- Image courtesy of heroturko.me
In Part 1 I discussed the issues I saw with the FR machines section in section 4.2.7 of Supertraining, specifically the gross misunderstanding of motion and forces. Now I'd like to dive into my thoughts on what Verkhoshansky and Siff called the Non-Functional Resistance (NFR) machines.
I suppose if I am going to pick a place to start dissecting this section, I might as well start at the beginning. Sentence #1 reads, "...in general (NFR machines) are unable to provide the same degree of multi-dimensional, full range, neuromuscular and musculoskeletal training as free weights and 'functional' machines."* (Verkhoshansky, 238).
Critiquing this half sentence will be an entire post itself.
Okay so let's start with "multi-dimensional". I'm going to make the reasonable guess that what they mean by this is the fixed path of motion of machines does not allow for motion outside of that design, unlike FR machines (cables) and free weights. Two thoughts with this:
1. They haven't been introduced to the Cybex Eagle press, as demoed here by my friend Ben:
- Image courtesy of fitbie.msn.com
2. They don't understand the concept of virtual restraint. Virtual restraint can come into play in a lot of different exercises, such as squats, but it's relevance to this point is when performing pulling exercises with heavier loads using a cable** or "free" weights. When the load becomes heavy enough using either tool**, there will be one and only one path along which you can move that weight in the manner you are trying to--the path that optimizes the moment arms to every joint so you can perform the desire motions.
Test this out by performing a single arm dumbbell row. First, using a lighter weight, try to pull the dumbbell so your hand ends up by your shoulder. Next, try to pull the dumbbell so your hand ends up back by your hip. If the weight is light enough, this should be a reasonable task. Now try the same thing with a dumbbell that is highly challenging for you to row. (**Don't actually do this if you aren't prepared to.**).
Were you able to move that dumbbell as freely as you could the lighter one? Doubtful. When the load becomes great enough, that dumbbell will become just as restrained to a single path of motion as any machine--and even more restrained than those with the Cybex dual axis technology! Ha, but seriously.
Alright, on to "full range" now. I think maybe the easiest way to answer this is just, "No", but I suppose I should expand.
Full range: Are they talking of a joint or are they talking of a muscle? Regardless, it seems like they are presenting an argument more for a "full range" challenge than "full range" motion.
Here's a beautiful thing about well made strength machines--they offer a varying magnitude of challenge as you move throughout it's designed path of motion, the likes of which (if it is a quality machine) will provide a greater challenge in the parts of the motion where you are able to generate more tension and less of a challenge in parts of the range where you are able to generate less tension. This allows for a much greater range of motion that can be appropriately challenged instead of feeling like it is almost unbearably difficult at one point in the range and then a complete cake walk throughout the rest of the range.
While free weights and cables allow for this change in challenge, too, unless you understand how to set the exercise up to provide the challenge that you want, rarely will you find that either of these tools is appropriate for challenging a larger range of motion.
- Image courtesy of stack.com
Take the barbell back squat, for example. This loaded movement (as if there were only one way to perform it) is most difficult in only one spot and how much load you can challenge yourself with is completely dependent on your ability to handle it at that one spot. Moreover, as you move ascend up from that one spot and are able to handle more load, the challenge becomes less. While you can add bands to increase tension as you ascend out of the bottom of your squat, understand that 1000 lbs times a zero moment to the joints controlled by the tissues you are trying to challenge equates to no challenge to those tissues. So even with bands you still have to understand how to create the challenge you are looking for in order for them to be as effective as they can be in terms of altering the challenge throughout the range.
Okay, finally on the last bit--"neuromuscular and musculoskeletal training". To me it seems as if they are saying that your muscles, skeletal structure, and nervous system won't reap as much benefit from using NFR machines as they will from using FR machines and free weights.
Look, if you develop quads that can generate more tension from performing knee extension on a machine, then you have stronger quads. And those quads and that strength, you can use it wherever you want. You don't magically lose that strength because you stand up out of the knee extension machine and move on to squats, for example. It's not about the tool that you used to develop the strength. Whatever adaptations you create using any tool you get to use when using other tools.
As discussed above, in terms of appropriately challenging tissue throughout a larger range of motion machines will often reign superior over free weights and cables. So then the question becomes are you trying to create an adaptation where you are stronger throughout a larger range of motion or only at very specific points in that range?
Stronger muscles means more force that can be applied into bone, which leads to stronger bones. And as far as the nervous system is concerned, I'm not really sure what they mean by this. Are they saying your brain won't be able to figure out how to use stronger muscles to produce motion? I don't think that will be the case. Or are they talking about explosive movements and speed work? Why can't you do speed presses on a chest press or do speed work on a leg press or knee extension? At least with those tools there will be a greater opportunity for a greater challenge to be presented to the tissue.
So there you have my thoughts on that one half-sentence. Up next, critiquing the rest of the NFR section.
What kind of adaptations opportunities do you think are provided by free weights and cables that aren't provided by machines?
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.
**The virtual restraint imposed by trying to pull a heavy load attached to a cable will be more conic in nature than the virtual restraint imposed when trying to pull a heavy dumbbell. In other words, when performing a heavy cable row, there were be fewer and fewer options for motion available as you pull your hand towards yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment