This photo is of the lateral pulldown weight machine at the Addison Athletic Club. You basically set the amount of weight, adjust the seat, then sit down and pull the two handles at the top down. I have to pull them down while standing the first time but continue to sit and pull the handles up and down after that. I usually set my weight at 35 pounds. You may need to start small. The lowest weight is 10 pounds. Have recently done two sets of 10 repetitions each, but you can start with only 5-10 reps — whatever you can accomplish comfortably. There are many other kinds of weight machines for both upper and lower body. My gym has about 30 machines, but yours may have more or less. Some of them are also good for physical therapy. After my past knee and shoulder surgeries, I have used some of the machines to do my physical therapy. It is amazing how they can really concentrate on one particular area of the body. Let’s learn more about weight machines.
According to Wikipedia, a weight machine is an exercise machine used for weight training that uses gravity as the primary source of resistance and a combination of simple machines to convey that resistance to the person using the machine. Each of the simple machines — pulley, lever, wheel, incline — changes the mechanical advantage of the overall machine relative to the weight.
Stack machines
A stack machine — also called a stack or rack — has a set of rectangular plates that are pierced by a vertical bar which has holes drilled in it to accept a pin. Each of the plates has a channel on its underside or a hole through the middle that aligns with one of the holes. When the pin is inserted through the channel into the hole, all of the plates above the pin rest upon it and are lifted when the bar rises. The plates below do not rise. This allows the same machine to provide several levels of resistance over the same range of motion with an adjustment that requires very little force to accomplish in itself.
The means of lifting the bar varies. Some machines have a roller at the top of the bar that sits on a lever. When the lever is raised the bar can go up, and the roller moves along the lever, allowing the bar to stay vertical. On some machines the bar is attached to a hinge on the lever, which causes swaying in the bar and the plates as the lever goes up and down. On other machines the bar is attached to a cable or belt, which runs through pulleys or over a wheel. The other end of the cable will either be a handle or strap that the user holds or wraps around some body part, or will be attached to a lever, adding further simple machines to the mechanical chain.
Usually, each plate is marked with a number. On some machines these numbers give the actual weight of the plate and those above it. On some, the number gives the force at the user's actuation point with the machine. And on some machines the number is simply an index counting the number of plates being lifted.
The early Nautilus machines were a combination of lever and cable machines. They also had optional, fixed elements such as a chinning bar. Universal Gym Equipment pioneered the multi-station style of machines.
The photo of the Nautilus Compound Leg Machine combined a leg extension with a leg press, allowing a trainee to move from one exercise to the next in the quickest possible time — and creating one of the most intense leg workouts ever devised.
Plate-loaded machines
Plate-loaded machines such as the Smith machine or sled-type leg press use standard barbell plates instead of captive stacks of plates. They combine a bar-end on which to hang the plates with a number of simple machines to convey the force to the user.
The plate-loaded machines will often have a very high mechanical advantage, due to the need to make room for large plates over a large range of motion following a path that causes them to converge at one end or the other. Also, the motion will generally not be vertical, and the net resistance is equal to the cosine of the angle at which it is moving relative to vertical.
For example, consider an incline press machine that is a single-lever machine that has the plates halfway up the lever from the handles to the fulcrum, and begins moving the plates at a 45-degree angle from vertical. The lever will provide a leverage advantage of 2:1, and the incline will have an advantage of 1:√2/2, for a net mechanical advantage of (4/√2):1 ≈ 2.8:1. Thus 50 kg of plates will apply to the user only an equaling weight of 18 kg at the beginning of the motion.
On the other end of the spectrum may be a bent-over-row machine that is designed with the user's grip between the plates and the fulcrum. This amplifies the force needed by the user relative to the weight of the plates.
Cable machines
A cable machine is an item of equipment used in weight training or functional training. It consists of a rectangular, vertically oriented steel frame about 3 meters wide and 2 meters high, with a weight stack attached via a cable and pulley system to one or more handles. The cables that connect the handles to the weight stacks run through adjustable pulleys that can be fixed at any height. This allows a variety of exercises to be performed on the apparatus. One end of the cable is attached to a perforated steel bar that runs down the center of the weight stack. To select the desired amount of resistance, move the metal pin into the labeled hole in the weight stack. The other end of the cable forms a loop, which allows the user to attach the appropriate handle for the exercise. Most cable machines have a minimum of 20 pounds of resistance in order to counterbalance the weight of the typical attachment.
History
According to Conor Heffernan’s Jan. 24, 2019 article “The Untold Story of Weight Machines” at barbend.com, for men and women of yesteryear — namely those in the late 19th and early-20th century — working out in a gymnasium usually revolved around dumbbells, barbells and other weighted objects like kettlebells or Indian clubs. For those without access to gymnasiums, makeshift weights were used ranging from old farming equipment to heavy stones. The idea that you would use a machine to exercise was not entirely far-fetched, but the popularity of such things paled in comparison to good old-fashioned steel weights.
While the rise of CrossFit and the growing popularity of powerlifting has encouraged lifters to return to the basics of free weights, countless lifters use machines as part of their training programs. For certain body parts, such as the calves, old school methods relying solely on dumbbells and barbells can really seem antiquated. For other body parts like the quads or hamstrings, the use of machines rather than basic barbell exercises is downright sacrilege for many. With this in mind, we have to ask when did machines infiltrate the gym? Furthermore, why did they become so successful?
Something from Nothing: 1790s to 1890s
In one of the first examinations of dumbbells, barbells and Indian clubs, historian Jan Todd noted the longevity of weighted objects used for training purposes, dating the first dumbbells to the ancient Greeks. In 1797 the Gymnasticon possessed possibly the most pompous sounding name you’re likely to encounter in a gym. It was designed by the physician Francis Lowndes to — in its inventor’s words — “exercise the joints and muscles of the human body.”
Seen as both a precursor to the flywheel and the exercise bike, Lowndes’ contraption marked an ambitious attempt to strengthen the body in one fluid exercise. While the machine’s resistance was relatively low, it nevertheless marked a pivotal step in the development of future works.
Inspired by the orthopedist Nicolas Andry, who Todd noted may also have helped popularize club swinging for health, Lowndes’ intentions were almost entirely medical in nature. This was an important distinction to make when discussing early health machines. Though the beginning of the 19th century saw rudimentary forms of weight training emerge — most notably in the practice of Indian club swinging — weight training machines for the purpose of health or strength were largely unknown. Machines, when and where they existed, were concerned with rehabilitation or the prevention of illness and injury — not strength and athletics.
This emphasis on medical, as opposed to athletic concerns, underpinned the second great innovation, James Chiosso’s Polymachinon. An odd-looking device — not too dissimilar to the cable towers found in most modern gyms — it was later accompanied by a small pamphlet detailing its purposes and instructions. Thankfully available for free online, the pamphlet made clear the inventor’s intentions by describing the Polymachinon as “an essential branch of popular education and an invaluable remedial agent in many forms of chronic disease.” In noting a rising interest in gymnastics, Chiosso’s frequent references to “hygienic or curative medium[s]” of exercise pointed once more towards the medical utility of such devices.
Chiosso’s prototype dated to 1831, and his machines — as detailed by Carolyn de la Peña — were still in demand in Europe and the U.S. at the mid-century mark. Given the very small pool of health inventors during this time, it is remarkable to note that there is little evidence to suggest that Chiosso was aware of Lowndes’ Gymnasticon device. What is clear however is that Chiosso’s machine marked a move towards public health. Well aware of his machine’s medical utility, he was equally interested in encouraging relatively healthy men and women to begin exercising. His device also offered far greater resistance than Lowndes’ Gymnasticon during exercises. In other words, the Polymachinon offered greater muscle-building potential.
Also emerging during this time was the Health Lift, a machine which mimicked the effects of a harness lift, hip belt squat or heavy rack pull. It was devised by Dr. George Barker Windship, a Harvard-educated physician who was one of the most famous proponents of heavy weight training during the 1860s and early 1870s. As detailed by Todd in a highly readable account, Windship built his frail physique first through gymnastics and then through heavy weight training. This interest in building muscle and strength eventually evolved into his patented Health Lift machine. With the zealousness of the convert, Windship toured the East Coast of the United States, preaching the benefits of his machine at a time when many doubted the usefulness of heavy weight training. This included members of the medical profession, presumably aghast that one of their own believed in heavy resistance training. Based upon a weight-lifting machine he used in New York, Windship’s Health Lift was briefly “THE” weightlifting machine to use.
Even Windship’s untimely death at age 42 did little to detract from the machine’s popularity. Though the inventor’s demise was credited to heavy weightlifting — remember, doctors were convinced it was terrible for you — his machine, as de la Peña explained, continued to be used well into the 1870s and 1880s. The 19th century thus proved a pivotal stage of development. Weight training machines were developed to exercise the entire body and, owing to Windship’s contribution, heavy forms of resistance could be applied.
Sandows, Sergeants and Zanders: A Critical Phase
In the early 20th century Gustav Zander was a Swedish physician and inventor whose interest in the body inspired many of the machines we still use today. Concerned more with health rehabilitation rather than muscle building, Zander’s machines, which sought to exercise the entire body, were found in 146 countries by 1906.
Through collaborations with Dudley Sergeant — an influential physical education teacher at Harvard University who himself designed over 50 separate health devices — Zander’s machines were brought to the American public in the early 1900s. Now, while de la Peña was right to highlight Zander’s machines were predominantly for the wealthier classes, their influence cannot be underestimated. For the first time, individuals were treated to a whole body workout which targeted individual muscles conducted entirely on machines. It was also a sign of things to come.
Writing in the 1970s, Arthur Jones of Nautilus fame, claimed that although he designed his machines before discovering Zander’s inventions, his devices operated on a similar basis. Certainly, when one views Zander’s machines in 2019, their similarity to leg extension and leg curl machines in particular, is striking.
Now admittedly some of Zander’s devices appear very far-fetched, especially those centered on the abdominals. Zander, as his medical background suggests, was interested in health more so than muscularity. Despite this, his machines split the body into component parts, with a machine available for the legs, the arms, the chest and so on. Specialization was occurring.
Zander, however, was not the only influential figure during this time. Equally important was Eugen Sandow, a man regularly credited as the “father” of modern bodybuilding. Sandow himself was no inventor, and as Foutch demonstrated, had no medical qualifications whatsoever. What he did have, however, was that “star” power necessary to promote new goods.
Sandow promoted the “Sandow Developer,” a combination between a pulley and a strand puller that individuals could connect to a door frame and exercise with. Invented by a Mr. Whiteley who briefly co-sold the product with Sandow, the Developer was one of the most popular all-around exercisers of its day, and it inspired a series of copycat devices by other physical culturists, including the always controversial Bernarr MacFadden. Sandow did not, however, stop there. Through an enviable insight into consumer interests, he also promoted several other machines, which sadly for him, failed to capture the public’s imagination. This included an ill-conceived weight-training device for young children. Presented with a life-sized doll, children would pull at the dummy’s weighted hands and — if sufficient force was applied — would receive a sweet. Described by Chapman as highly fanciful, it nevertheless spoke of a potential for training devices aside from dumbbells and barbells.
The Third Wave? Health Clubs and “Do-It-Yourself” Machines
Influential as they were, Zander, Sergeant and Sandow shared one rather unfortunate trait: they catered primarily towards the middle and upper classes, specifically targeting those interested in lightweight forms of training. Those promoting heavy weight training — as expressed in barbells and dumbbells — had yet to produce any machines of their own.
This isn’t to say that the strongmen and women of the early 1900s were not innovators. Both Louis Cyr and Thomas Inch promoted thick grip dumbbells, and it is notable that Cyr’s dumbell is still in use in World’s Strongest Man events. Edward Aston sold “anti-fulcrum” barbells in which weight was attached to one side of the barbell only. Apollo — perhaps ahead of his time given the later popularity of sandbags — lifted heavy sacks of flour on stage during his shows. Innovations existed but they were niche and far removed from the general public’s interest.
As time went on and performers began to open their own gymnasiums, matters changed. In New York in the 1930s and 40s, Sig Klein displayed a remarkable ingenuity in designing several machines thought to mimic old strongman lifts. Seeking to replicate the inverted leg press used in many performances, he created his own device, modeled on a Tomb of Hercules strongman trick. His invention was later improved upon by another physical culturist, George F. Jowett, whose 1931 work, “Molding Mighty Legs” featured a Jowett Leg Press.
Why Klein is important in this story is that he published images of his machines through books, correspondences and his monthly magazine, “Klein’s Bell.” The history of these devices is much harder to track down, but it is reasonable to suggest that such innovations undoubtedly occurred in gyms across the U.S. and Europe during this time. Thankfully at least one health fanatic— in the form of Jack LaLanne — was more than happy to share his story. LaLanne’s entrepreneurial spirit saw him open his first gymnasium in the mid-1930s. Still a far cry from the modern gym, LaLanne’s well publicized efforts highlighted a space which combined traditional free weights with cables and rudimentary chest, leg and back machines. While Jack falsely claimed to have invented many of these devices, his pioneering gym marked a pivotal step in the “Machine Age.”
The War of the Gym Machines
From LaLanne and Klein, the fitness community moved on, albeit slowly. The Second World War resulted in the production of new free weight devices such as the “Iron Boot” or “Swingbell,” but new machines were few and far between. In short, they were seldom used and rarely improved upon — but this situation was not to last.
Midway through the 1950s, new forms of training and by proxy, new devices began entering the gym floor. One instance of this came when the previously mentioned Jack LaLanne and Rudy Smith met for dinner and co-created the Smith Machine. Produced in the end by Smith, and publicized through Vic Tanny’s highly successful commercial gyms, the Smith Machine was in part born from LaLanne’s assertion that some form of machine was needed to safeguard members of the general public from injury.
Other innovators — at least in the U.S. — included Harry Smith and Leo Stern. According to Randy Roach’s historical account, both men, who ran successful gymnasiums during the 1950s, created a series of bespoke machines with the help of the local foundry. Gym goers to Smith’s South Tampa gym thus had access to a makeshift leg curl and inverted leg press. Stern’s gym supposedly boasted leg extensions, calf machines and numerous other weightlifting goodies. This is to say nothing of Vince Gironda’s gym which boasted equipment designed according to Vince’s own, highly personalized, instructions. Perhaps best known for the birth of the preacher curl, Vince’s Venice Beach gym, which welcomed bodybuilders, Hollywood actors and the regular public, had numerous pulleys and machines for trainees. Like Joe Gold’s nearby facility, the equipment had been designed with the bodybuilder in mind.
The Smith machine and the devices found in dedicated gymnasiums spoke of a new interest in health and fitness, an interest that was shared by Harold Zinkin. Prior to the 1950s, he was more synonymous with the bodybuilding scene than anything else. Voted Mr. California in 1941 and runner up in the 1945 Mr. America contest, he ran a series of gyms during the 1950s aimed primarily at the general public. It was for this reason that he created his own multistack weights machine in 1957. Soon produced under the name Universal Gym, his first machine allowed users to quickly switch between weights by simply moving a pin up or down a stack. It also combined several stations into one stationery machine, so that lifters could train their back before moving two steps to the left and hitting their chest and so on.
It was simple but hugely influential as it changed the way gym owners thought about their space. Why bother buying several separate machines which required a huge amount of floor space and maintenance when you could purchase an “all-in-one” machine? A decade after his first prototype, Zinkin’s Universal machines spread throughout the United States and further afield. He sold the company for several million dollars in 1968 but remained as CEO for another 10 years. It is true that others were producing machines at this time, but his devices were the undisputed favorite for both the dedicated gym goer and the weekend warrior. That was, until the arrival of the “Blue Monster.”
It was this one focused nature which ultimately spurred on Jones’ strength-building empire. To return to the “Blue Monster,” produced in the 1960s, Jones’ creation represented a another iteration of the multistation device popularized by Zinkin. Unlike Zinkin’s device however, Jones’ Nautilus machines relied upon chains, cams and sprockets, which ensured that tension was placed on the muscle throughout the entirety of the rep.
Premiered at a Mr. America contest, Jones’ Nautilus devices swept the bodybuilding and fitness community by storm. Combined with his belief in high-intensity training, he undoubtedly changed the landscape of gym machines. His machines emerged in high school gyms, NFL training facilities and a series of machine-only gyms throughout the U.S. In 1973, Jones and Casey Viator claimed to have gained 15 and 63 pounds of muscle respectively through a month’s training on the Nautilus machines. While the “Colorado Experiment,” as the trial become known, has undergone significant criticism, its seemingly miraculous results strengthened the public’s belief in the validity of weight training machines. It was for this reason that the Washington Post published an article in 1977 entitled “The War of the Gym Machines.” Spurred on by Zinkin and Jones, these new devices became a mainstay in gyms in the United States and further afield. Unlike the specified — and somewhat exclusive — machines found in dedicated bodybuilding gymnasiums, Zinkin and Jones’ devices could be used by almost anyone … and they were!
Comentarios