MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Barbell is a Machine
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

southbeach

the barbell is a man-made device of fairly recent development conceived and constructed to improve adaptation of man's muscle.

the barbell does not exist in nature from natural source.

Man made the modern barbell. A precision milled steel bar ..and plates.

Man made NAUTILUS machine. That man is called Arthur Jones. To improve on the mechanical faults of the barbell.

In a similar manner the barbell improved the stone, or log or "insert any other god-given natural object here"

So, what is my point?

Why do so many here disparage the mechanical virtues of the "prodigal son" ie Nautilus, and its progeny?

Many of you believe there is little more natural than the barbell. Let me clue you, what is natural about a milled steel bar? Answer, nothing.

So, why are many of you so reticent about taking that NEXT step to the MACHINE. A device in every gym that is no slave to gravity, the barbell is a perfect slave, the machine a device that has numerous advancement and improvement over the barbell. As the barbell had over a crude rock or loppy log?

I'm dumbfounded and dismayed because I see Arthur's life's work watered down and misunderstood by MOST OF THIS LIST!

If this list doesn't get it, who does??

Sincerely,

Saddened :((
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

southbeach wrote:
the barbell is a man-made device of fairly recent development conceived and constructed to improve adaptation of man's muscle.

the barbell does not exist in nature from natural source.

Man made the modern barbell. A precision milled steel bar ..and plates.

Man made NAUTILUS machine. That man is called Arthur Jones. To improve on the mechanical faults of the barbell.

In a similar manner the barbell improved the stone, or log or "insert any other god-given natural object here"

So, what is my point?

Why do so many here disparage the mechanical virtues of the "prodigal son" ie Nautilus, and its progeny?

Many of you believe there is little more natural than the barbell. Let me clue you, what is natural about a milled steel bar? Answer, nothing.

So, why are many of you so reticent about taking that NEXT step to the MACHINE. A device in every gym that is no slave to gravity, the barbell is a perfect slave, the machine a device that has numerous advancement and improvement over the barbell. As the barbell had over a crude rock or loppy log?

I'm dumbfounded and dismayed because I see Arthur's life's work watered down and misunderstood by MOST OF THIS LIST!

If this list doesn't get it, who does??

Sincerely,

Saddened :((


We have done a poor job communicating the value of the machine!
Open User Options Menu

progress62

I think what really matters is using a safe set up, be it free weights or machines. Being able to increase the amount of resistance as you get stronger. Just my two cents.

Open User Options Menu

southbeach

marcrph wrote:
southbeach wrote:
the barbell is a man-made device of fairly recent development conceived and constructed to improve adaptation of man's muscle.

the barbell does not exist in nature from natural source.

Man made the modern barbell. A precision milled steel bar ..and plates.

Man made NAUTILUS machine. That man is called Arthur Jones. To improve on the mechanical faults of the barbell.

In a similar manner the barbell improved the stone, or log or "insert any other god-given natural object here"

So, what is my point?

Why do so many here disparage the mechanical virtues of the "prodigal son" ie Nautilus, and its progeny?

Many of you believe there is little more natural than the barbell. Let me clue you, what is natural about a milled steel bar? Answer, nothing.

So, why are many of you so reticent about taking that NEXT step to the MACHINE. A device in every gym that is no slave to gravity, the barbell is a perfect slave, the machine a device that has numerous advancement and improvement over the barbell. As the barbell had over a crude rock or loppy log?

I'm dumbfounded and dismayed because I see Arthur's life's work watered down and misunderstood by MOST OF THIS LIST!

If this list doesn't get it, who does??

Sincerely,

Saddened :((

We have done a poor job communicating the value of the machine!


As Arthur said many times, we are not responsible for their stupidity
Open User Options Menu

SteveHIT

southbeach wrote:
the barbell does not exist in nature from natural source.

Man made the modern barbell. A precision milled steel bar ..and plates.


Really? I thought they grew on barbell trees.

Thanks, you learn something new everyday.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Why do so many here disparage the mechanical virtues of the "prodigal son" ie Nautilus, and its progeny?


==Scott==
I love Nautilus machines and obsess over them more than just about anything else I can think of. I'm a Nautilus/Jones nut. I use my Nautilus machines almost exclusively and am constantly trying to get more of them but I also realize that they are not the end all to everything. They isolate the individual muscles better than a barbell and may be a little safer for some to use and they work the muscles through a fuller range of motion etc,but muscles can be built just as big and strong without them. In fact I'd venture to say most giant bodybuilders don't use Nautilus type machines as much as free weights or pulley machines.
To me it's more about what one prefers to use vrs which really builds muscles better. I love my machines, others prefer barbells. In the end is there really that much difference between a bodybuilder trained with machines and one trained with barbells? I don't think so. They both work well and they work even better when both are used.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

southbeach wrote:
marcrph wrote:
southbeach wrote:
the barbell is a man-made device of fairly recent development conceived and constructed to improve adaptation of man's muscle.

the barbell does not exist in nature from natural source.

Man made the modern barbell. A precision milled steel bar ..and plates.

Man made NAUTILUS machine. That man is called Arthur Jones. To improve on the mechanical faults of the barbell.

In a similar manner the barbell improved the stone, or log or "insert any other god-given natural object here"

So, what is my point?

Why do so many here disparage the mechanical virtues of the "prodigal son" ie Nautilus, and its progeny?

Many of you believe there is little more natural than the barbell. Let me clue you, what is natural about a milled steel bar? Answer, nothing.

So, why are many of you so reticent about taking that NEXT step to the MACHINE. A device in every gym that is no slave to gravity, the barbell is a perfect slave, the machine a device that has numerous advancement and improvement over the barbell. As the barbell had over a crude rock or loppy log?

I'm dumbfounded and dismayed because I see Arthur's life's work watered down and misunderstood by MOST OF THIS LIST!

If this list doesn't get it, who does??

Sincerely,

Saddened :((

We have done a poor job communicating the value of the machine!

As Arthur said many times, we are not responsible for their stupidity


Did Mr. Jones care?

On the other hand you seem to care by your post!

The hardest job in the world is to THINK!

Many are mentally lazy and/or lack humility to admit someone else may know more about a topic!

I get this everyday in pharmacy, with the average HS dropout thinking they know more about drugs than I do!

Planet earth stinks of foolishness!
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

marcrph wrote:
southbeach wrote:
the barbell is a man-made device of fairly recent development conceived and constructed to improve adaptation of man's muscle.

the barbell does not exist in nature from natural source.

Man made the modern barbell. A precision milled steel bar ..and plates.

Man made NAUTILUS machine. That man is called Arthur Jones. To improve on the mechanical faults of the barbell.

In a similar manner the barbell improved the stone, or log or "insert any other god-given natural object here"

So, what is my point?

Why do so many here disparage the mechanical virtues of the "prodigal son" ie Nautilus, and its progeny?

Many of you believe there is little more natural than the barbell. Let me clue you, what is natural about a milled steel bar? Answer, nothing.

So, why are many of you so reticent about taking that NEXT step to the MACHINE. A device in every gym that is no slave to gravity, the barbell is a perfect slave, the machine a device that has numerous advancement and improvement over the barbell. As the barbell had over a crude rock or loppy log?

I'm dumbfounded and dismayed because I see Arthur's life's work watered down and misunderstood by MOST OF THIS LIST!

If this list doesn't get it, who does??

Sincerely,

Saddened :((

We have done a poor job communicating the value of the machine!


Not really. What many have done is "overstate" the value of each.

Both have advantages and disadvantages under specific circumstances.

Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

BIO-FORCE wrote:
marcrph wrote:
southbeach wrote:
the barbell is a man-made device of fairly recent development conceived and constructed to improve adaptation of man's muscle.

the barbell does not exist in nature from natural source.

Man made the modern barbell. A precision milled steel bar ..and plates.

Man made NAUTILUS machine. That man is called Arthur Jones. To improve on the mechanical faults of the barbell.

In a similar manner the barbell improved the stone, or log or "insert any other god-given natural object here"

So, what is my point?

Why do so many here disparage the mechanical virtues of the "prodigal son" ie Nautilus, and its progeny?

Many of you believe there is little more natural than the barbell. Let me clue you, what is natural about a milled steel bar? Answer, nothing.

So, why are many of you so reticent about taking that NEXT step to the MACHINE. A device in every gym that is no slave to gravity, the barbell is a perfect slave, the machine a device that has numerous advancement and improvement over the barbell. As the barbell had over a crude rock or loppy log?

I'm dumbfounded and dismayed because I see Arthur's life's work watered down and misunderstood by MOST OF THIS LIST!

If this list doesn't get it, who does??

Sincerely,

Saddened :((

We have done a poor job communicating the value of the machine!

Not really. What many have done is "overstate" the value of each.

Both have advantages and disadvantages under specific circumstances.



Isn't that poor communication?
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

BIO-FORCE wrote:
marcrph wrote:
southbeach wrote:
the barbell is a man-made device of fairly recent development conceived and constructed to improve adaptation of man's muscle.

the barbell does not exist in nature from natural source.

Man made the modern barbell. A precision milled steel bar ..and plates.

Man made NAUTILUS machine. That man is called Arthur Jones. To improve on the mechanical faults of the barbell.

In a similar manner the barbell improved the stone, or log or "insert any other god-given natural object here"

So, what is my point?

Why do so many here disparage the mechanical virtues of the "prodigal son" ie Nautilus, and its progeny?

Many of you believe there is little more natural than the barbell. Let me clue you, what is natural about a milled steel bar? Answer, nothing.

So, why are many of you so reticent about taking that NEXT step to the MACHINE. A device in every gym that is no slave to gravity, the barbell is a perfect slave, the machine a device that has numerous advancement and improvement over the barbell. As the barbell had over a crude rock or loppy log?

I'm dumbfounded and dismayed because I see Arthur's life's work watered down and misunderstood by MOST OF THIS LIST!

If this list doesn't get it, who does??

Sincerely,

Saddened :((

We have done a poor job communicating the value of the machine!

Not really. What many have done is "overstate" the value of each.

Both have advantages and disadvantages under specific circumstances.



I doubt very much you use any natural object in your training. Even if you do lift the occasional rock for whatever ..You are heavy on the barbell side, and even though you may wish to obfuscate the issue for whatever..that's a choice.


Open User Options Menu

MDieguez

southbeach
A large part of " Arthur's work " was deciphering the bullshit liars such as yourself from the truth. For someone who always brings up Arthur you seem to conveniently ignore his view on the squat. Fortcollinsfan already pointed this out. Why dont you leave Arthur to the people that actually knew him ( El, Dr. Ken, Kim Wood, Jim Bryan etc)
Mike
Open User Options Menu

Paul Marsland

Can you press this log?
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

marcrph wrote:
BIO-FORCE wrote:
marcrph wrote:
southbeach wrote:
the barbell is a man-made device of fairly recent development conceived and constructed to improve adaptation of man's muscle.

the barbell does not exist in nature from natural source.

Man made the modern barbell. A precision milled steel bar ..and plates.

Man made NAUTILUS machine. That man is called Arthur Jones. To improve on the mechanical faults of the barbell.

In a similar manner the barbell improved the stone, or log or "insert any other god-given natural object here"

So, what is my point?

Why do so many here disparage the mechanical virtues of the "prodigal son" ie Nautilus, and its progeny?

Many of you believe there is little more natural than the barbell. Let me clue you, what is natural about a milled steel bar? Answer, nothing.

So, why are many of you so reticent about taking that NEXT step to the MACHINE. A device in every gym that is no slave to gravity, the barbell is a perfect slave, the machine a device that has numerous advancement and improvement over the barbell. As the barbell had over a crude rock or loppy log?

I'm dumbfounded and dismayed because I see Arthur's life's work watered down and misunderstood by MOST OF THIS LIST!

If this list doesn't get it, who does??

Sincerely,

Saddened :((

We have done a poor job communicating the value of the machine!

Not really. What many have done is "overstate" the value of each.

Both have advantages and disadvantages under specific circumstances.



Isn't that poor communication?


I generally view it as a lack of awarness to EACH not just machines.

Pushing one or the other over the other for ALL circumstances is of little value.

In the end it certainly IS communication, but using one or the other SHOULD be based on the specific goals, NOT a biased sales job.

Some of the preceding posts might be good examples.

So as I said "EACH" have merits and negatives, and the one you use should be based on the one that best fills "YOUR" needs and availability.

Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

southbeach wrote:
BIO-FORCE wrote:
marcrph wrote:
southbeach wrote:
the barbell is a man-made device of fairly recent development conceived and constructed to improve adaptation of man's muscle.

the barbell does not exist in nature from natural source.

Man made the modern barbell. A precision milled steel bar ..and plates.

Man made NAUTILUS machine. That man is called Arthur Jones. To improve on the mechanical faults of the barbell.

In a similar manner the barbell improved the stone, or log or "insert any other god-given natural object here"

So, what is my point?

Why do so many here disparage the mechanical virtues of the "prodigal son" ie Nautilus, and its progeny?

Many of you believe there is little more natural than the barbell. Let me clue you, what is natural about a milled steel bar? Answer, nothing.

So, why are many of you so reticent about taking that NEXT step to the MACHINE. A device in every gym that is no slave to gravity, the barbell is a perfect slave, the machine a device that has numerous advancement and improvement over the barbell. As the barbell had over a crude rock or loppy log?

I'm dumbfounded and dismayed because I see Arthur's life's work watered down and misunderstood by MOST OF THIS LIST!

If this list doesn't get it, who does??

Sincerely,

Saddened :((

We have done a poor job communicating the value of the machine!

Not really. What many have done is "overstate" the value of each.

Both have advantages and disadvantages under specific circumstances.



I doubt very much you use any natural object in your training. Even if you do lift the occasional rock for whatever ..You are heavy on the barbell side, and even though you may wish to obfuscate the issue for whatever..that's a choice.


You perceive me as being biased, but I like all training devices equally as to their specific functions and capabilities to the goals.

You however seem to be extremely biased toward machine training, and don't seem to grasp the value balances.



Open User Options Menu

crazeeJZ

If Nautilus is superior, does using Nautilus result in bigger muscles than free weights?
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

crazeeJZ wrote:
If Nautilus is superior, does using Nautilus result in bigger muscles than free weights?



Yes. Yes. Provided you know how to properly utilize those machines. Look at the new X-Force machines, you can't do that with a barbell.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

BIO-FORCE wrote:
southbeach wrote:
BIO-FORCE wrote:
marcrph wrote:
southbeach wrote:
the barbell is a man-made device of fairly recent development conceived and constructed to improve adaptation of man's muscle.

the barbell does not exist in nature from natural source.

Man made the modern barbell. A precision milled steel bar ..and plates.

Man made NAUTILUS machine. That man is called Arthur Jones. To improve on the mechanical faults of the barbell.

In a similar manner the barbell improved the stone, or log or "insert any other god-given natural object here"

So, what is my point?

Why do so many here disparage the mechanical virtues of the "prodigal son" ie Nautilus, and its progeny?

Many of you believe there is little more natural than the barbell. Let me clue you, what is natural about a milled steel bar? Answer, nothing.

So, why are many of you so reticent about taking that NEXT step to the MACHINE. A device in every gym that is no slave to gravity, the barbell is a perfect slave, the machine a device that has numerous advancement and improvement over the barbell. As the barbell had over a crude rock or loppy log?

I'm dumbfounded and dismayed because I see Arthur's life's work watered down and misunderstood by MOST OF THIS LIST!

If this list doesn't get it, who does??

Sincerely,

Saddened :((

We have done a poor job communicating the value of the machine!

Not really. What many have done is "overstate" the value of each.

Both have advantages and disadvantages under specific circumstances.



I doubt very much you use any natural object in your training. Even if you do lift the occasional rock for whatever ..You are heavy on the barbell side, and even though you may wish to obfuscate the issue for whatever..that's a choice.


You perceive me as being biased, but I like all training devices equally as to their specific functions and capabilities to the goals.

You however seem to be extremely biased toward machine training, and don't seem to grasp the value balances.





You are biased to the barbell. You use almost no machines in your training. You use NO rocks or logs. That's the definition of a bias.

Ask yourself why do I utilize a barbell and not a rock? Why don't I take the next step to the more sophisticated "barbell"..the Machine? Ask yourself..
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

BIO-FORCE wrote:
marcrph wrote:
BIO-FORCE wrote:
marcrph wrote:
southbeach wrote:
the barbell is a man-made device of fairly recent development conceived and constructed to improve adaptation of man's muscle.

the barbell does not exist in nature from natural source.

Man made the modern barbell. A precision milled steel bar ..and plates.

Man made NAUTILUS machine. That man is called Arthur Jones. To improve on the mechanical faults of the barbell.

In a similar manner the barbell improved the stone, or log or "insert any other god-given natural object here"

So, what is my point?

Why do so many here disparage the mechanical virtues of the "prodigal son" ie Nautilus, and its progeny?

Many of you believe there is little more natural than the barbell. Let me clue you, what is natural about a milled steel bar? Answer, nothing.

So, why are many of you so reticent about taking that NEXT step to the MACHINE. A device in every gym that is no slave to gravity, the barbell is a perfect slave, the machine a device that has numerous advancement and improvement over the barbell. As the barbell had over a crude rock or loppy log?

I'm dumbfounded and dismayed because I see Arthur's life's work watered down and misunderstood by MOST OF THIS LIST!

If this list doesn't get it, who does??

Sincerely,

Saddened :((

We have done a poor job communicating the value of the machine!

Not really. What many have done is "overstate" the value of each.

Both have advantages and disadvantages under specific circumstances.



Isn't that poor communication?

I generally view it as a lack of awarness to EACH not just machines.

Pushing one or the other over the other for ALL circumstances is of little value.

In the end it certainly IS communication, but using one or the other SHOULD be based on the specific goals, NOT a biased sales job.

Some of the preceding posts might be good examples.

So as I said "EACH" have merits and negatives, and the one you use should be based on the one that best fills "YOUR" needs and availability.



You shouldn't blame a man for trying to sell what he makes with his own hands, and he truly believes in.

Personally, I've seen one machine that could roughly equal the dead lift for overall strength development, and that is the leg press. All other machines pale in comparison to a proper leg press. Only the barbell deep knee bend can compare to the dead lift.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

crazeeJZ wrote:
If Nautilus is superior, does using Nautilus result in bigger muscles than free weights?


Superior? Perhaps more time efficient!
Open User Options Menu

SteveHIT

MDieguez wrote:
southbeach
A large part of " Arthur's work " was deciphering the bullshit liars such as yourself from the truth. For someone who always brings up Arthur you seem to conveniently ignore his view on the squat. Fortcollinsfan already pointed this out. Why dont you leave Arthur to the people that actually knew him ( El, Dr. Ken, Kim Wood, Jim Bryan etc)
Mike


"Crickets"
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

marcrph wrote:
crazeeJZ wrote:
If Nautilus is superior, does using Nautilus result in bigger muscles than free weights?

Superior? Perhaps more time efficient!


Really? Arthur's creation is boiled down to a simple "only time efficient"? What does this even mean?

Let me ask the list a question.. how many of you barbell cowboys also use a pulldown MACHINE? Why, if the barbell is the end all to LAT development?

How many here also utilize a CALF MACHINE? Why? If the barbell is the end all be all to muscular development?

The barbell is not "magic", it is a man-made device to improve the efficacy of training over natural objects. The MACHINE is the next generation of the barbell. period.

Open User Options Menu

Bastion

southbeach wrote:
crazeeJZ wrote:
If Nautilus is superior, does using Nautilus result in bigger muscles than free weights?


Yes. Yes. Provided you know how to properly utilize those machines. Look at the new X-Force machines, you can't do that with a barbell.


I'm not knocking machines. But the fact is, the biggest, strongest men in the world don't use much more than a barbell. Just looks at powerlifters, strongman competitors and not to mention the fact that there are some pretty big dudes that are locked up and eat slop 3 times a day and use rusty old barbells and dumbbells.
It all depends on your goal. Bodybuilders use a combination of free weights and machines.
If I were training people for a living, especially middle aged and elderly people with modest goals, machines are definitely much safer and don't require much, if any skill.
Both machines and free weights have their place. It's not a matter of either/or, or one being superior to the other.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

HIT27 wrote:
southbeach wrote:
crazeeJZ wrote:
If Nautilus is superior, does using Nautilus result in bigger muscles than free weights?


Yes. Yes. Provided you know how to properly utilize those machines. Look at the new X-Force machines, you can't do that with a barbell.


I'm not knocking machines. But the fact is, the biggest, strongest men in the world don't use much more than a barbell. Just looks at powerlifters, strongman competitors and not to mention the fact that there are some pretty big dudes that are locked up and eat slop 3 times a day and use rusty old barbells and dumbbells.
It all depends on your goal. Bodybuilders use a combination of free weights and machines.
If I were training people for a living, especially middle aged and elderly people with modest goals, machines are definitely much safer and don't require much, if any skill.
Both machines and free weights have their place. It's not a matter of either/or, or one being superior to the other.


It is interesting that you don't place "rocks" anywhere? Your bias to a barbell being better than a rock is showing.

The strongest men in the world are BORN not made. Their potential was determined before BIRTH, so if you are chasing that tail you will be sorely disappointed :/
Open User Options Menu

coomo

southbeach wrote:
HIT27 wrote:
southbeach wrote:
crazeeJZ wrote:
If Nautilus is superior, does using Nautilus result in bigger muscles than free weights?


Yes. Yes. Provided you know how to properly utilize those machines. Look at the new X-Force machines, you can't do that with a barbell.


I'm not knocking machines. But the fact is, the biggest, strongest men in the world don't use much more than a barbell. Just looks at powerlifters, strongman competitors and not to mention the fact that there are some pretty big dudes that are locked up and eat slop 3 times a day and use rusty old barbells and dumbbells.
It all depends on your goal. Bodybuilders use a combination of free weights and machines.
If I were training people for a living, especially middle aged and elderly people with modest goals, machines are definitely much safer and don't require much, if any skill.
Both machines and free weights have their place. It's not a matter of either/or, or one being superior to the other.

It is interesting that you don't place "rocks" anywhere? Your bias to a barbell being better than a rock is showing.

The strongest men in the world are BORN not made. Their potential was determined before BIRTH, so if you are chasing that tail you will be sorely disappointed :/

Yup.

Open User Options Menu

Bastion

southbeach wrote:
HIT27 wrote:
southbeach wrote:
crazeeJZ wrote:
If Nautilus is superior, does using Nautilus result in bigger muscles than free weights?


Yes. Yes. Provided you know how to properly utilize those machines. Look at the new X-Force machines, you can't do that with a barbell.


I'm not knocking machines. But the fact is, the biggest, strongest men in the world don't use much more than a barbell. Just looks at powerlifters, strongman competitors and not to mention the fact that there are some pretty big dudes that are locked up and eat slop 3 times a day and use rusty old barbells and dumbbells.
It all depends on your goal. Bodybuilders use a combination of free weights and machines.
If I were training people for a living, especially middle aged and elderly people with modest goals, machines are definitely much safer and don't require much, if any skill.
Both machines and free weights have their place. It's not a matter of either/or, or one being superior to the other.

It is interesting that you don't place "rocks" anywhere? Your bias to a barbell being better than a rock is showing.

The strongest men in the world are BORN not made. Their potential was determined before BIRTH, so if you are chasing that tail you will be sorely disappointed :/


First of all. If you read what I said, instead of just looking for an argument, you would see that I said that the biggest, strongest men in the world don't use much more than a barbell. I didn't say that the barbell was responsible for their strength and size. This topic isn't about genetics, is it?.
Also, where did I say that a barbell is better than a machine?. I wasn't knocking machines, I just simply tried to make a point that both machines and free weights are both productive and have their place.
Dr. Ken has trained thousands of elite athletes using a barbell, rocks, anvils, machines etc etc. Is he wrong?.
You are right, the biggest and strongest men and women in the world are/were born, not made. So what makes you think that using a machine will give you better results than using a barbell?. I personally use both, but that's not the point here.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy