A Comparison of Machine versus Free-Weight Squats for the Enhancement of Lower-Body Power, Speed, and Change-of-Direction Ability during an Initial Training Phase of Recreationally-Active Women

Adaptations in athletic performance and muscle architecture are not meaningfully conditioned by training free-weight versus machine-based exercises: Challenging a traditional assumption using the velocity-based method

BACKGROUND

Although the superior effectiveness of free-weight over machine-based training has been a traditionally widespread assumption, longitudinal studies comparing these training modalities were scarce and heterogeneous.

OBJECTIVE

This research used the velocity-based method to compare the effects of free-weight and machine-based resistance training on athletic performance and muscle architecture.

METHODS

Thirty-four resistance-trained men participated in an 8-week resistance training program allocated into free-weight (n = 17) or machine-based (n = 17) groups. Training variables (intensity, intraset fatigue, and recovery) were identical for both groups, so they only differed in the use of a barbell or specific machines to execute the full squat, bench press, prone bench pull, and shoulder press exercises. The velocity-based method was implemented to accurately adjust the planned intensity. Analysis of covariance and effect size (ES) statistics were used to compare both training modalities on a comprehensive set of athletic and muscle architecture parameters.

RESULTS

No between-group differences were found for any athletic (p ≥ 0.146) and muscle architecture (p ≥ 0.184) variable. Both training modalities significantly and similarly improved vertical jump (Free-weight: ES ≥ 0.45, p ≤ 0.001; Machine-based: ES ≥ 0.41, p ≤ 0.001) and lower limb anaerobic capacity (Free-weight: ES ≥ 0.39, p ≤ 0.007; Machine-based: ES ≥ 0.31, p ≤ 0.003). Additionally, the machine-based group meaningfully enhanced upper limb anaerobic power (ES = 0.41, p = 0.021), whereas the free-weight group significantly improved the change of direction (ES = -0.54, p = 0.003) and 2/6 balance conditions analyzed (p ≤ 0.012). Changes in sprint capacity (ES ≥ -0.13, p ≥ 0.274), fascicle length, and pennation angle (ES ≤ 0.19, p ≥ 0.129) were not significant for either training modality.

CONCLUSION

Adaptations in athletic performance and muscle architecture would not be meaningfully influenced by the resistance modality trained.

Effect of free-weight vs. machine-based strength training on maximal strength, hypertrophy and jump performance - a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of strength training with free-weight vs. machine equipment is heavily debated. Thus, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to summarize the data on the effect of free-weight versus machine-based strength training on maximal strength, jump height and hypertrophy.

METHODS

The review was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the systematic search of literature was conducted up to January 1st, 2023. Studies that directly compared free-weight vs. machine-based strength training for a minimum of 6 weeks in adults (18-60 yrs.) were included.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies (outcomes: maximal strength [n = 12], jump performance [n = 5], muscle hypertrophy [n = 5]) with a total sample of 1016 participants (789 men, 219 women) were included. Strength in free-weight tests increased significantly more with free-weight training than with machines (SMD: -0.210, CI: -0.391, -0.029, p = 0.023), while strength in machine-based tests tended to increase more with machine training than with free-weights (SMD: 0.291, CI: -0.017, 0.600, p = 0.064). However, no differences were found between modalities in direct comparison (free-weight strength vs. machine strength) for dynamic strength (SMD: 0.084, CI: -0.106, 0.273, p = 0.387), isometric strength (SMD: -0.079, CI: -0.432, 0.273, p = 0.660), countermovement jump (SMD: -0.209, CI: -0.597, 0.179, p = 0.290) and hypertrophy (SMD: -0.055, CI: -0.397, 0.287, p = 0.751).

CONCLUSION

No differences were detected in the direct comparison of strength, jump performance and muscle hypertrophy. Current body of evidence indicates that strength changes are specific to the training modality, and the choice between free-weights and machines are down to individual preferences and goals.

Training to Improve Pro-Agility Performance: A Systematic Review

Effective directional change in sport is imperative to success in key game situations. Change of direction (COD) ability is underpinned by various athletic qualities which can be developed through specific and non-specific training methods. This review examined the effect of specific and non-specific training methods on pro-agility performance, by analysing the intervention type and resulting magnitude of training effects on pro-agility shuttle performance. A total of 20 studies were included for review. Data from 638 subjects and 29 intervention groups involving seven different training methods were extracted and analysed in relation to training method classification and primary outcome measures. Interventions involving sprint training, plyometric training, resistance training, and combined resistance, plyometric, and sprint training were found to produce statistically significant positive change on pro-agility performance per session (p < 0.05). Sprint training (0.108 ES), plyometric training (0.092 ES), resistance training (0.087 ES), and combined resistance, plyometric, and sprint training (0.078 ES) methods were found to have the highest per session training effect. While total time is the typical unit of measure for this test, different types of training may lead to preferential improvements in either acceleration, deceleration, or COD phases of the pro-agility shuttle. Specifically, resisted or inclined sprinting may develop the linear acceleration phases, unilateral resistance training may promote increased strength to overcome the imposed forces during the deceleration and COD phases, multiplanar plyometrics can help enhance stretch-shortening cycle capabilities across different force vectors, and a combination of two or more of these methods may enable simultaneous development of each of these qualities.

Machines and free weight exercises: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing changes in muscle size, strength, and power

INTRODUCTION

To compare changes in muscle size, strength, and power between free-weight and machine-based exercises.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The online databases of Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science were each searched using the following terms: ""free weights" OR barbells OR dumbbells AND machines" up until September 15, 2020. A three-level random effects meta-analytic model was used to compute effect sizes.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

When strength was tested using a free-weight exercise, individuals training with free-weights gained more strength than those training with machines [ES: 0.655; (95% CI: 0.269, 1.041)]. When strength was tested a machine-based exercise incorporated as part of the machine-based training program, individuals training with machines gained more strength than those training with free-weights [ES: -0.784 (95% CI: -1.223, -0.344)]. When strength was tested using a neutral device, machines and free-weight exercises resulted in similar strength gains [ES: 0.128 (95% CI: -0303, 0.559)]. There were no differences in the change in power [ES: -0.049 (95% CI: -0.557, 0.460)] or muscle hypertrophy [ES: -0.01 (95% CI: -0.525, 0.545)] between exercise modes.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals looking to increase strength and power should take into account the specificity of exercise, and how their strength and power will be tested and applied. Individuals looking to increase general strength and muscle mass to maintain health may choose whichever activity they prefer and are more likely to adhere to.

Using Machines or Free Weights for Resistance Training in Novice Males? A Randomized Parallel Trial

This study compared the effect of a resistance training (RT) program with machines, free weights, or a combination of both on changes in anthropometrics, strength, and functional ability in novice adult males. Thirty-six male novices in RT (18–45 years) followed a 10-week RT program. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups (N = 12 each): machines only; free weights only; or switching from machines to free weights (after 5 weeks). Muscle size (circumferences of upper arm, thigh and chest), strength (1 Repetition Maximum) on both machines and free weights, and functional ability (Functional Movement Screen^TM (Functional Movement Systems Inc., Chatham, VA, USA)) were assessed prior to the RT program, halfway at 5 weeks, and within one week after the final training bout. Repeated measures MANOVAs showed no significant time by RT group interactions for the different outcome measures. Regardless of RT group, significant improvements over time were observed for anthropometrics (F = 9.144, p < 0.001), strength (F = 6.918, p < 0.001), and functional ability (F = 25.578, p < 0.001). To conclude, similar gains in muscularity, strength, and functional ability can be expected for male novices in RT regardless of the equipment being used and without a fallback when changing from machines to free weights. Accordingly, any choice of RT equipment can be made, considering individual preferences.