Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomasien | Hacker News Reader

This is a solid article, but the title is just wrong. "Free weights are better than machines" is not a "little known" fact, it's a well known fact by anyone who has cared to read the internet re:fitness since 2009. So is "lifting weights is much more efficient than cardio".

I say this only so that you don't read this and think these are some kind of fringe theories. They're widely, WIDELY known and 100% true.

View on HN

2009 and the internet? This has been the dominant conventional wisdom in all fitness media for at least a decade. If you open any fitness or "men's" magazine in any given month you will find at least one article telling you that: strength training is better than cardio, free weights are better than machines, and lifts that use multiple major muscle groups in coordination are best. The funny thing is that every one of these articles acts like it is the first time any of this has ever been written down.

It's the exact same way with articles advocating diets relatively higher in protein and fat. An assertion of novelty seems to be a mandatory element of any attempt to market anything fitness related.

Agree, but you know who hasn't gotten on board? The people that design/fit out gyms. It's still all machines in the middle and a couple benches near the edges. I'd love to walk into a gym that is all or nearly all free weights.

Actually I think you'll find that they're not widely known.

(Sweeping generalisation) Most women avoid free weights because they don't want to put on muscle and look like a body builder. Doesn't happen. Hell, some men have that same attitude because "hey I don't want to get bulky". My comment is "well if you discover that secret, you should market it because millions of people will buy it"

Thanks for the crux of it. The first page was so much intro filler that I gave up.

Free weights as better than machines was fairly well known at least as far back as the early 90s. "Machines don't work your stabiliser muscles" was the phrase I generally heard.

Depends what you are trying to do and your situation. Machines are safer, so if this is a concern for some reason (injury rehab, age, etc.), then machines in some cases can be better for lifting heavy weights.

There's nothing wrong with machines, except being less effective than free weights. They're still solid though, I got in the best shape of my life one time only on weights because I worked really really hard at it. But I accomplish 80% now with 40% of the time with free weights and compound exercises.

I do something similar. Two days/week: heavy weights, primarily machines (+cardio). Two days/week: free weights, compound+core exercises. Much lighter weights- still a grueling work out.

One of the big criticisms Rippetoe makes of machines in the book Starting Strength mentioned in the article is that because they can cause unbalanced muscle development and increase the chances of injury over the long run.

Machine are only "safer" for very specific definitions of that word. They force you into a specific path.

very specific definitions

Ha! Hard to argue with that because you pluralized 'definition.'

But what I mean is, (1) If I'm doing a chest exercise, for example, with 270+ pounds, and I fail on a machine, I can get out of it. With free weights, I need a spotter and it's much trickier. (2) Perhaps more important: If I'm doing heavy legs (450 lbs, for example), with free weights I have to load a lot of weight on my back for a squat. This is dangerous even for younger men (I'm 50 years old) because slight distraction and they can hurt their backs in a way that is really hard to get over. Load up a weight machine and I don't have to worry about it.

I hit the stabilizer muscles doing light weight squats on a bosu ball.

So, yeah, in a perfect world I'd be 25 years old and doing all free weights. But I've adapted to my circumstances in what I believe to be a reasonable way.

Yes. It's just that being hit by the weights is actually not the failure mode you should be worried about most. It's having the wrong stress on your joints for longer times.

It's a bit like barefoot running vs shod running. Shoes protect your feet, so they are ostensibly safer. But they also make it easy to have bad technique and wreck your joints, especially your knees.

> (1) If I'm doing a chest exercise, for example, with 270+ pounds, and I fail on a machine, I can get out of it. With free weights, I need a spotter and it's much trickier.

Depends on what you are doing, and how you are doing it. The only real need for a spotter is for barbell bench pressing. There you can bench press in a squat rack with the safeties set to the right level. But there are lots of other exercises that provide a similar benefit without trapping you. E.g. (weighted) dips (on rings), push up variations, hand stand push ups, standing overhead presses.

* It's having the wrong stress on your joints for longer times*

Yes, that was my point #2.

The only real need for a spotter is for barbell bench pressing

I was specifically thinking about the bench-press-like machine press, but also true for the dumbell fly exercise.

I do the free-weight lifts, just not with heavy weight. When I want to seriously stress my muscles I go to the machines.

I just started with the bosu-ball stuff last year and I have to say I like it. It hits stabilizers the squat doesn't begin to touch. I'm a sailor- just got back from a week-long bareboat charter in pretty choppy seas, and I really like the results. I'm not sure I can articulate it though- while it helped my balance, it also helped my strength while maintaining balance. For example, the task of picking up a mooring ball with the boat bouncing seemed easier. But that may just be a distorted perception.

> It hits stabilizers the squat doesn't begin to touch.

Interesting. How much do you squat in relation to your bodyweight? Have you ever tried slacklining?

I find machines are also more permissive of terrible form.

Well I knew that machines are extremely ineffective. I also knew they have them there for their impressive looks. What I did not realize is the second reason gyms like machines: Liability.

I came here to say this. I read about all this stuff years ago on SomethingAwful of all places. If you've ever bothered to do any research rather than just believing whatever your gym tells you, you know all of this.

For life in general, or at least the things that matter in life, it's always a good idea to do your own research. Otherwise you end up going through life believing the half-baked stories people make up so they don't have to think, and the bullshit people tell you to sell you stuff.

it's a well known fact by anyone who has cared to read the internet re:fitness since 2009

Or anybody who picked up an issue of IronMan magazine, dating back to at least the late 80's or early 90's.

> "lifting weights is much more efficient than cardio"

That's news to me. Not saying it is wrong, but if it is a fact, it's one even reasonably informed people doesn't know. Studies (http://jap.physiology.org/content/102/4/1439.long and http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100311123639.ht...) suggest that High-intensity interval training is an incredibly time efficient way to get in shape.

While those of us who know how to wield the Internet wisely will have arrived at this conclusion, I still meet many people on a regular basis (especially women) that will try to challenge those ideas.

I don't blame them for thinking that way, the fitness industry has conditioned an entire generation into thinking cardio is the way to go and that high rep work with pink dumbbells is how you 'tone'.

The more articles there are like this, the more likely we will see a shift in how everyone tries to get fit.

That all depends on where you are in your information-gathering phase. And for many, many, many inexperienced lifters, as well as materials and recommendations promoting fitness and strength training will still recommend machines over freeweights.

Both have their place, though I put a heavy emphasis on freeweights.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com