Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Smith machine debate thread

Guinness5.0

New member
I was bashing the smith in another post last night and someone wanted some detail as to why I don't like 'em. I copped out and found an article by Charles Poliquin that does a better job than I could of explaining the key points.

Source is here:
http://www.t-nation.com/findArticle.do?article=body_75cp

Smith-relevant portion:
Q: I use the Smith machine extensively in my training, but I've been hearing that it's not the greatest piece of equipment ever invented. What's your take?

A: To be frank, I don't think much of the Smith machine. In fact, when I design a weight room for a client, I never ever buy a Smith machine. In fact, if a dork asks me a question about chest training during one of my workouts, I quickly prescribe him ten sets of 20 on the Smith machine as my way of getting revenge. One of the reasons that the Smith machine has so much publicity in the magazines is because it makes a great visual picture but, as far as functional transfer, it scores a big zero. It was probably invented by a physical therapist who wanted more business for himself.

What you might perceive as positives with the device are in fact strong negatives. The perceived positives are only short-lived because, in a Smith machine, the weight is stabilized for you. However, the shoulder really operates in three planes. But if you do exercises in a Smith machine, none of the shoulder stabilizers need to be recruited maximally. For example, the rotator cuff muscles don't have to fire as much because the bar's pathway is fixed. That creates a problem when the trainee returns to free-weight training. When that happens, the trainee is exposed to the three-dimensional environment called real life. Since the Smith machine has allowed him to develop strength only in one dimension, it predisposes him or her to injury in the undeveloped planes of movement.

Exercise prescription specialist Paul Chek of San Diego has identified what he calls pattern overload syndrome. In his seminar and videos, he stresses that the Smith machine bench press is one of the most common sources of shoulder injuries:

"People get a pattern overload from using the Smith machine. The more fixed the object, the more likely you are to develop a pattern overload. This is due to the fact that training in a fixed pathway repetitively loads the same muscles, tendons, ligaments and joints in the same pattern, encouraging micro-trauma that eventually leads to injury. If Johnny Lunchpail always uses a Smith machine for his bench presses, he ends up working the same fibers of the prime movers in the bench press all of the time: triceps brachii, pectoralis major, long-head of the biceps, anterior deltoids, and serratus anterior. But he can't change the pathway?the bar will always be in the same position."

Because of the mechanics of the human shoulder joint, the body will alter the natural bar pathway during a free-weight bench press to accommodate efficient movement at the shoulder. A fixed bar pathway doesn't allow alteration of this pathway for efficient movement of the joint, thereby predisposing the shoulder to harmful overload via lack of accommodation.

All in all, the Smith machine is a training piece for dorks. If you're interested in training longevity, you're far better off sticking to the standard barbell and dumbbell exercises or try the newer chest machines from Magnum and Flex.
 
I absolutely hate Smith Machines and I wish they were never invented. The only thing they are good for is to use the frame to stretch yourself out between sets if someone is already stretching out on the chinning bar, lol. Sometimes I will do calf raises on them.

I am glad Charles Poliquin made those statements, it is exactly how I feel, but coming from poliquin, they have instant credibility.
 
This was my last rant about the Smith machine, written late July:

blut wump said:
Just walk away from the Smith machine.

I started this year thinking I was mighty with a squat over 400 and a bench over 300. I ran the madcow 5x5 and everything went up. I was even mightier.

I then got away from the leisure center I was working out in with its one and only Smith machine and went to a hard core gym. At first I had trouble benching 135 due to atrophy of the stabiliser muscles. The bar was all over the place. After a couple of weeks I had a very wobbly 250. It's taken four months to get almost back to where I was.

The squat was the same. My knees didn't have the support muscles and neither did my thighs and hips. The Smith does too much of the overall work for you and I went from thinking I was almost a 450 squatter to realising that I was barely a 300 squatter. I'm nowhere near back where I thought I was with squat but I can feel the improvement almost any time I have to push aganst the floor.

The good side? My chest and legs are fuller from the free movements. My stabilizing muscles now are able to do their job in helping with the lift and if I have to do the movement in the real world I know that I'll be able to do it without having a whole bundle of untrained support muscle pop under the load.

The bottom line is that the Smith is a very restrictive machine and to train on the Smith without, at least, also working with free weights will leave you with a lot of muscle imbalances that you won't even suspect you have. Your real-world strength will be just a fraction of your gym strength and correspondingly you're an injury waiting to happen. The tragic thing is that I didn't have a clue about my weaknesses until I went to free weights.

Free weights work you much more and force your body to provide its own support and stability. You can get stronger on the Smith machine but you'll do it faster and in a safer and more complete fashion off and away from it.

I've never tried the angled Smith.
 
I like the Poliquin and Chek tag team - good readin'. Here's Chek's full dissertation on pattern overload:

http://www.chekinstitute.com/articles.cfm?select=27

As far as the Smith, I'm on the hate parade too ;) But I would like to ask - let's say a trainee had only a Smith to squat in. Can anything be done to 'optimize' the experience, or for that matter, minimize the pattern overload?

So, most people put their feet way forward and lean against the bar. I believe this takes the hamstrings out is very bad for the knees. What if the feet were moved closer to the bar and the bar were resting on the back, let's say with hands off the bar for arguments sake. Would this allow someone to move their body in a more natural motion?

Not that I'd want to try it mind you, I just know a lot of people only have the Smith in their gym. Is it better not to squat at all if you only have a Smith? (or with dumbells. or do step ups instead. or lunges. depending on their goal)

And another point, just for the sake of discussion :) - we were talking about ab/adductor machine as an assistance for squatting in another thread - this is fixed path isolation. What if someone used the Smith in the same manner to 'isolate', oh I don't know, the quads, to bring up them up for whatever reason? What's the distinction?

Chek says something in the article about periodizing your training if you want to use the machines...is this how one would go about utilizing the Smith?
 
I always squatted in the Smith with my feet reasonably close in. I never liked the idea of feet out and pushing back. I always reckoned that trying for the squat position would work just fine whereas feet out would make it akin to a leg press.

The Smith not only takes the work away from your stabilizers but also forces you into a straight up-and-down movement. Consequently, no natural leaning forwards or similar in the Smith. If your feet are fractions of an inch out of place, there's nothing you can do about it except rack the bar and try again. You should try it; it feels very unnatural to anyone who is accustomed to free weight.
 
Jim Ouini said:
And another point, just for the sake of discussion :) - we were talking about ab/adductor machine as an assistance for squatting in another thread - this is fixed path isolation. What if someone used the Smith in the same manner to 'isolate', oh I don't know, the quads, to bring up them up for whatever reason? What's the distinction?
The add/abd only uses one joint in one plane of motion. That's, IMHO, why it's not harmful.
 
I'd rather not try it, I prefer to debate it on the internet :p

Wouldn't I be able to push my hips back and flex at the hips in the scenario I describe? Or would the bar end up hitting me in the back of the head?

Also, let's say in my workout I did Smith machine squats and walking lunges. Or even lateral lunges. Would this 'balance' my prime mover/stabilizers?
 
The only time I use smith machines is for upright rows or lunges..other than that I don't use them..... I did however use it to get the motion of a squat... but when I squat I use the free weights...(much better)
 
Guinness5.0 said:
The add/abd only uses one joint. That's, IMHO, why it's not harmful.

Hmm I hadn't thought of that...seems to make sense from that point of view...fixed path compound is more harmful than fixed path iso.

OTOH, now that gets me thinking about closed chain/open chain fixed path. Leg extension is open chain...bad for the knees, correct? I suppose it really comes down to anatomy and the direction of force.

Sorry I'm in a HS debate team mood right now...
 
Top Bottom