weight lifting soreness not healing?

In article ,
Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>Dnia 2008-11-29 Shava_X napisa³(a):

>> Free weights DO work more muscle that machine weights. The additional
>> muscle is mostly for stabilization. Try it for Yourself. Compare bench-
>> press on a machine to bench-press using a barbell, each loaded with the
>> same weight. Or to *Really* drive the point home, compare either of
>> those with dumbbell bench-press.
>
>What if my barbell bench is higher than machine press? It used to be
>last time I tried both.

Using which machine, and measuring its weight how? (It could be that
the machine's path doesn't match the one your muscles are best at, so
I believe your result, though it's unlikely for most people.)

> What if my dumbbell press is higher than a
>barbell bench press? It could be.

That I'd consider very strange.

>Usually less stable movements are weaker than more stable ones, but it
>is a matter of skill, not additional muscles needed for stabilization.

It's both. With skill (balance), the amount of muscle stabilization
required is lessened.

>Untrained subjects use a lot of extra muscles, but well trained ones do
>not. You'll find very few powerlifters who can press more on a machine
>than with a barbell, I assure you.

If the stabilizing muscles are sufficiently strong, they aren't the
weak link. Also, there's something about using all the muscles in an
area to increase the strength of the major ones.

Or are you including the fact that shirts aren't used for machine
presses?

>Besides, if unstable moves use more muscles, then it follows that
>pressing a pink dumbbell while standing on a swiss ball stacked on a
>bosu-ball placed on a set of rollers recruits more muscles than moving a
>ton of weigh on a leg press machine?

Unstable moves use more muscles for the same weight.

> That's obviously an absurd. You
>recruit more muscles if you can move more weight. That simple.

And you recruit more muscles if you do a lift that requires usage of
more muscles (unstable vs. stable). Either effect can predominate.

Seth
--
The only difference between this place and hell is that a lot of the people
I would like to meet are in hell and I don't see so many here. -- Bryce Lane

Dnia 2008-12-26 Seth napisa³(a):
> In article ,
> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>>Dnia 2008-11-29 Shava_X napisa³(a):
>
>>> Free weights DO work more muscle that machine weights. The additional
>>> muscle is mostly for stabilization. Try it for Yourself. Compare bench-
>>> press on a machine to bench-press using a barbell, each loaded with the
>>> same weight. Or to *Really* drive the point home, compare either of
>>> those with dumbbell bench-press.
>>
>>What if my barbell bench is higher than machine press? It used to be
>>last time I tried both.
>
> Using which machine, and measuring its weight how?

Properly. I know physics.

> (It could be that
> the machine's path doesn't match the one your muscles are best at, so
> I believe your result, though it's unlikely for most people.)

Sure, that was my point.

>> What if my dumbbell press is higher than a
>>barbell bench press? It could be.
>
> That I'd consider very strange.

I never tried to achieve it, but I believe it's doable. You'd need to
train exclusively with dumbbells for a while, though.

>>Usually less stable movements are weaker than more stable ones, but it
>>is a matter of skill, not additional muscles needed for stabilization.
>
> It's both. With skill (balance), the amount of muscle stabilization
> required is lessened.

But the amount of stimulation they receive is totally insignificant.
Think in terms of balancing a stick on a palm of a hand. It's not how
hard you balance it, it's about how skillful you are at doing it. More
so, if you are not skillful at balancing, you can't use your primary
movers much, so you end up with lower muscle stimulation, not higher.

I used to do ring dips and I still do a lot of one-armed barbell
lifting. It's difficult for me to understand how others don't
understand it, but believe you me, if the handle wiggles every which
way, you can't push hard.

>>Untrained subjects use a lot of extra muscles, but well trained ones do
>>not. You'll find very few powerlifters who can press more on a machine
>>than with a barbell, I assure you.
>
> If the stabilizing muscles are sufficiently strong, they aren't the
> weak link.

They never are. Your skill level at utilizing them usually is.

> Also, there's something about using all the muscles in an
> area to increase the strength of the major ones.

That's so strange that I don't even know how people started treating
this idea seriously.

> Or are you including the fact that shirts aren't used for machine
> presses?

I never used a shirt. Long time ago I started training again in some
local gym. I was good for about 80kg of benchpress (AFAIR), but
couldn't press 100 kg on a machine, despite that the range of movement
was shorter and leverage amounted to about 60-70 kg at the bar. There
was a guy who preferred the machine in training and he was able to press
100 kg relatively easily. I outbenched him by a healthy margin on a
normal bar.

(Now, it was some years ago, so I could get the numbers slightly off,
but I do remember how the relative ratios went. I was stronger on the
normal bench than on a machine, and this other guy was not.)

[...]
--
Andrzej Rosa