Machines versus free weights:

Keeping in shape

There is an endless debate in fitness circles about machines versus free weights. It's one of those issues that divide people into camps where they often stay and refuse to listen to the other side. The writer studies this matter weighing the pros and cons of each with an expert in this field Dr. Arun Jayasooriya of the Colombo General Hospital and a special physician in body fitness.

***********

Suraj A. Bandara

According to Dr. Arun Jayasooriya free weights are more natural than the machine oriented physical fitness. "I must say I do favour free weights over machines" If an exercise can be done using free weights then do it over the machine alternative. Why? It is more natural.

This is the most important point about free weights. Our bodies are all very different so why should we be limited to a certain path of movement by a machine? Machines can normally be adjusted but this will never be ideal. For example, if one leg is slightly longer than the other how can we adjust a Leg Press machine to accommodate us?

There is a potential to cause harm when using machines instead of free natural exercises.

The bad side to free weights is of almost no interest or risk to a sensible trainee but can be an issue to overzealous or inexperienced individuals and especially so in poorly supervised areas. There is a greater potential danger with free weights than with machines. Machines offer in-built protection. If you lose control of the weight, the machine normally won't injure you (at least not too much). For example, in a machine press you will not be stuck with a bar on your chest if you fail to lift it.

Then again, there are those that say machines are dangerous because they do not follow natural paths of movement. This is a very good point but injury does not occur too frequently and almost never because the machine doesn't allow this freedom. Machines are pretty much safe.

Free weights have no limitation in their range of motion. While this is a good thing (think 'natural movement'), it can also be potentially dangerous. For example, the trainee is the only thing stopping a dumbbell from going too low in a fly or press movement which could potentially injure the shoulder. Care is needed to control the range of motion of free weights whereas the machine often takes care of this for you. He emphasized ,"still, in my opinion, free weights are the way to go. The natural pathway is a big advantage."

Now imagine you were a gym owner. In this day and age you cannot trust everyone that walks in the door to behave themselves. You need to assess the risks to your clients in your gym. To minimize the risk you could either install machines or you could hire good instructors that are able to teach people how to safely use the equipment. This kind of gym education is rare these days. Gyms are businesses and they exist to make money. It's easier and carries less potential risk to install machines. It is also more profitable since instructors don't spend too much time training people. It is important to remember that machines do not represent any kind of advance in technology over a barbell (although cables do offer certain advantages). Their use is for mostly commercial reasons.

Functional fitness is all the rage. The word "functional" relates to exercise that mimics real-life situations. The theory is that you do real-world exercises and you benefit in real life. Whether it's sports or lifting a heavy box, functional fitness is what you need. Machines are said not to be functional since they often do not mimic real life but instead invent new pathways for our body to follow. But that does not mean that you can't get a good workout with machines only.

It doesn't mean that machines are a waste of time. There are better ways for the more serious trainee but the machine trainee can still improve their quality of their life, enjoy their workout, be healthy and feel good. It's not what I would necessarily recommend but it is way better than what you were doing before isn't it?

The 'normal' gym is the best alternative you have without spending money over purchasing these unusual machines.

If we took a group of normal, every day gym-going people and split them into two groups, one group using machines and the other using free weights what would happen? Well, I say that under normal circumstances there would be more accidents and injuries in the free weights group.

This is absolutely not because free weights are more dangerous but because, in our normal, average group we have young guys that want to show off on the bench press.

In Sri Lanka, we have every day instructors that are checking themselves in the mirror.

This is normal. The machines group get on better because he doesn't have a 200 lb barbell bouncing off his chest and girl is doing fine on her Hack Squat Machine while the instructors continue to check themselves in the mirror. My apologies if you are a real instructor. He said, "I know you exist and we love you but I'm afraid you are not the norm."

If real instructors are thin on the ground in your area then I'd highly recommend you find a qualified personal trainer to get the most from your workouts.

Machines that use cables are not like other machines. Cables do allow a much greater degree of freedom and have one big advantage over dumbbells or barbells. Using a cable, you have constant resistance and can adjust the line of pull and attachments very quickly. You cannot do this with a dumbbell or barbell since they depend on the force of gravity and the direction of movement. For example, just about any movement that is done in a circular motion (curls, lateral raises, front raises, flys, etc) varies in difficulty through the movement. The fly is harder at the bottom and offers almost no resistance at the top, for example.

You can make up your own mind on this one. Don't believe anybody that makes sweeping statements like "machines are not functional therefore they are dangerous" or "free weights are extremely dangerous" or "machines are a waste of time" and so on.

The truth is somewhere in between. Don't discard something when you don't need to. Keep your options open.

Gorillas could disappear from Central Africa in 15 years, UN warns

Gorillas could disappear from large parts of the Greater Congo Basin in Central Africa by the mid-2020s unless urgent action is taken to safeguard their habitats and counter poaching, a new report by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and Interpol warned.

Projections in 2002 had suggested that only 10 percent of the original gorilla ranges would remain by 2030, but the report found that those estimates were too optimistic given the intensification of pressures including illegal logging, mining, charcoal production and increased demand for bush meat, of which an increasing proportion is ape meat.

Outbreaks of the Ebola haemorrhagic fever virus are adding to concerns.

These epidemics have killed thousands of great apes, including gorillas, and by some estimates up to 90 percent of animals infected by the virus will die.

The report, launched at the meeting of the Convention on the International Trade Endangered Species (CITES) currently taking place in Qatar, said the situation is especially critical in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) where a great deal of the escalating damage is linked with militias operating in the region. It stated that the militias are behind much of the illegal trade, which may be worth several hundred million dollars a year.

"This is a tragedy for the great apes and one also for countless other species being impacted by this intensifying and all too often illegal trade," said Achim Steiner, UNEP's Executive Director.

"Ultimately it is also a tragedy for the people living in the communities and countries and countries concerned. These natural assets are their assets: ones underpinning lives and livehoods for millions of people. In short it is environmental crime and theft by the few and the powerful at the expense of the poor and the vulnerable," he added.

Steiner welcomed the involvement of Interpol and called on the international community to step up support for the agency's environmental crime program.

UNIC

Kurosawa: Inimitable master of cinema

Ishara JAYAWARDANE

His service to Japanese culture is extraordinary. Japan owes a great debt to this glorious son. He is Akiro Kurosawa. And this debt can only be repaid by remembrance.

Sri Lanka theatre goers experienced a rare treat when the Colombo Film Circle held a film festival, co sponsored by the Embassy of Japan, Ministry of Cultural Affairs, in honor of the centenary birth anniversary of cinema legend Akira Kurosawa.

The film festival which was held from April 4th to the 7th at the John de Silva Memorial Theatre entertained the Sri Lankan audiences with master pieces such as Late Autumn and The Makioka Sisters.

Akiro Kurosawa was born in Tokyo on March 23, 1910. The birth of this baby stirred no one's heart, for who could possibly recognize the genius within this infant?

The Magazine Cineist prepared by the Colombo Film Circle pays tribute to Kurosawa when it says; "Akira Kurosawa had the special privilege of being adored by Superstars in the world of film directors. Directors Francis Ford Coppola, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg promoted Akira Kurosawa as human asset"

His 1954 film "Seven Samurai (The Seven Warriors) is upheld by critics as the model Asian Film in world Cinema.

"The film Festival was immensely successful. The workshop was attended by quite a good crowd and the films were well attended. Normally we sell the magazine (Cineist), but this time we gave the magazine for free. The workshop was free and the film festival was free" said Chairman, Colombo Film Festival Sameera Tilakawardana.

The workshop was attended by patrons of the arts such as Dr. Patrick Ratnayaka, Dharmasena Pathiraja and Rohan Perera.

"Unlike past there is no great turnout of the festival crowd. 15 to 20 years ago there was a turn out of 800-1000, now with the DVD technology numbers are few. Now 300- 400 can be considered good" said Tilakawardana.

I had the fortune of attending two of the films; Late Autumn and Makioka sisters. Both films had deep meaning and were intricately woven around marriage, romance and love.

The audience was spell bound as relevant social themes were discussed in the movie. The acting was riveting. Kurosawa was at his best.

I was thoroughly entertained. Reading Cineist I realized that this prodigy of theatre did not only limit himself to social themes such as marriage.

He was also accomplished at Samurai Movies.

"Kagemusha" (The shadow warrior) was released in 1980. Cineist describes it as a film notable for its powerful battle scenes. Kurosawa's next film "Ran" (chaos), released in 1985 was an even more successful Samurai epic.