There are surprisingly many scientific studies comparing machines to free weights. You have to be careful about who is sponsoring them of course, but generally you’ll see pros and cons start to emerge if you read many of them. I’ve done my best to summarize them in Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of this series. Now, in Part 4, I want to share a few of the better studies and go a little deeper into each one. These were some of the studies I used as the basis for the earlier parts of this article.
Smith Machine Squats Inferior To Free Weight Squats
In a recent study (see Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: December 2009 – Volume 23 – Issue 9 – pp 2588-2591) researchers figured that the Smith Machine was probably better for activating certain leg muscles because the lifter wouldn’t be focused on stability so much. The logic, like most people would have thought, was that attention to stability reduced activation of the leg muscles in free weights, whereas the Smith Machine users could focus more on the leg muscles.
Well, turns out they were wrong! They measured the same lifters (i.e. people) using a weight on each exercise equal to 8 reps maximum. And they measured 7 different muscles (including some abs and lower back).
Surprisingly, (more…)
Looking to burn fat with weight training? Tired of typical routines?
Get my metabolic routine here: Fat Burn Furnace!
Continue reading about The Science Of Machines vs Free Weights – part 4 of 4 articles
Editor’s note – There is so much monthly science news when it comes to muscle fitness, that it’s probably hard for you to keep up. In these ~monthly posts, I’ll summarize various items of recent research. I’ll cite the official reports so that the hard-core of you can read the science for yourself. But for the rest of you, these summaries should save you some time…
High School Lifting Getting More Elaborate
Some researchers from Wisconsin recently surveyed high school strength and conditioning coaches to find out what routines they were doing. I figured since many of you have kids, and lots of you ask me questions about kids and weight training, this might be interesting.
Among various fun facts appearing in J Strength Cond Res, 23(8): 2188-2203, 2009:
- 95% of coaches use a periodization model (though there were wide ranges in the types of periodization)
- 97% include at least one Olympic lift
- 100% use plyometrics
- The most common answer to “what is the single most important lift” was “squat or squat variations”
If you have a kid in high school training, do these match what your child is doing?
By the way, I now include a copy of my report “Starting Weight Training, For Older Adults and Younger Youths” with every order at http://worldfitnessnetwork.com/more/fullbodyattack.html .
Two Lessons For Older Lifters
Can aerobic training improve strength and/or power in older people?
The answer is yes, but the gains are quickly lost, according to a study (in press) from Journal of Aging and Physical Activity. The test subjects were (more…)
Continue reading about Science News For Building Lean Muscle – November 2009
Editor’s note – There is so much monthly science news when it comes to muscle fitness, that it’s probably hard for you to keep up. In these ~monthly posts, I’ll summarize various items of recent research. I’ll cite the official reports so that the hard-core of you can read the science for yourself. But for the rest of you, these summaries should save you some time…
Fat Burning Zone vs. Aerobic Zone Differences in Training
You’ve probably heard that there’s a fat-burning zone for cardio workouts, right? In fact, some machines even indicate a specific heart rate target to burn the most fat. But are they right? Is that the best place to target? What about improving aerobic capacity? Since it’s important to train for aerobic fitness too, does that mean you need to train twice, once in each zone?
Well, researchers at University of St. Thomas in Minnesota took 36 runners and did some detailed analysis of heart rates and fat oxidation vs. VO2 max (maximal oxygen uptake, a measure of aerobic fitness). Here’s what they found:
The best aerobic zone was at about 68% to 87% of maximal heart rate, while the best fat burning zone was between 59% and 76%. Note the big overlap. Translation: you can simultaneously optimize fat burn and aerobic fitness by targeting between 68% and 76%.
If you dig deeper, there are two other points worth noting: a) the difference in fat calories burned can differ by a factor of 2 or so; this means there really is a fat-burning zone, and b) there is a high variability from individual to individual so you can’t just assume these averages apply to everyone; you’ll need to do some testing on yourself to see which range is best.
This comes from Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 23(7): p2090-2095 (2009).
Best Form For Lat Pulldown
If you are able, regular pull-ups and chin-ups are better than machine assisted variations. That said, this research on the lat pull-down is very interesting.
Scientists in Brazil compared three lat pull-down variations: behind the neck, in front of the neck, and using a V-bar (the V-bar is shaped so that you can pull straight down without hitting your head so it’s between “front” and “behind”).
The measured muscle activation of 4 muscles: your pecs, your lats, your rear deltoids, and your biceps.
The winner for biceps and rear deltoids was behind-the-neck. The winner for pecs was in front. For lats, no difference.
Surprisingly, the authors thus conclude that you should only do the lat pull down in front! I had to reread it to make sure it wasn’t a typo! They don’t really explain why they come to that conclusion except to say that behind the neck has “theoretical” dangers that “have not been proven”. To me this study shows that you should work both movements into your routine unless one of them causes you pain.
Skip The Leucine And Save Your Money
The University Of Texas released the findings of a study comparing the anabolic (muscle growth) effects of leucine added to a whey protein drink versus jus the whey protein drink. The timing was following a high intensity lower body workout. Turns out, there was no difference. So if you are paying extra for protein powder enhanced with leucine, save your money and just buy good old whey protein. This, from Applied Physiology and Nutrition Metabolism, 34: 151-161, 2009.
Does The Glycemic Index Of Foods Affect Exercise Performance?
Well here we have dueling scientists. Two different articles in the same journal (International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 4(3), September 2009) seem to have (more…)
Continue reading about Science News For Building Lean Muscle – October 2009
Editor’s note – There is so much monthly science news when it comes to muscle fitness, that it’s probably hard for you to keep up. In these ~monthly posts, I’ll summarize various items of recent research. I’ll cite the official reports so that the hard-core of you can read the science for yourself. But for the rest of you, these summaries should save you some time…
No Need For BOSU Balls
There’s been some interest in the past year or two for training on unstable surfaces (for example, BOSU Balls – those devices that look like a sliver of a ball where you stand on a platform but the underside is round and wobbles. The reason for the interest: a (faulty) hypothesis that your core stabilizer muscles would have to react more strongly to compensate for the instability.
At Eastern Illinois University, they compared core muscle activity during resistance exercises performed on stable ground vs. the BOSU Balance Trainer. They used 12 trained (experienced) men doing the back squat, dead lift, overhead press, and curl lifts. The activity of the rectus abdominis, external oblique abdominis, transversus abdominis/internal oblique abdominis, and erector spinae muscles was assessed. Conclusions: No advantage in using the BOSU ball. Therefore, you’ll get all the benefits and less risks by standing on stable ground! Reported in International Journal Sports Physiology and Performance, 4: 97-109; 2009.
Single Set Lifting Is Not Effective
This is kind of in the “duh” category, but I have to admit I fell for it a few years ago before I took the time to really learn proper lifting science. The plan I was told to try was this: just do one set of each exercise and do it to failure.
It didn’t work for me.
But here’s a study to back me up that I wasn’t the only one:
In Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research; September 2009 – Volume 23 – Issue 6 – pp 1890-1901, James Krieger reviewed tons of past studies (something called “meta-regression” to merge results from different studies) to show that “2 to 3 sets per exercise are associated with 46% greater strength gains than 1 set, in both trained and untrained subjects.” Did you get that? 46% greater strength gains! No wonder it didn’t work for me…
Older Men and Power Training
It’s well understood that older men start losing strength, power, and muscle mass (called “sarcopenia”). Anybody who pays attention also knows that resistance training in general will help maintain strength and mass longer. But what about power? The ability to quickly exert strength. This is important at any age, but older men should include some power training in their workouts.
In Brazil (see International Journal of Sports Medicine, 2009; 30: p200-204), they had some older guys in their early 70s and half trained traditionally (2-3 seconds lift and 2-3 seconds to return) doing 3 sets of 8 reps. The other half did 3 sets of 8 reps per exercise too, at the same 60% load, but they focused on doing the lift in 1 second (power training).
Not surprisingly, after 10 weeks, the power of the power-trained group increased much more than the other group. But get this: muscle size also increased much more in the power trained group. If I were older, I’d think seriously about incorporating power training into (more…)
Continue reading about Science News For Building Lean Muscle – September 12 2009
Editor’s note – There is so much monthly science news when it comes to muscle fitness, that it’s probably hard for you to keep up. In these occasional posts, I’ll summarize various items of research in the past 90 days or so. I’ll cite the official reports so that the hard-core of you can read the science for yourself. But for the rest of you, these summaries should save you some time…
More Evidence That Muscle Strength Reduces Mortality Rate
Research covering 10,000 men over about 19 years shows that the death rate was lowest for the group with the greatest muscular strength. This includes death from cancer, death from cardiovascular disease, as well as a large category of “death from all causes”. This was reported in British Medical Journal, 2008;337:a439
They measured “strength” as the one-rep maximum for bench press and leg press (I sure wish they had used squats, but anyway…).
Plus, for the cancer mortality and the “death from all causes” in the stronger group was reduced, regardless of cardiorespiratory fitness. But as you can imagine, the mortality from cardiovascular disease was partially tied to cardiovascular fitness.
Increasing strength makes you live longer!
Fruits and Veggies Increase Muscle Mass?
This is a bit contrary to what most muscle gurus talk about. Most of them say to avoid fruits, and some even say to limit your veggies. I personally think they are nuts. But their point is that fruits contain too much cheap carbs (fructose). And the anti-veggie crowd is usually part of the ketogenic crowd (high protein, high fat, near zero carb diet).
But there’s too much evidence of overall health benefits to fruits and veggies. And now I found a study that might link muscle mass itself to including those in your diet. In American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 87, No. 3, 662-665 scientists from Tufts University found such a linkage in over 300 older adults (>65 yrs) over a 3-yr study. The group that ate only proteins and grains had more (more…)
Continue reading about Science News For Building Lean Muscle – July 1 2009
Researchers at Tufts University in Massachusetts released results this month that might interest you. So let me see if I can walk you through their study. Bottom Line: Low carb diets, especially in the initial stages where they are basically “no carb” diets, end up starving your brain. So the key is you need some carbs, even in a low-carb diet. Here’s the explanation. The brain uses glucose (sugar) as it’s main fuel. Since (more…)
Editor’s note – There is so much monthly science news when it comes to muscle fitness, that it’s probably hard for you to keep up. In these occasional posts, I’ll summarize various items of research in the past 90 days or so. I’ll cite the official reports so that the hard-core of you can read the science for yourself. But for the rest of you, these summaries should save you some time…
More News on Caffeine
Two new studies reconfirm the benefits of mild amounts of caffeine to performance. Sprinters were shown to increase performance by 1.4% after only 385 mg of caffeine and their fatigue was delayed by 1.2. This, per Medicine Science Sports Exercise, 40; 1835-1840, 2008. Might not seem like much, but in sprinting, milliseconds count. The second study, from International Journal Sports Nutrition Exercise Metabolism, 18: 412-429, 2008, showed that 440 mg of caffeine taken before a workout increased bench-press strength and sprint tests, but had no effect on leg press strength.
Failure Training – Science Behind the Trend
You’ve probably heard a lot about weight training (more…)
Continue reading about Science News For Building Lean Muscle – Jan 25 2009
Image credit: oatmeal2000
I can already feel the hate mail coming, but I’m going to say it anyway: you shouldn’t always trust science. Instead, we’re going to talk about a better way of going about things.
First off, I realize that there’s not a crystal ball that magically reveals all truth, and science is the best method we have for understanding health and how the human body functions.
But science is a back and forth process of sharing ideas, debate, and seeking evidence. Science isn’t always right, and all the new studies that we hear about should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism, and sometimes even ignored.
Here’s why:
Statistical models show that we live in a world of healthy mediums. When we measure the characteristics of a certain population, we usually end up with a nice bell curve as shown below. For example, the average height of men in the US is about 5’10”. Most men are close to this height, and there is a lower number of guys at either side of the curve who are very tall or very short.
Let’s say for example, that you are a scientist and you are trying to figure out if saturated fats (animal fats) are fit for human consumption. You conduct a few studies that seem to show it has some negative side effects, so you conclude that people should eat zero fat. Just stop eating all fat (and that’s what we did).
A few decades later, a new group of scientists, including Mary Enig come along with a new set of studies. These studies say that maybe fat and cholesterol aren’t as bad as we once thought. Here’s a video that talks about high fat (more…)
Loading ...