Weightlifting

[Kovy_Ribs_Fedo 3]

Having strong legs and core will be great for down low work, you won't need much upper body muscle, maybe just after the whistle when everyone want to punch each other, but other than that, do lower body and core work outs, plus your upper body workout you want to do because you never want to have a bigger upper body than a lower in hockey.

It's great to do upper body exercices, but you don't want to concentrate on that.

[chippa13 1844]

I'm thinking of doing an "all-out upper body workout to strengthen my chest, back, and shoulders.  My arms and legs are pretty good, but I've never really had pectorals.  Can anyone recommend some good upper body workouts to do other than the common bench press which is what I'm doing now?  I'm looking to gain about 15 pounds in weight, but i'd like it to be in my upper body rather than my gut.  LOL.

Incline/Decline bench, dumbell flys, deep pushups (go on two chairs with your feet propped up so you can get very deep.)

Push up handles are easier to use and give the same results.

[teamriot38 0]

right now i do squats and dead lift, with cleans every once in a while, I know my legs are alright and my back is desent cause my squats are all-state, i also do dryland skating whenever i get the chance and killer pillars in my room almost every day. Any other good lower body stuff you can think off? I'm pretty good at my lower body routine, just looking into incorporating a better upper body one. ;)

I'll try the deep push ups and incline later tonight.

[sniper94 0]

Hey teamriot38 what exactly are pillar killars?? And what do they work?

I'm looking for something to work lowerbody when I can't get the gym. And I noticed you did them in your room??

Sniper

[hockeyfalcons456 0]

For upper body I do Bench Press, Stability Ball Dumbbell Press,Stability Ball Dumbell Shoulder Press,Dips,Bicep Curls

[teamriot38 0]

it's an ab and midsection workout i did back in football and it still kick my ass to this day! It's a combination of 7-8 ab routines that you do in a specific order and times. If you need a good ab/midsection workout just tell me. It's a pain in the ass right away but it works like nothing else.

[gman 0]

I'm thinking of doing an "all-out upper body workout to strengthen my chest, back, and shoulders.  My arms and legs are pretty good, but I've never really had pectorals.  Can anyone recommend some good upper body workouts to do other than the common bench press which is what I'm doing now?  I'm looking to gain about 15 pounds in weight, but i'd like it to be in my upper body rather than my gut.  LOL.

Incline/Decline bench, dumbell flys, deep pushups (go on two chairs with your feet propped up so you can get very deep.)

Push up handles are easier to use and give the same results.

Along the lines of pushup handles are hanging pushups. These are harder to set up as you need somthing to hang chains or ropes from. Find two handles, like ones sporting goods stores sell for cable machines, and tie or chain them from a chinup rack or the rafters or anything. Hang them so they are about six inches or less off the ground and just a little wider than shoulder width.

Then you do pushups on them. These require tons of additional strength and balance that very few exercises can duplicate. I think the bodyweight link on Ironmind has a description of these as well. You can hang them as high or low as you want depending on how strong you are.

[gman 0]

Hey teamriot38 what exactly are pillar killars?? And what do they work?

I'm looking for something to work lowerbody when I can't get the gym. And I noticed you did them in your room??

Sniper

A pretty "easy" lower body workout that you can do when you cannot make it to the gym are one legged squats. They work you balance as well as your strength. Start out by holding on to a wall or a bedpost and just go down as far as you can. You will improve pretty rapidly if you keep up with it.

For a lower body/cardio workout try the "Matt Furey Hindu Squats". Basically full squats except that you go up on your toes at the very bottom, and you do go all the way to the bottom, and then you go back up on your toes at the very top. Start off with 100, then work up to 200, 500 or 1000.

http://www.bronzebowpublishing.com/exercises.html

This site has a number of great bodyweight calisthenics. THat silly ab roller thing actually does a pretty good job of hitting the rectus abdominus.

[gman 0]

gman, it's quite ironic when you say that one can only develop show muscles with machines, not athletic muscles, since the bodybuilding community generally poo-pahs machines for not being conducive to building large muscles.  :D

I read and re-read my posts and I cannot find where I said that you can "only develop show muscles with machines". What I said was that machines can only build show muscles. As evidenced from your statement regarding the bodybuilding community, they are not even the best for that. Old pictures of Arnold do not have him on the machnes. If you want show muscles there are many ways to go about it. If you use machines, you will only get show muscles.

As far as types of weights and gyms, if the weight is supported by anything other than your body, it is a machine. Machines may have chains, pullies (sp), guide rods, guide slots, cams, pins, and or straps. A freeweight is a device loaded with weight that you pick up either off a rack or off the ground. If you drop the weight and it crashes to the ground, it is a freeweight, if it is guided to the ground and restriced from bouncing all over the place by some sort of structure, it is a machine. I do not believe in hybrids.

If you take a look at the strong man competitors, they do freeweights, stone lifting, and just-plain-crazy-heavy-stuff lifting. Notice what the competitions are called that these guys do: "World's Strongest Man", "Strong Man", and such. You do not see world class strength competitions to see how many Plates on a lying hamstring someone can do for 12 reps.

Deadlifts, Stiff Legged deadlifts, Romanian deadlifts, Good mornings all work the hamstrings every bit as well as hamstring machines. There really is no good way to convince someone one way or another if they are predisposed to using machines.

Many folks have the idea that technology solves all of our problems. That "scientists and inventors" must necessarily be making improvements with all their technical advances. The reason that Nautilus and other companies have spent millions in research and probably even more in advertising is that our society of complacent, executive, couchpotatoes wants the easiest way to the quickest end to achieving any goal. Where is Tony Little?? We buy chalk supplement powders in a jar and oils and plastic pills and spend billions of dollars each year for the magic potion and the path to the yellow brick road.

"Science" advertises great gains on new fangled machines never heard of 50 years ago. Have you seen that bike contraption in the back of some magazines that is supposed to be the be-all-end-all total body workout of a lifetime? Evidentally you strap youself in and thrash around for ten minutes a day twice a week and one day you wake up looking like Ronny Coleman with the cardio vascular capacity of Lance Armstrong. It even won some sort of "Popular Science and Fitness Digest" greatest-achievement-and-invention award.

Do some research on the old time strongmen. Sandow, Louis Cyr and that generation. Those guys were inhumanely strong, did hundreds of shows a year along with open exhibition wrestling. They were rarely injured.

One final rant against bench press is that up until the 1950's, rotator cuff and most shoulder injuries were virtualy unheard of. After the great war and after the big post war economic and baby boom, folks started getting lazy. Laziness went all the way down to how they exercised. Up to that point chest and shoulder deveolpement was accomplished chiefly by overhead pressed, dips and pushups and chopping wood, throwing hay and just plain hard work.

It wasn't until the popularization of bench pressing that our shoulders started getting ripped apart. Now people could work the main beach muscles of the body while LYNG DOWN! What could be better? There is no doubt that benchpressing does indeed develop the pecs and front deltoids. The question is; Why do you want overdeveloped pecs and frontal deltoids? There is no functional reason for them. If you can do a hundred one handed pushups. a hundred parallel bar dips, and twenty handstand pushups, you simple do not need any more strength there. You will be able to throw just about anyone around the room with that kind of strength.

The trouble with bench press is that all the weight is put on the bench-supported shoulders. You have tremedous weight pushing through a joint that is extremely mobile but inherrantly weak. The muscles of the upper back and rear shoulder have no reason to activate because the bench takes all the pressure for them. You put all this weight and strain on this very wonderfully designed joint, but you are only using half of the body's protective musculature. You are begging for an injury.

The big attraction for machines seems to be that they offer resistance in the full range of motion whereas nothing else does. Well, if you want to put your arms and back through a rull range of motion workout that does not leave any holes, do pullups. Unless you are smarter than Isaac Newton and can figure out a way to beat gravity, you will have resistance during the entire contraction. The only freeweight exercise that I can think of that allows you to cheat with gravity is bicep curls. So do more pullups. Do palm in, palm out, wid grip, narrow grip, ONE HANDED and on and on. Now, why do you want to do bicep curls anyway? Unless you have tons of time to spend at the gym doing thousands of reps from every conceivable angle, just grab something heavy and lift it.

I am a proponent of sandbag lifts. You take a big sandbag and lift it off the floor. You just used every muscle in your back and legs. Now you heave it to your chest to just under your chin. You just used every muscle in your foearms and hands and biceps and upper back. Now your blast it overhead to full arm's length. You just used all your shoulder mucles and tricep muscles along with still using your hands and forearms. To keep yourself from toppling over or collapsing into a pile of mush your are continually using all the supporting muscles of your back, hips, and stomach including your obliques. This sounds like the ever elusive "Core training" that is all the rage now.

If you are old or injured and rehabbing, or just like the club atmosphere, then use machines. If you are an athlete use freeweights, bodyweight calisthenics, and odd object lifting. You will see much more real life strength gains this way.

[Shorthanded67 0]

I just started working out again for my own reasons (on machines at my apartment gym ) but I do see the points made here.

Some of the strongest people I know are ones who've never hit the gym in their life. But they are the ones who lift things for a living: UPS workers, laying concrete, construction, landscaping....etc...

I myself am a smallish guy (5'11", 165) but I've always had somewhat decent strength for my size because I've lifted boxes in every imagineable direction for the last 10 years at my job. OK so they are 40-50lb. boxes of bananas, apples, onions, potatoes...but still. :P

[biff44 0]

There are a couple reasons why freeweights are better than machines:

No matter how many adjustments, one machine does not fit all body sizes! If the mechanics are off, you are going to be stressing your joints.

In freeweights, you can concentrate on one muscle group all you want, but the other muscles of the body (even the hundreds of small ones you never heard of) are recruited to do the lift. You are getting more of a total body workout.

It is easy to overtrain your specific muscles, and undertrain others, depending on how many machines your gym has. For each muscle trained, there is an opposing muscle that also has to be trained. It is easy to hop onto a bench press machine and train the heck out of your front side, but unless they have a machine to train the opposing muscles, you have to go over to the dumbell rack to do an equal ammount of exercise on the back. If you forget and just do your favorite machines, you are creating an abnormality.

There are some good reasons to use machines:

Like if there is no spotter around and you are lifting something heavy!

Or if you have an injury and really do want to isolate one muscle mass to train around the injured ones.

It is a little harder to cheat on a machine, as the seat will keep you from recruiting muscles from other parts of the body. In free weights, you really need to have good form.

The babes hang around the machines, not the free weights.

Just be aware of the benefits and limitations.

[gman 0]

The babes hang around the machines, not the free weights.

Dang, that is the single best reason for machines!!! I cannot believe I forgot that one. :D

[Jason Harris 31]

In ice Hockey Conditoning, a book written by Peter Twist, he suggest hockey players to work with freeweights, not with machines. I talked to a guy that train NHL players and all they do is with free weights, elastics, medecine Ball, Balance board, Dodge ball etc...

Kovy, I'm sorry but I didn't have time until now to give a thorough response.

There is a cliche that "if it is written, it must be true," which is a cynical way of saying that just because something is published does not mean it's correct. I'm sure that Peter Twist is probably correct about most of what he's written, but if he says players should only work with free weights at the exclusion of machines, then I can tell you he's not 100% correct.

Equally as true, just because I've written it doesn't make it correct. The important thing is whether one has the proper experience/research to lead to an informed decision. Just as with the recurring t-blades discusssions we have here, where you and I both know that the majority of people with strong opinions have never skated on them, there are many in the exercise community who were dissuaded from ever trying machines, so they have no basis of comparison.

I used free weights for two years, then tried Nautilus, and my immediate response was, "Wow, this is WAY better!" For about six years thereafter, I used only Nautilus until my club brought in free weights. Just for variety, I started using them again, and I found that I liked certain aspects of the workout better -- the greater overall fatigue. Because they each have advantages, I've used both methods for the past eighteen years.

Does it mean I'm right? No. But it does mean I am more qualified than some to discuss the relative merits of each. Particularly when compared to someone who's buddy told him that only free weights work, and that buddy's buddy told him, and the buddy's buddy's buddy, and you get the point. An awful lot of people have never tried the other method and shortchanged themselves because of it.

For Harmstrings - you can do deadlifts...

Deadlifts stress the hamstrings slightly, but deadlifts are actually meant for the lower back. They provide a great stretch for the hamstrings but they don't do much to increase the strength of the hamstrings.

You can envision what I mean by these examples:

1) The hamstrings is essentially the biceps of the legs. Just as the biceps is fully flexed when your hand is slightly behind the elbow, and fully contracted when your hand is pulled closer to your shoulder, so too with the hamstrings. Fully flexed would occur during a deadlift when the weight is just half-an-inch above the floor (or even more so if you go over the edge of the platform), but you can see that the deadlift never approaches being fully contracted by having your heel nearly touch your butt.

Throw in the fact that each muscle group has varying strength over its movement, and that the resistance should always be perpendicular to the bone which that joint moves, and you can see that there is no free weight movement that adequately strengthens the hamstrings over the entire range.

2) Think of the Smith cable machine movement that people do where they sit on a long bench and grab the bar by their feet, then pull back with straight arms. That is basically a sitting deadlift. Ever hear anyone say they are doing it for their hamstrings? No, they'll tell you they are working their lower back.

Hockey player needs stability, power more than pure strenght. IMO, for hockey you are 10x better to do freewight Squats on a Balance board than on a Nautilus machine.

I would suggest doing squats, and I would suggest using a balance board, but I wouldn't suggest doing them together. Why? Because you'd have to lower the weight to such an extent that you're not building your legs to be as strong as they can be.

For instance, I've used the Stairmaster first, and now the Precor elliptical for years. I've always tried to keep good form, with my weight over the pedals and just slightly holding on for balance. Years ago I noticed others going without holding on, so I tried it to see if it would be better. It wasn't -- at least not for my purposes. Did it increase my balance? Probably. Did it increase the strength of my legs? Maybe minutely. Did it increase the strength of my heart/lungs? Not at all, because I had to lower the speed by about 30% to maintain my balance.

I use the Precor to try to keep in the best shape I can for hockey -- not for balance -- so I concentrate on good form at higher speeds to build my heart/liungs better. I'll get hockey balance when I'm on the ice.

I believe a lot in exercises that requires a lot of supporting muscles like the lunges, deadlifts and cleans.

There is no doubt that some free weight movements require a lot of supporting muscles, but it has been a little bit overblown because not all movements call in much auxiliary support -- at least not for the majority of the reps. Compare the bench press to the decline press. On the bench press, not many supporting muscles are called into play, since that is sort of the "track" that the arms follow, whereas on the decline press a lot more muscles are called into play to help maintain balance. Just pay attention next time you work out, and you'll be able to tell which movements greatly call in supporting muscles, and which do only slightly -- and probably no more so than machines.

If one were to ONLY use free weights. the important question is: Do the benefits gained by building supporting muscles outweigh the disadvantages of having pockets of weakness, particularly as injuries are concerned?

Before you answer that question, let me give you an example. I've done squats for years, and I definitely was doing squats the first time I tried on t-blades. I'm not sure whether you've ever skated on t-blades, but they defintely force you to bend your knees more than conventional blades. Three of us tried skated with the t-blades that night, and all three of us said, "Man, my quads are killing!" Actually, it was the last inch of the quads that were burning; the rest of the range was strong enough from skating and squats. By the third time I was on the t-blades, there was no more burning.

So what happened? Obviously, skating with the t-blades built up the parts of the quad muscles that were missing from working out with squats, just as skating in general will build up those muscles needed for better balance. That doesn't mean, then, that one shouldn't exercise; it just means that concentrating on exercise for increased balance might not be as important as you think.

So, back to the question. To help prevent injuries, are you better off having stronger supporting muscles with pockets of weakness, stronger muscles throughout the entire range with weaker supporting muscles, or both?

[LetsGoWings13 0]

My mom was thinking about buying a bow flex for my family. Is this machine a piece of sh*t or would it actually be and ok machine for at home use.

[Jason Harris 31]

I've never used one, but a friend has and he likes it. I think it would be far better than nothing but, just by looking at it, I think it could be off at times on the strength curve.

In case you didn't see it above, the strength curve refers to the varying strength that a muscle has over its entire movement. For instance, during the first one inch of a dumbbell curve, you might be able to handle fifteen pounds properly. (No cheating, in other words.) By the fifth inch, you might be up to eighteen pounds, by the middle it's twently-five pounds, then twenty-three pounds three-fourths of the way, and finally nineteen pounds at the end.

I'm just making up those numbers, but every muscle has a strength curve. To me, the downside of Bowflex is that the strength curve would be linear -- increasing over the entire range -- whereas our muscles don't always work that way. If you were to try to bend a bar, it would reach a point where its tensile strength is too great for you to bend. That's what appears would happen on the Bowflex; the rod becomes bent to the point you can't bend it any longer, but you might have two more inches of range for that movement.

Still, for a home gym, I suspect it's a lot better than nothing.

[gman 0]

My mom was thinking about buying a bow flex for my family. Is this machine a piece of sh*t or would it actually be and ok machine for at home use.

For a home gym, it is the only thing I would consider if you cannot get a set of freeweights. THe bowflex is very safe and very smooth and does actually require some activation of supporting muscles. I have friends who swear by them.

[Adam91 0]

My mom was thinking about buying a bow flex for my family. Is this machine a piece of sh*t or would it actually be and ok machine for at home use.

For a home gym, it is the only thing I would consider if you cannot get a set of freeweights. THe bowflex is very safe and very smooth and does actually require some activation of supporting muscles. I have friends who swear by them.

I just got one and I'd have to agree with your friends. Although I have free weights in my room aswell.

[hockechamp14 0]

Twist is garbage, some of the stuff he straight up made up... no scientific evidence, he literally made it up.

http://www.charliefrancis.com/community/sh...highlight=twist

[Jason Harris 31]

That link seems to require a username and password, hockechamp.

[gman 0]

My mom was thinking about buying a bow flex for my family. Is this machine a piece of sh*t or would it actually be and ok machine for at home use.

Does the particular machine that your mom is looking at have a squat attachment? If it does, then it would be an ideal inside the house arrangement, especially if it going to go upstairs or in a small room.

[biff44 0]

If I were going to blow some money, knowing what I know now, I would go with something like a squat cage (~ $500), an olympic bar and plates (~ $150), and a couple of fixed dumbells in 15, 20, 25,30 lb (~ $60) and an adjustable bench (~$60).

http://www.homegymcentral.com/bodycraft_power_cage.html

BUT, if you are a newbie at weightlifting and are going to be doing it alone, a bowflex is probably safer and almost as good.

[gman 0]

If I were going to blow some money, knowing what I know now, I would go with something like a squat cage (~ $500), an olympic bar and plates (~ $150), and a couple of fixed dumbells in 15, 20, 25,30 lb (~ $60) and an adjustable bench (~$60).

I agree (except for the bench). However if floor/wall space is an issue along with floor loading for weight, then a bowflex is as close as you can get to freeweights without having the weight.

[analog999 0]

I know a guy who really likes his bowflex. I also know my father in law doesn't use his at all.

[gman 0]

I know a guy who really likes his bowflex. I also know my father in law doesn't use his at all.

Maybe you can get it cheap from your father-in-law ;)

[analog999 0]

He's weird like that ... he will not use it but damned if he will ever sell any of his unused stuff.