Squats-Normal vs. Smith

[Guinness]

From time to time on this board, I see a squat thread where a bunch of bro's basically come in and rip smith squats. I guess what I'd like to know from you folks is, why?

Why do most consider smith squats useless and normal, free-bar squats so much better? And please refrain from answers like, "Cuz that's what I do, and have always done, and I'm friggin huge!". Give me some real evidence that shows why free-bar squats are better...I know some of you out there are kinesiology or physiology majors, or are really students of the iron game and get into it on that level...I'd like to hear from you folks.

 

[needsize]

This is just my .02 cents worth, but I think reg squats are more effective as the require many more muscles to stabilize during the rep. Squatting heavy will build everything from your back down to your calves. Plus it doesn't lock you into a preset range of motion as the smith machine does, which can lead to injury.

 

[gymtime]

I'm not a trainer and I haven't had a major in about ten years. But I don't think I need any of that to understand why freeweights are better than machine excercises. Needsize said it. Whether it's squats, bench, mil press, whatever. Incorporating stablizer muscles into an excercise is more beneficial than not incorporating them, as you do using a machine.

And no one on this board with a brain in his head will tell you that smith machines are "useless." They're just not as productive as freeweights.

This aspect of weightlifting is not rocket surgery. It's a pretty basic rule of the game.

 

[Blood&Iron]

This has, I think, been addressed before. As the others said, the Smith machine locks one into an unnatural groove, e.g. the bar moves straight up and down. Look at someone perform a free weight squat. The motion is something like a compressed, backwards S(Can't really give a better description.) Additionally, the Smith machine uninvolves the hamstrings which, among other things, stabilize the knee joint. One more disadvantage is that while free weight squatting requires a very strong lower back, which many trainees tend to otherwise neglect, Smith machine squats require almost nothing in the way of lower back strength.

 

[Natural_Teen]

My 2 cents is that free weight squats are great for building mass on the lower body. Though if you want to target just the hams and quads, and not the glutes, smith machine squats work much better as those muscles are the only things that hold one up while parallel in the squat motion.

 

[TheGame2001]

natural teen

Your not going to get very far until you figure it out natural teen. your way off dude. free squats are better for hams, quads, glutes than smith machine ever thought about doing.

And thats basic bodybuilding 101, not rocket science.

Good luck.

 

[javaguru]

Most machines are designed for the "average" person, nautilus machines are desined for a 5'9" 154lb male, the more you deviate from the average the less effective the machine becomes. Likewise, free weights translate into greater "real world" performance due to requiring your entire body to work as a unit. I don't want to just look strong, I want to be strong!

 

[Guinness]

Well, some of the responses were pretty good, but honestly, I'm still not convinced.

Needsize/Blood&Iron,

You guys might be right....there might be something to the whole up and down motion issue....But I gotta be honest with you guys, I have to disagree when you say you don't feel it in the hams or lower back. When I do smith squats, I feel both, and glutes too. I try to go parallel or below on every rep and believe me, the next day, my butt, quads and hams are all pretty sore. Now, I'd have to agree that smith squats don't affect lower back as much as regular squats, but for my money, that's exactly the point. With smith squats, you are able to remove or at least lessen the impact of your lower back on your exercise performance, and for me, that's a good thing. Now, I know what you guys are going to say, just make your lower back stronger..quit being a puss. But here's my take on that...for me, the point of doing squats is to target legs....quads, hams, and glutes. If I want to work lower back, I'll do hyper-extensions or dead lifts. So, by minimizing the role of weaker stabilizer muscles, including lower back, I feel like I'm focusing more on leg development and hitting my target muscles better.

The other thing I like is that you can change slightly, the impact that the motion has on your legs by adjusting your foot placement. The closer your feet are to the bar, the more I feel as though you are working all of the upper legs like a traditional squat. The farther away you move your legs from the bar, it feels to me like you are isolating the quads a little more. With traditional squats, you certainly don't have the luxury of moving your feet around like this, because of the role of balance in the movement.

Not to be a prick here, but I still haven't read any convincing evidence that shows me that traditional squats are more effective at building your legs that smith squats. Flame away if you must....

 

[needsize]

Guinness, not going to flame you, you had some good points. Besides, all of this just our opinions anyway.
But I've always found that if I squat heavy first, then do a quad isolation exercise next, ie, deep hack squats, that's when I get the best leg growth.

 

[TheGame2001]

Guinness

I guess the best argument is guys with big legs do free squats. Guys with little legs do smith machine thingys.
Thats the best arugment.

 

[Blood&Iron]

Now, I'd have to agree that smith squats don't affect lower back as much as regular squats, but for my money, that's exactly the point. With smith squats, you are able to remove or at least lessen the impact of your lower back on your exercise performance, and for me, that's a good thing. Now, I know what you guys are going to say, just make your lower back stronger..quit being a puss. But here's my take on that...for me, the point of doing squats is to target legs....quads, hams, and glutes. If I want to work lower back, I'll do hyper-extensions or dead lifts. So, by minimizing the role of weaker stabilizer muscles, including lower back, I feel like I'm focusing more on leg development and hitting my target muscles better.

I have never really thought of the squat as a "leg exercise" per se. It greatest usefulness is that, like the deadlift, the systemic effects of such a taxing lift cause system-wide, rather than just localized, hypertrophy. When you systematically uninvolve many of the ancillary muscle groups used in squatting, for example by using a Smith machine, it turns the exercise into nothing more than a "standing leg press."

The other thing I like is that you can change slightly, the impact that the motion has on your legs by adjusting your foot placement. The closer your feet are to the bar, the more I feel as though you are working all of the upper legs like a traditional squat. The farther away you move your legs from the bar, it feels to me like you are isolating the quads a little more. With traditional squats, you certainly don't have the luxury of moving your feet around like this, because of the role of balance in the movement.

Moving your feet close to the bar also greatly increases the forward travel of your knees which will result in TREMENDOUS shearing forces in your knee joint and will almost definitely result in problems if done long-term. Of course, you can't do this with the free weight version; our bodies are designed the way they are for a reason.

Not to be a prick here, but I still haven't read any convincing evidence that shows me that traditional squats are more effective at building your legs that smith squats. Flame away if you must....

What do you want? References to studies? Check around if that's what your after. I'm too lazy to do it myself.

 

[Guinness]

What do you want? References to studies?

BI, I'd love to have studies, but I know I'm probably asking for too much there...but I will check around and see what I can find. In place of studies, what I optimally wanted was intelligent, well supported answers like you provided. I don't necessarily have to agree with everything said, but if you can intelligently answer my question and support it with logical conclusions, then I appreciate the effort.

When you systematically uninvolve many of the ancillary muscle groups used in squatting, for example by using a Smith machine, it turns the exercise into nothing more than a "standing leg press."

Not sure I buy into this....if you agree that a smith squat strongly taxes your hams, glutes and quads, and leaves out lower back, wouldn't you say that it's still involving pretty heavily 3 of the larger muscle groups in your body, and therefore, it should have most of the systemic effects of which you speak?

Moving your feet close to the bar also greatly increases the forward travel of your knees which will result in TREMENDOUS shearing forces in your knee joint and will almost definitely result in problems if done long-term

When I said "move them closer to the bar", I probably painted a poor picture. What I meant to say was when your feet are at normal positioning relative to the bar, as if you were doing a free-bar squat. I was trying to differentiate between this foot position, and the one where you put your feet farther out in front, and your back is basically straight up and down. I find that this positioning really isolates your quads, and admittedly, I feel a little more pressure in my knees in this position. However, I typically do a set at this position as my final set, and the weight I use is usually 50% or less of my heaviest working set. By the time I'm done cranking out 10-12 reps in this position, my quads are usually on fire and I feel like I"m gonna barf. Then again, I'm pretty much a wuss, so that probably explains a lot

Again, I appreciate your response. Of the threads I've read that you've replied to, you typically give some of the best, most logically supported information on these boards, so keep up the good work.

 

[Blood&Iron]

BI, I'd love to have studies, but I know I'm probably asking for too much there...but I will check around and see what I can find. In place of studies, what I optimally wanted was intelligent, well supported answers like you provided. I don't necessarily have to agree with everything said, but if you can intelligently answer my question and support it with logical conclusions, then I appreciate the effort.

Gee, thanks.

Not sure I buy into this....if you agree that a smith squat strongly taxes your hams, glutes and quads, and leaves out lower back, wouldn't you say that it's still involving pretty heavily 3 of the larger muscle groups in your body, and therefore, it should have most of the systemic effects of which you speak?

Rereading my response, I think it was poorly stated. Yes, any exercise that involves large numbers of big muscles will have the systemic effects of which I spoke. I'm not one of those people who think the leg press is worthless, or that one can get big legs only by squatting. But I stand by the statement that the Smith machine is basically like a standing leg press--only it's much worse for you joints All of the muscles you mention are also involved when performing the leg press. Free weight squatting, however, also takes a significant amount of low-back, abdominal, and even arm and shoulder strength IMO. If you want to focus on your legs, why not just use the leg press. If you're gonna squat, squat. The Smith machine is the worst of both worlds. Frankly, it's a piece of shit. I used to use the Smith machine exclusively for squatting and yes, it's much harder to do the free weight version. When I first started I had to go back to using an empty bar. But here's a question for you? Has anyone suggested using the Smith-machine confers any ADVANTAGES? At best it's as good, at worst it's MUCH WORSE. So I think it's best to drop any ego you have that's related to your poundages and just start squatting with an empty bar.

When I said "move them closer to the bar", I probably painted a poor picture. What I meant to say was when your feet are at normal positioning relative to the bar, as if you were doing a free-bar squat. I was trying to differentiate between this foot position, and the one where you put your feet farther out in front, and your back is basically straight up and down. I find that this positioning really isolates your quads, and admittedly, I feel a little more pressure in my knees in this position. However, I typically do a set at this position as my final set, and the weight I use is usually 50% or less of my heaviest working set. By the time I'm done cranking out 10-12 reps in this position, my quads are usually on fire and I feel like I"m gonna barf. Then again, I'm pretty much a wuss, so that probably explains a lot

You feel more pressure? Bad sign. I suspect that this is likely to lead to long term problems. And as for being a wuss, if you squat till you feel like you're gonna barf you're no wuss.

Again, I appreciate your response. Of the threads I've read that you've replied to, you typically give some of the best, most logically supported information on these boards, so keep up the good work.

Thanks again. Seriously folks, I swear I'm not paying him.

 

[danielson]

done both (old gym only had a smith, no squat rack, no leg press machine)

squats free weight win hand down

much less evil on the knees too. smith machine stretch your ACL like crazy i heard/read

 

[DaCypher]

When I was doing physical therapy for my knee (after ACL reconstructive surgery), the physical therapists had me doing squats on the smith machine. However, they were very strict in making sure my feet were well in front of me and that I only went far enough done so that my upper legs were parallel to the floor. My feet were far enough in front of me so that at the lowest point in the lift my knees were right over my toes (never beyond). Not sure if that answers anyone's questions about the knee issues or not, but I guess with strict enough form, you could do smith squats without a problem. However, I would recommend eventually graduating to barbell squats one day, as I have.

 

[uNOwho]

my thoughts are this:

On the Smith machine, your range of motion is severly limited to the vertical causing extreme stress on your joints unless you adjust your physical body in such a way that all parts can move in fluidity. At my gym our trainer's use the Smith Machine for only those folks who have never squatted before or are women, do not flame me on this not my doing. When they do put them in the machine they make sure that their feet are a good foot to foot and a half away from the bar, in front of the bar I should say. Thus, when the downward movement is engaged their body actually goes into a wall-sit position. This does involve the quads, hams, and glutes. But excludes the stabilizer muscles that one needs in order to build all around shape.
Do I think it has its benefits, yes. Are they more than with the squat rack, no. Benefit to the Smith machine are good isolation if done properly, the ability to position one's feet in different locations to work different muscle ranges, and lastly the ability to go real slow without worrying of falling over
The negative's have all been said, un-necessary strees on important joints, undue stress on the knee, etc...


Now for the squat rack. This one takes a bit more agility and strenght in order to hold the bar and your body in good form. I see people do this and keep their feet less than shoulder width apart, pigeon toed, and squatting till their knee is way over their foot. This strikes me as absurd. I feel that the squat rack best serves it's purpose when people use lighter weight at first and get the PROPER form right and then increase weight. I am all for using the squat rack, however, I myself do not use it at this time due to a busted knee. But, in my opinion the squat rack is by far the better of the two exercises for increasing muscle mass, strength, and size. If you want isolation go and use the leg extension, leg curl, and calf raise macines.

phil

 

[teslet]

Since the smith machine stabilizes you, the lower back does not have to do the job but it is working the same synergists as in barbell squat, same actions, same motion.

Personally, I would rather choose a varitation of the two. Also on a smith machine you are less likely to get injured, because you can help concentrate more on your posture and form-the machine will not do this automatically but it can help you (hence also less stress on the back) and the weight will not topple over on you if you loose your balance(not very likely to happen, but another reason).

But, what kinda worries me is if the smith machine can hold bigger weights like 600-900lb (If the machine were to toppple over into the direction with the big weights one would be looking at serious injury or death but I guess as long as weights are racked on the bottom side parts of it you should be fine-and nobody takes them off while you are lifting).

As you do smith machine squats you are working your muscle memory to only work in that confined frame, when you become accustomed to it, and then try to do normal squat with the similar weights you may have some troubles because suddenly your lower back will need to stabilize the load and also because you also ignore the walk out, I also think that when you walk out with the big weight you are using some energy that you could be purely utilizing in the squatting movement, possibly also a small contributing reason as to why people can not do more on free weight barbell squats as compared to smith machine squats. Other possible factors: momentum, muscle memory, gravitational forces, energy expended in the beginning movement (stabilization and movement of the weight), etc.

Make sure that you are working your lower back with ex, deadlifts, hyperextensions, etc.

And if you want to squat big: squat wide and be sure to work hip and thigh muscles adequatley.

Both smith machine and barbell squats have their advantages and disadvantages.

Good reads about this:

http://www.exrx.net/Adaptation/SmithSquat.html

 

[Guinness]

Good post Teslet, and great link...I forgot about EXRX...some good info out on this site....gonna have to look around some more out there.

Well, I think I'm going to start doing both movements...I think I'll still stick with smith squats as my main leg mass builder (for now) and then add in a set of lighter squats at the very end of my workout to try and get my form down. I just suck sooooooo bad at squatting, it's not even funny. I used to do it all the time, but never really felt like I was good at the movement, and I guess that's why I started doing Smith squats. I felt more comformtable and balanced in the Smith rack, and felt like I could concentrate more on blasting my legs, as opposed to keeping my balance, and watching my form like its necessary to do when doing free squats. But, I'm gonna try and practice and get better at squats.

wish me luck...