Free Weights Vs Cable Machine

[Metadyjital]

I know free weights are probably the winner here... but it one really better than the other? I have a couple of options at the gym... I use some free weights and some cable machines as well... Am I losing something or wasting time with cable machines? If so Why?

thanks

[rayr2010]

i use cables for triceps primarily, the only other thing is chest cross overs after a solid chest DB workout.

im not counting cable rows :-o

[AFXC1]

A few differences between cable and free weights are:

-The use of stabilization and the muscles that are recruited with it
-The ROM
-The amount of intensity/pressure focused on a certain muscle depending on which equipment is used (free weights vs. cable)

I would usually suggest the use of free wight exercises over cable exercises but it's fine to go back and forth with both; allowing you to challenge your body with different equipment and different forms of exercises.

[ZoranM]

It would be nice of you to say which cable machines are you using/are concerned about.

Anyways, i wouldn't call anything a waste of time, only you can do that. And i doubt you'd have a reason to do it, if you're doing those 'conventional' exercises. Some cable exercises are priceless tools for many bodybuilders.

[chazzy1864]

Going by what everyone says, you would think cables would be the hands down winner, except for the fact they can't get over the hump that it is "Z0MG!!!111!11 a masheen!!"

Cables still allow a full recruitment of your stabilizer muscles while also maintaining constant tension throughout the movements.

If anything, when you can choose between two exercises (easily done on both... don't do back squats with a cable stack), one being free weight and one being cables, the cable will probably win.

[Metadyjital]

I do a variety for instance - today was bi's and tri's - so I did barbell curls, concentration curls(i know they suck -stay on topic) with free weights - individual curls with the cable system and cable work for the triceps... basically about a half hour with each system

[-=FLEX=-]

constant tension throughout the movements.

This ^^^

Think about certain movements like a standing barbell or dumbbell curls.

Through the first part of the movement and the last part of the movement you are not working directly against gravity. Gravity pulls straight down. So unless you are moving the weight perpendicular to the floor, you are not getting the same resistance throughout the movement.

When using cables, you have constant resistance throughout the entire range of motion.

I use cables for all kinds of lateral shoulder work, as well as bicep curls for this reason.

-=FLEX=-

[matjusm]

This ^^^

Think about certain movements like a standing barbell or dumbbell curls.

Through the first part of the movement and the last part of the movement you are not working directly against gravity. Gravity pulls straight down. So unless you are moving the weight perpendicular to the floor, you are not getting the same resistance throughout the movement.

When using cables, you have constant resistance throughout the entire range of motion.

I use cables for all kinds of lateral shoulder work, as well as bicep curls for this reason.

-=FLEX=-

I agree that this is probably the main advantage of cable machines: you have constant tension on the muscles which doesn't always happen with certain freeweight exercises.

But as a general rule, I think that freeweights are better. Nothing wrong with machines, but I'd always go for a squat over a leg press.

[ZoranM]

concentration curls(i know they suck -stay on topic)

Lol, no they don't, far from it...

From the top of my head: triceps pushdowns, straight arm pulldowns, cable rows, biceps curls, lat pulldowns, triceps extensions, lateral and rear delt raises, facepulls, cable crossovers, cable flies...

All phenomenal exercises. Some of them you can't even do with free wights.

[-=FLEX=-]

I'd always go for a squat over a leg press.

That's awesome...but totally irrelevant to this discussion.

-=FLEX=-

[AFXC1]

I don't want it to sound as if i'm demonizing machines, they have their place and use, my favorites being the hamstring curl and leg press (for single legged presses)

[DJAuto]

Cables are an excellent tool. I utilize cable movements in nearly every workout.

[txapn]

it really just depends on the individual and thier goals!

i for one can only use crossover cable machines or free motion cable machines...

i just cant fit properly to use and target the desired muscles in most seated cable machines either seat problems or too broad of shoulders and the axis just wont line up with my used/targeted joint for the movement!

but the cables im able to use i do, they are great alternatives bc they change the line of pull and make the exercises harder at other points than the free weight do! (different moment angles)

[tweedbrah]

I like wide grip upright rows with a cable & latbar because is easier on the wrists, since the bar can swivel through the movement

[Pump Freak 86]

Cables are a close second to free weights. there is no reason to bash them. They yield good gains for those who use them right.

[ATrainer]

This ^^^

Think about certain movements like a standing barbell or dumbbell curls.

Through the first part of the movement and the last part of the movement you are not working directly against gravity. Gravity pulls straight down. So unless you are moving the weight perpendicular to the floor, you are not getting the same resistance throughout the movement.

When using cables, you have constant resistance throughout the entire range of motion.

I use cables for all kinds of lateral shoulder work, as well as bicep curls for this reason.

-=FLEX=-

Thank you Flex. You are bringing up the main point here. Cables allow you to optimize the role of resistance vs gravity.

I get bashed here when I say that cables are better than free-weights. The free weight arguments are logically and functionally groundless.
- Stabilizers. Cables require stabilization almost as much as free weights. The small % of stabilization inferiority, and it is small, is worth giving up given the benefits that cables allow for superior use of resistance.
- free weight is better. 50 lbs on a bar or a dumbell is the same as 50 lbs on the end of a cable. This is a fact. Actually, given the drag of friction on the guide-rods and pulley, I would say that the 50 lbs of cable resistance is heavier. I have hooked dumbbells to cables many times to prove this point.

I posted something revolutionary to resistance training analysis a couple of weeks back. It went largely unnoticed. I developed a graph to document an exercise's efficiency at applying resistance to the target muscles.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...#post576990941

Like Flex points out, Standing barbell or dumbbell curls are an inferior contraction. A body drag with my technique of keeping the elbows moving backward is an optimal contraction.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/attach...1&d=1199515115
A high cable curl is also an optimal contraction. Both of these curls are superior to a standing barbell curl. http://forum.bodybuilding.com/attach...2&d=1095091316

Too many free-weight movements are flawed or inferior contractions (reference my previous post link) and if you can't make a modification to them as in my drag curl, and turn them into an optimal contraction, free-weights will remain inferior to cables that can be modified to near perfection when it comes to applied resistance.

You can continue to make the free-weight superiority argument all you want. The science does not support it.

[burry]

Thank you Flex. You are bringing up the main point here. Cables allow you to optimize the role of resistance vs gravity.

I get bashed here when I say that cables are better than free-weights. The free weight arguments are logically and functionally groundless.
- Stabilizers. Cables require stabilization almost as much as free weights. The small % of stabilization inferiority, and it is small, is worth giving up given the benefits that cables allow for superior use of resistance.
- free weight is better. 50 lbs on a bar or a dumbell is the same as 50 lbs on the end of a cable. This is a fact. Actually, given the drag of friction on the guide-rods and pulley, I would say that the 50 lbs of cable resistance is heavier. I have hooked dumbbells to cables many times to prove this point.

I posted something revolutionary to resistance training analysis a couple of weeks back. It went largely unnoticed. I developed a graph to document an exercise's efficiency at applying resistance to the target muscles.
xxxx://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?p=576990941#post576990941

Like Flex points out, Standing barbell or dumbbell curls are an inferior contraction. A body drag with my technique of keeping the elbows moving backward is an optimal contraction.
xxxx://forum.bodybuilding.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1066611&d=1199515115
A high cable curl is also an optimal contraction. Both of these curls are superior to a standing barbell curl. xxxx://forum.bodybuilding.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=127992&d=1095091316

Too many free-weight movements are flawed or inferior contractions (reference my previous post link) and if you can't make a modification to them as in my drag curl, and turn them into an optimal contraction, free-weights will remain inferior to cables that can be modified to near perfection when it comes to applied resistance.

You can continue to make the free-weight superiority argument all you want. The science does not support it.

i have a question then. why can i bench more on a cable machine vs barbell or dumbbell? on a cable machine i can complete 12 reps of 240lbs where as with a dumbbell i can only push 75-80lbs on each arm.

[Simmo0508]

Free weights for the meat of my workout, then i use cables and certain machines to finish off that muscle group.

[ZoranM]

What would you like more? A free TV or cable TV?

[gecko2424]

I know free weights are probably the winner here... but it one really better than the other? I have a couple of options at the gym... I use some free weights and some cable machines as well... Am I losing something or wasting time with cable machines? If so Why?

thanks

both have benefits

do both

cables are great after free weights

[gecko2424]

i have a question then. why can i bench more on a cable machine vs barbell or dumbbell? on a cable machine i can complete 12 reps of 240lbs where as with a dumbbell i can only push 75-80lbs on each arm.

Because you're not actually lifting that weight. It can be reduced via the pulley system, the leverage of the machine etc.

[chazzy1864]

i have a question then. why can i bench more on a cable machine vs barbell or dumbbell? on a cable machine i can complete 12 reps of 240lbs where as with a dumbbell i can only push 75-80lbs on each arm.

Are you sure that cable machine is calibrated to be accurate?

[gecko2424]

It's probably got a double pulley system, so it's actually 1/2, or 60lbs per arm.

[burry]

It's probably got a double pulley system, so it's actually 1/2, or 60lbs per arm.

is that an accurate calculation or just a generalization? 60lbs dumbells per arm are nothing, but on the machine 240 is about my max right now to hit 12 reps for a single set.

[gecko2424]

burry, are you referring to this type of cable for chest?





or this type?





edit: for the record, i use this one

[henmaniac87]

Free weights for the meat of my workout, then i use cables and certain machines to finish off that muscle group.

^^^ This is what I like to do. My favorite cable exercises would have to be tricep pushdowns, cable crossovers, cable lateral raises, cable rows, seated cable flys, cable curls. Cables are great imo, but free weights still reign supreme.

[_XYDREX_]

Think about certain movements like a standing barbell or dumbbell curls.
Through the first part of the movement and the last part of the movement you are not working directly against gravity. Gravity pulls straight down. So unless you are moving the weight perpendicular to the floor, you are not getting the same resistance throughout the movement.
When using cables, you have constant resistance throughout the entire range of motion.
I use cables for all kinds of lateral shoulder work, as well as bicep curls for this reason.

Cables don't give constant tension on the muscle, you still have variation from bone leverage. This type of thing has constant tension http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h213/xrz1/curl.jpg where you have a cable wrapped around a pulley so there is constant moment about the joint. Cable is straight line resistance similar to gravity, the difference is you can control the origin of the straight line (pulley position) & so control the force direction relative to your body to make it better in some (restricted) regions like peak contraction.

Cables require stabilization almost as much as free weights. The small % of stabilization inferiority, and it is small, is worth giving up given the benefits that cables allow for superior use of resistance

I agree the stabilization argument of free weights is over rated. A cable handle can go in any direction like a free weight, the difference is cables allow you to have more sideways movement (perpendicular to the the line of force) with less consequence to your other joints than free weights.

is worth giving up given the benefits that cables allow for superior use of resistance


A high cable curl is also an optimal contraction.
Both of these curls are superior to a standing barbell curl.

Too many free-weight movements are flawed or inferior contractions (reference my previous post link) and if you can't make a modification to them as in my drag curl, and turn them into an optimal contraction, free-weights will remain inferior to cables that can be modified to near perfection when it comes to applied resistance.

You can continue to make the free-weight superiority argument all you want. The science does not support it.

Free weight moves do not inherently have an inferior resistance curve, just that cables can provide a different one and variety is useful. I agree cables can better target a certain region like the peak contraction - but there is nothing to prove this is the most important aspect, that it is more important than a mid range peak like free weights provide.

Arthur Jones created a machine that (theoretically) provided a perfect resistance curve. He measured what force the bicep was capable of at each elbow position & created an odd shaped cam with a variable radius that provided a resistance curve that perfectly matched it. (See the Nautlius book by Ellington Darden). He graphed the resistance curve of this vs the resistance curve of a free weight & it showed that his machine should be at least 4 times better just based on the fact that the freeweight provided too little resistance in many regions. Guess what? His machine did NOT give 4 times the results as he expected. Jones was as scientific as you can get, its quite clear there is no science to support that deviating away from the free weight resistance curve is as important as you think.

Continuous tension is NOT outright superior based on the simple logic that more must be better - more resistance in more of the range of motion must be better than less. This simple physics approach completely neglects physiology of muscle function. Consider 2 extremes - you either expose the muscle to a continuous flat line tension throughout the whole set, or you expose it to fluctuating tension where you experience peaks & troughs. If you choose the fluctuating tension you can give in each rep higher peak tensions, then let the muscle fibers recover for a split second near the lockout before hitting it with the next peak. Sticking points & lockouts due to bone leverage allow this to happen with a normal controlled rep speed. Which one is better for stimulating muscle? No one has studied this but its clear from history that the fluctuating tension is NOT the disadvantage that many people think otherwise Arthur Jones's machine would have been 4 times better as he predicted. Otherwise squatting, deadlifting & pressing would not be as productive as they are due to the 'fatal' flaw in having sticking points & lockouts. I think the reason why fluctuating resistance is useful may be due to the different energy systems muscle fibers use http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...#post558841811 and brief periods of lesser resistance allow certain fibers to recharge some systems, or at least delay their complete depletion.

That's not to say continuous tension is not useful. Some people have it right in this argument - that many various tools are useful for training a muscle. The ones that are extreme in either view - that cable is always inferior, OR that free weight is always inferior will always be dead wrong.

50 lbs on a bar or a dumbell is the same as 50 lbs on the end of a cable. This is a fact. Actually, given the drag of friction on the guide-rods and pulley, I would say that the 50 lbs of cable resistance is heavier.

Friction in machines result in a harder concentric but easier eccentric phase. The exact effect of this is not clear at this stage.

Whether machines allow you to use more weight or not is irrelevant, one should choose a resistance that is challenging whatever that is & how it compares to a free weight means nothing.

[chazzy1864]

is that an accurate calculation or just a generalization? 60lbs dumbells per arm are nothing, but on the machine 240 is about my max right now to hit 12 reps for a single set.

Use the poundage on a cable system solely for your tracking purposes. Not as an actual poundage.

[gomez26]

hey aint those the machines that paralyze ppl?
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=129993623

[II Cybershot II]

good luck getting big legs and a big back using cable machines lmao.