Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press

Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But what are those "stabilizers"? Let's talk squat, like we started
> here. At squat most people fail forward, so "stabilizers" should be
> able to move the bar backwards. Well, you do it by hip extension.
> Looks like prime movers to me...

During squat-like exercises, there is a damaging force pointing toward
the front of the knee which is partly counterbalanced by hamstrings,
even when you're on the Smith machine (that thing is related to
Lombard's paradox). But the degree to which this force is minimized is
the highest for the free-weight squat. That is actually on Pubmed :-)

..An embarrassingly obvious possible explanation just occurred to me.
When you do a prone bench press (whether free weights or Smith
machine) you need to fully extend your arms directly against the force
of gravity. When you do a seated chest press, you need only extend
your arms horizontally. That might explain why the prone press seems
to put more demands on the triceps and delts.

Bob F

On Feb 4, 1:43 pm, Bob Feduniak <robertfedun...@msn.com> wrote:
> .An embarrassingly obvious possible explanation just occurred to me.
> When you do a prone bench press (whether free weights or Smith
> machine) you need to fully extend your arms directly against the force
> of gravity. When you do a seated chest press, you need only extend
> your arms horizontally. That might explain why the prone press seems
> to put more demands on the triceps and delts.
>
> Bob F

Uh, yeah, what I'd said.

Great minds think alike!

DZ wrote:

> Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> But what are those "stabilizers"? Let's talk squat, like we started
>> here. At squat most people fail forward, so "stabilizers" should be
>> able to move the bar backwards. Well, you do it by hip extension.
>> Looks like prime movers to me...
>
> During squat-like exercises, there is a damaging force pointing toward
> the front of the knee which is partly counterbalanced by hamstrings,
> even when you're on the Smith machine (that thing is related to
> Lombard's paradox). But the degree to which this force is minimized is
> the highest for the free-weight squat. That is actually on Pubmed :-)

It may be true, but for once this has little to do with stabilizing, for
seconds this possibly damaging force was shown to be quite low even
for leg extensions, where there is no Lombard's paradox at all.

--
Andrzej Rosa

On Feb 4, 10:56 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 1:43 pm, Bob Feduniak <robertfedun...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > .An embarrassingly obvious possible explanation just occurred to me.
> > When you do a prone bench press (whether free weights or Smith
> > machine) you need to fully extend your arms directly against the force
> > of gravity. When you do a seated chest press, you need only extend
> > your arms horizontally. That might explain why the prone press seems
> > to put more demands on the triceps and delts.
>
> > Bob F
>
> Uh, yeah, what I'd said.
>
> Great minds think alike!

Indeed, but I see now that your mind got there first. Your post got
me wondering why it should be inherently harder to push vertically
rather than horizontally when the weights (or stack) that you're
lifting move vertically the same amount in each case. Then it hit me
that you're also "bench pressing the weight of your arms" in one case
but not the other. Now I see that you were saying the same thing.
Time to go do some chest presses.

Bob F

On Feb 4, 5:27 pm, Bob Feduniak <robertfedun...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> Indeed, but I see now that your mind got there first. Your post got
> me wondering why it should be inherently harder to push vertically
> rather than horizontally when the weights (or stack) that you're
> lifting move vertically the same amount in each case.

If that puzzled you, try this for a "brain-teaser"...why can't you
flat bench press as much using dumbbells for weight as you can using a
barbell and plates?

> Then it hit me
> that you're also "bench pressing the weight of your arms" in one case
> but not the other.

Well, it's more Physics 101, though I can't quote you the exact
principle or formula -- but pushing something up will always be harder
than merely pushing something away (horizontally)...try pushing your
spotter away from you, for instance, and then skewer him shish-ka-bob
style over the barbell and see how far you get lifting him up....

> Now I see that you were saying the same thing.
> Time to go do some chest presses.
>
> Bob F

What I want to know is why I get more of a triceps and front delt
workout from bench presses...the decline bench press is about the only
one where I seem to work the pecs primarily -- like I'm supposed to!
I also have "problems" working the lats on pull-ups and pull-downs
more than I do my biceps, no matter the angle of my back!

Happy benching, BTW. It truly is the All-American Lift!

Bob Feduniak wrote:
> .An embarrassingly obvious possible explanation just occurred to me.
> When you do a prone bench press (whether free weights or Smith
> machine) you need to fully extend your arms directly against the force
> of gravity. When you do a seated chest press, you need only extend
> your arms horizontally. That might explain why the prone press seems
> to put more demands on the triceps and delts.
>
> Bob F

So gravity takes a holiday when using the machine's weight stack. Uh huh.

Prisoner at War wrote:
> On Feb 3, 12:48 pm, Bob Feduniak <robertfedun...@msn.com> wrote:
>> Thanks to all for your responses. Here's some added info in response
>> to questions in your responses:
>>
>> I use a Tuff Stuff Apollo5 machine for seated chest presses. So I'm
>> sitting straight up and pressing horizontally at a 90 degree angle to
>> my chest. It seems like this should involve exactly the same muscles
>> as a prone bench press or prone Smith press (apart from not involving
>> supporting muscles with the machines). But it "feels" as though there
>> is much more strain on my arms with the traditional bench press or the
>> prone Smith machine bench press. By "heavy weights" I mean weights
>> for which 1 - 4 reps is difficult. For me, that's in the 200 lb area
>> on the bench. I don't know if the numbers on the weight stacks of
>> machines mean anything, It's the whole stack on the Apollo5.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>>
>> Bob F
>
>
> It appears to be a simple matter of gravity and weight distribution.
> There are similar machines at my gym, and they all push out that way.
> I can do a whole heck of a lot more weight on them than I can do with
> a free-weight barbell bench press, up to ninety pounds more! And
> that's because pushing up, vertically, is inherently harder than
> pushing away horizontally, especially when that horizontal push is
> passively, indirectly helped by a support structure, such as you have
> with a machine (remember, *all* machines make life easier).
>

Gravity doesn't go on leave when you're using a weight stack. Your
muscles don't know the difference between seated and prone. They
contract moving the humerus in the same plane relative to the body. The
difference is that there's not a 1:1 ratio of weight stack setting to
weight actually used and, more importantly, you're not doing a real
bench press. You do not have to stabilise the weight at all and you can
apply force vectors at all sorts of off angles and the machine isn't
going to allow the hands to move off at tangents.

> I'm sure there's a Physics 101 principle and corresponding formula
> involved, too, but to my mind -- and I'm not even mechanically
> inclined -- it seems intuitively obvious why pushing weight against
> gravity should be harder than pushing with a passive support structure.

Gravity doesn't go on leave when you're using a weight stack.

Your intuition needs a tune up. Or maybe just a replacement.

Ari


--
spammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply
Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor and literally save someone's life:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

On Feb 4, 7:28 pm, spodosaurus <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
>
>
> So gravity takes a holiday when using the machine's weight stack. Uh huh.

Sigh...there is *less* of a downward gravitational effect pushing
something horizontally than pushing it vertically. Moreover, "it's
all you" in a free-weight barbell flat bench press, whereas it's
partly the machine (actually holding the weight for you) with one of
these seated chest presses.

In terms of absolute poundage, you'll always surpass your free-weight
barbell flat bench press 1RM on one of these machines...by far: though
I can do 405-lbs. using one of those machines, my real 1RM is only 335-
lbs.

Machines, by definition, make life easier.

Prisoner at War wrote:
> On Feb 4, 7:28 pm, spodosaurus <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
>>
>> So gravity takes a holiday when using the machine's weight stack. Uh huh.
>
> Sigh...there is *less* of a downward gravitational effect pushing
> something horizontally than pushing it vertically.

The weight stack is vertical.

> Moreover, "it's
> all you" in a free-weight barbell flat bench press, whereas it's
> partly the machine (actually holding the weight for you) with one of
> these seated chest presses.
>

See my other post.

> In terms of absolute poundage, you'll always surpass your free-weight
> barbell flat bench press 1RM on one of these machines...by far:

No shit, sherlock. I said this days ago in this thread:

"Spend six months working on a chest press machine. Get up to a maximum.
Then see if you can come anywhere near that on a barbell bench press."

> though
> I can do 405-lbs. using one of those machines, my real 1RM is only 335-
> lbs.
>
> Machines, by definition, make life easier.


--
spammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply
Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor and literally save someone's life:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

On Feb 3, 8:49 pm, spodosaurus <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
> Curt wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 7:04 am, spodosaurus <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> >> Anyway,
>
> > Anyway!
>
> > I say you give some idiot enough rope and they'll eventually hang
> > themselves. To wit:
>
> >> smith machine bench presses are for twats that
> >> want to pretend to train with weights.
>
> >http://youtube.com/watch?v=CrRqDj4323Y
>
> >> Ari
>
> > Riiiiight.
>
> >
>
> Perhaps you didn't pick up on the subtle smirk in my words there.

ASCII, BY GOD! ASCII!!! GIVE WITH THE TINY FACES, ARI!!!

> Regardless, that guy isn't benching.

Shaddap. That's benching.

> He couldn't even handle that on a barbell.

And that means what? What percentage drop would you expect from what
he's BENCHING on the Smith versus his free weight benching? You've
obviously never seen his DVD "Made in Germany."

> He's also juiced to the gills,

That's beside the point (since you're all keen on points) which I
thought was you crying about Smith benching not being (shades of
Robert Schuh) REAL benching.

> and so is his boyfriend with the gyno.

Whatever. They're married now, genius.

> How about addressing the bulk of my reply?

No problem: The bulk of your reply is shit.

How's that?

> Getting back to the point you're trying to avoid:
>
> "Got the money to fund the study? If not, you'll have to rely on theory
> and anecdotal reports,

So your answer to MY question is that there is no PubMed piece o'
text? Thanks.

But, yeah, I guess I WILL rely on anecdotal reports: MY OWN!

> just like the rest of us.

Us? Speak for yourself. Or not.

> The smith machine's use is for strengthening very short
> distances along a complete ROM, such as building
> strength with heavy weights for the few inches that
> comprise the sticking point in a lift."

Sez you. That's not what I use it for. Ymmv, of course.

--

On Feb 4, 3:10 am, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]

> I know that machines can be dangerous.
> Take motorcycles for example...

Nom?

--

On Feb 4, 12:46 am, "Burr" <pitzra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Andrzej Rosa"
>
> > We do heavy resistance exercises to train muscles,
> > not to train our balancing skills.
>
> >
> > Andrzej Rosa
>
> SO, are you saying you like Smith Machines or not???
>
> Burr

Yeah, Andrzej! I'm holding my pencil over my scoresheet. Give with
your vote, dammit. FOR OR AGAINST!

--

On Feb 4, 12:49 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]

> I never lost a friend to a gun.

But they're dropping like flies over by the Smith machine???

Wuzzat?

--

On Feb 4, 8:23 am, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Curt wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 5:52 pm, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Curt wrote:
> >>> On Feb 3, 8:24 am, "Burr" <pitzra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>> [...]
>
> >>>> I did do front squats on a Smith machine a few times just because it was
> >>>> setup and ready to go. I think it's OK for front squats.
>
> >>> Yeah, I just saw a guy doing front squats on the Smith at the gym
> >>> recently. Cool.
>
> >> Surely this is missing the point?
>
> > (rolls eyes)
>
> > BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT *COOL!!!*
>
> >> Front squats are a variant which pushes
> >> your stability more,
>
> > Seriously, is its purpose only to push your stability more? Don't
> > front squats also hit the muscle differently which would be a benefit
> > whether you're doing them with a free Oly bar and plates as well as
> > within the confines of the Smith machine?
>
> 'Hit the muscle differently'? Have you learned NOTHING here?

Anderson, I know EVERYTHING. There is NOTHING I have not learned.
NOTHING!

However... my memory is toast. So...

> You can hit different muscles, or distribute the load between the same muscles
> differently (and for this purpose, different heads of a muscle count as
> separate muscles, like the sternal and clavicular heads of the pectorals),

Uh, THAT's what I meant. Does it hit the muscle differently so far as,
um, does it hit the muscle differently like the sternal versus
clavicular heads of the pectorals?

SEE?

> but if a muscle is under a certain amount of stress, that's that.

Okay.

> >> so doing with a Smith machine, which is intrinsically
> >> stable, is throwing away that benefit.
>
> > WE'RE U.S. AMERICANS! (Even if some of us are living overseas.) WE
> > RESERVE THE VERY RIGHT TO THROW BENEFITS AWAY!!!! HOMELAND SECURITY,
> > TAKE MY FREEDOMS NOW!!!
>
> But don't blame the Canadians!

Again, Imma U.S. 'merican. I reserve the right to blame any and all
nationalities, cultures, ethnicities, genders, this, that, and the
other so long as I can avoid blame resting squarely on MY SHOULDERS!
So there!

> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ieT_lf9wK28
>
> > Don't make us waterboard you, Anderson.
>
> > Hey, doubly seriously, doesn't that sound more like an extreme sport
> > than anything???
>
> I know! I was like "Waterboarding? Somebody buy me an orange tuxedo, i'm
> a-going to Gitmo!".

Don't take my joke and make it better, Anderson. You're just digging a
deeper hole for yourself!

(i KEED!)

--

"Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Again, Imma U.S. 'merican. I reserve the right to blame any and all
> nationalities, cultures, ethnicities, genders, this, that, and the
> other so long as I can avoid blame resting squarely on MY SHOULDERS!
> So there!


Curt, would you please show respect for the name "America"???

Thank You,

Burr

On Feb 4, 12:23*pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It appears to be a simple matter of gravity and weight distribution.
> There are similar machines at my gym, and they all push out that way.
> I can do a whole heck of a lot more weight on them than I can do with
> a free-weight barbell bench press, up to ninety pounds more! *And
> that's because pushing up, vertically, is inherently harder than
> pushing away horizontally, especially when that horizontal push is
> passively, indirectly helped by a support structure, such as you have
> with a machine (remember, *all* machines make life easier).

No, that can't be it; because the same disparity is there even on
machines where the push is straight up and in every other way the same
as a bench press.

I thought early on that it might be psychological. But now I'm
beginning to realise that this may be nothing more than old wisdom:
the burdening brought on by the need for fine balance control plays a
significant part in the lifting. The machine may take that away if it
does not allow differential control for left and right. Even
differential control on a machine may not be enough to make up the
difference.

On Feb 4, 9:40 pm, "Burr" <pitzra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > Again, Imma U.S. 'merican. I reserve the right to blame any and all
> > nationalities, cultures, ethnicities, genders, this, that, and the
> > other so long as I can avoid blame resting squarely on MY SHOULDERS!
> > So there!
>
> Curt, would you please show respect for the name "America"???
>
> Thank You,
>
> Burr

What's your address in... the Philippines where I can send my apology
letter, Capt. America? Thanks.

Seriously, I'm coining a new term. I'll call it "ten-percent satire."
Or use an old term that's respectful of America, Burr, it's called
"freedom of speech."

WHAT SAY YE??!??!!!

--

"Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1d54d800-1a22-40dd-b3da-b2f9f194ada7@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 4, 9:40 pm, "Burr" <pitzra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > Again, Imma U.S. 'merican. I reserve the right to blame any and all
>> > nationalities, cultures, ethnicities, genders, this, that, and the
>> > other so long as I can avoid blame resting squarely on MY SHOULDERS!
>> > So there!
>>
>> Curt, would you please show respect for the name "America"???
>>
>> Thank You,
>>
>> Burr
>
> What's your address in... the Philippines where I can send my apology
> letter, Capt. America? Thanks.
>
> Seriously, I'm coining a new term. I'll call it "ten-percent satire."
> Or use an old term that's respectful of America, Burr, it's called
> "freedom of speech."
>
> WHAT SAY YE??!??!!!
>
> --

Well Curt if you choose to disrespect America or to call it by any other
name then you are disrespecting yourself and America.

You make your chooses then I'll make mind!

Burr

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Andrzej Rosa wrote:

> Tom Anderson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>>
>>> rev wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Most of this stability hype is pure nonsense. Look at it that way - it doesn't
>>>>> scale at all. If unstable movements are best (for whatever reason) then one
>>>>> should strive to do some circus stuff, when lifting toothpicks is a challenge
>>>>> only the best can attempt. On the other hand doing smith machine squats, like
>>>>> strongmen do in competition, would be totally pointless.
>>>>>
>>>>> We do heavy resistance exercises to train muscles, not to train our balancing
>>>>> skills.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't about balancing *skills* imo. It's about letting the
>>>> supporting/stabilizing tendons etc etc become stronger as well.
>>>
>>> And I called this hype.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Your point about it not scaling is nonsense. There's an optimum, where you
>> train the main muscles and their stabilisers in the right ratio to be able
>> to lift things safely. Train your main muscles more, and you risk injury,
>> or the inability to lift anything that's not a Smith machine bar, or an
>> olympic bar sitting on a rack;
>
> And there is a ton of good research or at least anecdotal evidence
> showing this happening?

I've had a look through pubmed, and can't find anything addressing this
question directly.

But i did find a paper saying you can lift more if there are people
watching:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12741867

Sadly, the authors seem not to have followed up with the obvious study on
whether it matters if the people watching are hot girls or not.

> Because if there isn't, we must call it a speculation.

Okay, we can agree that we're both talking out of our arses.

>> train the stabilisers more and you just won't have the power to move
>> things that you'd be able to stabilise.
>
> But what are those "stabilizers"? Let's talk squat, like we started
> here. At squat most people fail forward, so "stabilizers" should be
> able to move the bar backwards. Well, you do it by hip extension.
> Looks like prime movers to me...

I think if you lose balance forwards, you correct at your feet, by pushing
with the front of your feet. That makes calves the stabiliser here.

If you're losing balance forwards and you extend yor hip, you just push
your pelvis towards the ground faster.

>> If you were eating only steak, and i said you should eat some potatoes
>> as well, would you scoff, saying that it doesn't scale because you
>> can't survive on potatoes alone?
>
> Why, you can survive well enough on machines alone, and you can't do
> pretty much anything at the extreme spectrum of instability. Machines
> scale fine, bosu-balls do not.

Nobody's talking about bosu balls. That's a strawman.

Free weights, as i'm sure you're aware, scale fine.

>> As for competitions - what? I'm not aware of a significant form of
>> competition based on Smith machines.
>
> Strongmen have at least three competitions which are pretty much machine
> based gym lifts. Viking press, machine squat and machine deadlift.
> (Beside that you have machine-like Conan's wheel, Fingal fingers and car
> deadlift/wheelbarrow, and probably something I forgot.)

True, actually. I was thinking of the stone lift, the thing where they
have to lift barrels onto a wall, etc. I've never seen a viking press or
machine squat or dead in the contests i've seen on telly, but i'm probably
watching something where they focus on the more audience-pleasing lifts.

tom

--
Mathematics is the door and the key to the sciences. -- Roger Bacon

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, spodosaurus wrote:

> Bob Feduniak wrote:
>
>> .An embarrassingly obvious possible explanation just occurred to me.
>> When you do a prone bench press (whether free weights or Smith
>> machine) you need to fully extend your arms directly against the force
>> of gravity. When you do a seated chest press, you need only extend
>> your arms horizontally. That might explain why the prone press seems
>> to put more demands on the triceps and delts.
>
> So gravity takes a holiday when using the machine's weight stack. Uh huh.

*facepalm*

The point is that when you lift vertically, you're lifting the weight of
your arms, as well as that of the weight stack, which you're not when
you're lifting horizontally. Arms don't weigh a huge amount, but they're a
few kilos, which is enough of a difference to be felt.

I still think stability is a bigger limiting factor in barbell bench vs
machine chest presses.

Does anyone have access to lever machines for both seated chest press and
lying bench press? We had both at an old gym of mine, but not at my
current one. It would be interesting to get a comparison between those
two, plus a barbell bench.

tom

--
Mathematics is the door and the key to the sciences. -- Roger Bacon

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Burr wrote:

> "Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1d54d800-1a22-40dd-b3da-b2f9f194ada7@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 4, 9:40 pm, "Burr" <pitzra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Again, Imma U.S. 'merican. I reserve the right to blame any and all
>>>> nationalities, cultures, ethnicities, genders, this, that, and the
>>>> other so long as I can avoid blame resting squarely on MY SHOULDERS!
>>>> So there!
>>>
>>> Curt, would you please show respect for the name "America"???
>>
>> Seriously, I'm coining a new term. I'll call it "ten-percent satire."
>> Or use an old term that's respectful of America, Burr, it's called
>> "freedom of speech."
>>
>> WHAT SAY YE??!??!!!
>
> Well Curt if you choose to disrespect America or to call it by any other
> name then you are disrespecting yourself and America.

How can you respect or disrespect an inanimate object? Are you an animist
or something, Burr?

tom

--
Mathematics is the door and the key to the sciences. -- Roger Bacon

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Curt wrote:

> On Feb 4, 8:23 am, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Curt wrote:
>>> On Feb 3, 5:52 pm, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Curt wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 3, 8:24 am, "Burr" <pitzra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>
>>>>>> I did do front squats on a Smith machine a few times just because it was
>>>>>> setup and ready to go. I think it's OK for front squats.
>>
>>>>> Yeah, I just saw a guy doing front squats on the Smith at the gym
>>>>> recently. Cool.
>>
>>>> Surely this is missing the point?
>>
>>> (rolls eyes)
>>
>>> BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT *COOL!!!*
>>
>>>> Front squats are a variant which pushes
>>>> your stability more,
>>
>>> Seriously, is its purpose only to push your stability more? Don't
>>> front squats also hit the muscle differently which would be a benefit
>>> whether you're doing them with a free Oly bar and plates as well as
>>> within the confines of the Smith machine?
>>
>> 'Hit the muscle differently'? Have you learned NOTHING here?
>
> Anderson, I know EVERYTHING. There is NOTHING I have not learned.
> NOTHING!
>
> However... my memory is toast. So...
>
>> You can hit different muscles, or distribute the load between the same muscles
>> differently (and for this purpose, different heads of a muscle count as
>> separate muscles, like the sternal and clavicular heads of the pectorals),
>
> Uh, THAT's what I meant. Does it hit the muscle differently so far as,
> um, does it hit the muscle differently like the sternal versus
> clavicular heads of the pectorals?
>
> SEE?

Hmm.

Actually, i have no idea if it hits different parts of the muscles. So
maybe you're right. I can't see how it would, but you never know.

tom

--
Mathematics is the door and the key to the sciences. -- Roger Bacon

Tom Anderson wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>
>> Tom Anderson wrote:
[...]
>>>> And I called this hype.
[...]
>> Why, you can survive well enough on machines alone, and you can't do
>> pretty much anything at the extreme spectrum of instability. Machines
>> scale fine, bosu-balls do not.
>
> Nobody's talking about bosu balls. That's a strawman.
>
> Free weights, as i'm sure you're aware, scale fine.

It's not strawman and free weights also don't scale any better than
other inherently unstable ways of exercising (like Swiss ball benching
or bosu-balls). There are ways of making free weights even less stable
than they are, but nobody (successful) does it, so at best instability
has limited positive impact. At worst it simply gets people injured.

Various balancing acts were always the staple of circus strongmen
shows and nobody does them anymore. If they worked better than normal
gym lifts, we should see at least some amount of them among more
dedicated trainees. But we don't. IMO simply because positive
impact of instability is mostly hype.

>> Strongmen have at least three competitions which are pretty much machine
>> based gym lifts. Viking press, machine squat and machine deadlift.
>> (Beside that you have machine-like Conan's wheel, Fingal fingers and car
>> deadlift/wheelbarrow, and probably something I forgot.)
>
> True, actually. I was thinking of the stone lift, the thing where they
> have to lift barrels onto a wall, etc. I've never seen a viking press or
> machine squat or dead in the contests i've seen on telly, but i'm probably
> watching something where they focus on the more audience-pleasing lifts.

I used to lurk at some strongmen forums, and you could see that although
they liked the coolness and publicity of strongmen competitions, they
expected to get injured.

I'm not saying that people should avoid unstable exercises. I for example
do ring dips, one-armed presses and one-armed overhead squats recently, but
I simply don't think that my shoulders are safer with dips done on rings
than on parallel bars. They just aren't. And I can always lose overhead
lift in the wrong way and maybe injure someone or myself.

We may talk out of our arses, but we should still be able to use heads
for thinking. Claiming that unstable heavy object which you lift until
you can't works as injury prevention is quite crazy.

--
Andrzej Rosa

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:43:21 -0800, Bob Feduniak wrote:

> .An embarrassingly obvious possible explanation just occurred to me.
> When you do a prone bench press (whether free weights or Smith
> machine) you need to fully extend your arms directly against the force
> of gravity. When you do a seated chest press, you need only extend
> your arms horizontally. That might explain why the prone press seems
> to put more demands on the triceps and delts.
>
> Bob F


Have You ever tried a dual-axis seated chest-press machine?

On Feb 5, 2:59 pm, Shava_X <voodopeo...@rocketNOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:43:21 -0800, Bob Feduniak wrote:
> > .An embarrassingly obvious possible explanation just occurred to me.
> > When you do a prone bench press (whether free weights or Smith
> > machine) you need to fully extend your arms directly against the force
> > of gravity. When you do a seated chest press, you need only extend
> > your arms horizontally. That might explain why the prone press seems
> > to put more demands on the triceps and delts.
>
> > Bob F
>
> Have You ever tried a dual-axis seated chest-press machine?

No. I've not heard of them, but I'll look into it.

I think Tom Anderson hit the nail on the head in his post above when
he said"

<quote>
The point is that when you lift vertically, you're lifting the weight
of
your arms, as well as that of the weight stack, which you're not when
you're lifting horizontally. Arms don't weigh a huge amount, but
they're a
few kilos, which is enough of a difference to be felt.
<end quote>

Bob F

On Feb 5, 8:21 am, "Burr" <pitzra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1d54d800-1a22-40dd-b3da-b2f9f194ada7@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 9:40 pm, "Burr" <pitzra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> > Again, Imma U.S. 'merican. I reserve the right to blame any and all
> >> > nationalities, cultures, ethnicities, genders, this, that, and the
> >> > other so long as I can avoid blame resting squarely on MY SHOULDERS!
> >> > So there!
>
> >> Curt, would you please show respect for the name "America"???
>
> >> Thank You,
>
> >> Burr
>
> > What's your address in... the Philippines where I can send my apology
> > letter, Capt. America? Thanks.
>
> > Seriously, I'm coining a new term. I'll call it "ten-percent satire."
> > Or use an old term that's respectful of America, Burr, it's called
> > "freedom of speech."
>
> > WHAT SAY YE??!??!!!
>
> >
>
> Well Curt if you choose to disrespect America or to call it by any other
> name then you are disrespecting yourself and America.

Perhaps I didn't put a fine enough point on it.

Burr, how many years did you serve the United States as a member of
any of its military branches? Where do you currently reside? Are you
paying U.S. income tax at the present time? Are you voting absentee or
have you voted absentee recently or during your years overseas? Do you
think the U.S. with Bush at the helm has made a name for itself so far
as a positive impression worldwide? Is it unpatriotic to criticize
what you believe is wrong? Do you think it's impossible to be
respectful of your country while simultaneously being disappointed in
the direction or path it's currently on?

In other words, you're being simplistic at best.

> You make your chooses then I'll make mind!

English, please.


>
> Burr


--

On Feb 5, 9:19 am, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
[...]

> Okay, we can agree that we're both talking out of our arses.

A neat trick.

[...]

--

On Feb 5, 9:24 am, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
[...]

> How can you respect or disrespect an inanimate object? Are you an animist
> or something, Burr?

Those are those guys who work for Pixar, right?

--

"Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com>
>> >
>>
>> Well Curt if you choose to disrespect America or to call it by any other
>> name then you are disrespecting yourself and America.
>
> Perhaps I didn't put a fine enough point on it.
>
> Burr, how many years did you serve the United States as a member of
> any of its military branches? Where do you currently reside? Are you
> paying U.S. income tax at the present time? Are you voting absentee or
> have you voted absentee recently or during your years overseas? Do you
> think the U.S. with Bush at the helm has made a name for itself so far
> as a positive impression worldwide? Is it unpatriotic to criticize
> what you believe is wrong? Do you think it's impossible to be
> respectful of your country while simultaneously being disappointed in
> the direction or path it's currently on?
>
> In other words, you're being simplistic at best.
>
>> You make your chooses then I'll make mind!
>
> English, please.
>
>
>>
>> Burr
>
>
> --

In Service, 3 years, six months, three days, 5 hours and 15 minutes.
Reside in The Philippines @ this time.
Yes, I pay US taxes! Yes, I vote
I voted for Bush twice and I think he will be the worst president we have
ever had.
No, you can Criticize all you want just be sure you spell America right!!!
Yes, I respect the USA and no I don't like what they have done.

You can cuss the USA but just spell it right and respect the flag, a lot of
men died for "The Flag"
And if you lived over seas you would appreciate even more, with our faults
we are still the greatest country in the world.

Burr

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Burr wrote:

> "Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com>
>>
>>> Well Curt if you choose to disrespect America or to call it by any other
>>> name then you are disrespecting yourself and America.
>>
>> Perhaps I didn't put a fine enough point on it.
>>
>>> You make your chooses then I'll make mind!
>>
>> English, please.
>
> I voted for Bush twice and I think he will be the worst president we have
> ever had.

That kind of makes it sound like you deliberately voted to get the worst
president ever.

Plus, bad as Bush II might be, there have been worse:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worst_president

James Buchanan was pretty rubbish.

> No, you can Criticize all you want just be sure you spell America right!!!

I'm with Burr on this. Curt, if you don't spell America right, how can we
tell which country you're being unpatriotic about?

> Yes, I respect the USA and no I don't like what they have done.
>
> You can cuss the USA but just spell it right and respect the flag, a lot of
> men died for "The Flag"

No, nobody died for The Flag. They died to protect their countrymen. The
flag is just a symbol of something worth defending; don't mistake the
symbol for the people. The same goes for the country itself - America is
just a legal structure; it's the people who live in the area it covers who
variously do or do not deserve respect.

> And if you lived over seas you would appreciate even more, with our
> faults we are still the greatest country in the world.

ITYM second greatest. And 'north america', rather than 'the world'. HTH.

tom

--
You knows it!

On Feb 4, 8:12 pm, spodosaurus <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
>
>
> The weight stack is vertical.

Yeah, but your arms aren't pushing up, but forwards. Since gravity is
pulling something down, your pushing that something up would be to go
one hundred percent against gravity. Your pushing that something
forward, outwards, lessens the effect of gravity. It's somewhat
comparable to bicycling into a headwind as opposed to bicycling with
winds from your left or right.

> See my other post.

Which one?

> No shit, sherlock. I said this days ago in this thread:
>
> "Spend six months working on a chest press machine. Get up to a maximum.
> Then see if you can come anywhere near that on a barbell bench press."

Yes, but we're discussing *why*...it's for the same reason why pushing
a car along a level road is much easier than pushing it up an
incline...with a free-weight barbell flat bench press, it's basically
a slope of "undefined"....