I have been using their Isolateral decline, incline, and regular chest press. It has been very good to me because of the isolateral movement. I was wondering if there is comparison between the machines and barbell bench presses. Personally, I have seen better results, because it forces both arms to move independently of each other and I don't have to worry about needing a spotter. Recently however, it seems very strange. I have recently been able to do a couple of reps at 416 lbs.(On this hammer strength machine the initial resistance is 6 pounds and I put on four forty five and one twenty five pound plate on each side. A couple people at the gym were curious at how absurd my set up looked and tried it themselves. They couldn't even push it a little. These guys were pretty buff, so I know it is quite a bit of weight I am jacking up. I just was wondering what is equivalent of the 416 lbs on the hammer strenghth on the barbell bench press.
-
Re: Hammer strength machines.
Fri, February 25, 2005 - 8:40 PMHammer Strength are the best when working out alone.... If I could afford it I would make my home gym with them.
Barbells are anywhere from 45 to 50 lbs.
-
Re: Hammer strength machines.
Sat, February 26, 2005 - 1:36 AMHow about you try a barbell bench press and find out? -
-
Re: Hammer strength machines.
Sat, February 26, 2005 - 9:43 AMHey this is a tribe for weightlifting not to be a smart ass so back off "aj" -
-
Re: Hammer strength machines.
Sat, February 26, 2005 - 2:01 PMThere's obviously no formula for converting between a free weight and a machine, the mechanics and neural patterning are all different, never mind the maintence history of the individual machine and the training history of the OP.
Hence my suggestion.
This is a tribe for 43 people to discover that the real discussions are over in 'fitness', 'bodybuilding', and 'Lets Get Strong!'. I doubt your thin skinnedness is really gonna help the membership drive. -
-
Re: Hammer strength machines.
Sat, February 26, 2005 - 3:01 PMBarbell's make the main diffrence between Machines and free weightlifting... Free weight is more exceptable because your always lifting more then the weight your using.... Machine weight better known as raw weight is percived as being weaker.... so if your benching 360 lbs machine weight you are only lifting 310 or 315 free weight....
I'm not thin skined but I hate assholes...... -
-
Re: Hammer strength machines.
Sat, February 26, 2005 - 4:10 PMYeah I pretty much figured there was at least some difference between what I was doing and what is the actual bench press amount. So would you consider it fair assessment if I were to assume it would that 416 would be about 350-360? Another thing thatt I am wondering about is whether the fact there is isolateral motion actually means anything here, because I am less likely to have one arm dependent on another. The only way I can get that elsewhere is if I use dumb bells and like I have said before it is nearly impossible to do decline dumb bell press alone. -
-
Re: Hammer strength machines.
Sat, February 26, 2005 - 4:15 PMDumbell is small and scarry to me.. Free weight is for a pair or more only.... If you work alone use anything but free weights... My opinion only... -
-
Re: Hammer strength machines.
Sun, February 27, 2005 - 10:02 PMI work out alone. I use free weights exclusively.
What's the problem? -
-
Re: Hammer strength machines.
Sun, February 27, 2005 - 11:57 PMyou can't push yourself too hard on the heavy weight excercises when you are on your own.
-
Re: Hammer strength machines.
Mon, February 28, 2005 - 12:43 AMThe main problem is the push... Most people want to do more then they can handel and "aj" I know you would call them dummies, but try anyway.. I happen to be at the Golds in Long Beach Ca... and seen some dude drop about 250 on his chest and it looked painful so from them on I said I'll only work out with machines when alone.... So I make it a point to partner up at least two to three times a week...
-
-
-
Re: Hammer strength machines.
Sun, February 27, 2005 - 9:27 PMYou can't tell.
The mechanics are all different, the angles, the neural patterning.
You could do the simple trig and physics of the lever machine, make up some bullshit friction number and you still have enormous variation between trainees.
If you haven't bench pressed in a while your bench press will suck. You need to build support muscles and lots of neural patterning.
The isolateral movement will work your shoulders a little bit more than a fixed press. Dumbells will work the stabilizers so much that they will limit the larger muscles a bit.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Hammer strength machines.
Sat, February 26, 2005 - 11:12 AMwell i used to do them actually, but I am unwilling to experiment on a regular decline bench. I work out in the mornings when not very many people are around. Last year when I was doing the regular barbell bench press I was maxing at 275. With spotter just keeping his hands behind the bar I was able to do a set of three without any problems. I still didn't feel it in the chest area as much as I do my routine with the hammer strength machines. -
-
Re: Hammer strength machines.
Sat, February 26, 2005 - 2:03 PMIs the angle of declination on your machine similar to that of the decline bench in your gym? That might explain it. -
-
Re: Hammer strength machines.
Sat, February 26, 2005 - 3:02 PMHave you ever worked with Hammer strength machines "aj"???? -
-
Re: Hammer strength machines.
Sun, February 27, 2005 - 9:37 PMIIRC they are some of the better machines out there. They often have many planes of movement such as the isolateral movement the OP refered too.
I generally don't find machines very useful. There are exceptions.
There was a point when I used the Cable Pulldown.
I may start using a leg press for squat assistance soon. But I'll probably just do a front squat. -
-
Re: Hammer strength machines.
Mon, February 28, 2005 - 12:45 AMTry the Hammer Strength I think you'll be impressed.... Plus I think you'll push more.... -
-
Re: Hammer strength machines.
Mon, February 28, 2005 - 2:04 AMI have played with Hammer Strengh equipment before, they are remarkably good machines.
My goals are better served by specitivity.
-
-
-
-
Re: Hammer strength machines.
Sat, February 26, 2005 - 4:25 PMFor the decline bench machine, the seat is slightly inclined. The machine itself makes the motion in a similar fashion to the decline bench. So your arm moves in a path that is like the barbell decline bench path. Movement is from the base of the pecs downward in an angle. The only difference is that you can basically move each arm independent of each other. -
-
Re: Hammer strength machines.
Sat, February 26, 2005 - 11:46 PMAJ has actually put forth many knowledgeable and useful posts on the other tribes he mentioned. He's not a smart ass and I for one appreciate his input. It might be a good idea to consider what he suggests. -
-
Re: Hammer strength machines.
Sun, February 27, 2005 - 1:02 AMI did concider it and he is correct, but were here to share information not to be a smart ass or condescending.. So even if your information is right it would be nice to deliver it in a manner someone would like to listen to it. -
-
Re: Hammer strength machines.
Sun, February 27, 2005 - 9:41 PMLance, is probably wrong. I'm probably an ass. I care not.
-
-
-
-
-
-