Machines vs. Free Weights: Not A Real Battle

by Dr. Ken Leistner

I am going to date myself by avoiding the term "free weights" whenever possible. It is an offensive term that in my opinion denigrates the venerable tools of the iron game. To those of us who trained with barbells and dumbbells in the 1950's and 1960's when the activity was seen by the general public as being most suitable for narcissistic weirdos, the "free weight" nomenclature does not offer appropriate respect. "Machines" relative to resistance training jargon also covers a lot of ground but is self-explanatory. The younger coaches and athletes either forget or never knew that weight training machines have existed since the 1800's. It was the breakthrough of Universal who offered the training analogy of jamming a dozen men into a phone booth (a post-World War II fun fad) that introduced "machine training" to a broad expanse of the public.

However, the invention and immediate success of Nautilus Sports/Medical Industries and its founder Arthur Jones put machine training squarely into the consciousness of the public and for the first time, made resistance training acceptable, convenient, palatable, and for many athletes, very effective and safe. Until the appearance of Nautilus in 1970, there was no debate regarding the efficacy of utilizing a specific modality for training. The goal for almost every man who entered a gym was to become muscularly larger and stronger, either for competitive purposes, athletic improvement, or to make a statement on the street. The available tools were usually limited to barbells and dumbbells. Women were not a part of the equation as so few were involved in resistance training. Though the majority of athletic coaches fought the trend, there were too many examples of athletes who had benefited from weight training and by the early 1970's, it was a concept whose time had arrived. With limited resources relative to training knowledge or the number of participants, coaches turned to those who had a background in training which in most locales, dictated the input of Olympic weightlifters. With powerlifting a growing but relatively new sport, the most pervasive influence in the burgeoning days of training for athletic enhancement came from Olympic lifters. Powerlifters were new, bodybuilders were considered "mirror athletes" with limited function, and the tool of choice was the barbell in part because it was the tool used by the weightlifters.

With Nautilus presented as a "thinking man's barbell," or an "improved barbell" with biomechanical advantages, the lines were drawn between traditional and innovative, old school and progressive. Though Nautilus offered a means to make training safer and more efficient for the man on the street, many in the athletic arena did not see its application to "real athletes." Thus, the stage was set for a debate that has waxed and waned for forty years. In truth, there is little to debate. Keep in mind that your skeletal muscles do not have brains. They have proprioceptors which indicate that the muscles are being pushed, pulled, stretched, and stressed but the muscles cannot tell if fifty pounds of resistance is being provided by a barbell, dumbbell, machine, or river boulder. Physiologically your muscles respond to tension within the fibers, progressive overload, and requirements related to training at an unknown but definite minimal level of intensity, better defined as the need to "train hard to stimulate positive results." Some barbell and dumbbell exercises are effective because they stimulate "a lot of muscle" due to multi-joint involvement as do some machine movements. Some barbell and dumbbell exercises are effective because they are "hard" on the metabolic system, with barbell squats being the obvious example and thus they stimulate a physiological response. Certain machine movements do the same. Some barbell and dumbbell exercises are limited in their application or result producing potential due to their technical difficulty or inefficient resistance curves as determined by the range, angles, and direction of force. Some machines are inefficient due to the same reasons just noted, as per the trainee's own specific body leverages which may result in joint stress and/or an ineffective strength curve.
If one is schooled in motor learning theory and the results of related, legitimate research, it is clear that skill is improved by practicing that specific skill, not something that is similar. A typical strength training example is the so-called triple extension, the sequential extension of the ankle, knee, and hip joint. If a lineman fires out from his stance, he will in fact be utilizing a triple extension movement. The inclusion of the power clean or pull is often cited as necessary to teach the triple extension or strengthen the musculature involved in the triple extension. Strength training theory and experience would indicate that there are exercises that strengthen the musculature of the hips, low back, thighs, and "calves" that can and are done through a fuller range of motion and with greater involvement than the effect of the power clean. Motor learning research would indicate that the appropriate application of that strength to a lineman's necessary on-field maneuvers would involve on-field practice of those specific skills. The period of time spent "balancing a barbell" as one performs in the weight room is relatively brief compared to the skill practice needed on the field yet the avoidance of machine training is often justified because the "guided resistance of a machine negates balancing of the implement." If true, it conversely means that the machine is a more efficient tool to build strength because all of the relevant muscular work can be directed into working the targeted muscles with little "wasted effort."

Any argument made for either modality can be countered by the other. The above are but a few of many examples of the ongoing debate among devotees of either. The absolute bottom line is that there are advantages to both forms of training tools dependent upon the trainee's body leverages, training experience, preferences, history of injury, permanent or temporary limitation posed by a variety of factors, ability to focus upon instruction and technique, and the tools available to the athlete. Machines, barbells, and dumbbells, with stones, sleds, farmers walk implements, and anchor chains can all be used in creative ways to meet the requisites necessary to stimulate changes in the athlete's physiology. The tools, assuming they are safely and strongly manufactured, are far less important than the way in which the tools are utilized with the absolute agreement of any coach or athlete that without training "hard" and doing so consistently, little improvement can be expected.