MSN Article: Is Your Work-Out Wasting Your Time

http://health.msn.com/fitness/articl...0184336&page=1

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

On Dec 27, 1:20 pm, "Steve Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
> http://health.msn.com/fitness/articl...entid=10018433...
>
> -S-http://www.kbnj.com

A most interesting article, a very good post.

I particularly agree with the false divide between strength and
cardio. WTF??? It's one and the same body, specificity of training
be damned! Just look at gymnasts...I should have been a
gymnast..."functional training," eh? Strength without mobility means
nothing -- yes, yes! Very interesting philosophy...train movements,
not muscles...hmmm!!

Also caught my eye that the article recommended doing exercises on
one's feet -- which I'd dismissed as making those exercises easier due
to "stabilizer muscles" inevitably helping out, but which the article
points out to be a good thing!

Sometimes I miss the Army for just those reasons -- rigorous physical
activity was part and parcel of everyday infantry tasks, and thus
motivation was never a problem!

BTW, that Arthur Jones sounds like a crazy amalgamation of MFW
regulars: a .45-packing, animal-hunting, womanizing, railroad hobo of
a ninth-grade dropout amateur anatomist who lived on a diet of
cigarettes, chocolate, scrambled eggs, and coffee.

<cas_eindhoven@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:385ff228-188d-4840-bbb0-8de4890c912d@j64g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 27, 1:20 pm, "Steve Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>> http://health.msn.com/fitness/articl...entid=10018433...
>>
>> -S-http://www.kbnj.com
>
> A most interesting article, a very good post.
>
> I particularly agree with the false divide between strength and
> cardio. WTF??? It's one and the same body, specificity of training
> be damned! Just look at gymnasts...I should have been a
> gymnast..."functional training," eh? Strength without mobility means
> nothing -- yes, yes! Very interesting philosophy...train movements,
> not muscles...hmmm!!
>
> Also caught my eye that the article recommended doing exercises on
> one's feet -- which I'd dismissed as making those exercises easier due
> to "stabilizer muscles" inevitably helping out, but which the article
> points out to be a good thing!

We have a hammer strength ground-based jammer, it's a nice unit, and
definitely challenging.
>
> Sometimes I miss the Army for just those reasons -- rigorous physical
> activity was part and parcel of everyday infantry tasks, and thus
> motivation was never a problem!
>
> BTW, that Arthur Jones sounds like a crazy amalgamation of MFW
> regulars: a .45-packing, animal-hunting, womanizing, railroad hobo of
> a ninth-grade dropout amateur anatomist who lived on a diet of
> cigarettes, chocolate, scrambled eggs, and coffee.

which just goes to show he wasn't all bad....

On Dec 27, 2:08 pm, cas_eindho...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Dec 27, 1:20 pm, "Steve Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>
> >http://health.msn.com/fitness/articl...entid=10018433...
>
> > -S-http://www.kbnj.com
>
> A most interesting article, a very good post.
>
> I particularly agree with the false divide between strength and
> cardio. WTF??? It's one and the same body, specificity of training
> be damned! Just look at gymnasts...I should have been a
> gymnast..."functional training," eh? Strength without mobility means
> nothing -- yes, yes! Very interesting philosophy...train movements,
> not muscles...hmmm!!
>
> Also caught my eye that the article recommended doing exercises on
> one's feet -- which I'd dismissed as making those exercises easier due
> to "stabilizer muscles" inevitably helping out, but which the article
> points out to be a good thing!
>
> Sometimes I miss the Army for just those reasons -- rigorous physical
> activity was part and parcel of everyday infantry tasks, and thus
> motivation was never a problem!
>
> BTW, that Arthur Jones sounds like a crazy amalgamation of MFW
> regulars: a .45-packing, animal-hunting, womanizing, railroad hobo of
> a ninth-grade dropout amateur anatomist who lived on a diet of
> cigarettes, chocolate, scrambled eggs, and coffee.

i'm not seeing the article.

"dred" <dredturner@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:367a0a60-975d-4612-8823-273b3d949968@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 27, 2:08 pm, cas_eindho...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Dec 27, 1:20 pm, "Steve Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://health.msn.com/fitness/articl...entid=10018433...
>>
>> > -S-http://www.kbnj.com
>>
>> A most interesting article, a very good post.
>>
>> I particularly agree with the false divide between strength and
>> cardio. WTF??? It's one and the same body, specificity of training
>> be damned! Just look at gymnasts...I should have been a
>> gymnast..."functional training," eh? Strength without mobility means
>> nothing -- yes, yes! Very interesting philosophy...train movements,
>> not muscles...hmmm!!
>>
>> Also caught my eye that the article recommended doing exercises on
>> one's feet -- which I'd dismissed as making those exercises easier due
>> to "stabilizer muscles" inevitably helping out, but which the article
>> points out to be a good thing!
>>
>> Sometimes I miss the Army for just those reasons -- rigorous physical
>> activity was part and parcel of everyday infantry tasks, and thus
>> motivation was never a problem!
>>
>> BTW, that Arthur Jones sounds like a crazy amalgamation of MFW
>> regulars: a .45-packing, animal-hunting, womanizing, railroad hobo of
>> a ninth-grade dropout amateur anatomist who lived on a diet of
>> cigarettes, chocolate, scrambled eggs, and coffee.
>
> i'm not seeing the article.
http://health.msn.com/fitness/articl...0184336&page=1

"Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> schreef:

The article is complete bullshit. Please.

I particulary liked the leg extension example;

"Researchers, for instance, have known that the leg-extension machine (the
unit in which you sit with your shin behind a padded bar attached to a
weight stack and then straighten your leg in front of you) trains you to do
just one thing: become very strong at the leg-extension machine."

This is complete bullshit, and anyone who suddenly thinks i can be convinced
otherwise better come up with some good stuff.

The LE makes the quadricep stronger, period. You will become better at
ANYthging involving the quads, particularly at kicking a ball, as done in
soccer, where the quads contract very hard withOUT any need from the glutes,
WHATS_SO_EVER. In fact, the hip flexors contract very hard, just as leg
extensions...
In LE they are static, though...

And Soccer is a sport.

Remember...

Steve posted this link. Are you now conviced that gyms are worthless?
Maybe working out at home is better?

Hmmm....

Lets see, what kind of tools can we use at home? Does Steve sell things that
can be used at home?

Anyone who doesnt see through Steve, and the BS link he posted, doesnt
deserve any better.

The guy is a complete moron, with no understanding about training.

"Train on your feet. Sitting is an unnatural body position for strenuous
work."

So is wearing clothes, riding a bike, driving a car and swimming. I am now
just talking about the unnatural part.

We cant swim, cant we? We have to learn, as opposed to animals. Its not
natural to swim. Or sail.

People... dont swim or ride abike. If you study anatomy/kinesiology, you
will conclude that we were designed to walk.

And we arent very good runners either, since we are bi-podal.

Please.

--
Pete

"Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> schreef:

The article is complete bullshit. Please.

I particulary liked the leg extension example;

"Researchers, for instance, have known that the leg-extension machine (the
unit in which you sit with your shin behind a padded bar attached to a
weight stack and then straighten your leg in front of you) trains you to do
just one thing: become very strong at the leg-extension machine."

This is complete bullshit, and anyone who suddenly thinks i can be convinced
otherwise better come up with some good stuff.

The LE makes the quadricep stronger, period. You will become better at
ANYthging involving the quads, particularly at kicking a ball, as done in
soccer, where the quads contract very hard withOUT any need from the glutes,
WHATS_SO_EVER. In fact, the hip flexors contract very hard, just as leg
extensions...
In LE they are static, though...

And Soccer is a sport.

Remember...

Steve posted this link. Are you now conviced that gyms are worthless?
Maybe working out at home is better?

Hmmm....

Lets see, what kind of tools can we use at home? Does Steve sell things that
can be used at home?

Anyone who doesnt see through Steve, and the BS link he posted, doesnt
deserve any better.

The guy is a complete moron, with no understanding about training.

"Train on your feet. Sitting is an unnatural body position for strenuous
work."

So is wearing clothes, riding a bike, driving a car and swimming. I am now
just talking about the unnatural part.

We cant swim, cant we? We have to learn, as opposed to animals. Its not
natural to swim. Or sail.

People... dont swim or ride abike. If you study anatomy/kinesiology, you
will conclude that we were designed to walk.

And we arent very good runners either, since we are bi-podal.

Please.

--
Pete

<cas_eindhoven@yahoo.com> schreef:

> A most interesting article, a very good post.

No it isnt.

It is complete bullshit.

> I particularly agree with the false divide between strength and
> cardio. WTF???

Weightlifters = strenght, no endurance
Marathon runners = endurance, no strength.

Both are extremes, but real sports nevertheless.

> It's one and the same body, specificity of training
> be damned! Just look at gymnasts...I should have been a
> gymnast..."functional training," eh? Strength without mobility means
> nothing -- yes, yes! Very interesting philosophy...train movements,
> not muscles...hmmm!!

Not only are you stoopid, but also a very crappy at philosophy.
I admire gymnasts, and i enjoy watching them, but it has EVERYTHING to do
with aesthetics, and NOTHING with function.

The movements they make are unnatural in the EXTREME, and therefore also
extremely difficult to perform, but they have nothing to to with REAL life.
Nothing.

Please.

Most sports have nothing to do with REAL life. All sports actually, an
exception perhaps being the javelin throwers, and all the other guys that
throw things around.

OTOH, a professinal athlete does weird movements in his/her real life.

> Also caught my eye that the article recommended doing exercises on
> one's feet -- which I'd dismissed as making those exercises easier due
> to "stabilizer muscles" inevitably helping out, but which the article
> points out to be a good thing!

Okay.

Do tons of heavy overhead presses. Standing. Annd keep going heavier and
heavier. And check that lower back after 10 years.
And i dont mean weighlifters, since they are too smart to actually
hyperextend the back, and crunch those discs.

I am talking about regular standing front presses.

--
Pete

On Dec 27, 5:58 pm, "ATP*" <waxwingsl...@azurepane.com> wrote:
>
>
> We have a hammer strength ground-based jammer, it's a nice unit, and
> definitely challenging.

Is that supposed to be some kind of machine to reproduce the push-up??

Something about using one's own bodyweight...I wonder what it
is...makes things particularly challenging...something like the chin-
up, for example...great stuff....

> which just goes to show he wasn't all bad....

Which just goes to show MFW is pretty entertaining....

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64bf0638-ff94-46a8-8d03-4277e72a76cb@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 27, 5:58 pm, "ATP*" <waxwingsl...@azurepane.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> We have a hammer strength ground-based jammer, it's a nice unit, and
>> definitely challenging.
>
> Is that supposed to be some kind of machine to reproduce the push-up??
>
http://us.commercial.lifefitness.com/content.cfm/jammer

On Dec 28, 5:38 pm, "ATP*" <waxwingsl...@azurepane.com> wrote:
>
>
> http://us.commercial.lifefitness.com/content.cfm/jammer


Machines are nice -- I'm even considering whether to sign up with the
NYSC chain, so that I can visit different locations with their
different machines, just for fun -- but I only see them as being for
the sake of variety, and not as the core of a strength-gain program
for myself. Maybe when I'm old and gray, I guess...like the others on
them!

As for doing exercises on one's feet: I still say that those are
easier than the same exercise seated, and I'm slightly skeptical as to
any "functional strength" benefits involved. I do agree with the
article's main thrust about machines being too prevalent in people's
exercise routines, however.

On Dec 27, 1:20 pm, "Steve Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
> http://health.msn.com/fitness/articl...entid=10018433...
>
> -S-http://www.kbnj.com

Correct....and so what?

Elite athletes have trainers. I wouldn't be at all surprised if free
weight training is emphasized. Perhaps machines are used for
rehabbing or for other specific reasons.
People who have to lift heavy objects at work would benefit from free
weight training.

Many of us are not highly competitive strength athletes and don't do
construction work, wrestle fire hoses, etc. We're not competitive
bodybuilders either. We want to look good, be more active, socialize,
and get somewhat more fit. We don't embrace extremism simply because
it's more "effective."

We'll use machines and free weights and we won't particularly care
whether a machine workout produces the same results as using free
weights.

We know we can hurt ourselves using machines or free weights so we
might seek helpful advice on these matters.

I'm sure there are gyms which cater more to strength athletes than to
people like myself so how about you going there and doing your thing
and not getting on our cases if we want to use machines and otherwise
work out in a less than optimal manner?

Nothing I've said has anything to do with common gym courtesy; that's
another matter altogether.

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:acc1e4b2-6636-465f-824c-8933e4fe98fa@s27g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 28, 5:38 pm, "ATP*" <waxwingsl...@azurepane.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://us.commercial.lifefitness.com/content.cfm/jammer
>
>
> Machines are nice -- I'm even considering whether to sign up with the
> NYSC chain, so that I can visit different locations with their
> different machines, just for fun -- but I only see them as being for
> the sake of variety, and not as the core of a strength-gain program
> for myself. Maybe when I'm old and gray, I guess...like the others on
> them!
>
The ground jammer is primarily for training football players. I doubt you'll
find one in any of the gyms you would hang out in.

"Bartleby" <arroyo98@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:638ef672-ba97-4cac-89fe-d658c5ec59c7@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 27, 1:20 pm, "Steve Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>> http://health.msn.com/fitness/articl...entid=10018433...
>>
>> -S-http://www.kbnj.com
>
> Correct....and so what?
>
> Elite athletes have trainers. I wouldn't be at all surprised if free
> weight training is emphasized. Perhaps machines are used for
> rehabbing or for other specific reasons.
> People who have to lift heavy objects at work would benefit from free
> weight training.

Correct....and so what?

> Many of us are not highly competitive strength athletes and don't do
> construction work, wrestle fire hoses, etc. We're not competitive
> bodybuilders either. We want to look good, be more active, socialize,
> and get somewhat more fit. We don't embrace extremism simply because
> it's more "effective."

There is nothing extreme about using free weights.

Effective is not four-letter word.

Free weights, properly used, are safer than machines because they work
the body in the way it was designed to be worked.

Isolation exercises should remain the domain of advanced lifters.

What most people do in the gym with machines is neither safe nor
effective, witness myriad of bandaged knees in the typical gym, not to
mention the strength and phyisique (or, more accurately, the lack
thereof) of the overwhelming majority of gym-goers.

> We'll use machines and free weights and we won't particularly care
> whether a machine workout produces the same results as using free
> weights.

If you don't care, then please don't participate in the conversation.

> We know we can hurt ourselves using machines or free weights so we
> might seek helpful advice on these matters.
>
> I'm sure there are gyms which cater more to strength athletes than to
> people like myself so how about you going there and doing your thing
> and not getting on our cases if we want to use machines and otherwise
> work out in a less than optimal manner?

I don't bother people at my gym who use machines. Do whatever you like,
and enjoy your time at the gym.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com


> Nothing I've said has anything to do with common gym courtesy; that's
> another matter altogether.

On Dec 29, 2:27 pm, "Steve Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
> "Bartleby" <arroy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:638ef672-ba97-4cac-89fe-d658c5ec59c7@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Dec 27, 1:20 pm, "Steve Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
> >>http://health.msn.com/fitness/articl...entid=10018433...
>
> >> -S-http://www.kbnj.com
>
> > Correct....and so what?
>
> > Elite athletes have trainers. I wouldn't be at all surprised if free
> > weight training is emphasized. Perhaps machines are used for
> > rehabbing or for other specific reasons.
> > People who have to lift heavy objects at work would benefit from free
> > weight training.
>
> Correct....and so what?
>
> > Many of us are not highly competitive strength athletes and don't do
> > construction work, wrestle fire hoses, etc. We're not competitive
> > bodybuilders either. We want to look good, be more active, socialize,
> > and get somewhat more fit. We don't embrace extremism simply because
> > it's more "effective."
>
> There is nothing extreme about using free weights.
>
> Effective is not four-letter word.
>
> Free weights, properly used, are safer than machines because they work
> the body in the way it was designed to be worked.
>
> Isolation exercises should remain the domain of advanced lifters.
>
> What most people do in the gym with machines is neither safe nor
> effective, witness myriad of bandaged knees in the typical gym, not to
> mention the strength and phyisique (or, more accurately, the lack
> thereof) of the overwhelming majority of gym-goers.
>
> > We'll use machines and free weights and we won't particularly care
> > whether a machine workout produces the same results as using free
> > weights.
>
> If you don't care, then please don't participate in the conversation.
>
> > We know we can hurt ourselves using machines or free weights so we
> > might seek helpful advice on these matters.
>
> > I'm sure there are gyms which cater more to strength athletes than to
> > people like myself so how about you going there and doing your thing
> > and not getting on our cases if we want to use machines and otherwise
> > work out in a less than optimal manner?
>
> I don't bother people at my gym who use machines. Do whatever you like,
> and enjoy your time at the gym.
>
> -S-http://www.kbnj.com
>
> > Nothing I've said has anything to do with common gym courtesy; that's
> > another matter altogether.

Extremism is a mind-set. If someone is an elite athlete, s/he should
have an extremist orientation. If someone's work involves lifting
heavy objects, free weight
training with heavy objects would be sensible. If someone wants to
lose weight, get stronger, and look better, using machines or free
weights, eating sensibly, and being physically active outside of the
gym will work just fine. Will the machine-using person achieve a peak
level of cardiovascular fitness or be able to compete in powerlifting
or Olympic lifting events? No. Will using machines, treadmills,
etc., eating sensibly, being moderately active outside of the gym, and
otherwise taking care of one's physical and psychological health pay
off in terms of enhancing one's quality of life? Yes.

Independent of my position that machines can be used safely and
effectively by those who buy gym memberships to get somewhat more fit
and better-looking, I wonder how difficult it would be to find
evidence that a number of NFL and NBA athletes use machines as part of
their strength training regimens. I wonder what their teams' gyms
look like.

Does announcing to the general public that anything less than
achieving a peak level of fitness is more or less a waste of time
reflect an extremist orientation? In my opinion, it does.

I've been to more than a few gyms in my life. In my opinion, the
majority of people do not use free weights appropriately. I'm not a
trainer so perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd bet money a good trainer seeing
what I have seen would agree with me. People don't use machines
correctly either. I think people would benefit from receiving sound
instruction with free weights and machines.

I don't know why people get banged up and you probably don't know
either, unless you're a licensed physical therapist or sports medicine
doctor. People get banged up doing all kinds of things and for all
kinds of reasons. People have been - and continue to get - injured
from using free weights. This is no reason to avoid using machines or
free weights and it is a reason to receive appropriate instruction
regarding machines and/or free weights. Actually, a good assessment
of one's weaknesses and vulnerabilities should precede or accompany
either type of training. Perhaps that's asking too much.

I've seen very strong people with physiques I don't envy. Appearance
is somewhat subjective. What you don't like may be quite acceptable
for someone else and/or for that person's significant other/ that
person's friends/that person's family. Personally, I have known quite
a few people whose appearance significantly improved after doing the
treadmill and machine thing at the gym for a couple of months.

I belong to an ugly gym where I currently use a plate-loaded calf and
squat machine and a plate-loaded seated dip station. I do incline
benches in a power rack, but I don't think anyone thinks a power rack
is a "machine." I don't care to mention the poundages involved;
suffice it to say they aren't impressive. According to friends and my
significant other, my appearance has improved. That's good enough for
me.

The article you cited attempts to prove the inferiority and potential
pitfalls of working out with machines. Someone expressing a different
opinion means that this person should not participate in a
discussion? You don't own this newsgroup so don't bother telling
anyone who disagrees with you, in whole or in part, whether they
should participate in any discussion.

"Bartleby" <arroyo98@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cf4d040c-2016-4a38-b0ef-5beb7ef975dc@w38g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 29, 2:27 pm, "Steve Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>> "Bartleby" <arroy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:638ef672-ba97-4cac-89fe-d658c5ec59c7@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Dec 27, 1:20 pm, "Steve Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>http://health.msn.com/fitness/articl...entid=10018433...
>>
>> >> -S-http://www.kbnj.com
>>
>> > Correct....and so what?
>>
>> > Elite athletes have trainers. I wouldn't be at all surprised if
>> > free
>> > weight training is emphasized. Perhaps machines are used for
>> > rehabbing or for other specific reasons.
>> > People who have to lift heavy objects at work would benefit from
>> > free
>> > weight training.
>>
>> Correct....and so what?
>>
>> > Many of us are not highly competitive strength athletes and don't
>> > do
>> > construction work, wrestle fire hoses, etc. We're not competitive
>> > bodybuilders either. We want to look good, be more active,
>> > socialize,
>> > and get somewhat more fit. We don't embrace extremism simply
>> > because
>> > it's more "effective."
>>
>> There is nothing extreme about using free weights.
>>
>> Effective is not four-letter word.
>>
>> Free weights, properly used, are safer than machines because they
>> work
>> the body in the way it was designed to be worked.
>>
>> Isolation exercises should remain the domain of advanced lifters.
>>
>> What most people do in the gym with machines is neither safe nor
>> effective, witness myriad of bandaged knees in the typical gym, not
>> to
>> mention the strength and phyisique (or, more accurately, the lack
>> thereof) of the overwhelming majority of gym-goers.
>>
>> > We'll use machines and free weights and we won't particularly care
>> > whether a machine workout produces the same results as using free
>> > weights.
>>
>> If you don't care, then please don't participate in the conversation.
>>
>> > We know we can hurt ourselves using machines or free weights so we
>> > might seek helpful advice on these matters.
>>
>> > I'm sure there are gyms which cater more to strength athletes than
>> > to
>> > people like myself so how about you going there and doing your
>> > thing
>> > and not getting on our cases if we want to use machines and
>> > otherwise
>> > work out in a less than optimal manner?
>>
>> I don't bother people at my gym who use machines. Do whatever you
>> like,
>> and enjoy your time at the gym.
>>
>> -S-http://www.kbnj.com
>>
>> > Nothing I've said has anything to do with common gym courtesy;
>> > that's
>> > another matter altogether.
>
> Extremism is a mind-set. If someone is an elite athlete, s/he should
> have an extremist orientation. If someone's work involves lifting
> heavy objects, free weight
> training with heavy objects would be sensible. If someone wants to
> lose weight, get stronger, and look better, using machines or free
> weights, eating sensibly, and being physically active outside of the
> gym will work just fine. Will the machine-using person achieve a peak
> level of cardiovascular fitness or be able to compete in powerlifting
> or Olympic lifting events? No. Will using machines, treadmills,
> etc., eating sensibly, being moderately active outside of the gym, and
> otherwise taking care of one's physical and psychological health pay
> off in terms of enhancing one's quality of life? Yes.
>
> Independent of my position that machines can be used safely and
> effectively by those who buy gym memberships to get somewhat more fit
> and better-looking, I wonder how difficult it would be to find
> evidence that a number of NFL and NBA athletes use machines as part of
> their strength training regimens. I wonder what their teams' gyms
> look like.
>
> Does announcing to the general public that anything less than
> achieving a peak level of fitness is more or less a waste of time
> reflect an extremist orientation? In my opinion, it does.
>
> I've been to more than a few gyms in my life. In my opinion, the
> majority of people do not use free weights appropriately. I'm not a
> trainer so perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd bet money a good trainer seeing
> what I have seen would agree with me. People don't use machines
> correctly either. I think people would benefit from receiving sound
> instruction with free weights and machines.
>
> I don't know why people get banged up and you probably don't know
> either, unless you're a licensed physical therapist or sports medicine
> doctor. People get banged up doing all kinds of things and for all
> kinds of reasons. People have been - and continue to get - injured
> from using free weights. This is no reason to avoid using machines or
> free weights and it is a reason to receive appropriate instruction
> regarding machines and/or free weights. Actually, a good assessment
> of one's weaknesses and vulnerabilities should precede or accompany
> either type of training. Perhaps that's asking too much.
>
> I've seen very strong people with physiques I don't envy. Appearance
> is somewhat subjective. What you don't like may be quite acceptable
> for someone else and/or for that person's significant other/ that
> person's friends/that person's family. Personally, I have known quite
> a few people whose appearance significantly improved after doing the
> treadmill and machine thing at the gym for a couple of months.
>
> I belong to an ugly gym where I currently use a plate-loaded calf and
> squat machine and a plate-loaded seated dip station. I do incline
> benches in a power rack, but I don't think anyone thinks a power rack
> is a "machine." I don't care to mention the poundages involved;
> suffice it to say they aren't impressive. According to friends and my
> significant other, my appearance has improved. That's good enough for
> me.
>
> The article you cited attempts to prove the inferiority and potential
> pitfalls of working out with machines. Someone expressing a different
> opinion means that this person should not participate in a
> discussion? You don't own this newsgroup so don't bother telling
> anyone who disagrees with you, in whole or in part, whether they
> should participate in any discussion.

Why do you assume that, because I post a link to an article, that I
support that article's conclusions 100%. I found it interesting reading
so I posted the link. Please don't make more of it than that.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Bartleby wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2:27 pm, "Steve Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>> "Bartleby" <arroy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:638ef672-ba97-4cac-89fe-d658c5ec59c7@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> On Dec 27, 1:20 pm, "Steve Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>>>> http://health.msn.com/fitness/articl...entid=10018433...
>>>> -S-http://www.kbnj.com
>>> Correct....and so what?
>>> Elite athletes have trainers. I wouldn't be at all surprised if free
>>> weight training is emphasized. Perhaps machines are used for
>>> rehabbing or for other specific reasons.
>>> People who have to lift heavy objects at work would benefit from free
>>> weight training.
>> Correct....and so what?
>>
>>> Many of us are not highly competitive strength athletes and don't do
>>> construction work, wrestle fire hoses, etc. We're not competitive
>>> bodybuilders either. We want to look good, be more active, socialize,
>>> and get somewhat more fit. We don't embrace extremism simply because
>>> it's more "effective."
>> There is nothing extreme about using free weights.
>>
>> Effective is not four-letter word.
>>
>> Free weights, properly used, are safer than machines because they work
>> the body in the way it was designed to be worked.
>>
>> Isolation exercises should remain the domain of advanced lifters.
>>
>> What most people do in the gym with machines is neither safe nor
>> effective, witness myriad of bandaged knees in the typical gym, not to
>> mention the strength and phyisique (or, more accurately, the lack
>> thereof) of the overwhelming majority of gym-goers.
>>
>>> We'll use machines and free weights and we won't particularly care
>>> whether a machine workout produces the same results as using free
>>> weights.
>> If you don't care, then please don't participate in the conversation.
>>
>>> We know we can hurt ourselves using machines or free weights so we
>>> might seek helpful advice on these matters.
>>> I'm sure there are gyms which cater more to strength athletes than to
>>> people like myself so how about you going there and doing your thing
>>> and not getting on our cases if we want to use machines and otherwise
>>> work out in a less than optimal manner?
>> I don't bother people at my gym who use machines. Do whatever you like,
>> and enjoy your time at the gym.
>>
>> -S-http://www.kbnj.com
>>
>>> Nothing I've said has anything to do with common gym courtesy; that's
>>> another matter altogether.
>
> Extremism is a mind-set. If someone is an elite athlete, s/he should
> have an extremist orientation. If someone's work involves lifting
> heavy objects, free weight
> training with heavy objects would be sensible. If someone wants to
> lose weight, get stronger, and look better, using machines or free
> weights, eating sensibly, and being physically active outside of the
> gym will work just fine. Will the machine-using person achieve a peak
> level of cardiovascular fitness or be able to compete in powerlifting
> or Olympic lifting events? No. Will using machines, treadmills,
> etc., eating sensibly, being moderately active outside of the gym, and
> otherwise taking care of one's physical and psychological health pay
> off in terms of enhancing one's quality of life? Yes.
>
> Independent of my position that machines can be used safely and
> effectively by those who buy gym memberships to get somewhat more fit
> and better-looking, I wonder how difficult it would be to find
> evidence that a number of NFL and NBA athletes use machines as part of
> their strength training regimens. I wonder what their teams' gyms
> look like.
>
> Does announcing to the general public that anything less than
> achieving a peak level of fitness is more or less a waste of time
> reflect an extremist orientation? In my opinion, it does.
>
> I've been to more than a few gyms in my life. In my opinion, the
> majority of people do not use free weights appropriately. I'm not a
> trainer so perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd bet money a good trainer seeing
> what I have seen would agree with me. People don't use machines
> correctly either. I think people would benefit from receiving sound
> instruction with free weights and machines.
>
> I don't know why people get banged up and you probably don't know
> either, unless you're a licensed physical therapist or sports medicine
> doctor. People get banged up doing all kinds of things and for all
> kinds of reasons. People have been - and continue to get - injured
> from using free weights. This is no reason to avoid using machines or
> free weights and it is a reason to receive appropriate instruction
> regarding machines and/or free weights. Actually, a good assessment
> of one's weaknesses and vulnerabilities should precede or accompany
> either type of training. Perhaps that's asking too much.
>
> I've seen very strong people with physiques I don't envy. Appearance
> is somewhat subjective. What you don't like may be quite acceptable
> for someone else and/or for that person's significant other/ that
> person's friends/that person's family. Personally, I have known quite
> a few people whose appearance significantly improved after doing the
> treadmill and machine thing at the gym for a couple of months.
>
> I belong to an ugly gym where I currently use a plate-loaded calf and
> squat machine and a plate-loaded seated dip station. I do incline
> benches in a power rack, but I don't think anyone thinks a power rack
> is a "machine." I don't care to mention the poundages involved;
> suffice it to say they aren't impressive. According to friends and my
> significant other, my appearance has improved. That's good enough for
> me.
>
> The article you cited attempts to prove the inferiority and potential
> pitfalls of working out with machines. Someone expressing a different
> opinion means that this person should not participate in a
> discussion? You don't own this newsgroup so don't bother telling
> anyone who disagrees with you, in whole or in part, whether they
> should participate in any discussion.

Actually, you are quite right. Steve doesn't own this newsgroup, Curt
does. He bought it on Ebay in early 2005 after Will Brink, Charles and
JMW were involved in the notorious *noodle* incident the previous year.
No point in trying to Google the unsavory incident; it has been
completely removed by the relevant authorities. Needless to say, it was
naturally a fire sale price Curt paid due to the circumstances.

HTH


--
Bob Volkmer

"Bartleby" <arroyo98@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cf4d040c-2016-4a38-b0ef-5beb7ef975dc@w38g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 29, 2:27 pm, "Steve Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>> "Bartleby" <arroy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:638ef672-ba97-4cac-89fe-d658c5ec59c7@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Dec 27, 1:20 pm, "Steve Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>> >>http://health.msn.com/fitness/articl...entid=10018433...
>>
>> >> -S-http://www.kbnj.com
>>
>> > Correct....and so what?
>>
>> > Elite athletes have trainers. I wouldn't be at all surprised if free
>> > weight training is emphasized. Perhaps machines are used for
>> > rehabbing or for other specific reasons.
>> > People who have to lift heavy objects at work would benefit from free
>> > weight training.
>>
>> Correct....and so what?
>>
>> > Many of us are not highly competitive strength athletes and don't do
>> > construction work, wrestle fire hoses, etc. We're not competitive
>> > bodybuilders either. We want to look good, be more active, socialize,
>> > and get somewhat more fit. We don't embrace extremism simply because
>> > it's more "effective."
>>
>> There is nothing extreme about using free weights.
>>
>> Effective is not four-letter word.
>>
>> Free weights, properly used, are safer than machines because they work
>> the body in the way it was designed to be worked.
>>
>> Isolation exercises should remain the domain of advanced lifters.
>>
>> What most people do in the gym with machines is neither safe nor
>> effective, witness myriad of bandaged knees in the typical gym, not to
>> mention the strength and phyisique (or, more accurately, the lack
>> thereof) of the overwhelming majority of gym-goers.
>>
>> > We'll use machines and free weights and we won't particularly care
>> > whether a machine workout produces the same results as using free
>> > weights.
>>
>> If you don't care, then please don't participate in the conversation.
>>
>> > We know we can hurt ourselves using machines or free weights so we
>> > might seek helpful advice on these matters.
>>
>> > I'm sure there are gyms which cater more to strength athletes than to
>> > people like myself so how about you going there and doing your thing
>> > and not getting on our cases if we want to use machines and otherwise
>> > work out in a less than optimal manner?
>>
>> I don't bother people at my gym who use machines. Do whatever you like,
>> and enjoy your time at the gym.
>>
>> -S-http://www.kbnj.com
>>
>> > Nothing I've said has anything to do with common gym courtesy; that's
>> > another matter altogether.
>
> Extremism is a mind-set. If someone is an elite athlete, s/he should
> have an extremist orientation. If someone's work involves lifting
> heavy objects, free weight
> training with heavy objects would be sensible. If someone wants to
> lose weight, get stronger, and look better, using machines or free
> weights, eating sensibly, and being physically active outside of the
> gym will work just fine. Will the machine-using person achieve a peak
> level of cardiovascular fitness or be able to compete in powerlifting
> or Olympic lifting events? No. Will using machines, treadmills,
> etc., eating sensibly, being moderately active outside of the gym, and
> otherwise taking care of one's physical and psychological health pay
> off in terms of enhancing one's quality of life? Yes.
>
> Independent of my position that machines can be used safely and
> effectively by those who buy gym memberships to get somewhat more fit
> and better-looking, I wonder how difficult it would be to find
> evidence that a number of NFL and NBA athletes use machines as part of
> their strength training regimens. I wonder what their teams' gyms
> look like.
>
> Does announcing to the general public that anything less than
> achieving a peak level of fitness is more or less a waste of time
> reflect an extremist orientation? In my opinion, it does.
>
There is no benefit to the individual in using machines for the vast
majority of weightlifting exercises. Cable crossovers, lat pulldowns and
maybe a few others are exceptions. It doesn't matter whether you want to
achieve a peak level of fitness or just get in better shape. Is it that hard
to learn how to press dumbbells, for example? Why would you want to do a
machine press instead? Of course the health clubs want people to believe
they need all those nifty looking machines to get in shape.

On Dec 29, 10:45 pm, "Steve Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com>
wrote:
> "Bartleby" <arroy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cf4d040c-2016-4a38-b0ef-5beb7ef975dc@w38g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Dec 29, 2:27 pm, "Steve Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
> >> "Bartleby" <arroy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:638ef672-ba97-4cac-89fe-d658c5ec59c7@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Dec 27, 1:20 pm, "Steve Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>http://health.msn.com/fitness/articl...entid=10018433...
>
> >> >> -S-http://www.kbnj.com
>
> >> > Correct....and so what?
>
> >> > Elite athletes have trainers. I wouldn't be at all surprised if
> >> > free
> >> > weight training is emphasized. Perhaps machines are used for
> >> > rehabbing or for other specific reasons.
> >> > People who have to lift heavy objects at work would benefit from
> >> > free
> >> > weight training.
>
> >> Correct....and so what?
>
> >> > Many of us are not highly competitive strength athletes and don't
> >> > do
> >> > construction work, wrestle fire hoses, etc. We're not competitive
> >> > bodybuilders either. We want to look good, be more active,
> >> > socialize,
> >> > and get somewhat more fit. We don't embrace extremism simply
> >> > because
> >> > it's more "effective."
>
> >> There is nothing extreme about using free weights.
>
> >> Effective is not four-letter word.
>
> >> Free weights, properly used, are safer than machines because they
> >> work
> >> the body in the way it was designed to be worked.
>
> >> Isolation exercises should remain the domain of advanced lifters.
>
> >> What most people do in the gym with machines is neither safe nor
> >> effective, witness myriad of bandaged knees in the typical gym, not
> >> to
> >> mention the strength and phyisique (or, more accurately, the lack
> >> thereof) of the overwhelming majority of gym-goers.
>
> >> > We'll use machines and free weights and we won't particularly care
> >> > whether a machine workout produces the same results as using free
> >> > weights.
>
> >> If you don't care, then please don't participate in the conversation.
>
> >> > We know we can hurt ourselves using machines or free weights so we
> >> > might seek helpful advice on these matters.
>
> >> > I'm sure there are gyms which cater more to strength athletes than
> >> > to
> >> > people like myself so how about you going there and doing your
> >> > thing
> >> > and not getting on our cases if we want to use machines and
> >> > otherwise
> >> > work out in a less than optimal manner?
>
> >> I don't bother people at my gym who use machines. Do whatever you
> >> like,
> >> and enjoy your time at the gym.
>
> >> -S-http://www.kbnj.com
>
> >> > Nothing I've said has anything to do with common gym courtesy;
> >> > that's
> >> > another matter altogether.
>
> > Extremism is a mind-set. If someone is an elite athlete, s/he should
> > have an extremist orientation. If someone's work involves lifting
> > heavy objects, free weight
> > training with heavy objects would be sensible. If someone wants to
> > lose weight, get stronger, and look better, using machines or free
> > weights, eating sensibly, and being physically active outside of the
> > gym will work just fine. Will the machine-using person achieve a peak
> > level of cardiovascular fitness or be able to compete in powerlifting
> > or Olympic lifting events? No. Will using machines, treadmills,
> > etc., eating sensibly, being moderately active outside of the gym, and
> > otherwise taking care of one's physical and psychological health pay
> > off in terms of enhancing one's quality of life? Yes.
>
> > Independent of my position that machines can be used safely and
> > effectively by those who buy gym memberships to get somewhat more fit
> > and better-looking, I wonder how difficult it would be to find
> > evidence that a number of NFL and NBA athletes use machines as part of
> > their strength training regimens. I wonder what their teams' gyms
> > look like.
>
> > Does announcing to the general public that anything less than
> > achieving a peak level of fitness is more or less a waste of time
> > reflect an extremist orientation? In my opinion, it does.
>
> > I've been to more than a few gyms in my life. In my opinion, the
> > majority of people do not use free weights appropriately. I'm not a
> > trainer so perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd bet money a good trainer seeing
> > what I have seen would agree with me. People don't use machines
> > correctly either. I think people would benefit from receiving sound
> > instruction with free weights and machines.
>
> > I don't know why people get banged up and you probably don't know
> > either, unless you're a licensed physical therapist or sports medicine
> > doctor. People get banged up doing all kinds of things and for all
> > kinds of reasons. People have been - and continue to get - injured
> > from using free weights. This is no reason to avoid using machines or
> > free weights and it is a reason to receive appropriate instruction
> > regarding machines and/or free weights. Actually, a good assessment
> > of one's weaknesses and vulnerabilities should precede or accompany
> > either type of training. Perhaps that's asking too much.
>
> > I've seen very strong people with physiques I don't envy. Appearance
> > is somewhat subjective. What you don't like may be quite acceptable
> > for someone else and/or for that person's significant other/ that
> > person's friends/that person's family. Personally, I have known quite
> > a few people whose appearance significantly improved after doing the
> > treadmill and machine thing at the gym for a couple of months.
>
> > I belong to an ugly gym where I currently use a plate-loaded calf and
> > squat machine and a plate-loaded seated dip station. I do incline
> > benches in a power rack, but I don't think anyone thinks a power rack
> > is a "machine." I don't care to mention the poundages involved;
> > suffice it to say they aren't impressive. According to friends and my
> > significant other, my appearance has improved. That's good enough for
> > me.
>
> > The article you cited attempts to prove the inferiority and potential
> > pitfalls of working out with machines. Someone expressing a different
> > opinion means that this person should not participate in a
> > discussion? You don't own this newsgroup so don't bother telling
> > anyone who disagrees with you, in whole or in part, whether they
> > should participate in any discussion.
>
> Why do you assume that, because I post a link to an article, that I
> support that article's conclusions 100%. I found it interesting reading
> so I posted the link. Please don't make more of it than that.
>
> -S-http://www.kbnj.com

ok. Fair 'nuf

On Dec 29, 10:46 pm, "ATP*" <waxwingsl...@azurepane.com> wrote:
> "Bartleby" <arroy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cf4d040c-2016-4a38-b0ef-5beb7ef975dc@w38g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Dec 29, 2:27 pm, "Steve Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
> >> "Bartleby" <arroy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:638ef672-ba97-4cac-89fe-d658c5ec59c7@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Dec 27, 1:20 pm, "Steve Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
> >> >>http://health.msn.com/fitness/articl...entid=10018433...
>
> >> >> -S-http://www.kbnj.com
>
> >> > Correct....and so what?
>
> >> > Elite athletes have trainers. I wouldn't be at all surprised if free
> >> > weight training is emphasized. Perhaps machines are used for
> >> > rehabbing or for other specific reasons.
> >> > People who have to lift heavy objects at work would benefit from free
> >> > weight training.
>
> >> Correct....and so what?
>
> >> > Many of us are not highly competitive strength athletes and don't do
> >> > construction work, wrestle fire hoses, etc. We're not competitive
> >> > bodybuilders either. We want to look good, be more active, socialize,
> >> > and get somewhat more fit. We don't embrace extremism simply because
> >> > it's more "effective."
>
> >> There is nothing extreme about using free weights.
>
> >> Effective is not four-letter word.
>
> >> Free weights, properly used, are safer than machines because they work
> >> the body in the way it was designed to be worked.
>
> >> Isolation exercises should remain the domain of advanced lifters.
>
> >> What most people do in the gym with machines is neither safe nor
> >> effective, witness myriad of bandaged knees in the typical gym, not to
> >> mention the strength and phyisique (or, more accurately, the lack
> >> thereof) of the overwhelming majority of gym-goers.
>
> >> > We'll use machines and free weights and we won't particularly care
> >> > whether a machine workout produces the same results as using free
> >> > weights.
>
> >> If you don't care, then please don't participate in the conversation.
>
> >> > We know we can hurt ourselves using machines or free weights so we
> >> > might seek helpful advice on these matters.
>
> >> > I'm sure there are gyms which cater more to strength athletes than to
> >> > people like myself so how about you going there and doing your thing
> >> > and not getting on our cases if we want to use machines and otherwise
> >> > work out in a less than optimal manner?
>
> >> I don't bother people at my gym who use machines. Do whatever you like,
> >> and enjoy your time at the gym.
>
> >> -S-http://www.kbnj.com
>
> >> > Nothing I've said has anything to do with common gym courtesy; that's
> >> > another matter altogether.
>
> > Extremism is a mind-set. If someone is an elite athlete, s/he should
> > have an extremist orientation. If someone's work involves lifting
> > heavy objects, free weight
> > training with heavy objects would be sensible. If someone wants to
> > lose weight, get stronger, and look better, using machines or free
> > weights, eating sensibly, and being physically active outside of the
> > gym will work just fine. Will the machine-using person achieve a peak
> > level of cardiovascular fitness or be able to compete in powerlifting
> > or Olympic lifting events? No. Will using machines, treadmills,
> > etc., eating sensibly, being moderately active outside of the gym, and
> > otherwise taking care of one's physical and psychological health pay
> > off in terms of enhancing one's quality of life? Yes.
>
> > Independent of my position that machines can be used safely and
> > effectively by those who buy gym memberships to get somewhat more fit
> > and better-looking, I wonder how difficult it would be to find
> > evidence that a number of NFL and NBA athletes use machines as part of
> > their strength training regimens. I wonder what their teams' gyms
> > look like.
>
> > Does announcing to the general public that anything less than
> > achieving a peak level of fitness is more or less a waste of time
> > reflect an extremist orientation? In my opinion, it does.
>
> There is no benefit to the individual in using machines for the vast
> majority of weightlifting exercises. Cable crossovers, lat pulldowns and
> maybe a few others are exceptions. It doesn't matter whether you want to
> achieve a peak level of fitness or just get in better shape. Is it that hard
> to learn how to press dumbbells, for example? Why would you want to do a
> machine press instead? Of course the health clubs want people to believe
> they need all those nifty looking machines to get in shape.


Cable crossovers and lat pulldowns are your examples of beneficial
exercises.
Would it surprise you to learn that others would disagree with you?

Don't you think that a first-rate strength coach could teach you how
to use machines safely and
productively? I have no doubt about this.

You think that it's brain-dead easy to press a heavy dumbbell safely
and productively?
People do this in different ways. Do these differences matter in
terms of risk and benefit?

If you're a beginner or someone who's not particularly intense, why
not do a one-arm press in a machine shoulder press station?
If you allow your torso to move - to the side, for example - you won't
force your shoulder joints into a single range of motion.

Health clubs want to make a buck. Nothing wrong with that. Lots of
shiny, well-maintained machines may well be a selling point for the
dues-paying public.
And these machines may, in fact, have helped many people get into
better shape and learn to be less afraid of resistance training. Note
that I'm not saying that machines are equally as effective as free
weights. I am saying "different strokes for different folks."

Once you're at the gym, the owner has no interest in wanting you to
work out in an unsafe or unproductive manner. If you get injured,
will you want to renew your membership? If you make no progress, will
you want to sign up next year? I can't see a health club's incentive
in injuring you or minimizing your progress. If anything, I can see
why a health club targeting the average person would want many people
to buy memberships and not come at all. Less crowding everywhere.
If no progress is made, people won't blame the gym; they'll think,
correctly, that they didn't give it a good enough shot.

On Dec 29, 10:50 pm, rev <m...@volkmer.biz> wrote:
> Bartleby wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 2:27 pm, "Steve Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
> >> "Bartleby" <arroy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:638ef672-ba97-4cac-89fe-d658c5ec59c7@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> On Dec 27, 1:20 pm, "Steve Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
> >>>>http://health.msn.com/fitness/articl...entid=10018433...
> >>>> -S-http://www.kbnj.com
> >>> Correct....and so what?
> >>> Elite athletes have trainers. I wouldn't be at all surprised if free
> >>> weight training is emphasized. Perhaps machines are used for
> >>> rehabbing or for other specific reasons.
> >>> People who have to lift heavy objects at work would benefit from free
> >>> weight training.
> >> Correct....and so what?
>
> >>> Many of us are not highly competitive strength athletes and don't do
> >>> construction work, wrestle fire hoses, etc. We're not competitive
> >>> bodybuilders either. We want to look good, be more active, socialize,
> >>> and get somewhat more fit. We don't embrace extremism simply because
> >>> it's more "effective."
> >> There is nothing extreme about using free weights.
>
> >> Effective is not four-letter word.
>
> >> Free weights, properly used, are safer than machines because they work
> >> the body in the way it was designed to be worked.
>
> >> Isolation exercises should remain the domain of advanced lifters.
>
> >> What most people do in the gym with machines is neither safe nor
> >> effective, witness myriad of bandaged knees in the typical gym, not to
> >> mention the strength and phyisique (or, more accurately, the lack
> >> thereof) of the overwhelming majority of gym-goers.
>
> >>> We'll use machines and free weights and we won't particularly care
> >>> whether a machine workout produces the same results as using free
> >>> weights.
> >> If you don't care, then please don't participate in the conversation.
>
> >>> We know we can hurt ourselves using machines or free weights so we
> >>> might seek helpful advice on these matters.
> >>> I'm sure there are gyms which cater more to strength athletes than to
> >>> people like myself so how about you going there and doing your thing
> >>> and not getting on our cases if we want to use machines and otherwise
> >>> work out in a less than optimal manner?
> >> I don't bother people at my gym who use machines. Do whatever you like,
> >&