30lbs on my bench press in 4 weeks thans to the smith machine.

[niceasey]

Yesterday I managed to bench 200lbs (6reps) free weight. Four weeks ago i was doing 160-170 max and hadn't progressed for two months.

Here's what I did,

Instead of a split routine i did a full body work out. This included two sets of flat bench press and two sets of military press on the smith machine.

On the bench press i used a very narrow grip and put on as much weight as possible. I did a set of 8 and then put added enough weight to do a set of 3-6.

As well as adding 30lbs to my bench I've gone from using 22lbs on weighted to dips to 45lbs.

I'm starting to think that the smith machine may have it's uses after all.

[Heisman]

So you went from a 170 max to doing 200x6 in one month?

[momotheglutton]

That's pretty bad reasoning there. You changed a bunch of variables yet somehow you conclude that the smith machine is the only variable that contributed, or at least imply that in the title. It could be anything from switching up your routine to something new to doing a narrow grip. This is comparable to me starting to juice and take snake oil. I would get stronger, but it must be the snake oil! Convenient to ignore the gear involved...

Anyways, I'm not taking sides on the utility of the smith machine. I just think you need to be a bit more careful on your conclusions. Also, congratulations on the stronger bench!

[niceasey]

Just looked back at my training record and I was doing 168lbs for 2x8. I could not complete to sets at 173lbs (5lbs is the minimum you can add at my gym)

[Dark Phoenix]

For starters, how do you get weights ending in 8 and 3? And second, do you realize that the smith machine is counter balanced....by about 30lbs.

[Juggernaut]

For starters, how do you get weights ending in 8 and 3? And second, do you realize that the smith machine is counter balanced....by about 30lbs.

Not at my gym. Our smith machine bar weighs about 75 pounds on its own and is not counter balanced.

[hyp3r3xt3nsion]

or it could be the fact you strengthened your triceps and other parts, lol.

[unity]

some pretty awful logic going on in the original post.

[Steveo31]

30lbs on free?

Sounds like it cause your dip strength went up too. Congrats!

[Jotun]

Although there are more variables at work in the new routine that could have contributed to the gain, using the smith machine sure didn't hurt his gains or mutilate him as so many free-weight fanatics on this board would like to believe...

[momotheglutton]

Although there are more variables at work in the new routine that could have contributed to the gain, using the smith machine sure didn't hurt his gains or mutilate him as so many free-weight fanatics on this board would like to believe...

There's no way of telling if he would have made more gains if he had used something other than the smith machine. I think the message is more that the smith machine can hamper your gains, not grind them to a complete halt. What the topic creator says neither confirms or denies this.

[hyp3r3xt3nsion]

There's no way of telling if he would have made more gains if he had used something other than the smith machine. I think the message is more that the smith machine can hamper your gains, not grind them to a complete halt. What the topic creator says neither confirms or denies this.

"The difference between the smith machine and a free weight bench press is significant in terms of overall gains. There are several important neurological factors at play here:

balance proprioception: In every exercise you do there is an element of balance, or to put it more technically a feedback loop that constantly adjusts recruitment of agonist, antagonist and synergists in order to maintain the desired output. This is a facet of the CNS, so it's centrally controlled and can be improved by using primarily free weight exercises, and even more so by using CKCE exercise, closed kinetic chain exercises. Squats on the smith machine would be a very seriously bad idea, as squatting is THE exercise which improves balance proprioception to the greatest extent. For bench press it's less of a concern, but it's still a concern.
Other than the effect on the CNS, the fact is that using EMG study and simply common sense, a free weight bench press recruits more muscle fibres it's as simple as that. The body does not and cannot hypertrophy on the scale of an individual muscle, the synergists of that muscle must also hypertrophy or the body would be in a constant state of imbalance and injury.

force proprioception: force proprioception is another attribute that operates both peripherally and centrally, and boils down to this, how heavy does an exercise feel and in what is the specific adaption required to deal with that force? Many people erroneously think that the squat is the king of exercises because of hormone release, which obviously is completely wrong, the actual amount or change in hormone release whilst squatting is insignificant. If you want to release a lot of test go to bed, if you want to release a lot of GH go do some endurance training. The real power of squatting is that as a load bearing exercise is has an extremely strong effect on the force proprioception of the CNS.
Although you may be able to apply a RPE (rating of percieved effort) of 100% to both smith bench and free weight bench, or in other words you will be pushing with everything you have for both exercises. The actual response of the body will be quite different given the demands of the exercise. It just isn't true that load is load is load no matter what the source is, the body can tell a cable from a free weight from a machine.

In terms of injury I don't believe that it matters, it's not WHAT you do it's HOW you do it that determines injury rates. The body can adapt to cope with almost anything.
"

[momotheglutton]

Yeah, I've seen you post that many times. But there are some scenarios that it doesn't account for. Let's consider two cases. In the first case niceasey changes his routine the way he said except using a bench instead of a smith machine and makes nice gains. Second scenario niceasey is not only excited by using something new, but is fueled by a desire to prove us wrong. In this scenario he uses the smith machine, but trains with more intensity due to a bigger change of training methods and having a purpose. Which situation does he bench more in? I would say the second due to pyschological reasons.

[Heisman]

Yeah, I've seen you post that many times. But there are some scenarios that it doesn't account for. Let's consider two cases. In the first case niceasey changes his routine the way he said except using a bench instead of a smith machine and makes nice gains. Second scenario niceasey is not only excited by using something new, but is fueled by a desire to prove us wrong. In this scenario he uses the smith machine, but trains with more intensity due to a bigger change of training methods and having a purpose. Which situation does he bench more in? I would say the second due to pyschological reasons.

That's his own fault then for not being motivated enough to try to increase his bench the other way.

[momotheglutton]

That's his own fault then for not being motivated enough to try to increase his bench the other way.

Yeah, I know. But what I was saying up above is that with all the variables there is nothing (given that info) that says whether or not the smith machine had any effect in that situation. To that I got the automated response and just justified further that there do exist situations where a smith machine may give better gains (even though the variables there are psychological).

[Heisman]

Yeah, I know. But what I was saying up above is that with all the variables there is nothing (given that info) that says whether or not the smith machine had any effect in that situation. To that I got the automated response and just justified further that there do exist situations where a smith machine may give better gains (even though the variables there are psychological).

Ah, I got you.

If anyone was wondering, the reason I don't recommend the smith is because I'm very into sports, and you don't really want to use machines if you train for sports (on land, water is different).

[Jotun]

Right, so the use of the smith machine had little to do with his strength increase. It's amazing how quick people are to attack this piece of equipment time and time again, even when it's been used effectively by so many (DC program, anyone?) simply because of the macho "free weights will make you more of a man" dogma that's been preached on this board for so long. I'll bet that if his bench stagnated or decreased on this new program, most of you would be blaming the smith machine for it without even batting an eye at the other variables you're bringing up now to justify his strength gains "despite" using a smith machine. Get over yourselves and your "hardcore" attitudes. If you're a bodybuilder, it's a fine piece of equipment to use and it works when used properly. If you're an athlete, then it may not be the best choice for all sports. Anyway, this topic has already been beaten to death by so many on here (FI vs. In-human ), and what a joke that was.

[unity]

Right, so the use of the smith machine had little to do with his strength increase. It's amazing how quick people are to attack this piece of equipment time and time again, even when it's been used effectively by so many (DC program, anyone?) simply because of the macho "free weights will make you more of a man" dogma that's been preached on this board for so long. I'll bet that if his bench stagnated or decreased on this new program, most of you would be blaming the smith machine for it without even batting an eye at the other variables you're bringing up now to justify his strength gains "despite" using a smith machine. Get over yourselves and your "hardcore" attitudes. If you're a bodybuilder, it's a fine piece of equipment to use and it works when used properly. If you're an athlete, then it may not be the best choice for all sports. Anyway, this topic has already been beaten to death by so many on here (FI vs. In-human ), and what a joke that was.

looking back through the thread i noticed that nobody even attacked the use of the smith machine. i think you might be making a big deal out of nothing here, at least in this instance.

if you agree that this guy changing his entire routine, and then giving credit only to the fact that he used the smith machine, is good logic, then you are a moron.

[Jotun]

looking back through the thread i noticed that nobody even attacked the use of the smith machine. i think you might be making a big deal out of nothing here, at least in this instance.

if you agree that this guy changing his entire routine, and then giving credit only to the fact that he used the smith machine, is good logic, then you are a moron.

I'm speaking out of experience in general with this board and even the mention of the smith machine. Yes, nobody attacked the smith machine outright in THIS thread, but nobody has yet admitted that it may actually be the reason for his strength gains (other than the original thread starter himself) without coming up with a bunch of other reasons and excuses to not give the machine any kind of credit in this instance. That being said, I never said the smith machine alone was responsible for his gains, did I?
Thanks for that last line, though. It's nice to be called a moron by someone who jumps to his own conclusions, like so many others on this board.

[unity]

I'm speaking out of experience in general with this board and even the mention of the smith machine. Yes, nobody attacked the smith machine outright in THIS thread, but nobody has yet admitted that it may actually be the reason for his strength gains (other than the original thread starter himself) without coming up with a bunch of other reasons and excuses to not give the machine any kind of credit in this instance. That being said, I never said the smith machine alone was responsible for his gains, did I?
Thanks for that last line, though. It's nice to be called a moron by someone who jumps to his own conclusions, like so many others on this board.

i said "if". and you have proven to be pretty good about coming up with your own genarlizations and assumptions.

[Jotun]

i said "if". and you have proven to be pretty good about coming up with your own genarlizations and assumptions.

That's right, you did say "if" before hurling an insult. I suppose that makes it okay? No matter, I know what I am and what I am not. And I admit I make my own "generalizations" and assumptions about certain people on this board, but only because of their reputations and post history and not because of one post they made. That being said, I know very little about you other than the fact that you seem to be new to the lifting game and do not wish to continue to divert this thread from the topic by arguing with you.

[DanMc]

"The difference between the smith machine and a free weight bench press is significant in terms of overall gains. There are several important neurological factors at play here:

balance proprioception: In every exercise you do there is an element of balance, or to put it more technically a feedback loop that constantly adjusts recruitment of agonist, antagonist and synergists in order to maintain the desired output. This is a facet of the CNS, so it's centrally controlled and can be improved by using primarily free weight exercises, and even more so by using CKCE exercise, closed kinetic chain exercises. Squats on the smith machine would be a very seriously bad idea, as squatting is THE exercise which improves balance proprioception to the greatest extent. For bench press it's less of a concern, but it's still a concern.
Other than the effect on the CNS, the fact is that using EMG study and simply common sense, a free weight bench press recruits more muscle fibres it's as simple as that. The body does not and cannot hypertrophy on the scale of an individual muscle, the synergists of that muscle must also hypertrophy or the body would be in a constant state of imbalance and injury.

force proprioception: force proprioception is another attribute that operates both peripherally and centrally, and boils down to this, how heavy does an exercise feel and in what is the specific adaption required to deal with that force? Many people erroneously think that the squat is the king of exercises because of hormone release, which obviously is completely wrong, the actual amount or change in hormone release whilst squatting is insignificant. If you want to release a lot of test go to bed, if you want to release a lot of GH go do some endurance training. The real power of squatting is that as a load bearing exercise is has an extremely strong effect on the force proprioception of the CNS.
Although you may be able to apply a RPE (rating of percieved effort) of 100% to both smith bench and free weight bench, or in other words you will be pushing with everything you have for both exercises. The actual response of the body will be quite different given the demands of the exercise. It just isn't true that load is load is load no matter what the source is, the body can tell a cable from a free weight from a machine.

In terms of injury I don't believe that it matters, it's not WHAT you do it's HOW you do it that determines injury rates. The body can adapt to cope with almost anything.
"

^^
See what you made Hyp post again ...he never has to shake the dust off it never gets any rest.

Hyp feeling I'll? I was expecting this to be your first post to the thread.

[fsblunt]

I personally believe the main factor is the fact that he changed from a split to a full body workout. Split routines are generally geared for hypertrophy, and full body routines are more for strength training. I don't think the smith machine had anything to do with it.

[hyp3r3xt3nsion]

^^
See what you made Hyp post again ...he never has to shake the dust off it never gets any rest.

Hyp feeling I'll? I was expecting this to be your first post to the thread.

[Heisman]

I personally believe the main factor is the fact that he changed from a split to a full body workout. Split routines are generally geared for hypertrophy, and full body routines are more for strength training. I don't think the smith machine had anything to do with it.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if full body routines helped more with size than splits did, but that's another thread.

[hyp3r3xt3nsion]

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if full body routines helped more with size than splits did, but that's another thread.

yea; arn't full body splits supposed to help lower neural-inhibitions? (to make the CNS more "open" circuited)

[Heisman]

yea; arn't full body splits supposed to help lower neural-inhibitions? (to make the CNS more "open" circuited)

Are you referring to the myotatic stretch reflex and the golgi tendon organ? I'm basing what I said off of posts I've seen PowerManDL make. Drop sets are also good.

[unity]

I personally believe the main factor is the fact that he changed from a split to a full body workout. Split routines are generally geared for hypertrophy, and full body routines are more for strength training. I don't think the smith machine had anything to do with it.

isnt HST(highly regarded for growth) basically a full body workout, 3 times a week?

[hyp3r3xt3nsion]

Are you referring to the myotatic stretch reflex and the golgi tendon organ? I'm basing what I said off of posts I've seen PowerManDL make. Drop sets are also good.

um, i guess

[FF Punk]

So you went from a 170 max to doing 200x6 in one month?

That's not unbelievable. I've went from 175 to 225 in two months thanks to some dumbbell work and my diet and workouts were pretty ****ty.