Smith Machine - all that bad?

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.

crotalus667

cardio,shoot me wrote: »

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

Because of the removal of a need to balance the free bar a stance that focuses more certain muscle groups can be taken

cardio,shoot me

thats not really a benifit, i had crap balance when i started but it has improved significantly from squatting, its one of those "practise makes perfect" exercise.

crotalus667

cardio,shoot me wrote: »

thats not really a benifit, i had crap balance when i started but it has improved significantly from squatting, its one of those "practise makes perfect" exercise.

You have missed the point , reread my post:rolleyes:

Hanley

crotalus667 wrote: »

You have missed the point , reread my post:rolleyes:

I :rolleyes: assume :rolleyes: you're :rolleyes: gonna :rolleyes: tell :rolleyes: us :rolleyes: how :rolleyes: you :rolleyes: train :rolleyes: legs :rolleyes: and :rolleyes: the :rolleyes: results :rolleyes: you've :rolleyes: gotten?

crotalus667

Hanley wrote: »

I :rolleyes: assume :rolleyes: you're :rolleyes: gonna :rolleyes: tell :rolleyes: us :rolleyes: how :rolleyes: you :rolleyes: train :rolleyes: legs :rolleyes: and :rolleyes: the :rolleyes: results :rolleyes: you've :rolleyes: gotten?

Nope:rolleyes:

Hanley

crotalus667 wrote: »

Nope:rolleyes:

Ya gonna give us ANYTHING to go off as to why we should listen to you instead of the reputable personal trainer who posted, and the guys with the big legs in real life?

crotalus667

Hanley wrote: »

Ya gonna give us ANYTHING to go off as to why we should listen to you instead of the reputable personal trainer who posted, and the guys with the big legs in real life?

Apart from over simplifying , you have also made the mistake of making assumptions

Hanley

crotalus667 wrote: »

Apart from over simplifying , you have also made the mistake of making assumptions

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.... so your entire position is based off the fact Dorian said it was good? And other pro-bodybuilders like it too?

You've suggested doing smith squats ahead of pretty much EVERYTHING else (because pretty much the only exercise the OP can't do is actual squats, that we know of).

You've come off as nothing more than an absolutle (I won't say it) in this thread, and now that you're being asked to provide some tangible proof that the smith machine is good for squats, and better than the plethora of other exercises you could be doing, you're backing out?

crotalus667

Hanley wrote: »

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.... so your entire position is based off the fact Dorian said it was good? And other pro-bodybuilders like it too?

Nope

Hanley wrote: »

You've suggested doing smith squats ahead of pretty much EVERYTHING else

Point out where i said this ???

Hanley wrote: »

and now that you're being asked to provide some tangible proof that the smith machine is good for squats, and better than the plethora of other exercises you could be doing,

At which point did i say this ???

Hanley wrote: »

you're backing out?

Hanley you are getting into this annoying habit of jumping in at the end of a conversation without being aware of the whole conversation with what appears to be the soul purpose of picking an argument

kevpants

God I can't argue any longer you're just going to say we're misunderstanding you if we criticize. You won't commit to an opinion or provide backup because that means you're accountable.

On the one thing you did commit to. I think you're oversimplifying how you train legs for size, I'm afraid if you spend hours isolating all of the individual muscle groups you're setting yourself up for a fall.

Bodybuilder-type posters tend to get into a science buzz when explaining the best way to grow, mainly because they couldn't muster a good inner thigh friction burn between them and the science justifies their training. The science says isolating each group to failure on a cyclical basis will make you huge. I don't know much about the workings behind what I do but I squat heavy (for the average gym goer) and I have big legs (for the average gym goer).

I usually hate the "I lift 20kg more therefore my opinion is 20kg's more valid" but I suppose my argument comes down to proof and the big tasty leg pudding I enjoy.