When You're Forced to Use a Smith Machine?
MysticRealm
Posts: 1,264 Member
I'm doing Stronglifts 5x5. I'm currently able to do them without a squat rack as I'm still building up how heavy I lift, so I don't feel like my safety is in jeopardy. However once my weights get heavy enough the only option at my gym (the gym in my condo building) is a smith machine. I tried using it once and really didn't like it. You don't have to balance the bar at all, nor do you have to balance your body!
Is there anyway to make the best of it? Any tips or tricks?
Once I move out of my condo building in Sept/Oct I will either try to buy some proper equipment for my house, or will buy a gym membership and make sure they have a proper squat rack, but at the moment I can't justify the expense when we have a pretty good gym in my building.
Is there anyway to make the best of it? Any tips or tricks?
Once I move out of my condo building in Sept/Oct I will either try to buy some proper equipment for my house, or will buy a gym membership and make sure they have a proper squat rack, but at the moment I can't justify the expense when we have a pretty good gym in my building.
0
Replies
-
They are a good way to help with form. I've found you can go heavier on them due to not having to worry about balancing the bar. Watch out for that when you find yourself a squat rack.0
-
Just go lighter till you get your form down. I refuse to ever use a smith machine they direct form to an improper position out of design0
-
Michael190lbs wrote: »Just go lighter till you get your form down. I refuse to ever use a smith machine they direct form to an improper position out of design
Yup smith machines hinder progress by limiting the bar path and forcing the use of improper form.
You're better off sticking with lighter weights until you get access to a rack, or using a sled if you want to go heavy.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Don't use the Smith Machine, I've been doing a similar 5x5 workout since February and can comfortably squat 100kg for 5, not once have I used the safety bars on the rack.
Please note I am aware that's a poor weight to be squatting but I've been in a calorie deficit haha0 -
Ok thanks guys, I will just be a little slower adding weight on so I can make sure I'm comfortable with it so I won't risk the bar dropping. I was trying to look up gym membership costs last night but they are all so vague on their websites.0
-
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
0 -
I’d rather you switched to goblet squats with a dumbbell than use the smith machine. The movement path is not proper and you risk injury.0
-
Might be worth a read if interested. Lyle McDonald specifically gets more into leg press in an article he links to within the forum thread, but the Smith Machine come up some in the forum postings that Lyle provides answers and insight to. Again, anything that the program calls for that can't be followed will be less specific and thus less optimal to a degree. As Alan suggested, you could do goblet squats, but you could never go as heavy with Smith. You could go heavy with Smith, but not maintain better form than you would with goblet squats. But again, realize, that these are two different exercises than free weight barbell squats.
http://forums.lylemcdonald.com/showthread.php?t=4272
0 -
I like to use the Smith Machine for single leg work. Due to balance issues, I prefer the smith machine when I put my back leg on a bench for single leg squats.0
-
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
It's not about being "a 'purist'". The OP is doing a 5x5 program and asked about the smith machine in regards to barbell squats. Using the smith machine will be detrimental to barbell squat progression.
Props to the guy who worked up to 220x5 with no squat rack, lol.0 -
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
It's not about being "a 'purist'". The OP is doing a 5x5 program and asked about the smith machine in regards to barbell squats. Using the smith machine will be detrimental to barbell squat progression.
Props to the guy who worked up to 220x5 with no squat rack, lol.
How would it be detrimental to barbell squat progression? I would postulate that someone whose worked up to a 300lbs squat in a Smith Machine would be able to regular squat (when that exercise was ultimately available to them) more than someone who only could work up to a 100lbs squat using a dumbbell (because that's all they had available). Again, I am saying they are different exercises and should be treated as such. No one is saying that you can do one exercise with one weight so that must translate you can do a different exercise with that same weight. I am saying that the specificity between the two are close and since you can utilize basically the same potential weight load, the body will adapt and grow very much the same between the two comparatively than between weight load of another variant where you could not have as much potential weight.
I am just of the opinion that it's not a black or white answer and there is room for flexibility if required.
0 -
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
It's not about being "a 'purist'". The OP is doing a 5x5 program and asked about the smith machine in regards to barbell squats. Using the smith machine will be detrimental to barbell squat progression.
Props to the guy who worked up to 220x5 with no squat rack, lol.
How would it be detrimental to barbell squat progression? I would postulate that someone whose worked up to a 300lbs squat in a Smith Machine would be able to regular squat (when that exercise was ultimately available to them) more than someone who only could work up to a 100lbs squat using a dumbbell (because that's all they had available). Again, I am saying they are different exercises and should be treated as such. No one is saying that you can do one exercise with one weight so that must translate you can do a different exercise with that same weight. I am saying that the specificity between the two are close and since you can utilize basically the same potential weight load, the body will adapt and grow very much the same between the two comparatively than between weight load of another variant where you could not have as much potential weight.
I am just of the opinion that it's not a black or white answer and there is room for flexibility if required.
I would argue that it would be as detrimental to squat progression as any machine exercise would be to the comparable free weight movement. A cursory search will yield an overwhelming number of negative articles about the smith machine.
You suggest that someone who worked up to 300# on a smith machine would be better suited to transition to barbell squats than someone who only trained up to 100# dumbbell squats. This indicates that you highly underestimate the importance of using proper form for this movement, in favor of moving more weight. I would counter that the lifter who stuck with dumbbells would ultimately be able to move more weight in less time once moving to the barbell, because their dumbbell training would have drilled the proper form into their muscle memory. Someone transitioning from the smith machine would basically need to relearn the movement from scratch.
Don't let the fact that the smith machine and barbell squat appear similar deceive you into thinking there is a decent amount of crossover between the two movements. They are quite dissimilar. What "specificity between the two" is there, exactly? And why can you "utilize basically the same potential weight load"?
Anecdote alert: the last time I walked into a gym that only had a smith machine, I opted not to train squats that day.0 -
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
It's not about being "a 'purist'". The OP is doing a 5x5 program and asked about the smith machine in regards to barbell squats. Using the smith machine will be detrimental to barbell squat progression.
Props to the guy who worked up to 220x5 with no squat rack, lol.
How would it be detrimental to barbell squat progression? I would postulate that someone whose worked up to a 300lbs squat in a Smith Machine would be able to regular squat (when that exercise was ultimately available to them) more than someone who only could work up to a 100lbs squat using a dumbbell (because that's all they had available). Again, I am saying they are different exercises and should be treated as such. No one is saying that you can do one exercise with one weight so that must translate you can do a different exercise with that same weight. I am saying that the specificity between the two are close and since you can utilize basically the same potential weight load, the body will adapt and grow very much the same between the two comparatively than between weight load of another variant where you could not have as much potential weight.
I am just of the opinion that it's not a black or white answer and there is room for flexibility if required.
I would argue that it would be as detrimental to squat progression as any machine exercise would be to the comparable free weight movement. A cursory search will yield an overwhelming number of negative articles about the smith machine.
You suggest that someone who worked up to 300# on a smith machine would be better suited to transition to barbell squats than someone who only trained up to 100# dumbbell squats. This indicates that you highly underestimate the importance of using proper form for this movement, in favor of moving more weight. I would counter that the lifter who stuck with dumbbells would ultimately be able to move more weight in less time once moving to the barbell, because their dumbbell training would have drilled the proper form into their muscle memory. Someone transitioning from the smith machine would basically need to relearn the movement from scratch.
Don't let the fact that the smith machine and barbell squat appear similar deceive you into thinking there is a decent amount of crossover between the two movements. They are quite dissimilar. What "specificity between the two" is there, exactly? And why can you "utilize basically the same potential weight load"?
Anecdote alert: the last time I walked into a gym that only had a smith machine, I opted not to train squats that day.
Your last statement kinda lends to my point. So in your mind, no training was better than some? I am saying that, with no other options available, there are options you might have to utilize if you want to train. Are they optimal? Not always, but gains will be made more than the person doing nothing (to the greatest degree) and less compared to someone doing some other sub-optimal variant. How can squatting free bar and in a Smith Machine squat NOT utilize a lot of the same musculature? You put a heavy weight laden bar on your back, squat down, and sit up in both exercises (again, I do not discount the difference between a 2 dimentional exercise and a 3 dimentional exercise). I do agree that transitioning from Smith Machine squat to free bar squat would necessitate less weight to learn the movement, but I strongly disagree that you would have to start over from scratch. You have built up muscle and a similar motor pattern squatting with the Smith, that transitioning would not be that far of a stretch as you are inferring. Building muscle and strength requires progressive overload. The muscle could care less how you did it, just that you did. So can you get stronger and build more muscle with 100lbs or with 300lbs? I am not advocating utilizing the Smith Machine forever by any means or even using it at all per say, that's the OP's choice, just like I would not expect someone to advocate doing goblet squats forever and try to do insane weights with it (or with the Smith). That's not what those exercises or machine were designed for due to bio-mechanics. It's just sometimes, you have to use what you have if you want to train and while the weight is probably fairly still light and she is new, it's not the end of the world if she chooses to utilize it.
To answer your question about weight load, you can load a bar with similar weight load. So for example, free bar back squatting 200lbs and loading 200lbs on a Smith Machine. So to equate to that same load, I would have to squat holding 2 x 100lbs dumbbells. Not impossible, just a little harder to do and my gym only goes up to 120lbs dumbbells. What do I do after that?0 -
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
It's not about being "a 'purist'". The OP is doing a 5x5 program and asked about the smith machine in regards to barbell squats. Using the smith machine will be detrimental to barbell squat progression.
Props to the guy who worked up to 220x5 with no squat rack, lol.
How would it be detrimental to barbell squat progression? I would postulate that someone whose worked up to a 300lbs squat in a Smith Machine would be able to regular squat (when that exercise was ultimately available to them) more than someone who only could work up to a 100lbs squat using a dumbbell (because that's all they had available). Again, I am saying they are different exercises and should be treated as such. No one is saying that you can do one exercise with one weight so that must translate you can do a different exercise with that same weight. I am saying that the specificity between the two are close and since you can utilize basically the same potential weight load, the body will adapt and grow very much the same between the two comparatively than between weight load of another variant where you could not have as much potential weight.
I am just of the opinion that it's not a black or white answer and there is room for flexibility if required.
I would argue that it would be as detrimental to squat progression as any machine exercise would be to the comparable free weight movement. A cursory search will yield an overwhelming number of negative articles about the smith machine.
You suggest that someone who worked up to 300# on a smith machine would be better suited to transition to barbell squats than someone who only trained up to 100# dumbbell squats. This indicates that you highly underestimate the importance of using proper form for this movement, in favor of moving more weight. I would counter that the lifter who stuck with dumbbells would ultimately be able to move more weight in less time once moving to the barbell, because their dumbbell training would have drilled the proper form into their muscle memory. Someone transitioning from the smith machine would basically need to relearn the movement from scratch.
Don't let the fact that the smith machine and barbell squat appear similar deceive you into thinking there is a decent amount of crossover between the two movements. They are quite dissimilar. What "specificity between the two" is there, exactly? And why can you "utilize basically the same potential weight load"?
Anecdote alert: the last time I walked into a gym that only had a smith machine, I opted not to train squats that day.
Your last statement kinda lends to my point. So in your mind, no training was better than some? I am saying that, with no other options available, there are options you might have to utilize if you want to train. Are they optimal? Not always, but gains will be made more than the person doing nothing (to the greatest degree) and less compared to someone doing some other sub-optimal variant. How can squatting free bar and in a Smith Machine squat NOT utilize a lot of the same musculature? You put a heavy weight laden bar on your back, squat down, and sit up in both exercises (again, I do not discount the difference between a 2 dimentional exercise and a 3 dimentional exercise). I do agree that transitioning from Smith Machine squat to free bar squat would necessitate less weight to learn the movement, but I strongly disagree that you would have to start over from scratch. You have built up muscle and a similar motor pattern squatting with the Smith, that transitioning would not be that far of a stretch as you are inferring. Building muscle and strength requires progressive overload. The muscle could care less how you did it, just that you did. So can you get stronger and build more muscle with 100lbs or with 300lbs? I am not advocating utilizing the Smith Machine forever by any means or even using it at all per say, that's the OP's choice, just like I would not expect someone to advocate doing goblet squats forever and try to do insane weights with it (or with the Smith). That's not what those exercises or machine were designed for due to bio-mechanics. It's just sometimes, you have to use what you have if you want to train and while the weight is probably fairly still light and she is new, it's not the end of the world if she chooses to utilize it.
To answer your question about weight load, you can load a bar with similar weight load. So for example, free bar back squatting 200lbs and loading 200lbs on a Smith Machine. So to equate to that same load, I would have to squat holding 2 x 100lbs dumbbells. Not impossible, just a little harder to do and my gym only goes up to 120lbs dumbbells. What do I do after that?
I ended up training upper body on the day I mentioned. Yes, no lower body training was better than training with a smith machine.
The movements are nothing alike. The fixed bar path of the smith machine causes you to lean back unnaturally, in a position which would inevitably cause you to dump the bar behind you if you attempted to do it with a barbell. If you squat then you should know this simply by glancing at the bar track of the machine. At best (with proper foot positioning), it would isolate the quads. You could achieve similar results with a sled, without corrupting squat form.
In the OP's particular case: for a novice, it is absolutely essential to spend as much time as possible developing and practicing proper form. The amount of weight moved is of little importance in comparison. In this regard, smith machine training would be highly detrimental.
"Squatting" in a smith machine may give you larger quads, and maybe even larger glutes. But it will not make you one iota better at supporting hundreds of pounds on your back, and it will certainly not help you move that weight back up once you get down in the hole.0 -
Smith machine I guess can be fine for shrugs and that is it.0
-
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
It's not about being "a 'purist'". The OP is doing a 5x5 program and asked about the smith machine in regards to barbell squats. Using the smith machine will be detrimental to barbell squat progression.
Props to the guy who worked up to 220x5 with no squat rack, lol.
How would it be detrimental to barbell squat progression? I would postulate that someone whose worked up to a 300lbs squat in a Smith Machine would be able to regular squat (when that exercise was ultimately available to them) more than someone who only could work up to a 100lbs squat using a dumbbell (because that's all they had available). Again, I am saying they are different exercises and should be treated as such. No one is saying that you can do one exercise with one weight so that must translate you can do a different exercise with that same weight. I am saying that the specificity between the two are close and since you can utilize basically the same potential weight load, the body will adapt and grow very much the same between the two comparatively than between weight load of another variant where you could not have as much potential weight.
I am just of the opinion that it's not a black or white answer and there is room for flexibility if required.
I would argue that it would be as detrimental to squat progression as any machine exercise would be to the comparable free weight movement. A cursory search will yield an overwhelming number of negative articles about the smith machine.
You suggest that someone who worked up to 300# on a smith machine would be better suited to transition to barbell squats than someone who only trained up to 100# dumbbell squats. This indicates that you highly underestimate the importance of using proper form for this movement, in favor of moving more weight. I would counter that the lifter who stuck with dumbbells would ultimately be able to move more weight in less time once moving to the barbell, because their dumbbell training would have drilled the proper form into their muscle memory. Someone transitioning from the smith machine would basically need to relearn the movement from scratch.
Don't let the fact that the smith machine and barbell squat appear similar deceive you into thinking there is a decent amount of crossover between the two movements. They are quite dissimilar. What "specificity between the two" is there, exactly? And why can you "utilize basically the same potential weight load"?
Anecdote alert: the last time I walked into a gym that only had a smith machine, I opted not to train squats that day.
Your last statement kinda lends to my point. So in your mind, no training was better than some? I am saying that, with no other options available, there are options you might have to utilize if you want to train. Are they optimal? Not always, but gains will be made more than the person doing nothing (to the greatest degree) and less compared to someone doing some other sub-optimal variant. How can squatting free bar and in a Smith Machine squat NOT utilize a lot of the same musculature? You put a heavy weight laden bar on your back, squat down, and sit up in both exercises (again, I do not discount the difference between a 2 dimentional exercise and a 3 dimentional exercise). I do agree that transitioning from Smith Machine squat to free bar squat would necessitate less weight to learn the movement, but I strongly disagree that you would have to start over from scratch. You have built up muscle and a similar motor pattern squatting with the Smith, that transitioning would not be that far of a stretch as you are inferring. Building muscle and strength requires progressive overload. The muscle could care less how you did it, just that you did. So can you get stronger and build more muscle with 100lbs or with 300lbs? I am not advocating utilizing the Smith Machine forever by any means or even using it at all per say, that's the OP's choice, just like I would not expect someone to advocate doing goblet squats forever and try to do insane weights with it (or with the Smith). That's not what those exercises or machine were designed for due to bio-mechanics. It's just sometimes, you have to use what you have if you want to train and while the weight is probably fairly still light and she is new, it's not the end of the world if she chooses to utilize it.
To answer your question about weight load, you can load a bar with similar weight load. So for example, free bar back squatting 200lbs and loading 200lbs on a Smith Machine. So to equate to that same load, I would have to squat holding 2 x 100lbs dumbbells. Not impossible, just a little harder to do and my gym only goes up to 120lbs dumbbells. What do I do after that?
I ended up training upper body on the day I mentioned. Yes, no lower body training was better than training with a smith machine.
The movements are nothing alike. The fixed bar path of the smith machine causes you to lean back unnaturally, in a position which would inevitably cause you to dump the bar behind you if you attempted to do it with a barbell. If you squat then you should know this simply by glancing at the bar track of the machine. At best (with proper foot positioning), it would isolate the quads. You could achieve similar results with a sled, without corrupting squat form.
In the OP's particular case: for a novice, it is absolutely essential to spend as much time as possible developing and practicing proper form. The amount of weight moved is of little importance in comparison. In this regard, smith machine training would be highly detrimental.
"Squatting" in a smith machine may give you larger quads, and maybe even larger glutes. But it will not make you one iota better at supporting hundreds of pounds on your back, and it will certainly not help you move that weight back up once you get down in the hole.
I guess we will just agree to disagree as you are still not reading the conditions I have laid out in my statements above. It will be up to the OP to do something, nothing, or something in between. My argument is simply if you need to hammer a nail in to start building a house and you only have a screwdriver, you can either not hammer the nail in, use the back of the screwdriver, or find something else until you have a hammer at your disposal. But maybe by that time, you will have a few nails hammered in. I never said do the entire house using the back of a screwdriver.0 -
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
It's not about being "a 'purist'". The OP is doing a 5x5 program and asked about the smith machine in regards to barbell squats. Using the smith machine will be detrimental to barbell squat progression.
Props to the guy who worked up to 220x5 with no squat rack, lol.
How would it be detrimental to barbell squat progression? I would postulate that someone whose worked up to a 300lbs squat in a Smith Machine would be able to regular squat (when that exercise was ultimately available to them) more than someone who only could work up to a 100lbs squat using a dumbbell (because that's all they had available). Again, I am saying they are different exercises and should be treated as such. No one is saying that you can do one exercise with one weight so that must translate you can do a different exercise with that same weight. I am saying that the specificity between the two are close and since you can utilize basically the same potential weight load, the body will adapt and grow very much the same between the two comparatively than between weight load of another variant where you could not have as much potential weight.
I am just of the opinion that it's not a black or white answer and there is room for flexibility if required.
I would argue that it would be as detrimental to squat progression as any machine exercise would be to the comparable free weight movement. A cursory search will yield an overwhelming number of negative articles about the smith machine.
You suggest that someone who worked up to 300# on a smith machine would be better suited to transition to barbell squats than someone who only trained up to 100# dumbbell squats. This indicates that you highly underestimate the importance of using proper form for this movement, in favor of moving more weight. I would counter that the lifter who stuck with dumbbells would ultimately be able to move more weight in less time once moving to the barbell, because their dumbbell training would have drilled the proper form into their muscle memory. Someone transitioning from the smith machine would basically need to relearn the movement from scratch.
Don't let the fact that the smith machine and barbell squat appear similar deceive you into thinking there is a decent amount of crossover between the two movements. They are quite dissimilar. What "specificity between the two" is there, exactly? And why can you "utilize basically the same potential weight load"?
Anecdote alert: the last time I walked into a gym that only had a smith machine, I opted not to train squats that day.
Your last statement kinda lends to my point. So in your mind, no training was better than some? I am saying that, with no other options available, there are options you might have to utilize if you want to train. Are they optimal? Not always, but gains will be made more than the person doing nothing (to the greatest degree) and less compared to someone doing some other sub-optimal variant. How can squatting free bar and in a Smith Machine squat NOT utilize a lot of the same musculature? You put a heavy weight laden bar on your back, squat down, and sit up in both exercises (again, I do not discount the difference between a 2 dimentional exercise and a 3 dimentional exercise). I do agree that transitioning from Smith Machine squat to free bar squat would necessitate less weight to learn the movement, but I strongly disagree that you would have to start over from scratch. You have built up muscle and a similar motor pattern squatting with the Smith, that transitioning would not be that far of a stretch as you are inferring. Building muscle and strength requires progressive overload. The muscle could care less how you did it, just that you did. So can you get stronger and build more muscle with 100lbs or with 300lbs? I am not advocating utilizing the Smith Machine forever by any means or even using it at all per say, that's the OP's choice, just like I would not expect someone to advocate doing goblet squats forever and try to do insane weights with it (or with the Smith). That's not what those exercises or machine were designed for due to bio-mechanics. It's just sometimes, you have to use what you have if you want to train and while the weight is probably fairly still light and she is new, it's not the end of the world if she chooses to utilize it.
To answer your question about weight load, you can load a bar with similar weight load. So for example, free bar back squatting 200lbs and loading 200lbs on a Smith Machine. So to equate to that same load, I would have to squat holding 2 x 100lbs dumbbells. Not impossible, just a little harder to do and my gym only goes up to 120lbs dumbbells. What do I do after that?
I ended up training upper body on the day I mentioned. Yes, no lower body training was better than training with a smith machine.
The movements are nothing alike. The fixed bar path of the smith machine causes you to lean back unnaturally, in a position which would inevitably cause you to dump the bar behind you if you attempted to do it with a barbell. If you squat then you should know this simply by glancing at the bar track of the machine. At best (with proper foot positioning), it would isolate the quads. You could achieve similar results with a sled, without corrupting squat form.
In the OP's particular case: for a novice, it is absolutely essential to spend as much time as possible developing and practicing proper form. The amount of weight moved is of little importance in comparison. In this regard, smith machine training would be highly detrimental.
"Squatting" in a smith machine may give you larger quads, and maybe even larger glutes. But it will not make you one iota better at supporting hundreds of pounds on your back, and it will certainly not help you move that weight back up once you get down in the hole.
I guess we will just agree to disagree as you are still not reading the conditions I have laid out in my statements above. It will be up to the OP to do something, nothing, or something in between. My argument is simply if you need to hammer a nail in to start building a house and you only have a screwdriver, you can either not hammer the nail in, use the back of the screwdriver, or find something else until you have a hammer at your disposal. But maybe by that time, you will have a few nails hammered in. I never said do the entire house using the back of a screwdriver.
Your "argument" consisted of *kitten* and conjecture. And now a useless analogy which neither contributes to the discussion nor validates your point. We are talking about moving large weights with the human body which can easily lead to injury if trained improperly.
To play along...learn how to use a hammer and work on getting the right tools before you start the job, rather than using the wrong tools and watching your house fall down after you finish.0 -
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
It's not about being "a 'purist'". The OP is doing a 5x5 program and asked about the smith machine in regards to barbell squats. Using the smith machine will be detrimental to barbell squat progression.
Props to the guy who worked up to 220x5 with no squat rack, lol.
How would it be detrimental to barbell squat progression? I would postulate that someone whose worked up to a 300lbs squat in a Smith Machine would be able to regular squat (when that exercise was ultimately available to them) more than someone who only could work up to a 100lbs squat using a dumbbell (because that's all they had available). Again, I am saying they are different exercises and should be treated as such. No one is saying that you can do one exercise with one weight so that must translate you can do a different exercise with that same weight. I am saying that the specificity between the two are close and since you can utilize basically the same potential weight load, the body will adapt and grow very much the same between the two comparatively than between weight load of another variant where you could not have as much potential weight.
I am just of the opinion that it's not a black or white answer and there is room for flexibility if required.
I would argue that it would be as detrimental to squat progression as any machine exercise would be to the comparable free weight movement. A cursory search will yield an overwhelming number of negative articles about the smith machine.
You suggest that someone who worked up to 300# on a smith machine would be better suited to transition to barbell squats than someone who only trained up to 100# dumbbell squats. This indicates that you highly underestimate the importance of using proper form for this movement, in favor of moving more weight. I would counter that the lifter who stuck with dumbbells would ultimately be able to move more weight in less time once moving to the barbell, because their dumbbell training would have drilled the proper form into their muscle memory. Someone transitioning from the smith machine would basically need to relearn the movement from scratch.
Don't let the fact that the smith machine and barbell squat appear similar deceive you into thinking there is a decent amount of crossover between the two movements. They are quite dissimilar. What "specificity between the two" is there, exactly? And why can you "utilize basically the same potential weight load"?
Anecdote alert: the last time I walked into a gym that only had a smith machine, I opted not to train squats that day.
Your last statement kinda lends to my point. So in your mind, no training was better than some? I am saying that, with no other options available, there are options you might have to utilize if you want to train. Are they optimal? Not always, but gains will be made more than the person doing nothing (to the greatest degree) and less compared to someone doing some other sub-optimal variant. How can squatting free bar and in a Smith Machine squat NOT utilize a lot of the same musculature? You put a heavy weight laden bar on your back, squat down, and sit up in both exercises (again, I do not discount the difference between a 2 dimentional exercise and a 3 dimentional exercise). I do agree that transitioning from Smith Machine squat to free bar squat would necessitate less weight to learn the movement, but I strongly disagree that you would have to start over from scratch. You have built up muscle and a similar motor pattern squatting with the Smith, that transitioning would not be that far of a stretch as you are inferring. Building muscle and strength requires progressive overload. The muscle could care less how you did it, just that you did. So can you get stronger and build more muscle with 100lbs or with 300lbs? I am not advocating utilizing the Smith Machine forever by any means or even using it at all per say, that's the OP's choice, just like I would not expect someone to advocate doing goblet squats forever and try to do insane weights with it (or with the Smith). That's not what those exercises or machine were designed for due to bio-mechanics. It's just sometimes, you have to use what you have if you want to train and while the weight is probably fairly still light and she is new, it's not the end of the world if she chooses to utilize it.
To answer your question about weight load, you can load a bar with similar weight load. So for example, free bar back squatting 200lbs and loading 200lbs on a Smith Machine. So to equate to that same load, I would have to squat holding 2 x 100lbs dumbbells. Not impossible, just a little harder to do and my gym only goes up to 120lbs dumbbells. What do I do after that?
I ended up training upper body on the day I mentioned. Yes, no lower body training was better than training with a smith machine.
The movements are nothing alike. The fixed bar path of the smith machine causes you to lean back unnaturally, in a position which would inevitably cause you to dump the bar behind you if you attempted to do it with a barbell. If you squat then you should know this simply by glancing at the bar track of the machine. At best (with proper foot positioning), it would isolate the quads. You could achieve similar results with a sled, without corrupting squat form.
In the OP's particular case: for a novice, it is absolutely essential to spend as much time as possible developing and practicing proper form. The amount of weight moved is of little importance in comparison. In this regard, smith machine training would be highly detrimental.
"Squatting" in a smith machine may give you larger quads, and maybe even larger glutes. But it will not make you one iota better at supporting hundreds of pounds on your back, and it will certainly not help you move that weight back up once you get down in the hole.
I guess we will just agree to disagree as you are still not reading the conditions I have laid out in my statements above. It will be up to the OP to do something, nothing, or something in between. My argument is simply if you need to hammer a nail in to start building a house and you only have a screwdriver, you can either not hammer the nail in, use the back of the screwdriver, or find something else until you have a hammer at your disposal. But maybe by that time, you will have a few nails hammered in. I never said do the entire house using the back of a screwdriver.
Your "argument" consisted of *kitten* and conjecture. And now a useless analogy which neither contributes to the discussion nor validates your point. We are talking about moving large weights with the human body which can easily lead to injury if trained improperly.
To play along...learn how to use a hammer and work on getting the right tools before you start the job, rather than using the wrong tools and watching your house fall down after you finish.
No, I referenced a new trainee that would still be utilizing light weight for a time. From my previous statements that evidently, you did not read.
" I am not advocating utilizing the Smith Machine forever by any means or even using it at all per say, that's the OP's choice, just like I would not expect someone to advocate doing goblet squats forever and try to do insane weights with it (or with the Smith). That's not what those exercises or machine were designed for due to bio-mechanics. It's just sometimes, you have to use what you have if you want to train and while the weight is probably fairly still light and she is new, it's not the end of the world if she chooses to utilize it."
I do agree that you need to utilize the correct tool for the job. But sometimes you need to get a job started and using a limited substitution for a brief time is not earth shattering as you make it out to be if that correct tool is not available.
OP, do whatever you feel safe and comfortable doing in the meantime till you can perform squats with free barbell weight.0 -
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
It's not about being "a 'purist'". The OP is doing a 5x5 program and asked about the smith machine in regards to barbell squats. Using the smith machine will be detrimental to barbell squat progression.
Props to the guy who worked up to 220x5 with no squat rack, lol.
How would it be detrimental to barbell squat progression? I would postulate that someone whose worked up to a 300lbs squat in a Smith Machine would be able to regular squat (when that exercise was ultimately available to them) more than someone who only could work up to a 100lbs squat using a dumbbell (because that's all they had available). Again, I am saying they are different exercises and should be treated as such. No one is saying that you can do one exercise with one weight so that must translate you can do a different exercise with that same weight. I am saying that the specificity between the two are close and since you can utilize basically the same potential weight load, the body will adapt and grow very much the same between the two comparatively than between weight load of another variant where you could not have as much potential weight.
I am just of the opinion that it's not a black or white answer and there is room for flexibility if required.
I would argue that it would be as detrimental to squat progression as any machine exercise would be to the comparable free weight movement. A cursory search will yield an overwhelming number of negative articles about the smith machine.
You suggest that someone who worked up to 300# on a smith machine would be better suited to transition to barbell squats than someone who only trained up to 100# dumbbell squats. This indicates that you highly underestimate the importance of using proper form for this movement, in favor of moving more weight. I would counter that the lifter who stuck with dumbbells would ultimately be able to move more weight in less time once moving to the barbell, because their dumbbell training would have drilled the proper form into their muscle memory. Someone transitioning from the smith machine would basically need to relearn the movement from scratch.
Don't let the fact that the smith machine and barbell squat appear similar deceive you into thinking there is a decent amount of crossover between the two movements. They are quite dissimilar. What "specificity between the two" is there, exactly? And why can you "utilize basically the same potential weight load"?
Anecdote alert: the last time I walked into a gym that only had a smith machine, I opted not to train squats that day.
Your last statement kinda lends to my point. So in your mind, no training was better than some? I am saying that, with no other options available, there are options you might have to utilize if you want to train. Are they optimal? Not always, but gains will be made more than the person doing nothing (to the greatest degree) and less compared to someone doing some other sub-optimal variant. How can squatting free bar and in a Smith Machine squat NOT utilize a lot of the same musculature? You put a heavy weight laden bar on your back, squat down, and sit up in both exercises (again, I do not discount the difference between a 2 dimentional exercise and a 3 dimentional exercise). I do agree that transitioning from Smith Machine squat to free bar squat would necessitate less weight to learn the movement, but I strongly disagree that you would have to start over from scratch. You have built up muscle and a similar motor pattern squatting with the Smith, that transitioning would not be that far of a stretch as you are inferring. Building muscle and strength requires progressive overload. The muscle could care less how you did it, just that you did. So can you get stronger and build more muscle with 100lbs or with 300lbs? I am not advocating utilizing the Smith Machine forever by any means or even using it at all per say, that's the OP's choice, just like I would not expect someone to advocate doing goblet squats forever and try to do insane weights with it (or with the Smith). That's not what those exercises or machine were designed for due to bio-mechanics. It's just sometimes, you have to use what you have if you want to train and while the weight is probably fairly still light and she is new, it's not the end of the world if she chooses to utilize it.
To answer your question about weight load, you can load a bar with similar weight load. So for example, free bar back squatting 200lbs and loading 200lbs on a Smith Machine. So to equate to that same load, I would have to squat holding 2 x 100lbs dumbbells. Not impossible, just a little harder to do and my gym only goes up to 120lbs dumbbells. What do I do after that?
I ended up training upper body on the day I mentioned. Yes, no lower body training was better than training with a smith machine.
The movements are nothing alike. The fixed bar path of the smith machine causes you to lean back unnaturally, in a position which would inevitably cause you to dump the bar behind you if you attempted to do it with a barbell. If you squat then you should know this simply by glancing at the bar track of the machine. At best (with proper foot positioning), it would isolate the quads. You could achieve similar results with a sled, without corrupting squat form.
In the OP's particular case: for a novice, it is absolutely essential to spend as much time as possible developing and practicing proper form. The amount of weight moved is of little importance in comparison. In this regard, smith machine training would be highly detrimental.
"Squatting" in a smith machine may give you larger quads, and maybe even larger glutes. But it will not make you one iota better at supporting hundreds of pounds on your back, and it will certainly not help you move that weight back up once you get down in the hole.
I guess we will just agree to disagree as you are still not reading the conditions I have laid out in my statements above. It will be up to the OP to do something, nothing, or something in between. My argument is simply if you need to hammer a nail in to start building a house and you only have a screwdriver, you can either not hammer the nail in, use the back of the screwdriver, or find something else until you have a hammer at your disposal. But maybe by that time, you will have a few nails hammered in. I never said do the entire house using the back of a screwdriver.
Your "argument" consisted of *kitten* and conjecture. And now a useless analogy which neither contributes to the discussion nor validates your point. We are talking about moving large weights with the human body which can easily lead to injury if trained improperly.
To play along...learn how to use a hammer and work on getting the right tools before you start the job, rather than using the wrong tools and watching your house fall down after you finish.
No, I referenced a new trainee that would still be utilizing light weight for a time. From my previous statements that evidently, you did not read.
" I am not advocating utilizing the Smith Machine forever by any means or even using it at all per say, that's the OP's choice, just like I would not expect someone to advocate doing goblet squats forever and try to do insane weights with it (or with the Smith). That's not what those exercises or machine were designed for due to bio-mechanics. It's just sometimes, you have to use what you have if you want to train and while the weight is probably fairly still light and she is new, it's not the end of the world if she chooses to utilize it."
I do agree that you need to utilize the correct tool for the job. But sometimes you need to get a job started and using a limited substitution for a brief time is not earth shattering as you make it out to be if that correct tool is not available.
OP, do whatever you feel safe and comfortable doing in the meantime till you can perform squats with free barbell weight.
Oh I read everything you wrote. How else would I know that it's *kitten*?
0 -
Smith machine is good for close grip bench press. I wouldn't squat in it.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
I think I'd stay low weight with no squat rack.
If you decide to use the smith machine, just be aware that you'll have to learn a totally new lift when you have access to a squat rack, and I'd plan to start over from scratch (just the bar or not much heavier) so you don't injure a muscle that the using the smith machine didn't train.0 -
Thanks guys. For right now I think I will continue just doing free weights. Maybe on days when there are other people around I can ask them to spot me and go a bit heavier those days, otherwise just keep things light enough I don't feel unsafe.0
-
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
It's not about being "a 'purist'". The OP is doing a 5x5 program and asked about the smith machine in regards to barbell squats. Using the smith machine will be detrimental to barbell squat progression.
Props to the guy who worked up to 220x5 with no squat rack, lol.
How would it be detrimental to barbell squat progression? I would postulate that someone whose worked up to a 300lbs squat in a Smith Machine would be able to regular squat (when that exercise was ultimately available to them) more than someone who only could work up to a 100lbs squat using a dumbbell (because that's all they had available). Again, I am saying they are different exercises and should be treated as such. No one is saying that you can do one exercise with one weight so that must translate you can do a different exercise with that same weight. I am saying that the specificity between the two are close and since you can utilize basically the same potential weight load, the body will adapt and grow very much the same between the two comparatively than between weight load of another variant where you could not have as much potential weight.
I am just of the opinion that it's not a black or white answer and there is room for flexibility if required.
I would argue that it would be as detrimental to squat progression as any machine exercise would be to the comparable free weight movement. A cursory search will yield an overwhelming number of negative articles about the smith machine.
You suggest that someone who worked up to 300# on a smith machine would be better suited to transition to barbell squats than someone who only trained up to 100# dumbbell squats. This indicates that you highly underestimate the importance of using proper form for this movement, in favor of moving more weight. I would counter that the lifter who stuck with dumbbells would ultimately be able to move more weight in less time once moving to the barbell, because their dumbbell training would have drilled the proper form into their muscle memory. Someone transitioning from the smith machine would basically need to relearn the movement from scratch.
Don't let the fact that the smith machine and barbell squat appear similar deceive you into thinking there is a decent amount of crossover between the two movements. They are quite dissimilar. What "specificity between the two" is there, exactly? And why can you "utilize basically the same potential weight load"?
Anecdote alert: the last time I walked into a gym that only had a smith machine, I opted not to train squats that day.
Your last statement kinda lends to my point. So in your mind, no training was better than some? I am saying that, with no other options available, there are options you might have to utilize if you want to train. Are they optimal? Not always, but gains will be made more than the person doing nothing (to the greatest degree) and less compared to someone doing some other sub-optimal variant. How can squatting free bar and in a Smith Machine squat NOT utilize a lot of the same musculature? You put a heavy weight laden bar on your back, squat down, and sit up in both exercises (again, I do not discount the difference between a 2 dimentional exercise and a 3 dimentional exercise). I do agree that transitioning from Smith Machine squat to free bar squat would necessitate less weight to learn the movement, but I strongly disagree that you would have to start over from scratch. You have built up muscle and a similar motor pattern squatting with the Smith, that transitioning would not be that far of a stretch as you are inferring. Building muscle and strength requires progressive overload. The muscle could care less how you did it, just that you did. So can you get stronger and build more muscle with 100lbs or with 300lbs? I am not advocating utilizing the Smith Machine forever by any means or even using it at all per say, that's the OP's choice, just like I would not expect someone to advocate doing goblet squats forever and try to do insane weights with it (or with the Smith). That's not what those exercises or machine were designed for due to bio-mechanics. It's just sometimes, you have to use what you have if you want to train and while the weight is probably fairly still light and she is new, it's not the end of the world if she chooses to utilize it.
To answer your question about weight load, you can load a bar with similar weight load. So for example, free bar back squatting 200lbs and loading 200lbs on a Smith Machine. So to equate to that same load, I would have to squat holding 2 x 100lbs dumbbells. Not impossible, just a little harder to do and my gym only goes up to 120lbs dumbbells. What do I do after that?
I ended up training upper body on the day I mentioned. Yes, no lower body training was better than training with a smith machine.
The movements are nothing alike. The fixed bar path of the smith machine causes you to lean back unnaturally, in a position which would inevitably cause you to dump the bar behind you if you attempted to do it with a barbell. If you squat then you should know this simply by glancing at the bar track of the machine. At best (with proper foot positioning), it would isolate the quads. You could achieve similar results with a sled, without corrupting squat form.
In the OP's particular case: for a novice, it is absolutely essential to spend as much time as possible developing and practicing proper form. The amount of weight moved is of little importance in comparison. In this regard, smith machine training would be highly detrimental.
"Squatting" in a smith machine may give you larger quads, and maybe even larger glutes. But it will not make you one iota better at supporting hundreds of pounds on your back, and it will certainly not help you move that weight back up once you get down in the hole.
I guess we will just agree to disagree as you are still not reading the conditions I have laid out in my statements above. It will be up to the OP to do something, nothing, or something in between. My argument is simply if you need to hammer a nail in to start building a house and you only have a screwdriver, you can either not hammer the nail in, use the back of the screwdriver, or find something else until you have a hammer at your disposal. But maybe by that time, you will have a few nails hammered in. I never said do the entire house using the back of a screwdriver.
Your "argument" consisted of *kitten* and conjecture. And now a useless analogy which neither contributes to the discussion nor validates your point. We are talking about moving large weights with the human body which can easily lead to injury if trained improperly.
To play along...learn how to use a hammer and work on getting the right tools before you start the job, rather than using the wrong tools and watching your house fall down after you finish.
No, I referenced a new trainee that would still be utilizing light weight for a time. From my previous statements that evidently, you did not read.
" I am not advocating utilizing the Smith Machine forever by any means or even using it at all per say, that's the OP's choice, just like I would not expect someone to advocate doing goblet squats forever and try to do insane weights with it (or with the Smith). That's not what those exercises or machine were designed for due to bio-mechanics. It's just sometimes, you have to use what you have if you want to train and while the weight is probably fairly still light and she is new, it's not the end of the world if she chooses to utilize it."
I do agree that you need to utilize the correct tool for the job. But sometimes you need to get a job started and using a limited substitution for a brief time is not earth shattering as you make it out to be if that correct tool is not available.
OP, do whatever you feel safe and comfortable doing in the meantime till you can perform squats with free barbell weight.
Oh I read everything you wrote. How else would I know that it's *kitten*?
Then let me say it so that someone with your evolved intellect will understand...
A person squatting with free weights who never adds weight, legs will not grow.
A person squatting in a Smith Machine or leg press or whatever other machine you can think of, who is adding weight to the machine, legs will be growing.
You can of course disagree with this statement, then you evidently disagreeing with basic biology.
0 -
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
It's not about being "a 'purist'". The OP is doing a 5x5 program and asked about the smith machine in regards to barbell squats. Using the smith machine will be detrimental to barbell squat progression.
Props to the guy who worked up to 220x5 with no squat rack, lol.
How would it be detrimental to barbell squat progression? I would postulate that someone whose worked up to a 300lbs squat in a Smith Machine would be able to regular squat (when that exercise was ultimately available to them) more than someone who only could work up to a 100lbs squat using a dumbbell (because that's all they had available). Again, I am saying they are different exercises and should be treated as such. No one is saying that you can do one exercise with one weight so that must translate you can do a different exercise with that same weight. I am saying that the specificity between the two are close and since you can utilize basically the same potential weight load, the body will adapt and grow very much the same between the two comparatively than between weight load of another variant where you could not have as much potential weight.
I am just of the opinion that it's not a black or white answer and there is room for flexibility if required.
I would argue that it would be as detrimental to squat progression as any machine exercise would be to the comparable free weight movement. A cursory search will yield an overwhelming number of negative articles about the smith machine.
You suggest that someone who worked up to 300# on a smith machine would be better suited to transition to barbell squats than someone who only trained up to 100# dumbbell squats. This indicates that you highly underestimate the importance of using proper form for this movement, in favor of moving more weight. I would counter that the lifter who stuck with dumbbells would ultimately be able to move more weight in less time once moving to the barbell, because their dumbbell training would have drilled the proper form into their muscle memory. Someone transitioning from the smith machine would basically need to relearn the movement from scratch.
Don't let the fact that the smith machine and barbell squat appear similar deceive you into thinking there is a decent amount of crossover between the two movements. They are quite dissimilar. What "specificity between the two" is there, exactly? And why can you "utilize basically the same potential weight load"?
Anecdote alert: the last time I walked into a gym that only had a smith machine, I opted not to train squats that day.
Your last statement kinda lends to my point. So in your mind, no training was better than some? I am saying that, with no other options available, there are options you might have to utilize if you want to train. Are they optimal? Not always, but gains will be made more than the person doing nothing (to the greatest degree) and less compared to someone doing some other sub-optimal variant. How can squatting free bar and in a Smith Machine squat NOT utilize a lot of the same musculature? You put a heavy weight laden bar on your back, squat down, and sit up in both exercises (again, I do not discount the difference between a 2 dimentional exercise and a 3 dimentional exercise). I do agree that transitioning from Smith Machine squat to free bar squat would necessitate less weight to learn the movement, but I strongly disagree that you would have to start over from scratch. You have built up muscle and a similar motor pattern squatting with the Smith, that transitioning would not be that far of a stretch as you are inferring. Building muscle and strength requires progressive overload. The muscle could care less how you did it, just that you did. So can you get stronger and build more muscle with 100lbs or with 300lbs? I am not advocating utilizing the Smith Machine forever by any means or even using it at all per say, that's the OP's choice, just like I would not expect someone to advocate doing goblet squats forever and try to do insane weights with it (or with the Smith). That's not what those exercises or machine were designed for due to bio-mechanics. It's just sometimes, you have to use what you have if you want to train and while the weight is probably fairly still light and she is new, it's not the end of the world if she chooses to utilize it.
To answer your question about weight load, you can load a bar with similar weight load. So for example, free bar back squatting 200lbs and loading 200lbs on a Smith Machine. So to equate to that same load, I would have to squat holding 2 x 100lbs dumbbells. Not impossible, just a little harder to do and my gym only goes up to 120lbs dumbbells. What do I do after that?
I ended up training upper body on the day I mentioned. Yes, no lower body training was better than training with a smith machine.
The movements are nothing alike. The fixed bar path of the smith machine causes you to lean back unnaturally, in a position which would inevitably cause you to dump the bar behind you if you attempted to do it with a barbell. If you squat then you should know this simply by glancing at the bar track of the machine. At best (with proper foot positioning), it would isolate the quads. You could achieve similar results with a sled, without corrupting squat form.
In the OP's particular case: for a novice, it is absolutely essential to spend as much time as possible developing and practicing proper form. The amount of weight moved is of little importance in comparison. In this regard, smith machine training would be highly detrimental.
"Squatting" in a smith machine may give you larger quads, and maybe even larger glutes. But it will not make you one iota better at supporting hundreds of pounds on your back, and it will certainly not help you move that weight back up once you get down in the hole.
I guess we will just agree to disagree as you are still not reading the conditions I have laid out in my statements above. It will be up to the OP to do something, nothing, or something in between. My argument is simply if you need to hammer a nail in to start building a house and you only have a screwdriver, you can either not hammer the nail in, use the back of the screwdriver, or find something else until you have a hammer at your disposal. But maybe by that time, you will have a few nails hammered in. I never said do the entire house using the back of a screwdriver.
Your "argument" consisted of *kitten* and conjecture. And now a useless analogy which neither contributes to the discussion nor validates your point. We are talking about moving large weights with the human body which can easily lead to injury if trained improperly.
To play along...learn how to use a hammer and work on getting the right tools before you start the job, rather than using the wrong tools and watching your house fall down after you finish.
No, I referenced a new trainee that would still be utilizing light weight for a time. From my previous statements that evidently, you did not read.
" I am not advocating utilizing the Smith Machine forever by any means or even using it at all per say, that's the OP's choice, just like I would not expect someone to advocate doing goblet squats forever and try to do insane weights with it (or with the Smith). That's not what those exercises or machine were designed for due to bio-mechanics. It's just sometimes, you have to use what you have if you want to train and while the weight is probably fairly still light and she is new, it's not the end of the world if she chooses to utilize it."
I do agree that you need to utilize the correct tool for the job. But sometimes you need to get a job started and using a limited substitution for a brief time is not earth shattering as you make it out to be if that correct tool is not available.
OP, do whatever you feel safe and comfortable doing in the meantime till you can perform squats with free barbell weight.
Oh I read everything you wrote. How else would I know that it's *kitten*?
Then let me say it so that someone with your evolved intellect will understand...
A person squatting with free weights who never adds weight, legs will not grow.
A person squatting in a Smith Machine or leg press or whatever other machine you can think of, who is adding weight to the machine, legs will be growing.
You can of course disagree with this statement, then you evidently disagreeing with basic biology.
You're moving the goalposts. How unsurprising.
I already freely admitted that smith machine use would develop quads and possibly also glutes.
The point of contention is the amount of crossover between the two exercises, which "basic biology" would suggest is almost nonexistent.
As I said, don't let the fact that both movements involve the use of a horizontal bar and moving up and down trick you. I know it's tough.
You just can't give this up, despite all statements and evidence against your position. Do you have a personal stake in the sale and use of smith machines? My only personal stake is in dismissing dangerous, *kitten* advice on these forums.0 -
Then let me say it so that someone with your evolved intellect will understand...
A person squatting with free weights who never adds weight, legs will not grow.
A person squatting in a Smith Machine or leg press or whatever other machine you can think of, who is adding weight to the machine, legs will be growing.
You can of course disagree with this statement, then you evidently disagreeing with basic biology.
It's not even about subpar advancement in my book, it's about safety. Squatting large amounts of weight with an upright tracked posture causes all sorts of shearing and strain on the joints and lower back. It doesn't always cause significant problems, but it certainly can.
0 -
Then let me say it so that someone with your evolved intellect will understand...
A person squatting with free weights who never adds weight, legs will not grow.
A person squatting in a Smith Machine or leg press or whatever other machine you can think of, who is adding weight to the machine, legs will be growing.
You can of course disagree with this statement, then you evidently disagreeing with basic biology.
It's not even about subpar advancement in my book, it's about safety. Squatting large amounts of weight with an upright tracked posture causes all sorts of shearing and strain on the joints and lower back. It doesn't always cause significant problems, but it certainly can.
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.
0 -
I am not selling anything to anyone. I have even stated numerous times that this is not for moving large amounts of weight. The only premise I said about it's even possible use was due to no other possible option to keep something going while weight was light enough and the person was still new. Too many people taking things out of context of my statements.
" I am not advocating utilizing the Smith Machine forever by any means or even using it at all per say, that's the OP's choice, just like I would not expect someone to advocate doing goblet squats forever and try to do insane weights with it (or with the Smith). That's not what those exercises or machine were designed for due to bio-mechanics. It's just sometimes, you have to use what you have if you want to train and while the weight is probably fairly still light and she is new, it's not the end of the world if she chooses to utilize it."
And I don't know how I have "moved the goal posts". Everything I have stated about continuing to progress with weight by utilizing some methodology when there is no other, has never changed. Is it optimal, no. Does it promote muscle growth and increase strength? Yes. How can you argue that continued progressive overload will not?0 -
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.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions