Smith machine debate thread

[StickFigure]

Jsut using an example we'd both agree on. Just b/c lots of people use HS and Smith machines doesn't mean it's good for 'em.

Lots of people do nothing but situps to lose their gut. It doesn't mean it's a good or effective idea.


See, that's the whole problem. Removing stabilization from the exercise is asking to get injured once you use free weights.

That is why you should NOT rely soley on machines. You must mix it up. For example, I use the smitty for Incline Press right now but I mix it up with Incline DB presses. If you rely 100% on machines for your training I would agree that you are at a higher risk for injury moving into free weight use. But if you balance them, you will have greater growth and strength potential than only relying on one.

 

[tay1506]

thats not good if the smith is that bad cuz i work out at the ymca and the only thing u can do squat on is the smith thats the only thing they have so would anyone say just dont do it and do something else like leg press or should i just do it since i work legs out in many other exercises therefore i get the support muscles to gain in strength anyways?

 

[StickFigure]

thats not good if the smith is that bad cuz i work out at the ymca and the only thing u can do squat on is the smith thats the only thing they have so would anyone say just dont do it and do something else like leg press or should i just do it since i work legs out in many other exercises therefore i get the support muscles to gain in strength anyways?

Read the whole thread and you will have your answer.

 

[*MissFit*]

can't u squat with dumb bells

thats not good if the smith is that bad cuz i work out at the ymca and the only thing u can do squat on is the smith thats the only thing they have so would anyone say just dont do it and do something else like leg press or should i just do it since i work legs out in many other exercises therefore i get the support muscles to gain in strength anyways?

 

[Madcow2]

It has been proven scientifically that machines like smittys and Hammer Strength, alow for greater muscle growth due to the fact that when you use a fixed plain of movement, you can increase the weight you lift by a substantial amount bacause you do not incorporate the isolator muscles used in free weight movement. More weight moved(tonage)= greater mass gain. I will try to find the studies I have read on this and post them later.

While I agree on the workload and tonnage relevance for training there is a major problem when comparing different lifts which is why people tend to be restricted to core lifts when using these or something constant that serves as a foundation so that the numbers become comparable (i.e. a lot of OLs will only calc their work in the classic lifts and impose a bottom limit on intensity for inclusion i.e. only reps above 80% in the C&J and Snatch). Your calc and theory is sound but not application and in truth that calc is limited because it doesn't account for differentiation between exercises.

The bottom line is that a 500lbs squat is a lot more stimulative than a 550 leg press to the body. The tonnage calc alone does not relfect that the exercises are not equivalent due to mechanical advantages and stability afforded by the machines.

This isn't just theoretical but easily confirmed just by wandering around the gym. How many times have we seen guys leg pressing decent poundage and not able to squat crap and all of a sudden you get them to work on the squat and boom their legs explode - and yet their squat weight even after months of training is no where near what they can legpress. Going back to the legpress doesn't tend to result in better gains either. It's not a matter of being stale it's a matter of effectiveness and tonnage alone won't reflect this.

More clearly you can see the restriction of tonnage in the efficacy of partial movements of the base free weights. In the upper range you can load the body with a ton more weight and tonnage calcs reflect it. What they don't take into account are a lot of other factors that make partials particularly bad and I think just about any experienced lifter will agree that they work pretty abysmally over anything but maybe the very short term (which is just adaptation from doing something different) and carryover to the full lift in most cases is garbage. Tonnage doesn't reflect this. A physics work calc would due to the distance or ROM in there.

But if you have proof that a Hammer Program generated more gains in experienced lifters than a decent free weight program - with controls obviously - I'd love to see it. Seems very very expensive and highly unlikely to ever be conducted. In addition, most people already know how this would come out from experience.

 

[blut wump]

Well the ab/adductor machine movement doesn't seem natural to me...unless you're a...nah, nevermind I'll pass...

As far as the leg extension I think you're right the load point at the bottom puts a lot of shear on the knee joint.

I will say that I'm finding I may need to do some seated leg curls - we got a recliner recently (to go with HDTV ) and getting the recliner back to upright position requires me to do a leg curl. I almost cramped up trying to get that thing back into place.

Lol. I do mine with one leg for reps.

 

[StickFigure]

While I agree on the workload and tonnage relevance for training there is a major problem when comparing different lifts which is why people tend to be restricted to core lifts when using these or something constant that serves as a foundation so that the numbers become comparable (i.e. a lot of OLs will only calc their work in the classic lifts and impose a bottom limit on intensity for inclusion i.e. only reps above 80% in the C&J and Snatch). Your calc and theory is sound but not application and in truth that calc is limited because it doesn't account for differentiation between exercises.

The bottom line is that a 500lbs squat is a lot more stimulative than a 550 leg press to the body. The tonnage calc alone does not relfect that the exercises are not equivalent due to mechanical advantages and stability afforded by the machines.

This isn't just theoretical but easily confirmed just by wandering around the gym. How many times have we seen guys leg pressing decent poundage and not able to squat crap and all of a sudden you get them to work on the squat and boom their legs explode - and yet their squat weight even after months of training is no where near what they can legpress. Going back to the legpress doesn't tend to result in better gains either. It's not a matter of being stale it's a matter of effectiveness and tonnage alone won't reflect this.

More clearly you can see the restriction of tonnage in the efficacy of partial movements of the base free weights. In the upper range you can load the body with a ton more weight and tonnage calcs reflect it. What they don't take into account are a lot of other factors that make partials particularly bad and I think just about any experienced lifter will agree that they work pretty abysmally over anything but maybe the very short term (which is just adaptation from doing something different) and carryover to the full lift in most cases is garbage. Tonnage doesn't reflect this. A physics work calc would due to the distance or ROM in there.

Once again, I am not advocating the strict use of machines or that machines have a great advantage over free weight. You have to mix things up. They all have their purpose and are beneficial in their capacity.
You could also debate the benefits or lack thereof depending on what kind of lifting you do, whether it's PLing, BBing, etc.

 

[Guinness5.0]

I'm not with you on the "mix things up" point. Why substitute in a less stimulative movement when you can use a freeweight movement? There's no reason to squat in a smith when you can just do more freesquats, or lunges, or GM's, etc. There's plenty of variety in freeweight exercises -- no need to dilute a program with less effective stuff.

I hold to my belief that removing stabilization and balance degrades an exercise's utility and effectiveness tremendously. I wish I could PROVE it but I think there is enough evidence based on experience to make the case very strong. Blut Wump's first post in this thread demonstrates this well.

BTW my comments relate to the Smith in particular.

 

[Madcow2]

I'm not with you on the "mix things up" point. Why substitute in a less stimulative movement when you can use a freeweight movement? There's no reason to squat in a smith when you can just do more freesquats, or lunges, or GM's, etc. There's plenty of variety in freeweight exercises -- no need to dilute a program with less effective stuff.

I hold to my belief that removing stabilization and balance degrades an exercise's utility and effectiveness tremendously. I wish I could PROVE it but I think there is enough evidence based on experience to make the case very strong. Blut Wump's first post in this thread demonstrates this well.

BTW my comments relate to the Smith in particular.

Actually I just read something to this point the other day and remembered where it was. It even brings in the load piece and why tonnage alone doesn't accurately quantify well between movements especially on the scale of machine vs. free weight. Now obviously this guy didn't write this as I've found it in other places too but it's solid enough. Largely correct and pretty much explains what's going on.

Thread link here: http://www.intensemuscle.com/showthread.php?t=12191

"
The difference between the smith machine and a free weight bench press is significant in terms of overall gains. There are several important neurological factors at play here:

balance proprioception: In every exercise you do there is an element of balance, or to put it more technically a feedback loop that constantly adjusts recruitment of agonist, antagonist and synergists in order to maintain the desired output. This is a facet of the CNS, so it's centrally controlled and can be improved by using primarily free weight exercises, and even more so by using CKCE exercise, closed kinetic chain exercises. Squats on the smith machine would be a very seriously bad idea, as squatting is THE exercise which improves balance proprioception to the greatest extent. For bench press it's less of a concern, but it's still a concern.
Other than the effect on the CNS, the fact is that using EMG study and simply common sense, a free weight bench press recruits more muscle fibres it's as simple as that. The body does not and cannot hypertrophy on the scale of an individual muscle, the synergists of that muscle must also hypertrophy or the body would be in a constant state of imbalance and injury.

force proprioception: force proprioception is another attribute that operates both peripherally and centrally, and boils down to this, how heavy does an exercise feel and in what is the specific adaption required to deal with that force? Many people erroneously think that the squat is the king of exercises because of hormone release, which obviously is completely wrong, the actual amount or change in hormone release whilst squatting is insignificant. If you want to release a lot of test go to bed, if you want to release a lot of GH go do some endurance training. The real power of squatting is that as a load bearing exercise is has an extremely strong effect on the force proprioception of the CNS.
Although you may be able to apply a RPE (rating of percieved effort) of 100% to both smith bench and free weight bench, or in other words you will be pushing with everything you have for both exercises. The actual response of the body will be quite different given the demands of the exercise. It just isn't true that load is load is load no matter what the source is, the body can tell a cable from a free weight from a machine.

In terms of injury I don't believe that it matters, it's not WHAT you do it's HOW you do it that determines injury rates. The body can adapt to cope with almost anything.
"

 

[BiggT]

thats not good if the smith is that bad cuz i work out at the ymca and the only thing u can do squat on is the smith thats the only thing they have so would anyone say just dont do it and do something else like leg press or should i just do it since i work legs out in many other exercises therefore i get the support muscles to gain in strength anyways?

Tay, what I would honestly suggest is to learn how to clean if you don't already, then clean a barbell from the floor and do front squats.