Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which the resistance provided by variable-cam resistance training machines match joint torque capability. Eight variable-cam knee extension machines from six different manufacturers were assessed. Resistive torque for a constant weight/load was measured at five knee joint angles. Knee extensor muscle torque capability--the angle-torque relationship--of 10 healthy young men was determined isometrically and dynamically at the same five angles. After normalization, the two relationships were compared. The angle - torque relationship of the knee extensors displayed an inverted "U" shape as expected, with dynamic torque changing by +40% on the ascending limb (1.75 - 1.40 rad) and -60% on the descending limb (1.05-0.35 rad) of the angle - torque relationship. The angle-torque relationship of the different training machines was highly variable, but consistently less curvilinear and significantly different from knee extensor capabilities, with changes in torque of +2.5 to +22.2% (ascending limb) and +37.6 to -20.5% (descending limb). It is recommended that variable-cam resistance training machines be designed with the angle - torque relationship of the relevant joint and the inertial profile of the lifting exercise in mind.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Folland et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: