"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!

"Supertraining" and Machines: Part 2

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:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Y8W6Yje4eSg

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?

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.

**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.

"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.

Secrets to Maximum Power Development

Eastern European performance coaches have been regarded as superior to North American performance coaches for decades. Here are some secrets of Yuri Verkhoshansky regarding developing maximum power in your athletes, as described by Charles Poliquin.

Secrets to Maximum Power Development by Charles Poliquin

Get big or die tryin'.