1

Photo of the machine

The gym has the above contraption I use alternating with the crossover station for upper back isolation.

I’m at a loss however how I should adjust the seat and chest support; when I set it so my thighs are parallel to the ground that was too low, it just felt awkward and my wrists would do something unsettling when pulling back. (Like a tendon slipping over a knuckle or something? A painless cracking sensation.)

Sitting higher made this mostly comfortable, but I have no clue which of the million machine names this has and how I should be setting it up right.

millimoose
  • 400
  • 1
  • 9
  • I don't know machines, but assuming you're correct: all you need to do reverse flies is a pair of light dumbbells. Don't make things harder and less effective at the same time – Raditz_35 Sep 09 '20 at 10:08
  • @Raditz_35 if you don’t know machines, why are you here? You don’t know my overall routine and have no good reason to believe this exercise is out of place, dropping in to give your “well actually free weights are best” is just condescending and a waste of time. I shouldn’t have to litigate my way to an answer to a fairly simple and specific question through bad-faith tangents. I also fail to see how free weights are supposed to make an isolation movement either easier or more effective at all. – millimoose Sep 09 '20 at 11:26
  • That's such a cheap and angry comment. I mean nothing bad, just here to help. If you can't deal with me, please do not visit other parts of the internet. – Raditz_35 Sep 10 '20 at 07:41
  • @Raditz_35 I am dealing with you right now, by telling you that making the patronizing assumption that I’m too dumb to realize I shouldn’t be using the machine to justify delivering a cliche sermon is rude. It’s also not helping, because it’s obviously not helping with the problem I have - adjusting the machine - but a tangentially related problem I don’t have. If I had that problem I’d have asked about it, and you didn’t bother asking a single question to clarify whether I have that problem and not this one. That I’m annoyed at this is an entirely coherent reaction. – millimoose Sep 10 '20 at 09:39
  • That's what you read into my comment. Here are a lot of users that don't know such things. I'm terribly sorry if I insulted you, but please try to reflect a bit. This is an anonymous stack exchange. How on earth should I know that you feel about trying a very simple frame challenge. This is none of my business, but please just read my comment again. If you really think that your comments and interpretation are justified, fine, but I completely disagree. – Raditz_35 Sep 10 '20 at 09:43
  • @Raditz_35 - I’m not “other users”, I can’t be responsible for whatever experiences you have with them; you can always ask for clarification to see if a reframing is actually warranted, and not just a derail. If we’re on to reflecting on behaviour, consider also that this isn’t my first time on Stack Exchange I post a - in my view - clear, specific, and answerable question; only to then have to spend yet more time meticulously explaining to some drive-by smartass that yes, I actually meant what I said, who will then leave as they’ve got nothing but the frame challenge. It’s maddening. – millimoose Sep 10 '20 at 09:54
  • So you have a lot of frustration piled up. That's just not nice. People here are trying to help. If you are not interested in frame challenges, perhaps state so in your op – Raditz_35 Sep 10 '20 at 11:43
  • I’d really appreciate not being patronized again. It’s not “piled up frustration”, it’s you having done the frustrating thing just before, and subsequently doggedly defending it while trying to brush my side off entirely in the name of hollow agreeableness. Calling this out for what it is rather than biting my tongue and making up rationalizations for the benefit of the source of frustration is how I’m trying to prevent said frustration from piling up. If your intent is truly noble, you should be able to at least consider it may have led you astray when you initiated an unhelpful tangent. – millimoose Sep 10 '20 at 15:24

1 Answers1

1

From the picture, I would describe this machine as an supported (wide) row. There is nothing ‘wrong’ per se about any particular adjustment, but we would generally assess its ‘correctness’ or otherwise by its comfort, freedom, safety, and fitness for purpose.

The purpose of isolation exercises is, as the name suggests, to isolate a particular movement, and hence group of muscles—in this case, the shoulder girdle retractors (trapezius, and rhomboids major and minor), the humeral extensors (latissimus dorsi and teres major), the horizontal abductors/extensors of the humerus (posterior deltoid), and elbow flexors (principally the biceps brachii, brachialis, and brachioradialis). So your adjustment should first limit your movement and posture to the targeted joints and muscles. Most notably in this case, the machine is intended to eliminate the involvement of the lumbar extensors (erector spinae) and enforce a wide path for the elbows which, incidentally, is still not guaranteed. (Novices commonly drop the elbows and pull with a combination of the elbow and wrist flexors! Don't do that.)

The seat should be adjusted to a height that places the chest squarely on the chest support, generally around the mid- or lower sternum, and that support should be retracted to a distance that allows you to reach the handles at a stretch in order to horizontally abduct/extend the arms—“at a stretch” because that allows the chest support to pre-stretch and hence activate the shoulder girdle retractors more. You should feel stable and supported throughout the movement. The degree of knee bend in inconsequential, other than to assist your feeling of stability and security.

As a side note, isolation machines are often inappropriate for certain users due to the assumptions that they make about body geometry. It is quite possible that you will never feel comfortable or secure on certain machines. And this is one reason why ‘free’ weights are generally superior to machine weights: they afford an infinite degree of adjustment.

I hope that helps.

POD
  • 6,171
  • 1
  • 11
  • 41
  • 1
    Right, so more or less: 1. seat so that my chest is against the guard; 2. chest thingie close enough that I can just barely reach the grips; 3. keep forearms and wrist straight and grips “below” this plane; 4. keep elbow along this plane. This kind of matches my observation that adjusting the seat so that my hips were above my knees made the thing more comfortable - since my arms were higher up I probably stopped dropping my shoulder; could explain the wrist weirdness too. – millimoose Sep 08 '20 at 00:55
  • 1
    One last thing that can change is where to hold the grips, any particular position to aim for? When in doubt, I default to “forearm should be at right angle with upper arm when upper arms form a line.” – millimoose Sep 08 '20 at 00:58
  • 1
    My routine uses free weights or cable stations for say 80% of the volume, at a guess the few sit-down machine exercises are because say doing a perfect DB rear raise when fatigued would be tricky, and whoever designed figured the “fresh” slots in a day are better spent on exercises where other parts of a group happen to be dominant. – millimoose Sep 08 '20 at 01:10
  • @millimoose: Yes, that summary is pretty much spot on. I always used to say, “keep your elbows behind your wrists, and your wrists behind the bar.” The shoulders should be relaxed, except in the direction of pull (retraction). And again, yes, the forearms should be at right angles to the upper arm. This will aid your engaging the muscles of the back rather than dominating the movement with the elbow flexors. It sounds as though your instincts were spot on. – POD Sep 08 '20 at 04:40