In defence of Smith Machine squats

[Realgains]

Okay here it goes.....power lifters feel free to fire at will he he he .

There is a group that is very strongly against the use of a Smith Machine for Squats. Most of these people are against the use of any machines for that matter.

NOTE: Let it be made prefectly clear...I THINK THE REGULAR BACK SQUAT IS BETTER THAN THE SMITH SQUAT FOR MOST, unless you just cannot correct an excessive forward lean due to crappy biomechanics.

I JUST THINK ALL THE NOISE ABOUT HOW TERRIBLE THE SMITH MACHINE SQUAT IS IS BS !

A large portion of the people who hate the Smith are power lifters and I will agree that the Smith machine serves little purpose for the power lifter as one must always work on balance and skill in power lifting. HOWEVER many very good bodybuilders use the Smith machine on a routine basis. Some, such as Dorian Yates, dropped the regular Squat after getting very strong in the squat simply because they could squat safer with the Smith. Dorian has admitted that he does Not have the best biomechanics for free squating and after years of refusing to use the smith he finially tried it and found it helped him. Dorian also says that everyone should learn to free squat very well if they can before using the Smith.

I used to belong to this "camp" and thought that anyone that used the Smith Machine was a wimp and simply too lazy to learn the skill of regular back squatting. I too also thought that the Smith machine caused injury and reduced the effectiveness of the squat.

WHY THE CHANGE OF HEART.

Well I am a born squater.....biomechanically near perfect for squating. I can squat a great deal of weight and love the regular squat. I can do the power squat but prefer the regular high bar(olympic/bodybuilding style)

Even though I have excellent form in the squat I have from time to time tweaked my low back coming up from a very hard rep. Most experienced trainees will not get away with years of heavy squating without some minor low back/sacral "tweaks" It just takes a split second of too much forward lean out of the bottom "pocket" of the squat and bingo...you tweaked your low back.
Anyway this "tweaking" rarely happens with good squaters but one day it happen fairly noticably with me. I was then forced to rest the squat for a few weeks. It was then that vey large power lifting friend of mine suggected that I use the Smith. WHAT!! heresy of heresy!...my hard core buddy suggesting the SMITH! After listening to his explaination I decided to try the Smith.

To my shock I was able to position my feet and body identically to the back squat. My form stayed rock solid out of the bottom and my form was very solid and powerful. I was able to focus more on effort and less on skill and balance and this stimulated gains. The Bar never dipped forward and tweaking my back coming out of the "pocket" at the bottom simply because it can't.

I do sometimes position my feet about a cm forward from my regular back squat foot position and this helps to reduce low back strain even though I still have proper forward lean.

REASONS TO NOT USE THE SMITH

Never use the Smith because you don't want to take the time to learn the skill envolved in regular back squating, either power of high bar style.

Never use the Smith to take stress off the hamstrings and butt by placing your feet far forward of the bar. All this does is reduce thigh load, even though it may feel greater. It also puts the knees is a weird position and this could cause injury.


WHY SOME ARE AGAINST THE SMITH and MY COUNTER POINTS

#1. The Smith takes away the skill needed to free bar squat.
Well this is only partially true but it does hold some weight....but it applies to the power lifter and Olympic lifter much more than the bodybuilder and holds little to no weight for the muscle building body builder.

#2. The Smith takes away stimulation of the synergists or stabalizers because good balance and stabalization is not required during the lift.
Well I think this is BS....stabalizers get plenty of work with machines. It does take away from the need to balance and when the going gets really intense I actually think this is an advantage for the body builder and not a disadvantage.

#3. The Smith causes the bar to move staight up and down and this is not a natural squat movement.
Well..unlike the bench press in which the weight is suppose to move in a J hook( although not everyone does this) the weight in the squat should go more straight up and down. I squat totally staright up and down although some have some degree of forward to backward motion. Even if your natural groove causes more forward to backward travel ,being forced to move the bar straight up and down is perfectly safe just like using the hammer bench press is perfectly safe for those that like to do the J press in the regular bench.
My regular back squat and smith squat look exactly the same...same forward lean, same sit back, same depth, same tibial angle, and the bar moves straight up and down.

Injury in the smith comes form poor form...having excessive foot placements either forward or backward.

#4. The Smith forces the torso to move much closer to verticle than in a regular back squat and this decreases the load to the hamstrings and low back.
Well...this is often seen with the Smith as many people place their feet too far forward and some people focus on staying too erect BUT it doesn't have to happen. My feet are usually placed in the exact same place under the bar as with a regular free bar squat and my hams are plenty stresses as are my erectors...AND BTW I sure the HELL do not squat for erector stimulation ...I DO DEADLIFTS FOR THAT!

#5. The Smith causes the knees to come too far forward over the toes making the angle of the tibia too steep and reducing the effectiveness of the movement.
well...this can happen IF you try to keep your back verticle or if the feet are too far back but again it does not need to happen if the feet are placed under the bar in like manner to the free bar squat.

#6. The Smith forces the user to use it pre determined plain of motion.
Well this is plain BS! You can change the plain YOUR BODY moves along by altering foot position forward and back by small to tiny amounts. In fact you can make the Smith squat almost EXACTLY like the free bar squat.
It is actually GOOD that the bar moves straight up and down and this certainly will not hurt you UNLESS you have a severe foot position.

With any machine one has to adjust their body alignment so that the movement is natural and follows a natural groove. Some machine make it very hard to adjust ones bodily plain of motion but it is easy to do in the Smith.

*****IN FACT some people NEED to have their "natural" groove altered because they simply CANNOT SQUAT in good form due to crappy biomechanics.

Many simply cannot correct an excessive forward lean. I used to think that this was BS but it is NOT! Some people simply cannot safely squat with a free bar even after working on technique and ankle/hip flexibility. My wife is a prime example.......very long legs, short torso and a crappy squater. If anyone could get her to squat correctly it would be me but alas she cannot squat intensly and safely unless she uses the Smith machine. In the smith machine she can squat deep and pretty well and with no excessive forward lean and resultant back pain/injury.

#7. And the one that bugs me the most....The Smith machine(and all machines) do not produce "functional strength" in other sports and in day to day life beacuse it does not teach balance and doesn't work stabalizing muscles and muscle that stabalize lateral or twisting forces.
Well, to this is say a BIG BS! First of all machine work does indeed work stabalizers well.
But most importantly the body uses the power and strength from muscles and tendons and adapts it to sporting activities , such as the verticle jump, pushing a football sled, powerful skating. In order to see improvement in any particular sporting movement one HAS TO PRACTISE THAT PARTICULAR MOVEMENT. So if you want to skate fast and with power then practise proper skating, if you want to improve your verticle jump than practise it, if you want to have a good drive from the bottom in Olympic lifting then you have to practise the balistic drive from rock bottom in EXACTLY the manner used by Olympic lifters, AND IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A BIG POWER SQUAT THEN PRACTISE THAT etc etc.
Not only that but athletic ability is BORN and NOT made for the most part, especially such things as verticle jump and speed.

The use of free weights does NOT translate to better functional strength in day to day life or athletics...thats a BS pipe dream made up by haters of machines.


Lastly these people that hate the Smith, and I was one of them, usually hate all machines and site similar reasons NOT to use them.
Well to this I would like to also say BS...he he he. There are some excellent machines out there. One benefit of machines for the body builder is they allow more focus on effort and less on balance and skill. Some aalso have a better strength cure and eliminate stciking points etc.

AFTER ALL THAT SAID.... there is no machine that can duplicate any form of deadlift or the free squat.
The Smith machine is good for those that KNOW HOW to use it safely(no excessive foot positions) BUT THE FREE SQUAT IS BETTER if you can squat safely.

So if you use the Smith don't think you are doing yourself a favor by placing your feet far forward to the bar and going down half way...this does nothing. Use the Smith in like manner to the free squat with only very small foot alterations if any at all.

And please.....don't use the Smith because you are too lazy to learn to free squat.

RG

 

[b fold the truth]

Interesting...very interesting. I might use a Smith Machine for standing calf raises or maybe just adding a little AR or volume work...but never hard or intense on squats.

I believe that Dorian said that he switched to Smith Squats as to not continue to develop his glutes/hips. I'll see if I can find the quote in his book.

B True

 

[bignate73]

i dont know if i agree on this. safer for avoiding back tweaks is the only point i'll argue. the smith machine can actually facilitate a hip shift backwards because the bar doesnt move front to back or sagitally. when you are forced to use balance, you will keep the weight distributed over the rear to mid part of your foot on the descent and hopefully on the ascent as well. with a smith squat its too easy to throw balance to the wind, give way to a weak posterior chain and shift the hips back thereby dropping the torso. the hips are very mobile in a smith squat, you can shift forward to back much easier. if someone can really shoot their hips back, their erectors will take the brunt of the weight real quick. it will look more like a goodmorning squat vs something that had the makings of a regular squat.

another point to be argued is the stabilizer issue. there is no lateral or transverse movment with a bar the moves up and down. you dont get a chance to balance the bar much or keep your body from twisting. sure its safe and good for a cosmetic athlete, but someone with a multi faceted goal like being functionally strong AND looking good will be fooling themselves with the smith machine. just as an 800 lb leg press doesnt equate to an 800lb squat, neither will a 350lb smith squat equate to being able to balance 350 on your back and squat with it.

its all about goals i guess. functionally im of the mindset that you train with stimulation to many planes to keep from tweaking anything. if rotation is taken out of the equation, then its just keeping the weak link from being exposed, not fixing it. then something in the real world takes a so called "fit" person out with something very simple that training didnt prepare them for.

 

[Realgains]

i dont know if i agree on this. safer for avoiding back tweaks is the only point i'll argue. the smith machine can actually facilitate a hip shift backwards because the bar doesnt move front to back or sagitally. when you are forced to use balance, you will keep the weight distributed over the rear to mid part of your foot on the descent and hopefully on the ascent as well. with a smith squat its too easy to throw balance to the wind, give way to a weak posterior chain and shift the hips back thereby dropping the torso. the hips are very mobile in a smith squat, you can shift forward to back much easier. if someone can really shoot their hips back, their erectors will take the brunt of the weight real quick. it will look more like a goodmorning squat vs something that had the makings of a regular squat.

another point to be argued is the stabilizer issue. there is no lateral or transverse movment with a bar the moves up and down. you dont get a chance to balance the bar much or keep your body from twisting. sure its safe and good for a cosmetic athlete, but someone with a multi faceted goal like being functionally strong AND looking good will be fooling themselves with the smith machine. just as an 800 lb leg press doesnt equate to an 800lb squat, neither will a 350lb smith squat equate to being able to balance 350 on your back and squat with it.

its all about goals i guess. functionally im of the mindset that you train with stimulation to many planes to keep from tweaking anything. if rotation is taken out of the equation, then its just keeping the weak link from being exposed, not fixing it. then something in the real world takes a so called "fit" person out with something very simple that training didnt prepare them for.

All those problems you mention DO NOT need to happen if you keep your form solid...its like with any movement.

Also you are over emphasizing the benefit of free weights...you can get functionally strong with the smith....you don't need to rely upon a free squat, or any other free weight movement, to see functional strength in sports or life in general. Balance, athletic skill and power is learned by doing each particular sport and not via the use of free weights. ie: having a great free squat does not help explosiveness on the football field any more tha smith machine squats......its how you LEARN to control that basic strength and power that counts and this is done by practising the athletic movement itself......and a lot of it is also genetic. You are born athletic and not made athletic for the most part.

The body learns to recruit power and speed from its muscles and tendons by practise and free weights make little to no difference IMHO.

Functional strength for what bro...powerlifting and Olympic lifting where a skillfull squat is needed, YES!, but thats about it.

Also the rotational weak link you mention is always the weak link and doing free squats doesn't strengthen it...it just teaches you to balance properly in the squat so you don't expose that weak link to injury.


Also stabalizers are indeed worked with machines.

I increased my smith squat by 50 pounds last year and my back squat also went up 50 pounds.

I still prefer the regular back squat but i am just saying that the HUGE NEGATIVE OUTCRY that is sometimes heard about the Smith machine and machines in general has gone way too far.


RG

 

[Realgains]

Interesting...very interesting. I might use a Smith Machine for standing calf raises or maybe just adding a little AR or volume work...but never hard or intense on squats.

I believe that Dorian said that he switched to Smith Squats as to not continue to develop his glutes/hips. I'll see if I can find the quote in his book.

B True

I knew I would hear from you bro and I am glad you are here.....remember now I am not saying that the smith is better ...in fact I said the regular back squat is better(for most).

What I am trying to do here is blow the wistle on those that think Smith machine squats are crap and unsafe etc.

Dorian did say that he switched to smith squats to take the emphasis away from his glutes/hips but he also said this.....

"As I got stronger and my poundages increased, the movement(free squats) became more awkward, and was putting excessive and dangerous stress on my hip girdle. I was getting a lot of minor starins and tweaks. I perservered with the exercise until Oct 1989, when I finially accepted that my structure-narrow hips, longish legs- was not ideal for heavy barbell squats. Instead I began to rely on leg presses and smith machine squats as mass builders for the thighs" Dorian Yates from "A Warriors Story"

RG

 

[vinylgroover]

Foor those with a suspect back, i would say by all means use the smith machine. But if your back can handle free squats, i would not recommend smith machine.

I have had to resort to the smith machine for that very reason......but i hate it. My knees, which i have never had problems with, have started to cause me pain up and down the outside of both knees.......i attribute that pain to smith machine squats. I had never experienced it prior to doing them.

I would not use them if my back was ok and i could do free squats.

 

[Realgains]

Foor those with a suspect back, i would say by all means use the smith machine. But if your back can handle free squats, i would not recommend smith machine.

I have had to resort to the smith machine for that very reason......but i hate it. My knees, which i have never had problems with, have started to cause me pain up and down the outside of both knees.......i attribute that pain to smith machine squats. I had never experienced it prior to doing them.

I would not use them if my back was ok and i could do free squats.

I would agree with you on the first part in regard to back squating BUT the Smith machine squat should not hurt your knees any more than a free squat(which is zero) unless you have your feet placed either too far forward of in back of the bar. Position yourself like you would in the rack and you should not have knee problems.

RG

 

[vinylgroover]

I would agree with you on the first part in regard to back squating BUT the Smith machine squat should not hurt your knees any more than a free squat(which is zero) unless you have your feet placed either too far forward of in back of the bar. Position yourself like you would in the rack and you should not have knee problems.

RG

My form mimics that of a back squat totally. The pain started 2 or 3 weeks into smith machine squatting......with no other change in my leg routine. I just don't like the position it puts you in.......i just don't think the body is meant to be 'locked' into a position like that.

 

[Realgains]

My form mimics that of a back squat totally. The pain started 2 or 3 weeks into smith machine squatting......with no other change in my leg routine. I just don't like the position it puts you in.......i just don't think the body is meant to be 'locked' into a position like that.

But bro....the only thing that is locked in is the straight up and down movement of the weight......you can change the movement your body takes by making small to tiny adjustments to your feet forward and back.

But perhaps you do not squat straight up and down like me and that may be giving you a problem.

RG

 

[Nonerz]

RG, I think the negative comments about the Smith Machine stem from seeing so many people using it exclusively for squats, rather than putting in the time and effort necessary to perfect their form in a free squat. Most of the time the Smith bashing is locker room talk...to be taken with a grain of salt. The Smith, in my opinion, is limiting...which is good, if that's what you're looking for.

Yes, it amuses me when I see a guy who is doing quarter squats on the Smith (usually with poor form and too much weight). I think the offenders could make better use of their time doing something else.

So for what it's worth, if you say that ".... there is no machine that can duplicate any form of deadlift or the free squat.
The Smith machine is good for those that KNOW HOW to use it safely(no excessive foot positions) BUT THE FREE SQUAT IS BETTER if you can squat safely," then I 100% agree with you. It just seems as though you are defending the Smith Machine a bit much.

Then again, what do I know anyway?!

 

[Realgains]

RG, I think the negative comments about the Smith Machine stem from seeing so many people using it exclusively for squats, rather than putting in the time and effort necessary to perfect their form in a free squat. Most of the time the Smith bashing is locker room talk...to be taken with a grain of salt. The Smith, in my opinion, is limiting...which is good, if that's what you're looking for.

Yes, it amuses me when I see a guy who is doing quarter squats on the Smith (usually with poor form and too much weight). I think the offenders could make better use of their time doing something else.

So for what it's worth, if you say that ".... there is no machine that can duplicate any form of deadlift or the free squat.
The Smith machine is good for those that KNOW HOW to use it safely(no excessive foot positions) BUT THE FREE SQUAT IS BETTER if you can squat safely," then I 100% agree with you. It just seems as though you are defending the Smith Machine a bit much.

Then again, what do I know anyway?!

Thats a good little post and thank you for putting things across so well.


Well I too think the Smith machine is abused. SO MANY people use it wrong with too much weight, weird foot palcements, partial reps just like you said. They also use it because the are afraid of the regular back squat and or too damn lazy to learn to squat.
Lastly they wrongly think that they are going to develope the frontal quads better but using the smith with a forward foot placement.

If the Smith haters focused on this I would never have written my post but the thing is they don't...instead they like to focus on the Smiths so called ability to cause injury and other things as well as their favorite..."the smith machine squat does not transfer over to functional strength in other sports or day to day life" MAN I HATE THAT ONE!

YES the Smith machine is a favorite of abusers of form and this hurts the smith.

BUT....when I do an intense set of high rep full squats in the smith ...people stop and watch and nobody even thinks about how crappy the smith is...instead I routinely have power lifters and other experience bodybuilders come over to me after a set to say "nice form" or "great set".

Use the smith correctly or don't use it at all. Don't be an idiot and do half reps with feet far forward of the bar and a ton of weight.

RG

 

[Nonerz]

Maybe it is actually harder to maintain good form on the Smith because it doesn't "allow" you to move in a natural ROM...it moves on a predetermined path, thus making it more difficult to put/keep your body in what would be considered the proper position.

just a thought...

 

[spiderwoman]

I appreciate this thread and squatted with the smith machine for years. Only recently have I started squatting with the bar... I like it better although I have trouble squatting 220 like I used to with the smith cuz I don't have a spotter. I do box squats but not anywhere as heavy. I had knee trouble with the smith and stopped that, thinking it was the machine. In retrospect, it probably was due to the fact that I whipped my knees out in front too much [dumb trainer's idea]. So, on the smith, my knees are nearly under the bar, ya?? or just in front a few inches??

and, what about hacks??

 

[b fold the truth]

I have hurt both a knee and my rotator cuffs (twice on the cuffs) while using the smith machine. I think that I could probably train some exercises on one now as long as I was not pushing heavy weights or anywhere near failure. It just doesn't allow for proper range of motion...

It doesn't fit into my goals, I can't see spending THAT kind of money on a machine with so little use/functionality, and I can't see where it would help me much at all. I'd give it a whirl though...thought about doing front squats on one or using it to prepare for the 'Bud Girl Squat' that the Pro's use now.

As far as using the Smith Machine for those with back problems, I just do not see the smith machine allowing for a natural ROM which would not be good for your spine/back. I also look at a weak back as 'something to strengthen'.

Very good post though..I am going to copy/paste/save/print it for future use.

B True

 

[Realgains]

Thanx for the reply b- fold...

I too sure the heck would never actually buy a Smith machine.

If one is a half decent squater one certainly doesn't need the Smith machine.. In fact one doesn't need to do ANYTHING for the quads other than deep back squats.

If the Smith feels weird or odd then I don't think a person should use it. The same could be said about other exercises....ie: I have no problem doing upright rows to failure with a heavy weight and wrist straps but others find the movement odd and it has injured many a rotator cuff as a result.

I use the Smith from time to time but only for a break from my regular back squat. I also do a more full range trap bar deadlift up on a platform instead of regular squats from time to time too. I do not use the Smith like Dorian Yates used to use it, that is in place of the regular squat.

The very fact that a VERY strong and experienced bodybuilder got good results from the Smith squat holds some weight in my books. Remember Yates was from the old school and used to think that one must squat in the rack all the time.

b-fold.....I also use the smith for seated front presses in a bench set at about 80 degrees and I find this an excellent movement as did Dorian...I actually got the idea form Yates. Sometimes I do shrugs in the smith and occasionally shallow inclines but that is it.


About the rotator cuff..I hear ya bro and I have had issues here too and you know which exercise is actually the WORST in this regard...the regular press behind the neck. As far as I am concerned NOBODY should use this movement while training to failure. It woudl probably be even worse in the smith. Another bad one for many is the regular bench press yet some people have no problems with the exercise.

The Smith is not this monster injury machine that some would like to imagine it as. It sees a GREAT DEAL of abuse and MANY peole that use the smith use terrible form and not just in the squat. It is this abused form that I see causing much of the problems and resultant negativity towards the Smith.

But as I said before NOTHING beats the regular back squat for the majority of trainees.....yet that doesn't mean that everyone can be taught to squat correctly. Some people simply CANNOT squat due very crappy biomechanics. For these people the deadlift or trap bar deadlift is a far superior all round results producing movement.... and some can do Smith squats with results and LESS injury.

RG

 

[Hannibal]

*Frankenstien Voice* "Smith machine baaaaaaaaaaad"

In all seriousness, good thread.

 

[RottenWillow]

I had exactly the same impression of the Smith machine as Nonerz. The movement felt awkward and forced. Yeah I could handle more weight since I didnt have to balance the load, just lift it, but it felt like wearing a straight jacket.

Being only 5'6" and having a comparatively muscular lower body the squat feels real comfortable and natural to me but I wonder if the Smith would be a good choice for tall people.

 

[Lumberg]

Thanks for putting it into perspective RG. I used to hate Smith machines but now I just think the real thing is better. It's not the end of the world to squat in one.

I have found that they work very well for front squats though.

And I do like regular squats enough to spend some big bucks and drive up to the York factory outlet for a squat rack and some barbell weights. My work gym only has a SMith.

 

[The Shadow]

I never free bar squat anymore.

Smith Squats or front squats
Stiff deads
Hacks
leg ext and culrs

hit everything for me.

 

[SouthernBell]

Spatts, you said that in ref to the video of you squating you may have looked a little shakey because that was the first time you used the knee wraps. Why do they make you shakey. I was looking in to getting me some and I was wondering if this would be good or bad for my squat. I was thinking they would help stabalize my knees from shaking. I surely don't want to add anything that will make me more shakey.

SB

 

[slinky]

Southern:

I don't (and can't) speak for spatts. But the way in which you use the wraps; i.e. very tightly wound around the knees, is what threw me off the first time I used them. You are so aware of them on your knees. And the fact that they're cutting off circulation

You'll get use to them, but just be aware of how it may feel the very first few times you do use them.

 

[SouthernBell]

Thanks Slinky, I guess I will have to just try them and see for myself.

SB

 

[Realgains]

Spatts, you said that in ref to the video of you squating you may have looked a little shakey because that was the first time you used the knee wraps. Why do they make you shakey. I was looking in to getting me some and I was wondering if this would be good or bad for my squat. I was thinking they would help stabalize my knees from shaking. I surely don't want to add anything that will make me more shakey.

SB

Don't use wraps unless you are doing heavy triples or less and I don't think you should do that for quite some time.
Wraps used in training will only weaken your knees....they are a crutch.

They are needed in power lifting in order to be competitive, since they are standard material just like the squat suit and belt. The bely, suit and wraps will add quite a bit to your squat max.

About the belt. I don't recommend using it unless you are going to go to failure of close to that. Not a few poeple don't use a belt in high rep squats though.

 

[Realgains]

I never free bar squat anymore.

Smith Squats or front squats
Stiff deads
Hacks
leg ext and culrs

hit everything for me.

Ya ...once a person has well developed upper legs then one can drop the free squat ...this is not that usual for top level bodybuilders.

BUT....mentally I don't think I will ver be able to do this even thought my legs are my best body part. I am addicted to heavy high rep back squats.

RG

 

[Nonerz]

Wraps used in training will only weaken your knees....they are a crutch.

some could say the same type of thing about the Smith...

 

[bignate73]

Wraps used in training will only weaken your knees....they are a crutch.

exactly,to put it more pointedly, they allow you to get stronger than your joint structure can keep up with. ex: your knees can handle the strain of X weight, your legs can push (after using wraps for a while) 1.3X. if X doesnt catch up to the wrapped weight you can push....something is going to go even on lighter weights with a slip in form.

its like having max horsepower from an engine and the proper clutch that can handle it to put the power to the transmission....if you get a shot of nitrous (an increase in horsepower) and your clutch cant hold it....something will blow. sorry for the car analogy but it works for the weak link analogy.

 

[Realgains]

some could say the same type of thing about the Smith...

Some do but they are wrong.

The smith does not support a critical joint like wraps support a knee. The wraps also cause a tension rebound and that takes the force off the quads.

Build your strength without wraps...practise heavy singles with wraps if you are power lifter. Unfortunately they, and the squat suit, are allowed in power lifting so you have to use them or you are at an unfair disadvantage in a comp.


The smith takes away the need to balance but it still works assesory/stabalizing muscles hard, contrary to what some people may think.

RG

 

[Realgains]

"BOTTOM LINE" ON THE SMITH

Some people can use it effectively and some people cannot and you will not know it unless you try it. If it doesn't feel right even after making small adjustment to your foot placement then drop it.

If you are going to use it PLEASE be sure to use strict form and weight that you can manage for full reps AND avoid excessive foot placements forward or back.

Much of the same can be said about many exercises INCLUDING free weight movements ie: some can do heavy upright rows and some get sore rotator cuffs, some can do press behind the neck and wreck their shoulders with this movement, some can do deep leg pressing and some injure their low back, some can bench press with a free bar and some injure rotator cuffs.

Most can learn to back squat with a free bar half decently BUT SOME CANNOT and are better off using a trap bar deadlift and MAYBE the leg press or smith machine or TRUSQUAT machine. etc etc.

To say that the Smith machine is a piece of crap and always results in injury is not only BS but it is not fair. Tell Dorian Yates that the Smith is crap.

That said.....If you love to back squat and can do it safely with a free bar then you don't really need the Smith at all or any other quad movement for that matter. I only use it occasionally for a change of pace.

Come to think of it I might try front squats with it tomorrow.

RG

 

[spatts]

SB, slinky and RG answered your question. I second RG on the use of equipment. I train raw. Hell, I'll probably even compete raw soon, just for fun. The knee wraps were really added because...well...that's whatcha do! Sounds crappy, but everyone uses them and I wanted to see if it "helped." I felt springloaded. It helps you make a max effort lift, but as RG said, in everyday training it hinders healthy progress.

 

[deafsquatter]

I found the primary benefit from using the Smith is psychological. I'm your average, 5'7, strong woman (ok, above average in strength, but not pro or competitive by any means). I worked on form and did free squats for a while, but when I finally turned to the Smith (due to lack of spotters and the desire to try out an increased weight) and realized I *could* do 250+lbs, my confidence level and consequently my performance on free squats improved. I still use the Smith primarily for what it is not designed for, mainly modifed horizontal pullups (ala Krista Scott-Dixon) and stabilizing me on platform calf raises (ha). but I digress.... it's a good, useful tool. We all talk about biomechanics, but don't forget the psych part of training (esp. for women) is invaluable.

 

[SofaGeorge]

I read a fascinating study on the Smith Machine a few years ago. It hooked up the muscle to record stimulation... and demonstrated that the Smith was just as good at engaging the muscles as freebar squats (except for the stabalizers.)

 

[Alucard]

Whether it stimulates the stabilizers or not doesn't matter as much as the fact that it removes coordination, and possibly stunts the development of neural patterns involved in that.

But you've "found Jesus", so to speak, so you'll see it your way.

 

[The Shadow]

Whether it stimulates the stabilizers or not doesn't matter as much as the fact that it removes coordination, and possibly stunts the development of neural patterns involved in that.

But you've "found Jesus", so to speak, so you'll see it your way.

I have done them for years and I have fair legs...so instead of "seeing it my own way", I see what works for me.

 

[Alucard]

And then there's what works better.

 

[Realgains]

Some , like Dorian Yates, find that they work better for them than free squats. I do not think this is the case with most trainees.

The Smith machine Squat is not the monster that some would have you believe.

The leg press done deep and heavy is a very good leg builder although not as good as the free squat for most. We don't here people barking about how the leg press doesn't work stabalizers and coordination etc.

Athletic ability, in all its complexities, is genetic for the most part and specific athletic abilty is developed by doing the sports you enjoy and NOT by doing free squats and lifting with free weights.
Athletic coordination and skill is only very minimally improved via weight training. Muscular strength and power and sometimes flexibilty is improved via weight training and this helps in athletics but that is basically where it stops.

RG

 

[Alucard]

Actually, among strength coaches, they do "bark" about the lack of lower back incorporation and coordination when using Leg Presses.

If you believe your athletic ability will be increased just as much by a Leg Press of Smith Machine Squat, as compared to a Power Clean or a full-range OLY Squat, then you're entitled to that opinion, even if it doesn't bear out on playing fields and the like.

This is where Europe tends to shine. This would not even be worthy of an argument there. They already know that PCs and Squats will, in athletics and also in terms of the promotion of health/physiological balance, easily blow away the Smith machine and Leg Press counterparts.

And, of course, this is not even examining the locked singular plane of movement and the resulting pathologies that can develop.



The Smith Machine is a very useful tool for building size and strength...when you melt it down for more plates and barbells.

 

[Lumberg]

Some , like Dorian Yates, find that they work better for them than free squats. I do not think this is the case with most trainees.

The Smith machine Squat is not the monster that some would have you believe.

The leg press done deep and heavy is a very good leg builder although not as good as the free squat for most. We don't here people barking about how the leg press doesn't work stabalizers and coordination etc.

Athletic ability, in all its complexities, is genetic for the most part and specific athletic abilty is developed by doing the sports you enjoy and NOT by doing free squats and lifting with free weights.
Athletic coordination and skill is only very minimally improved via weight training. Muscular strength and power and sometimes flexibilty is improved via weight training and this helps in athletics but that is basically where it stops.

RG

Very good point. IMO the most important reason to lift weights if you play sports is the injury prevention factor. You can take more of a pounding if you lift weights and are more muscular. It's not going to make you run faster, throw farther, or catch better.

 

[Realgains]

Actually, among strength coaches, they do "bark" about the lack of lower back incorporation and coordination when using Leg Presses.

If you believe your athletic ability will be increased just as much by a Leg Press of Smith Machine Squat, as compared to a Power Clean or a full-range OLY Squat, then you're entitled to that opinion, even if it doesn't bear out on playing fields and the like.

This is where Europe tends to shine. This would not even be worthy of an argument there. They already know that PCs and Squats will, in athletics and also in terms of the promotion of health/physiological balance, easily blow away the Smith machine and Leg Press counterparts.

And, of course, this is not even examining the locked singular plane of movement and the resulting pathologies that can develop.



The Smith Machine is a very useful tool for building size and strength...when you melt it down for more plates and barbells.

#1..I am not saying don't squat with a free bar.

#2. You can do deadlifts and back extensions for low back power if you cannot squat and choose to leg press, and even if you do squat you should still do some type of deadlift.

#3. Power cleans are good to use IF you are an Olympic lifter as it will help in the skill needed to clean a heavy weight but they and free squats do not help much in developing the skill needed to preform other sporting moves. Again, lifting weights helps develope strength, power, some speed and sometimes flexibilty and this helps in most sporting events but the skill, coordination and neuro pathway developement comes from actually doing the movements in a given sport.

#4. If you are very athletic you have been born this way and not made this way...this includes speed , coordination, flexibilty, stamina and the abilty to generate practical functional power. Again, lifting helps to develope strength and power and a certain degree of speed and flexibilty but this is where the benefit stop.

So you don't need to use ANY free weights at all in order to reep the benefits that weight training can offer athletically. Machine work will develope strength and power and this base strength and power will be coordinated by an athletic person functionally ....and it will not be coordinated functionally in the non athletic person...its as simple as that.

That said, I do not think that there is a better overall muscle builder than free squats. For many tall people the deadlift is actually superior in this regard.

RG

 

[Alucard]

I will disagree with # 3 and #4, and let me guess...do you prefer HIT or a variant of it?

If so, the proof is in the pudding, and examples of those who effectively use the exercises I listed to improve (even if only by a few degrees) athletic performance, and succeed in doing so, are readily found.

The opposite is rather scarce, and I leave it to you to find examples of it.

 

[Realgains]

I will disagree with # 3 and #4, and let me guess...do you prefer HIT or a variant of it?

If so, the proof is in the pudding, and examples of those who effectively use the exercises I listed to improve (even if only by a few degrees) athletic performance, and succeed in doing so, are readily found.

The opposite is rather scarce, and I leave it to you to find examples of it.

I am a professional hockey coach and have coached tier 1 major junior for many years in Canada. I have also been a high level competitive bodybuilder and a very good all round athlete.

Weight training has helped my players speed(somewhat) definately strength and sometimes flexibility but definately NOT skill, coordination, balance etc.

Many of my boys have done Olympic sytle lifting with plenty of cleans and other free weight work but the best players have not done this and in fact have trained in a low volume HIGH EFFORT way using free weights and machines. I call this HARD WORK and smart training. I insist that they all squat and deadlift BTW. They train this way because of time constraints but also because it is very effective and if they trained high volume they would over train since very few have ever used steroids to help with recovery. The natural athlete cannot use high volume and expect to grow in size and strength for long.

***bro...if you are natural you CANNOT do high volume unless you a genetic freak, especially when doing another sports seriously.


If you are talking about the brute power, with minimal skill, of a football lineman then yes power cleans and other types of lifting would be a BIG help but it has been my experience that athletic ability is genetic for the most part especially speed, balance and athletic coordination of power. Power can be greatly improved upon via lifting and endurance can be greatly inproved upon via traing BUT you still have to be gifted in these ares to be noticed.

Each to his own but you are definately wrong big time on #4 as I have never once in 20 years of coaching seen someone with average athletic ability significantly improve his base athletic ability in hockey through weight training of any kind. In fact the average athlete has NO CHANCE of making it big in hockey no matter what he does.
As a side.....the top 5 players that I have coached did little weight training at all...they were born athletes and refined their abilities through hard work on the ice.

I played with wayne Gretsky and as you know he was unreal and guess what HE NEVER TOUCHED WEIGHTS.

And BTW I am 41 years old and 230 pounds and I squat 700 plus in a deep high bar style, deadlift 750 and bench 420 and I have always trained HIT, especially in the squat and deadlift. I have NEVER done more than 4-5 sets for any body part even on steroids. Take a look at the largest bodybuilder that ever walked, Dorian Yates in his prime.....he was very big and VERY strong. Also Casey Viator HIT pro bodybuilder of the 70's and early 80's, who I know quite well, still trains HIT with low volume and intensity and he can out lift me at the age of 51!(and he has not taken steroids for 20 years)
Take enough gear and you can do anything and grow including BS high volume 5 and 6 day per week training...almost nobody will grow doing that without a good deal of steroids. ALSO HIT training done all the time without training in cycles is a death sentence for most unless on a lot of gear.

This is what works for a natural trainee, and especially the athlete....Three days in the gym per week on a three way split using no more than 4 working sets PER BODY PART, using almost NO isolation work. They also need to train in cycles and focus on adding small to tiny bits of weight to the bars weekly.

One can get more done with three hard sets of squats than 15 half assed high volume sets of various leg work.

RG

RG

 

[Alucard]

And then I look at mine, and feel ever so more secure.

Realgains, you're an HITer. Congrats.

 

[The Shadow]

And then there's what works better.

...and then I look down at my quads and remember an old saying:


"Some things are true whether YOU believe them or not."


Amazing how someone can presume to tell another what training will suit the other person best.


Post a pic then.

 

[The Shadow]

as a side note:

a recent poll in a bbing mag stated that the VAST majority of the pros do not free-bar squat at all....those that do use a Smith Machine.....personal opinions aside....do you think that it has hampered their development at all?

 

[Realgains]

as a side note:

a recent poll in a bbing mag stated that the VAST majority of the pros do not free-bar squat at all....those that do use a Smith Machine.....personal opinions aside....do you think that it has hampered their development at all?

Good point. I think most give up free squats because they start to get out of proportion in the glutes and hips but not a few give them up because they can get huge legs without them due to great genetics and plenty of gear....squats are damn hard work to say the least.

RG

 

[Alucard]

Okay, physiology turns off for some people, then. Got it.

And pro Bodybuilders are the perfect samples for statistical analysis without the possibility of confounding variables. Got that, too.

You're right.

 

[The Shadow]

Okay, physiology turns off for some people, then. Got it.

And pro Bodybuilders are the perfect samples for statistical analysis without the possibility of confounding variables. Got that, too.

You're right.

They are very applicable as they have the largest quads/hams on the planet. Wouldn't it make sense that their training methodologies have a bit to do with that fact?

This isnt a question of physiology either - its a question of what works best for whom. A blanket statement is never true for all.

 

[valerie]

I'm glad this subject was brought up. I have long legs that make squatting difficult. I have been working on improving my squat for a long time now and really have not been able to make much progress. These are deep squats not the short rom ones.

Deadlifts are another thing, these are easy for me and I can lift much more than I ever could squat.

Even sldl much more wt than squats. I have been avoiding the smith due to all the reasons mentioned earlier.

So tomorrow I will try the smith and see how that goes.

I guess it really does pay to open ones mind every now and again-valerie

 

[Alucard]

I apologize for the way I presented my opposing viewpoint. I could have taken a different approach to delivering the same message, and I should have.

 

[valerie]

This is what makes these boards useful; differing opinions and ideas. We all need to be able to discuss these subjects and be open to new ideas.

BTW-I used the smith for squats today. I was able to get deeper than on free squats. But did use less wt to get the feel of the smith. One odd thing-my left hand went numb. I usually use my traps to "shelf" the bar and forgot on the first two sets, maybe the bar on my neck caused something to cut the blood flow off.

Will try again on next squat day-valerie

 

[bignate73]

Deadlifts are another thing, these are easy for me and I can lift much more than I ever could squat.

Even sldl much more wt than squats. I have been avoiding the smith due to all the reasons mentioned earlier.

if your legs are truly longer, a deadlift should be tougher for you, due to the proportion of torso and femur. if your legs are really long, your knees will shoot far forward when you reach down to the bar. the only way you are lifting more than you squat is if you are using way more of your lower back than you need to. speculation: your legs straighten a great deal as you pick up the bar and then the hips come forward. tall people tend to have trouble with traditional deadlifts and a deadlift becomes a 2 part movement as i described.

there are few people with disproportionately long femurs but for the most part people are just tall and have movement difficulties with learning the motion or some type of flexibility deficiency which keeps them from doing the movement correctly. so they exhaust all "possibilities" and go to the smith. if someone cant squat correctly free bar, a smith machine will just turn into a hack squat without a back support. the feet go forward, and viola, end of ankle flexibility or hip flexibility issue.