Swinging Indian clubs, would I just be asking for a torn rotator with little benefit? Medicine ball looks fun, especially with someone you secretly despise, but is it good exercise?
Then they had those weights that were set in slots in the wall, that you yanked up with pulleys. It seems if you could vary the direction of the pull it would be similar to a Bowflex. And another wall-mount: a column of holes that you climbed by inserting pins your grasped in your hands.
It seems like things later became more and more scientific; with cam weight machines for every muscle inlcuding the cremaster, and treadmills evolving into elipticals; that the ancient stuff was too crude to have been any use. But then again, they brought back kettlebells?
Medicine balls are still widely used.
Dumbells are barbells haven’t changed in centuries.
Basically, you can get a great workout with a bench, a rack, a chair, some weights and a jump rope. Everything else is just making workouts faster and more convenient.
ETA - the first gym I went to had a weight room the size of my kitchen. I got my best results at that gym, proving to me that you don’t need shiny equipment to build muscle.
More about technique than the equipment; I’d say the biggest advances in the last 100 years are techniques that isolate and work specific muscles along with your workout diet and modern supplements.
Yes you could easily tear out your rotator if you used the Indian Clubs incorrectly 100 years ago. You can hurt yourself pretty good with kettle weights today if you swing them around.
Mostly I agree but one innovation that came with Arthur Jones’ Nautilus machine was that the rotational design provides constant torque on the joint instead of vertical force. For example, when you do a dumbbell curl the weight is not pulling against the bicep much as your arm approaches vertical, which is where the maximum bicep contraction occurs. With a rotary machine, the torque against your bicep is constant all the way through the whole contraction. (And with the Nautilus machine the torque actually *increases *throughout the contraction.)
It seems reasonable to me that this would be a benefit but I don’t know if it has been demonstrated scientifically.
Most of the basic barbell movements except for the bench press existed back then. Truth be told, in terms of strength training, there really hasn’t been that much innovation over the last century in terms of exercises and implements. The real progress has been in programming, gear (think bench shirts and squat suits) and drugs.
I agree with Si Amigo - it is more about technique. Even with rudimentary barbells and dumbbells, with the proper technique a great workout could be had. The question, then, is whether there was enough knowledge about the body and body mechanics to understand what the best technique would be.
Have you ever tried one of these ? It is an awesome upperbody workout ! Used to be fairly standard at local schools (not 100 years old either). But too many strained/torn tendons, so they got rid of them. Depending on how creative you got, you could work a lot ! I would love to get one (I’m a rock climber).
Well, you can get highly effective cardio with nothing more than you body. Running in place, running down the street or on trails, brisk walking, jumping rope etc.
For weight training, there is nothing from the year 2013 you need to basically get the absolute best muscle building workout you’d ever need that you couldn’t get in a gym from 1913. If you ever watch Pumping Iron for example you’ll see 95% of the stuff those guys do are dumbbell and barbell exercises. They use a few specialty barbells that may not have existed in 1913, like the curl and tricep bar but those really just help with your motion–you can get the same lift motion without them. And Pumping Iron is from the 70s, and the guys in that are really as big as anyone needs to be. They’re also all on steroids, so with 1913 equipment eating and working out just like they did you’d never look like that, but you would definitely be bulked up considerably for a non-steroid person.