Hammerstrength v free weights



"gman99" <[email protected]> wrote:
>gman99 wrote:
>> Peter Allen wrote:
>> > "gman99" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> Has anyone or is there information that would convert the weight on a
>> hammerstrength flat bench to that of a free weight bench ??
>> For example, if I bench 200lbs on a hammerstrength bench what would
>> that be in free weight barbell bench ? I know, I could bring out the
>> scale but there isn't one at the gym that's easily moved.
>> >
>> > long answer:
>> >
>> > Assuming you mean the machine thingy,
>>
>> ?? Is that the technical term ?? No, that would be a universal...I'm
>> talking about a specific piece of equipment which allows you to add
>> plates. It is a regular flat bench but has the weights added to an
>> arm that you lift.
>
>http://us.commercial.lifefitness.com/content.cfm/iso-lateralhorizontalbenchpress
>
>Perhaps someone in the scientific world can help more easily...

Your indignation is laughable.
--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net
 
"gman99" wrote

>> You are still an idiot.
>
> Fruit of the looms a little too tight ??
>
>> There is NO comparison between the two.
>
> The WEIGHT you moron...ALL I asked was about the WEIGHT....there IS a
> comparison...ok...so stabilizers are not being used...the CHEST muscle
> must still contract to move the weight....the question, apparently not
> clearly enough asked, was am I pushing the same amount if weight...am I
> losing anything in the mechanical load on the Hammer Strength bench ??
>
> Well then DO NOT ANSWER the post if you're upset or otherwise
> miffed...I don't want to hear from you if all you have is this ****...

Oh, the irony.

And anybody with four or five functional brain cells doesn't give a ****
about a comparison between the two.

But you didn't get that part, did you?

Carry on....

Pretend that life is meaningful....




>
 
Jim Ranieri wrote:
> "gman99" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > >
> > > If I'm interpreting the picture correctly, it looks like the x
> > distance from
> > > the fulcrum to the weight is about 20" or so, and the distance
from
> > the
> > > fulcrum to the handle is maybe 32-34" - so there is a definite
> > mechanical
> > > advantage to the machine.
> >
> > I don't think that picture does justice...the weight is actuall
forward
> > of the halfway point...the weight is perhaps 30" from the fulcrum
and
> > only about 14-16" from the handle...
> >
>
> If the weight were situated directly over your hands - there would be
no
> mech. advantage. The closer it moves to the fulcrum, the greater the
> mechanical advantage.
>
> To make that arm rotate on the fulcrum pin, you have to generate more
torque
> (ft-lbs) than the weight is providing. So, 100 lbs located 2 feet
from the
> pivot pin is 200 ft-lbs, if you are pressing from a lever arm 3 ft
long, you
> need only apply 67lbs to generate the same amount of torque. Capeesh?

Gotcha....what's the formula ? Is it that simple....
A = distance between weight and fulcrum
B = distance between weight and handle

tourque = (A / A+B) * weight ??
 

> Oh, the irony.
>
> And anybody with four or five functional brain cells doesn't give a
****
> about a comparison between the two.
>
> But you didn't get that part, did you?

I didn't ask your opinion **** for brains...I asked a simple question
but you just HAD to rub your two brain cells together and pipe
in...well pipe down and mind your own business.
 
"gman99" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>> Oh, the irony.
>>
>> And anybody with four or five functional brain cells doesn't give a
> ****
>> about a comparison between the two.
>>
>> But you didn't get that part, did you?
>
> I didn't ask your opinion **** for brains...I asked a simple question
> but you just HAD to rub your two brain cells together and pipe
> in...well pipe down and mind your own business.
>

I think we can safely assume that IOM doesn't understand the meaning of the
word irony.
 
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "gman99" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >> Oh, the irony.
> >>
> >> And anybody with four or five functional brain cells doesn't give
a
> > ****
> >> about a comparison between the two.
> >>
> >> But you didn't get that part, did you?
> >
> > I didn't ask your opinion **** for brains...I asked a simple
question
> > but you just HAD to rub your two brain cells together and pipe
> > in...well pipe down and mind your own business.
> >
>
> I think we can safely assume that IOM doesn't understand the meaning
of the
> word irony.

Ooooooh....boooo hooooo...you hurt my feelings. Look DFB...I'm CERTAIN
I am far more intelligent than you'll ever hope to be. I don't mind
'cause you don't matter....

Again...if you can't answer the simple question, too simple for your
puny brain I guess, then bugger off !
 
"gman99" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Jim Ranieri wrote:
> > "gman99" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If I'm interpreting the picture correctly, it looks like the x
> > > distance from
> > > > the fulcrum to the weight is about 20" or so, and the distance
> from
> > > the
> > > > fulcrum to the handle is maybe 32-34" - so there is a definite
> > > mechanical
> > > > advantage to the machine.
> > >
> > > I don't think that picture does justice...the weight is actuall
> forward
> > > of the halfway point...the weight is perhaps 30" from the fulcrum
> and
> > > only about 14-16" from the handle...
> > >
> >
> > If the weight were situated directly over your hands - there would be
> no
> > mech. advantage. The closer it moves to the fulcrum, the greater the
> > mechanical advantage.
> >
> > To make that arm rotate on the fulcrum pin, you have to generate more
> torque
> > (ft-lbs) than the weight is providing. So, 100 lbs located 2 feet
> from the
> > pivot pin is 200 ft-lbs, if you are pressing from a lever arm 3 ft
> long, you
> > need only apply 67lbs to generate the same amount of torque. Capeesh?
>
> Gotcha....what's the formula ? Is it that simple....
> A = distance between weight and fulcrum
> B = distance between weight and handle
>
> tourque = (A / A+B) * weight ??
>

T = F * d, where
T = Torque
F = Force ( the force applied perpendicular to the fulcrum pin)

d = Distance

but again, this isn't going to yield a number that will predict your
free-weight bench with a high degree of accuracy
 
"gman99" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Lee Michaels wrote:
> > "gman99" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > >> Oh, the irony.
> > >>
> > >> And anybody with four or five functional brain cells doesn't give
> a
> > > ****
> > >> about a comparison between the two.
> > >>
> > >> But you didn't get that part, did you?
> > >
> > > I didn't ask your opinion **** for brains...I asked a simple
> question
> > > but you just HAD to rub your two brain cells together and pipe
> > > in...well pipe down and mind your own business.
> > >
> >
> > I think we can safely assume that IOM doesn't understand the meaning
> of the
> > word irony.
>
> Ooooooh....boooo hooooo...you hurt my feelings. Look DFB...I'm CERTAIN
> I am far more intelligent than you'll ever hope to be. I don't mind
> 'cause you don't matter....
>
> Again...if you can't answer the simple question, too simple for your
> puny brain I guess, then bugger off !

Exactly. (He's not the sharpest tool in the shed.)
 
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "gman99" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Has anyone or is there information that would convert the weight on a
>>hammerstrength flat bench to that of a free weight bench ??

Seing people use those hammer strength mahcines at the gym, i figured
they are designed so that an average person can stack a decent pile of
plates on them and lift it. Thus making the person feel better about
them selves, and then people start liking the hammer machine causes it
makes them feel strong. I mean, look at all those plates they are moving.

Those machines are all BS and take up too much room. This is why there
is no room to do cleans or deadlifts in my gym and they make you do them
in the cage, which you have to wait on as we all know.

--Falooley
 
"David Cohen" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> "Kevin J. Coolidge" <[email protected]> wrote
>> "ATP*" <[email protected]> wrote
>>> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote
>>>> "gman99" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> Has anyone or is there information that would convert the weight on
>>>>> a hammerstrength flat bench to that of a free weight bench ??
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, if I bench 200lbs on a hammerstrength bench what would
>>>>> that be in free weight barbell bench ? I know, I could bring out the
>>>>> scale but there isn't one at the gym that's easily moved.
>>>>>
>>>> When Arthur Jones' son (Gary) designed these things, he was the first
>>>> to put curved and complex shaped gym equipment pieces into a box for
>>>> shipping and assembly. He was also conscious of how much floor space
>>>> each machine took up.
>>>>
>>>> Translation?? He used short lever arms. Which, as far as I am
>>>> concerned, a great flaw in his design. This requires HUGE amounts of
>>>> weights. Expecially if you are strong.
>>> Not sure what you mean here. You must be referring to the distance
>>> from the plates to the fulcrum?
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, there is NO relationship between what yo can lift on a
>>>> hammerstrength machine and what you can lift in the real world. Many
>>>> people have discovered this on their own.
>>>>
>>> But they use real plates! So it's obviously better than a machine that
>>> uses rectangular weights and pins:)
>
>> how?
>
> Plates, being round, are a more fundamentally basic shape than
> rectangular weights in a stack.
>
> Spherical weights would be even better.
>

Comrade!

Hugh


--
Run like hell and let the clowns deal with the bull.
 
"Bob Falooley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lee Michaels wrote:
> > "gman99" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>Has anyone or is there information that would convert the weight on a
> >>hammerstrength flat bench to that of a free weight bench ??
>
> Seing people use those hammer strength mahcines at the gym, i figured
> they are designed so that an average person can stack a decent pile of
> plates on them and lift it. Thus making the person feel better about
> them selves, and then people start liking the hammer machine causes it
> makes them feel strong. I mean, look at all those plates they are moving.
>
> Those machines are all BS and take up too much room. This is why there
> is no room to do cleans or deadlifts in my gym and they make you do them
> in the cage, which you have to wait on as we all know.
>

Our 'community center' (where I don't workout) has no free weights, just
machines like this. I presume it's because some ignorant insurance carrier
convinced the board that the liability of free weights is too great. Too
bad, the place is cheap and close to my house.
 
"gman99" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Jim Ranieri wrote:
>> "gman99" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > >
>> > > If I'm interpreting the picture correctly, it looks like the x
>> > distance from
>> > > the fulcrum to the weight is about 20" or so, and the distance
> from
>> > the
>> > > fulcrum to the handle is maybe 32-34" - so there is a definite
>> > mechanical
>> > > advantage to the machine.
>> >
>> > I don't think that picture does justice...the weight is actuall
> forward
>> > of the halfway point...the weight is perhaps 30" from the fulcrum
> and
>> > only about 14-16" from the handle...
>> >
>>
>> If the weight were situated directly over your hands - there would be
> no
>> mech. advantage. The closer it moves to the fulcrum, the greater the
>> mechanical advantage.
>>
>> To make that arm rotate on the fulcrum pin, you have to generate more
> torque
>> (ft-lbs) than the weight is providing. So, 100 lbs located 2 feet
> from the
>> pivot pin is 200 ft-lbs, if you are pressing from a lever arm 3 ft
> long, you
>> need only apply 67lbs to generate the same amount of torque. Capeesh?
>
> Gotcha....what's the formula ? Is it that simple....
> A = distance between weight and fulcrum
> B = distance between weight and handle
>
> tourque = (A / A+B) * weight ??

Torque = weight * A. You don't care about the torque, but it's how you
calculate the effective weight.

Effective weight for you = formula you gave, although there will be some
issues with what happens when the bar isn't dead horizontal (if you push
perpendicular to the bar then effective weight will decrease the further you
are from horizontal, if you really do push vertical it's accurate).

If you want to be told you're right you would be best to post to a support
group, if you want accurate answers post here and you'll get some, but have
the decency to accept them even when they aren't to your liking.

Peter
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"gman99" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hobbes wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "gman99" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Has anyone or is there information that would convert the weight on
> a
> > > hammerstrength flat bench to that of a free weight bench ??
> > >
> > > For example, if I bench 200lbs on a hammerstrength bench what would
> > > that be in free weight barbell bench ? I know, I could bring out
> the
> > > scale but there isn't one at the gym that's easily moved.
> >
> > It doesn't convert. Depends on the person, experience, etc.
>
> Why ?? I should be able to simply stick a scale underneath (if I had
> one) and weigh it. As long as the weight arm (lever) angle stays below
> the fulcrum the weight shouldn't change (if I remember my physics
> correctly).

Your physics are okay - your biomechanics are screwed. No stabilization
involved in the free weight bench.
 
In article <[email protected]>, "Jim Ranieri" <nah,> wrote:

> "gman99" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Jim Ranieri wrote:
> > > "gman99" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If I'm interpreting the picture correctly, it looks like the x
> > > > distance from
> > > > > the fulcrum to the weight is about 20" or so, and the distance
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > > fulcrum to the handle is maybe 32-34" - so there is a definite
> > > > mechanical
> > > > > advantage to the machine.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think that picture does justice...the weight is actuall
> > forward
> > > > of the halfway point...the weight is perhaps 30" from the fulcrum
> > and
> > > > only about 14-16" from the handle...
> > > >
> > >
> > > If the weight were situated directly over your hands - there would be
> > no
> > > mech. advantage. The closer it moves to the fulcrum, the greater the
> > > mechanical advantage.
> > >
> > > To make that arm rotate on the fulcrum pin, you have to generate more
> > torque
> > > (ft-lbs) than the weight is providing. So, 100 lbs located 2 feet
> > from the
> > > pivot pin is 200 ft-lbs, if you are pressing from a lever arm 3 ft
> > long, you
> > > need only apply 67lbs to generate the same amount of torque. Capeesh?
> >
> > Gotcha....what's the formula ? Is it that simple....
> > A = distance between weight and fulcrum
> > B = distance between weight and handle
> >
> > tourque = (A / A+B) * weight ??
> >
>
> T = F * d, where
> T = Torque
> F = Force ( the force applied perpendicular to the fulcrum pin)
>
> d = Distance
>
> but again, this isn't going to yield a number that will predict your
> free-weight bench with a high degree of accuracy

Yeah, that is the correct measurement for torgue.

However, how the person is built and where they sit on the bench can also
affect the leverage (your F from the person). In short - with a machine
you can change the force perpendicular as well as the moment arm.
 
"Hobbes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:khobman800-2102051634020001@localhost...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "gman99" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hobbes wrote:
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > "gman99" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Has anyone or is there information that would convert the weight on
>> a
>> > > hammerstrength flat bench to that of a free weight bench ??
>> > >
>> > > For example, if I bench 200lbs on a hammerstrength bench what would
>> > > that be in free weight barbell bench ? I know, I could bring out
>> the
>> > > scale but there isn't one at the gym that's easily moved.
>> >
>> > It doesn't convert. Depends on the person, experience, etc.
>>
>> Why ?? I should be able to simply stick a scale underneath (if I had
>> one) and weigh it. As long as the weight arm (lever) angle stays below
>> the fulcrum the weight shouldn't change (if I remember my physics
>> correctly).
>
> Your physics are okay - your biomechanics are screwed. No stabilization
> involved in the free weight bench.

His physics is wrong as well. The machine is a lever. There is a mechanical
advantage involved.
 
In article <[email protected]>, "ATP*" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Hobbes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:khobman800-2102051634020001@localhost...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "gman99" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hobbes wrote:
> >> > In article <[email protected]>,
> >> > "gman99" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Has anyone or is there information that would convert the weight on
> >> a
> >> > > hammerstrength flat bench to that of a free weight bench ??
> >> > >
> >> > > For example, if I bench 200lbs on a hammerstrength bench what would
> >> > > that be in free weight barbell bench ? I know, I could bring out
> >> the
> >> > > scale but there isn't one at the gym that's easily moved.
> >> >
> >> > It doesn't convert. Depends on the person, experience, etc.
> >>
> >> Why ?? I should be able to simply stick a scale underneath (if I had
> >> one) and weigh it. As long as the weight arm (lever) angle stays below
> >> the fulcrum the weight shouldn't change (if I remember my physics
> >> correctly).
> >
> > Your physics are okay - your biomechanics are screwed. No stabilization
> > involved in the free weight bench.
>
> His physics is wrong as well. The machine is a lever. There is a mechanical
> advantage involved.

Right. I'm not that familiar with the Hammer equipment - but I'll go look
at it on Wednesday.
 
"Hobbes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:khobman800-2102051646180001@localhost...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Jim Ranieri" <nah,>
wrote:
>
> > "gman99" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > Jim Ranieri wrote:
> > > > "gman99" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If I'm interpreting the picture correctly, it looks like the x
> > > > > distance from
> > > > > > the fulcrum to the weight is about 20" or so, and the distance
> > > from
> > > > > the
> > > > > > fulcrum to the handle is maybe 32-34" - so there is a definite
> > > > > mechanical
> > > > > > advantage to the machine.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think that picture does justice...the weight is actuall
> > > forward
> > > > > of the halfway point...the weight is perhaps 30" from the fulcrum
> > > and
> > > > > only about 14-16" from the handle...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If the weight were situated directly over your hands - there would
be
> > > no
> > > > mech. advantage. The closer it moves to the fulcrum, the greater the
> > > > mechanical advantage.
> > > >
> > > > To make that arm rotate on the fulcrum pin, you have to generate
more
> > > torque
> > > > (ft-lbs) than the weight is providing. So, 100 lbs located 2 feet
> > > from the
> > > > pivot pin is 200 ft-lbs, if you are pressing from a lever arm 3 ft
> > > long, you
> > > > need only apply 67lbs to generate the same amount of torque.
Capeesh?
> > >
> > > Gotcha....what's the formula ? Is it that simple....
> > > A = distance between weight and fulcrum
> > > B = distance between weight and handle
> > >
> > > tourque = (A / A+B) * weight ??
> > >
> >
> > T = F * d, where
> > T = Torque
> > F = Force ( the force applied perpendicular to the fulcrum pin)
> >
> > d = Distance
> >
> > but again, this isn't going to yield a number that will predict your
> > free-weight bench with a high degree of accuracy
>
> Yeah, that is the correct measurement for torgue.
>
> However, how the person is built and where they sit on the bench can also
> affect the leverage (your F from the person). In short - with a machine
> you can change the force perpendicular as well as the moment arm.

I'm not sure if the handle on this thing is fixed or not. If it is fixed,
the only thing that'll change with the lifter's position on the bench is how
efficiently they're able to apply the required force.
 
"Hugh Beyer" <[email protected]> wrote
> "David Cohen" <[email protected]> wrote
>> "Kevin J. Coolidge" <[email protected]> wrote
>>> "ATP*" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote
>>>>> "gman99" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>> Has anyone or is there information that would convert the weight on
>>>>>> a hammerstrength flat bench to that of a free weight bench ??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example, if I bench 200lbs on a hammerstrength bench what would
>>>>>> that be in free weight barbell bench ? I know, I could bring out the
>>>>>> scale but there isn't one at the gym that's easily moved.
>>>>>>
>>>>> When Arthur Jones' son (Gary) designed these things, he was the first
>>>>> to put curved and complex shaped gym equipment pieces into a box for
>>>>> shipping and assembly. He was also conscious of how much floor space
>>>>> each machine took up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Translation?? He used short lever arms. Which, as far as I am
>>>>> concerned, a great flaw in his design. This requires HUGE amounts of
>>>>> weights. Expecially if you are strong.
>>>> Not sure what you mean here. You must be referring to the distance
>>>> from the plates to the fulcrum?
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, there is NO relationship between what yo can lift on a
>>>>> hammerstrength machine and what you can lift in the real world. Many
>>>>> people have discovered this on their own.
>>>>>
>>>> But they use real plates! So it's obviously better than a machine that
>>>> uses rectangular weights and pins:)
>>
>>> how?
>>
>> Plates, being round, are a more fundamentally basic shape than
>> rectangular weights in a stack.
>>
>> Spherical weights would be even better.
>>
> Comrade!

???? ?????? ????? Pavel. ??????????? ?!

David
 
In article <[email protected]>,
gman99 <[email protected]> wrote:
>gman99 wrote:
>> Peter Allen wrote:
>> > "gman99" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> Has anyone or is there information that would convert the weight on a
>> hammerstrength flat bench to that of a free weight bench ??
>> For example, if I bench 200lbs on a hammerstrength bench what would
>> that be in free weight barbell bench ? I know, I could bring out the
>> scale but there isn't one at the gym that's easily moved.

There's no simple conversion because they're different exercises.
Machines in general define a trajectory that you can't deviate from, while
free weights require more work from auxiliary muscles to balance and
support the load. If you've been working the Hammer machine and not free
weights, try loading up the bar and doing a free weight bench press and
before you hit 200 pounds your arms will likely be shaking and swaying.
And I can almost guarantee you'll feel uncomfortable with the movement; it
can take some time to find your "groove" with free weights.

Also you usually don't include the weight of the bar when you do free
weights, but when a machine is on zero they really do mean zero. An
olympic bar weighs 45 pounds, a K-Mart bar weighs around 25.

If you can bench 200 pounds free weights, you can do 200 pounds on the
Hammer machine, and possibly more. If you can do 200 pounds on the Hammer
machine, you'll probably be doing around 150, give or take, on the free
weights for the first week or two. Then when you think you have the
barbell bench press down, try dumbbells for another ego adjustment. It
doesn't seem like it should be so much harder to lift the same amount of
weight...

A better place to ask would be www.drsquat.com .


--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong."
-- Henry Louis Mencken
 
"Gregory L. Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> Also you usually don't include the weight of the bar when you do free
> weights,

what the hell are you talking about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back