Smith machine debate thread

[Guinness5.0]

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.

 

[Guinness5.0]

Also, I know many members here have experienced problems from the smith. Please post up!

 

[BiggT]

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.

 

[blut wump]

This was my last rant about the Smith machine, written late July:

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.

 

[Jim Ouini]

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?

 

[blut wump]

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.

 

[Guinness5.0]

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.

 

[Jim Ouini]

I'd rather not try it, I prefer to debate it on the internet

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?

 

[Elana]

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)

 

[Jim Ouini]

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...

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[tay1506]

yeah ive never tryed dumbbell squats before never thought about it good idea though! but yeah i used to clean about 2 years ago but it hurts my fingers very bad because i crushed most of the bones in my right hand when i got pissed one day and just punched the wall tell i couldent move my hand but i would still do them just the fact there is no space at the ymca. Oh well theres a big gym opening up soon thats gona be rather cheap so i can wait tell then but thanks for the advice!

 

[AlwaysOn]

there is NO justification for using the smith machine in ANY excercise

just use barbells

However I do like to use some machines.

I mean how can you really do 600 lb. calf raises without a hack squat?

 

[blut wump]

I've seen it recommended for bent rows by someone whose recommendation I'd need a good reason to dispute.

 

[Madcow2]

I've seen it recommended for bent rows by someone whose recommendation I'd need a good reason to dispute.

How about it doesn't work as well?

 

[jc1908]

stablization is a huge factor in growth..IMO..because of rotator cuff injurys and tendinitous(sp) in both shoulders,i use the smitty for behind the neck presses only.(also because i have no spotter) one day i hope to do free bb BTN presses again. all other presses i can do free-with some pain,but it is manageable

 

[BiggT]

stablization is a huge factor in growth..IMO..because of rotator cuff injurys and tendinitous(sp) in both shoulders,i use the smitty for behind the neck presses only.(also because i have no spotter) one day i hope to do free bb BTN presses again. all other presses i can do free-with some pain,but it is manageable

Man, if a spotter is an issue, do them standing, they are even better for you in terms of functional strength anyway, if you get stuck, just drop on your back like a squat and re-rack. Seriously, though, I understand how people can find a machine 'less intimidating' but with injuries, I just don't see how they are a better choice. Back to the imtimidation thing, I have rarely seen the degree of injuries in high level lifters, whether it be weightlifting, powerlifting, strongman, highland games, track & field, football, etc who use olympic lifts and heavy coumpound free weight exercises that I do in the average people at a gym lifting. Guys always comment how benching hurt their elbow, then I suggest that maybe it isn't benching, but the 37 sets of triceps extensions they do with every peice of equipment in the gym. Ditto for shoulders.....guys either bench with their elbows flared out, or neglect overhead strength. How many 300-400lb benchers do you know? You can probably rattle off a list. Now, how many guys do you know who can push press 300lbs?

I have no idea what caused your injury, just trying to give some feedback regarding them with what I have seen. Seriously, man, if spotters are an issue, try the standing version and let me know what you think.