As far as the post fatigue you can handle heavier weights safely because you do not need to stabilze the weight just push it and lower it. I am not sure what the benefit is prefatigue.
Bingo. As far as pre-fatigue it's just another method to gain size. Nothing magical about it, just a variation to use when other methods aren't working.
Sure it is in the sense that similar arguments could be made for ANY form of resistance training.
I am sure there will be some physiology major who wants to argue the point, but THAT very individual should realize the folly of their own argument. Unless proven to a reasonable degree with specific studies the whole argument that the fixed plane of motion somehow can be more dangerous than any other form of squatting is only theory. For example, even IF squatting on the Smith creates more shearing force on certain portions of the knee or hip joints, it would have to be proven that said force was deleterious over time. A proper dose of any force will usually elicit adaptation by the body, which can and usually is a positive thing when it comes to resistance training.
Sure it is in the sense that similar arguments could be made for ANY form of resistance training.
I am sure there will be some physiology major who wants to argue the point, but THAT very individual should realize the folly of their own argument. Unless proven to a reasonable degree with specific studies the whole argument that the fixed plane of motion somehow can be more dangerous than any other form of squatting is only theory. For example, even IF squatting on the Smith creates more shearing force on certain portions of the knee or hip joints, it would have to be proven that said force was deleterious over time. A proper dose of any force will usually elicit adaptation by the body, which can and usually is a positive thing when it comes to resistance training.
Anyway, BUNK baby!
what if we don't talk about injury but rather how people use the smith squat as a learning tool for the real squat (which is done a lot of the time, people doing smith squats to "get ready" for regular squats, etc) or to develop sports specific strength. That's where my major problem with the smith machine lies.
Sure it is in the sense that similar arguments could be made for ANY form of resistance training.
I am sure there will be some physiology major who wants to argue the point, but THAT very individual should realize the folly of their own argument. Unless proven to a reasonable degree with specific studies the whole argument that the fixed plane of motion somehow can be more dangerous than any other form of squatting is only theory. For example, even IF squatting on the Smith creates more shearing force on certain portions of the knee or hip joints, it would have to be proven that said force was deleterious over time. A proper dose of any force will usually elicit adaptation by the body, which can and usually is a positive thing when it comes to resistance training.
Anyway, BUNK baby!
So adapting to a strictly vertical fixed range of motion instead of naturally squatting--or, for most people, not being able to squat at all--is equal?
__________________
Quoth David Banner: "Like a pimp"
It's not a beer belly. It's a gas tank for a sax machine.
what if we don't talk about injury but rather how people use the smith squat as a learning tool for the real squat (which is done a lot of the time, people doing smith squats to "get ready" for regular squats, etc) or to develop sports specific strength. That's where my major problem with the smith machine lies.
First, a free weight squat doesn't make you any better of an athlete than does a Smith squat. That is a MAJOR motor learning myth about MANY free weight exercises and how they translate to the field of play (or don't, actually).
Next, I had a buddy returned to training after a prolonged layoff. He use the Smith extensively for his squatting for a few months and then graduated immediately to standard squats, totally raw, with 400+ lbs for reps.
So adapting to a strictly vertical fixed range of motion instead of naturally squatting--or, for most people, not being able to squat at all--is equal?
Lol, what is natural about having a little over an inch bar loaded with a ton of weight sitting on your back and trying to squat down with it?
Equal for what? Free weight squatting will make you a better squatter and build the major muscles of your lower back, hips, and legs. Smith machine squatting will make you a better Smith machine squatter and do much the same for the same musculature with the emphasis shifted a bit more to the legs (for most people).
Lol, what is natural about having a little over an inch bar loaded with a ton of weight sitting on your back and trying to squat down with it?
Equal for what? Free weight squatting will make you a better squatter and build the major muscles of your lower back, hips, and legs. Smith machine squatting will make you a better Smith machine squatter and do much the same for the same musculature with the emphasis shifted a bit more to the legs (for most people).
I was going to say after "natural" that it was your own body's plane of it's choosing. But that felt redundant.
It seems to reason that it would be better for one to work with no plane limitations; ie letting your body decide the ROM for the bar, and not the machine. Unless you're stating that in a bodybuilding context, which I'm not.
Why would I want to train my body to squat outside of the line it would normally squat?
__________________
Quoth David Banner: "Like a pimp"
It's not a beer belly. It's a gas tank for a sax machine.
I was going to say after "natural" that it was your own body's plane of it's choosing. But that felt redundant.
It seems to reason that it would be better for one to work with no plane limitations; ie letting your body decide the ROM for the bar, and not the machine. Unless you're stating that in a bodybuilding context, which I'm not.
Why would I want to train my body to squat outside of the line it would normally squat?
If you are squatting correctly in the first place, then translating that to the Smith is not that difficult of a task. It's not a movement that requires the dexterity of a bomb disposal technician.
The bottom line is that it's a fine piece of equipment to use. Is it better than a freeweight squat? It depends on your POV. It's nothing to demonize. Every tool in the weight room is useful whether you personally use it or not.
9 times out of 10 I see people squatting on those things and looking like they're sitting on chairs at the bottom. That alone is enough to give pause.
The loaded progression from the bodyweight squat should be to free weights so that the bodies nervous system continues to work in 3D. Any fixed machine will eliminate that ability. It changes the face of stabilization. Rather than adaptation I see compensation (teaching the body improper mechanics). Bad.
I wouldn't even use them as rehab tools. A person should perfect their squat mechanics using their bodyweight first before moving onto any loaded version.
First, a free weight squat doesn't make you any better of an athlete than does a Smith squat. That is a MAJOR motor learning myth about MANY free weight exercises and how they translate to the field of play (or don't, actually).
Next, I had a buddy returned to training after a prolonged layoff. He use the Smith extensively for his squatting for a few months and then graduated immediately to standard squats, totally raw, with 400+ lbs for reps.
People want to believe so much bunk out there.
Well, IRL you have to control your degrees of freedom, a smith squat won't teach you that. And your buddy returned to lifting, so he probably wasn't re-learning the squat, was he? I see a lot of people who try to learn to squat on the smith machine lean on it, if the bar wasn't on rails they would fall on their ass, if they learn to descend that way (with their weight too far back) they will have to re-learn the movement when they start doing regular squats. Keep in mind, this is a problem I see a lot, it doesn't have to happen to everyone.
Your buddy isn't evidence, for all we know, he could have squatted 500lbs had he started with regular squats.
Also, I'm not saying you won't develop strength on the smith machine. You're placing your body under stress, so it will adapt.
But let's not forget, if someone wants to say the smith machine is good to use to learn the movement, they will have to come up with a way to argument for it being better than just starting with BW squats and working up. I think that would be a very hard thing to do.
If you are squatting correctly in the first place, then translating that to the Smith is not that difficult of a task. It's not a movement that requires the dexterity of a bomb disposal technician.
The bottom line is that it's a fine piece of equipment to use. Is it better than a freeweight squat? It depends on your POV. It's nothing to demonize. Every tool in the weight room is useful whether you personally use it or not.
Key word = translating.
I'm lifting, not learning Spanish. I don't want to have to have myself, or people I would be training (if I was training individuals) learning to translate a basic movement to a machine.
__________________
Quoth David Banner: "Like a pimp"
It's not a beer belly. It's a gas tank for a sax machine.
Well, IRL you have to control your degrees of freedom, a smith squat won't teach you that. And your buddy returned to lifting, so he probably wasn't re-learning the squat, was he? I see a lot of people who try to learn to squat on the smith machine lean on it, if the bar wasn't on rails they would fall on their ass, if they learn to descend that way (with their weight too far back) they will have to re-learn the movement when they start doing regular squats. Keep in mind, this is a problem I see a lot, it doesn't have to happen to everyone.
Your buddy isn't evidence, for all we know, he could have squatted 500lbs had he started with regular squats.
Also, I'm not saying you won't develop strength on the smith machine. You're placing your body under stress, so it will adapt.
But let's not forget, if someone wants to say the smith machine is good to use to learn the movement, they will have to come up with a way to argument for it being better than just starting with BW squats and working up. I think that would be a very hard thing to do.
I agree. There are some beginners on the NROL4W forum who LEARNED to squat in the Smith Machine and by their posts you can tell they are totally trained to now lean into the bar and "sit" down. Hard to get them to now transition into proper squatting in the rack, now that that's ingrained in their brains/bodies.
I'm lifting, not learning Spanish. I don't want to have to have myself, or people I would be training (if I was training individuals) learning to translate a basic movement to a machine.
Nobody is telling you that you have to use the machine, or that you should be putting your clients on the machine (if you were training). You should never instruct on a machine or movement that you don't understand.
Neither myself or Chris are telling any of you to use the machine, or to train people on it, or anything of the sort. The bottom line is that the machine is fine for what it is designed to do. Saying it's worthless is not a correct statement. Saying it isn't for everybody is a more appropriate stance.
Now, to the OP, no, it is not useful for teaching a freeweight squat. They are two different movements.
9 times out of 10 I see people squatting on those things and looking like they're sitting on chairs at the bottom. That alone is enough to give pause.
The loaded progression from the bodyweight squat should be to free weights so that the bodies nervous system continues to work in 3D. Any fixed machine will eliminate that ability. It changes the face of stabilization. Rather than adaptation I see compensation (teaching the body improper mechanics). Bad.
I wouldn't even use them as rehab tools. A person should perfect their squat mechanics using their bodyweight first before moving onto any loaded version.
x2
A Smith machine has many other perhaps useful uses, but IMO squatting is not one of them, perhaps a split squat, but not a regular back or front squat.
__________________
Life's a Journey ... Enjoy the Ride!
Nobody is telling you that you have to use the machine, or that you should be putting your clients on the machine (if you were training). You should never instruct on a machine or movement that you don't understand.
Neither myself or Chris are telling any of you to use the machine, or to train people on it, or anything of the sort. The bottom line is that the machine is fine for what it is designed to do. Saying it's worthless is not a correct statement. Saying it isn't for everybody is a more appropriate stance.
Now, to the OP, no, it is not useful for teaching a freeweight squat. They are two different movements.
Right, and what I'm saying is that the design makes it far from optimal, so why should someone use it?
I use the Smith machine too. For my bodyweight rows and my hip mobility drills. So yeah, I don't think it's useless. But those probably also aren't the intended uses.
__________________
Quoth David Banner: "Like a pimp"
It's not a beer belly. It's a gas tank for a sax machine.
Incline BB Bench
Low Incline DB Bench
Smith Bench Press, Flat
for pre-fatigue:
Superset
Smith Bench Press, Flat 5 reps
Flat DB Press 10 reps
Post fatigue
Superset
Flat DB Press 5 reps
Smith Bench Press 10 reps
Why does a smith machine need to be a part of any of these exercises? Not that it is necessarily detrimental, but what does it bring beyond using either DBs or a BB?
__________________
"Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." -- T.S. Eliot
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act, but a habit."-- Aristotle
It doesn't NEED to be a part of any of these exercises. It's just a variation. Nothing magical about it at all, try it, see if you like it, see if it gives different results. If you don't like it or feel that it's not for you, then never use it again.
The SM may not be for you, and that's okay. I personally think it's great and right now it's allowing me to press with my chest with no pain in my shoulder, so for me it's great.
9 times out of 10 I see people squatting on those things and looking like they're sitting on chairs at the bottom. That alone is enough to give pause.
The loaded progression from the bodyweight squat should be to free weights so that the bodies nervous system continues to work in 3D. Any fixed machine will eliminate that ability. It changes the face of stabilization. Rather than adaptation I see compensation (teaching the body improper mechanics). Bad.
I wouldn't even use them as rehab tools. A person should perfect their squat mechanics using their bodyweight first before moving onto any loaded version.
Alternatively, 9 times out of 10 when I see someone free weight squatting they are doing the movement with HORRIBLE form.
Alternatively, 9 times out of 10 when I see someone free weight squatting they are doing the movement with HORRIBLE form.
The good thing about most machines is that it locks in your form so this can't happen, The Smith just like cables does not stop bad form. Using machines is not going to correct sloppy form when you go to free weights but using free weights with bad form isn't any better. I guess I would have to say that my opinion on the Smith has moved to "If properly used it can be a useful tool". At least when you are near the end of your workout and you want to squeeze in some more work if nothing else.
That is my 2 cents and with the current state of the economy that ain't wort much.
__________________ -50# by 4/1/10 2 down 48 to go.
Alternatively, 9 times out of 10 when I see someone free weight squatting they are doing the movement with HORRIBLE form.
EXACTLY!! Which is why I said that they should be the progression from bodyweight squats. If you don't have proper mechanics there, you shouldn't be loading (let alone using a fixed plane machine to further compensate).
As the saying goes, "pride goeth before the fall". Some just can't except the fact that their mobility/flexibility aren't ready. On goes the load, in walks injury
[edit] I do use the Smith for inverted rows, no cheat pullups, over/unders, under the bar warrior lunges all the while having a place for my towel[/edit]
A Smith machine has many other perhaps useful uses, but IMO squatting is not one of them, perhaps a split squat, but not a regular back or front squat.
Name two(2) other perhaps useful uses, and that's that.
I personally have gone trough thinking that ALL machines(especially you Smith) are useless and bad. Than I took a look around and said "they are not that bad after all." Now I'm saying is "they are not that bad at all, but I just don't see a use for them." It's like a doctor badmouthing exercise - you say it's bad because you don't know what to do with it. I don't know what to do with the smith machine, so unless someone tells me a fine way to use them I won't go near them.
__________________
Tsvetan Vasilev
I want to know. I want to be able to. I want to be.
Name two(2) other perhaps useful uses, and that's that.
I personally have gone trough thinking that ALL machines(especially you Smith) are useless and bad. Than I took a look around and said "they are not that bad after all." Now I'm saying is "they are not that bad at all, but I just don't see a use for them." It's like a doctor badmouthing exercise - you say it's bad because you don't know what to do with it. I don't know what to do with the smith machine, so unless someone tells me a fine way to use them I won't go near them.
I use the Smith for inverted rows, no cheat pullups, over/unders, under the bar warrior lunges all the while having a place for my towel.
I have never used a machine in my life. I truly believe that my continued excellence in hand eye co-ordination, balance and agility (for a 53 year old) are a result of working only and always in 4 dimensions (time being the 4th dimension).
Bodybuilding is one of those endeavors where machines do come in handy for sculpting. Rehab is another.
I have never used a machine in my life. I truly believe that my continued excellence in hand eye co-ordination, balance and agility (for a 53 year old) are a result of working only and always in 4 dimensions (time being the 4th dimension).
Bodybuilding is one of those endeavors where machines do come in handy for sculpting. Rehab is another.
I totally disagree.
Allow yourself a little experiment. Vow to ONLY used machines for 2 months. Then test your hand-0eye coordination and see if you think there is ANY decline. I promise you will see NONE.
I can get reaction time, as the body needs to react from stimuli it gets from the "outside"
This could be swaying slightly to one side, etc. There will be stimuli in a smith squat too, but there would probably be more in a free weight squat because you need to work more to keep balance (since the bar is not on "rails"). You don't notice this much, since most of it occures at an unconscious level.
Allow yourself a little experiment. Vow to ONLY used machines for 2 months. Then test your hand-0eye coordination and see if you think there is ANY decline. I promise you will see NONE.
Chris
Quote:
Originally Posted by perrogrande007
How do you equate free weight movements affecting HEC and reaction time???
Your body adapts for what it needs to. If you strictly use machines, then you'll adapt less balancing muscles (and CNS, etc...). If your goal is a pure BBer then all machines will probably work for you. If you're an athlete or worried about performance then free weights will most likely carry over better.
I understand that both of you are pushing for a mix, but if you're limited in training time and you have a choice between another free weight exercise or a machine, IMHO you'll get better results from the free weights.
__________________
"Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." -- T.S. Eliot
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act, but a habit."-- Aristotle
I can get reaction time, as the body needs to react from stimuli it gets from the "outside"
This could be swaying slightly to one side, etc. There will be stimuli in a smith squat too, but there would probably be more in a free weight squat because you need to work more to keep balance (since the bar is not on "rails"). You don't notice this much, since most of it occures at an unconscious level.
Study motor learning a bit and you will see the error of what you are saying. Your statements are logical, but not how the body works in the sense that a free weight squat will only have a neural impact on a that specific movement.
For instance, someone who can hit a tennis ball really well will not automatically be good at badminton. Two very similar movements at face value, but very different from a motor learning perspective.
[/edit]
Linear Mode
