Quote of the Year (no, century) from Muscle and Fiction

[Jason B]

Because it removes the need to balance the bar, the smith machine is a perfect place for beginners to learn to squat.

I'm in Target today flipping through this month's fitness mags for a good laugh and I see an article on the squat in M&F so I flip it open and skim through. I get to that statement and I think my mind actually went catatonic for a few seconds, I had to let the stupidity seep in. I was going to buy it just for that quote, but at 7 bucks I just memorized it. Another good one was something about the machine hack squat hitting the 'lower, outer quad.' I expect no less from an article titled 'Anatomy of the Squat.'

[Jason B]

Oh yeah, Eric has an article in this month's Men's Fitness about increasing testosterone, with a good sidebar from Mike Roussel.

[Matthew]

Oh SWEET! I need to work my lower outter quad!

[Matthew]

That first quote is the same thing I get told in school all day. Machines are best for beginners to strengthen the muscles. Besides, the first few weeks are neurological improvements.

Need I say more?

[RacerBill]

I have to admire you, Jason. I'm too embarrassed to be seen thumbing through that magazine in public.

Matthew -- "Neurological improvements?" Who comes up with that kind of stuff? Are your textbooks footnoted? I really want to know what study allowed them to come up with that conclusion.

[LisaS]

Originally Posted by mAtThEw

Besides, the first few weeks are neurological improvements.

nothing terribly wrong with that statement on its face - CNS improvement in recruiting motor units is probably the main factor in strength increases for beginners at first - don't you think?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by LisaS

nothing terribly wrong with that statement on its face - CNS improvement in recruiting motor units is probably the main factor in strength increases for beginners at first - don't you think?

That's true. And just about anything will bring about that adaptation in beginners, even machines. But, that's gets them stronger on machines, and will probably in fact make them weaker with free weights.

[Matthew]

My point was, wouldn't free weights optimize neurological improvements? as opposed to machines, that only allow you to move the weight in one direction (take the balance portion out, as stated above). Isn't coordination [partly] neurological?

[LisaS]

I'm no fan of machines - but I think they can have their place - especially with female beginners who are not going to be personally coached everytime they go to the gym.

If you give this beginner a free-weight program and a 45 minute walk through on technique (maybe once through each movement that she's never seen before) and expect her to follow it, unsupervised for the next three weeks, 3 times a week - I'm guessing compliance rates would be pretty low.

On the other hand, if she's going to be coached each visit through that learning curve (and it may be a steep learning curve for her - don't forget that) - then you have other options like BW exercises, broomstick exercises & free weights.

but none of this justifies a smith machine for squats

[Alcoholiday]

Originally Posted by Jason B

I'm in Target today flipping through this month's fitness mags for a good laugh and I see an article on the squat in M&F so I flip it open and skim through. I get to that statement and I think my mind actually went catatonic for a few seconds, I had to let the stupidity seep in. I was going to buy it just for that quote, but at 7 bucks I just memorized it. Another good one was something about the machine hack squat hitting the 'lower, outer quad.' I expect no less from an article titled 'Anatomy of the Squat.'

i think i'll go w/ Fiction on that one.

[Mahler]

It was called the Smith Machine to avoid the inventor being easily identified.

[Snake_eyes]

hahahha alcoholiday took the words right out of my mouth

[GG300]

As a serious question to the trainers and other folks here in the know. If the Smith machine is used in addition to a well rounded free weight workout so that all of your stabilizing muscles are being worked isn't there some benefit in being able to just focus on moving a heavier weight safely? For instance if you performed decline benches on the Smith after BB or DB Bench presses. Or would it still be better to go with a lighter weight and just use the safety bars in a power rack if no spotter was available?

[Lisa~]

Originally Posted by GG300

As a serious question to the trainers and other folks here in the know. If the Smith machine is used in addition to a well rounded free weight workout so that all of your stabilizing muscles are being worked isn't there some benefit in being able to just focus on moving a heavier weight safely? For instance if you performed decline benches on the Smith after BB or DB Bench presses. Or would it still be better to go with a lighter weight and just use the safety bars in a power rack if no spotter was available?

I wouldn't have a client use the Smith machine for bench presses or squats. Safety is always a concern, but using the power rack or a spotter is preferable.

The shoulder moves in multiple planes, but the Smith machine fixes the bar's pathway and doesn't allow natural movement of the shoulder. You wouldn't want to expose your shoulder to its heaviest loads when it cannot move in its natural and most efficient pathway. This is a situation that invites injury, not growth.

[GG300]

Thank's Lisa my trainer who is generally pretty good still likes to use this with me on occasion. After I questioned him about it once he has layed off it for the most part but I still see him use it with some of the others (mainly women) fairly often. I knew there was a movement concern but I didn't know the injury factor.

[Lou Schuler]

Lisa beat me to it -- if you're talking about "safety," then the integrity of your joints and movement patterns present far more pressing concerns than whether or not you can balance a heavy weight. If you can't handle that weight without a Smith machine, you probably shouldn't be working with that weight.

(Fun trivia: The bar on the Smith machine weighs just 15 pounds, so a lot of lifters think the Smith helps them lift bigger weights, when in fact they may not be lifting more at all. What looks like a 225 bench press is actually a 195 BP.)

If the Smith machine is used in addition to a well rounded free weight workout so that all of your stabilizing muscles are being worked isn't there some benefit in being able to just focus on moving a heavier weight safely?

Really, a well-rounded workout is enough. What was it Charles Staley said this weekend? Something like, "Lifters think every damned thing they do in the weight room improves something."

There's always a point of diminishing returns, and I suspect that if you've truly done a well-rounded workout, those extra sets on the Smith really are overkill.

[Chris Correia]

Originally Posted by Mahler

It was called the Smith Machine to avoid the inventor being easily identified.

LMAO! Good one, John.

Radical idea: how about squatting with, say, BODYWEIGHT, to learn how to squat, then take it from there? In the words of a certain grandmaster with whom I am associated, "You have to be able to control your bodyweight!"

[GG300]

Thanks Lou

[kuri]

Originally Posted by Chris Correia

In the words of a certain grandmaster with whom I am associated, "You have to be able to control your bodyweight!"

We all know how wise Bill H is but frankly he's not old enough to be called grandmaster.

[Chris Correia]

Originally Posted by kuri

We all know how wise Bill H is but frankly he's not old enough to be called grandmaster.

LMAO

But he's so smart. And sometimes wise.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Lou Schuler

Lisa beat me to it -- if you're talking about "safety," then the integrity of your joints and movement patterns present far more pressing concerns than whether or not you can balance a heavy weight. If you can't handle that weight without a Smith machine, you probably shouldn't be working with that weight.

(Fun trivia: The bar on the Smith machine weighs just 15 pounds, so a lot of lifters think the Smith helps them lift bigger weights, when in fact they may not be lifting more at all. What looks like a 225 bench press is actually a 195 BP.)

That's exactly what I talked about in my latest blog entry, great points!

[Matthew]

Anyone else have any thoughts on what I wrote about?

[Lisa~]

Originally Posted by mAtThEw

My point was, wouldn't free weights optimize neurological improvements? as opposed to machines, that only allow you to move the weight in one direction (take the balance portion out, as stated above). Isn't coordination [partly] neurological?

I don't have anything exciting to add to that, but I agree with it. We want to learn movements, to teach the body to fire the appropriate muscles in the best order to create efficient, coordinated movement. Free weight exercises would achieve this effect while machine exercises would alter those muscle firing patterns.

[Chris Correia]

Originally Posted by Lisa~

I don't have anything exciting to add to that, but I agree with it. We want to learn movements, to teach the body to fire the appropriate muscles in the best order to create efficient, coordinated movement. Free weight exercises would achieve this effect while machine exercises would alter those muscle firing patterns.

That's almost exactly what I would have said.


Actually, I have one additional comment. I think Matt's two earlier posts address two different but related/overlapping neurological adaptations. The first is the body learning a movement, a pattern, coordination, etc, as Lisa comments on. The other point Matt mentioned is the neurological adaptation that results in strength increase, which is, as I understand, the body learning to fire neurons and thus activate the muscles so as to be able to lift the weight/more weight. With a machine, the body can still experience that latter neurological adapatation, but not as much the former kind. Of course, I imagine it's all mixed up to some degree, but I view it a two different things happening.

[RacerBill]

I'm still confused on something, though. Saying that there is nothing but "neurological improvements" seems too broad to me. Certainly a beginner will be learning to recruit neurons, etc. but the muscles are still involved in the movement. A beginner will still experience muscle soreness after training, and I don't think that's just from neurons -- it's from breakdown of the muscle tissue, isn't it? And it will be rebuilt? So saying it's only "neurological improvement" doesn't strike me as very accurate.

Granted, I'm no expert here, so I'm willing to listen to an explanation if I'm totally wrong.

[Chris Correia]

Originally Posted by RacerBill

I'm still confused on something, though. Saying that there is nothing but "neurological improvements" seems too broad to me. Certainly a beginner will be learning to recruit neurons, etc. but the muscles are still involved in the movement. A beginner will still experience muscle soreness after training, and I don't think that's just from neurons -- it's from breakdown of the muscle tissue, isn't it? And it will be rebuilt? So saying it's only "neurological improvement" doesn't strike me as very accurate.

Granted, I'm no expert here, so I'm willing to listen to an explanation if I'm totally wrong.

It not only the neuroligical adaptation. Beginners often/usually make fast progress because of the neural adaptations, coupled with the muscle development. Later on, the body has already learned to recruit the muscle fibers, so there are less neural adaptation, and just the muscle development. Beginners have a double benefit effect happening.

[Matthew]

So I'm not going crazy then? Good to know.

Thanks

[Lou Schuler]

The process of breaking down and building up muscle tissue is going on 24/7, whether you're exercising or not. Strength exercise speeds up both processes, and if you're doing it right, you hope that there's more protein synthesis than breakdown.

It makes sense that you'd start building new muscle tissue from day one of a training program, but I've heard Dr. William Kraemer say that measurable increases in muscle size appear about 3-4 weeks into the program. (I'm working off very deep memory here, but IIRC he said women can see measurable increases in muscle size earlier in a program than men.)

That doesn't mean you won't feel as if good things are happening in your muscles earlier than the four-week mark. You'll have an increase in resting muscle tone, you'll probably lose some fat because of the metabolic shakeup, and the tightness and soreness in your muscles will make you more aware of them, probably leading to an improvement in posture.

And on top of all that, studies by exercise psychologists have shown that women will start to feel better about their appearance after just a few weeks of exercise, even in the absence of measurable changes in their weight or any other variables.

I don't know of similar studies in men, but I suspect you'd see the same phenomenon. Your body feels different, so you assume you look better. You probably present yourself in a more positive way to others, so it's possible that your increased confidence results in others having a more positive view of your appearance.

That last part is just speculation ... and has absolutely nothing to do with Smith machines. But it's kind of interesting, isn't it?

[youngliver]

I mentioned this is a post on the MH forums yesterday about getting a client to start sqautting. I don't see the evil of using the smith machine in the beginning. Yes, I agree in the long run that it should be avoided but it seems like when it comes to squatting there is an intimidation factor that newbies have. Two or three weeks of smith squatting seems to lessen the intimidation factor of having the weight on your back. Will it teach the correct form, no, but when introducing a client to the squat, not having to worry about handling the weight in the beginning seems to lessen the worries about putting the bar on their back.

I think that the negatives of two or three weeks of smith squatting to get the feeling of having the bar on your back will pale in comparisson to having the client squatting for the rest of their lives.

I may be wrong and would enjoy/encourage any opinions on this.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by youngliver

I mentioned this is a post on the MH forums yesterday about getting a client to start sqautting. I don't see the evil of using the smith machine in the beginning. Yes, I agree in the long run that it should be avoided but it seems like when it comes to squatting there is an intimidation factor that newbies have. Two or three weeks of smith squatting seems to lessen the intimidation factor of having the weight on your back. Will it teach the correct form, no, but when introducing a client to the squat, not having to worry about handling the weight in the beginning seems to lessen the worries about putting the bar on their back.

I think that the negatives of two or three weeks of smith squatting to get the feeling of having the bar on your back will pale in comparisson to having the client squatting for the rest of their lives.

I may be wrong and would enjoy/encourage any opinions on this.

I think you're way off base here. The biggest evil about smith machine 'squatting' (anything in a smith machine can not be considered a squat) is just like any other machine, the movement occurs in a fixed line, not allowing the body to find the proper natural groove, and it takes away the balance/stabilization element of the lift, a crucial component. The extreme downside of starting someone in a smith machine and then going to free weight is that this will actually result in it taking longer for this person to learn proper squat form. It's much easier to teach someone something when they have no other similar pattern engrained in their head and they have no bad habits to un-learn. Using a smith machine will not help prepare them for squatting, it will in fact do the opposite, the dynamics of a free weight squat are much different and more complex than a smith machine, and this will hinder the learning process when the person tries to apply their experience in the smith machine to a free weight bar, it won't work.

As far as the intimidation factor, this is where a good trainer makes their money, knowing how to tell if someone is ready to get under a bar. As Alwyn preaches, you must master you're own bodyweight prior to using external resistance. You have to first make sure they have the proper balance, flexibility, and strength before you put a bar on their back, this is done with mobility work/testing, and single leg strength exercises. I like bulgarain split squats and reverse lunges for this purpose. Without the aid of a mirror, one should be able to keep balance on these exercises and perform several bodyweight repititions before squatting with a bar. Then through moves like squat-to-stand you can make sure they have the flexibility to get into the bottom position and hold it. Starting Strength outlines this extremely well. Once you've determined they are ready, it's time to put them under the bar (the empty bar) and see what happens. If they pass the flexibility and strength test they should be fine as far as physical ability, now it will just take more coaching to work out what they're doing wrong. This is the process, not sticking them into a machine until they feel comfortable.

I think that the negatives of two or three weeks of smith squatting to get the feeling of having the bar on your back will pale in comparisson to having the client squatting for the rest of their lives.

But why start with bad habits? The smith machine sucks, and what better way to relay that to someone than staying away from it? Suppose you show someone the smith machine squat and they get comfortable with it for a few weeks and then try free weights and don't like it because it's a real exercise? What do you think they're going to do? They will go back to the smith machine because that's where they're comfortable.