Smith machine debate thread

[Guinness5.0]

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...

Interesting point about leg extension. I have a feeling that a lot of the problems w/ LE's is that the axis of motion is probably next to impossible to get right. Just speculating. Also, it's kinda 'unnatural' to have a load on the ankles and extend your leg forward- the ligaments weren't 'designed' for this purpose (i.e. no movement you'd use day-to-day would look anything like a leg extension- none that I can think of anyway).

 

[StickFigure]

Before I get into my argument FOR the Smitty, let me start by saying I never said the smitty was the end all be all of the weight lifting world. I am a firm advocate of free weight training. Fixed plain movements like Hammer Strength machines, Smitty's, and the like DO have their advantages though. If this wasn't true, Hammer Strength would have flopped years ago and smittys would be non exhistant. Hammer is one of the most popular strength lines in the market and more pro sports teams use Hammer than you can shake a stick at.

 

[Jim Ouini]

Interesting point about leg extension. I have a feeling that a lot of the problems w/ LE's is that the axis of motion is probably next to impossible to get right. Just speculating. Also, it's kinda 'unnatural' to have a load on the ankles and extend your leg forward- the ligaments weren't 'designed' for this purpose (i.e. no movement you'd use day-to-day would look anything like a leg extension- none that I can think of anyway).

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.

 

[Guinness5.0]

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

.

yeah I know. I'm thinking "out loud" here.

 

[*MissFit*]

Unfortunately.. i have to use the smith for squats.. i broke the main bone in my right leg right through once, the right ankle once and have done quite a bit of damage to the right knee.. - the fact i can lift at all and have the muscle i do in my legs is a miracle..

When ever i try to do a squat without the smith, my leg shakes uncontrolable.. i need to to stabilize myself...

I do a variety of different types of squats and my back is pretty strong.. i dont find it uncomfortable and don't feel that it puts me in an ackward position.

My legs need some kind of grounding whenever i do any type of leg exercises...

My legs r getting stronger and maybe one day.. but for now.. it's the way it is

 

[Guinness5.0]

Before I get into my argument FOR the Smitty, let me start by saying I never said the smitty was the end all be all of the weight lifting world. I am a firm advocate of free weight training. Fixed plain movements like Hammer Strength machines, Smitty's, and the like DO have their advantages though. If this wasn't true, Hammer Strength would have flopped years ago and smittys would be non exhistant. Hammer is one of the most popular strength lines in the market and more pro sports teams use Hammer than you can shake a stick at.

Ok but I have a HUGE problem with this argument -- the programs (or rather "routines") in Flex/M&F are used more than solid programs like 5x5 and whatnot, but they're still garbage. So saying smith/hammer is great b/c they get used a lot doesn't prove anything to me.

Also, I'm not saying all machines are worthless but the scope of their use is limited at best. I still say smith is garbage and shouldn't exist at all.

 

[Guinness5.0]

Unfortunately.. i have to use the smith for squats.. i broke the main bone in my right leg right through once, the right ankle once and have done quite a bit of damage to the right knee.. - the fact i can lift at all and have the muscle i do in my legs is a miracle..

When ever i try to do a squat without the smith, my leg shakes uncontrolable.. i need to to stabilize myself...

I do a variety of different types of squats and my back is pretty strong.. i dont find it uncomfortable and don't feel that it puts me in an ackward position.

My legs need some kind of grounding whenever i do any type of leg exercises...

My legs r getting stronger and maybe one day.. but for now.. it's the way it is

Have you ever discussed this w/ a physical thereapist who trains? I ask b/c I know some OLy liftes who are phys therapists and they help shape my views on machines. THey were quick to point out that PTs/chiros who don't train often give some questionable rehab advice (of course that's their opinion and not necessarily representitive of all PTs).

 

[StickFigure]

Ok but I have a HUGE problem with this argument -- the programs (or rather "routines") in Flex/M&F are used more than solid programs like 5x5 and whatnot, but they're still garbage. So saying smith/hammer is great b/c they get used a lot doesn't prove anything to me.

Also, I'm not saying all machines are worthless but the scope of their use is limited at best. I still say smith is garbage and shouldn't exist at all.

The routines in those magazines are a joke for the most part. 98% of the readers will never touch the steroids and ancillaries that would allow them to survive those routines. I don't really know what those routines have to do with the machine debate but I agree with you on that part.

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.

 

[*MissFit*]

Before i started my right leg was noticeably smaller.. in the last few months they have actually gotten to the same size..

I havent even spoken to a trainer or a doctor in regards to my training...

For a woman my bf% is very low and theres not much i can do about it.. i'm just nautrally lean..... my doctor goes on about this so much that i dont seem to get to anything else ....

Have you ever discussed this w/ a physical thereapist who trains? I ask b/c I know some OLy liftes who are phys therapists and they help shape my views on machines. THey were quick to point out that PTs/chiros who don't train often give some questionable rehab advice (of course that's their opinion and not necessarily representitive of all PTs).

 

[Guinness5.0]

I don't really know what those routines have to do with the machine debate but I agree with you on that part.

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.

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.

See, that's the whole problem. Removing stabilization from the exercise is asking to get injured once you use free weights. Here's the sceond paragraph form the Poliquin article:

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.