machinesfreeweights.pdf

7/27/2019 machinesfreeweights.pdf

1/13

18 Strength and Conditioning Journal December 2000

National Strength & Conditioning AssociationVolume 22, Number 6, pages 1830

Roundtable Discussion:Machines Versus Free Weights

G. Gregory Haff, PhD, CSCSNeuromuscular LaboratoryAppalachian State University

Keywords: free weights; weight machines.

MANY STRENGTH AND CON-ditioning professionals design andimplement resistance-trainingprograms that involve both free

weights and weight machines.These programs are often de-signed in an attempt to improvestrength, power, and ultimatelyathletic performance. The benefitsof both modalities of resistancetraining are often discussed byathletes, coaches, athletic train-ers, and sport scientists. In these

discussions, there are many dif-fering opinions about whichmodality or combination ofmodalities produces optimalsports performance gains. Thepurpose of this roundtable is todiscuss several issues related tothe use of free-weight and ma-chine modalities in an athleticsetting.

s Question 1:What Are the

General Advantages and

Disadvantages of FreeWeights?

Harman:The general advantagesof free weights are that they (a) areoften used for exercises that in-

volve a large portion of the bodysmusculature either directly or forsupport and stabilization; (b) lend

themselves to ballistic or explo-sive exercises; (c) can readily beused to simulate real-world liftingmovements; (d) involve ranges ofmotion and muscle activation pat-terns similar to those in manysports movements, particularlyfor the lower body; and (e) are rel-atively low in cost.

The general disadvantages offree weights are that they (a) can

be intimidating to people who lackconfidence in their athletic ability;

(b) provide little resistance exceptin the downward direction; (c) re-quire more time than do ma-chines to adjust resistance whenplates and collars are used; (d)usually require separate weightplates that may become mis-placed, left in places that couldcreate hazards, or fall on users; (e)sometimes require a spotter forsafety; (f) are more likely than ma-chines to cause injury if the useris inept or careless; (g) requiremore knowledge of proper exer-cise form than do machines; and(h) are not readily used for circuittraining because of the time re-quired to change resistance.

Because gravity only pullsdownward, for a free weight to pro-

vide resistance to a movement, the

body must be positioned in such away that the downward pull of theweight resists the movement. Thisis not difficult in the case of move-ments such as combined knee andhip extension, for which exercisessuch as the squat can be used, orsuch as combined shoulder trans-

verse plane adduction and elbowextension, for which exercisessuch as the bench press can beused. However, several other bodymovements are difficult to exercise

with free weights. Some examplesare torso transverse rotation, im-portant for throwing and battingsports; hip adduction and abduc-tion, important for sports involv-ing lateral movement; and shoul-der frontal plane adduction,important for combative sportssuch as wrestling and judo andsports in which the body is lifted,such as gymnastics. These andseveral other movements are morereadily exercised using machinesthan free weights. Even athletesengaging in sports that dont em-phasize these movements wouldlikely benefit from such exercises

by achieving balance among thevarious muscle groups.

Wathen:The advantages of freeweights (barbells/dumbbells) are


2/13

December 2000 Strength and Conditioning Journal 19

that they (a) are versatile, (b) arelower in cost, (c) allow for large vari-ations in user strength, (d) require

balance and coordination muchlike actual sporting events, (e) allowfor small incremental adjustments

in resistance, (f) allow for multipla-nar movements, and (g) are safe

when used appropriately.The disadvantages are that (a)

some movements (bench press,squats, etc.) require spotters orspecial racks; (b) space require-ment is larger than a single-sta-tion machine; (c) they require bal-ance and coordination; (d) someexercises such as leg curls, kneeextensions, leg presses, and calfraises are difficult if not impossi-

ble to perform with free weights;and (e) they are psychologicallyintimidating to some novicetrainees.

Carpinelli:There are theoreti-cal advantages and disadvantagesto free weights, with no strong sci-entific evidence to support the su-periority of this modality. Perhapsmore balance and coordinationare required to perform free-

weight exercises compared with

machine exercises, but there is noevidence that this skill has anysignificant transfer to other activ-ities. It should be recognized that

just as everyone who participatesin a sport must practice their skill

with the tools required for theirsport, powerlifters and Olympic

weightlifters must practice theirskill with the required toolsfree

weights. A potential disadvantagewith both free weights and ma-chines is that injuries may occur

as a result of improper use of ei-ther tool. Lombardi and Troxel (6)note that in 1998, weight trainingaccounted for an estimated60,000 emergency room visitsand at least a half-dozen deathsin the United States. The authorspropose widespread educationand an emphasis on technique

rather than the amount of resis-tance to help eliminate senselessfatalities and minimize the inci-dence and severity of injuries (6).

Stone: Definition of freeweights: barbells, dumbbells, as-

sociated benches, medicine balls,body massin other words, afreely moving body that does notinhibit the occurrence of normalforce/acceleration patterns. Chal-lenges the lifter to control, stabi-lize, and direct a movement.

There are several marked ad-vantages of free weights comparedwith machines:1. Free weights are typically

cheaper and thus have greatercost effectiveness. For exam-ple, well-made Olympic-style

barbells can be purchased inthe United States for wellunder $1,000 for a 400-lb. set.If the cost of outfitting a majortraining facility with typicalmachines (each one performsessentially 1 function) wereused to purchase barbells,dumbbells, and associated

benches, then this wouldallow substantially more peo-

ple to train simultaneously atthe same cost (or less).2. Most machines have limited

adaptabilitythat is, the ma-chine will only allow perfor-mance of the exercise (with few

variations) for which it is de-signed. This is not a problem

with free weights, in which ex-ercises can be created to fit theactivity (i.e., greater degree ofmechanical specificity).

3. Although some manufactur-

ers have attempted to improveadjustment factors, most ma-chines do not have sufficientadjustment capability to beable to fit all sizes or popula-tions. Even cursory observa-tion of athletes or nonathletesreveals differences in height,

weight, limb length, and so on

that will affect the way inwhich many, particularly variable-resistance, devices areable to effectively apply resistance. For example, most machines are made to fit adults

not children. An advantage ofree weights is that one sizefits all. In this context, variable-resistance machines donot adequately apply resistance in relation to humanstrength curves, particularlyon an individual basis (10).

4. Metabolic aspects of exerciseand training can be very important to both athletes and non-athletes. Largemuscle massexercises require more energythan smaller muscle mass ex-ercises. Body mass and bodycomposition can be greatly influenced by total energy expenditure; thus, largemusclemass exercises are more likelyto influence body compositionand metabolic adaptations (forreview, see Stone et al., ref. 31)

A greater variety of largemuscle mass exercises can be performed with free weights as

compared with the case of typ-ical machines. In this contextfree weights can be advantageous in terms of providingtime-efficient training sessionsOne largemuscle mass, multi

joint exercise such as the squapress can exercise as manymuscle groups as can 48small, isolated or smallmusclemass exercises, thus savingtime.

5. The development of training

protocols in which the exercises have a high degree of mechanical specificity (with appropriate training design) isthe major advantage of free

weights. This is particularlytrue for developing speed andpower. Mechanical specificityincludes force characteristics


3/13


(i.e., magnitude of force, rate offorce development, velocity,power), as well as movementpatterns. There is little doubtthat free weights can satisfythese aspects of specificity bet-

ter than can typical machines.(See Stone et al., ref. 30, for amore detailed discussion).

6. Review of the literature andcareful observation indicatethat skillful free-weight move-ments can augment motorcontrol and general coordina-tive abilities (12, 15, 27, 29).

These coordinative abilitiescan include the following: Orientation and differen-

tiation

Reactive ability Rhythm and balance Combinatory abilities

7. Space limitations can be adisadvantage for free weights(and most machines). For ex-ample, space can be limited inconfined quarters, such asaboard ships, submarines,space vehicles, and so on. Inmany cases, specifically con-structed machines, some-

times using springs or elasticbands, can take up less space.

s Question 2:What Are the

General Advantages andDisadvantages of Machines?

Harman:The general advantagesof resistance exercise machinesare that they (a) do not usually in-timidate novice users; (b) can bedesigned to provide resistance inany direction; (c) usually provide aquick and easy means of chang-

ing resistance; (d) are generallyself-contained, not requiring add-on weights that might be mis-placed; (e) do not generally requirea spotter for safety; (f) are lesslikely than free weights to causeserious injury to a user who isinept or careless; (g) require littleknowledge of proper exercise

form; and (h) may be organized ina circuit to provide a fast andconvenient way to exercise allmajor muscle groups.

The disadvantages of resis-tance exercise machines are that

they generally (a) provide for se-quential training of isolated mus-cle groups rather than trainingmajor muscle groups in unison,(b) do not lend themselves to bal-listic or explosive exercises, (c)do not simulate real-world liftingmovements, (d) do not simulatecomplex muscle activation pat-terns characteristic of sports, and(e) are relatively high in cost.

Wathen: The advantages ofmachines are they (a) require no

spotters, (b) generally are easy andsafe to use, and (c) usually allowfor gradual increments in resis-tance. Machine stations generallytake up little space and may beless intimidating to some novicetrainers. Some exercises, such asthe leg curl, leg press, and kneeextension are more easily per-formed with the use of machines.Machines do not require balance,

which is both a desirable and un-

desirable trait depending on thehealth status of the trainee.The disadvantages of ma-

chines are (a) increased cost, (b)inflexibility (generally, only 1movement/exercise can be per-formed per machine), (c) difficultyof some units to provide a wide

variety of resistances and fit awide variety of body sizes. Someunits are difficult to figure outhow to use without assistance.

Additionally, most units only

allow movements in 1 plane ofmotion and do not require bal-ance. Ballistic movements suchas the Olympic lifts and theirmodifications (power cleans,overhead squats) are often impos-sible to perform on machines. Ad-ditionally, when movements areperformed in a ballistic fashion,

damage may be done to some ma-chines. Finally, machines general-ly require more maintenance.

Carpinelli:There are theoreti-cal advantages and disadvantagesto machines but no strong scientif-

ic evidence to show any advantageover free weights. For example, if

variable-resistance machines moreeffectively overload the musclesthroughout the range of motion,they may stimulate a greater in-crease in muscular size andstrength compared with the case offree weights. However, there is noevidence to support this assertion.

Stone:Definition of machine:device that applies resistance in aguided or restricted manner.

Smaller challenge, compared withthe case of free weights, for stabi-lization, control, and directedmovement.1. In some specific smallmuscle

mass exercises in which jointsegments close in on them-selves, such as arm curls,some machines may offer re-sistance through a greaterrange of motion compared toany one free-weight exercise.

This may be an advantage inhypertrophy development withsome machines.

2. It is often argued that ma-chines are safer than free

weights. However, there is noevidence for this assumption(22). In the authors experience,there are as many or more in-

juries occurring with machinesas free weights. Often, these in-

juries result from poor tech-nique or from poor technique

coupled with poor training pro-grams, regardless of the modeof exercise.

s Question 3: Discuss Briefly

Your Interpretation of theLiterature Regarding StrengthGains Using Free Weights orMachines


4/13


Harman:The literature has shownmajor strength gains from the useof exercise machines as well asfrom free weights (4, 6, 11, 14,2527). The muscle doesntknow whether a machine or a

free weight is providing the resis-tance. Thus, there is little reasonfor either free weights or machinesto produce greater strength gainsfor individual muscles, assumingequal resistance is applied. Astudy comparing the free-weight

bench press to the machine benchpress (17) showed a high degree ofsimilarity in muscle electrical ac-tivity during the 2 exercises. Anydifference in strength gain is like-ly due to a difference in the train-ing protocol, such as intensity,

volume, rest periods, and so on.Differences in measured trainingeffect between free weights andmachines can often be attributedto the degree of similarity or differ-ence between the training exercis-es and the strength tests. The con-cept of specificity of training statesthat the closer the strength test isto the training exercise with re-gard to muscles involved, ranges

of motion, speed of movement,and pattern of resistance, themore likely the training will im-prove test performance. That istrue not only because the exerciseis likely to stimulate growth ofmuscle fibers directly involved inthe movement but because devel-opment of strength is due in largepart to the establishment of neur-al firing patterns (23).

Wathen:Depending upon thetesting method used to quantify

strength, the laws of specificityare very applicable (14). For ex-ample, if you test a 1-RM benchpress with free weights, you arelikely to test better if you train

with free weights. If you test a 1-RM leg press, you are likely to get

better if you train with the legpress. There is some evidence that

more carryover is likely with freeweights than machines whentraining and testing in bothmodes (4, 16, 17). Generally,strength can be developed with alltypes of resistance equipment if a

proper progressive-resistanceprogram is employed.

Carpinelli: Free weights andmachines have seldom been com-pared, but when they have beencompared, neither modality hasshown any overall superiority. Forexample, Silvester and colleagues(10) conducted 2 experiments. Ex-periment 1 had 3 groups thattrained 3 times a week for 13

weeks. One group performed 1 setof 412 repetitions to fatigue on aNautilus Compound Leg machine,

which is comprised of 2 exercises:the knee extension and leg press.

Another group performed 2 sets of710 repetitions to fatigue on aUniversal Leg Press machine. Athird group executed the free-

weight squat for 3 sets of 6 repeti-tions. The authors stated, Theanalysis of the strength measuresestablished that there were nosignificant differences (P < 0.05)

between the groups for any of the[strength] variables. It appearedthat vertical jumping ability wasimproved to a greater extent bytraining with free-weights and theUniversal apparatus than bytraining with the Nautilus device.However, the differences are rela-tively small, and in view of thesimilarity of the strength gains,the practical application of thefinding is unclear (10, p. 32).

In experiment 2, Silvester and

colleagues (10) trained 4 groups 3times per week for 8 weeks. Twogroups performed free-weight

barbell curls; either 1 set of 812repetitions to fatigue or 3 sets of 6repetitions with 80% 1-RM; 2groups used the Nautilus OmniBiceps machine, performing 1 ofthe 2 aforementioned protocols.

All 4 groups had a significant increase in strength, with no significant difference among thegroups. Silvester and colleaguesconcluded, The finding that there

were no significant differences in

strength gains for any of thegroups at any angle implies tha

variable resistance and freeweights were equally effective adeveloping strength throughouthe complete range of motion. Theimportance of the present findingsis that it does not seem to matter

which method of strength trainingone chooses (10, p. 32). The absence of any supporting evidencesuggests that when used properly, free weights and machines produce similar results in a healthyathletic population.

Stone: Although both machines and free weights producestrength gains, to a large extentthe magnitude of gains in maximum strength as a result of resistance training depends upon thesimilarity between the strengthtests and the training exercise

This aspect of mechanical specificity has been noted in longitudi

nal studies (1, 13, 21) and in reviews of the literature (2325, 29)Reasonable adherence to test

ing specificity can be very important in attempting to ascertaingains in maximum strength. Lackof adherence may explain whyseveral studies failed to show differences between groups. For example, in studies by Saunders(22) and Silvester et al. (28), training was dynamic and testing wasisometric, which likely masks o

reduces any gains in maximumstrength and may then reduce observable differences betweengroups (36). Indeed, the rationale

behind using a nonspecific test fomaximum strength is that such atest would not favor either modeof training. However, a supposedly nonspecific device often favors


5/13


either a free weight or a machine.This results from the fact that indynamic testing, the testing de-

vice must be either a free weightor a machine. For example, in thestudy by Messier and Dill (20)

comparing Nautilus training tofree-weight training, tests of legstrength were performed on aCybex II semi-isokinetic leg exten-sion device. This leg extension de-

vice is used for openkinetic chainexercise. The machine (Nautilus)group used leg extensions (openkinetic chain exercises) in train-ing; however, the free-weightgroup used squats (closedkineticchain exercises) and no leg exten-sions in training. Thus, the ma-

chine group may have had an ad-vantage in testing because part oftheir training was mechanicallymore similar to the testing mode.

Although differences betweengroups using different modes oftraining can be masked or re-duced by using a nonspecificmeasurement, some transfer (inother words, carryover) betweendevices may be expected (18, 36).However, it is likely that the effect

size must be quite large in orderto show differences. Interestingly,most of the available peer-re-

viewed, published data indicatethat maximum strength (1RM)gained as a result of free-weighttraining can transfer to machinetesting better than can the con-

verse (6, 24, 26). This concept ofgreater carryover is supported by2 unpublished observations fromour laboratories (8, 15). The exactreasons for this observation are

unknown.Several problems with some ofthese studies preclude any defini-tive conclusions concerning com-parison between devices. Theseproblems range from lack of spe-cific testing (see above), use of dif-ferent protocols, and too few sub-

jects. Perhaps the most important

problems deal with the studylength; there are no long-term(i.e., years) studies and trainingstatus (24). However, there is asuggestion that 1-RM measures ofstrength carry over from training

on free weights to machines betterthan training on machines carriesover to free weights.

s Question 4: Discuss BrieflyYour Interpretation of the Liter-ature Regarding the Carryoverof Strength Gains AchievedFrom Machines to Sports Per-formanceHarman:Because free weights areso widely recognized as effective inimproving sports performance,

there have been relatively fewstudies of athletic strength train-ing in which only machine exer-cise was performed. Becausemost studies of the effects of re-sistance training on sports perfor-mance have used either free

weights alone or combined pro-grams of free weights and ma-chines, it is difficult to isolate theeffects of the machines alone.However, there is evidence that re-sistance exercise machines canimprove sports performance. Forexample, hip sled exercise pro-duced improvements in both ver-tical jump distance and leg power(29). Training on machines hasalso improved the 40-yard dash,softball and baseball throw, shot-put, and vertical jump (2, 16, 19).Circuit training both with and

without machines has been wide-ly used in athletic-training pro-grams supervised by professional

coaches in sports such as swim-ming, track and field, and base-ball (2022).

Wathen:Numerous studies in-dicate that gaining strength willresult in improved performance ina number of performance areas,such as running speed (4, 6, 13);endurance; throwing (9, 11, 13);

serving; striking velocity; andhead speed produced with bats(12), clubs, and racquets. Al-though some studies indicate lit-tle improvement in performance

with strength gains, most do indi-

cate such improvement. Anymode used to increase strengthspecific to the muscles involved ina movement should result in im-provements in performance, ma-chines included. It is important tonote that no amount of improve-ment in strength will replace skilltraining for overall improvementsin performance.

Carpinelli:I will answer ques-tions 4 and 5 concurrently.

Stone:I will answer questions

4 and 5 together.

s Question 5: Discuss BrieflyYour Interpretation of theLiterature Regarding theCarryover of Strength GainsAchieved From Free Weights toSports PerformanceHarman:There is ample evidencein the scientific literature thattraining with free weights can im-prove sports performance (28). A

few examples of improvements insports performance as a result offree-weight training include in-creases in sprint speed (5), run-ning economy (13), throwing ve-locity (10, 18), and swimmingspeed (3, 12). Because of specifici-ty of training, the greatest benefitsof free-weight training occur withthe lifting sports, such as power-lifting and Olympic-style weight-lifting, and in sports requiringhigh lean body mass and the abil-

ity to exert pushing force againsthigh resistance, such as U.S. andCanadian football. Free-weightexercise can also be effective inimproving vertical jumping ability

because body posture and direc-tion of push are similar in the ver-tical jump and exercises such asthe squat and power clean. In


6/13


comparisons of the effectivenessof the squat to machine exercise,the squat has generally provensuperior (2, 8, 24). Specializedfree-weight exercises such as the

jump squat have proven even

more effective than the squat forimproving jumping ability amongexperienced athletes (30).

One problem with trying tocompare the effectiveness of free

weights and machines is that mosttraining studies have used a com-

bination of free weights and ma-chines. That is because such a mixof equipment is characteristic ofmost sport and recreational weight-training facilities. The fact is thatmost serious weight trainers use a

combination of free weights andmachines. It is rare to find an ath-letic weight room equipped withonly barbells and dumbbells, with-out even a pull-down machine, legpress machine, or knee extensionmachine. Resistance-training pro-grams that include both free

weights and machines have repeat-edly proven effective for sportstraining (7, 9, 15).

Wathen:There is some evi-

dence that resistance-trainingmovements that more closely ap-proximate the sport performancehave more improvement value (1,7, 15). For example, Augustsson etal. (3) indicated that free-weightsquat training has more impact on

vertical jump performance thandoes a program of isokinetic kneeextension and hip adduction.

There are few studies in this area,and most are equivocal, but moreevidence points to specificity of

muscle action type and movementpattern favoring dynamic free-weight movements that closely ap-proximate the sport movement (5,7, 15). After all, most sports per-formance is dynamic, multijoint,multiplanar, requires balance,and deals with both eccentric andconcentric actions (3, 10). Sounds

like free weights. We see empirical-ly that Olympic weight-lifters areamong the quickest, most power-ful, and flexible Olympic athletes.

They train ballistically with jump-like movements while holding free

weights (8). Sounds like a plan toimprove strength, power, quick-ness, reaction time, and flexibility,traits that most athletes in powersports require.

Carpinelli:There appears to bea bias in the Strength and Condi-tioning Journal favoring free

weights over machines. The biasis evidenced by the statements re-garding the superiority of free

weights over machines that gounchallenged by the reviewers

and editors of the journal.For example, in the early is-

sues of the NSCA Journal, thereis a two-part article written byGarhammer (part I) and Stone(part II) that makes very strongassertionswithout any support-ing scientific evidencefor the su-periority of free weights. In part I,Garhammer (4) claims that thetransfer of strength and power

will be more beneficial if the

strength program is based onfree-weight multijoint exercises,and he asserts that there are neu-romuscular similarities betweenfree-weight exercises and athleticmovements that make the trans-fer of strength easy. Garhammerdoes not cite any training study tosupport his opinion. He claims (4)that bodybuilding coaches andgym operators express their pref-erence for free weights over ma-chines, and he cites a book by

OShea (7), which expressesOSheas unsubstantiated bias forfree weights. OShea continues toadvocate the superiority of free

weights over machines in his cur-rent book (8) and in his recent ar-ticle in the Strength and Condi-tioning Journal (9), with nosupporting scientific evidence.

Garhammer (4) claims that asan athlete moves through therange of motion in which the opti-mal internal leverage produces thegreatest internal torque, the bar

bell perfectly accommodates the

increased internal (musculartorque by accelerating at a greaterrate. The barbell does not accom-modate. It responds to a largerforce with a greater acceleration. Agreater applied force will produce agreater acceleration to a givenmass, but the greater momentummakes the repetition less intenseDuring the execution of some mul-tijoint free-weight exercises, suchas the squat, military press, and

bench press, greater torque can be

generated during the last third othe concentric muscle action, ascompared with the middle thirdthe sticking zone. If an athlete attempts to accelerate the barbelthroughout the range of motionthe greater acceleration in the firsthird of the repetition producesgreater barbell momentum. Themomentum helps the athletethrough the sticking zone andmakes that part of the repetition

easier and the last third of the repetitionwhere he is thestrongestthe easiest. Out of the21 references cited by Garhammer(4), there is not a single peer-re

viewed strength-training studycomparing free weights and machines. It is merely an article ex-pressing Garhammers opinion.

In part II, Stone (12) claimsthat free weights produce superi-or results compared with machines and asserts that his opin-

ions are supported by researchAmong the 39 references cited isthe previously discussed article

by Garhammer (4) and only 2studies that compared free

weights and machines: Stone andcolleagues (11) and Wathen (13)Stone and colleagues (11) com-pared Nautilus and free-weight


7/13


strength training performed 3times per week for 5 weeks. Al-though Stone and colleaguesclaim that the squat demonstrat-ed the only significant difference

between groups (out of 17 exercis-

es), they did not report any pre- toposttraining data or the percent-age change in strength for thesquat or any of the other exercis-es. Their concluding statement,This study indicates that free

weight training is superior to Nau-tilus in producing changes in

variables which may influenceathletic success during shortterm training (11, p. 160), is notsupported by the data reported intheir study. Free-weight advo-

cates continue to cite this study,which was not published in apeer-reviewed journaland wasnever replicated.

In the other study cited byStone (12), Wathen (13) trainedfootball players using either free-

weight squats (5 sets of from 3 to8 repetitions) or a MINI-GYMLeaper (5 sets of 20 repetitions) 3times per week for 8 weeks. Al-though Wathen claims that the

group who performed barbellsquats showed a statistically sig-nificant increase in vertical jumpcompared with the Leaper group,he did not report any pre- to post-training data or percentagechange for the vertical jump, per-formance on the Leaper, or thechanges in strength in the squator in any of the other 7 exercises.

The Leaper does not provide resis-tance for eccentric muscle ac-tions, and several studies have

shown that training protocols thatemploy a combination of concen-tric and eccentric muscle actionsto enhance muscular strengthand size are superior to thoseusing only concentric muscle ac-tions (13, 5). It is no surprisethat a free-weight squat is superi-or to the Leaper. Conventional

strength-training machines man-ufactured by Nautilus, MedX,Hammer, and so on provide resis-tance for both concentric and ec-centric muscle actions. Addition-ally, and perhaps more important,

there is no evidence to suggestthat an increase in vertical jump

will transfer to improvement inany sport activity.

Wathen and Shutes (14) fol-lowed up on the aforementionedstudy (13) by comparing theLeaper (2 groups: low repetitionsand high repetitions) to free-

weight squats (sets, repetitions,intensity, and frequency not re-ported by the authors) after 8

weeks of training. The group per-

formingand inherently practic-ingfree-weight squats showed asignificantly greater increase insquat strength compared with the2 Leaper groups. However, none ofthe groups improved in vertical

jump or 40-yard dash. NeitherWathens studies (13, 14) nor thestudy by Stone and colleagues (11)shows any evidence of a transfer ofstrength to sport activity.

Wathen: Addressing Dr.

Carpinellis comments, I wouldlike to state that Athletic Trainingwas a peer-reviewed journal in1979 (the year reference 11 in hislist was published) and continuesto be refereed. The 1980 (his refer-ence 13) study that I authored

was published in the NSCA Jour-nal, which was not a peer-re-

viewed journal at that time. Theeditor published the study, leav-ing out the pretest data and thedata on the lifts used in the pro-

gram without my permission.Stone:The major contributing

factor to the superiority of freeweights compared with machinesis the ability of free weights tomimic and overload most athletic(and daily task) movements. Be-cause of this aspect, there can be agreater transfer of training effect.

I will use the vertical jump asan example. The vertical jump isoften chosen as an indicator ofathletic performance because (a)it is easy to measure; (b) the verti-cal jump is a primary component

of many sports (basketball, volley-ball, and so on); (c) there are rea-sonable associations and correla-tions between the vertical jumpand other explosive exercisesfor example, sprinters jump high-er and sprint faster than distancerunners (16); (d) the vertical andrelated jumps (or the vertical

jump's components, including ve-locity and power output) have

been associated with performanceability in numerous specific

sports (2, 4, 29, 33).With few exceptions (35), free

weights have consistently pro-duced superior results in vertical-

jump gains across short-termtraining periods (3, 5, 28,32, 34).

From the standpoint of speci-ficity, there are a number of kinet-ic and kinematic parameters,

which must be appropriately over-loaded to stimulate gains in per-

formance. One of the most studiedand contemplated performanceaspects of specificity is the vertical

jump and its relationship toweightlifting movements andweightlifting training. Indeed, im-proved weightlifting performanceas a result of training has been as-sociated with increased vertical-

jump height and associated poweroutput among novices (29). Fur-thermore, weightlifters have supe-rior weighted and unweighted ver-

tical-jump heights and poweroutputs compared with other ath-letes (19). Part of the reason forthese superior performance char-acteristics are likely related to themode and methods used by

weightlifters in training. Althoughadaptations to training are alwaysmultifactorial, one likely con-


8/13


tributing factor is the degree ofmechanical specificity that can beobserved between weightliftingmovements (i.e., the snatch, cleanand jerk, and derivatives) and the

vertical jump (11, 14). These fac-

tors include a combination of highpower output, high rates of forcedevelopment, and movement pat-terns that cannot be easily dupli-cated by machine use.

Other assumptions that can-not be supported when examinedclosely have been made concern-ing the use of free weights and ma-chines. For example, it is often as-sumed that throwing motionsrequiring twisting (trunk rotation)cannot be made and trained ap-

propriately with free weights andthat machines are necessary forthis type of training. However, thisidea may be related more to lack ofexperience with free-weight train-ing than the actual mechanics offree weights or machines. First, itshould be remembered that mostthrowing movements are made ina standing or upright position. Formany years, throwers have simu-lated these upright positions using

weighted balls and implements;additionally, walking twists andweightedhammer thrower exer-cises have been used successfullyto overload upright trunk rotation.Furthermore, with the use of

benches or pommel horses, a vari-ety of positional exercises using

both weights and balls can stresstrunk rotation from a variety ofangles that cannot be attained

with most machines.

s Question 6: In What

Populations Are Free WeightsMore Appropriate?

Harman:Free weights are appro-priate for anyone who is not in-timidated by them. Almost every-one has the physical coordinationto handle free weights safely, sothe issue is whether or not the

trainee has the confidence to usethem. People who are initiallyafraid of free weights can usuallyovercome their fear with properinstruction. Free weights are par-ticularly important for training

the muscles of the body to work inunison, especially in lifting or inother activities in which gravita-tional resistance is a major factor,such as sprinting and jumping.Barbell training has been shownto be more effective than machinetraining for improvement of the

vertical jump (1).To ask in what populations

free weights are more appropriateimplies that there are populationsin which free weights should be

used to the exclusion of ma-chines. As important as free

weights are for training the bodyas a whole, they should not beused to the exclusion of machines

because of their inability to pro-vide resistance in other than thedownward direction. For example,frontal-plane shoulder adductionis commonly exercised using apull-down machine. Although themovement can also be performed

using the pull-up exercise, thatlimits resistance to body weight orgreater. In contrast, resistance tothe movement with less than body

weight is readily achieved usingeither a pull-down machine or apull-up machine that provides as-sistance via weight plates or othermechanism to help lift the body.

Wathen:All populations whoare capable of weight-bearing ex-ercise. Most resistance-trainingprograms will have a combination

of free weight and machine exer-cises. As mentioned earlier in thisdiscussion, some exercises aremore efficiently performed on free

weights and some better with ma-chines. The mode of exercise cho-sen will often dictated by the goals(strength, power, or joint stability)of the individual.

Stone:The important aspecthere is primary exercises. Training exercises should be primarilycarried out with free weights. Although a few machine exercisesmay be advantageous, most of the

exercises should be performedwith free weights for all popula-tions. Exceptions are not usuallypopulation oriented but rathersituation oriented, for example

where space may be at a premium(i.e., a submarinecrews haveused elastic bands, which take upless space then either free weightsor most machines).

s Question 7: In What

Populations Are Machines

More Appropriate?Harman:A machine can be designed to provide resistance inany direction and with any resistance pattern using cams or othermechanism of variable resistanceMachines are therefore appropriate for anyone involved in resis-tance training and should proba

bly be used to some extent by altrainees. In addition, exercise machine circuits may be useful for

training a relatively large group oathletes in a limited amount otime because it is much faster tochange the resistance on a machine than on a barbell. Howeverthe advantages of machinesshould not be taken to mean thamachines should be used insteadof free weights. Because free

weights have the advantage osimulating real-world activitiesand calling upon muscles of the

body to work in unison, virtually

all resistance exercisers should beencouraged to use free weightsEven the elderly or those confinedto wheelchairs can safely exercise

with light dumbbells.The question of whether eithe

machines or free weights shouldbe used to the exclusion of theother form of resistance exercise is


9/13


a nonissue for virtually all strengthcoaches, a vast majority of whomuse a combination of both. Ratherthan trying to determine whichform of exercise is more appropri-ate, it is best to identify how both

forms of exercise can be most ef-fectively integrated into a compre-hensive training program.

Wathen: All populations atsome time during their trainingmay benefit from using machinesin their training programs.

Carpinelli: Most trainers andtrainees have opinions about

which type of equipment they pre-fer for different populations. How-ever, unless those opinions can besupported with strength-training

studies, they remain opinions.Strength-training protocols thatare based on the sciences of phys-iology, kinesiology, and biome-chanics and that are executed atan appropriate training intensityshould transcend any theoreticaldifferences in modalities. The ab-sence of substantial evidence sug-gests that when used properly,free weights and machines pro-duce similar results.

Stone:As the primary mode oftraining, none.It has been assumed that pop-

ulations comprising the elderly orthose with certain disease states,such as arthritis, cannot use free

weights because of pain duringweight bearing or other limitations.However, this is an assumptionthat has not been adequately test-ed. In fact, evidence suggests thatusing free weights can be a safeand effective method of enhancing

performance in these populations.For example, Brill et al. (7) success-fully used a free-weight program

with an elderly population (7391years) in promoting beneficialadaptations in several functionalperformance measures (such as

balance, stair climbing, etc.). Noadverse effects were noted.

It is likely that not being ableto perform a particular exercise ismore a function of individualphysical and psychological char-acteristics that may be coupled

with specific disease states or in-

juries, rather than characteristicsof a population. These individualproblems can easily be recog-nized by competent strengthtraining personnel, and programadaptations can be made accord-ingly. v

s References

For Harman:

1. Augustsson J., A. Esko, R.Thomee, and U. Svantesson.Weight training of the thighmuscles using closed vs.open kinetic chain exercises:

A comparison of performanceenhancement. Orthop. SportsPhys. Ther. 27(1):38. 1998.

2. Bauer, T., R. Thayer, and G.Baras. Comparison of train-ing modalities for power de-

velopment in the lower ex-tremity. J. Strength Cond.Res. 4(4):115121. 1990.

3. Davis, J.F. The effect of

weight training on speed inswimming. Phys. Educator12:2829. 1955.

4. DeMichele, P.L., M.L. Pollock,J.E. Graves, D.N. Foster, D.Carpenter, L. Garzarella, W.Brechue, and M. Fulton. Iso-metric torso rotationstrength: Effect of trainingfrequency on its develop-ment.Arch. Phys. Med. Reha-bil. 78(1):6469. 1997.

5. Dintiman, G.B. Effects of var-

ious training programs onrunning speed. Res. Q.35:456463. 1964.

6. Faigenbaum, A.D., W.L.Westcott, R.L. Loud, and C.Long. The effects of differentresistance training protocolson muscular strength andendurance development in

children. Pediatrics. 104(1):e5. 1999.

7. Fry, A.C., W.J. Kraemer, C.A.Weseman, B.P. Conroy, S.E.Gordon, J.R. Hoffman, andC.M. Maresh. The effects of

an off-season strength andconditioning program onstarters and non-starters in

womens intercollegiate vol-leyball.J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res.5:174181. 1992.

8. Hakkinen, K., and P.V. Komi.Changes in electrical andmechanical behaviour of legextensor muscles duringheavy resistance strengthtraining. Scand. J. Sport Sci.7:5564. 1985.

9. Hetzler, R.K., C. DeRenne,B.P. Buxton, K.W. Ho, D.X.Chai, and G. Seichi. Effectsof 12 weeks of strength train-ing on anaerobic power inprepubescent male athletes.J. Strength Cond. Res. 11(3):174181. 1997.

10. Hoff, J., and B. Almasbakk.The effects of maximumstrength training on throwing

velocity and muscle strength

in female team-handballplayers. J. Strength Cond.Res. 9(4):255258. 1995.

11. Hortobagyi T., F.I. Katch, andP.F. Lachance. Effects of si-multaneous training forstrength and endurance onupper and lower bodystrength and running perfor-mance.J. Sports Med. Phys.Fitn. 31(1):2030. 1991.

12. Jensen, C.R. Effects of fivetraining combinations of

swimming and weight train-ing on the swimming of thefront crawl. Res. Q. 34:471477. 1963.

13. Johnson, R.E., T.J. Quinn, R.Kertzer, and N.B. Vroman.Strength training in femaledistance runners: Impact onrunning economy.J. Strength


10/13


Cond. Res. 11:224229.1997.

14. Jozsi, A.C., W.W. Campbell,L. Joseph, S.L. Davey, and

W.J. Evans. Changes inpower with resistance train-

ing in older and younger menand women. J. Gerontol. ABiol. Sci. Med. Sci. 54(11):M591M596. 1999.

15. Lachowetz, T., J. Evon, andJ. Pastiglione. The effect ofan upper body strength pro-gram on intercollegiate base-

ball throwing velocity. J.Strength Cond. Res. 12(2):116119. 1998.

16. Logan, G.A., W.C. McKinney,and W. Rowe. Effect of resis-

tance through a throwingrange of motion on the veloc-ity of a baseball. Percept. Mot.Skills. 23:5558. 1966.

17. McCaw, S.T., and J.J. Friday.A comparison of muscle ac-tivity between a free weightand machine bench press.J.Strength Cond. Res. 8(4):259264. 1994.

18. Newton, R.U., and K.P.McEvoy. Baseball throwing

velocity: A comparison ofmedicine ball training andweight training. J. StrengthCond. Res. 8(3):198203.1994.

19. Pipes, R.V., and J.H.Wilmore. Isokinetic vs. iso-tonic strength training inadult men. Med. Sci. Sports.7:262274. 1975.

20. Richardson, T. Program de-sign: Circuit training with ex-ercise machines. Natl.

Strength Cond. Assoc. J.15(5):1819. 1993.

21. Roundtable: Circuit Training.Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J.12(2):1627. 1990.

22. Roundtable: Circuit Train-ingPart II. Natl. StrengthCond. Assoc. J. 12(3):1021.1990.

23. Sale, D.G. Neural adaptationto resistance training. Med.Sci. Sports Exerc. 20(5):S135S145. 1988.

24. Silvester, L., C. Stiggins, C.McGowan, and G. Bryce. The

effect of variable resistanceand free-weight training pro-grams on strength and verti-cal jump. Natl. StrengthCond. Assoc. J. 3(6):3033.1982.

25. Stanforth, P.R., R.L. Painter,and J.H. Wilmore. Alter-ations in concentric strengthconsequent to Powercise andUniversal Gym circuit train-ing. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res.6(4):249255. 1992.

26. Starkey, D.B., M.L. Pollock,Y. Ishida, M.A. Welsch, W.F.Brechue, J.E. Graves, andM.S. Feigenbaum. Effect ofresistance training volumeon strength and musclethickness. Med. Sci. SportsExerc. 28(10):13111320.1996.

27. Thomas T.R., and M.B. Rid-der. Resistance exercise pro-gram effects on abdominal

function and physique. J.Sports Med. Phys. Fitn. 29(1):4548. 1989.

28. Voigt M., and K. Klausen.Changes in muscle strengthand speed of an unloadedmovement after varioustraining programmes. Eur. J.Appl. Physiol. 60(5):370376.1990.

29. Wenzel, R.R., E.M. Perfetto.The effect of speed versus no-speed training in power de-

velopment.J. Appl. Sport Sci.Res. 6(2):8287. 1992.

30. Wilson, G., R. Newton, A.Murphy, and B. Humphries.

The optimal training load forthe development of dynamicathletic performance. Med.Sci. Sports Exerc. 23:12791286. 1993.

For Carpinelli1. Colliander, E.B., and P.A

Tesch. Effects of eccentricand concentric muscle actions in resistance trainingActa Physiol. Scand. 140:31

39. 1990.2. Colliander, E.B., and P.A

Tesch. Responses to eccentric and concentric resistance training in males andfemales.Acta Physiol. Scand141:149156. 1990.

3. Dudley, G.A., P.A. Tesch, B.JMiller, and P. Buchanan. Importance of eccentric actionsin performance adaptationsto resistance training.AviatSpace Environ. Med. 62:543

550. 1991.4. Garhammer, J. Free weigh

equipment for the development of athletic strength andpowerpart I. Natl. StrengthCond. Assoc. J. 3(6):242633. 1981.

5. Hather, B.M., P.A. Tesch, PBuchanan, and G.A. DudleyInfluence of eccentric actionson skeletal muscle adapta-tions to resistance training

Acta Physiol. Scand. 143:177185. 1991.6. Lombardi, V.P., and R.K

Troxel. 1998 U.S. weightraining injuries & deathsMed. Sci. Sports Exerc. 32(5Suppl.):S346. 2000.

7. OShea, P. Scientific Principles Methods of Strength Fitness. Reading, MA: Addison

Wesley, 1969.8. OShea, P. Quantum Strength

& Power Training. Corvallis

OR: Patricks Books, 1995.9. OShea, P. Toward an understanding of power. StrengthCond. J. 1:3435. 1999.

10. Silvester, L.J., C. Stiggins, CMcGawen, and G.R. Bryce

The effect of variable resistance and free-weight training programs on strength


11/13


and vertical jump. Natl.Strength Cond. Assoc. J.3(6):3033. 1981.

11. Stone, M.H., R.L. Johnson,D.R. Carter, and R. Byrd. Ashortterm comparison of

two different methods of re-sistance training on legstrength and power. Athl.Train. 14:158160. 1979.

12. Stone, M.H. Considerationsin gaining a strengthpowertraining effect (machines vs.free weights). Natl. StrengthCond. Assoc. J. 4(1):2224,54. 1982.

13. Wathen, D.A. A comparisonof the effects of selected iso-tonic and isokinetic exercis-

es, modalities and programson the vertical jump in col-lege football players. Natl.Strength Cond. Assoc. J.2(5):4648. 1980.

14. Wathen, D.A., and M. Shutes.A comparison of the effects ofselected isotonic and isoki-netic exercises, modalities,and programs on the acquisi-tion of strength and power incollegiate football players.

Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J.4(1):4042. 1982.For Wathen

1. Abernathy, P.J., and J. Juri-mae. Cross-sectional andlongitudinal uses of isoiner-tial. Isometric and isokineticdynamometry. Med. Sci.Sports Exerc. 28(9):11801187. 1996.

2. Bauer, T., R. Thayer, and G.Baras. Comparison of train-ing modalities for power de-

velopment in the lower ex-tremity. J. Strength Cond.Res. 4(4):115121. 1990.

3. Dintiman, G.B. Effects of var-ious training programs onrunning speed. Res. Q.35:456463. 1964.

4. Fry, A.C., D.R. Powell, andW.J. Kraemer. Validity of iso-

metric testing modalities forassessing short-term resis-tance exercise strengthgains. J. Sport Rehabil.1:275283. 1992.

5. Hoff, J., and B.L. Almaabakk.

The effects of maximalstrength training on throwing

velocity and muscle strengthin female team handball play-ers. J. Strength Cond. Res.9(4):255258. 1995.

6. Lachovetz, T., J. Evan, and J.Pastiglione. The effect of anupper body strength programon inter-collegiate baseballthrowing velocity.J. StrengthCond. Res. 12(2): 116119.1998.

7. Logan, G.A., W.C. McKinney,and W. Rowe. Effect of resis-tance through a throwingrange of motion on the veloc-ity of a baseball. Percept. Mot.Skills. 23:5558. 1966.

8. McEvoy, K.P., and R.U. New-ton. Baseball throwing speedand base running speed: Theeffects of ballistic resistancetraining. J. Strength Cond.Res. 12(4):216221. 1998.

9. Rasch, P.J., and L.E. More-house. Effect of static anddynamic exercises on mus-cular strength and hypertro-phy.J. Appl. Physiol. 11:2934. 1957.

10. Stone M.H., D.C. Collins, S.Plisk, G. Haff, and M.E.Stone. Training principles:Evaluation of modes andmethods of resistance train-ing. Strength Cond. 22(4):6576. 2000.

11. Stone, M.H., R.L. Johnson,D.R. Carter, and R.Byrd. Ashort term comparison of twodifferent methods of resis-tance training. on legstrength and power. Athl.Train. 14:158160. 1979.

12. Wathen, D., and M. Shutes.A comparison of the effects of

selected isotonic and isoki-netic exercises, modalitiesand programs on the acquisi-tion of strength and power incollegiate football players.Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J.

4(1):4042. 1982.

For Stone1. Abernathy, P.J., and J. Juri-

mae. Cross-sectional andlongitudinal uses of isoiner-tial. Isometric and isokineticdynamometry. Med. Sci.Sports Exerc. 28:11801187.1996.

2. Anderson, R.E., D.L. Mont-gomery, and R.A. Turcotte.

An on-site battery to evaluate

giant slalom skiing perfor-mance. J. Sport Med. Phys.Fitn. 30(3):276282. 1990.

3. Augustsson, J., A. Esko, R.Thomes, and U. Svantsson.Weight training the thighmuscles using closed versusopen kinetic chain exercises:

A comparison of performanceenhancement. J. Orthop.Sports Med. Phys. Ther. 27(1):38. 1998.

4. Barker, M., T. Wyatt, R.L.Johnson, M.H. Stone, H.S.OBryant, C. Poe, and M.Kent. Performance factors,psychological factors, physi-cal characteristics and foot-

ball playing ability. J.Strength Cond. Res. 7(4):224233. 1993.

5. Bauer, T., R.E. Thayer, andG. Baras. Comparison oftraining modalities for powerdevelopment in the lower ex-

tremity. J. Appl. Sports Sci.Res. 4(4):115121. 1990.

6. Behm, D.G. Neuromuscularimplications and applicationsof resistance training. J.Strength Cond. Res. 9(4):264274. 1995.

7. Brill, P.A., J.C. Probst, D.L.Greenhouse, B. Schell, and


12/13


C.A. Macera. Clinical feasibil-ity of a free-weight strength-training program for olderadults. J. Am. Board Fam.Pract. 11(6):445451. 1998.

8. Brindell, G. Efficacy of three

different resistance trainingmodes on performance andphysical characteristics in

young women. Masters the-sis, Appalachian State Uni-

versity. 1999.9. Cable, L., and C.J. Zebas. Re-

sistive torque validation ofthe nautilus multi-bicepsmachine. J. Strength Cond.Res. 13:2023. 1999.

10. Canavan, P.K., G.E. Garret,and L.E. Armstrong. Kine-

matic and kinetic relation-ships between an Olympic-style lift and the vertical

jump.J. Strength Cond. Res.10(2):127130. 1996.

11. Drabik, J. Children SportsTraining. Island Pond, VT:Stadion Publishing Co., 1996.pp. 6791.

12. Fry, A.C., D.R. Powell, andW.J. Kraemer. Validity of iso-metric testing modalities for

assessing short-term resis-tance exercise strength gains.J. Sport Rehabil. 1:275283.1992.

13. Garhammer, J. Equipmentfor the development of athlet-ic strength and power. Natl.Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 3(6):2426. 1981.

14. Harre, D., ed. Principles OfSports Training. Berlin:Sportverlag, 1982.

15. Jesse, C., D. McGee, J. Gib-

son, M. Stone, and J.Williams. A comparison ofNautilus and free weighttraining [abstract]. J. ApplSports Sci. Res. 2:59. 1988.

16. Knapik, J., J.E. Wright, R.H.Mawsdley, and M.U. Ramos.Isokinetic, isometric, and iso-tonic strength relationships.

Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil.64:7780. 1983.

17. McBride, J., T. Triplett-McBride, A. Davie, and R.U.Newton. A comparison ofstrength and power charac-

teristics between powerlifters, Olympic lifters andsprinters. J. Strength Cond.Res. 13:5866. 1999.

18. Messier, S.P., and M.E. alter-ations in strength and maxi-mal oxygen uptake conse-quent to Nautilus circuit

weight training. Res. Q. 56(4):345351. 1985.

19. Requa, R.K., L.N. DeAvilla,and J.G. Garrick. Injuries inrecreational adult fitness ac-

tivities. Am. J. Sports Med.2(3):461467. 1993.

20. Rutherford, O.M., and D.A.Jones. The role of learningand coordination in strengthtraining. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.55:100105. 1986.

21. Sale, D.G. Neural adapta-tions to resistance training.Med. Sci. Sport Exerc. 20:S135S145. 1988.

22. Saunders, M.T. A comparison

of training on the develop-ment of muscular strengthand endurance.J. Orthopaed.Sport Phys. Ther. 210213.1980.

23. Silvester, L.J., C. Stiggins, C.McGowen, and G.R. Bryce.

The effect of variable resis-tance and free weight train-ing programs on strengthand vertical jump. Natl.Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 3(6):3033. 1982.

24. Stone, M.H., R. Byrd, J. Tew,and M. Wood. Relationship ofanaerobic power andOlympic weightlifting perfor-mance.J. Sports Med. Phys.Fitn. 20:99102. 1980.

25. Stone M.H., D.C. Collins, S.Plisk, G. Haff, and M.E.Stone. Training principles:

Evaluation of modes andmethods of resistance train-ing. Strength Cond. 22(4):6576. 2000.

26. Stone, M.H., R.L. JohnsonD.R. Carter, and R. Byrd. A

short term comparison of twodifferent methods of resis-tance training. on legstrength and power. AthlTrain. 14:158160. 1979.

27. Thissen-Milder, M., and J.LMayhew. Selection and clas-sification of high school vol-leyball players from performance tests. J. Sports MedPhys. Fitn. 31(3):3803841991.

28. Wathen, D. A comparison o

the effects of selected isoton-ic and isokinetic exercisesmodalities and programs onthe vertical jump. NatlStrength Cond. Assoc. J. 24748. 1980.

29. Wathen, D., and M. ShutesA comparison of the effects oselected isotonic and isoki-netic exercises, modalitiesand programs on the acquisi-tion of strength and power in

collegiate football playersNatl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J4(1):4042. 1982.

Haff

Roundtable Editor:G. Gregory Haff, PhD, CSCS, isan assistant professor in theHealth, Leisure, and Exercise Sci-ence Department at Appalachian


13/13


State University. He is the currentdirector of the ASU Neuromuscu-lar Laboratory Committee. He re-ceived his PhD from the Universityof Kansas after mentoring underMike Stone at Appalachian State

University where he received hisM.S. He is a member of the NSCAsResearch Committee and the USA

Weightliftings Sport Science andSports Medicine Committees.

Participants:Ralph N. Carpinelli, EdD, teach-es in the Department of Health,Physical Education, and HumanPerformance Science at AdelphiUniversity, NY. He received a Mas-

ters degree (M.A.) in exercisephysiology from Adelphi Universi-ty. Additionally, he earned a Mas-ters (Ed.M.) and doctorate degrees(Ed.D.) in applied physiology fromColumbia University.

Everett Harman, PhD CSCS, is aresearch physiologist and head ofthe biomechanics laboratory atthe U.S. Army Research Instituteof Environmental Medicine in Nat-ick, Massachusetts, where he has

conducted several studies inhuman performance, strengthtraining, and physical condition-ing. He has served the NSCA as

Vice President for Research, Asso-ciate Editor of the Journal ofStrength and Conditioning Re-search, and author of 3 chaptersin the latest edition of the textbookEssentials of Strength Trainingand Conditioning.

Mike Stone, PhD, is currently a

professor of Sports Science at Ed-inburgh University, Edinburgh,Scotland. He was previously a pro-fessor of Exercise Science at Ap-palachian State University. Sincereceiving his Ph.D. from Florida

State University, he has worked asa professor at Louisiana State Uni-

versity and Auburn University.His primary research interestsconcern the physiological and per-formance adaptations to strength

and power training.

Dan Wathen, ATC, CSCS, NSCA-CPT, has been head athletic train-er and Strength & ConditioningSupervisor at Youngstown StateUniversity since 1976. He receivedhis undergraduate degree fromthe University of Kentucky and hismasters degree from Eastern Ken-tucky University. In 1989 he wasnamed NSCA Strength Coach ofthe Year and received the Lifetime

Achievement Award from NSCA in1996. He is immediate past presi-dent of the NSCA.

machinesfreeweights.pdf

Documents