Bowflex Vs. Free weights

[H1t_V3r4c]

Please let this thread die.

Counter productive

[SumDumGoi]

I presume the answer, due to lack of response to this question, is "no".


Damn. Maybe one of these days....

There are plenty of studies that have used squats to depth. I am not going to chase your tail for you though. Look them up yourself. And yes, let the thread die. I don't understand the need to bring it back after it got buried a few pages deep.

[perpendicularis]

I presume the answer, due to lack of response to this question, is "no".
Damn. Maybe one of these days....

The problem is first you would need a study to convince the 32 women that they wont wake up looking like Schwarzenegger if they used such an exercise. Try maybe never.

[Kirra]

There are plenty of studies that have used squats to depth. I am not going to chase your tail for you though. Look them up yourself. And yes, let the thread die. I don't understand the need to bring it back after it got buried a few pages deep.

Lulz.

I still haven't seen a study where they have used deep squats 2-3 times a week upping the weight every workout and eating well over maintenance.

[SumDumGoi]

Lulz.

I still haven't seen a study where they have used deep squats 2-3 times a week upping the weight every workout and eating well over maintenance.

I also don't view you as a fountain of knowledge.

But anyway, back to the content of the thread

Int J Sports Med. 2010 Nov;31(11):810-7. Epub 2010 Aug 11.

A comparison of elastic tubing and isotonic resistance exercises.


Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess effects of a short-term resistance program on strength in fit young women using weight machines/free weights or elastic tubing. 42 physically fit women (21.79±0.7 years) were randomly assigned to the following groups: (i) the Thera-Band (®) Exercise Station Group (TBG); (ii) the weight machines/free weights group (MFWG); or (iii) the control group (CG). Each experimental group performed the same periodised training program that lasted for 8 weeks, with 2-4 sessions per week and 3-4 sets of 8-15 submaximal reps. A load cell (Isocontrol; ATEmicro, Madrid, Spain) was used to test the evolution of the Maximum Isometric Voluntary Contraction (MIVC) in 3 different exercises: Vertical Rowing (VR), Squat (S) and Back Extension (BE). A mixed model MANOVA [group (CG, TBG, MFWG) x testing time (pre-test, post-test)] was applied to determine the effect of the different resistance training devices on strength. The only groups to improve their MIVC (p<0.005) were TBG and MFWG, respectively: VR 19.87% and 19.76%; S 14.07 and 28.88; BE 14.41% and 14.00%. These results indicate that resistance training using elastic tubing or weight machines/free weights have equivalent improvements in isometric force in short-term programs applied in fit young women.

Muscle activation and perceived loading during rehabilitation exercises: comparison of dumbbells and elastic resistance.

Andersen LL, Andersen CH, Mortensen OS, Poulsen OM, Bjørnlund IB, Zebis MK.
National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Lersø Parkalle 105, DK 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. LLA@NRCWE.DK

Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-intensity resistance training plays an essential role in the prevention and rehabilitation of musculoskeletal injuries and disorders. Although resistance exercises with heavy weights yield high levels of muscle activation, the efficacy of more user-friendly forms of exercise needs to be examined.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate muscle activation and perceived loading during upper-extremity resistance exercises with dumbbells compared with elastic tubing.
DESIGN: A single-group, repeated-measures study design was used.
SETTING: Exercise evaluation was conducted in a laboratory setting.
PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen female workers (aged 26-55 years) without serious musculoskeletal diseases and with a mean neck and shoulder pain intensity of 7.8 on a 100-mm visual analog scale participated in the study.
MEASUREMENTS: Electromyographic (EMG) activity was measured in 5 selected muscles during the exercises of lateral raise, wrist extension, and shoulder external rotation during graded loadings with dumbbells (2-7.5 kg) and elastic tubing (Thera-Band, red to silver resistance). The order of exercises and loadings was randomized for each individual. Electromyographic amplitude was normalized to the absolute maximum EMG amplitude obtained during maximal voluntary isometric contraction and exercise testing. Immediately after each set of exercise, the Borg CR10 scale was used to rate perceived loading during the exercise.
RESULTS: Resistance exercise with dumbbells as well as elastic tubing showed increasing EMG amplitude and perceived loading with increasing resistance. At the individually maximal level of resistance for each exercise-defined as the 3 repetitions maximum-normalized EMG activity of the prime muscles was not significantly different between dumbbells (59%-87%) and elastic tubing (64%-86%). Perceived loading was moderately to very strongly related to normalized EMG activity (r=.59-.92). Limitations The results of this study apply only for exercises performed in a controlled manner (ie, without sudden jerks or high acceleration).
CONCLUSIONS: Comparably high levels of muscle activation were obtained during resistance exercises with dumbbells and elastic tubing,indicating that therapists can choose either type in clinical practice. The Borg CR10 can be a useful aid in estimating intensity of individual rehabilitation protocols.

Effects of a short-term resistance program using elastic bands versus weight machines for sedentary middle-aged women.

Colado JC, Triplett NT.
Department of Physical Education and Sports, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. juan.colado@uv.es

Abstract
This study was designed to determine whether different effects on functional capacity and body composition were produced by using different devices (elastic bands (EBs) versus weight machines (WMs)) with the same resistance training program. Forty-five healthy sedentary middle-aged women volunteers were chosen and randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: 21 subjects trained using EBs (EBG), 14 in trained using WMs (WMG), and 10 were controls (CG). Both exercise groups trained with a periodized muscular endurance program twice a week for 10 weeks, with a total of 6 exercises per session for the major muscle groups. Exercise intensity was equalized by jointly monitoring the same targeted number of repetitions (TNRs) and rate of perceived exertion in active muscles (RPE-AM). Functional capacity was assessed by using knee push-up (KPU) and 60-second squat (S) tests. Body composition was measured using an 8-polar bioelectrical impedance analyzer. The results for both the EBG and WMG show a decrease in fat mass (p = 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively) and an increase in both the fat-free mass (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively) and the number of repetitions in the KPU (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively) and S tests (p < 0.01 in both). None of the variables measured for the CG varied significantly. It can be concluded that, independently of the device used, the combined monitoring of TNRs and RPE-AM can be a valid tool for controlling the resistance exercise intensity and can lead to healthy adaptations. EBs can thus offer significant physiological benefits that are comparable to those obtained from WMs in the early phase of strength training of sedentary middle-aged women.

The effects of manual resistance training on improving muscular strength and endurance.

Dorgo S, King GA, Rice CA.
Department of Kinesiology, The University of Texas at El Paso, Texas, USA. sdorgo@utep.edu

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of a manual resistance training (MRT) program on muscular strength and endurance and to compare these effects with those of an identically structured weight resistance training (WRT) program. To do this, 84 healthy college students were randomly assigned to either an MRT (n = 53, mean +/- SD: age 25.6 +/- 6.0 years, height 170.1 +/- 8.1 cm, body mass 73.9 +/- 16.0 kg, and body fat 24.6 +/- 8.7%) or WRT (n = 31, mean +/- SD: age 25.5 +/- 5.2 years; height 169.6 +/- 10.1 cm, body mass 75.0 +/- 17.4 kg, and body fat 24.7 +/- 8.5%) group and engaged in a 14-week training program. Each participant's performance was assessed before and immediately after the 14-week training period. Muscular strength was assessed by the one-repetition maximum (1RM) bench press test and the 1RM squat test. Muscular endurance was recorded as the maximum number of repetitions performed with 70% of pretraining 1RM for the bench press and squat exercises. There were no significant differences between the MRT and WRT groups at baseline for muscular strength (p > 0.36) or muscular endurance (p > 0.46). Compared with baseline values, the 14-week training programs produced significant (p < 0.001) improvements in muscular strength and muscular endurance of the MRT and WRT groups. However, no significant difference was observed between the MRT and WRT groups for muscular strength (p > 0.22) or for muscular endurance (p > 0.09) after training. The improvements in muscular strength and muscular endurance after a 14-week MRT program in the present study were similar to those produced by a WRT program, and well-designed MRT exercises seem to be effective for improving muscular fitness.

and this is actually an interesting one. Although it isn't looking at the issue specifically in this thread because free weights and elastic bands were combined.

The effects of combining elastic and free weight resistance on strength and power in athletes.

Anderson CE, Sforzo GA, Sigg JA.
Exercise and Sport Sciences, Ithaca College, Ithaca, New York, USA.

Abstract
This study was undertaken to determine whether combined elastic and free weight resistance (CR) provides different strength and power adaptations than free weight resistance (FWR) training alone. Forty-four young (age 20 +/- 1 years), resistance-trained (4 +/- 2 years' experience) subjects were recruited from men's basketball and wrestling teams and women's basketball and hockey teams at Cornell University. Subjects were stratified according to team, then randomly assigned to the control (C; n = 21) or experimental group (E; n = 23). Before and after 7 weeks of resistance training, subjects were tested for lean body mass, 1 repetition maximum back squat and bench press, and peak and average power. Both C and E groups performed identical workouts except that E used CR (i.e., elastic resistance) for the back squat and bench press, whereas the C group used FWR alone. CR was performed using an elastic bungee cord attached to a standard barbell loaded with plates. Elastic tension was accounted for in an attempt to equalize the total work done by each group. Statistical analyses revealed significant (P < 0.05) between-group differences after training. Compared with C, improvement for E was nearly three times greater for back squat (16.47 +/- 5.67 vs. 6.84 +/- 4.42 kg increase), two times greater for bench press (6.68 +/- 3.41 vs. 3.34 +/- 2.67 kg increase), and nearly three times greater for average power (68.55 +/- 84.35 vs. 23.66 +/- 40.56 watt increase). Training with CR may be better than FWR alone for developing lower and upper body strength, and lower body power in resistance-trained individuals.Long-term effects are unclear, but CR training makes a meaningful contribution in the short term to performance adaptations of experienced athletes.

I would need to check into that study to see how they equated force as the force of the elastic bands would increase the further they are stretched which could explain the differences observed.

However, I have yet to find a single piece of evidence that doesn't conclude that resistance is resistance regardless of where it comes from. Perhaps all that talk about inertia was bull**** just as I stated earlier.

[SumDumGoi]

Does the stimulus magically change with heavier lifts? I am not saying that there wouldn't be problems with more advanced trainees. Eventually all those bands are going to get in the way if you need to accommodate for higher strength levels. It could also start to interfere with form of the lifts as well. But that still wouldn't change the notion that resistance is resistance or negate anything that I have said in this thread for that matter.

In terms of this thread, the biggest problem with the bowflex would not be the type of resistance (which is what was being argued by others), but how much progressive overload you can reasonably expect. The standard bowflex only comes with 310 lbs of resistance which in many cases would not be enough for leg exercises for advanced trainees. It "might" be enough if you were to do squats over leg press but 1) you need a separate attachment for that and 2) I would be skeptical about the form until I tried it myself.

The one caveat that I will add to this thread is that the standard bowflex costs $2500. **** that, buy a power rack and some plates for less than a third of that cost.

[Engineer_Guy]

Does the stimulus magically change with heavier lifts? I am not saying that there wouldn't be problems with more advanced trainees. Eventually all those bands are going to get in the way if you need to accommodate for higher strength levels. It could also start to interfere with form of the lifts as well. But that still wouldn't change the notion that resistance is resistance or negate anything that I have said in this thread for that matter.

In terms of this thread, the biggest problem with the bowflex would not be the type of resistance (which is what was being argued by others), but how much progressive overload you can reasonably expect. The standard bowflex only comes with 310 lbs of resistance which in many cases would not be enough for leg exercises for advanced trainees. It "might" be enough if you were to do squats over leg press but 1) you need a separate attachment for that and 2) I would be skeptical about the form until I tried it myself.

Explain to me how a bowflex properly replicates back squats.

[SumDumGoi]

Explain to me how a bowflex properly replicates back squats.

Perhaps you missed point #2. Read it again.

[Engineer_Guy]

Perhaps you missed point #2. Read it again.

Ah. Also looks like you missed out on my point about the cost of a bowflex on page 1 of this thread :P

[Orlando1234977]

Free weights will be less expensive than a Bowflex.

Excellent Point!!!

[_XYDREX_]

Perhaps all that talk about inertia was bull**** just as I stated earlier.

No, inertia is important for serious trainers, whether it be for athletes that need useful strength or bodybuilders after hypertrophy. The inertia allows an explosive, aggressive style of training to be used which is important because it conditions the CNS more effectively & recruits more motor units (not exclusively for all exercise movements, but for many major ones).

None of those studies used any athletes except for the last one. I fully agree with you that if you take an average office worker, sedentary middle aged woman, 'fit' young women, rehab patients etc etc, it will not make much difference what type of resistance you subject them to, it will all be equally effective. What I am suggesting is that there is a considerable difference in the type of exertion put forth by these subjects vs serious resistance trainers like for e.g. intermediate (& beyond bodybuilders) or football players etc.

The last study used basketballers, hockey players, wrestlers etc which is starting to be more useful but of course they did not conclude elastic training was equally effective to weight training, they simply concluded that elastic training can be a beneficial addition to weight training. It is well known that a wide variety of stimuli is useful for conditioning muscles for sport, this is no surprise.

Training with weights & weight stacks is currently the only feasible way to provide both a baseline resistance load (which Bowflex also provides) and also a resistance to an aggressive explosive style of training (via inertia). While you can train with an 'explosive' style on a Bowflex, there will be no difference because there will be little fluctuation in the load to provide additional resistance to the baseline load. As I mentioned earlier weight training with a very deliberate slow rep speed is comparable to Bowflex training (regardless of the speed used on the Bowflex) which also can be beneficial to serious athletes for certain exercises & for the sake of varied stimulus, but can never substitute the more aggressive training that involves inertia.

[TR0LLF4CE]

\endthread

[SumDumGoi]

No, inertia is important for serious trainers, whether it be for athletes that need useful strength or bodybuilders after hypertrophy. The inertia allows an explosive, aggressive style of training to be used which is important because it conditions the CNS more effectively & recruits more motor units (not exclusively for all exercise movements, but for many major ones).

None of those studies used any athletes except for the last one. I fully agree with you that if you take an average office worker, sedentary middle aged woman, 'fit' young women, rehab patients etc etc, it will not make much difference what type of resistance you subject them to, it will all be equally effective. What I am suggesting is that there is a considerable difference in the type of exertion put forth by these subjects vs serious resistance trainers like for e.g. intermediate (& beyond bodybuilders) or football players etc.

The last study used basketballers, hockey players, wrestlers etc which is starting to be more useful but of course they did not conclude elastic training was equally effective to weight training, they simply concluded that elastic training can be a beneficial addition to weight training. It is well known that a wide variety of stimuli is useful for conditioning muscles for sport, this is no surprise.

Training with weights & weight stacks is currently the only feasible way to provide both a baseline resistance load (which Bowflex also provides) and also a resistance to an aggressive explosive style of training (via inertia). While you can train with an 'explosive' style on a Bowflex, there will be no difference because there will be little fluctuation in the load to provide additional resistance to the baseline load. As I mentioned earlier weight training with a very deliberate slow rep speed is comparable to Bowflex training (regardless of the speed used on the Bowflex) which also can be beneficial to serious athletes for certain exercises & for the sake of varied stimulus, but can never substitute the more aggressive training that involves inertia.

So you are saying that the type of resistance doesn't matter, but then it does? Where exactly is the magical cross-over point between when it works and when it doesn't for a trainee? What physiological mechanism would this occur by? You have to address these statements if you are going to continue making these claims.

I would agree that if you are more advanced the lifter the less effective the bowflex is going to be. However, this is not because the type of resistance being used suddenly stops working. It just becomes harder and harder to find elastic bands and bowflex rods that can support the resistance for required overload. Then even if you could support the amount of resistance, at some point it would become impractical and start to interfere with form and technique of the exercise. Your statements regarding inertia are completely fabricated and are not based on fact. You are simply making up terms that have no merit. In the end, resistance is resistance just like I said before. NOTHING has ever suggested otherwise.

BTW, in regards to your motor unit statement, the one study above actually measured EMG activity using both elastic bands and dumbbells. EMG activity was not different between the groups indicating that motor unit recruitment is not different between the 2 types of resistance.

[_XYDREX_]

So you are saying that the type of resistance doesn't matter, but then it does? Where exactly is the magical cross-over point between when it works and when it doesn't for a trainee?
.

I am saying you wont notice much difference in subjects that aren't particularly 'serious' about weight training &/or who don't have much past experience with strenuous routines. I'm sorry I can't quantify this for you, it is somewhat subjective & I am aware it probably wont satisfy your criteria.

What physiological mechanism would this occur by? You have to address these statements if you are going to continue making these claims.
.

Firstly, the physics mechanism that performing fast explosive reps with weights & weight stacks produces a different loading pattern on the body compared to elastic systems with negligible inertia (like Bowflex). As I mentioned previously performing a 1/1 rep cadence using a weight of 200lb produces a fluctuating load on the body. You have the baseline load which is 200lbs from the dead weight, then you have inertial fluctuations that will vary by approx 10-15%. So performing a 1/1 cadence with 200lbs will mean the body experiences up to 230lbs max down to 170lbs min on average during each rep (cycle). Using the Bowflex set at 200lbs you will experience 200lbs regardless of the rep speed. The loading pattern of the Bowflex is similar to using weights while performing a deliberately slow rep speed.

The physiological implications of this - attempting to move a load explosively has a different effect on the CNS than moving a load slowly. The body is naturally more responsive to fast movements under gravity, Bulgarian research has shown that fast reps produce more neuro-muscular activation than slow reps & you will never get maximum fiber recruitment or NMA with slow movements. Even though you can do fast reps with the Bowflex the loading will not be much different from slow reps because there is no additional load to resist the accelerations (inertial load). Therefore the differences in the NMA will not be triggered.

I would agree that if you are more advanced the lifter the less effective the bowflex is going to be. However, this is not because the type of resistance being used suddenly stops working. It just becomes harder and harder to find elastic bands and bowflex rods that can support the resistance for required overload. Then even if you could support the amount of resistance, at some point it would become impractical and start to interfere with form and technique of the exercise.

This can easily be overcome, the problem is fundamental not just practical. Last year I was involved in developing a system that used an electromagnetic disc brake. You basically had a cable that came out of the unit which you could use directly or attach to any lever for any exercise imaginable. We were able to program via laptop any resistance curve you desire both concentric & eccentric.

When we used the flat resistance curve which was meant to simulate free weight (which Bowflex also has been designed to do) the differences became apparent as soon as different rep speeds were tested. We were actually able to measure accelerations & using a control system feedback loop we could program an additional load back into it to replicate inertial response, but whats the point? weights already do this naturally. And the fact that inertial fluctuations cause the load to drop at the other end (from 200 down to 170 in my earlier example) is not actually a disadvantage either. When we artificially kept it high during that phase it did not make the stimulus more effective. The high & low fluctuations are actually better for CNS response than any attempt to neutralize it. The CNS simply responds better to a sequence of wave bursts (around a base load) compared to a completely constant tension demand.

BTW, in regards to your motor unit statement, the one study above actually measured EMG activity using both elastic bands and dumbbells. EMG activity was not different between the groups indicating that motor unit recruitment is not different between the 2 types of resistance.

It may interest you to know that the highest values of EMG are observed when a pitcher throws a baseball. EMG magnitudes have limited practical applications, they are most useful for determining what areas of a muscle are most targeted by certain exercises. Relative magnitude readings between different muscle regions during an exercise are useful, the absolute magnitude of readings between different exercises or between different loading mechanisms have little implication for effectiveness in strength & /or hypertrophy training.

Highest level of muscle tension is obtained by static contractions. Here is another logical approach based on a false premise. One guy created & sells static contraction equipment with strain gauges attached to a frame so you can view a digital readout of the force you are pushing statically. So you can push as hard as you can, have progression, overload etc, yet its still not as effective as loading by gravity & inertia using weights & weight stacks regardless of the fact that it boasts higher tension levels.

The guy who pm'ed me about his thread said it very well in the other cable thread - "We have evolved under gravity & have been picking sh|t up for millions of years ".

[SumDumGoi]

I am saying you wont notice much difference in subjects that aren't particularly 'serious' about weight training &/or who don't have much past experience with strenuous routines. I'm sorry I can't quantify this for you, it is somewhat subjective & I am aware it probably wont satisfy your criteria.



Firstly, the physics mechanism that performing fast explosive reps with weights & weight stacks produces a different loading pattern on the body compared to elastic systems with negligible inertia (like Bowflex). As I mentioned previously performing a 1/1 rep cadence using a weight of 200lb produces a fluctuating load on the body. You have the baseline load which is 200lbs from the dead weight, then you have inertial fluctuations that will vary by approx 10-15%. So performing a 1/1 cadence with 200lbs will mean the body experiences up to 230lbs max down to 170lbs min on average during each rep (cycle). Using the Bowflex set at 200lbs you will experience 200lbs regardless of the rep speed. The loading pattern of the Bowflex is similar to using weights while performing a deliberately slow rep speed.

Are you suggesting that different cadences will produce different results in terms of gaining lean body mass? It sounds like you are. If this is indeed what you are saying I would agree that different cadences will produce differences in strength in respect to the speed at which the reps are performed. However, differences in muscle mass that are observed with various rep speeds are negligible. You can have a super slow 10 second rep or you could have a more traditional 3-4 second rep or you could perform the reps explosively. Although the strength gained will be specific to the speed of the rep, improvements in muscle mass will be the same.

We could quantify this using freeweights as well. Show me any evidence that suggests faster/slower rep speeds result in differences in LBM. If you can find that study then you will have proved your point. Until then all you have is unsubstantiated conjecture.

This point relates back to what I said earlier. The increase in strength will be specific to the mode of exercise you are using (i.e. bowflex users would increase strength on the bowflex to a greater degree than on freeweights and vice versa). However, no differences in muscle mass would be expected between the 2 groups. This really has no bearing on anything unless you are training to be a powerlifter and then as I said earlier free weights would be required. However if improvements in muscle mass is all you are after, then resistance is still resistance.

[SumDumGoi]

This can easily be overcome, the problem is fundamental not just practical. Last year I was involved in developing a system that used an electromagnetic disc brake. You basically had a cable that came out of the unit which you could use directly or attach to any lever for any exercise imaginable. We were able to program via laptop any resistance curve you desire both concentric & eccentric.

When we used the flat resistance curve which was meant to simulate free weight (which Bowflex also has been designed to do) the differences became apparent as soon as different rep speeds were tested. We were actually able to measure accelerations & using a control system feedback loop we could program an additional load back into it to replicate inertial response, but whats the point? weights already do this naturally. And the fact that inertial fluctuations cause the load to drop at the other end (from 200 down to 170 in my earlier example) is not actually a disadvantage either. When we artificially kept it high during that phase it did not make the stimulus more effective. The high & low fluctuations are actually better for CNS response than any attempt to neutralize it. The CNS simply responds better to a sequence of wave bursts (around a base load) compared to a completely constant tension demand.

This is interesting, but unfortunately it does not relate to the question being asked. No one ever said that force curves won't be different. In fact I would expect them to be when using machines vs free weights vs elastic bands vs whatever else. The question being asked is about results. Does altering the force curve have any affect on hypertrophy of the muscle?

Certainly if I were to train at a slow pace I will get stronger at slower rep speeds. If I train explosively, I will develop more explosive power on that lift. This is all specific to the exercise being performed. But as I mentioned above, I wouldn't expect any differences in muscle mass to occur because you simply modified the force curve. That is the question that is being asked.

[_XYDREX_]

But as I mentioned above, I wouldn't expect any differences in muscle mass to occur because you simply modified the force curve. That is the question that is being asked.

The point is you wont see many successful bodybuilders using deliberately slow rep speeds. This is the point used to argue that Boxflex will not be as effective for serious bodybuilders because the loading is similar between performing slow lifting using weights and using the Bowflex at any speed (because of lack of inertia).

The slow technique with weights has been around for ages, at one stage was actually marketed (yes by the A.Jones camp ironically) as a superior method when in fact it is downright inferior for compound moves.

The best bodybuilding approach comes from a using a mix of stimuli - explosive style on compound moves most of the time (this is vital - cannot be left out) plus isolation exercises which can be done slow for constant tension plus the option of occasionally using slow speed for compounds as well purely for the sake of variety. But you cannot expect to remove the most important stimuli & still get the same results.

You are right that any method that in theory produces the same amount of overload will work just the same. The problem is you simply wont be able to progress as much & therefore will not be able to overload the muscles if you do not perform compound moves in a style that involves some inertia.

Lets say a guy starts off using 100lbs on the bench press for a 30 second set. I will use set times so we can compare sets regardless of rep speed. Using a 1/1 cadence he gets 15 reps with this speed. A few years later if he is pressing 300lbs for that 30 seconds he will have gained considerable mass. If he instead used a 5/5 cadence he will be doing 3 reps for the same 30 second set (so the exact same TUT). Its true if he is able to get his bench to 300 for the same 30 seconds after this period then of course can expect the exact same mass gain. What I am arguing is that he simply wont be able to, his progress wont be as fast because the CNS is less efficient while using a deliberately slow rep speed.

[rezfromdead]

Bowflex by far! Have you seen the people on the commercials?

[SumDumGoi]

The point is you wont see many successful bodybuilders using deliberately slow rep speeds. This is the point used to argue that Boxflex will not be as effective for serious bodybuilders because the loading is similar between performing slow lifting using weights and using the Bowflex at any speed (because of lack of inertia).

The slow technique with weights has been around for ages, at one stage was actually marketed (yes by the A.Jones camp ironically) as a superior method when in fact it is downright inferior for compound moves.

If I were to do a bench press using slow reps that would mean it is no longer a "compound move"? Interesting. Also, you are making the claim that the cadence has an affect on muscle hypertrophy. It doesn't. The cadence has an affect on strength increases at the specific cadence (i.e. if I were to train explosively I would increase explosive strength or if I were to train slowly my strength gains would be increased at slow speeds), but what is the impact on overall hypertrophy.

Anyway, let's see what research has been done in this area before we go ahead and accept your flawed analogy from the rest of your post.

http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Ab...e_Speed.9.aspx

That is what I found after a 15 second search through the literature. I am sure there are other studies done in this area as well. Rep speed does not influence muscle size. Find me something tangible showing that it does and we will talk. Until then, save your fictional examples.

[Farley1324]

What do you find with a search for the use of a properly performed back squat?

[SumDumGoi]

What do you find with a search for the use of a properly performed back squat?

There are lots of studies using properly performed back squats. As I said before, I am not going to chase your tail for you. Look it up yourself, that isn't what is being discussed in this thread.

[Cyborg009]

\endthread

what a beefcake! lawls

[_XYDREX_]

If I were to do a bench press using slow reps that would mean it is no longer a "compound move"? Interesting.

No idea where this is coming from, I mentioned that its best to perform a large portion of your workout with compound moves with an explosive (but controlled) fashion as the most important factor, then performing isolations at whatever speed feels most productive (many isos are better done slower continuous style) & its also beneficial to include other forms for resistance or styles for the sake of variety.

http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Ab...e_Speed.9.aspx

That is what I found after a 15 second search through the literature. I am sure there are other studies done in this area as well. Rep speed does not influence muscle size. Find me something tangible showing that it does and we will talk. Until then, save your fictional examples.

From your study-

It was concluded that strength, speed-strength, and hypertrophy measures can be simultaneously developed significantly in beginning weight trainers. Beginner athletes should consider the possible effects of consciously controlling speed of contraction in weight training.

I mentioned on many occasions that the type of approach I believe is best becomes important for intermediate & beyond bodybuilders. I don't think you missed this, I think you are just assuming most new people who enter threads will go to the most recent posts & wont bother to read the first few pages so you decided to take a few cheap shots, especially the first one where I supposedly said doing slow compounds are no longer compounds. ? You want to link me to where I said this?. You are now acting more like a shifty politician than anything else.

As far as the study goes, I fully agree that for beginners rep speed makes little to no difference, they simply haven't yet developed the neural pathways to benefit from explosive styles. In fact I personally would advise beginners to do slow movements so they better learn the technique & develop mind muscle connection etc.

You should save yourself from posting any further studies that have nothing to do with what we talking about, you have now posted studies that used middle aged women, rehab patients, fit young women, noobs of various flavors, I'm sure there are tons more and I fully agree with those studies, there is no issue here whatsoever so there is no need to post any more. I know you don't agree with me that training approach should be any different for serious bodybuilders that have a bit of experience behind them & I can live with that, this is fine.

None of the material that I have you would consider as valid scientific evidence, you have to realize that most studies presented for conferences will cater for the masses. Such studies are applicable to a far greater number of people than any specialized techniques that serious bodybuilders may use. Most people who join gyms quit within a few months & never even get to intermediate stage so they also can benefit just fine from your studies.

[KitchenBB]

Free weights are better

[SumDumGoi]

No idea where this is coming from, I mentioned that its best to perform a large portion of your workout with compound moves with an explosive (but controlled) fashion as the most important factor, then performing isolations at whatever speed feels most productive (many isos are better done slower continuous style) & its also beneficial to include other forms for resistance or styles for the sake of variety.

You mentioned that the majority of your lifts should be done using compound exercises and then went on to explain this in an entire paragraph. Using a machine, bow flex or freeweight version of a bench press is still a compound lift. Your argument simply made no sense unless you were stating otherwise.

I mentioned on many occasions that the type of approach I believe is best becomes important for intermediate & beyond bodybuilders. I don't think you missed this, I think you are just assuming most new people who enter threads will go to the most recent posts & wont bother to read the first few pages so you decided to take a few cheap shots, especially the first one where I supposedly said doing slow compounds are no longer compounds. ? You want to link me to where I said this?. You are now acting more like a shifty politician than anything else.

Yes, you did say that. I also said that the article I posted was after a 15 second literature search. I am sorry I could not find anything that met your exact specifications in the minimum amount of time it took me to research that article. However, here is what I would like you to do. You have mentioned several times now that quick explosive movements are superior over slow controlled ones. We will for now ignore the fact that you can do explosives exercises on machines like the bowflex and continue on with your point. What I would like you to do is find some evidence and post it stating that quick explosive movements produce greater increases in muscular hypertrophy. This is your claim so you should substantiate it. You said it was "proven" so this shouldn't be hard to do.

You should save yourself from posting any further studies that have nothing to do with what we talking about, you have now posted studies that used middle aged women, rehab patients, fit young women, noobs of various flavors, I'm sure there are tons more and I fully agree with those studies, there is no issue here whatsoever so there is no need to post any more. I know you don't agree with me that training approach should be any different for serious bodybuilders that have a bit of experience behind them & I can live with that, this is fine.

That study had nothing to do with what we are talking about? OK, find anything that proves your point.

None of the material that I have you would consider as valid scientific evidence, you have to realize that most studies presented for conferences will cater for the masses. Such studies are applicable to a far greater number of people than any specialized techniques that serious bodybuilders may use. Most people who join gyms quit within a few months & never even get to intermediate stage so they also can benefit just fine from your studies.

This is largely an overused excuse that has absolutely no factual backing. Which is in line with your previous arguments. Are you suggesting that strength and conditioning coaches are not interested in the optimal training practices for their athletes? Are you suggesting that no studies are done using individuals who are trained? If you are you would be wrong. There are PLENTY of studies and researchers in this field who are interested in these aspects. Unfortunately, when the research is done your views don't hold up so you have to resort back to this lame excuse.

My apologies if the facts get in the way of your fiction, but the facts are just the facts, nothing more. Sorry if I don't buy into all the preconceived hype that is passed around the gym. Obviously you are much easier to fool.

[N@tural1]

But if someone went to the gym for 10+ years and was not a hulking beast I bet you still wouldn't argue that he has experience now would you?

Depends, far too many variables to say.

Your litmus test for whether or not a study is flawed is whether or not it agrees with your opinion.

On what do you base this assertion? As I've said numerous times I appreciate the value of studies and sometime use them myself BUT.... they are NOT the be all and end all for those that actually lift weight as this game is also largely a case of observation and empirical observation.

If it doesn't agree with your opinion then you claim it to be flawed. If it does agree with your opinion then you accept it.

lol more made up arguments ha ha.

I remember previously having a 10 page discussion with you regarding protein requirements of athletes. I posted up countless research articles examining this specific issue and all you kept telling me was that the individuals in the study were not bodybuilders, but rather just trained athletes who were looking to increase their muscle mass. We went round and round about the fact that an athlete trying to gain muscle mass occurs through the same mechanism of a bodybuilder trying to gain muscle mass. However, because you had to be right you kept looking for any single flaw contained within the studies that were presented hoping it would give you a foothold so that you could continue to maintain your belief.

Er... No lol

I was including on my summation of the subject the testimonies of numerous successful personal trainers (some whom I have personally interacted with) who's experiences working with numerous trainees differed from the studies.

That said, if you remember, shorty after that discussion I did happily say to you that I would re-consider my views on that matter based on the studies, oh how soon you forget to suit your agenda.

If it doesn't, well then it must be flawed because your years of experience would never lie. That is despite the fact that your years of "experience" is lacking in relevant controls,and is very limited in scope.

Who cares? If doing "X" works better FOR ME while a study says do "Y" then what value is that study for me?

Please get some practical gym time experience...

Studies are useful, they are not and will never the ultimate source of knowledge.

Have any Major successful physiques been built using rubber bands alone?

Show me a study where a body-builder has built a competition ready physique using rubber lol.

[N@tural1]

you have now posted studies that used middle aged women, rehab patients, fit young women, noobs of various flavors.

^^ lmao!

_XYDREX_

I believe you're referring in part to the various loading effects of a full ROM using a free load, for example the transition from eccentric to concentric creates a period of very high tension, recruitment CNS activity etc..?

[nungman]

To the topic starter:

Don't let this stupid debate confuse you. Free weights are far more useful, far more versatile, and will give better results. No one has gotten jacked from their bowflex. The guys on the commercials are paid fitness models/bodybuilders who use -guess what- free weights to get their physique.

Join a gym, or grab a power rack and a bench for home.

Notice how most fitness equipment commercials have some fine print at the bottom: "Results not typical." That means it doesn't work. Don't fall for the marketing or the retarded debate that's going on.

[Farley1324]

There are lots of studies using properly performed back squats.

No there aren't.

[N@tural1]

Find a study where a bodybuilder has built a competition ready physique using rubber only....