Another related Leg Press Question....

[OldGuy]

Originally Posted by Frank.S

The thing is, how much does the moving part of the sled weigh with no weights on it? Im sure nobody ever measures that.

At the gym I go to the sled weighs 135 lbs. (called the company to find out).

Good points Matt.

[Simon C]

Originally Posted by Cynic

Me: And still, you have muscles to the side supporting and stabilizing the lift, especially in Oly lifting and while I've not seen many strongman competitions, I've seen they do more than put their back to a wall and push with their feet.

Yes, I agree with that, but what are you trying to say exactly?

[J Stankowski]

Originally Posted by PowerManDL

Not everyone is an athlete, and not all exercises "must" be "functional" (as much as I really do hate that term, because it is meaningless).

Not everybody keeps score, but ALL people need the ability to sit/stand/bend/rotate/push/pul l.

While there is certainly a time & place for more "aesthetics-based" exercises, attention to 'function' must also be a consideration for long term success - regardless if one has purely vanity driven goals, performance based or a combination - wouldn't you agree, PowerManDL?

-JS-

[J Stankowski]

Originally Posted by Cynic

How much weight is really considered? Loading up 1,000lbs, then breaking down the vectors, taking into consideration the incline, how much are you really pressing?

I had to consult Stephen Holt (engineer turned fitness guru) about this one not too long ago. Not considering the co-effiecient of friction, using sine tables...

45 degree leg press: you must produce force to overcome ~70% of the load

60 degree leg press ~ 86%

I should've paid more attention in trigonometry.

[PowerManDL]

Originally Posted by J Stankowski

Not everybody keeps score, but ALL people need the ability to sit/stand/bend/rotate/push/pul l.

While there is certainly a time & place for more "aesthetics-based" exercises, attention to 'function' must also be a consideration for long term success - regardless if one has purely vanity driven goals, performance based or a combination - wouldn't you agree, PowerManDL?

-JS-

I'm not sure why everyone is

1) trying to polarize this into an either/or thing when I've said over and over that the entire *point* is that it's not an either/or thing, and;

2) apparently not reading me when I say that something has utility in certain aspects of a program for certain individuals, and that this does not mean "must use always and with no consideration of any other factors".

I certainly haven't said "leg presses are better than squats and we must all neglect barbell exercises and human movement lol for the leg press because it rox".

Again, in regards to "functional", I ask you: functional *for what*? Functional is not just some magical thing that exists; it needs an antecedent.

Really, am I just not being clear here?

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by Simon C

Yes, I agree with that, but what are you trying to say exactly?

Well, it's hard to say because I can think it, but not talk it, mainly because I don't know the language of the institution, so I must work largely by analogy.

Sporting and occupational concerns are far too three dimensional to translate well to a gym in the first place. Reducing it further isn't serving people well. I'm not talking about pro athletes only, so the use of the words "sporting motion" may be just a vernacular expression or it may be a limitation in audience consideration.

Matt has said it's not something he uses mainly, but doesn't feel it should be removed entirely. So be it. I say it should be a last consideration, much like the smith. An exercise of last resort, even after considering plyometrics, bands, even box jumps. Somewhere between stacking bales of hay and the thigh master.

I'm trying to avoid the word functional, so let's just say something that translates better to walking/running life, that doesn't remove so many degrees of freedom. And even in sporting life, I think you'd want lateral strength. Sort of like making more certain the supporting structure doesn't collapse due to weak lateral shoring (the legs don't buckle sideways because stabilizers couldn't support the lateral forces).

If this is still not making sense, then it is simply something I will hold in private belief.

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by J Stankowski

I had to consult Stephen Holt (engineer turned fitness guru) about this one not too long ago. Not considering the co-effiecient of friction, using sine tables...

45 degree leg press: you must produce force to overcome ~70% of the load

60 degree leg press ~ 86%

Alright, then...sometime back, there was a big giggle about Pat Robertson leg pressing 2000lbs on a 45 degree sled.

So then, assuming he was using a full, but biomechanically safe ROM, we can assume that is a major accomplishment and Frank's last post was an admission he's a puss?

[PowerManDL]

Originally Posted by Cynic

Well, it's hard to say because I can think it, but not talk it, mainly because I don't know the language of the institution, so I must work largely by analogy.

Sporting and occupational concerns are far too three dimensional to translate well to a gym in the first place. Reducing it further isn't serving people well. I'm not talking about pro athletes only, so the use of the words "sporting motion" may be just a vernacular expression or it may be a limitation in audience consideration.

Matt has said it's not something he uses mainly, but doesn't feel it should be removed entirely. So be it. I say it should be a last consideration, much like the smith. An exercise of last resort, even after considering plyometrics, bands, even box jumps. Somewhere between stacking bales of hay and the thigh master.

I'm trying to avoid the word functional, so let's just say something that translates better to walking/running life, that doesn't remove so many degrees of freedom. And even in sporting life, I think you'd want lateral strength. Sort of like making more certain the supporting structure doesn't collapse due to weak lateral shoring (the legs don't buckle sideways because stabilizers couldn't support the lateral forces).

If this is still not making sense, then it is simply something I will hold in private belief.

No, you're absolutely making sense.

What I'm trying to get across to you is that you're both right, and wrong, at the same time.

Think more in terms of "general" and "specific", in regards to training methods. You need some of both.

Even though some are more specific to given movements, even the general stuff can develop things....generally.

What's missing is context. During a general training phase, the specificity component doesn't matter; you're building up the general fitness components. Likewise in a specific training phase, you're building up sport-specific elements.

Context, it's what defines the utility of anything.

For example, I'll put my squat number up against just about anybody on this site; yet, there are times when I still find the leg press useful. Not always, and I don't *have* to have it, but having one around is certainly nice for those times when I just don't want, or can't have for some reason, a bar on my back.

Or if I'm specializing on the deadlift, it can be damn useful both for quad size and as assistance work.

The whole point of me taking this off on the tangent is to get people out of this mindset of Good/Bad, Black/White, Right/Wrong. Context and goals define utility, not arbitrary labeling.

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by PowerManDL

No, you're absolutely making sense.

Ok, understood. The one thing that disturbs me about the advocacy is that many, of not most, who advocate it and those who use it, don't know the limitations and dangers of such machines.

This is taken from another forum, and it's about the smith, not the leg press, but it so beautifully encapsulates the idiocy surrounding the "mystique" of these machines:

I use the smith machine on bench just for the reason some one stated earlier...the bar is stabilized for you. I don't lose a whole hell of a lot from the smith machine to being on an actual bench. At a point last year I was doing 275 on the smith machine 9x...The very next chest work out on the bench I did 275 6x. I only lost 3 reps but my form goes to **** when I'm not using the smith machine!!!

I told him he had probably been using it so long, his stabilizers are weak, to which people were asking "don't you want to isolate." Well, it would appear isolating muscles is not helping this guy "a whole hell of a lot."

They don't understand the implications, they don't make very good connections and I can't seem to make them understand. They eat it up. They think it's the best thing next to peanut butter and jelly.

Perhaps the polarization you see is backlash to this type of idiot preference.

[PowerManDL]

On that point I agree with you. There's a lot of 'tards that rely too much on machines and whatnot, because they don't understand the alternatives.

I tend to give them the same lecture, FWIW, since they need a little less general and a little more specific. They're doing the same thing I'm bitching about here, just in reverse.

And really, while some of this was borderline nitpicking, for the same reason you dislike those guys and the polarized way they see things, I was getting the same feeling in this thread

[LisaS]

so -- looking at the two leg press devices that oldguy posted - one where the sled you lie on moves and one where the platform you press against moves --
-- can we look at the original question?
Is one preferable to the other? Does one protect the lumbar spine better?
Are there useful differences, advantages, or disadvantages to differentiate between them?

[Cynic]

Bumping this to get the original question w/ LisaS's view answered...

Is one better on the spine than the other?
If choosing one or the other, which would be chosen and why?

[PowerManDL]

If anything the hack squat would actually be more similar to the Smith machine. It's got a similar mechanical execution, though I'd tend to worry more about the knees than anything else. My old gym back in 'bama had a damn good on where you were basically sitting down like in a chair; that thing was spectacular.

The regular leg press, the issue as mentioned is more lumbar stress. The trick there is just to 1) remain tight and 2) not use so much weight that 1) becomes difficult.

Of course the real trick here is the individual differences between machines but, for my money, the leg press would generally be the more effective/least risky.

[Sign]

When I read the OP I got the impression he was talking about these two leg presses



This is a horizontal leg press where you press against a stationary plate and your body slides backwards along the rails and the weight stack lifts.

And the one that OldGuy posted which is the standard 45 degree leg press.

[rem1956]

These are the two designs I was originally describing, and the question still remains...pros and cons of each....are there any? any advantage one has over the other?