"Supertraining" and Machines: Part 3

Image courtesy of heroturko.me

There is a lot that could be said about the remaining six paragraphs of section 4.2.7.2 in Supertraining regarding "Non-Functional Resistance (NFR) Machines", but in an attempt to do more than debate every sentence, I want to pick out one concept that is brought up in these paragraphs.  Also, if you haven't already checked out Part 1 and Part 2, now could be a good time to do so.

What I want to discuss is this idea of "stabilizers".  I had an epiphany about this a few weeks back.  See, I used to be very anti-machine and pro-dumbbell and barbell.  And by "used to" I think I really started switching how I view things around February or March of 2012.  There are a number of ironies with this, not the least of which is that I would gladly use knee flexion machines (leg curls) but would stay away from chest presses, leg presses, and every other kind of machine like the plague.

Image courtesy of juranring.co.uk

Looking back, this selective bias towards knee flexion machines and away from everything else was completely void of reasonable logic, but regardless I thought I was sound in my reasoning.  Although until a few weeks ago, I couldn't recall exactly what that reasoning was.

I had multiple discussions with people where they were telling me the exact same thing that I tell people now and where they would use the exact same logic that I use now, but it wasn't clicking in my head at the time.  In fact, I was very against what they were saying.

Finally, after spending over a year trying to remember why I disliked machines so much, it finally hit me one day:  I was under the belief that if you exercised using machines you wouldn't work your "stabilizers".  In fact, for years before I got my first exposure to studying anatomy via the Muscle Activation Techniques™ internship, I thought there were muscles whose sole purpose was to "stabilize" and they would be neglected if I exercised on machines.

Here's the thing:  labeling a muscle a "stabilizer" or "prime mover" or whatever else you want to call it is essentially denoting a muscle's ability to produce or prevent motion around an axis.  Think of it as a continuum where a "stabilizer" has less of an ability and a "primer mover" has a greater ability, but each has an ability.  It's just that one is less than the other.

Image courtesy of iarfonline.com

And because each has an ability, each should have the mechanical opportunity to prevent or produce motion around the axis in question.  This means that when you sit down in a chest press machine, your shoulder "stabilizers" don't automatically shut off as I once firmly believed would happen.

Image courtesy of au.lifestyle.yahoo.com

So what is a possible difference that you may be feeling when doing, for example, a dumbbell chest press on a flat bench compared to a chest press on a machine?  Because of the restraint imposed by the architecture of the machine the amount of skill needed to successfully perform the desired motion is dropped way, way down to almost, if not right at, zero.

With increased passive restraint and decreased skill requirements comes the ability to challenge tissue to a greater degree.  Greater mechanical challenge to the tissue provides the opportunity to develop stronger muscles, which brings us to the question:

**Are you performing chest presses to improve the skill of pressing or to increase the ability of the muscles performing the presses to produce tension (force)?**

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!