Nippard says free weights and machines are both effective for building muscle.
The debate over using free weights versus machines for building muscle has been ongoing for years. On one hand, free weights are often considered the superior option, as they require more balance and stabilization, leading to greater muscle activation. On the other hand, machines can provide a more controlled movement, allowing for greater focus on the targeted muscle group. In the Nippard Fitness Newsletter, fitness content creator Jeff Nippard compares using free weights to machines for building muscle.
| Full Name: Jeff Nippard | ||
| Weight | Height | Date Of Birth |
| 155-165 lbs. | 5’5’’ | 10/06/1990 |
| Profession | Era | Nationality |
| Bodybuilder, Powerlifter | 2010 | Canadian |
Free Weights Vs. Machines
View this post on Instagram
Throughout bodybuilding history, lifters have honed methods for adding mass and definition. In Arnold Schwarzenegger’s era, free weights were favored for their ability to engage multiple muscle groups and promote functional strength. However, as training methods evolved, machines gained popularity for their ease of use and safety, making them a staple in many modern gyms.
However, there are several factors to consider when choosing between free weights and machines. Firstly, it’s essential to recognize that both options can be effective for building muscle, so the decision ultimately comes down to personal preference and individual goals.
Free Weights
Free weights offer a greater range of motion and can target multiple muscle groups simultaneously. They also require greater engagement of the stabilizing muscles, which support and stabilize the body during movement. Engaging these muscles can improve overall functional strength. Moreover, studies show training with free weights yields a higher increase in free testosterone than machines. (1) However, free weight exercises often pose a higher risk of injury, especially if proper form is not maintained.
Machines
On the other hand, machines provide more controlled movement, which can benefit beginners or those recovering from an injury. They also allow for better isolation of specific muscle groups, making them ideal for bodybuilders. However, machines often have a limited range of motion and can be less effective at targeting multiple muscle groups simultaneously.
So, which method is superior for muscle building? Jeff Nippard explains that free weights and machines can be highly effective if you push yourself close to failure. This insight provides clarity and empowers you to choose the method that best suits your fitness goals and preferences.
Jeff Nippard on Free Weights Vs. Machines for Building Muscle
View this post on Instagram
Considering new research, Nippard emphasizes that muscle growth relies on specificity in the debate on free weight vs. machines. (2) Pushing your muscles to near failure is crucial to increasing muscle size. Nippard wrote:
“Are Free Weights Better At Building Muscle? You may have heard that free weights are better than machines. The rationale varies from ‘you engage more stabilizing muscles’ to ‘come on, look at Arnold.’”
“But the latest research doesn’t conclusively support one set of tools over another. It comes down to specificity,” Nippard continued. “If you want to get stronger on the barbell bench press, you won’t make much progress doing cable crossovers. But if your primary goal is to get bigger, both machines and free weights will work, as long as you push your muscles close to failure.”
For most lifters, Nippard emphasizes that optimal gains result from using a mix of free weights, plate-loaded machines, and selectorized weight-stack machines such as the lat pulldown.
“For most lifters, your best gains will come from a mix of free weights (barbells and dumbbells), plate-loaded machines (like the leg press), and selectorized weight-stack machines (like the lat pulldown), with some bodyweight exercises (like pull-ups and dips) when appropriate.
But if you only have access to a limited range of equipment, know that pushing your sets hard will still get the job done.”
When aiming to build muscle, Jeff Nippard suggests that using either free weights or machines can be effective as long as you push your sets intensely. Your choice should depend on your personal preference and training intensity.
Four-time Mr. Olympia Jay Cutler, in addition to Nippard, discussed the effectiveness of machines versus free weights for muscle growth. Despite not having access to fancy machines during his Mr. Olympia reign, it didn’t hinder his career success. “My training was basic old school, squats, and deadlifts, and T-bar rows, and dumbbell bench press or with barbells or whatever. We didn’t have the fancy machines,” says Cutler. “I think it can lengthen someone’s career if they stay more to machines. You saw Phil Heath kind of build his physique using more machine work. I feel like a lot of this stuff.”
Wrap Up
In conclusion, the decision between free weights and machines ultimately comes down to personal preference and individual goals. Your unique aspirations and needs should guide your choice. Factors such as range of motion, risk of injury, and muscle activation must be considered when choosing which option to incorporate into your workout routine. Whether you prefer the challenge of free weights or the control of machines, both can help you build muscle and achieve your fitness goals.
Follow us on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter for more expert fitness tips!
Reference
- Schwanbeck, S. R., Cornish, S. M., Barss, T., & Chilibeck, P. D. (2020). Effects of Training With Free Weights Versus Machines on Muscle Mass, Strength, Free Testosterone, and Free Cortisol Levels. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 34(7), 1851–1859. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003349
- Haugen, M. E., Vårvik, F. T., Larsen, S., Haugen, A. S., van den Tillaar, R., & Bjørnsen, T. (2023). Effect of free-weight vs. machine-based strength training on maximal strength, hypertrophy and jump performance – a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 15(1), 103. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-023-00713-4
