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
Free Weights vs. Nautilus Study
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

HamsFitness

http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/...vol51/stone.htm

MAYBE OF INTEREST TO SOME, NOT VERY IN DEPTH AS TO WHAT EXERCISES WERE INCLUDED BUT THIS WAS INTERESTING;

"The free weight group was significantly better than the Nautilus group in strength (1RM squat) and vertical jump. There was no significant difference between the groups on Nautilus leg press"

DISCUSS

RICHARD
Open User Options Menu

theHITman

That would make sense if it was a barbell squat. I certainly know nautilus don't make a vertical jump machine, so there'll be no real benefit there in something as short term as 4 weeks without the appropriate training.

Sounds like more findings from the ministry of the bleeding obvious!
Open User Options Menu

HamsFitness

theHITman wrote:
That would make sense if it was a barbell squat. I certainly know nautilus don't make a vertical jump machine, so there'll be no real benefit there in something as short term as 4 weeks without the appropriate training.

Sounds like more findings from the ministry of the bleeding obvious!


I thought the part about the free weight group outdoing the nautilus group on the nautilus leg press was interesting.
Open User Options Menu

theHITman

Wizard wrote:
theHITman wrote:
That would make sense if it was a barbell squat. I certainly know nautilus don't make a vertical jump machine, so there'll be no real benefit there in something as short term as 4 weeks without the appropriate training.

Sounds like more findings from the ministry of the bleeding obvious!

I thought the part about the free weight group outdoing the nautilus group on the nautilus leg press was interesting.


It says in the abstract there was no significant difference, and again that would be fairly obvious from the outset.

If the free weight group were performing a squat and being tested on a squat, then the free weight group will perform better at the test as per the SAID principle.

The barbell squat also uses basically the same muscles as the leg press through a similar range of motion, so assuming strength increases in those specific muscles are similar, then the free weights group should perform just as well (within the realms of "no significant difference") as the leg press group.

The leg press on the other hand isn't as similar to a squat as a squat is. The group that squats when tested will obviously perform better at the squat than the group that doesn't. Certainly after a period as short as 4 weeks.

The most interesting thing to me was the point that the nautilus machines they were using were restricted to 25 lb increments. One of the advantages of the nautilus machines I've used over other machines is the small increments of 5 lbs.

Anyone know what line has such huge jumps?
Open User Options Menu

HamsFitness

and with that same token of SAID, the nautilus group should have done better at the leg press than the non leg press group, even if only marginally - but they didnt.

Interesting but not particulalry thought provoking, just interesting

Richard
Open User Options Menu

Michael Petrella

Ontario, CAN

Duo-squat has 25lb plates for its stack.

Michael
Open User Options Menu

Ellington Darden

If I remember correctly, Mike Stone, the lead researcher for this study, had several run-ins with Arthur Jones in the early 1970s. And in those days, a run-in with Arthur was not something you took laughingly or lightly.

Ellington
Open User Options Menu

HSDAD

I was intrigued by this parenthetical insertion:

"(all movements with the greatest velocity)"

In essence they were not properly using the machines. I don't know of anyone save for Wayne who recommend using Nautilus machines in this fashion.

This is like testing a car in first gear and complaining that it doesn't go as fast as the manufacturer claimed.

That said, perhaps it is true that a wider range of methods of execution will produce results with free weights than will do so for machine use. But I think there is plenty of data available to show that properly used, machines can produce maximum results. But if you're going to fling the weight around like a chimp, perhaps sticking with freeweights is better.
Open User Options Menu

theHITman

Wizard wrote:
and with that same token of SAID, the nautilus group should have done better at the leg press than the non leg press group, even if only marginally - but they didnt.


Not really, particularly over such a short space of time. The movements are basically the same using the same lower body muscles to perform the hip flexion, so provided strength increases in those muscles are fairly similar in both groups, then both groups will improve in the non-skilled movement (leg press) almost equally.

The main difference between a leg press and a squat is the skill, or technique.

The leg press will improve strength in the muscles responsible for hip flexion and nothing else.

The squat will improve strength in the muscles responsible for hip flexion and improve the ability to perform a squat.

The SAID principle says that performing hip flexion under load will improve the ability to perform hip flexion under load.

The squat group satisfied that principle enough to perform just as well on the leg press as the leg press group.
Open User Options Menu

BeauMann

Iowa, USA

theHITman wrote:
Wizard wrote:
theHITman wrote:
That would make sense if it was a barbell squat. I certainly know nautilus don't make a vertical jump machine, so there'll be no real benefit there in something as short term as 4 weeks without the appropriate training.

Sounds like more findings from the ministry of the bleeding obvious!

I thought the part about the free weight group outdoing the nautilus group on the nautilus leg press was interesting.

It says in the abstract there was no significant difference, and again that would be fairly obvious from the outset.

If the free weight group were performing a squat and being tested on a squat, then the free weight group will perform better at the test as per the SAID principle.

The barbell squat also uses basically the same muscles as the leg press through a similar range of motion, so assuming strength increases in those specific muscles are similar, then the free weights group should perform just as well (within the realms of "no significant difference") as the leg press group.

The leg press on the other hand isn't as similar to a squat as a squat is. The group that squats when tested will obviously perform better at the squat than the group that doesn't. Certainly after a period as short as 4 weeks.

The most interesting thing to me was the point that the nautilus machines they were using were restricted to 25 lb increments. One of the advantages of the nautilus machines I've used over other machines is the small increments of 5 lbs.

Anyone know what line has such huge jumps?


If there is no difference between the two as you say. I think the Nautilus group is more efficient for safety purposes. Not everyone can do a barbel squat. People with bad backs cannot squat with enough weight to get the best out of it. Really tall people, (I see more around these days) would probably benefit using the leg press.

I am 6'3 and have problems doing squats. If I want to go parallel or below, I have bend forward a great degree to the point that it is more of a lower back exercise than a leg exercise. Just my opinion. I like to do squats, but I have to cheat to do a decent amount of weight and to get a decient amount of reps, and I don't like to cheat.
Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, USA

Wizard wrote:
http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/...vol51/stone.htm

MAYBE OF INTEREST TO SOME, NOT VERY IN DEPTH AS TO WHAT EXERCISES WERE INCLUDED BUT THIS WAS INTERESTING;

"The free weight group was significantly better than the Nautilus group in strength (1RM squat) and vertical jump. There was no significant difference between the groups on Nautilus leg press"

DISCUSS

RICHARD


... sounds right; I think it makes sense that squats would better increase the vertical jump, sprints and other movements that include a squatting motion.

However, I think if there were sports based movements wherein the participants lay on their backs, braced themselves in and pressed with their legs then the leg press would win hands down over the squat, would provide more functional strength.


Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

HSDAD wrote:
I was intrigued by this parenthetical insertion:

"(all movements with the greatest velocity)"

In essence they were not properly using the machines. I don't know of anyone save for Wayne who recommend using Nautilus machines in this fashion.

This is like testing a car in first gear and complaining that it doesn't go as fast as the manufacturer claimed.


I don't know if that is "clear".

If you re-read it, it might be that only the "free weights" were used that way. It does not say "both" and the explanation is placed after free weights.

But, if your interpretation is accurate, I have a feeling the results might have been even a bit more different if the 2/4 rep speed was applied to the machines only.

HSDAD wrote:

That said, perhaps it is true that a wider range of methods of execution will produce results with free weights than will do so for machine use. But I think there is plenty of data available to show that properly used, machines can produce maximum results.


That is true but not a "general" consensus. Machine results have a tendency to be more "specific". However those specific results can be quite dramatic.

HSDAD wrote:
But if you're going to fling the weight around like a chimp, perhaps sticking with freeweights is better.


While that may be a reasonable opinion, (I have never seen a chimp in training) it doesn't have anything to do with the research referenced.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Wizard wrote:
http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/...vol51/stone.htm

MAYBE OF INTEREST TO SOME, NOT VERY IN DEPTH AS TO WHAT EXERCISES WERE INCLUDED BUT THIS WAS INTERESTING;

"The free weight group was significantly better than the Nautilus group in strength (1RM squat) and vertical jump. There was no significant difference between the groups on Nautilus leg press"

DISCUSS

RICHARD


Their "Squat" did NOT help their performance and strength in their LEG PRESS.

Interesting that squat did not transfer its strength to a less complex action ie the leg press.

What does this tell you about the squat? it is overrated and total bullocks! LOLOL
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

southbeach wrote:
Wizard wrote:
http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/...vol51/stone.htm

MAYBE OF INTEREST TO SOME, NOT VERY IN DEPTH AS TO WHAT EXERCISES WERE INCLUDED BUT THIS WAS INTERESTING;

"The free weight group was significantly better than the Nautilus group in strength (1RM squat) and vertical jump. There was no significant difference between the groups on Nautilus leg press"

DISCUSS

RICHARD

Their "Squat" did NOT help their performance and strength in their LEG PRESS.

Interesting that squat did not transfer its strength to a less complex action ie the leg press.

What does this tell you about the squat? it is overrated and total bullocks! LOLOL


SB, you have nothing to LOL about unless you are laughing at you inability to understand and interpret studies.

1) Free weight group made progress in the squat.
2) Nautilus group made no progress in the squat
3) Free weight group equaled the Nautilus Group in the Leg Press without even doing LP.

So what does that tell you?

1) Nautilus Leg Press alone did not contribute to Squat strength
2) Squat alone contributed to increase in the Leg Press equal to the Nautilus trained group.
Open User Options Menu

Nick1971

Texas, USA

Well the Squat will directly help you gain strength in the Squat. It will probably help indirectly with the Leg Press, but the Leg Press is obviously the best exercise for directly improving itself.

The Squat is a fantastic exercise in it's own right.
Open User Options Menu

physcult

Nick1971 wrote:
Well the Squat will directly help you gain strength in the Squat. It will probably help indirectly with the Leg Press, but the Leg Press is obviously the best exercise for directly improving itself.

.


Doesnt the squat incorporate the leg press? If there is a good squatter that cant leg press well - I havn't met him.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

BIO-FORCE wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Wizard wrote:
http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/...vol51/stone.htm

MAYBE OF INTEREST TO SOME, NOT VERY IN DEPTH AS TO WHAT EXERCISES WERE INCLUDED BUT THIS WAS INTERESTING;

"The free weight group was significantly better than the Nautilus group in strength (1RM squat) and vertical jump. There was no significant difference between the groups on Nautilus leg press"

DISCUSS

RICHARD

Their "Squat" did NOT help their performance and strength in their LEG PRESS.

Interesting that squat did not transfer its strength to a less complex action ie the leg press.

What does this tell you about the squat? it is overrated and total bullocks! LOLOL

SB, you have nothing to LOL about unless you are laughing at you inability to understand and interpret studies.

1) Free weight group made progress in the squat.
2) Nautilus group made no progress in the squat
3) Free weight group equaled the Nautilus Group in the Leg Press without even doing LP.

So what does that tell you?

1) Nautilus Leg Press alone did not contribute to Squat strength
2) Squat alone contributed to increase in the Leg Press equal to the Nautilus trained group.


tells me that if the 'king of exercise squat' is such a great mass & strength builder rather than a circus act exercise, my LEG PRESS should get stronger too! duh!
Open User Options Menu

Nick1971

Texas, USA

physcult wrote:

Doesnt the squat incorporate the leg press? If there is a good squatter that cant leg press well - I havn't met him.


Yeah the Squat and Leg Press are similar movements. Obviously Leg Presses would help improve that exercise better than Squats would, but I think it's a best of both worlds sort of thing. Do both. :D
Open User Options Menu

bdog

There's an article or video clip somewhere on this forum of Arthur talking about people that say they perform these tests and surveys often don't do them at all. They lie or skew the data to project the results they want.
Open User Options Menu

NewYorker

New York, USA

bdog wrote:
There's an article or video clip somewhere on this forum of Arthur talking about people that say they perform these tests and surveys often don't do them at all. They lie or skew the data to project the results they want.


That would be consistent with Dr. Darden's post. I had switched from free-weights to early Nautilus machines in the early 80s and noticed a big improvement. More than 1 person had wondered if I was taking performance enhancing substances... and I am not genetically-physique-gifted.

I did notice that the early machines had quite a bit of friction. Sometimes, we would actually push or step on the weight stack to intensify the negatives at the college gym. Some people called it "the thrill of agony".

Now we have "shielded weight-stacks". If you haven't learned to NOT put your fingers under moving weight plates after the first three times 200lbs of steel drop on them, try a spin class.

Too bad no one is incorporating the new technology (low friction, better design, better strength curves etc.) with some of the old stuff (double machines, isolation movements, huge weight stacks etc.)

From the verbiage in the study, it definitely sounds like it is more about vendetta and less about adding to the pool of useful exercise info.
Open User Options Menu

Bill Sekerak

California, USA

Ellington Darden wrote:
If I remember correctly, Mike Stone, the lead researcher for this study, had several run-ins with Arthur Jones in the early 1970s. And in those days, a run-in with Arthur was not something you took laughingly or lightly.

Ellington


Since Arthur had a distinct dislike for pseudo intellectuals I wouldn't put it past a character like that to " rig " the outcome in order to ''' grind the ax " so to speak.

What are the details of this study ?
Open User Options Menu

Bill Sekerak

California, USA

By the way you cannot measure strength with the squat or the leg press , there are simply too many variables to take into account. In order to increase the resistance of the squat you must squat as it requires more skill than a leg press. Also with any compound movement what muscles improved is impossible to determine.
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

Bill Sekerak wrote:
By the way you cannot measure strength with the squat or the leg press , there are simply too many variables to take into account. In order to increase the resistance of the squat you must squat as it requires more skill than a leg press.


I would tend to disagree. If we agree that "STRENGTH" is the ability to express force, it is also a product of motor control.

So any expression of force that can be measured or quantified could be a measure of STRENGTH.

This fascination with attempting to remove CNS from perfromance expressions of the body is lacking foundation.

A max attempt at a squat will demonstrate squat strength. A max Leg Press same.

Bill Sekerak wrote:

Also with any compound movement what muscles improved is impossible to determine.


In a compound exercise the contributions are not relevant to the strength expressed. Why would they be.

Does it matter how many letters of the same type are included in the words you think?

No. (sorry if that is a little deep, think about it for a while)

Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

Bill Sekerak wrote:
Ellington Darden wrote:
If I remember correctly, Mike Stone, the lead researcher for this study, had several run-ins with Arthur Jones in the early 1970s. And in those days, a run-in with Arthur was not something you took laughingly or lightly.

Ellington

Since Arthur had a distinct dislike for pseudo intellectuals I wouldn't put it past a character like that to " rig " the outcome in order to ''' grind the ax " so to speak.

What are the details of this study ?


Mike Stone is one of the most highly respected Strength Research Scientist in the world. He also has a full degreed education and years of experience.

Additionally he has had no commerical interest in any machine lines or such.

You are barking up the wrong tree.

Open User Options Menu

Larry T

North Carolina, USA

Ellington Darden wrote:
If I remember correctly, Mike Stone, the lead researcher for this study, had several run-ins with Arthur Jones in the early 1970s. And in those days, a run-in with Arthur was not something you took laughingly or lightly.

Ellington


I've never met Arthur Jones, but the impression I get from those of you who have met him is that despite his contribution to exercise and strength, he could be a bully and a thug. Surely that isn't true, is it?
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy