Home or Gym?

[Alpha male Female Catcher]

The following is the theory explaining why low reps (4 and under) produces mostly strength gains without size while high reps (8 to 12) is better for size gains. This is a theory I have synthesised from a couple of sources and am paraphrasing.

Your muscle cells contain mitocondria which are responsible for storing energy and then releasing it when the muscle fiber contracts. Your muscles also contain cotractile elements which do the actual contracting/strength production. These cell componants have really fancy sounding names which I can't remeber of the top of my head. For now I'll just call them energy storage cell componants and force production componants.

The energy storage componants are analogous to a cars fuel tank and the force production compnants are analogous to the cars engine.

The theory goes like this - low reps with very heavy weights train the force production componants of the cell (car engine) but fatigue the force production cell componant before they have used up all the fuel in the car tank (mitocondria). So the engine gets a stimulous to grow to be able to produce more force but the fuel tank does not get a stimulous to grow (because the fuel tank wasn't emptied so it doesn't need to improve its storage ability).

High reps at less than 70% (or what ever) max weight on the other hand use up all the cells energy (deplete the mitocondria of the energy they have stored) but do not tax the car engine componant of the cell. So high reps stimulate the cell to produce more mitocondria in order to enable the cell to store more energy (This has the side effect of making the cell larger in size to accomodate the extra mitocondria). However with high reps fatigue sets in because the cell has depleted its energy reserves before the car engine of the cell has recieved a sufficient workout to be stimulated to grow. (The fuel tank is empty but the car engine still has plenty of life in it). So no strength increase occurs with high reps only size (or number of cell mitocondria to be exact).

It is because your cell has both energy storage componants and force production componants with both componants giving size to the cell that you can gain size by either training the evergy storgage componants or the force prodcution componants.

Stimulating the force production componants of the cell to grow (via low reps heavy weight) increases both the size and strength of the cell. Stimulating the energy storage componants of the cell to grow bigger (higher reps lower weight) increases only the size of the cell not its strength.

As to which is best to train for muscle size increase, the force production elements of the cell or the energy storage elements is debatable. I read one article that claimed the bulk of the cell mass was from the energy storage componants - if this is true then training to maximise energy storage (high reps lower weight) would be the way to go. But then I read another article claiming that 75% of muscle cell mass is from the force production componants and 25% from the energy storage componants. If this is true then training for max force production would be the way to go.

In any case (or so one theory I read goes) it is possbile for the force production elements of the cell to grow so strong that they do in fact use up all the energy in the energy storage componants of the cell in a single rep or two. When this level of strength is reached it is then the capacity of the energy storage componant of the cell which is the weak link in the chain and prevents the force production componant from being exercised to get bigger and stronger. When this state is reached you then have to increase your energy storage componants (with higher rep training) before you can train to increase strength and size of the force production componants again. So although the energy storage componants of the cell don't directly effect strength in a one to one ratio they do eventually limit the max strength achievable .

Conversley the stronger your force producton componants of the cell are the more energy is consumed in a single rep and hence the easier it is to deplete the cell energy storage componants (mitocondria) with multiple reps and hence stimulate the energy storage elements to grow.

Let me rephrase that. High rep training makes your muscles bigger but doesn't directly increase strength but it does make it easier to train for strength or rather it lifts the max strength attainable with training (by avoiding having the cell run out of energy before max force has been applied).

Low rep very heavy weight lifting trains both size and strength (the size componant is debatable). Low rep heavy weight training doesn't directly increase muscle size that is due to the mitocondria volumn of the cell but it does increase your ability to train the mitocondria (8 reps of 200lb bench press exhausts your muscle cells energy supplies more than 8 reps of 100lb and hence is a better stimulous for muscle size growth due to mitocondria volumn).

The point of all this is that there is not a one to one increase with size and strength. Low rep training will increase both size and strength (the size increase depends on the percent of the cell composed of the force production elements - one source I read said increase in diamter of force production filaments with strength is negligable another said it wasn't - I tend to think the latter is probably right). High rep training on the other hand will increase the size of the energy storage componants of the cell and hence make your muscles bigger but won't directly increase their strength.

So then although strength generally increases with size and vica versa you can get more strength per size gain with lower reps (something a powerlifter wants) because at lower reps you get strength and size gain of the force production elements without the added size gain of the energy storage elements.

For body building though you just want straight out size (so you train to make both force prodcution and energy storage elements of the cell bigger) which means you do at least 6 reps if not 8 or more.

(Anyway I better stop now before this post turns into a small novel).

(PS I have forgotten to mention that training with low reps like 3 or so can exhaust your nervous system before your muscle cells themsleves fatigue - or so the theory goes. In this case low rep training will increase your strength by increasing the max load your nervous system allows you to lift - your nervous system generally doesn't allow you to lift more than 1/3 of max possible stregth - however your muscles themselves wont actually grow any stronger or bigger according to this theory).

(Sorry this post is so long but I had to write it so that I could procrastinate and avoid doing the work that I should really be doing -I'm allways at my most creative when I should be doing something else).

 

[Alpha male Female Catcher]

I haven't been able to find the original two articles I was paraphrasing in my post but I have found a new one which pretty much agrees with what I said in my previous post (in a more scientific way).

http://www.engr.mun.ca/~butt/training/growth1.html
http://www.engr.mun.ca/~butt/training/growth2.html

Interesting that like the 2nd article that I read it claims that muscle cell contractile machinery comprises about 80% of muscle fiber volume with the energy storage elements at 20%. This means that stimulating contractile element growth (sarcomere hypertrophy) by strength training is the way to go as opposed to stimulating sarcoplasmic hypertrophy by endurance training.

The first article that I read (I think it was at bodybuilding.com) that said sarcomere hypertrophy didn't significantly lead to muscle cell size gains was written by a lay person, the 2nd one which like this one says sarcomere hypertrophy produces the bulk of the muscles size was written by a PhD level researcher, so as this latest article backs this up I suspect that sarcomere hypertrophy (i.e. strength training) is indeed the way to go.

Note that it agrees with what I wrote in my previous post though that endurance training is still necesary for its indirect effect on strength training for the reasons I previously gave.

e.g.

If enough ATP isn't present then a host of cellular processes slow down (including protein synthesis) resulting in the operations of the cell being compromised. That means, among other things, slower removal of waste products, slower recovery from training and slower or less protein synthesis. Research done in the former Soviet Union by Zalessky and Burkhanov has shown that if the contractile components of the cell continue to grow (sarcomere hypertrophy) without a concurrent increase in the energy supplying systems of the cell (i.e. the mitochondria, etc. - sarcoplasmic hypertrophy) then such a situation will develop. Essentially the motor has become too big for the fuel injection system.....................

As this article isn't intended to get into the nitty-gritty of training procedures I'm just going to leave this subject by saying that for continued progress sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is, indeed, needed (especially when increased muscle mass and/or endurance is desired) and must be trained for.

This is also a good point woth noting

Don't do as others have, and use these observations to argue that bigger muscles are not stronger muscles. As was eluded to above, muscles adapt very specifically to specific tasks. If you train using three rep sets then they get good at doing three rep sets. If you train using 8 rep sets then they get good at doing 8 rep sets. It just happens to be that years of empirical evidence has indicated that 8 rep sets stimulate more muscle growth than 3 rep sets (assuming of course, you are training with sufficient intensity). Make no mistake about it though, your legs will be bigger when you're squatting 405 for 8 than they were when you were squatting 275 for 8. For the case of 3 rep sets, you may not be much bigger when you're cleaning 315 for 3 than you were when you were cleaning 185 for 3, but you will have a much more efficient nervous system for the task.

Train for strength!
I don't mean to sound like a broken Mike Mentzer seminar record here, but if you want to get stronger OR bigger you MUST train for strength. If strength is your main concern you should train predominantly with lower reps - with ~85% of your 1RM and more. If it's muscular size you're after you should train with higher reps - with ~70% to ~85% of your 1RM. But getting stronger in the rep range that you're using should be your first and foremost goal.

 

[semag]

Applauds

That is an amazing pair of posts, and for those people who scroll past them because they look daunting or like they would take a minute or two to read, I suggest you go check them out.

One interesting that struck me while I was reading that, is how it correllates to the old adage of lift lots of reps if you wanna get ripped. Now, check this out, if you're lifting many reps, you're doing more work and burning more calories, technically.

Not only this, but also your muscles are getting bigger than they would if you were training for strength (if that theory was true about the endurance being bigger than the non-endurance). Thusly, you're growing muscle size and shrinking body size, which makes your muscles more visible, and thus more "ripped." Eh?

 

[victor von doom]

Originally posted by semag


One interesting that struck me while I was reading that, is how it correllates to the old adage of lift lots of reps if you wanna get ripped. Now, check this out, if you're lifting many reps, you're doing more work and burning more calories, technically.

Not only this, but also your muscles are getting bigger than they would if you were training for strength (if that theory was true about the endurance being bigger than the non-endurance). Thusly, you're growing muscle size and shrinking body size, which makes your muscles more visible, and thus more "ripped." Eh?

The problem is that this sounds right in theory. Too bad it's wrong in practice and result.

 

[semag]

Yeah... I've always heard the true knowledge base constantly reaffirm that the "higher reps doesn't correspond to more ripped-ness." I wasn't trying to go against that, because the best and brightest on this board have always said that's a load of crap, you included victor

I just thought it was interesting to how the deal with the energy muscles and the force muscles interact....

 

[madgame]

Ive always thought that the only difference in using high reps/low reps was that it activated a higher ratio of slow-twitch/fast-twitch muscle fibers. Meaning if u work out with high reps youll make more slow-twitch muscle fibers grow than u would with low reps, etc. but that its impossible to produce great strength without growing big muscles (and I guess impossible to influence the ratio of strength/muscle mass). Somebody posted a pic of a power-lifter lately in order to back up his statement "the only difference between power-lifting and bodybuilding is diet" (though I think power-lifters probably do fewer different exercises than bodybuilders) and that guy looked just like a bodybuilder in off-season..and I guess most power-lifters would if they had lower fat levels. If it was really possible to prioritize either going for muscle mass or going for strength and high reps would mean packing on more muscle mass than low reps, then I wonder why every professional and sucessful bodybuilder works out in the low rep range, cause their main goal is size not strength...

Victor I want your opinion here.

Now, check this out, if you're lifting many reps, you're doing more work and burning more calories, technically.

the amount of calories u burn while performing an exercise hardly matters I guess (whether its 5 or 30 reps).

[I think your metabolism is faster till a couple of hours after your workout (tho I dunno how significant this really is) but ud attain the same thing whether u lift low reps or heavy reps. Besides u burn more calories lifting a heavy weight once than u do if u lift a light weight once.]

 

[~UnDisputed~]

yeah, invest in a bench.... sportmart, big 5 etc. swoop up some weights as well. it is way cheaper than paying 80 bucks a month for gym membership. start out small and work your way up.

your main goal is consistency

as soon as youve got that the possibility for growth is endless.

 

[semag]

the amount of calories u burn while performing an exercise hardly matters I guess (whether its 5 or 30 reps).

Hey mad... what I was referring to was if you're doing 30 reps vs. 5 reps, you can possibly get a more cardio intensive weight workout... because, it takes more time to do 30 reps than 5 reps.

 

[madgame]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the amount of calories u burn while performing an exercise hardly matters I guess (whether its 5 or 30 reps).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hey mad... what I was referring to was if you're doing 30 reps vs. 5 reps, you can possibly get a more cardio intensive weight workout... because, it takes more time to do 30 reps than 5 reps.

Yeah I got you man...but I think that it probably plays just a really small part...like joggin a few mins more per week or something.

 

[madgame]

Ive always thought that the only difference in using high reps/low reps was that it activated a higher ratio of slow-twitch/fast-twitch muscle fibers. Meaning if u work out with high reps youll make more slow-twitch muscle fibers grow than u would with low reps, etc. but that its impossible to produce great strength without growing big muscles (and I guess impossible to influence the ratio of strength/muscle mass). Somebody posted a pic of a power-lifter lately in order to back up his statement "the only difference between power-lifting and bodybuilding is diet" (though I think power-lifters probably do fewer different exercises than bodybuilders) and that guy looked just like a bodybuilder in off-season..and I guess most power-lifters would if they had lower fat levels. If it was really possible to prioritize either going for muscle mass or going for strength and high reps would mean packing on more muscle mass than low reps, then I wonder why every professional and sucessful bodybuilder works out in the low rep range, cause their main goal is size not strength...

Hello? Somebody answer my questions please lol

 

[victor von doom]

because doing reps using weight just below your 1RM will stimulate the fast-twitch fibers (the ones that grow big)

doing lots of reps with lighter weight will not do this. It will only fatigue your muscle - and while it may create some hypertrophy - especially in the newer lifters - once you have 3+ years of solid, consistent, training under your belt, the only way you are going to put on serious mass is train heavy and eat like a horse.

 

[Alpha male Female Catcher]

Here is my understanding of the situation again. 80% of your muscle size comes from the contractile elements of the muscle cells. That is 80% of your muscle size is directly proportional to how strong you are. So you need to get stronger to get bigger. A small amount of your muscle size about 20% comes from the mitocondria volumn (energy storage ability). So increasing your endurance will also produce a gain in muscle volumn albeit by a small amount (but every little bit counts).

So yes you most definitley need to lift heavy to get big. Basically you want to fatigue the contractile elements of the cell rather than the neuromuscular componant or the endurance componant. Lifting too low reps e.g. 1 or 2 and you may fatigue your nervous system before the contractile elements have been fatigued. Lift too high reps (I don't know 10 or more?) and you risk fatiguing the cell by temporarily exhausting the ATP supply before the contractile elements have been fatigued.

A more detailed description of reps versus fiber worked can be found at this site

http://www.engr.mun.ca/~butt/training/reps.html

(don't know how acurate it is but his table goes like this)

training goal .................................. rep range...% of 1RM
type I sarcomere hypertrophy................15 - 50.........< 70%
type I sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.............50...............+ minimal
type IIA sarcomere hypertrophy.............8 - 15.........70 - 85%
type IIA sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.........16 - 25........50 - 70%
type IIB sarcomere hypertrophy.............3 - 5............85 - 95%
type IIB sarcoplasmic hypertrophy..........6 - 12.........70 - 85%
neuromuscular optimization for absolute strength...1 - 2 > 90%

(By the way sacomere hypertrophy is the one we want because its responsible for 80% of muscle cell volumn - the question is do we want IIA or IIB?)


To proove that power lifters are generally pound for pound stronger than body builders you just have to look at the weights power lifters put up in comps compared to what your average body builder does.

For example I have a reasonably big chest at 55". I weigh 240lb at around 22% body fat (So with no fat at all I'd still weigh 190lb). At present the most I can bench press for one rep is about 300lb (though in years gone by I have done up to 365lb).

There are power lifters out there who weigh around 150lb who can match my strength (i.e. can also put up 300lb). Now you can't tell me that the guy who has 140lb lean body mass has the same amount of muscle as me at 190lb lean mass. The way the 150lb power lifters gets strong enough to bench press 300lb is by training his neuromuscular system without inducing sacomere hypertrophy by doing very low reps i.e. 1 to 2

To demostrate that the 150lb power lifters benching 300lb is not a myth (there was a powerlifter guy claiming these stats on a how much ya bench thread some time ago) go to this site for the european power lifting records

http://www.europowerlifting.org/epfrec.html

(or for that matter any other powerlifting records site
for example
http://www.powermagonline.com/latest-news/records.asp)

(note the weights below are in kilos 1kg=2.2lb)

BENCH PRESS
52kg Andrzej Stanaszek POL 177.5 16.11.94 Johannesburg RSA
56kg Magnus Carlsson SWE 187.5 14.11.96 Salzburg AUT
60kg Magnus Carlsson SWE 186.5 15.05.99 Örebro SWE
67.5kg Kristoffer Hulecki SWE 200.0 13.12.85 Stockholm SWE
75kg Kristoffer Hulecki SWE 210.0 21.04.87 Stockholm SWE
82.5kg Dimitriy Soloviov UKR 227.5 14.05.99 Pultusk POL
90kg Andrej Tarasenko RUS 247.5 20.11.99 Trento ITA
100kg Volodimyr Ukhach UKR 250.0 14.11.98 Cherkasy UKR
110kg Oleksiy Soloviov UKR 255.0 29.04.00 Riesa GER
125kg Vitaliy Papazov UKR 270.0 18.11.01* Sotkamo FIN
125+kg Lars Hedlund SWE 285.0 04.03.80 Copenhagen DEN

Note the 114lb Andrzej Stanaszek benching 390.5 lb - he is clearly an example of someone who has a much higher strength to weight ratio than your average body builder.

The fact is that powerlifters are pound for pound stronger on average than body builders (and its not because they are leaner on average than body builders obviously they are not, rather they are fatter on average so they have less muscle mass per pound of body weight yet they are still noticably stronger on average than body builders pound for pound).

Bottom line is that you do have to go heavy and do low reps to put on mass but not so low that you are just training the nervous system. I tend to stick to the 3 to 8 rep range myself. I note though that Ronnie Coleman claims to do 15 reps (for biceps at least) and he gets pretty good results I think. (http://www.getbig.com/articles/biceps2.htm).

By the way there is no reason why you can't do both high reps and low reps in the one work out. For example last time I did bench press I did a warm up with 8 reps of 220lb then 3 reps with 270lb then 4 reps with 250lb then 5 reps with 240lb then 4 sets of 8 reps with 220lb. So I induced type IIB sarcomere hypertrophy with the first couple of sets then type IIA sarcomere hypertrophy with the last 4 sets. Alternatively you can do low reps one week (i.e. 3-5 reps to induce type IIB sarcomere hypertrophy) then higher reps e.g. 8 for the next weeks workout (for IIA sarcomere hypertrophy).

I don't think that you can make a hard and fast rule such as allways do 4 reps or allways do 8 reps I think your body will benefit most from a mixture of rep ranges (while of course trying to improve the amount of weight you lift at the particular rep range being used). If you never go below 6 reps you will be selling yourself short on type II B fiber hypertrophy on the other hand if you never go above 7 reps you will be getting less type II A hypertrophy than you otherwise could.

 

[DankNuggs]

Nice post, your body type and perspective is very similar to my old college roomate who was a meathead from jersey...I'd say your reasoning is sound. Basically the purpose is to work your muscles to failure, you want that failure as a stength failure and not energy failure...

example of benchpress: I can usually tell when I'm finishing my last reps on a set whether the failure is resulting from my chest muscles burning to the point of exhaustion, or the fact my triceps/shoulders are giving out before my chest is. In most major muscle categories, your anciliary muscles for the movement will burn out before say your chest on a benchpress. You want to contour the weight and reps to force as much impact on chest as you can. Any less than 5-6 reps won't work your full muscle. Anything more than say 12 reps will cause you to burn out of energy before you rip your muscles.

I start at 10-12 reps to start and increase weight each set while decreasing reps. When I get to 4-5 reps on a set, I'll lower the weight for each set and burn out each sets to failure...

I won't for a second tell you this is the best way to get strong. But I have a ripped body. Six pack, defined muscles, no visible fat.
I started this post talking about my old roomate who had the same persepctive as alpha. We'd argue to all hell, each with rational arguments (as all health gurus have a rational argument)I started out with a skinny body that needed to put on weight as he was always in the mass building/cutting....I never had to attempt to 'cut' I just keep getting more jacked. May just be good genetics and I should be ignored...

 

[Alpha male Female Catcher]

I agree with everything you say DankNuggs (as you've said everything I've said). If we have a disagreement it is on wether you do the high rep sets before or after the low rep sets. I've done your pyramid style workout before (and continue to from time to time - though I tend not to do it for bench press).

I do my heaviest set (hence lowest rep set) after only about 2 warm up sets because that is when I find I am at my strongest and can lift the heaviest weight. (For psychological moral boosting reasons I like lifting the heaviest weight possible). For all I know lifting a slightly less heavy weight because you have pre-exhausted a bit may be just as effective at building muscle (I think both ways will get you good results - as we have both demonstrated).

(By the way I may look like a meat head now but when I started exercising 17 years ago at age 19 I didn't, I was only 147lb, though I've allways had a somewhat expanded rib cage but not much meat on it - also as a guy who has just about completed his PhD thesis on a theoretical physics topic I can assure you I am no meat head - though in the context of this thread I take that term as a complement - while if a fellow physicyst called me that I would be offended ha ha).

 

[Dj Tiesto]

Ok. WTG for hijacking my thread.

Anyhow.
Just wanted to say that getting the motivation to start exercising is one of the hardest things I've ever done in my life.

There are so many factors. But what sux is, that most of the factors which create procrastination are imaginary. For instance: the fact that I might move soon so its stupid making a gym membership for 3 months only or, I can't really exercise at home cuz just lifting dumbells and doing push-ups is not really efficient.
I know its stupid and its avery bad approach, but its so hard to fight it. I wish I was stronger and could convince myself to fianlly start it, stop eating all this junk food and join a freakin gym or whatever.

FUUCKKKKKKKKKKKKK

 

[Tareef]

Can one make gains at home?

Short answer no long answer yes with a but.

Let me explain. I started working out at home. I made quite a few gains but really nothing that big. A few years later I hit a gym. I Gained 20lbs within a year. Why is this such a big deal? I'm a small scrawny guy, putting on that weight in that short amount of time was incredible at least to me, working out at home I gained only ten pounds maybe eleven in three years. I attribute most of that to the fact that I was still growing taller.

Working out at a gym set me in a mood. The gym I had had the right environment. No BS top of the line equipment, no new comercialized Bowflex or what have you. It had a few benches, Five or six old york machines from the seventies, and a bunch of guys from various sports teams throught the school, the only problem at times was the space.

Imagine 10 or 12 guys sweatin, pumpin iron and encouraging one another to lift more and lift harder.The music is blarin and gets you pumped, no soft sissy backstreet boys or pop music, music that gets the blood boiled, men grunting. The only word to describe it was spartan. And every one may have came and left with a smile but when you stepped through those doors the look changed. Every one wanted to have the best pump possible, it was serious bussiness. They had the eye of the tiger.

Of course their were those people that came in every so often, they would pick a station work out for ten minutes and sit the rest of the time or leave, you might see those guys in there once or twice the entire year.

The fees were ridiculously low. $30 the entire year and thats if you were not on a team. This was my High school work out room.
It was the best time of my life. I worked out five times a week except when the football team had to be there, open at lunch or after school, it was always full some one was always next for the machines and benches or whatever.

After three years working out with that group I had a falling out.
I lost 20 pounds which for the life of me I cannot gain. I recently started working out again, So far things are going pretty good, I have tried to, but not fully successfully, recreate the spartan atmosphere I have had in my highschool gym.

I bought A home gym(weider) and a chin up bar and a bench with adequate weight. I have not been able to kick up the wieght because it lacks one thing the other 10 or 12 guys who egg me on to push the wieght once more.

The key thing here is motivation. Indeed one might be self motivated, but if a person seeks inspiration it's hard to come by being alone in a room with weights that beg you to give up.

This is driving me crazy. I mean when I reach a point where I should be able to push one or two more reps out, I find that I won't because there's that voice that says its to hard and I can't shut him up or replace it.

Another thing is that at home you're home, so you might be in that "tommorow" mindset and say ah I'm tired today I'll do it tommorow.

When you walk through the doors of a spartan gym your mind clicks and you have to go to work, other wise you know you don't belong, and you're holding the line for the others who are waiting their turns for the equipment you are wasting.

My struggle now is to walk to my home equipment and "walk through those doors"

Progressively it is becoming more and more a reality, but it is a much steeper climb as far as the mindse goes. So there's your answer. If you absolutely can't go to a gym work out at home. Working out at home is better than not working out at all. The mindframe is harder to get into.

As for my gains I slowly making a come back so anything is possible.

 

[madgame]

You can definetly get the same results at home as you can at a gym if you have a barbell, a bench (with a leg curl) and enough weight plates (maybe dumbells if u prefer them...), cause u should stick to the basic exercises (which u can all perform with the above mentionned home equipment) at the gym too.

If you have a motivation problem however, and you are way more motivated at the gym going to the gym is way better.
I worked out solely at home during the first 4 years and I did get great results...aint nothing (good/necessary) you can do at the gym but not at home.

 

[Dj Tiesto]

Ok.
I joined the gym this week.

Doing the "Men's Health Cover Model Workout" by Owen McKibbin.

Almost killed my abs when I did squat with heavy weights cuz I barely managed to push myself up with the barbell and not fall backwards. My abs hurt like crazy afterwards.

It feels good to exercise, for now on the mental level.

 

[gentleman193]

Good for you joining the gym, Dj Tiesto. But don't kill yourself in the first week! Work up to it slowly, an injury will take you out for 6 weeks or more. Especially carefull on squats for herniated disk, other hernias, ACL on the knee, and more. If you don't have a spotter use a universal type machine.