In defence of Smith Machine squats

[SofaGeorge]

I read a fascinating study on the Smith Machine a few years ago. It hooked up the muscle to record stimulation... and demonstrated that the Smith was just as good at engaging the muscles as freebar squats (except for the stabalizers.)

 

[Alucard]

Whether it stimulates the stabilizers or not doesn't matter as much as the fact that it removes coordination, and possibly stunts the development of neural patterns involved in that.

But you've "found Jesus", so to speak, so you'll see it your way.

 

[The Shadow]

Whether it stimulates the stabilizers or not doesn't matter as much as the fact that it removes coordination, and possibly stunts the development of neural patterns involved in that.

But you've "found Jesus", so to speak, so you'll see it your way.

I have done them for years and I have fair legs...so instead of "seeing it my own way", I see what works for me.

 

[Alucard]

And then there's what works better.

 

[Realgains]

Some , like Dorian Yates, find that they work better for them than free squats. I do not think this is the case with most trainees.

The Smith machine Squat is not the monster that some would have you believe.

The leg press done deep and heavy is a very good leg builder although not as good as the free squat for most. We don't here people barking about how the leg press doesn't work stabalizers and coordination etc.

Athletic ability, in all its complexities, is genetic for the most part and specific athletic abilty is developed by doing the sports you enjoy and NOT by doing free squats and lifting with free weights.
Athletic coordination and skill is only very minimally improved via weight training. Muscular strength and power and sometimes flexibilty is improved via weight training and this helps in athletics but that is basically where it stops.

RG

 

[Alucard]

Actually, among strength coaches, they do "bark" about the lack of lower back incorporation and coordination when using Leg Presses.

If you believe your athletic ability will be increased just as much by a Leg Press of Smith Machine Squat, as compared to a Power Clean or a full-range OLY Squat, then you're entitled to that opinion, even if it doesn't bear out on playing fields and the like.

This is where Europe tends to shine. This would not even be worthy of an argument there. They already know that PCs and Squats will, in athletics and also in terms of the promotion of health/physiological balance, easily blow away the Smith machine and Leg Press counterparts.

And, of course, this is not even examining the locked singular plane of movement and the resulting pathologies that can develop.



The Smith Machine is a very useful tool for building size and strength...when you melt it down for more plates and barbells.

 

[Lumberg]

Some , like Dorian Yates, find that they work better for them than free squats. I do not think this is the case with most trainees.

The Smith machine Squat is not the monster that some would have you believe.

The leg press done deep and heavy is a very good leg builder although not as good as the free squat for most. We don't here people barking about how the leg press doesn't work stabalizers and coordination etc.

Athletic ability, in all its complexities, is genetic for the most part and specific athletic abilty is developed by doing the sports you enjoy and NOT by doing free squats and lifting with free weights.
Athletic coordination and skill is only very minimally improved via weight training. Muscular strength and power and sometimes flexibilty is improved via weight training and this helps in athletics but that is basically where it stops.

RG

Very good point. IMO the most important reason to lift weights if you play sports is the injury prevention factor. You can take more of a pounding if you lift weights and are more muscular. It's not going to make you run faster, throw farther, or catch better.

 

[Realgains]

Actually, among strength coaches, they do "bark" about the lack of lower back incorporation and coordination when using Leg Presses.

If you believe your athletic ability will be increased just as much by a Leg Press of Smith Machine Squat, as compared to a Power Clean or a full-range OLY Squat, then you're entitled to that opinion, even if it doesn't bear out on playing fields and the like.

This is where Europe tends to shine. This would not even be worthy of an argument there. They already know that PCs and Squats will, in athletics and also in terms of the promotion of health/physiological balance, easily blow away the Smith machine and Leg Press counterparts.

And, of course, this is not even examining the locked singular plane of movement and the resulting pathologies that can develop.



The Smith Machine is a very useful tool for building size and strength...when you melt it down for more plates and barbells.

#1..I am not saying don't squat with a free bar.

#2. You can do deadlifts and back extensions for low back power if you cannot squat and choose to leg press, and even if you do squat you should still do some type of deadlift.

#3. Power cleans are good to use IF you are an Olympic lifter as it will help in the skill needed to clean a heavy weight but they and free squats do not help much in developing the skill needed to preform other sporting moves. Again, lifting weights helps develope strength, power, some speed and sometimes flexibilty and this helps in most sporting events but the skill, coordination and neuro pathway developement comes from actually doing the movements in a given sport.

#4. If you are very athletic you have been born this way and not made this way...this includes speed , coordination, flexibilty, stamina and the abilty to generate practical functional power. Again, lifting helps to develope strength and power and a certain degree of speed and flexibilty but this is where the benefit stop.

So you don't need to use ANY free weights at all in order to reep the benefits that weight training can offer athletically. Machine work will develope strength and power and this base strength and power will be coordinated by an athletic person functionally ....and it will not be coordinated functionally in the non athletic person...its as simple as that.

That said, I do not think that there is a better overall muscle builder than free squats. For many tall people the deadlift is actually superior in this regard.

RG

 

[Alucard]

I will disagree with # 3 and #4, and let me guess...do you prefer HIT or a variant of it?

If so, the proof is in the pudding, and examples of those who effectively use the exercises I listed to improve (even if only by a few degrees) athletic performance, and succeed in doing so, are readily found.

The opposite is rather scarce, and I leave it to you to find examples of it.

 

[Realgains]

I will disagree with # 3 and #4, and let me guess...do you prefer HIT or a variant of it?

If so, the proof is in the pudding, and examples of those who effectively use the exercises I listed to improve (even if only by a few degrees) athletic performance, and succeed in doing so, are readily found.

The opposite is rather scarce, and I leave it to you to find examples of it.

I am a professional hockey coach and have coached tier 1 major junior for many years in Canada. I have also been a high level competitive bodybuilder and a very good all round athlete.

Weight training has helped my players speed(somewhat) definately strength and sometimes flexibility but definately NOT skill, coordination, balance etc.

Many of my boys have done Olympic sytle lifting with plenty of cleans and other free weight work but the best players have not done this and in fact have trained in a low volume HIGH EFFORT way using free weights and machines. I call this HARD WORK and smart training. I insist that they all squat and deadlift BTW. They train this way because of time constraints but also because it is very effective and if they trained high volume they would over train since very few have ever used steroids to help with recovery. The natural athlete cannot use high volume and expect to grow in size and strength for long.

***bro...if you are natural you CANNOT do high volume unless you a genetic freak, especially when doing another sports seriously.


If you are talking about the brute power, with minimal skill, of a football lineman then yes power cleans and other types of lifting would be a BIG help but it has been my experience that athletic ability is genetic for the most part especially speed, balance and athletic coordination of power. Power can be greatly improved upon via lifting and endurance can be greatly inproved upon via traing BUT you still have to be gifted in these ares to be noticed.

Each to his own but you are definately wrong big time on #4 as I have never once in 20 years of coaching seen someone with average athletic ability significantly improve his base athletic ability in hockey through weight training of any kind. In fact the average athlete has NO CHANCE of making it big in hockey no matter what he does.
As a side.....the top 5 players that I have coached did little weight training at all...they were born athletes and refined their abilities through hard work on the ice.

I played with wayne Gretsky and as you know he was unreal and guess what HE NEVER TOUCHED WEIGHTS.

And BTW I am 41 years old and 230 pounds and I squat 700 plus in a deep high bar style, deadlift 750 and bench 420 and I have always trained HIT, especially in the squat and deadlift. I have NEVER done more than 4-5 sets for any body part even on steroids. Take a look at the largest bodybuilder that ever walked, Dorian Yates in his prime.....he was very big and VERY strong. Also Casey Viator HIT pro bodybuilder of the 70's and early 80's, who I know quite well, still trains HIT with low volume and intensity and he can out lift me at the age of 51!(and he has not taken steroids for 20 years)
Take enough gear and you can do anything and grow including BS high volume 5 and 6 day per week training...almost nobody will grow doing that without a good deal of steroids. ALSO HIT training done all the time without training in cycles is a death sentence for most unless on a lot of gear.

This is what works for a natural trainee, and especially the athlete....Three days in the gym per week on a three way split using no more than 4 working sets PER BODY PART, using almost NO isolation work. They also need to train in cycles and focus on adding small to tiny bits of weight to the bars weekly.

One can get more done with three hard sets of squats than 15 half assed high volume sets of various leg work.

RG

RG