I think the same! Barbells and/or weighted calisthenics have to be the bulk of your training (for upper body I prefer cali movements and for legs obviously barbells). The mixture of both is as most optimal as you can get. Then you can use other implements for isolations or "easier" compounds (on the stimulus to fatigue ratio I refer), like dumbbells, rings, cables, bands, machines...
As for Ryan Crowley. His tendons were weaker because he was on the sauce, we all know this. He said he hadn’t benched in a year, but even then his bench was respectable without having trained for it. The problem is bench press is a very skill based move, meaning if you don’t train it you won’t be as strong of a bencher as someone like a power lifter. This doesn’t mean you’re weaker than them, it simply means the power lifter is VERY neurological suited at that point for moving the bench press easier than someone fresh who hasn’t touched it in a year. His mistake was something anyone could have made, putting way too much weight on an exercise he was unsure of and snapping his pec up because of it. It can happen to anybody including powerlifters or people who specifically train barbells. It wasn’t a result of “machines not strengthening his joints”. Because he did manage to bench ALOT of weight before letting his ego get the best of him.
The irony of zealots claiming certain movements are "optimal" is that in order for something to be optimal, it requires context, aka a goal. I'd even argue that any movement can be optimal regardless of your goal. It just depends on how you fit the movement into your program.
I use to do all kinds of calisthenics skill work. The ONLY thing I never was able to do was a single arm handstand push up. Outside of that, I did it all. I even came reallying close to breaking the world record for the front lever. You are correct in your assessment. It is actually necessary at some point, to become smaller, and thus weaker to progress in calisthenics if you are treating it as skill work. If you get to the point where you are trying to master your bodyweight, by reducing the weight you have to manage, you have gone to far for it to benefit your strength.
There are many super skinny biomechanical nerds telling tips here and there. Their tips are themselves non-optimal lol. Recently discovered this channel, great work bro, keep it up.
I use Indian clubs, gada (an Indian mace), steel maces and kettlebells. They're fun, and they have benefits, especially for re/pre-hab and some strength & "connective tissue" carry-over. However, I'm aware that when serious strength & hypertrophy work needs to be done, barbells are king. Even wrestling schools I've been to, in India, where they love maces and clubs, still will use some form of barbell for bench & OHP pressing, squats, curls etc.
I personally like a mixture these days. I do more traditional hypertrophy stuff in the gym and the heavier stuff in my home gym. From a hypertrophy perspective, I find it's just so much easier to rack up a load of good quality tonnage in an actual gym, whereas at home I have my own barbell (so I know I'll always have "the good one") and a rack where I know I can set the hooks and safties just right. Machine training, if you pick the right machines and take the same attitude to them as you would barbell movements, can be great. I "do legs" twice per week, and one day has been me going to war on the pendulum squat machine. My quads have blown up (my fellow long femured folk will commiserate, its damn hard to stop the other muscles taking over in a free weight squat).
the optimal training tool is using barbells, dumbells, machines, cables, calisthenics, kettlebells, sandbags, rocks or whatever else you like to use, get strong and proficient at as many different training styles as possible, keep what you like, discard what you don't like (just my opinion obviously).
@@EnkiriElite for sure, this was more aimed at people trying to crown one modality as the one and only choice, i know you promote very well rounded training
If you want to learn how muscles and “power” actually function. I’d suggest giving Jay Vincent’s channel a watch. Because of him I can now continuously make muscle and strength gains with just basic pushups and dips.
Summary: Instability exercises (ironic) create the least force, dumbbells set the bar to low because they don't have a bar 😂🤣 & machines for the same reason plus Ryan Crowleys shoulder (RIP that tendon). I bet he is still feeling the consequences regardless of any continued hypertrophy! I like to see Calisthenics as your second favorite along with your suggestion it stays away from expert (skill based). This was a great video as always with a nice conclusion that refrained from bashing the other tools and uplifted them within their appropriate context. Thank you so much! 🔥💪🏻
I couldn’t agree any more. I would like to add that strongman equipment (if you have access to it) can compliment barbell work very well (depending on goals). Sleds, farmer carry, yoke walks, sandbags are all excellent supplements to barbell training. You could probably get away with just a weighted vest, pull up bar and sled and still pretty be strong. Obviously, to be stronger you need deadlifts (and possibly bench) to compliment that type of t training. That would be up for debate
Ive never heard of the imbalance between stabilization and the musculature before. That’s pretty interesting. The way I thought it would go is that super stable and super progressable movements would make you do too much too fast, possibly causing those aches and pains that will limit your progress anyway but this kinda makes sense too.
I have found with a number of upper body movements. I prefer the dumbbells. My hands aren't locked a certain way, and this lets me hit a deeper targeted ROM. This is especially true with bench. I love dumb bell bench, barbell bench is just sort of tolerated in comparison. No matter what technical tweaks I make, dumbbells let me hit my pecs better, feel better, I get a better stimulus. Then there's other isolation movements, in which I usually prefer dumbbells or ez bar or machines. Curls, tricep work, glute bridges, calf works(yuck). I love barbell, I have a squat rack in my garage that sees lots of use. But I've very much come to appreciate dumbbells and machines in a way I didn't 2 years ago.
Can't disagree with the 'bang for the buck' factor for the ol' barbell. I do a mix of barbells, dumbbells and machines, but you'd be hard pressed to get my to remove any particular training modality from my training. I like them all for slightly different reasons. If something gets too stale, I'll change it up. No skin off my back. In any case, I don't think I could train without a barbell. My work gym only has 110 # dumbbells... and I need a bit more to hit my RDLs. I can probably make squats work with any number of machines, but I still love my SSB squats. Upper body is more 'whatever works' for me.
Load is easily adjusted for. Experience allows the transfer of application and training methods between modalities! Often today, overlooked is, it is possible to train for calisthenics advanced movements with the barbells.
Honestly can’t say I agree, I’ve been doing cable and machine training for a few years at this point and haven’t experienced the screeching halt you described. I’ve been able to steadily progressively overload and everything’s been going well for me. That being said, my primary training goal is maximum hypertrophy, so the increased stability is advantageous. Also, people like JPG and Paul Carter are good examples of how that style of training is sustainable. Ultimately, I don’t hate free weights, I just find machines better suited for my goals.
I’ve never used machines because I only train at home. I like to see these topics brought up because it makes us go back to why we do certain things. The argument he brings up is interesting to me because it’s the opposite of what I was guessing. I’ve been guessing people use less stable movements because the less stability the harder it is. Obviously you can’t be flying all over the place but look at rings for example Why do you have advanced lifters blowing up their chest and triceps with bodyweight or lightly weighed ring push ups and dips where as if you did this without rings the exercise would be practically useless. Because the instability caused by rings makes the exercise vastly harder, results from this would mean primary movers are working harder from instability Touch and go benching let’s you move more weight but long pause benching in my experience activates chest and triceps more. Moving more weight doesn’t necessarily seem to be an indicator of muscle activation
Paul Carter built himself up using barbell training, despite how far off the wagon he has fell over the past few years. People like him really forget where they started, just like Eugene Tao (not sure if I spelled that right). Whenever I want to read good stuff by PC, I’ll read his old blog or some of this old T-nation material.
Both JPG and Paul Carter built their base on barbell compounds lol, JPG still benches 315 for 4, you simply don’t get there through doing machine chest presses and pec dec
@@KurokamiNajimi If it worked like that, bosu ball squats with the earthquake bar would grow enormous legs. Your nervous system won't allow you to go as hard as you can if there's lack of stability. Slightly unstable movements are good for fixing weak spots from time to time, like bulgarian split squats or dumbbell incline press. Pause benching kinda grows more chest as you can't use momentum to your advantage to bounce the weight up. It's not because of stability.
@@Mks25932 Sure you can optimize barbell movements, but you can just as easily use well designed machines that accommodate your anthropometry and get great results with them.
Great take on this. I’ve got into arguments just not over force efficiency but safety as well. I find barbells safer than heavy dumbbells because of stability. Barbells are just more balanced. It’s a lot easier to get injured with two 150lb dbs than a 300lb barbell bench. And I certainly agree on both points for dbs for low body and overall machine use. 99% of my training is exclusively barbell work. Nothing beats it.
Many machines literally hurt my joints. The leg press touted as great quad builder, I get less quad pumps with as compared to Platz squats. I just can't physically lower the sled below right angle without rounding my back, even more so with narrow foot positioning. Machines are a hit and miss. Unironically, Smith Machine is the machine that I like the most, just feels like a stabilized barbell.
For building a base, free weight compounds are definitely the way to go but once you reach a certain level of strength, only relying on barbells can lead to joint issues for many people and especially for the pecs and your back there are better alternatives
It can certainly be both but some fixed implements simply don’t align with the way certain joints want to move in and can therefore cause pain and discomfort when loaded heavily
I know this is already quite old video, but heres my opinion. Barbells are great. They should usually be the main way to build muscle and strentgh since they have good stability, long term overload possiblity. But in the end of the day, the best workout routine would be one which utilizes every possible way of training. Whatever its barbells, dumbells, cables, machines, calisthenics or lifting your truck overhead and smashing it to ground 😉
While I like free weight exercises (with all modalities), I think that the point that the size of your stabilizers limiting your prime mover growth sounds a bit too broish for me. Is that just your personal experience or is there "objective" evidence for that?
Not the size of them. Their ability to provide support. It's interesting to me that people are questioning the idea that the body's internal stability system needs to be at pace with the body's larger muscles in order for the greatest long term progress to occur. Everything I say is based on personal experience. I don't care for formal strength and hypertrophy literature.
@@EnkiriElite Thanks. I honestly don't know, if that applies. I would actually love to see that tested - lets say letting someone only train maschine-press vs. benchpress/larson-press (buffalo-bar?) vs. DB-bench for a few years. No other exercises and looking what happens.
Well first you have to ask yourself what is a stabilizer. Muscles that support the primary mover of an exercise. Then you have to ask okay IF machines limited that (which they don’t) then would it not make sense to just train those muscles directly anyways? For example. A barbell squats stabilizer muscles would be the lower back, abdominals, MAYBE traps and shoulders to support the bar and some hamstring. The best way to train those stabilizers would obviously be direct work on them to improve the stabilizers of the squat and make it easier so your primary muscle does most of the work. If you were to train your abdominals, glutes and lower back, bicep barbell curling heavy weight would feel a little easier because the stabilizers aren’t weak. But this can be done with machines so the whole machine inferiority thing doesn’t really stand as long as the muscles targeted are strengthened. If I were trying to get stronger at an exercise I’d simply train all the other muscles involved in that exercise directly regardless of it being a machine or a barbell. A power lifter wouldn’t just only bench press to strengthen his bench so the same would also be applied to machines.
@@naturalgains4229 I agree with your stance; I honestly don't see a mechanism, via which the body would regulate/reduce growth of the "prime mover" based on status of the stabilizers.
"Your limbs evolved for working in synchronisation to handle free load". And That's how barbell allows you to train your body just like it's designed by nature. Hence , We can say that barbell training is 'optimal' as far as Human body is concerned.
Interesting video, a very intelligent discussion. I used to be a real barbell supremacist but injuries from rugby forced me to shift my squat patterns to machines entirely. In terms of hypertrophy my results blew me away. It made me flip flop on a lot of what you're saying here. However my experience may not counter anything you're saying. I used to be a 450 lbs squatter and I am very poorly leveraged for it, so you could say that I simply had the base of strength to build off of. Here's a question though, wouldn't it be just as viable a strategy if you're biasing hypertrophy to focus on machines and use more unstable unilateral work as a supplement to train the qualities you're missing out on?
Btw man , just saw FitnessFAQs re-uploaded the "OHP cheating short" again , just the audacity is crazy . but i am happy that People actually tear him apart for being ignorant .. it's so disappointing to see really .. i feel all this nonsense should be beneath him he's a good guy who's been doing good content for so long .. but recently he's just been doing some nonsense , ever since he started doing Weight training with Calisthenics , when he also got Ugine or whatever his name is in videos with him "the guy that said i don't do barbell and u shouldn't too , and advice's people to Bench with a flat back and not to retract their shoulder blades" .. it's just sad to see . it's Ignorant at best and misleading at worse ! he just should stay in his lane tbh at this point .
Not trying to take a dump on your video and theories, but machines and DBs have built more strength and muscle for me than barbells ever did. I am weak for my size, so perhaps that’s why. I don’t know… 🤷♂️
So.....finally got into a proper gym with barbells last week. Third gym day (also third squat session) I got 205 for 4 sets of 5 on squats, failed 225 on the second rep though I think that's mostly technical error than brute strength. Weighing 185-190lbs at 5 foot 8. I'm getting a proper powerlifter friend to come in and check my form as I try to find my one rep max, so I could program from there based on percentages. All the sprinting and weighted jumping training gave me a solid base so I'm really hoping I can get to 315 for 5 sometime this month or next. Idk if that's really realistic.
I'm not entirely sold on the "machines don't require stability, therefore you will hit a cap on growth" thing. I think if you go from machines only to barbell only there's a very real possibility of injury, but the idea that growth will just...stop...if only using machines doesn't really have any strong evidence, scientific or anecdotal behind it. Also, some machines DO require stability. A V squat machine like you used as B-roll footage does allow for freedom of movement for the hips and certainly requires lower back and bracing. I'd also slightly disagree (at least for upper body) that dumbbells only would be worse for progression, due to stability being a limiting factor. Stability might be MORE of a limiting factor than a barbell but there's no reason that they can't adapt as well. Could make an argument for 100lb+ dumbbells being harder to get into position for presses though. I don't think the body is so fickle that machines=don't work the stabilizers enough, so you don't grow, dumbbells=works the stabilizers so much they are the limiting factor, so you don't grow. I think if you could only choose ONE implement, barbells would be a good choice, but if someone did exclusively machines and dumbbells but never touched a barbell in their life, they'd get just as big, at least for upper body. For lower body, really tough to replace the RDL and weighted back extension in particular. It's extremely rare that I have a workout where there isn't at least one barbell movement. High bar squats, Zombie squats (thanks!), Larsen presses, overhead presses, barbell rows, RDLs, good mornings, all make very frequent appearances.
That was just a hack squat machine. I was purposefully using it backwards specifically because that way provides some semblance of freedom of movement. That's still not stabilizer musculature activity though.. the load is stabilized by the machine. My body has to do nothing to stabilize the weight and it cannot fall any way except straight down. I didn't have any footage of myself using the machine "correctly" otherwise I would have placed it in that segment. But I rarely film myself doing machine work. Re the general remainder of your comment: I very deliberately framed this video within the context of STRENGTH and hypertrophy as long term symbiotic processes. A lot of our physique biased friends have seemingly overlooked that very deliberately placed dual aspect.
@@heitorborges3353 gotcha! I think a lot of people hadn't thought about it from this perspective also. I'm glad to hear the video was thought provoking for you
a lot of this only applies to men (which is likely the majority of your audience, but it's still worth mentioning that for women, they are less likely to run into the weight limits of dumbbells than men are. most gyms have DBs that go up to 100 lbs. most women will never be able to RDL or squat with two 100 lb dumbbells.)
Question man! When rotating lifts (let's say 3 variations), do you prefer to rotate through them in a 3 week cycle? Or run each of them for 3 weeks consecutively before moving to the next variation?
@@EnkiriElite yes i watched the entire video. A claim like that, that training only with machines will artificially cap your hypertrophy, needs evidence for me to take it seriously. To me your argument just wasn't convincing, more sounding like something that just fit into your narrative. I still agree with the overall take that if you're training for general strength and hypertrophy, barbells are a nice medium of stability/instability.
@@Spike00773 so you agree with the assertion but you don't like the theory I asserted even though you agree with the concept of the theory? I'm not getting what you're putting down man.
@@EnkiriElite I agree with the concept of the theory in that, if you care about gaining "real world strength" and hypertrophy, barbells are a good tool. I agree that dumbbells aren't as good on paper for building muscle mass as barbells or machines because of instability. I agree that machines aren't as good as barbells or dumbbells for building real world strength (if you only hack squat, you're not going to be prepared for back squats for example) I disagree that doing only machines would result in you reaching some limiting ceiling on hypertrophy.
What about if the person use PED's like Ryan and mainly train with machines. Will the body cap the amount of muscle mass to protect future posibilities of injuries or with PED's doesn't apply the same way? Interesting video, thanks.
Your point about machine training limiting your strength potential i think your point wasn't clear. There is no mechanism in your body that is blocking you from continuously adding weight to a machine just like free weights. I think you were trying to say that this strength will not be general and won't carry over (i.e increasing your hack squat by 10% won't necessarily increase your squat or overall leg strength by 105) bbut the way you stated it makes it seem as though you can't keep adding weight to machine movements past a certain point which isn't true
Yes, you are correct and perhaps it needed to be worded differently. The point was that at some point the force production will not transfer over into the real world where rigid patterns and external stability do not exist.
Hi, I don’t think Alec is talking about me lol, and I can’t change the way you feel, but I do think you should give the video a second watch and take closer heed to what I was saying. That video was an absolute love letter to the bench press. I don’t need to “hit the algo”, because my videos get recommended no matter what I talk about. I wanted to make a video talking about what I’m currently doing. The message was “build your base with bench press, and when it’s time to try other things, do that” I can’t help but feel that the fellas that mirror the opinion you give here didn’t watch the video with the intent of listening, but instead are having an emotional reaction based on the title of the video. In the first few minutes, I say “I built my base with this lift, and here are stupid reasons why people cope and don’t use bench in their programs” I was also very careful to qualify all of my statements example: “I didn’t do this until I could already Bench this much” and “once you reach this point”. If you need further clarification, feel free to shoot me a message on Instagram and we can chat.
One last thing I’ll add, if someone where to listen to absolutely none of the nuance, and just choose to do the exercises I talk about towards the end, they’ll end up doing weighted pushups, incline dumbbell press, and what is essentially a full range of motion flat Dumbbell Press. Those are all basic, foundational compound lifts, that many coaches will end up prescribing anyway. To top it off, I gave practical advice for fellas that want to get more out of their bench press training.
I love you man. I didn't mean that as a total burn on you. It's hard to give tone in text. Just a little critique because it was click baity. I don't need to re-watch the video. I caught the nuance.. Unfortunately, most of YT is fomo, program hoppers. Thank you for the thoughtful response. I loved your follow-up video, which will help set the confused straight. Larsen Press!!! Keep the great content coming! 👊
I gotta partially disagree with you on this one. I do a lot of barbell training simply because it's cool and I have strength goals, but when it comes to hypertrophy, I've seen far more chest growth on something like a converging chest press, than my Barbell bench. The thing is, no one cares how much you chest press on any particular machine. 😂 In addition to stability, both practically and psychologically, it is far safer and easier to go to failure on many machines than on barbells. A big point you make is that barbells are a good middle ground between dumbbells and machines, but in why limit yourself? Of course in a home gym I prioritize barbells + a pulley system due to affordability, but at a commercial gym, I don't think this criticism holds. Personally, I think the stabilizer criticism against machines is overblown, but even if it isn't, what's so special about focusing the "middle ground" compared to focusing machines + dumbbell work? Plus some barbell+calisthenics+any other modalities? With a whole gym at your disposal, there's no necessity to make barbells your main movement, and from a pure hypertrophy standpoint, I'd argue that a mostly machine regimen would be superior to barbells in many cases, even if you consider the stabilizer angle - since you aren't limited to them. I say this all as a barbell bro who prioritizes barbell + weighted calisthenics training because I enjoy them and they align well with my goals. Barbells are obviously the best choice for a home gym, and they are standardized so strength can be compared. However if your goal is pure size/bodybuilding, they absolutely don't need to be your primary training modality. The best size gains I've made in my life were when I did pure bodybuilding programs that prioritized machines over barbells for the main compounds. Lagging stabilizers was never an issue because it's not like I didn't do any barbell/dumbbell work. They just weren't my main drivers of hypertrophy. Barbells are the most versatile, sure. But if you have access to everything and very specific goals, I don't think they necessarily need to be a big part of your training at all. In fact, being dogmatic to barbells stifled my size gains for a long time. (not saying you're dogmatic, I understand you said that every tool has its place). TL;DR - Barbells are the most cost effective, versatile and fun (for me), and practically the only way to compare strength. I do them because I like them. But given access to every training tool, you can build a complete and "optimal" pure hypertrophy program with barely any barbell work, and forcing yourself to prioritize barbells in those scenarios is often suboptimal (in my experience).
I also recognize that you explicitly stated your target audience is not powerlifters or bodybuilders, but people who wanna be generally bigger/stronger (which is the boat I fall into). In that case I generally agree barbells are the best and that's also why they are my main tool. But if you lean heavily more towards the hypertrophy end, or at the very least want to have a heavy prioritization phase, I still stand by my opinion
There are multiple ways to push barbell benching to 0 RIR and that’s ignoring that honestly after experience of what failure is you should be able to tell that last slow grindy rep was your last or 2nd to last. Safety pins either fit perfectly or close enough to where you can roll the bar forward with little issue. Other method is a roll/row hybrid If perfect stability is king then why do advanced lifters make great (superior even) gains with bodyweight or lightly loaded ring push ups and dips? Side note I’m never touched a machine bc I only train at home
@@KurokamiNajimi To address your first point, yes, and I've used all these methods in the past and currently, and they all work somewhat well for their purposes. Nevertheless, I still think machines are way easier pragmatically to take to failure purely because a fixed movement path allows you to channel all your remaining strength into moving weight + regardless, psychologically it feels safer to fail. (To fail a barbell squat you go down further to catch it on the pins, versus a pendulum squat you can just chill gracefully at the bottom). To address your second point, regular calisthenics pullups pushups and dips, being closed chain movements, are very stable, moreso than barbells. With rings you have the benefit of unfixed movement paths, which is sometimes easier on the joints. It is also much more natural for following certain muscles than barbells, which makes them in some way similar to machines or dumbbells. PS. I LOVE calisthenics and I LOVE rings. They are excellent additions to any hypertrophy program. I am also a big home gym enjoyer, with a lot of time spent in my home gym. (which is part of why i love barbells too) More stability isn't necessarily always better, but it has its place, as does less stability. As long as you aren't going to the extremes with bosu ball BS, you can make great gains within a reasonable range of stability. My main point is that barbells are not necessarily "optimal" just because they occupy the middle ground of stability. That isn't a good enough reason to endorse them as the main training modality to me. I still think you can make a complete and optimal hypertrophy program with only a little bit of barbell work. The reason why barbells are best for me and why it's my preferred method along with weighted calisthenics: 1. standardized strength goals/numbers - no one cares how much you lift on a machine, plus machines are different between brands. barbells standardize this comparison. (ironically this stifled my gains through my fault, not the barbell's fault: i chased numbers and my barbell lifts became more powerlifting-style technical, which made them worse for stimulating hypertrophy) 2. accessibility - barbells are everywhere besides planet fitness and hotel gyms. some machines arent found at some gyms. that's why I think everyone should at least be proficient at barbell movements. 3. cost - kind goes into accessibility but in home gym settings, power rack + barbells + plates are by far your most costeffective option. then get a weight belt for calisthenics and a plate loaded pulley for cable movements. adjustable dumbbells have their issues and full db racks and machines are $$$. But yeah to wrap things up, holistically I'd agree barbells are "optimal" for the practical purposes I listed. They're optimal for me for my goals. My only point of disagreement with Alec was the part about barbells being optimal as the main lifts for hypertrophy. If we look at the exercise modalities from purely that angle, I don't think there is anything mythical or special about barbells.
@@Mks25932 Yes, I'm aware you can do that - some I do those myself because they generally have better carryover to my regular competition style lifts than machines. For pure bodybuilding style purposes, they are unnecessary, and making barbell movements biomechanically better for hypertrophy than usual doesn't really negate my point about machines being generally easier to push to failure. I agree 100% with your second point, and that's also why I think everyone should have some level of proficiency in barbell movements. That is yet another testament to the versatility of barbell work. Carryover is also great if you're traveling and the gym you're at doesn't have a particular machine, so thats a plus for practical relevance. I don't disagree with any of these arguments on a factual basis, but I think they're all kind of missing my point. Carryover is only important if you care about carryover. If it's not someone's goal, why would it be important how much their hack squat carries over to their barbell squat, beyond "gym cred"? For general purposes I think everyone should have some base in barbell training because of their all-rounder benefits, but I know plenty of natural bodybuilders far larger than I am who started on barbells but have put them in the backburner to machines as their main modality and see great/better progress than before. Optimizing barbell lifts for hypertrophy is basically just a way to make them closer to machines biomechanically, but it does lose out on certain other machine benefits. Like I said earlier, I am a big fan of barbell training, and it is my main training method myself. All I am saying is that it is not the blanket "optimal" movement for every single goal just because it is the most versatile movement. Optimality doesn't exist in a vacuum, only within context. For me and most viewers of this channel, barbells are optimal precisely because they are the best compromise for various different goals. But given a singular goal of pure hypertrophy, I don't agree that they are optimal as the lift of focus. I think Alec steps a bit out of his lane in that one very particulaf aspect
@@Mks25932 In fact, Dr. Mike Israetel himself has made a video on this very subject discussing the barbell dogma and how barbells are very useful tools for hypertrophy, but there's nothing inherently special and magical about them compared to machines. Within this context, there is no reason to not use barbells but also no reason to prioritize them. They are simply another useful tool in the toolkit as far as hypertrophy goes.
I disagree. So your argument is machines are inferior because your joints won’t get as strong like with barbells? That’s false lol your muscles can’t grow without your joints ligaments tendons and bones also getting stronger. That’s what strength training is, strength training can come from anything, it doesn’t matter if it’s barbells, dumbbells, calisthenics or machines. Your body is going to grow at the same rate. Exercise selection doesn’t matter UNLESS you’re trying to become a powerlifter or Olympic lifter. You don’t train a squat to strengthen your abs or lower back(the stabilizer muscles) you train a squat to hit legs, there are better ways to directly target the muscles in charge of stabilizing, like actually hitting them directly. Because a squat is NOT going to effectively train the muscles in charge of stabilizing, they’re job is to just balance and support you while your actual primary muscle does the work. You wouldn’t think standing barbell bicep curls would train the glutes which are stabilizer muscles for that exercise , you would think a barbell curl is used to train biceps. So this whole stabilizer nonsense and weaker joints from machines isn’t true.
BUT ALECCCCCCCC!!! I was told you can build sleek toned legs by doing only Bulgarian split squats with dumbbells !! I don't want to develop a feminine sweep with a barbell!!!
@@EnkiriElite I watched the video. And I think it was informative. Don't worry I didn't misunderstood you. I was merely amused by how in end, barbell training turned out to be the optimal one like Rip preaches. Recently, I saw a video of him making fun of kettlebells, and trap bars before that. I think kettlebells are very valuable replacement to barbell olympic lifts as they don't have the same steep learning curve.
I disagree with you. Barbells can be great, but it depends where you got your info about Barbells. You seem like a guy, but I don't like people getting from influencers. Even if you're a reasonable, there's an idiotic influencer says everything wrong. I think you're reasonable, but I view you as a part of the problem.
I think the same! Barbells and/or weighted calisthenics have to be the bulk of your training (for upper body I prefer cali movements and for legs obviously barbells). The mixture of both is as most optimal as you can get. Then you can use other implements for isolations or "easier" compounds (on the stimulus to fatigue ratio I refer), like dumbbells, rings, cables, bands, machines...
If you squat you are also using chalestenics for legs....
@@Smiles216 That's very true!
@@TheJackOfAllTrades777 Sure bro
Easier implements Like rings. Yeah right, that’s why ring dips are so much easier than parallel bar dips
@lotwfan1 I was referring in terms of recovery and joint stress. That's why I said "easier". I think you need better reading comprehension.
As for Ryan Crowley. His tendons were weaker because he was on the sauce, we all know this. He said he hadn’t benched in a year, but even then his bench was respectable without having trained for it. The problem is bench press is a very skill based move, meaning if you don’t train it you won’t be as strong of a bencher as someone like a power lifter. This doesn’t mean you’re weaker than them, it simply means the power lifter is VERY neurological suited at that point for moving the bench press easier than someone fresh who hasn’t touched it in a year. His mistake was something anyone could have made, putting way too much weight on an exercise he was unsure of and snapping his pec up because of it. It can happen to anybody including powerlifters or people who specifically train barbells. It wasn’t a result of “machines not strengthening his joints”. Because he did manage to bench ALOT of weight before letting his ego get the best of him.
The irony of zealots claiming certain movements are "optimal" is that in order for something to be optimal, it requires context, aka a goal. I'd even argue that any movement can be optimal regardless of your goal. It just depends on how you fit the movement into your program.
Agreed!
Curling in the Squat rack is optimal (my goal is to piss off other gym goers)
@@zed1123 I support you.
@@zed1123I unironically enjoy curling in the squat rack 😎
@zed1123 seen a dude curling in the squat rack the other day. But he was curling 155lbs. So it was warranted 🤣
I use to do all kinds of calisthenics skill work. The ONLY thing I never was able to do was a single arm handstand push up. Outside of that, I did it all. I even came reallying close to breaking the world record for the front lever.
You are correct in your assessment. It is actually necessary at some point, to become smaller, and thus weaker to progress in calisthenics if you are treating it as skill work.
If you get to the point where you are trying to master your bodyweight, by reducing the weight you have to manage, you have gone to far for it to benefit your strength.
There are many super skinny biomechanical nerds telling tips here and there. Their tips are themselves non-optimal lol. Recently discovered this channel, great work bro, keep it up.
The type of upfront transparency at the start of your video is one the most appreciated and often under utilized attributes in this type of format.
I’ve never seen eye to eye with someone as much as you. You explained it way better than I could but these have always been my exact thoughts.
I use Indian clubs, gada (an Indian mace), steel maces and kettlebells. They're fun, and they have benefits, especially for re/pre-hab and some strength & "connective tissue" carry-over. However, I'm aware that when serious strength & hypertrophy work needs to be done, barbells are king. Even wrestling schools I've been to, in India, where they love maces and clubs, still will use some form of barbell for bench & OHP pressing, squats, curls etc.
I personally like a mixture these days. I do more traditional hypertrophy stuff in the gym and the heavier stuff in my home gym. From a hypertrophy perspective, I find it's just so much easier to rack up a load of good quality tonnage in an actual gym, whereas at home I have my own barbell (so I know I'll always have "the good one") and a rack where I know I can set the hooks and safties just right.
Machine training, if you pick the right machines and take the same attitude to them as you would barbell movements, can be great. I "do legs" twice per week, and one day has been me going to war on the pendulum squat machine. My quads have blown up (my fellow long femured folk will commiserate, its damn hard to stop the other muscles taking over in a free weight squat).
the optimal training tool is using barbells, dumbells, machines, cables, calisthenics, kettlebells, sandbags, rocks or whatever else you like to use, get strong and proficient at as many different training styles as possible, keep what you like, discard what you don't like (just my opinion obviously).
That is my opinion as well. I think I made that obvious in the video.
@@EnkiriElite for sure, this was more aimed at people trying to crown one modality as the one and only choice, i know you promote very well rounded training
@@Anduehan97 word up my dude
If you want to learn how muscles and “power” actually function. I’d suggest giving Jay Vincent’s channel a watch. Because of him I can now continuously make muscle and strength gains with just basic pushups and dips.
As a fellow homegymer, I've naturally gravitated towards barbells and calisthenics as well.
Summary:
Instability exercises (ironic) create the least force, dumbbells set the bar to low because they don't have a bar 😂🤣 & machines for the same reason plus Ryan Crowleys shoulder (RIP that tendon). I bet he is still feeling the consequences regardless of any continued hypertrophy! I like to see Calisthenics as your second favorite along with your suggestion it stays away from expert (skill based). This was a great video as always with a nice conclusion that refrained from bashing the other tools and uplifted them within their appropriate context. Thank you so much! 🔥💪🏻
I couldn’t agree any more. I would like to add that strongman equipment (if you have access to it) can compliment barbell work very well (depending on goals). Sleds, farmer carry, yoke walks, sandbags are all excellent supplements to barbell training. You could probably get away with just a weighted vest, pull up bar and sled and still pretty be strong. Obviously, to be stronger you need deadlifts (and possibly bench) to compliment that type of t training. That would be up for debate
Ive never heard of the imbalance between stabilization and the musculature before. That’s pretty interesting. The way I thought it would go is that super stable and super progressable movements would make you do too much too fast, possibly causing those aches and pains that will limit your progress anyway but this kinda makes sense too.
I have found with a number of upper body movements. I prefer the dumbbells. My hands aren't locked a certain way, and this lets me hit a deeper targeted ROM. This is especially true with bench. I love dumb bell bench, barbell bench is just sort of tolerated in comparison. No matter what technical tweaks I make, dumbbells let me hit my pecs better, feel better, I get a better stimulus. Then there's other isolation movements, in which I usually prefer dumbbells or ez bar or machines. Curls, tricep work, glute bridges, calf works(yuck). I love barbell, I have a squat rack in my garage that sees lots of use. But I've very much come to appreciate dumbbells and machines in a way I didn't 2 years ago.
Can't disagree with the 'bang for the buck' factor for the ol' barbell. I do a mix of barbells, dumbbells and machines, but you'd be hard pressed to get my to remove any particular training modality from my training. I like them all for slightly different reasons. If something gets too stale, I'll change it up. No skin off my back.
In any case, I don't think I could train without a barbell. My work gym only has 110 # dumbbells... and I need a bit more to hit my RDLs. I can probably make squats work with any number of machines, but I still love my SSB squats. Upper body is more 'whatever works' for me.
Load is easily adjusted for. Experience allows the transfer of application and training methods between modalities! Often today, overlooked is, it is possible to train for calisthenics advanced movements with the barbells.
Honestly can’t say I agree, I’ve been doing cable and machine training for a few years at this point and haven’t experienced the screeching halt you described. I’ve been able to steadily progressively overload and everything’s been going well for me. That being said, my primary training goal is maximum hypertrophy, so the increased stability is advantageous. Also, people like JPG and Paul Carter are good examples of how that style of training is sustainable. Ultimately, I don’t hate free weights, I just find machines better suited for my goals.
I’ve never used machines because I only train at home. I like to see these topics brought up because it makes us go back to why we do certain things. The argument he brings up is interesting to me because it’s the opposite of what I was guessing. I’ve been guessing people use less stable movements because the less stability the harder it is. Obviously you can’t be flying all over the place but look at rings for example
Why do you have advanced lifters blowing up their chest and triceps with bodyweight or lightly weighed ring push ups and dips where as if you did this without rings the exercise would be practically useless. Because the instability caused by rings makes the exercise vastly harder, results from this would mean primary movers are working harder from instability
Touch and go benching let’s you move more weight but long pause benching in my experience activates chest and triceps more. Moving more weight doesn’t necessarily seem to be an indicator of muscle activation
Paul Carter built himself up using barbell training, despite how far off the wagon he has fell over the past few years. People like him really forget where they started, just like Eugene Tao (not sure if I spelled that right).
Whenever I want to read good stuff by PC, I’ll read his old blog or some of this old T-nation material.
Both JPG and Paul Carter built their base on barbell compounds lol, JPG still benches 315 for 4, you simply don’t get there through doing machine chest presses and pec dec
@@KurokamiNajimi If it worked like that, bosu ball squats with the earthquake bar would grow enormous legs. Your nervous system won't allow you to go as hard as you can if there's lack of stability. Slightly unstable movements are good for fixing weak spots from time to time, like bulgarian split squats or dumbbell incline press.
Pause benching kinda grows more chest as you can't use momentum to your advantage to bounce the weight up. It's not because of stability.
@@Mks25932 Sure you can optimize barbell movements, but you can just as easily use well designed machines that accommodate your anthropometry and get great results with them.
Good message, that's an impressive barbell collection you have
This was a very informative video Enkiri! Thanks for the effort you put into them and hope you make more. 💪
I'm no barbell supremacist, but I am an enthusiast 🤓 Have a good one, Alec! 💪
Same here bro. You as well!
Great video
Great take on this. I’ve got into arguments just not over force efficiency but safety as well. I find barbells safer than heavy dumbbells because of stability. Barbells are just more balanced. It’s a lot easier to get injured with two 150lb dbs than a 300lb barbell bench. And I certainly agree on both points for dbs for low body and overall machine use. 99% of my training is exclusively barbell work. Nothing beats it.
Many machines literally hurt my joints. The leg press touted as great quad builder, I get less quad pumps with as compared to Platz squats. I just can't physically lower the sled below right angle without rounding my back, even more so with narrow foot positioning.
Machines are a hit and miss. Unironically, Smith Machine is the machine that I like the most, just feels like a stabilized barbell.
For building a base, free weight compounds are definitely the way to go but once you reach a certain level of strength, only relying on barbells can lead to joint issues for many people and especially for the pecs and your back there are better alternatives
I don’t disagree
@@Mks25932 What's a good calisthenics exercise for bigger quads and therefore bigger squats?
I think lack of variation and fatigue management is what determines “joint issues” not the implements.
It can certainly be both but some fixed implements simply don’t align with the way certain joints want to move in and can therefore cause pain and discomfort when loaded heavily
Ha! Ignoring biomechanics nerds is also one of my favourite hobbies :D
Shit's going too far man.
My biggest beef with optimal bros is that they think that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is the only adaptation worth pursuing
Commenting for the algo....(also, good video, good/thoughtful/balanced take on things as usual)
I agree, no tool should be totally put aside like some people do to barbells!
You had me with dat Bald Omni Man satire thumbnail but stayed for the knowledge ☕
Uploaded 27 seconds ago and I don't even have notifications on lmao
turn em on dangit!
Calisthenics/Gymnastics for upper body. Undisputed.
I know this is already quite old video, but heres my opinion. Barbells are great. They should usually be the main way to build muscle and strentgh since they have good stability, long term overload possiblity. But in the end of the day, the best workout routine would be one which utilizes every possible way of training. Whatever its barbells, dumbells, cables, machines, calisthenics or lifting your truck overhead and smashing it to ground 😉
I agree!
Doing heavy goblet squat for me, i use reverse position SSB. Felt exactly like holding a heavy dumbell just easier to get in & out of squat position
While I like free weight exercises (with all modalities), I think that the point that the size of your stabilizers limiting your prime mover growth sounds a bit too broish for me. Is that just your personal experience or is there "objective" evidence for that?
Not the size of them. Their ability to provide support. It's interesting to me that people are questioning the idea that the body's internal stability system needs to be at pace with the body's larger muscles in order for the greatest long term progress to occur.
Everything I say is based on personal experience. I don't care for formal strength and hypertrophy literature.
@@EnkiriElite Thanks.
I honestly don't know, if that applies. I would actually love to see that tested - lets say letting someone only train maschine-press vs. benchpress/larson-press (buffalo-bar?) vs. DB-bench for a few years. No other exercises and looking what happens.
Well first you have to ask yourself what is a stabilizer. Muscles that support the primary mover of an exercise. Then you have to ask okay IF machines limited that (which they don’t) then would it not make sense to just train those muscles directly anyways? For example. A barbell squats stabilizer muscles would be the lower back, abdominals, MAYBE traps and shoulders to support the bar and some hamstring. The best way to train those stabilizers would obviously be direct work on them to improve the stabilizers of the squat and make it easier so your primary muscle does most of the work. If you were to train your abdominals, glutes and lower back, bicep barbell curling heavy weight would feel a little easier because the stabilizers aren’t weak. But this can be done with machines so the whole machine inferiority thing doesn’t really stand as long as the muscles targeted are strengthened. If I were trying to get stronger at an exercise I’d simply train all the other muscles involved in that exercise directly regardless of it being a machine or a barbell. A power lifter wouldn’t just only bench press to strengthen his bench so the same would also be applied to machines.
@@naturalgains4229 I agree with your stance; I honestly don't see a mechanism, via which the body would regulate/reduce growth of the "prime mover" based on status of the stabilizers.
"Your limbs evolved for working in synchronisation to handle free load". And That's how barbell allows you to train your body just like it's designed by nature.
Hence , We can say that barbell training is 'optimal' as far as Human body is concerned.
theoretically wouldnt cables be better in the case of a curl for example. consistent tension throughout the movement?
Interesting video, a very intelligent discussion. I used to be a real barbell supremacist but injuries from rugby forced me to shift my squat patterns to machines entirely. In terms of hypertrophy my results blew me away. It made me flip flop on a lot of what you're saying here.
However my experience may not counter anything you're saying. I used to be a 450 lbs squatter and I am very poorly leveraged for it, so you could say that I simply had the base of strength to build off of.
Here's a question though, wouldn't it be just as viable a strategy if you're biasing hypertrophy to focus on machines and use more unstable unilateral work as a supplement to train the qualities you're missing out on?
Btw man , just saw FitnessFAQs re-uploaded the "OHP cheating short" again , just the audacity is crazy .
but i am happy that People actually tear him apart for being ignorant ..
it's so disappointing to see really .. i feel all this nonsense should be beneath him he's a good guy who's been doing good content for so long .. but recently he's just been doing some nonsense , ever since he started doing Weight training with Calisthenics , when he also got Ugine or whatever his name is in videos with him "the guy that said i don't do barbell and u shouldn't too , and advice's people to Bench with a flat back and not to retract their shoulder blades" .. it's just sad to see .
it's Ignorant at best and misleading at worse !
he just should stay in his lane tbh at this point .
Calisthenics is phenomenal!!!
Chin ups >>>>>> pull ups
Because of elbow pain
Crazy idea-- I use all the implements and get great gains from it.
Not trying to take a dump on your video and theories, but machines and DBs have built more strength and muscle for me than barbells ever did.
I am weak for my size, so perhaps that’s why. I don’t know… 🤷♂️
So.....finally got into a proper gym with barbells last week. Third gym day (also third squat session) I got 205 for 4 sets of 5 on squats, failed 225 on the second rep though I think that's mostly technical error than brute strength. Weighing 185-190lbs at 5 foot 8. I'm getting a proper powerlifter friend to come in and check my form as I try to find my one rep max, so I could program from there based on percentages. All the sprinting and weighted jumping training gave me a solid base so I'm really hoping I can get to 315 for 5 sometime this month or next. Idk if that's really realistic.
I'm not entirely sold on the "machines don't require stability, therefore you will hit a cap on growth" thing. I think if you go from machines only to barbell only there's a very real possibility of injury, but the idea that growth will just...stop...if only using machines doesn't really have any strong evidence, scientific or anecdotal behind it. Also, some machines DO require stability. A V squat machine like you used as B-roll footage does allow for freedom of movement for the hips and certainly requires lower back and bracing.
I'd also slightly disagree (at least for upper body) that dumbbells only would be worse for progression, due to stability being a limiting factor. Stability might be MORE of a limiting factor than a barbell but there's no reason that they can't adapt as well. Could make an argument for 100lb+ dumbbells being harder to get into position for presses though.
I don't think the body is so fickle that machines=don't work the stabilizers enough, so you don't grow, dumbbells=works the stabilizers so much they are the limiting factor, so you don't grow.
I think if you could only choose ONE implement, barbells would be a good choice, but if someone did exclusively machines and dumbbells but never touched a barbell in their life, they'd get just as big, at least for upper body. For lower body, really tough to replace the RDL and weighted back extension in particular.
It's extremely rare that I have a workout where there isn't at least one barbell movement. High bar squats, Zombie squats (thanks!), Larsen presses, overhead presses, barbell rows, RDLs, good mornings, all make very frequent appearances.
That was just a hack squat machine. I was purposefully using it backwards specifically because that way provides some semblance of freedom of movement. That's still not stabilizer musculature activity though.. the load is stabilized by the machine. My body has to do nothing to stabilize the weight and it cannot fall any way except straight down. I didn't have any footage of myself using the machine "correctly" otherwise I would have placed it in that segment. But I rarely film myself doing machine work.
Re the general remainder of your comment: I very deliberately framed this video within the context of STRENGTH and hypertrophy as long term symbiotic processes. A lot of our physique biased friends have seemingly overlooked that very deliberately placed dual aspect.
Do you think buffalo bars are better for standard overhead and behind the neck pressing?
have to ask your opinion but do you consider cutting/bulking to be not worth it passed the beginner level?
I am currently training mostly with kettlebells due to living circumstances, however anyone who would say a barbell isn't king is just plain wrong.
Ok, so how do I load head rotations with a barbell?
Even Lyle McDonald is complaining about the "non-specificity" of barbell lifts (for hypertrophy) these days. It's kind of weird.
hahah Lyle McDonald is hilarious, but I would by no means consider him any sort of an authority on lifting weights.
"The body will not allow you to produce a force that you can't stabilize". Wow
I didn't think that statement was all that profound. Pretty common sense actually
@@EnkiriEliteIt was a good argument that i never thought about
@@heitorborges3353 gotcha! I think a lot of people hadn't thought about it from this perspective also. I'm glad to hear the video was thought provoking for you
a lot of this only applies to men (which is likely the majority of your audience, but it's still worth mentioning that for women, they are less likely to run into the weight limits of dumbbells than men are. most gyms have DBs that go up to 100 lbs. most women will never be able to RDL or squat with two 100 lb dumbbells.)
Good point. My wife uses dumbbells, cable, machines, and calisthenics for all of her training.
Good stuff man
Question man! When rotating lifts (let's say 3 variations), do you prefer to rotate through them in a 3 week cycle? Or run each of them for 3 weeks consecutively before moving to the next variation?
Machines will cap out the amount of hypertrophy you can achieve...yeah idk you lost me there.
Did you listen to the context of what I actually said? Or na. Sounds like the latter.
@@EnkiriElite yes i watched the entire video. A claim like that, that training only with machines will artificially cap your hypertrophy, needs evidence for me to take it seriously. To me your argument just wasn't convincing, more sounding like something that just fit into your narrative.
I still agree with the overall take that if you're training for general strength and hypertrophy, barbells are a nice medium of stability/instability.
@@Spike00773 so you agree with the assertion but you don't like the theory I asserted even though you agree with the concept of the theory? I'm not getting what you're putting down man.
@@EnkiriElite I agree with the concept of the theory in that, if you care about gaining "real world strength" and hypertrophy, barbells are a good tool.
I agree that dumbbells aren't as good on paper for building muscle mass as barbells or machines because of instability.
I agree that machines aren't as good as barbells or dumbbells for building real world strength (if you only hack squat, you're not going to be prepared for back squats for example)
I disagree that doing only machines would result in you reaching some limiting ceiling on hypertrophy.
What about if the person use PED's like Ryan and mainly train with machines. Will the body cap the amount of muscle mass to protect future posibilities of injuries or with PED's doesn't apply the same way? Interesting video, thanks.
It does not seem like the body puts the brakes on muscle growth when PED's are introduced into the equation, no.
@@EnkiriElite Makes sense, thanks
Your point about machine training limiting your strength potential i think your point wasn't clear. There is no mechanism in your body that is blocking you from continuously adding weight to a machine just like free weights. I think you were trying to say that this strength will not be general and won't carry over (i.e increasing your hack squat by 10% won't necessarily increase your squat or overall leg strength by 105) bbut the way you stated it makes it seem as though you can't keep adding weight to machine movements past a certain point which isn't true
Yes, you are correct and perhaps it needed to be worded differently. The point was that at some point the force production will not transfer over into the real world where rigid patterns and external stability do not exist.
Yeah I agree. I understood your point though so maybe I'm just being pedantic
When I do barbell lateral raises people move out of the way...
Yeah bro i usually do barbell SkullCrushers each hand
Definitely disappointed to see Bald Omniman try to hit the algo. Such a small % of his audience needed to hear that advice.
Hi, I don’t think Alec is talking about me lol, and I can’t change the way you feel, but I do think you should give the video a second watch and take closer heed to what I was saying.
That video was an absolute love letter to the bench press. I don’t need to “hit the algo”, because my videos get recommended no matter what I talk about.
I wanted to make a video talking about what I’m currently doing. The message was “build your base with bench press, and when it’s time to try other things, do that”
I can’t help but feel that the fellas that mirror the opinion you give here didn’t watch the video with the intent of listening, but instead are having an emotional reaction based on the title of the video.
In the first few minutes, I say “I built my base with this lift, and here are stupid reasons why people cope and don’t use bench in their programs”
I was also very careful to qualify all of my statements example: “I didn’t do this until I could already Bench this much” and “once you reach this point”.
If you need further clarification, feel free to shoot me a message on Instagram and we can chat.
One last thing I’ll add, if someone where to listen to absolutely none of the nuance, and just choose to do the exercises I talk about towards the end, they’ll end up doing weighted pushups, incline dumbbell press, and what is essentially a full range of motion flat Dumbbell Press.
Those are all basic, foundational compound lifts, that many coaches will end up prescribing anyway.
To top it off, I gave practical advice for fellas that want to get more out of their bench press training.
I love you man. I didn't mean that as a total burn on you. It's hard to give tone in text. Just a little critique because it was click baity.
I don't need to re-watch the video. I caught the nuance.. Unfortunately, most of YT is fomo, program hoppers.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I loved your follow-up video, which will help set the confused straight. Larsen Press!!!
Keep the great content coming! 👊
I gotta partially disagree with you on this one. I do a lot of barbell training simply because it's cool and I have strength goals, but when it comes to hypertrophy, I've seen far more chest growth on something like a converging chest press, than my Barbell bench. The thing is, no one cares how much you chest press on any particular machine. 😂 In addition to stability, both practically and psychologically, it is far safer and easier to go to failure on many machines than on barbells. A big point you make is that barbells are a good middle ground between dumbbells and machines, but in why limit yourself? Of course in a home gym I prioritize barbells + a pulley system due to affordability, but at a commercial gym, I don't think this criticism holds. Personally, I think the stabilizer criticism against machines is overblown, but even if it isn't, what's so special about focusing the "middle ground" compared to focusing machines + dumbbell work? Plus some barbell+calisthenics+any other modalities? With a whole gym at your disposal, there's no necessity to make barbells your main movement, and from a pure hypertrophy standpoint, I'd argue that a mostly machine regimen would be superior to barbells in many cases, even if you consider the stabilizer angle - since you aren't limited to them.
I say this all as a barbell bro who prioritizes barbell + weighted calisthenics training because I enjoy them and they align well with my goals. Barbells are obviously the best choice for a home gym, and they are standardized so strength can be compared. However if your goal is pure size/bodybuilding, they absolutely don't need to be your primary training modality. The best size gains I've made in my life were when I did pure bodybuilding programs that prioritized machines over barbells for the main compounds. Lagging stabilizers was never an issue because it's not like I didn't do any barbell/dumbbell work. They just weren't my main drivers of hypertrophy. Barbells are the most versatile, sure. But if you have access to everything and very specific goals, I don't think they necessarily need to be a big part of your training at all. In fact, being dogmatic to barbells stifled my size gains for a long time. (not saying you're dogmatic, I understand you said that every tool has its place).
TL;DR - Barbells are the most cost effective, versatile and fun (for me), and practically the only way to compare strength. I do them because I like them. But given access to every training tool, you can build a complete and "optimal" pure hypertrophy program with barely any barbell work, and forcing yourself to prioritize barbells in those scenarios is often suboptimal (in my experience).
I also recognize that you explicitly stated your target audience is not powerlifters or bodybuilders, but people who wanna be generally bigger/stronger (which is the boat I fall into). In that case I generally agree barbells are the best and that's also why they are my main tool. But if you lean heavily more towards the hypertrophy end, or at the very least want to have a heavy prioritization phase, I still stand by my opinion
There are multiple ways to push barbell benching to 0 RIR and that’s ignoring that honestly after experience of what failure is you should be able to tell that last slow grindy rep was your last or 2nd to last. Safety pins either fit perfectly or close enough to where you can roll the bar forward with little issue. Other method is a roll/row hybrid
If perfect stability is king then why do advanced lifters make great (superior even) gains with bodyweight or lightly loaded ring push ups and dips? Side note I’m never touched a machine bc I only train at home
@@KurokamiNajimi To address your first point, yes, and I've used all these methods in the past and currently, and they all work somewhat well for their purposes. Nevertheless, I still think machines are way easier pragmatically to take to failure purely because a fixed movement path allows you to channel all your remaining strength into moving weight + regardless, psychologically it feels safer to fail. (To fail a barbell squat you go down further to catch it on the pins, versus a pendulum squat you can just chill gracefully at the bottom).
To address your second point, regular calisthenics pullups pushups and dips, being closed chain movements, are very stable, moreso than barbells. With rings you have the benefit of unfixed movement paths, which is sometimes easier on the joints. It is also much more natural for following certain muscles than barbells, which makes them in some way similar to machines or dumbbells. PS. I LOVE calisthenics and I LOVE rings. They are excellent additions to any hypertrophy program. I am also a big home gym enjoyer, with a lot of time spent in my home gym. (which is part of why i love barbells too)
More stability isn't necessarily always better, but it has its place, as does less stability. As long as you aren't going to the extremes with bosu ball BS, you can make great gains within a reasonable range of stability. My main point is that barbells are not necessarily "optimal" just because they occupy the middle ground of stability. That isn't a good enough reason to endorse them as the main training modality to me. I still think you can make a complete and optimal hypertrophy program with only a little bit of barbell work.
The reason why barbells are best for me and why it's my preferred method along with weighted calisthenics:
1. standardized strength goals/numbers - no one cares how much you lift on a machine, plus machines are different between brands. barbells standardize this comparison. (ironically this stifled my gains through my fault, not the barbell's fault: i chased numbers and my barbell lifts became more powerlifting-style technical, which made them worse for stimulating hypertrophy)
2. accessibility - barbells are everywhere besides planet fitness and hotel gyms. some machines arent found at some gyms. that's why I think everyone should at least be proficient at barbell movements.
3. cost - kind goes into accessibility but in home gym settings, power rack + barbells + plates are by far your most costeffective option. then get a weight belt for calisthenics and a plate loaded pulley for cable movements. adjustable dumbbells have their issues and full db racks and machines are $$$.
But yeah to wrap things up, holistically I'd agree barbells are "optimal" for the practical purposes I listed. They're optimal for me for my goals. My only point of disagreement with Alec was the part about barbells being optimal as the main lifts for hypertrophy. If we look at the exercise modalities from purely that angle, I don't think there is anything mythical or special about barbells.
@@Mks25932 Yes, I'm aware you can do that - some I do those myself because they generally have better carryover to my regular competition style lifts than machines. For pure bodybuilding style purposes, they are unnecessary, and making barbell movements biomechanically better for hypertrophy than usual doesn't really negate my point about machines being generally easier to push to failure.
I agree 100% with your second point, and that's also why I think everyone should have some level of proficiency in barbell movements. That is yet another testament to the versatility of barbell work. Carryover is also great if you're traveling and the gym you're at doesn't have a particular machine, so thats a plus for practical relevance. I don't disagree with any of these arguments on a factual basis, but I think they're all kind of missing my point. Carryover is only important if you care about carryover. If it's not someone's goal, why would it be important how much their hack squat carries over to their barbell squat, beyond "gym cred"?
For general purposes I think everyone should have some base in barbell training because of their all-rounder benefits, but I know plenty of natural bodybuilders far larger than I am who started on barbells but have put them in the backburner to machines as their main modality and see great/better progress than before. Optimizing barbell lifts for hypertrophy is basically just a way to make them closer to machines biomechanically, but it does lose out on certain other machine benefits.
Like I said earlier, I am a big fan of barbell training, and it is my main training method myself. All I am saying is that it is not the blanket "optimal" movement for every single goal just because it is the most versatile movement. Optimality doesn't exist in a vacuum, only within context. For me and most viewers of this channel, barbells are optimal precisely because they are the best compromise for various different goals. But given a singular goal of pure hypertrophy, I don't agree that they are optimal as the lift of focus. I think Alec steps a bit out of his lane in that one very particulaf aspect
@@Mks25932 In fact, Dr. Mike Israetel himself has made a video on this very subject discussing the barbell dogma and how barbells are very useful tools for hypertrophy, but there's nothing inherently special and magical about them compared to machines. Within this context, there is no reason to not use barbells but also no reason to prioritize them. They are simply another useful tool in the toolkit as far as hypertrophy goes.
I prefer barbells because they make it easier to stabilize the weight lifted.
I disagree. So your argument is machines are inferior because your joints won’t get as strong like with barbells? That’s false lol your muscles can’t grow without your joints ligaments tendons and bones also getting stronger. That’s what strength training is, strength training can come from anything, it doesn’t matter if it’s barbells, dumbbells, calisthenics or machines. Your body is going to grow at the same rate. Exercise selection doesn’t matter UNLESS you’re trying to become a powerlifter or Olympic lifter. You don’t train a squat to strengthen your abs or lower back(the stabilizer muscles) you train a squat to hit legs, there are better ways to directly target the muscles in charge of stabilizing, like actually hitting them directly. Because a squat is NOT going to effectively train the muscles in charge of stabilizing, they’re job is to just balance and support you while your actual primary muscle does the work. You wouldn’t think standing barbell bicep curls would train the glutes which are stabilizer muscles for that exercise , you would think a barbell curl is used to train biceps. So this whole stabilizer nonsense and weaker joints from machines isn’t true.
BUT ALECCCCCCCC!!! I was told you can build sleek toned legs by doing only Bulgarian split squats with dumbbells !! I don't want to develop a feminine sweep with a barbell!!!
Chicken nuggies tho
Kinobody lol
The quad feminine sweep is one of the greatest problems of society lol
Rippetoe's Dogma.
If you actually watch the video and think this is a dogmatic take then you don't understand the concept of dogma.
@@EnkiriElite I watched the video. And I think it was informative. Don't worry I didn't misunderstood you. I was merely amused by how in end, barbell training turned out to be the optimal one like Rip preaches. Recently, I saw a video of him making fun of kettlebells, and trap bars before that. I think kettlebells are very valuable replacement to barbell olympic lifts as they don't have the same steep learning curve.
Based Weighted Cali enthusiast
Never clicked on a video so fast.
Enjoy brotha!
What about kettlebells and bosu balls
"optimal" damn i hate that Word when it comes to training,i preffer good enough over a long period of time
You can't even do a true 1rm with dumbbells.
inb4 eugene teo finds this video
Mark rippetoe has made similar arguments
Just use all 3
100% agree
These zealots all built their base physique of barbell fundamentals, which is already proof of how effective it is.
But whatever you do, don't use a trap bar! A dogmatic old man said they are useless and dangerous, and unstable in the sagittal plane. 🤪
For the algorithm
your assessment of limiting factors is not exactly true.
In a vacuum nothing is true. The point here was to get people to look at the bigger picture.
Amazingly giga
I disagree with you. Barbells can be great, but it depends where you got your info about Barbells. You seem like a guy, but I don't like people getting from influencers. Even if you're a reasonable, there's an idiotic influencer says everything wrong. I think you're reasonable, but I view you as a part of the problem.
Algo
Another based video.
Kanye 2024
They're the most fun
Definitely no argument from me there!
Algo