Is Smith Machine bad for Bench Press?

[ThickAsABrick]

I only have a Smith Machine at my gym, should i switch to dumbell's?

BB or DBs are better for your primary pressing movement. Better neuromuscular activation.

[unity]

It's okay if thats all you have but also try to do some DB work too.

The problem with smith is that its not going to hit your stabilizers, and it's easy to cheat with your stronger side, which leads to you being uneven.

My left pic is much larger than my right because I used a smith machine for a year when starting out. I've been using DBs a lot more lately.

the smith machine didn't give you uneven pecs, you did. your form is bad. if you have bad form with the db's, then your problem will still continue. switching to db's alone will not fix your imbalance.

[Ramoneb87]

It's not bad, but dumbells and barbells are better.

And how the hell does your gym not have any barbells?

[patrick4588]

probably an apartment gym

[OCVeloMan]

**** the smith machine, I want to target these evasive stabilizers. Anyone have an isolation exercise to grow these b!tches I keep hearing about but can't find?

[unity]

**** the smith machine, I want to target these evasive stabilizers. Anyone have an isolation exercise to grow these b!tches I keep hearing about but can't find?

for bench pressing stabilizers... biceps curl. srs.

[terman1]

**** the smith machine, I want to target these evasive stabilizers. Anyone have an isolation exercise to grow these b!tches I keep hearing about but can't find?

mr. smith would not be pleased with your attitude sir. lets keep that talk outside of this forum, lmao

[MitchF_5]

I used only smith for a while and when I switched back to BB bench my arms just shook and I could only do a fraction of what I used to be able too. But the same thing happened when I just used DB's for bench. so these "stabilizers" I dont think are an overall muscle just if your used to doing whatever lift/type of BB,DB,machine your currently using.

Use both DB and Smith and you will work atleast two different aspects of strength

[OCVeloMan]

I used only smith for a while and when I switched back to BB bench my arms just shook and I could only do a fraction of what I used to be able too. But the same thing happened when I just used DB's for bench. so these "stabilizers" I dont think are an overall muscle just if your used to doing whatever lift/type of BB,DB,machine your currently using.

Use both DB and Smith and you will work atleast two different aspects of strength

There are no such thing as stabilizers. People created this "stabilizer muscle" theory based on their muscle groups being unable to work together. In bench, you stabilize with all engaged muscles from your bi/tri to your core/shoulders. Engagement of these muscles teaches your body to support the weight with certain muscle groups while bearing the blunt of the weight with the main muscle group; in this case, chest.

There's my theory.

[Youlovesperm]

Work up to a 300 pound smith machine chest press.
After that, warm up in the smith machine and do a max barbell bench press.
Then you will know which muscles are the stabilizers.

[OCVeloMan]

Work up to a 300 pound smith machine chest press.
After that, warm up in the smith machine and do a max barbell bench press.
Then you will know which muscles are the stabilizers.

Strong 3rd post....

[mslman71]

I only have a Smith Machine at my gym, should i switch to dumbell's?

Why one or the other? They can both be used effectively. If you aren't "benching" in the first place then how can using the Smith hurt your bench? Anyway, I don't see why this is an either-or issue.

[mslman71]

There are no such thing as stabilizers. People created this "stabilizer muscle" theory based on their muscle groups being unable to work together.

This is incorrect. The term "stabilizer" is used to describe the primary function of certain muscles is commonly used in the community, professional and amateur. They are called stabilizers for the exact opposite of the reason you state "...unable to work together." They exist as part of an entire functioning unit that has multiple degrees of freedom (e.g., shoulder, the most number of DOF). Whether or not one wants to invoke "stabilizers" as part of the anti-Smith machine campaign is another debate, but the term "stabilizer" is as valid as any other muscle classification.

[A1exJK]

mslman71, thank you
I wrote my post about stabilizers, and after that I had to go home and was unable to answer some "funny" posts in this thread. But I meant just that. There is no such muscle or muscle group called "stabilizer". But different muscles are keeping balance in different exercises with free weight.
PS: sorry for possible grammar mistakes - English is not my native language.

[KelvinSwole]

Smith and regular benching aren't too much diff. Do the smith and if you want to bring up stabilizing muscles or train them in the bench, do some db's after.

[Tyciol]

smith machine is bad for you as far as bench goes. It does not allow you to move in the natural position you should for bench press.

Who determines the natural position that we 'should' bench with? Seems to make as much sense as saying that lat rowing is the only way to row, or back squat is the only way to squat.

It kinda cramps you up.

If one is alright with using the triceps more and not keeping vertical forearms, it's possible to have the bar slightly inferior to the shoulder joints.

Plus dumbells are a better workout that just doing regular bench, because you end up using yoru stabilizer muscles as someone said above.

False assumption. 'Better' is subjective. The higher the stabilizing component, the less you can focus on prime movers. Adding stability isn't necessarily the best way to make measurable progression increases in the muscles being targetted by a movement, as we've learned from the bosu/swissball culture.

If I had to make such choise, I would prefer dumbbells. Lack of stabilizers' work is very dangerous.

Why? It's dangerous if you think your strength on the smith will transfer to pressing a free weight, I give you that, but if someone doesn't make assumptions and works from the ground up in any new movements I don't see the trouble.

I find that if you try to go heavy with the smith it can put too much pressure on your clavicles.

Pressing is often supposed to put pressure on the clavicles, that's the clavicular (upper) head of the pec major and the anterior deltoid at work. Is where they attach.

If this is a problem you can try arching or using a decline bench to shift it to the sternal/mid or rib/lower pec. Or allowing the triceps to do more work.

oh, i see none of you answered my question about stabilizer muscles. probably because those of you that run around here talking about them all the time actually have no idea wtf you are talking about.

Basically some muscles can work in unstable movements with dumbbells to keep things properly aligned. For example, if I'm pressing dumbbells and they start falling inwards and are about to crash into each other, lateral rotators would contract to stop them from doing that.

I don't see the point of obsessing over stabilizers because if you want to hit those muscles, there are movements you can to do target them in a safer and more measurably progressive manner. Like rowing, reverse fly movements, external rotation movements.

As for falling outward, the pecs and anterior deltoid are internal rotators so I doubt that'd make a huge difference. Maybe you'll hit the subscapularis or something. I always disliked that muscle. Maybe I am ignorant of its importance.

The problem with smith is that its not going to hit your stabilizers

Incorrect, the prime movers you target in the smith can serve as stabilizers in other movements =) Perhaps other movesin which you will target the muscles which would stabilize a bench press.

it's easy to cheat with your stronger side, which leads to you being uneven. My left pic is much larger than my right because I used a smith machine for a year when starting out. I've been using DBs a lot more lately.

I don't like the term easy, but I can see how it would be easier than a standard bench, and both easier than Dbs, so balanced development and workload share is a valid concern.

True. Last time I did DB bench I couldn't get back home because my stabalizers were so sore I couldn't walk straight.

Not sure if serious.

You "gym" doesn't have a single barbell? I think the sales team lied to you when they were trying to sell you that "gym" membership.

Believe it or not, a place can still qualify as a gym without having free bars.

IMO it's a waste of space. I would rather use DB's or BB. Hell, I would rather do weighted pushups than use a smith.

People have their preferences, but that doesn't make it wasteful. There could be more efficient uses of space in many cases, but that would make it a relative waste, not an absolute one.

What are these "stabilizers" that some posters seem to be so concerned with, and exactly where on the body are they located?

Basically think of what would happen if the bar goes where it's not supposed to, and what muscles would do the work to prevent that movement if the smith structure were not there.

Internal/external rotation of the shoulder is an example, to keep it from going off to the sides. I imagine wrist radial/ulnar deviation would also be an issue. Compared to dumbbells there is also pro/supi nation of forearm, though I doubt it's significant. Tricep/bicep and wrist flexion/extension would also be an example if the barbell were trying to smash your face or your nuts.

I don't particularly want to hit my biceps in a press though so I don't see the point of recruiting the bicep as a stabilizer during it. If I have to use it, I'd rather it perform shoulder flexion than elbow.

In general though, I wish people would simply say "stabilization" as a learned skill and motor memory as opposed to "stabilizers" as if they're secret muscles which only do stabilization, when actually, every muscle is a stabilizer for some other muscle's target movement. Case in point: the lower back and obliques are stabilizers (they isometrically maintain a desired posture and diminish deviation from it) during things like deadlifts and bent over rows. Yet they are prime movers during things like side bends or rounded-back deadlifts.

the smith machine didn't give you uneven pecs, you did. your form is bad. if you have bad form with the db's, then your problem will still continue. switching to db's alone will not fix your imbalance.

DBs can help though, because if he had one side compensating for weakness in the other arm's form, it can't anymore and it will be clearer what he needs to work on. It's not always clear for someone who keeps pressing a bar.

**** the smith machine, I want to target these evasive stabilizers. Anyone have an isolation exercise to grow these b!tches I keep hearing about but can't find?

Sure, but there are many stabilizers, which one?

You can do elbow curls to target those flexors, and external rotations to target those, if you like. Plus wrist curls and stuff.

Unless of course, like most people, we're already doing stuff like that so targetting them during freeweight movements might not be necessary, unless we wanted to go without accessory work for awhile.

There are no such thing as stabilizers. People created this "stabilizer muscle" theory based on their muscle groups being unable to work together. In bench, you stabilize with all engaged muscles from your bi/tri to your core/shoulders. Engagement of these muscles teaches your body to support the weight with certain muscle groups while bearing the blunt of the weight with the main muscle group; in this case, chest. There's my theory.

You just explained why there ARE such a thing as stabilizers. It's just that the role of stabilizer is a situational one, just as being a prime mover is. Every muscle can fulfill either role, and maybe also some tertiary one I'm not thinking of.

The term "stabilizer" is used to describe the primary function of certain muscles is commonly used in the community, professional and amateur.

Primary function is a subjective issue, it depends on what movement is being talked about.

For example: is the primary purpose of the glutes to rise out of a squat, bridge the hips off the mat, or run up a hill?

Is the primary purpose of the infraspinatus to stabilize a bench press, help row a bar, or break apart vines some guy tied your wrists together with?

There is no such muscle or muscle group called "stabilizer".

I don't think anyone's actually said this. Stabilizer is a role that's performed, relative to a certain situation. Just like 'medial rotator' is also a role: it's what several muscles do, for different limbs and joints.

[changemyoil66]

I only have a Smith Machine at my gym, should i switch to dumbell's?

It's not bad but the better option is a regular barbell. But since you dont have that at your gym, you have to make do. Do both.

[mslman71]

Primary function is a subjective issue, it depends on what movement is being talked about.

Most classification schemes are subjective to some extent. Take it up with the medical community if you don't like it. I don't want to get into a semantics debate but it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to understand how and why the rotator cuffs primary operation is one of stabilization and not motivation. Obviously the functions are integrated to perform movement.

[chazzy1864]

The thing I find hilarious, is the crowd who preaches about not using machines so you can focus on your stabilizers, would be the first to crap on the idea of a bosu ball. Why would bosu balls be bad? they require more stabilizers to be used due to the unstable base.

[unity]

chaz... you had to go there? lol

[gopackgo74]

Thanks alot guys, Im new to weight lifting. The gym i go to is a 24/7 gym and only has a smith machine incase someone lifts to much and cant get out of it. If noticed after my chest workouts that my chest isnt hurting, is that normal? I think i will switch to DB for about a month.
Thanks again.

[TrettinR]

Why would bosu balls be bad? they require more stabilizers to be used due to the unstable base.

Thus it builds functional strength!

[Yodums]

Thanks alot guys, Im new to weight lifting. The gym i go to is a 24/7 gym and only has a smith machine incase someone lifts to much and cant get out of it. If noticed after my chest workouts that my chest isnt hurting, is that normal? I think i will switch to DB for about a month.
Thanks again.

The burn isn't indicative of anything and just because you don't get it, doesn't mean you didn't have a good workout. I think you should look at the big picture -- have you made progress on your bench over weeks and months? And are you gaining mass on your chest?

[TigerStealth]

I'm not a big fan of smith pressing as a primary movement, but like most things it does have its place. for one thing, smith pressing is great for going slow and emphasizing the negative

[Da_Jtac_0]

Who determines the natural position that we 'should' bench with? Seems to make as much sense as saying that lat rowing is the only way to row, or back squat is the only way to squat.

If one is alright with using the triceps more and not keeping vertical forearms, it's possible to have the bar slightly inferior to the shoulder joints.

False assumption. 'Better' is subjective. The higher the stabilizing component, the less you can focus on prime movers. Adding stability isn't necessarily the best way to make measurable progression increases in the muscles being targetted by a movement, as we've learned from the bosu/swissball culture.

Why? It's dangerous if you think your strength on the smith will transfer to pressing a free weight, I give you that, but if someone doesn't make assumptions and works from the ground up in any new movements I don't see the trouble.

Pressing is often supposed to put pressure on the clavicles, that's the clavicular (upper) head of the pec major and the anterior deltoid at work. Is where they attach.

If this is a problem you can try arching or using a decline bench to shift it to the sternal/mid or rib/lower pec. Or allowing the triceps to do more work.

Basically some muscles can work in unstable movements with dumbbells to keep things properly aligned. For example, if I'm pressing dumbbells and they start falling inwards and are about to crash into each other, lateral rotators would contract to stop them from doing that.

I don't see the point of obsessing over stabilizers because if you want to hit those muscles, there are movements you can to do target them in a safer and more measurably progressive manner. Like rowing, reverse fly movements, external rotation movements.

As for falling outward, the pecs and anterior deltoid are internal rotators so I doubt that'd make a huge difference. Maybe you'll hit the subscapularis or something. I always disliked that muscle. Maybe I am ignorant of its importance.


Incorrect, the prime movers you target in the smith can serve as stabilizers in other movements =) Perhaps other movesin which you will target the muscles which would stabilize a bench press.

I don't like the term easy, but I can see how it would be easier than a standard bench, and both easier than Dbs, so balanced development and workload share is a valid concern.

Not sure if serious.

Believe it or not, a place can still qualify as a gym without having free bars.

People have their preferences, but that doesn't make it wasteful. There could be more efficient uses of space in many cases, but that would make it a relative waste, not an absolute one.

Basically think of what would happen if the bar goes where it's not supposed to, and what muscles would do the work to prevent that movement if the smith structure were not there.

Internal/external rotation of the shoulder is an example, to keep it from going off to the sides. I imagine wrist radial/ulnar deviation would also be an issue. Compared to dumbbells there is also pro/supi nation of forearm, though I doubt it's significant. Tricep/bicep and wrist flexion/extension would also be an example if the barbell were trying to smash your face or your nuts.

I don't particularly want to hit my biceps in a press though so I don't see the point of recruiting the bicep as a stabilizer during it. If I have to use it, I'd rather it perform shoulder flexion than elbow.

In general though, I wish people would simply say "stabilization" as a learned skill and motor memory as opposed to "stabilizers" as if they're secret muscles which only do stabilization, when actually, every muscle is a stabilizer for some other muscle's target movement. Case in point: the lower back and obliques are stabilizers (they isometrically maintain a desired posture and diminish deviation from it) during things like deadlifts and bent over rows. Yet they are prime movers during things like side bends or rounded-back deadlifts.

DBs can help though, because if he had one side compensating for weakness in the other arm's form, it can't anymore and it will be clearer what he needs to work on. It's not always clear for someone who keeps pressing a bar.

Sure, but there are many stabilizers, which one?

You can do elbow curls to target those flexors, and external rotations to target those, if you like. Plus wrist curls and stuff.

Unless of course, like most people, we're already doing stuff like that so targetting them during freeweight movements might not be necessary, unless we wanted to go without accessory work for awhile.

You just explained why there ARE such a thing as stabilizers. It's just that the role of stabilizer is a situational one, just as being a prime mover is. Every muscle can fulfill either role, and maybe also some tertiary one I'm not thinking of.

Primary function is a subjective issue, it depends on what movement is being talked about.

For example: is the primary purpose of the glutes to rise out of a squat, bridge the hips off the mat, or run up a hill?

Is the primary purpose of the infraspinatus to stabilize a bench press, help row a bar, or break apart vines some guy tied your wrists together with?

I don't think anyone's actually said this. Stabilizer is a role that's performed, relative to a certain situation. Just like 'medial rotator' is also a role: it's what several muscles do, for different limbs and joints.

this guy has it all done right. said exactly what i would have said if i wasnt so lazy. reps for being able to look at it from a completely neutral point of view and being intelligent.

[ironwill2008]

The thing I find hilarious, is the crowd who preaches about not using machines so you can focus on your stabilizers, would be the first to crap on the idea of a bosu ball. Why would bosu balls be bad? they require more stabilizers to be used due to the unstable base.

LOL! But far too logical. And logic doesn't seem to be too popular with the bros.

[CanadianJohn]

I think this was the name of a 80's rock band, "The Stabilizers."

ahahaha

[Birddog6424]

The thing I find hilarious, is the crowd who preaches about not using machines so you can focus on your stabilizers, would be the first to crap on the idea of a bosu ball. Why would bosu balls be bad? they require more stabilizers to be used due to the unstable base.

But..................................but.......... .......................Bosu balls are for girls!!!


(aren't they?)

[Xuaxace]

In general though, I wish people would simply say "stabilization" as a learned skill and motor memory as opposed to "stabilizers" as if they're secret muscles which only do stabilization, when actually, every muscle is a stabilizer for some other muscle's target movement.

Nice, that was my conclusion from page 1.

[Deskilla]

this thread makes my head hurt...im outta here