"Supertraining" and Machines: Part 1

Image courtesy of heroturko.me

I was skimming through my copy of Supertraining by Yuri Verkhoshansky and Mel Siff this morning and thought it would be be interesting to check out their take on using machines and strength training.  Despite the respect this book has garnered from the strength and conditioning world, there were some MAJOR errors in the understanding of the application and effects of strength training machines.

Just a quick side note before I dive in:  I am going to try to keep this post short(er), so I'm not going to hit all of the points from this section of the text (4.2.7, 6th edition-expanded version) today, but I plan on expanding on this post in future posts.

So the authors started by classifying strength training machines as either 1) Functional Resistance (FR) Machines or 2) Non-functional Resistance (NFR) Machines (Verkhoshansky, 237).  The difference between the two was stated as "FR machines offer resistance in sport specific patterns" whereas "NFR machines offer general resistance in non-sport specific patterns"* (Verkhoshansky, 237).  The argument that was made over the next few pages is that using FR is a superior means by which to train athletes in order to prepare them for competition.

Image courtesy of mystrengthtraining.com

An example of FR was said to be a cable and pulley system (excluding traditional lat pull-down machines) as compared to examples of NFRs which were said to be seated knee extensions, biceps curl machines, and leg presses.

The entire point of the section was to answer the question, "Which classification of machine would better-prepare athletes to perform the movements of their sport?".  The overarching conclusion was stated as, "The important limitation of many strength training machines is that they are designed to train muscles, not movement.  Because of this, they are not the most important training tool for athletes."* (Verkhoshansky, 237).

I looked at this statement and my first thought was, "Muscles perform movements, so by improving the way muscles perform are you not giving yourself the best opportunity to improve movements?"

In an interesting twist at the end of the first section, the authors write, "In using any machine, however, it is vital to note that simulation of any sporting movement against heavy loads can alter the force-time characteristics of the action significantly and disrupt the neuromuscular programmes responsible for movement."* (Verkhoshansky, 238).

To me this is implying that the use of FR machines is not to actually get stronger, but to practice motions specific to an athlete's sport.  The kicker with this is that anyone who can see and understand forces will realize that there are very few sport-specific motions (if any) that would actually allow for a single cable and pulley to be added to them (such as the high-low cable given as the example on page 237) and only have a change in the amount of force that has to be overcome in order to perform the motion.  More times than not you will be dealing with a different direction of force, as well, which will alter which muscles are used to perform the motion.  (**An easy example of this is the chest press vs. the row.  Both can be performed as the same motion, but because the direction of the resistance force is different, different muscles are employed to perform the motion.)

This seems to directly contradict the very last sentence in this sections, which reads, "...functionality is not the automatic consequence of a specific exercise, but of the functional objectives associated with using any exercise, irrespective of its similarity to any sports action and integrating it effectively into the long-term conditioning programme."* (Verkhoshansky, 238).

My takeaway from this is that the authors are saying it is not about the motion being performed but rather about the adaptation attained through exercising and how well that adaptation transfers to the improvement of the performance of the athlete.  This, as I stated above, is contradictory to their previous statement where they wrote the goal was to improve sporting motions through adding resistance even though it is likely the added resistance would alter which muscles are performing the motion and therefore the potential adaptation gleaned from the exercise would be different than what was intended.

Okay so that's a brief overview of the first part of this section on machines and the objective of them writing this section altogether.  Up next:  their fatal misinterpretation of the use of "NFR Machines".

Are you seeing forces or are you caught up in the motions?

Your body.  Your training.

Like this post?  Drop a comment below and “Like” Self Made® on Facebook!

Want to use this article in your blog, newsletter, or other platform?  You may, but be sure to include all of the biographical info found in the yellow box below!

*Verkhoshanski, Yuri; Siff, Mel.  Supertraining, Sixth Edition--Expanded Version.  2009.  p. 237-240.