A CASE FOR THE BARBELL What the “optimum/science-based” gurus get wrong

If you’ve been following the current training trends on social media you’ve probably hear how machines are superior to free weights when it comes to hypertrophy. History and real-life results pretty much demonstrate that it’s bulls**t, but the younger generation, which prefers comfort over effort, are simply too happy to find a justification for using the easier machines and cables over the rugged barbell, even if that justification is crap.

In this article I’ll explain to you why the theory than machines are better than free-weights just isn’t true and the reasons why free-weight exercises should comprise the bulk of your program.

THE THEORY BEHIND THE “MACHINES ARE BETTER” OPINION

Ok, first I want to get something off my chest.

The gurus and lifters who claim that machines/pulleys are superior to free-weights are, most of the time, part of the “optimum/science/evidence-based” group. They love to quote studies (that they haven’t read) and use complicated words to sound smarter than they are.

Here’s what pisses me off: As I will show you, studies comparing free-weights vs machines for hypertrophy found no differences in that regard. Since more than 15 studies found no differences, if you are truly “evidence/science-based” your conclusion should be that machines and free-weights are equivalent for gaining muscle mass. But noooooo, they still cling to the superiority of machines theory, despite the evidence.

Oh, they make a very sound, elegant and enticing argument. They have a theory that sounds good and has elements of truth. But when tested both in the lab and real-life, the theory, as smart a it sounds, doesn’t pan out.

What exactly is their theory? It’s comprised of two elements:

1. Machine exercises leads to a higher motor-units recruitment in the targeted muscles (more fast-twitch fibers recruitment), which is conducive to better strength, power and size gains.

1. Machine exercises causes less central fatigue. Accumulating central fatigue makes subsequent sets less and less effective. So with a machine you can have les decrement in set efficacy compared to free-weights.

Just a quick word on motor-units recruitment and central fatigue before we go on, so that we are all on the same page.

Motor-units recruitment: The number of motor-units recruited to produce force depends on the strength of the neural drive from the motor cortex to the muscles. The stronger the signal is, the more motor-units you recruit. Another factor is how sensitive your muscles are to that signal (synaptic sensitivity). Since the body recruits the motor-units in order (from low-threshold  to high-threshold; from slow-twitch to fast-twitch), the stronger the signal is, the more high-threshold motor units/fast-twitch fibers you recruit. Those are the fibers that have the greatest growth, strength and power potential. 

To get to the high-threshold motor-units (fast-twitch fibers) you need the nervous system to send a strong signal. To get a strong signal you can either a) use heavy weights b) do an explosive movement c) go close to failure (those last few reps will require the fast-twitch fibers).

Central fatigue: As we saw, muscle contraction and force production happen when the central nervous system sends an excitatory drive to the muscles. The stronger the signal, the more motor-units you recruit and the more force or power you produce. 

One of the body’s protective mechanisms is to reduce its capacity to send a strong neural drive to the muscles. This is called central fatigue. The more central fatigue builds up, the weaker the excitatory drive to the muscles, the less motor-units you recruit, the less force output and muscle growth you get.

Central fatigue happens in response to signals sent from the muscles/tendons to the nervous system. Those signal are discomfort, pain and perceived effort, mostly. 

Getting closer to failure, short rest periods, accumulating lactate/hydrogen ions in the muscles, hard conditioning work, long aerobic outings, are the modalities that causes the most central fatigue.

The theory is that machines are superior for hypertrophy because a) they are more stable b) involve fewer muscles than their free-weight equivalent c) cause less central fatigue. All of which would lead to more motor-units recruitment and thus more growth and strength gains.

Basically, machine exercises, by being more stable, require the involvement of fewer muscles because there is no need to stabilize the body (e.g. a back squat and leg press both his the quads and glutes, but the squat also involve the lower back, upper back, core, calves, etc. for stability). When less muscles are involved you do not divide the neural drive… for example if the nervous system sends a signal equivalent to 100 units (fake number) and it is divided into 2 mains muscle, each will receive many 50 units. If the same drive I divided over 5 muscles it drops down to a much lower number, making it harder to recruit the high-threshold motor units (fast-twitch fibers).

Also, because machine exercises require involve less muscles, the pain, discomfort, perceived effort is lower, which should cause less central fatigue.

All of that should mean that machines produce more results. Here’s the thing though: according to studies and meta-analysis, there is no difference in hypertrophy between machines and free-weights when loading parameters are equivalent.

I’ll say it again: if the optimum-based theory of why machines are superior were true, the studies would have found better results from machines vs. Free-weight. But it is not the case. The theory, even though it sounds intelligent, elegant and based on real things (motor-units recruitment, central fatigue) just isn’t true in real life. Period. 

And what about strength? 

Research indicate that strength gains are modality-specific. Meaning that you improve the most on the exercises you train. If group A uses the squat and group B uses the leg press then group A improve their squat more than group B while group B improves the leg press more than group A.

THE REAL LIFE TEST

Let”s be honest, the extreme majority of the best physiques and strongest people, all did a significant portion (or exclusively) of their training using big basic free-weight exercises. And I’m yet to see an impressive physique or a super strong person who got there only using machines and pulleys.

Sure, some influencers who are now preaching “optimal” training on machines and pulleys have good physiques, but more often than not, they built most of their muscles before switching to “optimal” training. Of course they won’t mention it because it’s better for their bank account to sell machines and pulley exercises to people who don’t want to work hard anyway.

The evidence/science/optimum-based crowd like to argue that “had these huge and strong would have gotten even better results had they trained low-volume on machines and pulleys”.

That’s an easy argument to make, but it doesn’t pass the real life test. Machines and pulleys were and are available to these monsters; they see them every day in the gym. They surely tried them. Yet, they chose to base their training on free-weight exercises with some machines/pulleys to supplement their workouts.

I’M NOT AGAINST MACHINES…

Notice that I mentioned that when it comes to gaining muscle mass, I said that both can bring similar results. I didn’t say that machines are bad or inferior.

In fact, I do see some benefits to using machine/pulley exercises:

1. They are psychologically less demanding; so when you are run down, tired or lack motivation, substituting free-weight for machine during that session might allow you to get a better workout.
2. It’s less hazardous to train to failure on machines. So if your training style requires training to failure, machines might be a better choice.
3. You can also use machines for a deload week. For example, switching squats for leg presses, bench press for Smith machine bench or chest press machine, barbell row for seated row, etc.

But as we will see later in this article, the barbell and free-weights in general do offer some worthy benefits too.

… I’M AGAINST DOGMATIC TRAINING GURUS 

Polarization sells. People are insecure about their workout. Subconsciously they are looking for someone who sounds sure of themselves to tell them how to train. 

To be that person, or guru, you need to make things black and white (grey can be confusing). It’s either “the best”, “optimal” or “it sucks”. There is no middle ground. And, of course, they always claim that their system is the best and everything else sucks or is a waste of time and effort.

They have to do that to sound confident enough to attract the flock of insecure lifters looking for a master to follow.

The vast majority of the time, the truth is normally right down the middle. But being open to both sides (e.g. machines and free-weight can be equally as effective to stimulate muscle growth) iust opens up to many possibilities and create insecurity, if not anxiety.

Understanding that “the best” exercises (or training method, split, etc.) is context-dependant and are also impacted by individual differences. 

In some cases machines might be the best choice while in some other cases, free-weights will be better.

But saying that doesn’t help you get more followers and money!

ADVANTAGES OF THE BARBELL AND FREE-WEIGHTS

Now that we know that, for hypertrophy, free-weights and machines provide similar results, let’s look at some ways that free-weights shine over machines:

1. More variety: granted, if you train in a well-stocked commercial gym this is not an issue because you have tons of different machines to hit every muscle. But if you are building a home gym or train in a minimalist gym (e.g. Crossfit gym), free-weights allow you to do a lot more exercises than a machine on which you can do only one exercise.
2. Motor skill acquisition: What I love with free-weights, especially when doing big compound lifts, is that you need to work on your technique. It teaches you to control your body better and also gives you great satisfaction when you do markedly improve your technique.
3. Develops the CNS more: Free-weight exercises require more output out of the CNS because more muscles are involved compared to their machine equivalent. Machine-gurus use this as justification to stick to machines (less central fatigue). I see it a different way: yes, in the short term free-weights will cause more central fatigue by demanding more out of the CNS. But the body is a highly adaptive machine, meaning that as you ask more out of the CNS it will become stronger, more effective and more resistant to fatigue. Which is a big benefit for long term gains.
4. More calories burned: Because they involve more muscles at the same time (for stabilization), free-weight exercises will require a greater caloric expenditure than their machine equivalent. For example, a squat burn more fuel than the leg press, a deadlift more than a back extension, a military press or push press more than a machine shoulder press, etc. This can be a benefit if you are trying to maximize fat loss.
5. More likely to transfer to other skills: Due to it’s higher coordination level and more core activity, multi-joint free-weights movements are more likely to improve athletic performance.

Studies tend to show that strength gains are modality-specific and that when we use a neutral comparison to test strength gains, machines and free-weights are similar. But real life tells another story: all of the strongest people in history did mostly free-weight work. Machines have been around for over 50 years, if they were a superior strength tool you’d have more strength athletes basing their training on a lot of machine work on top of their competitive lifts. You just don’t see that. Sure, they will use some machine and pulley exercises, but it’s a very small portion of their training (if they use machines at all). 

CONCLUSION: WHY FREE-WEIGHTS SHOULD REMAIN THE FOUNDATION

Machines can have their place, and when used strategically, they can complement a well-designed program. But history, science, and real-life results all point in the same direction: free-weights should remain the backbone of serious training.

A barbell, a set of dumbbells, and some determination have built more strength and muscle than any array of high-tech machines ever has. Free-weights challenge the body in ways machines cannot—they demand coordination, develop resilience in the nervous system, burn more energy, and carry over to both athletic performance and real-life physical capacity.

The truth is simple: if your goal is to look strong, be strong, and develop a body that not only grows but performs, free-weights are unmatched. Machines can fill in the gaps, but they should never replace the core of your training. Pick up the barbell, master the basics, and you’ll build the kind of physique and strength that stand the test of time.

REFERENCES

1.Haugen ME, Vårvik FT, et al. Effect of free‑weight vs. machine‑based strength training… (2023, meta‑analysis). No hypertrophy difference; strength is modality‑specific; small upper‑body edge for machines in direct comparisons. 

2,Heidel J, Kukic F, et al. Machines and free weights: systematic review & meta‑analysis (2022). Neutral tests and hypertrophy show no difference; specificity rules for strength. 

3.Hernández‑Belmonte A, et al. Free‑Weight and Machine‑Based Training Are Equally Effective on Strength and Hypertrophy (2023 RCT, trained men). Similar hypertrophy/strength; no extra joint discomfort. 

4.Schwanbeck S, et al. Effects of Training With Free Weights Versus Machines (2020 RCT, novices). Similar muscle growth; strength changes match the test modality. 

5.Aerenhouts D, D’Hondt E. Using Machines or Free Weights for Resistance Training in Novice Males? (2020 RCT). Similar gains in size proxies, strength, and function; switching mid‑plan is fine. 

6.Rossi FE, Schoenfeld BJ, et al. Squat vs Leg Press vs Both (2018 RCT). Task‑specific strength transfer; both improve performance