Free-Weight and Machine-Based Training Are Equally Effective on Strength and Hypertrophy: Challenging a Traditional Myth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the effects of free-weight and machine-based resistance training on strength, hypertrophy, and joint discomfort. METHODS: Thirty-eight resistance-trained men participated in an 8-wk resistance program allocated into free-weight ( n = 19) or machine-based ( n = 19) groups. Training variables were identical for both modalities, so they only differed in the use of barbells or 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 intensity throughout the program. Strength changes were evaluated using eight velocity-monitored loading tests (four exercises × two modalities) and included the relative one-repetition maximum (1RM Rel ), as well as the mean propulsive velocity against low (MPV Low ) and high (MPV High ) loads. Ultrasound-derived cross-sectional area of quadriceps (proximal and distal regions), pectoralis major, and rectus abdominis was measured to examine hypertrophy. Complementarily, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaires were administrated to assess changes in lower- and upper-limb joint discomfort. Outcomes were compared using ANCOVA and percentage of change (∆) statistics. RESULTS: Each group significantly ( P < 0.001) increased 1RM Rel , MPV Low , and MPV High for both modalities tested, but especially in the one they trained. When considering together the eight exercises tested, strength changes for both modalities were similar (∆ differences ≤1.8%, P ≥ 0.216). Likewise, the cross-sectional area of all the muscles evaluated was significantly increased by both modalities, with no significant differences between them (∆ difference ≤2.0%, P ≥ 0.208). No between-group differences ( P ≥ 0.144) were found for changes in stiffness, pain, and functional disability levels, which were reduced by both modalities. CONCLUSIONS: Free-weight and machine-based modalities are similarly effective to promote strength and hypertrophy without increasing joint discomfort.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".