Should I be using free weights or machines? What is the advantage/disadvantage

>>40358586
Free weights: Muscles beyond the primaries are engaged. It's more of a whole body thing. Downside is that it's easier to fuck up and it's harder to do
Machines: Just push/pull lol. Downside is that secondary/tertiary muscles aren't used.

>>40358586
Do some of both.

>>40358586
I'm a novice lifter, take what I say with a grain of salt.

I've been doing barbell based training for 7 months now maybe, but I've also done some machine stuff at my uni gym.

I really prefer the barbell stuff. In no particular order:
1. Traditional
2. Looks cool
3. More satisfying, partly for reasons above and also for other reasons
4. Like above poster said, allows for truly compound movements where numerous muscle groups can be overloaded beyond just the primary one. Squats for example, work your legs, ton of core muscles, and back.

Downsides, can be hard to find a gym with adequate free weight accommodations.. but you can always do what I and many others have done and just shop around and end up spending $600 for a power rack + barbells + all the plates you could ever need. Plenty of quality equipment being sold cheap used.

File: 68747470733a2f2f34312e6d656469612e74756d626c722e636f6d2f33613365353964373831343564303664323965643234616330336131323133632f74756d626c725f6e376c643675614666333173726d306d6a6f315f3534302e706e67.png (111KB, 234x360px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 234x360px

>>40358586
Machines: compounds
Free weights: isolations
And your done. Fuck the bro science you can get big from this

>>40359249
Wat

File: 1486626232433.jpg (17KB, 261x196px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 261x196px

>>40359256
What is there to explain?

>>40358586
I like to do both with preference to heavier weight first

>>40359249
I think your shit's all retarded and you sound like a fag.

>>40358586
Compound lifts should be the cornerstone of every lifting program. Make sure you get your compounds in - beyond that it's up to you

>>40359358
Probably the fact that what you posted is literally the opposite?

>>40358586
Just so you don't confused:
When people say "stabilizer muscles" they can mean a lot of things:
>muscles that are hard to hit directly (serratus etc.)
>muscles that are worked isometrically for a particular exercise (abs during most exercises etc.)
>muscles that contribute directly but in a sub-maximal way during an exercise (delts during benching etc.)

Overall the whole argument boils down to
>free weights working more muscle mass during the same time-span in the gym compared to machines, making your workouts much more efficient.
>when you do free weight exercises you develop much more coordination since your CNS has to juggle activating more motor units in a well timed way.
>it is less likely you'll end up with disbalanced muscles groups, making it less likely you will snap your shit up in the long run.
>moar joint and bone gains, which again makes it less likely you'll injure yourself in the long run.

File: 1485716310479.jpg (170KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1280x720px

>>40359822
> Compound lifts should be the cornerstone of every lifting program

>>40359923
what else should be? hanging, reverse grip, finger curls? even leg-press and most other useful machine exercises are compounds - not all machine work is isolation.

>>40359358
You got it the wrong way round.