>>37227225
> if u hav puss use masheen
> if you hav peepee use free weights
Itz tht EZ anon

>I always thought that I made some progress and even other people noticed me being fit.
You're not an aspie, you're retarded. You measure progress with weight and numbers, not feelings and comments.

>My question is, is this whole free weight thing just a meme (inb4 functional strength)?
What whole free weights thing? You mean are weights a meme? Because that's almost as retarded as the first thing you said.

>Why would it be so much better than machines if I really try to make the exercise work well?
Free weights are better than machines for a number of things including range of motion, flexibility, isolation, better customization etc.
Machines tend to be safer and sometimes offer benefits for compound movements and certain isolations.

>What would be the first step to move on to free weights?
Lift free weights.

There's a couple things about free weights. First, you're body is forced to support the weight, which means stabilizers have to be used. Second, machines (non-cable) have a fixed ROM which can be bad for your joints. For example, some people wreck their shoulders with the butterfly machine.

That said, they still aren't as terrible as they're made out to be. It's not like you won't make gains using machines. And plenty of people use machines without injuries.

>>37227295
of course you measure it with feelings and comments, because that's what it is about, isn't it? I want to feel better and look better.

What exercise would you recommend as first?

>>37227340
>of course you measure it with feelings and comments, because that's what it is about, isn't it? I want to feel better and look better.
By lifting heavier weights and/or getting fit. Don't be purposefully retarded on top of accidentally retarded.

>What exercise would you recommend as first?
I'd recommend you identify what you're trying to accomplish so you stop asking retarded questions.

>>37227340
Squat
Deadlift
Bench
Ohp
Row
Pullup

These are kinda the staple exercises

>>37227225
There are a couple of potential downsides to training on machines. It depends on what you use them for though - Everything has its uses.

First, machine training is easy (relatively speaking). That's just a fact. The neuromuscular activation does not match the levels of the free weight equivilants. As a consequence, machines don't disrupt homeostasis to nearly the same extend that free weight do. This disruption is ultimately what starts the adaptation process i.e. gets you gains. What this means is that you can kick your body hard in the balls with just a few sets of dumbbell bench presses, but have to work a good deal harder on the chest press for example.
On the other hand, due to the same reason, machine work is also less demanding recovery-wise, which means that it can be a good tool to add some extra volume after you main work is done that is "cheap" in terms of recovery.

Second, as mentioned above, machines do not activate the target muscles to the same extend as free weights do. A chin-up simply hits your back harder than a pull-down machine does (provided they're performed in the same manner) no matter what. This is one area where free weigths almost always win - However, on the flipside there are a few things you can only achieve with machines but not with free weights e.g. a chest press machine can include an element of horizontal adduction, which is something you cannot do with free weights because gravity will never pull outwards.

Third, as a rule of thumb, the less you have to work to stabilize yourself during the exercise, the smaller carry-over there's going to be between the strength you gain on the given exercise and other stuff you want to do inside as well as outside of the gym. In other words, you can be a beast on the chest press machine but be completely humiliated if you try pressing a couple of dumbbells for the first time, whereas if you're good with the dumbbells, you can pretty much sit down and dominate the chest press.

>>37227428
>>37227408
thanks, that motivated me. I think I'm gonna hit the gym now

>>37227295
This guy is very knowledgeable. You got the brainz and gainz. wow impressed.

>>37227225
>Why would it be so much better than machines...?

I've never been intimidated by a machine. Never been worried about failing on a machine. Seriously, have you never considered that alongside training your body you are training your mind as well?

I'm not going to talk up BB lifting like some asshats do. No, it isn't like going to war. You aren't a soldier because you lift heavy shit. But a guy that can lift babby weight on a BB is probably more mentally fit than a guy who can go HAM on machines if that's all he does.

>>37227225
Read the sticky fatty.

you get a better range of motion using free weights

>>37227428
Bro science: the post
You probably still believe bench press is good for chest

>>37228699
If by bro science you mean actual science, then yeah.
And seeing as the pecs are prime movers in the bench press, then yes it's good for the chest. Although far from the best in any case. "Still believe"? You make it sound like it's some kind of antiquated belief that's been mythbusted by science.

You strike me as an idiot.

>>37227319
oh fuck I've actually been using a butterfly machine and just yesterday i could feel my left shoulder screaming in pain

Did anyone else scroll through see the OP and think it looked like a black man flipping off the camera

>>37230513
No, you're probably autistic.