Free Weights vs. Machines: What Science Says About Strength, Power, and Functionality
With the rise in fitness enthusiasts and athletes turning towards more holistic forms of strength training, one of the oldest debates in the exercise world has become increasingly relevant: Which is superior – free weights or machines?
Recent research dives into the efficacy of both training modalities in terms of strength gains, power, hypertrophy, and functionality.
Historical Backdrop
Most of us nostalgically remember our first stint with weights – the clunky department-store weight set in our basements, which eventually evolved into the futuristic selectorized weights at modern gyms. For many, weight machines were a game-changer. But the convenience brought along a debate: How do machine exercises compare to exercises done using free weights?
Surprisingly, in the early 20th century, strength training was frowned upon. It was believed to make athletes slower and more injury-prone. But this changed with the Nebraska football team's dramatic success, attributed to their strength training regimen. This win signaled a significant shift in athletic training – from questioning its purpose to debating the best methods.
Digging Deep into Research
Two key studies shed some light on the free weights vs. machines debate.
1. Strength and Performance Enhancement: A study from the University of Murcia in Spain demonstrated that both free weights and machines showed similar improvements in terms of strength. Speed, change of direction, vertical jump, anaerobic performance, and balance were also measured, with both modalities showing impressive outcomes, albeit with minor variances.
2. Strength, Power, and Muscle Hypertrophy: Other researchers found mixed results. While some studies indicated an edge for free weights in strength building, others found negligible differences between the two. Power and jump performance seemed to favor free weights, but when it came to muscle hypertrophy, the difference was again minimal. The functionality aspect was even more intriguing: While some research showed superior perceived benefits of free weights in daily life, others found similar functional gains irrespective of the training modality used.
To Sum It Up
- Strength: Both modalities have proven to increase strength effectively, though some argue that free weights offer greater mechanical specificity, making them slightly superior.
- Power: Free weights appear to be ahead, especially in exercises that focus on jump performance.
- Muscle Hypertrophy: Here, there isn't much of a difference between free weights and machines.
- Functionality: The studies offer mixed results, indicating that individual preferences and goals might play a crucial role.
Concluding Thoughts
It seems the debate isn't about which modality is "better." Both free weights and machines have their merits, and their efficacy may vary based on individual goals, preferences, and how outcomes are assessed. What stands out is the potential benefit of a balanced program that incorporates both. This ensures a comprehensive workout catering to strength, power, hypertrophy, and functionality.
So, the next time you find yourself stuck between the dumbbell rack and the leg press machine, remember: variety is the spice of a fit life!
Resources
Hernández-Belmonte A, Buendía-Romero Á, Franco-López F, Martínez-Cava A, Pallarés JG. Adaptations in athletic performance and muscle architecture are not meaningfully conditioned by training free-weight versus machine-based exercises: Challenging a traditional assumption using the velocity-based method. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2023 June 21;
Shurely, J, Todd, J. “If Anyone Gets Slower, You’re Fired”: Boyd Epley and the Formation of the Strength Coaching Profession. Iron Game History. 2011 June; 11(3).
Zinkin H, Hearn B. Remembering Muscle Beach: Where Hard Bodies Began: Photographs and Memories. Angel City Press; 1999. 127 p.
Nuzzo JL. Content Analysis of Patent Applications for Strength Training Equipment Filed in the United States Before 1980. J Strength Cond Res. 2021 Oct 1;35(10):2952–62.