When You're Forced to Use a Smith Machine?

dave4d

Stage14 wrote: »

I've read several articles about how an upright posture is actually better for squatting. For that reason, many people recommend front squats, and goblet squats. The quad development and core development are much better with a front squat than a back squat. If one also deadlifts, they hit most of the same muscles with the deadlift that they will hit with a low bar back squat.

That's true, but a front squat is NOT the same thing as a heavy back squat with ramrod posture (which what we're talking about with a backsquat in the smith machine). Totally different weight distribution, totally different type of strain on the body. I'm not saying a backsquat is superior to a front squat or goblet squat. I'm just saying backsquat in a Smith Machine forces your body into an unnatural alignment that can cause problems.

I can agree with you, there. I would never recommend using a Smith Machine for back squats. They work okay for some things, but anything in a Smith Machine is not the same lift, nor does it provide the same benefits as the barbell counterpart.

JoRocka

uconnwinsnc1 wrote: »

Smith machine I guess can be fine for shrugs and that is it.

it's also a great seat between sets.

it's a great towel holder.

also very good for inverse pull ups /'Australian pull ups.'

franklech

cajuntank wrote: »

I'm going to offer a little different of an opinion. The point of those exercises are to work a large subset of muscles and it's true that the Smith Machine takes the stress away or maybe even negates the use of certain stabilization muscles for the exercise in question. But you cannot say that doing a squat in a Smith Machine does not still work a majority of the muscles intended by the regular squat exercise, thus you still get stronger, build muscle, etc... I would just call it sub-optimal (just like any other change that would have to be made outside of written program) due to those factors (bar path also being one to a certain degree). I would just deem it as a slightly different exercise if done; then once able to get back to free weights, realize that you are now doing a similar exercise that you probably will have to start lighter on to help those stabilizers to catch-up and adjust bar paths, but strength and muscle gained from using the Smith does not get negated because you weren't a "purist" from the beginning

I agree 100%. There's always a lot of hate towards machines, but I don't believe any exercise is inherently bad. "Sub-optimal" is the perfect way to put it. I've had to use a Smith Machine before and it did increase my barbell back squat, and I went back to them the same way you described. Another machine to free weight/ bodyweight example: I've used a machine bench press to help beginners who could not do a modified pushup. They built strength up on the machine bench press until they had the strength to perform a proper modified pushup, then we progress from there (and not a shoulder was injured in the process). One could say a wall pushup up some other variation would have been better, but that doesn't negate the fact that the machine bench press method worked ( in real-life, not in theory or on paper).

So I avoid the Smith machine unless there's no other option, and only if it's 100% pain-free. I've tried it for bench press and it hurts my shoulders, so I never use it for that, but maybe it's suitable for others. And after years of using it every now and then, I've never had a back, hip or knee injury. I love reading journals and what smart guys on the Internet say, and I take everything to heart and apply it to my training decisions, but I find it most important to listen to one's own body first. It's thinking outside the box and the source of innovation, and I haven't killed anybody yet.