Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
SQUATS with a SMITH MACHINE
- Thread starter Lililston
- Start date
onerepmaximum
New member
If you put your legs way out in front of you, it's not too bad. As stated above though, they probably shouldn't be your first choice.
dj1000
New member
Great Post! I started using the smith machine when I started to do squats and always noticed my knees felt like they were taking a lot of strain. So, I stopped using the smith and use a barbell in the squat rack and am doing much better now. No more painfull knees. I wish I would have read something like this a while back.
those might be the worst exercises ever IMO. The only thing i ever used the smith machine for was when i was doing DC training on incline benches w/o a spotter. Funny story is i know someone who had a bad knee injury, and his doc told him never to train legs with free weights, so this dude used to do his squats in the smith machine and ended up fucking them up worse.
Squat with a bar...
B True
B True
liftingfreak1983
New member
the hack squat is nasty...keeps the back nice and straight
smith vs. free weight squats has been on here a million times. I say just squat and go deep regardless. Size and strength can be had from either.
PinkPanther
New member
What would you recommend for someone who doesn't have someone to spot them? I use the smith only because sometimes I get nervous about doing squats w/o a spotter...thanks 
super_rice
New member
ya, cages/racks have safeties...
no real big need for a spotter
no real big need for a spotter
My chiropractor squats 315 for reps...butt to the floor...at about 185. He doesn't use a smith machine either...
B True
B True
Atomic Punk
New member
Lililston said:
Yes, but it won't help you get stronger on squats. Standard Squats to Smith Machine Squats are as pullUPS(Chins) are to Machine pulldowns. If you are strong on Squats, then you will automatically be just as, if not stronger on Smiths. Similarly, if you are strong or can rep out on PullUPS(Chins), then you will be strong on machine pulldowns EVEN WITHOUT the periodical training with those exercises. The same does NOT apply vice versa in either case however. The use of the machines in both cases, gives you a mechanical advantage that doesn't apply on standard squats or chins. It is the mechanical advantage(the pulleys, ball-bearings, etc. that result in heavier weights.
supreme
New member
SMITH MACHINE = BIGGEST PIECE OF SHIT EVER CREATED (not including Bill Phillips)
Totally worthless, causes muscle imbalances, knee strain, pattern overload, cervical disk compression etc. etc.
A simple test I use in my gym to tell if a member or trainer knows how to really train someone, do they use the Smith?? If yes, they are f'in clueless to training, anatomy, physiology, sports performance etc.
S
Totally worthless, causes muscle imbalances, knee strain, pattern overload, cervical disk compression etc. etc.
A simple test I use in my gym to tell if a member or trainer knows how to really train someone, do they use the Smith?? If yes, they are f'in clueless to training, anatomy, physiology, sports performance etc.
S
T
The Shadow
Guest
I lik eit a lot...
T
The Shadow
Guest
Yep
Wow...that's a pretty good argument...
Then again i can always get Needsize to post his leg pics..and we can have a huge shitting competition and argue that hey...if u can shit more with that type of form it HAS TO BE THE BEST WAY!
Weird...i think that was my odd post of the day.
Then again i can always get Needsize to post his leg pics..and we can have a huge shitting competition and argue that hey...if u can shit more with that type of form it HAS TO BE THE BEST WAY!
Weird...i think that was my odd post of the day.
Sebass67 said:
did someone mention shitting competition....
In all seriousness, I dont think its that you cant build good quads without squats, but like any other free weight vs machine exercise, squats are more effective overall. I built 95% of my quads with squats alone, and they are actually about 1.5" bigger now than before the show, same approach
needsize said:
did someone mention shitting competition....
In all seriousness, I dont think its that you cant build good quads without squats, but like any other free weight vs machine exercise, squats are more effective overall. I built 95% of my quads with squats alone, and they are actually about 1.5" bigger now than before the show, same approach
Thank you...
collegiateLifter
New member
supreme said:
While i suspect you might be right with regards to too much smythe machine = greater disposition to injury, your litmus test holds no water.
Dorian won a few O's, which was his ultimate goal. He accomplished his ultimate goal using the smythe machine. Therefore your litmus test would conclude that using a tool to successfully accomplish a formidable goal is bad. That's nonsense.
Here is my 2 cents. I know what your thinking "eek the smith is bad for your knees" and I can say that if the smith has a slight angle to it like many do knowdays AND you place your feet out front of you a bit you can be in a great squat position when your at the bottom of the lift. I use the smith because of the arthritis I have in my left knee AND because that leg is approx 1.5" longer than my right. This imbalance makes simply balancing the weight when doing free squats very difficult due to the varyances in leg forces under contaction. Do I think its an ideal exercise? Nope, but for me, since I train alone and have the imbalances I do it allows me to concentrate on lifting weights which for me is what is important. We each have to adapt and do what we can with the bodies we have, in the gym we train at.
supreme
New member
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by supreme
SMITH MACHINE = BIGGEST PIECE OF SHIT EVER CREATED (not including Bill Phillips)
Totally worthless, causes muscle imbalances, knee strain, pattern overload, cervical disk compression etc. etc.
A simple test I use in my gym to tell if a member or trainer knows how to really train someone, do they use the Smith?? If yes, they are f'in clueless to training, anatomy, physiology, sports performance etc.
S
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While i suspect you might be right with regards to too much smythe machine = greater disposition to injury, your litmus test holds no water.
Dorian won a few O's, which was his ultimate goal. He accomplished his ultimate goal using the smythe machine. Therefore your litmus test would conclude that using a tool to successfully accomplish a formidable goal is bad. That's nonsense.
____________________________________________________
O.K,, here we go again,
Well my test may not be a double-blind study but it holds water in the real world and many top trainers & strength coaches would and do agree (Poliquin, King, Simmons, Tate, Chek, Colgan)
The smith machine does allow you to move more weight & develop mass but at the cost of muscle balance and predisposes you to acute & chronic injuries. Dorian was great, but his only goal was the Mr. O. The Mr. O only requires mass, cuts, symmetry ??(LMAO!) no speed, agility, balance, coordination or explosive power. Things many of us need daily, especially athletes!! If all you want to do is be big, then use the smith but it dosen't solve the injury problem. So like any "tool used to accomplish a task" If the tool is used wrong you increase the chance of injury!
Regular free bar squats give you the best of both worlds while reducing injuries. Now if there is a structural problem (Zyglamail) then the smith may provide some benefit- this is a special case that needs an individual assessment & exercise prescription
My daily observation is that most people who use the smith do so because they are lazy and the smith makes the exercise easy (no balance required) or they wanna look like the "big guy" and they can do 3 plates a side in the smith - but only 1 on a real squat rack!!
or no one has informed them how bad the smith is for them.
It comes down to training your muscles & NOT your ego!
S
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by supreme
SMITH MACHINE = BIGGEST PIECE OF SHIT EVER CREATED (not including Bill Phillips)
Totally worthless, causes muscle imbalances, knee strain, pattern overload, cervical disk compression etc. etc.
A simple test I use in my gym to tell if a member or trainer knows how to really train someone, do they use the Smith?? If yes, they are f'in clueless to training, anatomy, physiology, sports performance etc.
S
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While i suspect you might be right with regards to too much smythe machine = greater disposition to injury, your litmus test holds no water.
Dorian won a few O's, which was his ultimate goal. He accomplished his ultimate goal using the smythe machine. Therefore your litmus test would conclude that using a tool to successfully accomplish a formidable goal is bad. That's nonsense.
____________________________________________________
O.K,, here we go again,
Well my test may not be a double-blind study but it holds water in the real world and many top trainers & strength coaches would and do agree (Poliquin, King, Simmons, Tate, Chek, Colgan)
The smith machine does allow you to move more weight & develop mass but at the cost of muscle balance and predisposes you to acute & chronic injuries. Dorian was great, but his only goal was the Mr. O. The Mr. O only requires mass, cuts, symmetry ??(LMAO!) no speed, agility, balance, coordination or explosive power. Things many of us need daily, especially athletes!! If all you want to do is be big, then use the smith but it dosen't solve the injury problem. So like any "tool used to accomplish a task" If the tool is used wrong you increase the chance of injury!
Regular free bar squats give you the best of both worlds while reducing injuries. Now if there is a structural problem (Zyglamail) then the smith may provide some benefit- this is a special case that needs an individual assessment & exercise prescription
My daily observation is that most people who use the smith do so because they are lazy and the smith makes the exercise easy (no balance required) or they wanna look like the "big guy" and they can do 3 plates a side in the smith - but only 1 on a real squat rack!!
or no one has informed them how bad the smith is for them.
It comes down to training your muscles & NOT your ego!
S
Last edited:
callthedoctor
New member
...
Nicely said.....
Nicely said.....
T
The Shadow
Guest
Lililston said:
Interesting question......I squatted for years and my legs were perhaps a little bigger....but I switched to Smiths, leg Press hacks and lunges and my legs took on a whole new shape.
but yes - I did squat for years but never felt comfortable as I am tall and have a relatively smallish waist
supreme
New member
Tall people have a disadvantage in the squat due to limb length and an increased distance to move the weight; but it can be done - many NBA players squat religiously for there is an excellent correlation between squat performance and vertical leap
It all comes down to specificity of training, the Smith can be an effective tool IF it is used sparingly and other free weight movements are perfromed and you are only concerned with bodybuilding.
My thing is that I see kids, adults, athletes all with the same lame ass trainers who have a f'in ACE certification and reads Flex. These people live on the Smith for every movement but abs and they think they are training effectively. They are paying to be abused!!
Bodybuilding is only 1 aspect of weight training and has almost no bearing on sports training, rehabilitation and just improving daily functioning.
Bodybuilding done mostly on machines will just give hypertophy and non-functional movement patterns - which is o.k if all you want is mass. But most people need to move and be injury free during their daily life.
S
It all comes down to specificity of training, the Smith can be an effective tool IF it is used sparingly and other free weight movements are perfromed and you are only concerned with bodybuilding.
My thing is that I see kids, adults, athletes all with the same lame ass trainers who have a f'in ACE certification and reads Flex. These people live on the Smith for every movement but abs and they think they are training effectively. They are paying to be abused!!
Bodybuilding is only 1 aspect of weight training and has almost no bearing on sports training, rehabilitation and just improving daily functioning.
Bodybuilding done mostly on machines will just give hypertophy and non-functional movement patterns - which is o.k if all you want is mass. But most people need to move and be injury free during their daily life.
S
Last edited:
callthedoctor
New member
ATF
When people talk about "ass to floor", should that be taken literally? How wide should your feet be?
Seems going beyond 90 degrees is all thats ever been recommended and the videos I've seen on the net only show powerlifters going to 90....
Please advise and sorry about being naive...
When people talk about "ass to floor", should that be taken literally? How wide should your feet be?
Seems going beyond 90 degrees is all thats ever been recommended and the videos I've seen on the net only show powerlifters going to 90....
Please advise and sorry about being naive...
supreme
New member
Well, ass to the floor is great if you have the flexibility. That's how Olympic lifters do it. In tests on flex. & joint ROM. I think the Olympic lifters came in second only to Olympic gymnasts.
Powerlifters only need to break parallel I think? - It all depends on the rules of the organization they lift in
A wide stance shifts the weight more to the glutes & hams allowing heavier lifts but can also lead to lots of hypertrophy in the glutes.
Most coaches want you to break parallel, they use when the bottom of the hamstring touches the top of the calf as a guide
Again, it all depends on specificity ot training but I can tell you most pro athletes, definately olympic lifters and most power lifters never squat in the smith for it has NO carry over to their sport.. Their sport occurs simultaneously in 3 planes of motion, the smith occurs in 1 plane of motion. Use of the smith for these people would lead to faulty motor programs, decreased sports performance and probably injuries.
I mean (although I could be wrong) do you even think there is a smith machine inside Westside Barbell??
S
Powerlifters only need to break parallel I think? - It all depends on the rules of the organization they lift in
A wide stance shifts the weight more to the glutes & hams allowing heavier lifts but can also lead to lots of hypertrophy in the glutes.
Most coaches want you to break parallel, they use when the bottom of the hamstring touches the top of the calf as a guide
Again, it all depends on specificity ot training but I can tell you most pro athletes, definately olympic lifters and most power lifters never squat in the smith for it has NO carry over to their sport.. Their sport occurs simultaneously in 3 planes of motion, the smith occurs in 1 plane of motion. Use of the smith for these people would lead to faulty motor programs, decreased sports performance and probably injuries.
I mean (although I could be wrong) do you even think there is a smith machine inside Westside Barbell??
S
Last edited:
callthedoctor
New member
thanks to all....
Had leg day today....
For squats...instead of the smith I used the rack...
Started at 135 and 185 till I was comfortable with form then went 225 and finally 3x275x5....kinda funny....on one of the last sets I went down and my legs stalled/quit (like my chest sometimes does on Incline BP)....but I pushed it through...I knew at 275, I was heavy enough w/o spot....Compared with the Smith, I could really tell I was using way more variety of muscles...
Continued with leg press 270x12, 360x10, 2x450x8...mixing in some calf work after the presses....
Wrapped up quads with hack-sled 180x6, 2x270x6....
Also did Straight DL's and ham curls (3 sets) as well as leg-extensions (4 single leg sets) to wrap it all up.....
Fairly typicaly leg routine each week....about 2 hours....
Too much? (I usually do calves with shoulders)
Thanks to all you've replied to this post...I'll probably sparingly still use the smithy but think I will now stick primarily to the rack....
Had leg day today....
For squats...instead of the smith I used the rack...
Started at 135 and 185 till I was comfortable with form then went 225 and finally 3x275x5....kinda funny....on one of the last sets I went down and my legs stalled/quit (like my chest sometimes does on Incline BP)....but I pushed it through...I knew at 275, I was heavy enough w/o spot....Compared with the Smith, I could really tell I was using way more variety of muscles...
Continued with leg press 270x12, 360x10, 2x450x8...mixing in some calf work after the presses....
Wrapped up quads with hack-sled 180x6, 2x270x6....
Also did Straight DL's and ham curls (3 sets) as well as leg-extensions (4 single leg sets) to wrap it all up.....
Fairly typicaly leg routine each week....about 2 hours....
Too much? (I usually do calves with shoulders)
Thanks to all you've replied to this post...I'll probably sparingly still use the smithy but think I will now stick primarily to the rack....
T
The Shadow
Guest
Lililston said:
"Took on a whole new shape" as in good or bad?
I posted a pic above
Sooooooo glad I'm not a bodybuilder....
B True
B True
