>>77439117
Because machines suck and are gay, duh.

>>77439117
>why is everyone on this board so bias in favour of using barbells
I feel like its the opposite and you get called a fat powershitter, or you're going to snap your shit/die if you do barbell work.

>>77439117
They force all sizes of people into a single range of motion, and do all of the stabilization for you so you don’t develop those muscles.

>>77439117
when i started lifting and asked for advice here over a decade ago it was "common knowledge" that machines were a waste of time because they assisted the movement too much. barbells require stabilization to use correctly so it develops a more balanced physique. or so they say.

i think what people really meant was that the smith machine isnt worth using, but /fit/ is full of retards who just extrapolated that to every single machine. personally i think cable machines are godlike and will use others as well sometimes, specifically a few leg related ones.

>>77439135
but the science shows hypertrophy from machines and barbells is similar

>>77439117
machine have their place but you're not getting big without heavy barbells.
Nobody here benches because its an easy way to show everyone how weak you are and they are too insecure and embarrassed of their 1pl8 bench.
Very hard to judge a persons strength when their fucking around with cables.

>>77439141
its very hard to properly train every muscle and stabilizers with just machine
either you spend the whole day there doing all kinds of weird shit or you just base your programming around compound lifts which hit entire muscle groups at once
imo you can see the difference of who trains only mahines and who does his compound exercises
machine only physiques always look lacking in some area and incomplete or have comical proportions while lifters who do compound lifts just look all around rock solid and strong because they regularly hit all the stabilizers and some muscles get hit on multiple exercises to varying degrees

>>77439117
>why is everyone on this board so bias in favour of using barbells?
>it's like everyone is anti-machine. why is this?
everyone one here is a basement dweller never going outside, and it would be way too hard training with machines in their basement. it's far easier building a home gym with a barbell, you only need a squat rack, a bench, and a barbell. add adjustable dumbbells, a pull up bar or somethinh similar, and a few rubber bands and you can pretty much do anything you want.

some old bro science about how machine movement is too 'restricted' and therefore doesn't train the stabilizer muscles or some bullshit and that you will make no gains if you don't use freeweights.
case in point: >>77439170 - retards still actually believe this.

>>77439238
all's i'm saying is i squat X amount, then go to a machine and do X*1.25 or whatever, it's not cause i actually got stronger

>>77439117
You can throw barbells away when ego lifting, it's harder with machines.

File: 1746646071335638.jpg (59 KB, 619x737)

59 KB JPG

>>77439117
Because machines work

>>77439238
learn to read retard
i merely said its harder to do it with machines only
to fully replace a barbell squat with machines you need at least three seperate exercises

>>77439413
Some allow for select movement patterns conveniently, like leg extensions

But it turns out for 80% of just lifting shit all you need as a bar with weights on it.

>>77439117
its not the 2010s anymore
barbellfags are a laughingstock around here these days

>>77439117
Machines creates a lot of radicals on both sides depending how well the machine fits them. My arms are a bad length for the bicep machine curl less than can even get with reclined db. But I'm an awesome fit for the ab machine and can rep the 250 lb stack easily even though I can't do more than few declined sit-ups with a plate. That's all it is if you're a fit for the machines you'll love em if you're not you'll hate em. Both are correct.

>>77439146
barfags always try to equate strength with size
no one cares how much you can lift, nerd

machines are superior for back and leg development
for everything else though the barbells are just better

am i taking crazy pills? "nobody here benches"? is that true?

i like dumbbells

>>77439146
All the biggest guys I've ever seen in the gym don't even touch barbells for a single fucking thing. You're a retard.

>>77439135
>>77439170
And yet despite your faggy implications barbell is superior, when people who train barbell do tests on machines, they test poorly, and vice versa, it's almost like they both have their place & purpose.
>>77439406
No it's more like you're just lying.

>>77439444
strength comes with size. That's literally how muscles work.
>>77439581
lol yes they do

>>77439487
Just came back from an injury and back to barbell benching. There's nothing quite like it and I am in favor of barbell for compound movements vs the virgin planet fitness machines

>>77439117
Machines really suck. That is why.

>>77439598
>strength comes with size
No, strength comes with neutral adaptaions. Hypertrophy comes with volume.
>yes they do
Oh I'm sorry I didn't know you're omniscient and can see inside every gym everywhere, sybau faggot. There's only 4 fucking racks in my gym and they're always clogged with dyels and fatties. All the biggest guys run through like 3-4 machines then bounce. No one doing serious volume work is fucking with barbells dipshit.

>>77439611
>neutral
Neural

>>77439117
you should have played sports my foreigner friend

>>77439611
>No, strength comes with neutral adaptaions.
yes to a point, but you cant bench press 400lbs with just neural adaptions, dipshit you need muscle mass.
I cant believe I have to explain this to anyone over 3 years of age.

>>77439611
>All the biggest guys run through like 3-4 machines then bounce.
and now I know you're making it up because you're just repeating shit you saw in frog memes about "roidtrannys".

>>77439581
nobody cares about the tiny people you've seen

>>77439146
>1pl8 bench.
Roided zoomers train one week and hit 2pl8, i hit 2pl8 for reps at around 4 months of training completely natty

no way anyone can be this dyel

>>77439691
You hit 225 when you were 13?

>>77439117
Home gym so I don’t have machines. If I had access to them I wouldn’t be opposed to using them. Also I’m gay

>>77439600
>the virgin planet fitness machines
update your memes unc, almost all planet fitness gyms have deadlift platforms and squat racks with barbells and bumper plates now

>>77439724
Do you bench in the squat rack?

File: 1785700345400028(1).png (1.55 MB, 1248x832)

1.55 MB PNG

>>77439597

>>77439146
>>77439117
>>77439238
i see it the other way around: everyone who does bench presses can't lift much weight on the other exercises and machines and most of them are weaklings.

every. single. time
>>77439598
>>77439135
not true

>>77439117
>bias
Why can't the younger generation use this word correctly? It's really weird. Every single time it's "bias" instead of "biased." It's just a bizarre thing I've noticed.

>>77439141
No, it does not.

>>77439779
That's probably because you're weak, small, and don't lift.
I found that literally only doing the 1/2/3/4 lifts I could be reasonably strong at anything else I tried.

File: Screenshot 2026-08-06 at (...).png (380 KB, 1526x1250)

380 KB PNG

>>77439791
>No, it does not.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37582807/

File: machinist.jpg (48 KB, 338x500)

48 KB JPG

>>77439117
Damn mush-sheens dun b terkin' R jerbs!

Clanker jokes aside, the gym variety designed for DYELs, shrimple Anabolic-Anadrogenic Steroids.

>>77439436
Every post you make is retarded dogshit.

>>77439779
>everyone who does bench presses can't lift much weight on the other exercises and machines and most of them are weaklings.
more gibberish you made up in your head

>>77439798
If you ever look into the methodology and shit of these it's always terrible, they don't know how to program routines or train or basically any of the details of lifting so the results are basically worthless

>>77439806
let me know next time you get injured fat boy

>>77439825
so why is there no study showing barbells produce more hypertrophy than machines?

genuinely surprised no ones brought it up yet.
It's easier to track progression in a meaningful way.
Whenever I used machines I just picked a number that "felt right". With barbells, I knew I'd increase the weight by 2.5-5.0 lbs every time I hit my goal.
Progression is what drives hypertrophy.

>>77439829
How do you know there is no study?
Anyways the same issues I just mentioned would apply to that

>try exercise
>see if it helps with your goal
>if it does, repeat and overload
>if it doesn't, try a different exercise
>keep trying exercises
simple as

>>77439756
no, in the power rack

>>77439828
>instant reply

>>77439117
Many people here are beginners who benefit the most from training with barbells and learning the basic exercises, so it’s only natural that the more experienced people recommend exactly that. This isn’t anti-machines sentiment, they can be great, but compound exercises with barbells are the bread and butter. It’s really just a matter of applying learning principles: You start with the basics and keep it simple because these people don’t yet know what they’re doing. Once they’ve built a foundation, they can incorporate other accessories and machines.

>>77439117
Neglecting freeweights is stupid and it's easy for a noob to lift less effectively

>>77439840
>How do you know there is no study?
I checked. If there is one, please post it

>>77439839
How does that not apply to machines too? You start with a comfortable number and can gradually go up and up.

>>77439117
Snobbery most likely. From a muscle hypertophy standpoint machines would be superior, probably less risk for injury as well.

>>77439117
more stable
easier to load
higher lateral force requirements leading to better tricep activation in presses

barbells are better than dumbbells for similar reasons which some machines are better than barbells
you also can't rly train the lower body with dumbbells and barbells can be used to train every muscle in your body so they're popular for homegyms.

>>77439117
For general fitness, barbells are better (provided you can do the exercises) as they train more muscles at once, and have more carryover to real strength due to training more stabilisers. After a game of Chinese telephone this becomes "hur dur machines are for weak pussies, barbells are da best", despite both haveing their pros and cons.

>>77439117
compound over isolation is better bang for your buck (time)

>>77439141
There are dozens of stabilizer muscles and tendons which are essential for functional strength yet you will barely ever notice any hypertrophy. Do you want to be a retard that works out every day, tries to impress his girlfriend by lifting something heavy, and instantly snaps his shit because you only ever trained on machines and ended up with atrophied stabilizers?

>>77440145
Yes? Don't assume my goals

Bench Press
Db press
Db fly
All u need

>>77440054
You get injured one of three ways:
1. Working out too often without allowing timw to recover fully
2. Jumping ahead too much in weight
3. Using bad form

Training with barbells is literally that - training. You are getting better at lifting weights, hence less likely to get injured. Who is more likely to get injured trying to carry a piece of furniture up the stairs, someone who deadlifts 500 lbs twice a week, or someone who leg presses twice a week? One person actually trained for this shit and the other just trained quads. Okay nice back injury. Those quad isolations sure helped.

There's a study that found that doing 6rm of banded pushup built as much strength (at bench) than doing bench
Which is an interesting result

>>77440152
Again it's probably bullshit for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Maybe for absolute beginners over a couple weeks of bad programming or something that was true. But anyone who has done calisthenics for a while has found that even maxing out at pushups only translates to a fairly mediocre bench.

>>77440152
Wouldn't all top benchers do banded pushups to train for bench instead of bench then?

>>77440156
Iirc it was trained participants
Of course what """trained""" means, who knows
And no two people can be the same level of """trained"""
Still, an interesting result
I went and found nuckols' take on it
>trained an average of 2 years
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/band-resisted-pushups-bench-press-for-strength-gains-plus-how-useful-is-emg/
>>77440176
Well maybe it'll turn out that they should, and five years from now it'll be common and anybody who isn't doing pushups to improve their bench will be seen as an idiot
(probably not, obviously)

File: 1777739002647379.jpg (180 KB, 1080x1236)

180 KB JPG

>>77439807
>>77439793
yet you didn't provide any counterargument and the fact is you're weak and fat

File: degradationofahobby.jpg (1.74 MB, 2404x1260)

1.74 MB JPG

>>77439487
I'm trans btw, i don't know if that matters.

>>77439117
You can use machines and dbs but Barbell work will always be the best bang for your lifting buck as far as gains are concerned
I'm not trying to lift 40 hours a week, I'm trying to be big and strong and lean
That's why I use barbells

>>77439413
>Posts roidmonkey
>MaChInEs WoRk

You don't even have to lift to make gains if you're on gear

>>77440150
And using bad form is caused by stabilizer muscles fatiguing. Of course lifting free weights has more inputs into reality but I was talking about strictly from a hypetrophy and injury point of view. With barbells there is always more variables because you need to stabilize the lift which can more easily lead to injury than when using machines and because you need to stabilize the lift you can’t in theory train the muscle as hard. And for the record, I don’t even use any machines.

>>77439443
>That's all it is if you're a fit for the machines you'll love em
that's pretty much it, what matters is that the muscle gets stimulus there is no magic in barbells that makes them better

>>77440294
>Hypertrophy
You're using that word incorrectly lmao

>>77440104
Adjustablr dumbbells that go up to 90lbs aren't too unusual, and holding two (might need straps) while doing BSS translates to like, 360lbs back squat.

>>77440251
Learn what a counterargument is, numbnuts. I'm leaner and stronger than you, who doesn't even lift.

>>77439117
Im an old fag. I spent years - maybe two decades? - busting mys ass on machines doing some sort of bro split. I got nowhere, was DYEL and not strong. Zero results. In my late thrities/early 40s I just started doing the basic barbell lifts (I read dinosaur traing and/SS and it spoke to me). Within several years I was stornger than I had ever been and starting to develop musularity. Within 5 years people were calling me "a bodybuilder. I was 45.

Machine MIGHT work for some - good for them - but barbells work better for everyone.

>>77440262
I don't like this meme picture because it's true, but when you add the part about women it throws out it'd credibility to most people and turns them against your point

>>77440145
this, my bicep tendon on my left arm is kinda fucked up and I couldnt do bench today.

Now imagine some retard who uses leg curls for hamstrings all day trying to pick up his uncosncious gf off the floor and snap his shit because he never did deadlifts his entire life.

As a man if you don't know how to do a valsalva you are ngmi

File: go back.jpg (805 KB, 1920x1080)

805 KB JPG

>>77440590

>>77440618
>I want people the disregard everything I say that'll pwn them

I swear people like you are incapable of critical thought

>>77440656
>Yeah, I'm pretty right wing, but isn't this deportation stuff getting just a little nasty?

>>77440604
>As a man if you don't know how to do a valsalva you are ngmi
There is definitely something incredibly satisfying about having hundreds of pounds on your back trying to blunt force guillotine you and putting every ounce of your body into pushing it up.

>>77439117
Because progressive overload is how you make gains and there is no better way to do it than by adding weight to the bar

>>77440280
>You don't even have to lift to make gains if you're on gear
so why do roiders even go to the gym at all?

>>77439140
the smith is a fantastic machine.

>>77440664
bracing yourself against hundreds of pounds trying to ACK your spine is pretty satisfying ngl

>>77440662
I mean communicate with people in a way that will get them to see your view without antagonizing them. And im a not right wing Im centrist (and yes it does make me better than both sides)

>>77440590
Just pretend the text isn't there if you're so hung up words. It communicates the same thing.

>>77440145
Hey dipshit, machines reduce but don’t eliminate stabilizer work: bracing muscles still contract isometrically and can grow. Isometrics can strengthen tendons, provided the load is high enough.
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37535335/
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31895283/
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19855308/
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26134664/
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11408409/
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17644689/

>>77440722
And there is novel evidence this isometric work can increase power output in comparable levels as traditional powerlifting while being ridiculously safer.

>>77439117
If I had to guess, it's because I've never seen someone get strong using machines only. Anyone with any real strength uses machines for accessory or "low impact" or "low intensity" work in addition to barbell training. So I guess machines are for the weak, and that's probably why they're derided as cope and the people who use them as copelets and copelings.

>>77439117
Because only beta males use machines

>>77440574
This seems like the typical case
The amount of guys I've seen who have built any muscles on machines is incredibly low

>>77440574
>>77440753
Pure fucking lies. Why say dumb shit like this? A visit to any gym on any day of the weak would prove this wrong pretty much instantly.

>>77440722
Lmao go ahead and be a retarded dyel if you want. I'll be laughing at you when you finally decide to switch over to barbells and realize you can't even bench or squat half the weight you could before.

>>77440770
This person will never post body with a timestamp.

>>77440770
You know this has been studied and if you train free weights, you test poorly on machines, and vice versa. Your point literally doesn't exist.

>>77440722
Oh, NOW I'm supposed to trust government approved science

File: 1762797169078984.png (390 KB, 603x640)

390 KB PNG

>he doesn't start his training with barbells and finish with machines
shiggy

>>77440780
Wow so you mean if you just push something along a track with no stabilizer involvement; you get better at pushing something along a track with no stabilizer involvement? And if you train for actually lifting things, then you get better at actually lifting things? What a stupid argument. Is your girlfriend on a track? Do you need to put her on rails in order to lift her up and fuck her?

>>77440788
>Is your girlfriend on a track?
Yea, it's 400m around

The idiots that don't like machines are the same retards that literally think a deadlift is the best lift because it hits the most muscles. They will always be retarded

>>77440809
deadlift is the best lift because it teaches your whole posterior chain to work as a single unit, retard. good luck asking chad to carry your obese wife when she falls down the stairs

>>77440887
Hahahahaha sorry I'll just do rdls like a non fag

>>77440986
Post ass fag bet it looks terrible

>>77440574
Cool LARP

>>77440887
Squat is better

>>77439117
BARBELLS CREATE MEN,
NOT WOMEN/MOTHERS,
BARBELLS

>>77440722
>all EMG studies
EMG is not particularly useful. It doesn't actually show much of how hard a muscle works.

>>77440809
Maybe you should post body

>>77440986
What a stupid thing to say. I bet you are very small