make sure you stay away from machine weights. From Bob Young, quoted in Patrick O'Shea's, Ed.D, book Quantum Strength Fitness II Gaining the Winning Edge "Machine Training, the easy way out and easier is NOT the to athletic success."

Edited by wydell, 14 December 2007 - 03:17 AM.

[porthose]

the simple fact is that you can only reach your true athletic potential by lifting athletic or olympic style lifts
but make sure you stay away from machine weights.

Define 'athletic potential'.

Why should anyone reject all machines?

Good question Shep.

I would define 'athletic potential' as being more faster, stronger, sharper, fitter, flexible - you get the idea. you can never get that degree of athletic potential with machine weights period. the reason why?

I am against machine weights simply because a machine restricts your movement to one plane or single joint exercises and single joint exercises have no basis in reality. Qouting Professor Fahey: One-joint exercises such as leg extensions and leg curls develop movement patterns that will interfere in your sport. Such exercises lead to inappropriate muscle recruitment patterns that can impair movement and lead to injury". And Earle Liederman in his 1924 book Muscle Building "How can anyone expect to posses coordination in active work when his muscles have never worked together in groups?"

Do you seriously think that Ross developed his athletic potential with machine weights?

When I stopped training 'body building' style 5 years ago and concentrated on the olympic lifts, odd object lifting, kettlebells, rope climbing etc, I immediately became leaner and far stronger, faster and sharper than I ever was. Thats my physical evidence.

Machine weights could help in recuperation.

[Shepard]

Oh, I absolutely agree with you that free object lifting is the superior method for a wide base. As Rippetoe says in the intro to Starting Strength:

"Properly performed, full range-of-motion barbell exercises are essentially the functional expression of human skeletal and muscular anatomy under a load."

And if we're talking a barbell vs a Nautilus machine, I wouldn't disagree. But, I don't think any elite athlete would disregard all machine exercises in their program. You can look into some of what Stuart McGill has talked about with unilateral leg presses. (I'd give you a quote from Ultimate Back Fitness and Performance, but it's back at school.) A Bulgarian split squat should be just as effective, but not all athletes can or should jump into those. And, some exercises need a cable machine: face pulls, pull throughs, etc. You've also got some good rowing machines. I agree that I haven't found a pressing machine that is worthwhile for me, but some people that know what they're doing use them at times.

Yeah, you can pretty much take any machine-based movement and find a free weight exercise that can mimic it to some degree (usually with more peripheral activation). But, it's not always optimal or safe. Especially, as you noted, in recuperation. If I pounded my shoulders playing football or rugby on Sunday, I'd oft for the leg press over a squat on Monday.

[Shepard]

I should note when I'm talking about athletes, I mean either very-driven or competing lifters. And athletic potential would be having the ability to do what is required of them in their sport.

[icyT]

the simple fact is that you can only reach your true athletic potential by lifting athletic or olympic style lifts but make sure you stay away from machine weights. From Bob Young, quoted in Patrick O'Shea's, Ed.D, book Quantum Strength Fitness II Gaining the Winning Edge "Machine Training, the easy way out and easier is NOT the to athletic success."

I would define 'athletic potential' as being more faster, stronger, sharper, fitter, flexible - you get the idea. you can never get that degree of athletic potential with machine weights period. I am against machine weights simply because a machine restricts your movement to one plane or single joint exercises and single joint exercises have no basis in reality. Qouting Professor Fahey: One-joint exercises such as leg extensions and leg curls develop movement patterns that will interfere in your sport. Such exercises lead to inappropriate muscle recruitment patterns that can impair movement and lead to injury". And Earle Liederman in his 1924 book Muscle Building "How can anyone expect to posses coordination in active work when his muscles have never worked together in groups?"

When I stopped training 'body building' style 5 years ago and concentrated on the olympic lifts, odd object lifting, kettlebells, rope climbing etc, I immediately became leaner and far stronger, faster and sharper than I ever was. Thats my physical evidence.

Machine weights could help in recuperation.

I don't think you're wrong, it just seems like that because of the choice of terminology and what you imply by different words. For example, Prof Fahey's criticism is attacking isolation movements. Not all machines work in isolation (the leg press is a compound, as is lat pulldown). Similarly, there are free weight isolation movements such as the barbell curl, glute-ham raise, or the straight-legged deadlift. All these only involve movement in a single joint. I think he's going a bit far to suggest that doing leg curls will create movement patterns that interfere with sport. Going with that, you should pretty much never do anything in life not directly related to sport. In actuality, it's probably not going to matter much, I doubt you'll be about to kick a ball and think 'leg curl!' and kick your own ass and fall over or something. If we can get away with sitting in a chair (or even healthily doing the asian squat) or even tossing in our sleep for long periods, I really doubt doing leg curls for a couple minutes is going to ruin our nervous system's skill orientation for sports.

As for Liederman, he seems to be addressing a lack of compound movements too, isolation/compound being a distinction amongst both free and machine exercise.

I think freeweight stuff is really good because it teaches the ability to stabilize, good balance and stuff. There's not anything magical about it though. Your testimonial sounds nice but it doesn't change that. The speed might increase due to your stability. 'Strength' you're probably measuring in terms of free weight progress rather than machine progress so it would be inherantly biased. Although, since the movements are more customizable with freeweights (don't have to change seat position or alter feet under a smith bar) you'll probably be healthier doing them (less joint stress) and a lower incidence of injuries like this on a free weight regime probably lets you train harder and more consistantly. I'm guessing if you lost fat it would be do to that (not sitting out eating cheetos due to injury) rather than anything directly due to it being freeweight, but as a result of subtle factors like this.

[TianZi]

the simple fact is that you can only reach your true athletic potential by lifting athletic or olympic style lifts but make sure you stay away from machine weights. From Bob Young, quoted in Patrick O'Shea's, Ed.D, book Quantum Strength Fitness II Gaining the Winning Edge "Machine Training, the easy way out and easier is NOT the to athletic success."

I would define 'athletic potential' as being more faster, stronger, sharper, fitter, flexible - you get the idea. you can never get that degree of athletic potential with machine weights period. I am against machine weights simply because a machine restricts your movement to one plane or single joint exercises and single joint exercises have no basis in reality. Qouting Professor Fahey: One-joint exercises such as leg extensions and leg curls develop movement patterns that will interfere in your sport. Such exercises lead to inappropriate muscle recruitment patterns that can impair movement and lead to injury". And Earle Liederman in his 1924 book Muscle Building "How can anyone expect to posses coordination in active work when his muscles have never worked together in groups?"

When I stopped training 'body building' style 5 years ago and concentrated on the olympic lifts, odd object lifting, kettlebells, rope climbing etc, I immediately became leaner and far stronger, faster and sharper than I ever was. Thats my physical evidence.

Machine weights could help in recuperation.

I don't think you're wrong, it just seems like that because of the choice of terminology and what you imply by different words. For example, Prof Fahey's criticism is attacking isolation movements. Not all machines work in isolation (the leg press is a compound, as is lat pulldown). Similarly, there are free weight isolation movements such as the barbell curl, glute-ham raise, or the straight-legged deadlift. All these only involve movement in a single joint. I think he's going a bit far to suggest that doing leg curls will create movement patterns that interfere with sport. Going with that, you should pretty much never do anything in life not directly related to sport. In actuality, it's probably not going to matter much, I doubt you'll be about to kick a ball and think 'leg curl!' and kick your own ass and fall over or something. If we can get away with sitting in a chair (or even healthily doing the asian squat) or even tossing in our sleep for long periods, I really doubt doing leg curls for a couple minutes is going to ruin our nervous system's skill orientation for sports.

As for Liederman, he seems to be addressing a lack of compound movements too, isolation/compound being a distinction amongst both free and machine exercise.

I think freeweight stuff is really good because it teaches the ability to stabilize, good balance and stuff. There's not anything magical about it though. Your testimonial sounds nice but it doesn't change that. The speed might increase due to your stability. 'Strength' you're probably measuring in terms of free weight progress rather than machine progress so it would be inherantly biased. Although, since the movements are more customizable with freeweights (don't have to change seat position or alter feet under a smith bar) you'll probably be healthier doing them (less joint stress) and a lower incidence of injuries like this on a free weight regime probably lets you train harder and more consistantly. I'm guessing if you lost fat it would be do to that (not sitting out eating cheetos due to injury) rather than anything directly due to it being freeweight, but as a result of subtle factors like this.

1. I believe the best all-around strength training program incorporates machines, cables, body weight exercises (e.g., pull-ups, dips, push-ups), free weights, and stretching, not just free weights. And the ideal regimen, assuming unlimited free time, includes as many different exercises at different angles, etc. as possible. That's what I've read in sources I consider fairly authoritative, such as Men's Health.

And that's also my personal experience. I've briefly described my weekly exercise regimen in Shephard's thread describing his own regimen. I do resistance training up to 1.5 - 3.5 hours daily, 6 days a week (in addition to 30 minutes of hard cardio on top of that). I hit each major muscle group twice per week with a partner (with the exception of legs and misc. "core muscle" training, each of which I do only once weekly, and abs, which I do 6 x weekly), with multiple sets of each specific exercise performed only once per week (with a couple of exceptions).

Using a dual-axis plate-loaded bench (two free-moving steel arms with spikes upon which you load plates), I've done a flat chest press of 375 pounds (4 x 45 lb. plates per arm, with each arm weighing 7.5 lbs). Hopefully I'll have increased to 405 lbs. by the beginning of March. On a flat bench using a standard 45 lb. bar, I do sets of 10-12 reps with 225 lbs., and have benched 305 lbs. for 2 reps, although I primarily reserve the 1-2 rep range for the dual-axis flat bench, as I consider it safer.

In years past, I tried to stick purely to free weights, but would quickly plateau and ultimately quit each time due to injuries. The past 10 months or so has been the first time I've attempted a more comprehensive regimen incorporating all of the different forms of exercise mentioned in my first sentence (even two yoga classes per week, in addition to everything else). I never previously was able to bench more than 215 using a straight bar, and that was during my 20's--I turn 39 this month. The additional lean muscle mass I am carrying around now as compared to any other time in my life is striking. It seems for me personally, a "multidisciplinary" strength training regimen is more effective than one consisting of free weights alone. But what worked for me may not work for you (and I'm also supplementing heavily, which I didn't do in my 20's, so it may be a strained comparison).

2. Regarding the dead lift, I don't do it, nor do I do Olympic-style lifting such as the clean and jerk. Unquestionably these exercises provide enormous benefits, but the risk/reward ratio doesn't balance out in my estimation, particularly if using heavy weights, and particularly as regards those Olympic lifting exercises (as opposed to the much safer, but still dangerous, deadlift). It's hard to do much of anything after seriously injuring your lower back, and it's the kind of injury that you may never completely recover from. There's a photo of me taken about a month ago flexing my back floating somewhere around here (http://www.somanymun..._Muscleman.html), and I've developed a pretty impressive musculature and raw strength in a relatively short period of time without resorting to the more dangerous free weight exercises.

Edited by TianZi, 01 February 2008 - 09:01 AM.

[icyT]

Okay, well you sound like one strong impressive guy.

[platypus]

And that's also my personal experience. I've briefly described my weekly exercise regimen in Shephard's thread describing his own regimen. I do resistance training up to 1.5 - 3.5 hours daily, 6 days a week (in addition to 30 minutes of hard cardio on top of that). I hit each major muscle group twice per week with a partner (with the exception of legs and misc. "core muscle" training, each of which I do only once weekly, and abs, which I do 6 x weekly), with multiple sets of each specific exercise performed only once per week (with a couple of exceptions).

That's a really serious volume of training. Do you also do something to develop and stimulate the brain and the intellect? You said you were retired so in theory you could do both (retirement is not so good for the mind usually).

[TianZi]

And that's also my personal experience. I've briefly described my weekly exercise regimen in Shephard's thread describing his own regimen. I do resistance training up to 1.5 - 3.5 hours daily, 6 days a week (in addition to 30 minutes of hard cardio on top of that). I hit each major muscle group twice per week with a partner (with the exception of legs and misc. "core muscle" training, each of which I do only once weekly, and abs, which I do 6 x weekly), with multiple sets of each specific exercise performed only once per week (with a couple of exceptions).

That's a really serious volume of training. Do you also do something to develop and stimulate the brain and the intellect? You said you were retired so in theory you could do both (retirement is not so good for the mind usually).

Well, semi-retired. I am still a licensed member of the Virginia State Bar, and also have a license from the Taiwan Ministry of Justice to practice foreign and international law on an independent basis in that country (I live in Taipei). I don't do that much actual work now, that's all. It certainly beats being obese, and working 12+ hour days under enormous pressure 6 or even 7 days a week, and that was me, day after day, year after year, until a couple of years ago--I was well on my way to an early grave like many other members of my family.

I read voraciously, play chess, and try to maintain proficiency in Mandarin Chinese, all of which are good for my mind.

[icyT]

Well, semi-retired. I am still a licensed member of the Virginia State Bar, and also have a license from the Taiwan Ministry of Justice to practice foreign and international law on an independent basis in that country (I live in Taipei). I don't do that much actual work now, that's all. It certainly beats being obese, and working 12+ hour days under enormous pressure 6 or even 7 days a week, and that was me, day after day, year after year, until a couple of years ago--I was well on my way to an early grave like many other members of my family.

I read voraciously, play chess, and try to maintain proficiency in Mandarin Chinese, all of which are good for my mind.

I want to develope a lifestyle organized enough to do this stuff! Though I'll probably prioritize Japanese first.