Smith Machine - all that bad?

connundrum

Hey,

I've just started using the Smith Machine in my gym for squats. Previously I was using free weights by my side.

In the gym the Smith Machine is the only really option, as there is a 7' bar, but no rack to stick it on.

Should I use the Smith at all or consider it to be the best of limited options?

I'm tied to this gym for the next year so I'll not be going anywhere else soon.

kevpants

For squats yeah it is that bad. You have other options though. I mean you can do barbell lunges, front squats of whatever weight you can bring to your chest, you can deadlift. If you can't do regular squats I'd advise doing something else rather than doing them in the Smith Machine.

chrism2007

as said already its 99% useless

try this even

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24PeqytTtq4

lumberjackgener

From what I've read and heard its really not that good. It will work the main muscles but not the supporting muscles/tendons/ligaments whatever.
Those are the things that you do not want to end up weaker than the main muscles. Like attaching a rocket to a fiesta...

Maybe you could do front squats with the bar, clean it up into position.

BossArky

Non answering your question directly but....

You could use the oly bar to learn to power or hang clean the weight up into a proper front squat position. Now, front squat. It is easy enough to dump the weight if too heavy. Start off light and build up gradually.

I don't front squat in a rack 'cos the bar hits the supports before I can get to the bottom.

cowzerp

If there is a dip rack, use it for the bar.

smith squats is basically a leg press with potential injury risks if done wrong which most people do..

Killme00

BossArky wrote: »

You could use the oly bar to learn to power or hang clean the weight up into a proper front squat position. Now, front squat. It is easy enough to dump the weight if too heavy. Start off light and build up gradually.

and now add in a Military or push press here at the end and you have a great hybrid lift which will have you seeing spots after a set of 6. I use it once in a while to completely burn out when i havent done enough in a session.

crotalus667

Whilst Dorian preferred the leg press when he did do squats he opted for the smith machine , it all depends on what your goals are

brianthebard

I don't think Yates is a great example of what people should be doing in the gym.

Malteaser!

Didn't Dorian's career end prematurely due to the catastropic injuries he suffered from his training routine?? Hardly a perfect example of a great traininig methodology?? I know it was more upper stuff he injured, but the point stands.

brianthebard

Yeah I was going to mention that his bicep tear(s) have often been attributed to the way he adapted rows, (now referred to as a Yates row), but I didn't have a good link.

Hanley

He popped his tri doing pulldowns too IIRC.

If you've nothing else, a smith machine would have to do. No point in losing a year of leg training. BUT I would approach it so that I wasn't going too heavy, do your other leg work first, Leg Press (if available), lunges and then front squat on the smith.

I would ONLY front squat on the smith because it's the squat where I find the bar has the straightest path. Obviously you need to find the position where you cansit down between your legs and not have your feels want to lift up in the bottom position. It's absolutely far from ideal, but if it's what you got, it's what you got.

cardio,shoot me

maybe try using the smith machine to do a hack squat

Chucky the tree

I dont have a squat rack either and I just clean and jerk + Front squat it, I dont really like squats though so much prefer deadlifts.

brianthebard

cardio,shoot me wrote: »

maybe try using the smith machine to do a hack squat

Good idea, or even just hack and zercher squats and forget about the smith.

cardio,shoot me

true brian, but ive heard some people find the hack squat hard to get and i cant see how ud get into the zercher squat position without a rack. but if u put the weight on ur shoulders and hack squat its easy enough imo

brianthebard

Usually people need to put plates under their heels to do hack squats I think. Not sure what you mean about putting it on your shoulders, you mean on the ground? As for zerchers, I guess you could set them up on a bench, or on the ground and do a zercher deadlift/squat, could be hard though.

cardio,shoot me

when i say on your shoulders i was referring to doing it in the smith machine

brianthebard

it wouldn't be a hack squat then though.

crotalus667

Malteaser! wrote: »

Didn't Dorian's career end prematurely due to the catastropic injuries he suffered from his training routine??

I think it was ,ore to do with his high intensity techniques , I have been told (my a guy that works doing autopsies) that the amount of injuries was possibly due to his bodies inability to strengthen the cognitive tissues at the same rate the muscles where growing , the point being his legs/lower joints where fine (more than fine) , there are a lot of pro bodybuilders that use the smith machine because they can isolate parts of the legs better

Malteaser! wrote: »

I know it was more upper stuff he injured, but the point stands.

Hmmm no sorry the point does not stand

brianthebard

Just cause you're a fan of the guy doesn't mean other people's opinions are invalid.

crotalus667

brianthebard wrote: »

Just cause you're a fan of the guy doesn't mean other people's opinions are invalid.

1 i never said i was a fan of the guy and 2 i never said other people's opinions are not valid, learn to read

kevpants

A pro bodybuilder who takes so many chemicals that allow his muscles to grow and recover 5 times faster than you or I can therefore afford to isolate every single muscle individually and train it absolute failure. He has so many hormones flowing that he has recovered by the next morning whereas you and I would be flattened after 2 weeks of this type of training, burned out and getting weaker by the session. He achieves overall mass by meticulously destroying every muscle one at a time, we simply can't train that way.

The method by which a bodybuilder grows his muscles and you and I grow them are completely different. They are quite literally different animals, the blood that flows through their veins is completely different to Mr Connundrum of Boards.ie so I'm afraid your point stands about as well as Stephen Hawking, on a tightrope, in a hurricane, after 8 pints.

cardio,shoot me

brianthebard wrote: »

it wouldn't be a hack squat then though.

true but its the same type of movement

crotalus667

kevpants wrote: »

A pro bodybuilder who takes so many chemicals that allow his muscles to grow and recover 5 times faster than you or I can therefore afford to isolate every single muscle individually

I never said anyone was isolating every mussels individually (that is imposable to do with any sort of squat)

kevpants wrote: »

He has so many hormones flowing that he has recovered by the next morning

Nope steroids are good but they are not that good , recovery is still measured in multiple days ,

kevpants wrote: »

whereas you and I would be flattened after 2 weeks of this type of training, burned out and getting weaker by the session.

Never at any point did I suggest that any body trained with the intensity or the frequency of a pro

kevpants wrote: »

The method by which a bodybuilder grows his muscles and you and I grow them are completely different. ..

From a physiological point of view they are the exactly the same , steroid users just have a greater ability to recover

kevpants wrote: »

I'm afraid your point stands about as well as Stephen Hawking, on a tightrope, in a hurricane, after 8 pints.

learn to read my post's properly and then maybe you will be qualified to make that statement (you could also do with an anatomy lesson)

cardio,shoot me

i was gonna reply but he pretty much did all i need to do.....

Edit: since when are we talking about shellfish who bodybuild? "Mussels"
couldnt resist!

brianthebard

cardio,shoot me wrote: »

true but its the same type of movement

Sorry but I'm still confused, a hack squat is only a hack squat if the weight is on the ground (or possibly dumbbells) held below and behind the body, what you're talking about sounds like a smith machine squat, if the weight is on the back?

kevpants

crotalus667 wrote: »

I never said anyone was isolating every mussels individually (that is imposable to do with any sort of squat)

So why did he Smith Squat? Wouldn't have been to isolate the quads no?

crotalus667 wrote: »

Nope steroids are good but they are not that good , recovery is still measured in multiple days

Mr Nautural Universe


Mr Universe


Steroids make a huge difference, don't kid yourself.

crotalus667 wrote: »

From a physiological point of view they are the exactly the same , steroid users just have a greater ability to recover

Recovery is 100% the point of any training. Recovery is when you get stronger or bigger depending on the goal. Accelerate the recovery = accelerate the growth. So they are exactly the same apart from one massive difference. Were you pointing out that we both have arms and legs?

crotalus667 wrote: »

learn to read my post's properly and then maybe you will be qualified to make that statement (you could also do with an anatomy lesson)

Squats are for legs right? Which bit's that again?

Hanley

crotalus667 wrote: »

I think it was ,ore to do with his high intensity techniques , I have been told (my a guy that works doing autopsies) that the amount of injuries was possibly due to his bodies inability to strengthen the cognitive tissues at the same rate the muscles where growing , the point being his legs/lower joints where fine (more than fine) , there are a lot of pro bodybuilders that use the smith machine because they can isolate parts of the legs better

Lol. It's a lot more than HIT which caused the tears. The GH, IGF-1, anabolics and whatever else he was taking would be a much bigger factor (same theory, muscles grow too fast for the connective tissue).

Hmmm no sorry the point does not stand

Bad training and poor exercise selection begets injuries. It's a valid point.

Hanley

crotalus667 wrote: »

I never said anyone was isolating every mussels individually (that is imposable to do with any sort of squat)


learn to read my post's properly and then maybe you will be qualified to make that statement (you could also do with an anatomy lesson)

Fast becoming my favourite picture;

crotalus667

kevpants wrote: »

So why did he Smith Squat? Wouldn't have been to isolate the quads no?

Squats of any sort would not isolate any muscle (or group of you seem to be ignorant to the fact that the quads are four muscle’s not one)

kevpants wrote: »

Steroids make a huge difference, don't kid yourself.

please point out where i said they did not make a huge difference ???

kevpants wrote: »

Recovery is 100% the point of any training. Recovery is when you get stronger or bigger depending on the goal. Accelerate the recovery = accelerate the growth. So they are exactly the same apart from one massive difference. Were you pointing out that we both have arms and legs?

You clearly have not under stood what I have poster , (and/or it would also appear you have not understood what you yourself have posted) read it again and if you still cant understand , well tough luck because I am not going to draw it in crayon just for you , I am not your special ed teacher

crotalus667

Hanley wrote: »

It's a valid point.

it's not a valid point when taken in context :rolleyes:

Hanley

crotalus667 wrote: »

Squats of any sort would not isolate any muscle (or group of you seem to be ignorant to the fact that the quads are four muscle’s not one)

please point out where i said they did not make a huge difference ???


You clearly have not under stood what I have poster , (and/or it would also appear you have not understood what you yourself have posted) read it again and if you still cant understand , well tough luck because I am not going to draw it in crayon just for you , I am not your special ed teacher

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kev just got pwn'd. Hey man, which of your 4 quad muscles (that's what quad means, 4!!!!) squatted 215kg last week???? Lol. Total newb.

I don't even know why you're getting ragged on.... I didn't even see you say the quads (ie the 4 mussels were one??)

Serious lol to bodybuilders who take steroids as being THE EXACT SAME, except for A DIFFERENCE.

Hanley

crotalus667 wrote: »

it's not a valid point when taken in context :rolleyes:

Ehhhhhhhh??

The point was (I believe) - Poor exercise selection and training techniques lead to injuries. As evidenced by Yates.

The context it was used in was that smith machine squats aren't the best when it comes to not hurting yourself while squatting. I think it's fair to assume that the OP isn't a competitive bodybuilder (sh1t, it's not an assumption, it's fact) looking to fully isolate certain parts of his quads (cos there's 4 parts ya know), so from an overall perspective, considering the tools available, conventional smith machine squats would not be the best option.

The OP enquired as to whether smith squats were the best option for him considering his circumstances. It's fair to assume he's looking to build up his lets (bigger or stronger), and to that end, there are better options.

amacachi

kevpants wrote: »

Mr Nautural Universe

Sorry for going OT, but has there been a bigger natural bodybuilder? I knew steroids made a massive difference, but not that massive.

Hanley

amacachi wrote: »

Sorry for going OT, but has there been a bigger natural bodybuilder? I knew steroids made a massive difference, but not that massive.

Skip La Cour's the poster boy for drug free bodybuilding (at least he claims to be, he's passed the test and polygraphs, but he's just so awesome the doubts persist)



Hell, Ireland's own Eamonn Manning (of NutritionX) would destroy that guy too.

crotalus667

Hanley wrote: »

Ehhhhhhhh??

Read Malt's post then read my response to that post and you will see you have taken my responce out of context

Hanley wrote: »

The point was (I believe) - Poor exercise selection and training techniques lead to injuries. As evidenced by Yates.

True

Hanley wrote: »

The OP enquired as to whether smith squats were the best option for him considering his circumstances. It's fair to assume he's looking to build up his lets (bigger or stronger), and to that end, there are better options.

Alot hinge's on which one (along with a number of other factors)

brianthebard

Hanley wrote: »

Skip La Cour's the poster boy for drug free bodybuilding (at least he claims to be, he's passed the test and polygraphs, but he's just so awesome the doubts persist)



Hell, Ireland's own Eamonn Manning (of NutritionX) would destroy that guy too.

Sh.it his hamstrings are probably the size of my quads!

amacachi

Hanley wrote: »

Skip La Cour's the poster boy for drug free bodybuilding (at least he claims to be, he's passed the test and polygraphs, but he's just so awesome the doubts persist)



Hell, Ireland's own Eamonn Manning (of NutritionX) would destroy that guy too.

How could a lie detector work through those thighs of steel? :P
Though I must admit I thought it would be possible to get bigger than that without steroids, looks like more people are on them than I assumed.

ronbyrne2005

amacachi wrote: »

How could a lie detector work through those thighs of steel? :P
Though I must admit I thought it would be possible to get bigger than that without steroids, looks like more people are on them than I assumed.

People dont realise how much smaller a bodybuilder looks when he gets down to really low body fat. The people you refer to that look like they are on steroids probably aint, its just a person in street looks a lot bigger at 20-30% body fat.

amacachi

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

People dont realise how much smaller a bodybuilder looks when he gets down to really low body fat. The people you refer to that look like they are on steroids probably aint, its just a person in street looks a lot bigger at 20-30% body fat.

Good point. Then again I do watch a lot of wrestling too. :P

ronbyrne2005

http://www.naturalbodybuilding.com/olympia/

OP do bulgarian squats with heavy dumbells.

Hanley

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

People dont realise how much smaller a bodybuilder looks when he gets down to really low body fat. .

Seriously??? Ya been around many high ranking bodybuilders in contest shape? They're still fcuking HYYYOGE.

cardio,shoot me

brianthebard wrote: »

Sorry but I'm still confused, a hack squat is only a hack squat if the weight is on the ground (or possibly dumbbells) held below and behind the body, what you're talking about sounds like a smith machine squat, if the weight is on the back?

hmm maybe im wrong then, but u ever see those hack squat machines in the gym? i was talking about basically doing that in the smith machine

brianthebard

Ah, I understand what you're saying now. Still not quite the same but at least I know where you're coming from.

kevpants

crotalus667 wrote: »

learn to read my post's properly and then maybe you will be qualified to make that statement (you could also do with an anatomy lesson)

Ok I was willing to let this slide but the rule is attack the post not the poster. I attacked your suggestion not you.

crotalus667 wrote: »

You clearly have not under stood what I have poster , (and/or it would also appear you have not understood what you yourself have posted) read it again and if you still cant understand , well tough luck because I am not going to draw it in crayon just for you , I am not your special ed teacher

But...(G'em and Khannie, I'm usually pretty well behaved around here right? Can this one be my mulligan?)... WTF???? Just WTF???

Firstly condescendingly saying I need an anatomy lesson is one thing. Following up, simply because I disagreed and took umbrage with regard to your advice that a beginner should follow the same plan as a 320lb pro bodybuilder, with an accusation that I am special needs is out of order.

I refuse to be tastlessly jibed at by someone who is responsible for such gems as

crotalus667 wrote: »

I never said anyone was isolating every mussels individually (that is imposable to do with any sort of squat)

Right it's "imposable" to "isolate every mussels". What are you an OCD afflicted fisherman? I wouldn't mind if it was just the spelling but you got the grammar in a heap as well "Isolate every muscles" is still wrong even if you managed to recruit enough synapses to spell correctly.

And what's the story with the commas? "<space> <comma> <space>" is something they pick up on in 2nd class! I know that might sound pedantic but look at this one!

crotalus667 wrote: »

Nope steroids are good but they are not that good , recovery is still measured in multiple days ,

Why is there a comma floating out there in the middle of my screen? I thought it was a busted pixel! I spent 3 hours on hold to an Indian tech support centre before I realised it was your marvellous intellect playing tricks on me again.

Did you actually think the correct way to end a sentence was with "<space> <comma> <space>" and then begin a new paragraph?

My point here is to teach you that if you are going to slag me off or make tasteless accusations you better have your sh1t together because you can be prepared to be picked apart.

Insinuating that someone is "special needs" to try and publicly humiliate them is disgusting and I'm a bit annoyed no Mod picked up on it, though I'm sure I'll be collared for this post. You don't know the history of the poster you're attacking nor of the people reading.

crotalus667 wrote: »

Squats of any sort would not isolate any muscle (or group of you seem to be ignorant to the fact that the quads are four muscle’s not one)

Ironically a comma would have made that bit in the brackets into english...

Oh yeah and to top this all off. You're still wrong! Ouch!

ronbyrne2005

Hanley wrote: »

Seriously??? Ya been around many high ranking bodybuilders in contest shape? They're still fcuking HYYYOGE.

Yeah but when they are in off season they are even bigger!

crotalus667

kevpants wrote: »

Ok I was willing to let this slide

Obviously not

kevpants wrote: »

I attacked your suggestion not you.

No you attacked a suggestion that you made up based vaguely on my post , If your going to say that I said some thing which I clearly did not don’t expect me to thank you for it

kevpants wrote: »

Firstly condescendingly saying I need an anatomy lesson is one thing. .

You made a grade a blooper whilst questioning something you claimed I said which I did not , was it condescending maybe but it was definitely factual

kevpants wrote: »

Following up, simply because I disagreed and took umbrage with regard to your advice that a beginner should follow the same plan as a 320lb pro bodybuilder,.with an accusation that I am special needs is out of order.

Their you go again claiming I said thing which I did not ,hence why it is not out of order

kevpants wrote: »

I refuse to be tastlessly jibed at by someone who is responsible for such gems as.

Yet again you have tired to make yourself seem morally superior by saying that you are not going to do some thing and with the same sentence do it LOL

kevpants wrote: »

What are you an OCD afflicted fisherman?.

No as I have explained on this forum before I have a form of dyslexia ,

kevpants wrote: »

My point here is to teach you that if you are going to slag me off or make tasteless accusations you better have your sh1t together because you can be prepared to be picked apart.

You have failed to pick a single one of my statements apart (unless you count spelling and grammar in which case that would just serve to show the weakness of your non existent argument)

kevpants wrote: »

Insinuating that someone is "special needs" to try and publicly humiliate them is disgusting

There was no intent to humiliate you (I feel you are quite capable of doing that your self ) the intent was to make you think before you post statements that you fraudulently claim to be expressing my opinion

kevpants wrote: »

You don't know the history of the poster you're attacking

I attacked no one I merely responded with restraint to you fraudulent representation of me , by the way history is in the past it does not excuse you behaviour

kevpants wrote: »

Oh yeah and to top this all off. You're still wrong! Ouch!

Nope , you cant even understand what I have posted so you simply not qualified to make that comment.



this is the last time i am going to respond to you in regaurd to this matter ,(now watch when i say it i mean it)

kevpants

I allowed myself one retaliatory post. I'm not going to do another one.

Dragging the subject back on topic. You said the Smith Machine is the preferred method of squatting for Dorian Yates but it depends on what your goals are.

What goals would make the Smith Machine the right option for the OP?

Your logic is that if it's what Dorian and other bodybuilders do it would work for everyone, right?

You seem to mention qualifications a lot too. Can you advise how I am not qualified to advise here and how you are?

crotalus667

kevpants wrote: »

Dragging the subject back on topic. You said the Smith Machine is the preferred method of squatting for Dorian Yates but it depends on what your goals are.

I believe that was already stated

kevpants wrote: »

What goals would make the Smith Machine the right option for the OP?.

Size and size only , there is little point in using it for strength as it would support the ankles too much leading to an ankle injury when the strength is applied in a sport type setting (unless like the op you have little other options in which case a lot of the other exercises for the legs would be made up of free weight work ie walking DB lunges)

kevpants wrote: »

Your logic is that if it's what Dorian and other bodybuilders do it would work for everyone, right?

No , firstly NO exercise will work for everyone hence why dorian used the smith machine, my point was that the exercise has been proven to have some benefits over the free squatting (depending on goals and the individual) while being safe , I at no point suggested that any one should fallow the training regime of a pro body builder

kevpants wrote: »

You seem to mention qualifications a lot too. Can you advise how I am not qualified to advise here and how you are?

firstly I do not know what qualifications you have and I don’t really care because I will always judge you based on the statement you type not the letters after your name (lets face it you could have a stack of qualifications and still come up with some stinkers as many people do) the point was you where failing to understand what I was saying which meant you did not have all the information (or had false information) there for you where ignorant to a significant part of the argument making you unqualified to comment on my post’s do you see the logic ??

(I used ignorant in the dictionary term not in any derogatory sense)

cardio,shoot me

OK, seriously WTF!!!?! what benifits does smith machine squatting have over a barbell squat, i can't think of a single one.