Let's talk Smith machines

[eb02z06]

Who here owns one?

Which model do you have and what do you like/dislike about it? How often do you actually use it? What routines do you use it for?

I have the opportunity to pick up a body solid smith (seems like a solid piece) with a FID and dip attachment for a very decent price and I'm debating on whether or not it's worth the space. Now that I have a couple of racks it's not exactly a necessity, but more of a nice to have.

Thoughts?

[deseee]

don't own one but of the ones i've tried I like the ones with an an angle most... not the straight up and down... I'd love to try a Jones though.

[rplass]

I have a Smith Machine and I love it. I have the Valor Fitness BE-2. It's the main unit in my gym and I do everything on it: bench press, pullups, shoulder preses, squats, leg press, upright rows, shrugs and close-grip bench press.

It has a high/low cable on it also, which I use for seated rows, pressdowns, curls and reverse curls.

I mix in plenty of dumbbell, EZ bar and straight barbell movements also, but since I don't have a rack, the barbell movements are just low to the ground movements such as deadlifts and hack squats.

You should definitely get that Smith! It's a great machine to add into your gym.

[Wildtim]

I like the straight ones the best LOL I think they are more versatile and can be used for more lifts. Man I'm still dissappointed I missed that steal on CL on a smith last week.

Andrew did you see what Skidmark did with his setup? Look it up its really cool and space saving if your Smith is sized right for it.

[eb02z06]

I like the straight ones the best LOL I think they are more versatile and can be used for more lifts. Man I'm still dissappointed I missed that steal on CL on a smith last week.

Andrew did you see what Skidmark did with his setup? Look it up its really cool and space saving if your Smith is sized right for it.

Yes, actually I did see and that's actually what got me looking. :) I would have to get some measurements before I get crazy. I could easily place them side by side as long as I get rid of the half rack. Hmm....

Thanks to all who replied!

[TKDC1970]

I recently acquired a Bodymasters Smith Machine (I already have a power rack). It is angled...I mainly got because I had some extra space, the deal was too good to pass up ($300) and I figured that every now and then I could use it to do an exercise a little different. I'm also considering getting dumbbell hooks-I could also use the Smith Machine for that. Also-I think I could use it for chin-ups if I wanted (I could also do them on my power rack).

Now that it is set up the biggest con is that it does take up a lot of space (plus it just fit in my basement at 92" high). It was somewhat of a project to put together but the worst part (or best part-depending on how you look at it) is that I pretty much had to re-arrange my gym area so I could not only fit the Smith but make it where I could move benches around, have enough space for other benches/machines as well as place weight trees in strategic spots.

If I didn't have room for the Smith it wouldn't be a big deal (it wasn't something that was on my top ten list). If I decide to get rid of it the machine might be tough sell not only because of pricing and size but because it is a heavy piece with some moving parts.

That was my experience I hope it helps. I need to learn how to upload pictures-otherwise I could show my set-up.

[eb02z06]

I recently acquired a Bodymasters Smith Machine (I already have a power rack). It is angled...I mainly got because I had some extra space, the deal was too good to pass up ($300) and I figured that every now and then I could use it to do an exercise a little different. I'm also considering getting dumbbell hooks-I could also use the Smith Machine for that. Also-I think I could use it for chin-ups if I wanted (I could also do them on my power rack).

Now that it is set up the biggest con is that it does take up a lot of space (plus it just fit in my basement at 92" high). It was somewhat of a project to put together but the worst part (or best part-depending on how you look at it) is that I pretty much had to re-arrange my gym area so I could not only fit the Smith but make it where I could move benches around, have enough space for other benches/machines as well as place weight trees in strategic spots.

If I didn't have room for the Smith it wouldn't be a big deal (it wasn't something that was on my top ten list). If I decide to get rid of it the machine might be tough sell not only because of pricing and size but because it is a heavy piece with some moving parts.

That was my experience I hope it helps. I need to learn how to upload pictures-otherwise I could show my set-up.

Thanks for the insight. It will probably come down to what kind of deal I can work with this guy. At this point I'm not absolutely sold on the need for this piece and I'd rather drop the $$$ on a solid leg press. I'm going to have to get REALLY smart with organization very shortly, heh.

[Wildtim]

At this point I'm not absolutely sold on the need for this piece and I'd rather drop the $$$ on a solid leg press. I'm going to have to get REALLY smart with organization very shortly, heh.


Just to mess with you and play devils advocate ;). You can add a footplate to the bar quite easily and turn any verticle Smith into an instant vertical leg press, or just do them as this guy is.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yQNBsSpBCF8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yQNBsSpBCF8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

It's one of the reasons I'm more interested in a vertical one.

[TKDC1970]

Thanks for the insight. It will probably come down to what kind of deal I can work with this guy. At this point I'm not absolutely sold on the need for this piece and I'd rather drop the $$$ on a solid leg press. I'm going to have to get REALLY smart with organization very shortly, heh.

I haven't gotten an angled leg press (although I have a vertical leg press) myself mainly for two reasons...the amount of space it would take (I guess if I got a deal I couldn't refuse I'd probably get it) and having to haul it into my basement.

If I got a leg press it would have to be a commercial piece only because I'm finding that if I get something designed for home use I end up looking for an upgrade (I've passed on a few Smiths made by Body-Solid mostly for that reason).

Because of my constant "upgrading" I get stuck with stuff that is good but not in the highest demand...I've been doing o.k. with selling extra stuff but sometimes it has taken awhile.

I don't know if that helps but Good Luck anyway.

[tsg2513]

I have a Smith Machine and I love it. I have the Valor Fitness BE-2. It's the main unit in my gym and I do everything on it: bench press, pullups, shoulder preses, squats, leg press, upright rows, shrugs and close-grip bench press.

It has a high/low cable on it also, which I use for seated rows, pressdowns, curls and reverse curls.

I mix in plenty of dumbbell, EZ bar and straight barbell movements also, but since I don't have a rack, the barbell movements are just low to the ground movements such as deadlifts and hack squats.

You should definitely get that Smith! It's a great machine to add into your gym.

I have only been able to find a BE-1 on Valor's website. If it is the same machine, does yours have Linear Bearings? Their site says "Teflon Linear Bearing Bushings over hardened chrome steel guide rods", which is a little misleading.

[Skidmarx]

I have only been able to find a BE-1 on Valor's website. If it is the same machine, does yours have Linear Bearings? Their site says "Teflon Linear Bearing Bushings over hardened chrome steel guide rods", which is a little misleading.

I emailed the valor guy about it back when I was looking for a smith, he said they are real linear ball bearings.


As far as smith usage, I use mine quite often but not as much as my rack. I like the smith for calf raises, incline bench, close grip row, shrugs, upright rows, pullups. I don't do heavy bench or squats on it, cuz' twisting the bar to reach the catches is awkward with heavy weights.

[rplass]

Yeah, my BE-2 has real liner ball bearings. The model is discontinued which is why it's not on their site. The BE-1 is much nicer and bigger.

I don't have the problem of twisting the bar out of the catches. I just give it a turn and there ya go. Maybe I have healthy wrists from all the wrist curls and reverse wrist curls I'm always doing? Dunno, just not a problem for me.

Also that video of the guy doing leg press is a bit strange. I think he has a short ROM. Probably because he is starting "in the hole" and can't deal with that giant first rep from the very bottom of the movement. To avoid this problem, I start at the top of the movement, and use my feet to roll the bar out of the catches. At the end of the set I roll them back into the catches, also at the top, unless I'm at complete failure, in which case I lower it to the safeties.

@WILDTIM: where do you get a footplate from? How do you add it to a round bar?

[Wildtim]

@WILDTIM: where do you get a footplate from? How do you add it to a round bar?

I have no idea.

I found the idea on a website with no instructions, I decided right there that if I could that would be a good thing to do. You could get a piece of plywood and mount it to the bar with conduit clamps, or pipe clamps, but it would turn unless you pushed on the center line. Might be worthwhile if the bar hurts your feet but otherwise I'm not sure it would be worth it.

[RabidTapir]

I have a MaxRack 3D.

Likes:
- great 3d motion
- fun to use
- can be used as standard power rack
- bought cheap on CL, since no one has ever heard of MaxRack

Dislikes:
The safety catches don't move with the bar like on the later Jones machines, so its not exactly self-spotting.

[Wildtim]

Don't you have the safty bars that come with it? It should have saftys just like a power racks.

[AbuMaryam]

Wildtim Great idea just got finished using my nautilus smith as a leg press for the first time. If anyone has where you can put safety on the smith just in case the bar slips it works great.

[RabidTapir]

Yes, I have the safety bars and they are solid and easy to adjust. What the MaxRack lacks that the Jones machine has is the smith machine like gunrack moves with the bar. So on the Bodycraft Jones you just turn the bar back into the catches. On the MaxRack you have to re-rack the bar into the gunrack. The Jones also can be locked, so it can be used as a traditional smith machine.

On the other hand the Bodycraft Jones doesn't have safety bars, so you can't use it as a standard power rack.

Text on the front page @ maxrack.com actually explains both mechanisms.


Don't you have the safty bars that come with it? It should have saftys just like a power racks.

[eb02z06]

I have no idea.

I found the idea on a website with no instructions, I decided right there that if I could that would be a good thing to do. You could get a piece of plywood and mount it to the bar with conduit clamps, or pipe clamps, but it would turn unless you pushed on the center line. Might be worthwhile if the bar hurts your feet but otherwise I'm not sure it would be worth it.

Great idea!

This guy DID offer me a great deal on the body solid piece so now I'm considering even harder. The leg press bar idea seems novel, I may have to give that some further thought.

Here we go:

Pros: Inexpensive, nice addition to my collection, provides further safety for self-spotting, can do calf raises on a block and possibly use it for a leg press

Cons: Takes up lots of space, most exercises can be easily duplicated on my power rack (also allows for more movement - more muscle development)

[ironwill2008]

I have a Parabody Smith machine, which I bought about 5 years ago. I had tried several different brands of home-type Smith machines, but wasn't happy with any of them. Some weren't smooth in operation, some had too much side-to-side play, some were difficult to lock out, some were made of light weight steel. I had pretty much decided to just look for a used commercial machine, and deal with trying to fit it into the house, until I tried the Parabody.

My routine changes frequently; right now, I use it on shoulder and chest day, and occasionally on leg day, but, as I said, it constantly changes. From time to time, I've used it for just about everything.

What do I like about it? The Thomson linear bearings are very smooth; they're rebuildable, although I doubt I'll ever be able to wear them out. The latch-outs are really nice, with a roller bearing over a hook; smooth and easy to lock out, when you reach failure. The main part of the frame is 11 gauge-very thick steel. The powder coat is durable, and nice-looking.

Dislikes? None; it's a good piece.

[eb02z06]

I have a Parabody Smith machine, which I bought about 5 years ago. I had tried several different brands of home-type Smith machines, but wasn't happy with any of them. Some weren't smooth in operation, some had too much side-to-side play, some were difficult to lock out, some were made of light weight steel. I had pretty much decided to just look for a used commercial machine, and deal with trying to fit it into the house, until I tried the Parabody.

My routine changes frequently; right now, I use it on shoulder and chest day, and occasionally on leg day, but, as I said, it constantly changes. From time to time, I've used it for just about everything.

What do I like about it? The Thomson linear bearings are very smooth; they're rebuildable, although I doubt I'll ever be able to wear them out. The latch-outs are really nice, with a roller bearing over a hook; smooth and easy to lock out, when you reach failure. The main part of the frame is 11 gauge-very thick steel. The powder coat is durable, and nice-looking.

Dislikes? None; it's a good piece.

Really appreciate the input here. It's hard to make a decision on this piece I'm looking at without trying it first. I'm picking up a few other pieces of equipment from this guy and he offered me the body solid smith as well as a bench and dip attachments for another 300.00. I'll have to check it out before I make the decision, but the price seems right. :)

[ironwill2008]

If it's at all possible, try out the prospective machine, with your expected load on it. Moving the carriage on an unloaded Smith won't tell you much, unless it's one of the super-cheap models with plastic bushings (stay AWAY). For me, the kicker is how much play is in the carraige, and how easy it is to lock-out, at the end of a set, when you're tired.

[eb02z06]

If it's at all possible, try out the prospective machine, with your expected load on it. Moving the carriage on an unloaded Smith won't tell you much, unless it's one of the super-cheap models with plastic bushings (stay AWAY). For me, the kicker is how much play is in the carraige, and how easy it is to lock-out, at the end of a set, when you're tired.

Good advice. I'm not going to commit to buy before being able to try. I will bring my tools in case I decide to take her home though. :)

Thanks ironwill!

[mehdi84]

excuse my ignorance:

What benefits does a smith machine bring to the table over a power rack? (if any)

[Wildtim]

The Smth locks the bar in a single plane. While this can be a detriment, it can also be a plus. For instance once your stabilizers are fatigued you can no longer lift a barbell even though your main muscle groups might still have some gas left, this allows you to work beyond that point to hit the muscles more directly. Like many other pieces of gear it is a nice option to have if you want to go beyond the basics and get into some advanced styles of training. Other than that it just provides safety like a power rack does and nothing more.

[ironwill2008]

The Smth locks the bar in a single plane. While this can be a detriment, it can also be a plus. For instance once your stabilizers are fatigued you can no longer lift a barbell even though your main muscle groups might still have some gas left, this allows you to work beyond that point to hit the muscles more directly. Like many other pieces of gear it is a nice option to have if you want to go beyond the basics and get into some advanced styles of training. Other than that it just provides safety like a power rack does and nothing more.

X2; good explanation; can't add a thing.

[floridabrit]

Well, I recently upgrade my bodysolid combo bench and bought the new Powertec RollerSmith, with Lat attachment, and I've got to say, I love it.
IT is so smooth, and the lat tower, is 10x better than I had before. Even, my wife will now workout, since the safety features that come with a smith machine. I know most people prefer a rack, but I can still do free weight movements also, I want to post pictures, but for some reason, it is not letting me post attachments..

[rplass]

excuse my ignorance:

What benefits does a smith machine bring to the table over a power rack? (if any)

For me, it's a matter of personal preference. I only had room for 1pc of equipment and when I was deciding what to get, I kept thinking how much I love decline bench on the Smith. I love it so much and I knew I would avoid using equipemnt I hated to use. I have used barbells at the gym, but always dreaded using them, mostly out of fear that I'd crap out on balancing it or just general fear of injury.

With the Smith, I am 100pct confident and can go as heavy as I lke with no fear, and, I actually enjoy the lift.

Some people love the barbell/rack, whatever, I don't beleive any of that stuff about "stabilizer muscles", never did understand that.

[Keetman]

For me, it's a matter of personal preference. I only had room for 1pc of equipment and when I was deciding what to get, I kept thinking how much I love decline bench on the Smith. I love it so much and I knew I would avoid using equipemnt I hated to use. I have used barbells at the gym, but always dreaded using them, mostly out of fear that I'd crap out on balancing it or just general fear of injury.

With the Smith, I am 100pct confident and can go as heavy as I lke with no fear, and, I actually enjoy the lift.

Some people love the barbell/rack, whatever, I don't beleive any of that stuff about "stabilizer muscles", never did understand that.


Hey RPlass, I've heard you say several times you don't believe the whole "stabilizer muscle" argument and this is a little bizarre to me.

Now, I'm not challenging your decision to own a smith or saying they suck or anything, I'm just curious about your adamant stance that the "stabilizer muscle" argument is crap. I have had a smith setup since 1998 and until a year ago I didn't use anything but the smith bar for squats and bench. As of tomorrow I am no longer a smith owner.

That progression was born from an absolute hatred of smith squats that I'd developed over the years. The movement in my old bushing smith with 90 degree movement was atrocious and painful. I went looking for a leg press last February because I was done with squats (erroneously thinking it was the exercise and not the equipment that was causing me problems). Anyway, in my quest for a leg press I became a Craigslist junkie and started reading a lot about lifting in general. I learned free weights are better and squats are necessary. After I bought a smith machine with free weight capability I grudgingly started doing free weight squats. What I have found is that I can do them sooooo much better now and painfree other than the pain that you're supposed to feel when doing squats. Anyway, I'm never looking back and have recently purchased a rack. I probably (never say never) will not own a smith again.

Now, all that said, I realize a lot of that is personal preference and situational (this is where I'm NOT busting you for you choice and preference of the smith). But, it can't be denied that squatting with a free bar on your shoulders is different. The bar can move forward, backward, up, down, and any combination of those directions and in competing directions on each side of the bar. With a smith it can move up, down, and is balance side to side by the carriage. The balance required for free weights is vastly different than a smith......it can't be denied.

Example: I just built a set of rings for my gym and did some dips and pushups with them. On my dip bar I can easily do 3 sets of 10 dips. With the rings I fumbled to do 3 or maybe 4 dips very awkwardly.....it was very humbling. The reason it is easier with a dip bar is it is locked in an the balancing front to back and side to side is done by the 1500 lbs of steel the dip bar is attached to.

Few people would say the standard dip bar sucks or is irrelevant...just different. But most would acknowledge that the reason the rings are so much harder (and if anyone disagrees with this you haven't done them) is because you have to incorporate more muscles to keep you "stabilized".

Now I'm no scientist or trainer, so I'm not gonna try to dazzle anybody with big words. I don't know if "stabilizer" muscles are the difference, but I know there is a difference and it makes sense as to why.

Whether you like the smith or not, it seems silly to say the stabilizer muscle argument is stupid and doesn't happen.

Just curious.

[rplass]

OK. I said in my post that I didn't believe it and didn't understand it, not that it was crap nor that it was stupid. I respect people's opinions, even if I disagree with them. Yes, you do extra balancing with a barbell. No, I don't like the balancing. Yes, more muscles are used to stabilize the bar. No, I don't think you benefit from the recruitment of more muscles. I think they just move the bar slightly and don't bear enough load to cause hyptertrophy. I think all the balancing detracts from the main purpose of the exercise and it drains my energy and makes me less confident and therefore ruins my concentration, etc.

I just don't get the whole "stabilizer muscle" thing that people say over and over when they take the usual crap on the Smith. I think people are caught up in overstating some perceived benefit from using free weights and all the extra balancing you have to do with them. Somehow they think that a small corrective movement from your wrist, or a quick forearm adjustment or a small twitch in a few fibers somewhere near your shoulder is going to add massive gains to your overall physique, as if the major muscles aren't doing anything. It's as if some people are obsessed with the importance of very minor contributions from small corrective adjustments that only kick in for a part of a portion of one moment during a rep.

They can't name a single stabilizer muscle when asked, nor can they explain the ratio of how much they are using that muscle, whatever it might be, in relation to the main muscles of the movement. For instance, if you are doing decline bench presses using a barbell and a rack, what are the stabilizer muscles and how much work are they really doing? Can you name the muscles? What are they and what are they doing, pronating, supinating, flexion, extension, what? What portion of the load is borne by the stabilizer muscles and is that load sufficient to cause hypertrophy? I think people are confusing tiny contributions from your grip adjustment, or a small correction from your traps which lasts just a second with some mysteriously powerful bodybuilding effect that turns ordinary lifters into Mr. Olympia because of the all-around amazing stabilizer muscles.

What I'd really like to see is some myographic studies where actual fiber recruitment is measured from all of the muscles in the back, shoulders, arms and chest during a free space bench press compared to a Smith machine bench press. I'm fairly certain that you'd see a larger number of fibers from a larger number of muscles recruited from around the upper body using the free space bench press, but that the activity of those additional fibers is very low.

It also raises the question, "what muscles are you trying to use and why are you doing this exercise?" No one answers, "I'm hitting my stabilizers." They say "I'm trying to fatigue my quads and glutes. I'm doing this exercise to get the range of motion through flexion at the knee and hips" I mean, have you ever seen a 3-day split, Monday-chest, Tuesday-legs, Wednesday-stablizers? In the example of the decline bench press, on the Smith, I'm hitting mostly my pectoralis major, some tricep and some deltoid, but the primary muscle is pectoralis. I don't care about a bunch of other secret stabilizer muscles, just those three, and actually mostly the pecs.

In the case of the rings you bring up, I would agree with you that its much much harder to do the movement on the rings, but also I'd say that I would prefer not to use them. I'd rather put all my effort into the muscles I'm really trying to develop, not spend all that extra energy and effort balancing. I'd rather do the 10 solid reps using the stationary equipment than 4 awkward reps using the rings. My thinking is: What's 4 reps? Waste of a set if you ask me, now you're all exhausted for 4 fumbly reps? Why not just do 10 solid, powerful, intensely focused reps that you know will hit the target muscles? I don't use functional trainers either for the same reason.

Now you mention, 'The bar can move forward, backward, up, down, and any combination of those directions and in competing directions on each side of the bar.' Whoa, what the heck kind of squats do you do? You go forward and backward at the bottom of the movement in a zig-zag, then spin around 180 deg and do a sweeping arc, hop up and down three times on one leg, then finish the movement by going forward two inches, up one inch, down three inches, backwards one inch, then up and to the right, then you put your left foot in, your left foot out, and shake it all about? Incredible. Gee, my Smith only goes up and down, sucks for me, right? Kidding aside, look at this youtube clip I quickly found:
IlCIfSZra74
See how the bar just goes up and down? Very little movement forward and back.

So basically, I'm not interested in recruiting 1,010,100110 muscles to do a wiggly shaky struggly rep on the bench press and go forward and back all over the place. I'm interested only in pecs, some tricep and some deltoid, that's it, and I want to go up and down without having to worry about balancing.

[Keetman]

Fair enough. By saying "I don't believe in something" you lead me to believe that you didn't think something was happening that clearly is. You, as I understand you, simply don't believe the extra muscle recruitment gained from a free bar is that big of a deal. I can live with that.

Personally, I have found the free bar squats to be more comfortable, which is exactly why I have migrated back to them. I am lifting to get bigger and to be in better condition for my job. However, I am very interested in gaining real or as is it is being referred to....functional strength. Because of this I'm leaning more toward accepting the usefulness of recruiting those extra fibers. The mere fact that I can only do a handful of ring dips to normal dips is an example of greater strength that I can gain and exhibit. Its also very challenging and if I'm motivated to keep with the exercise I'll be able to do something that others cannot.

Now, about the squat that I was talking about. First, I hope you were simply having a little fun there. Certainly you understand the point I was making? The bar can indeed move in any direction when it is on your shoulders and it can indeed move in competing directions against itself. If you are doing the exercise properly, it won't....it will move in a stable path. With the smith it is locked into the carriage and can only move up.....and down. It cannot move forward, cannot move backward, and where ever one side of the bar goes the other will follow. This balancing act on the free bar is part of the benefit.

Again, I'm not bashing you or the smith....got no problems with them. I do however believe there is a benefit to balancing the bar while you move it. If you don't, that's fine with me......I will probably never have a membership to your gym! As I have said often, if you use what you have you're already ahead of most.

[Skidmarx]

Smith squats are crap. The only comfy way I can do them is hack style, with my feet way out in front.

Ferrum had some interesting comments about people worrying too much about stabilizers, awhile back. Where the hell is he anyway?

[Wildtim]

They can't name a single stabilizer muscle when asked, nor can they explain the ratio of how much they are using that muscle, whatever it might be, in relation to the main muscles of the movement. For instance, if you are doing decline bench presses using a barbell and a rack, what are the stabilizer muscles and how much work are they really doing? Can you name the muscles? What are they and what are they doing, pronating, supinating, flexion, extension, what? What portion of the load is borne by the stabilizer muscles and is that load sufficient to cause hypertrophy? I think people are confusing tiny contributions from your grip adjustment, or a small correction from your traps which lasts just a second with some mysteriously powerful bodybuilding effect that turns ordinary lifters into Mr. Olympia because of the all-around amazing stabilizer muscles.

What I'd really like to see is some myographic studies where actual fiber recruitment is measured from all of the muscles in the back, shoulders, arms and chest during a free space bench press compared to a Smith machine bench press. I'm fairly certain that you'd see a larger number of fibers from a larger number of muscles recruited from around the upper body using the free space bench press, but that the activity of those additional fibers is very low.

While all of the above is very true, it is also a fact that when you switch from Smith squats to barbell squats your max drops considerably. You are working something, and since the guy who did barbell squats while you were doing smith squats can now lift much more than you, his "stabilizer muscles" must have grown while yours did not. Therefore since there is growth there must be some 'hypertrophy' even if small.


I mean, have you ever seen a 3-day split, Monday-chest, Tuesday-legs, Wednesday-stablizers?

Yes. There are guys who work nothing but stabilizers, they usually call it "core work" though. You are correct though these guys usually aren't huge so there isn't a lot of 'hypertrophy' to be gained here. Much of the newest hottest equipment from Bosu balls to kettlebell workouts is what 'm talking about here.



In the case of the rings you bring up, I would agree with you that its much much harder to do the movement on the rings, but also I'd say that I would prefer not to use them. I'd rather put all my effort into the muscles I'm really trying to develop, not spend all that extra energy and effort balancing. I'd rather do the 10 solid reps using the stationary equipment than 4 awkward reps using the rings. My thinking is: What's 4 reps? Waste of a set if you ask me, now you're all exhausted for 4 fumbly reps? Why not just do 10 solid, powerful, intensely focused reps that you know will hit the target muscles? I don't use functional trainers either for the same reason.

This is really the argument between Isolation and major muscle recruitment. This is an extremely common argument between trainers. All I can say is there is no point to big muscles unless you can open a pickle jar when asked.

Actually most of the top bodybuilders, today as well as historically, switch from powerlifting to BB at some point and this seems to give them a solidness and thickness that is apparent to the eye. Powerlifters focus on strength first ignoring 'hyperrtrophy' (and indeed physique) completely. Often doing at most a 3 rep set.




Now you mention, 'The bar can move forward, backward, up, down, and any combination of those directions and in competing directions on each side of the bar.' Whoa, what the heck kind of squats do you do? You go forward and backward at the bottom of the movement in a zig-zag, then spin around 180 deg and do a sweeping arc, hop up and down three times on one leg, then finish the movement by going forward two inches, up one inch, down three inches, backwards one inch, then up and to the right, then you put your left foot in, your left foot out, and shake it all about? Incredible. Gee, my Smith only goes up and down, sucks for me, right? Kidding aside, look at this youtube clip I quickly found:


According to many the form would be poor in that video, he stays to erect and does not drive through the floor, this keeps him from getting full benefit out of the exercise. If he allowed his back to shift more forward he would be able to move more weight and get even greater muscle fiber recruitment for his work.

[rplass]

While all of the above is very true, it is also a fact that when you switch from Smith squats to barbell squats your max drops considerably.
Exactly my point, the max drops and you end up putting less weight on your quads. I prefer to have maximum weight on the quads for maximum intensity. If you are trying to prove a point that barbell squats are more difficult, then I concede. I'm not interested in doing the more difficult movement, I'm interested in the more intense movement. Just my personal preference.


Yes. There are guys who work nothing but stabilizers, they usually call it "core work" though.
I'm not sure what "core work" is. Is that just a popular term for novice fitness people to use or is it a genuine part of the body? Abs? Well I do plenty of crunches and other ab work. Obliques? I do oblique crunches. Lower back? I do deadlifts. The only thing I don't do is a solid set of GHRs, which I'd love to add in, is that "core"? Dunno, anyway I'm not so concerned about "core", whatever it is, especially on chest day.


This is really the argument between Isolation and major muscle recruitment. This is an extremely common argument between trainers. All I can say is there is no point to big muscles unless you can open a pickle jar when asked.
You lost me here, something about forearm or grip strength? I do plenty of forearm work, not worried about that. Maybe you are referring to some kind of overall body strength related to muscles working together in a real-world way that is actually useful. Sounds like a good thing to me, nothing wrong with that, but I'm generally well-coordinated, so I just work on compound movements and isolation movements just about equally and don't really think about it.


According to many the form would be poor in that video, he stays to erect and does not drive through the floor, this keeps him from getting full benefit out of the exercise. If he allowed his back to shift more forward he would be able to move more weight and get even greater muscle fiber recruitment for his work.
Yeah, I was just picking a video at random to show a barbell squat in general, not doing a micro-analysis of his technique. It would be useful for me and quite educational if you could find a better video (taken from the side) or even make one yourself of your own technique, for which I would be grateful.

I didn't want this thread to get into a "defend the Smith" thread, and I'm sure some bozo will post some nonsense about "pattern overload" or say "It's not a natural plane of motion" or some weird "strain on your joints" argument. Bleh. All nonsense, all just repeating things they read on the Internet.

[The Snout]

OK. I said in my post that I didn't believe it and didn't understand it, not that it was crap nor that it was stupid. I respect people's opinions, even if I disagree with them. Yes, you do extra balancing with a barbell. No, I don't like the balancing. Yes, more muscles are used to stabilize the bar. No, I don't think you benefit from the recruitment of more muscles. I think they just move the bar slightly and don't bear enough load to cause hyptertrophy. I think all the balancing detracts from the main purpose of the exercise and it drains my energy and makes me less confident and therefore ruins my concentration, etc.

I just don't get the whole "stabilizer muscle" thing that people say over and over when they take the usual crap on the Smith. I think people are caught up in overstating some perceived benefit from using free weights and all the extra balancing you have to do with them. Somehow they think that a small corrective movement from your wrist, or a quick forearm adjustment or a small twitch in a few fibers somewhere near your shoulder is going to add massive gains to your overall physique, as if the major muscles aren't doing anything. It's as if some people are obsessed with the importance of very minor contributions from small corrective adjustments that only kick in for a part of a portion of one moment during a rep.

They can't name a single stabilizer muscle when asked, nor can they explain the ratio of how much they are using that muscle, whatever it might be, in relation to the main muscles of the movement. For instance, if you are doing decline bench presses using a barbell and a rack, what are the stabilizer muscles and how much work are they really doing? Can you name the muscles? What are they and what are they doing, pronating, supinating, flexion, extension, what? What portion of the load is borne by the stabilizer muscles and is that load sufficient to cause hypertrophy? I think people are confusing tiny contributions from your grip adjustment, or a small correction from your traps which lasts just a second with some mysteriously powerful bodybuilding effect that turns ordinary lifters into Mr. Olympia because of the all-around amazing stabilizer muscles.

What I'd really like to see is some myographic studies where actual fiber recruitment is measured from all of the muscles in the back, shoulders, arms and chest during a free space bench press compared to a Smith machine bench press. I'm fairly certain that you'd see a larger number of fibers from a larger number of muscles recruited from around the upper body using the free space bench press, but that the activity of those additional fibers is very low.

It also raises the question, "what muscles are you trying to use and why are you doing this exercise?" No one answers, "I'm hitting my stabilizers." They say "I'm trying to fatigue my quads and glutes. I'm doing this exercise to get the range of motion through flexion at the knee and hips" I mean, have you ever seen a 3-day split, Monday-chest, Tuesday-legs, Wednesday-stablizers? In the example of the decline bench press, on the Smith, I'm hitting mostly my pectoralis major, some tricep and some deltoid, but the primary muscle is pectoralis. I don't care about a bunch of other secret stabilizer muscles, just those three, and actually mostly the pecs.

In the case of the rings you bring up, I would agree with you that its much much harder to do the movement on the rings, but also I'd say that I would prefer not to use them. I'd rather put all my effort into the muscles I'm really trying to develop, not spend all that extra energy and effort balancing. I'd rather do the 10 solid reps using the stationary equipment than 4 awkward reps using the rings. My thinking is: What's 4 reps? Waste of a set if you ask me, now you're all exhausted for 4 fumbly reps? Why not just do 10 solid, powerful, intensely focused reps that you know will hit the target muscles? I don't use functional trainers either for the same reason.

Now you mention, 'The bar can move forward, backward, up, down, and any combination of those directions and in competing directions on each side of the bar.' Whoa, what the heck kind of squats do you do? You go forward and backward at the bottom of the movement in a zig-zag, then spin around 180 deg and do a sweeping arc, hop up and down three times on one leg, then finish the movement by going forward two inches, up one inch, down three inches, backwards one inch, then up and to the right, then you put your left foot in, your left foot out, and shake it all about? Incredible. Gee, my Smith only goes up and down, sucks for me, right? Kidding aside, look at this youtube clip I quickly found:
IlCIfSZra74
See how the bar just goes up and down? Very little movement forward and back.

So basically, I'm not interested in recruiting 1,010,100110 muscles to do a wiggly shaky struggly rep on the bench press and go forward and back all over the place. I'm interested only in pecs, some tricep and some deltoid, that's it, and I want to go up and down without having to worry about balancing.


Well said.

I've been sceptical of the stabilizer claim as well. I think doing free weight bench presses makes you good at doing free weight bench press better than someone using a Smith. But that isn't proof you're hitting the pecs any better.