Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press

On Feb 6, 4:40 pm, Bob Feduniak <robertfedun...@msn.com> wrote:
> I'd never posted in (or even read) this newsgroup before, and thought
> I might not get any responses to my post. That certainly turned out
> to be one of my most off-base concerns so far this year.

LOL!! You shoulda been here back in the "good ol' days" when some
self-appointed moderators would have told you, in all-caps, to "google
it!" and "die moron diiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeee!!!!"

> I tried a two-part experiment yesterday. First, I sat on the bench
> and did 75 seated chest presses with zero pounds--just going through
> the motion with my arms. s
> Second, after resting 20 minutes or so, I did the same thing lying on
> the bench and doing 75 regular bench presses with zero pounds--just my
> arms. I felt a big difference. Since there were no weights, stacks,
> pulleys, etc. involved, I think this supports Tom's "weight of the
> arms" theory.

Whhaaat????

That difference you're feeling is due to gravity, not the weight of
your arms! Since the weight was the same, they "cancel out" in any
consideration -- which means they're not factors! What *is* different
-- which is what you're looking for, right: anytime you're looking for
an explanation, you're looking at what's *different* between two
similar cases -- is the *direction* of the push.

So why would a different direction matter?

Going vertically, you're going 100% against gravity.

Going horizontally, you're going maybe only 70% against gravity.

Again, just ask yourself: why is it harder to throw a shot put
straight up than straight across?

> It also seems to support the theory that I have too
> much time on my hands.

And they weigh nothing at all! Is that why time flies so fast??

> Bob F

On Feb 6, 7:42 pm, "Burr" <pitzra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com>
>
> > I did five years in the U.S. military and our ship got shot at at
> > least one time.
>
> > Okay, it was a mistake by a fellow NATO ship during a wave-the-flag
> > cruise, but still.
>
> IF--king Squid, if you did five years you must have been a "Officer"????
>
> Burr

heh

I was a JO, but not a junior officer - a journalist. Plenty of
collateral duties, though. Anyway, I'll spell America anyway you say,
Mr. Nam. I was in during the Reagan years. Pretty quiet sailing then.

--

Burr wrote:

>
> "Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com>
>>> >
>>>
>>> In Service, 3 years, six months, three days, 5 hours and 15 minutes.
>>
>> Did you get shot at? At least one time?
>>
> I did Nam, just below the DMZ, "Pho Bai, Hue and Quang Tri.
>
> In the service and then back as a Civilian!
>
> Did my time in the trenches.

Tell Omelet, that his Ratbane* sucks. He doesn't believe me. ;-0

*) some AR-15 based Bushmaster Varminter.
--
Andrzej Rosa

"Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d7443494-e2a5-4d30-aa79-d5850fe006c2@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 6, 7:42 pm, "Burr" <pitzra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com>
>>
>> > I did five years in the U.S. military and our ship got shot at at
>> > least one time.
>>
>> > Okay, it was a mistake by a fellow NATO ship during a wave-the-flag
>> > cruise, but still.
>>
>> IF--king Squid, if you did five years you must have been a "Officer"????
>>
>> Burr
>
> heh
>
> I was a JO, but not a junior officer - a journalist. Plenty of
> collateral duties, though. Anyway, I'll spell America anyway you say,
> Mr. Nam. I was in during the Reagan years. Pretty quiet sailing then.
>
> --

Thank You, thank you very much.

You still write?

Burr

On Feb 6, 4:57 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 4:40 pm, Bob Feduniak <robertfedun...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd never posted in (or even read) this newsgroup before, and thought
> > I might not get any responses to my post. That certainly turned out
> > to be one of my most off-base concerns so far this year.
>
> LOL!! You shoulda been here back in the "good ol' days" when some
> self-appointed moderators would have told you, in all-caps, to "google
> it!" and "die moron diiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeee!!!!"
>
> > I tried a two-part experiment yesterday. First, I sat on the bench
> > and did 75 seated chest presses with zero pounds--just going through
> > the motion with my arms. s
> > Second, after resting 20 minutes or so, I did the same thing lying on
> > the bench and doing 75 regular bench presses with zero pounds--just my
> > arms. I felt a big difference. Since there were no weights, stacks,
> > pulleys, etc. involved, I think this supports Tom's "weight of the
> > arms" theory.
>
> Whhaaat????
>
> That difference you're feeling is due to gravity, not the weight of
> your arms! Since the weight was the same, they "cancel out" in any
> consideration -- which means they're not factors! What *is* different
> -- which is what you're looking for, right: anytime you're looking for
> an explanation, you're looking at what's *different* between two
> similar cases -- is the *direction* of the push.
>
> So why would a different direction matter?
>
> Going vertically, you're going 100% against gravity.
>
> Going horizontally, you're going maybe only 70% against gravity.
>
> Again, just ask yourself: why is it harder to throw a shot put
> straight up than straight across?
>
> > It also seems to support the theory that I have too
> > much time on my hands.
>
> And they weigh nothing at all! Is that why time flies so fast??
>
> > Bob F

I think we're saying the same thing in different ways.

Bob F

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Curt wrote:

> On Feb 6, 7:03 am, "Burr" <pitzra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> In Service, 3 years, six months, three days, 5 hours and 15 minutes.
>
> Did you get shot at? At least one time?
>
> I did five years in the U.S. military and our ship got shot at at
> least one time.
>
> Okay, it was a mistake by a fellow NATO ship during a wave-the-flag
> cruise, but still.

Go on, name names. Which country? And with what? I'm assuming nobody
flicked a 4.5" shell at you. Was it the Italians, with that pansy little
76 mm gun of theirs?

tom

--
Science of a sufficiently advanced form is indistinguishable from magic

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Prisoner at War wrote:

> Your arms really isn't the point, see. Yes, in a sense, we do agree,
> but it's really got nothing to do with the weight of one's arms. That's
> just "total weight" to be pushed, regardless of the direction of the
> push. What makes the two directions of pushing feel so different (i.e.,
> one harder to perform than the other) is that one is going 100% against
> gravity while laying down and pushing up, while maybe only 70% against
> gravity while seated upright and pushing out, forward.

I'm getting the impression that you don't know how a chest press machine
works. You push forward, horizontally, on some levers. The levers are
connected by a spooky mechanism to a stack of weights - and they move
*vertically* (told you the mechanism was spooky!). So when you're doing a
machine chest press, you're lifting the weights 100% against gravity. So
the direction of push doesn't affect the way the weights relate to gravity
- but it does affect the way the weight of your arms relates to gravity,
since those aren't on the other end of the mechanism.

Oh, and for itto be 70% against gravity, you'd have to be pushing at 45
degrees.

tom

> On Feb 6, 1:42 pm, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>> No, because you're pushing them horizontally, not vertically, and so not
>> against the force of gravity. You're not lifting them. That's the point.
>>
>> Huh? What do you mean by "pushing horizontally [...] with a machine
>> supporting the weight"? And why is that harder than pushing against the
>> same load vertically?
>>
>> Yes. Okay, we agree. This 'force of gravity' or 'gravitational effect' is
>> applied to the arms, right? We're not talking about the pull of gravity on
>> the weight stack or any part of the machine?

--
Science of a sufficiently advanced form is indistinguishable from magic

On Feb 7, 7:29 am, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>
> I'm getting the impression that you don't know how a chest press machine
> works. You push forward, horizontally, on some levers. The levers are
> connected by a spooky mechanism to a stack of weights - and they move
> *vertically* (told you the mechanism was spooky!). So when you're doing a
> machine chest press, you're lifting the weights 100% against gravity. So
> the direction of push doesn't affect the way the weights relate to gravity
> - but it does affect the way the weight of your arms relates to gravity,
> since those aren't on the other end of the mechanism.

Can you show me a picture of what you mean, then? I'm pretty sure we
have the same things in mind...there are a few different seated chest
press machines in my gym, and thought their structural design is
different, they all seem to work the same way.

Look, all I'm saying is is: you jump farther when jumping horizontally
than vertically (basically my shot put example). Weight of the legs
(or arms, what you'd noted) doesn't matter 'cause it's factored in in
both situations.

> Oh, and for itto be 70% against gravity, you'd have to be pushing at 45
> degrees.

Whatever the exact percentage is; my point was that it's much less,
which is why it's easier. Again, jumping straight up isn't going to
take you further than jumping straight across. Why not? You're
working against much more gravity in one case than the other...same
thing with the seated chest press.

> tom

On Feb 6, 10:51 pm, Bob Feduniak <robertfedun...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> I think we're saying the same thing in different ways.
>
> Bob F

We certainly do seem to be going in circles! Which is to say, we're
hovering over the same thing, yes...but I think I'm much closer to
it. ;-)

You guys are talking "weight of the arms"...I'm saying no way is that
an issue. Just think about throwing something straight up as to
straight across the field...or jumping straight up compared to jumping
straight across the room...the weight of your arms or legs is
irrelevant, as they are the same in both situations....

Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Prisoner at War wrote:
>
>> Your arms really isn't the point, see. Yes, in a sense, we do agree,
>> but it's really got nothing to do with the weight of one's arms.
>> That's just "total weight" to be pushed, regardless of the direction
>> of the push. What makes the two directions of pushing feel so
>> different (i.e., one harder to perform than the other) is that one is
>> going 100% against gravity while laying down and pushing up, while
>> maybe only 70% against gravity while seated upright and pushing out,
>> forward.
>
> I'm getting the impression that you don't know how a chest press machine
> works. You push forward, horizontally, on some levers. The levers are
> connected by a spooky mechanism to a stack of weights - and they move
> *vertically* (told you the mechanism was spooky!). So when you're doing
> a machine chest press, you're lifting the weights 100% against gravity.
> So the direction of push doesn't affect the way the weights relate to
> gravity - but it does affect the way the weight of your arms relates to
> gravity, since those aren't on the other end of the mechanism.
>

While I am no engineer, I am puzzled why nobody has brought up the
*spooky* mechanism in the chest press machine before . The use of and
number of pulleys used in the spooky mechanism could well create a
mechanical advantage and hence reduce the force needed to move the
weight for any given distance.

Some light discussion of mechanical advantage cab be found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_advantage




> Oh, and for itto be 70% against gravity, you'd have to be pushing at 45
> degrees.
>
> tom
>
>> On Feb 6, 1:42 pm, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>
>>> No, because you're pushing them horizontally, not vertically, and so not
>>> against the force of gravity. You're not lifting them. That's the point.
>>>
>>> Huh? What do you mean by "pushing horizontally [...] with a machine
>>> supporting the weight"? And why is that harder than pushing against the
>>> same load vertically?
>>>
>>> Yes. Okay, we agree. This 'force of gravity' or 'gravitational
>>> effect' is
>>> applied to the arms, right? We're not talking about the pull of
>>> gravity on
>>> the weight stack or any part of the machine?
>


--
Bob Volkmer
rev@IRC

I did allude to it several times, actually, when I said things like
"support structure" and "machines make things easier."



On Feb 7, 4:48 pm, rev <m...@volkmer.biz> wrote:
>
>
> While I am no engineer, I am puzzled why nobody has brought up the
> *spooky* mechanism in the chest press machine before . The use of and
> number of pulleys used in the spooky mechanism could well create a
> mechanical advantage and hence reduce the force needed to move the
> weight for any given distance.
>
> Some light discussion of mechanical advantage cab be found herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_advantage
>
>
>
> > Oh, and for itto be 70% against gravity, you'd have to be pushing at 45
> > degrees.
>
> > tom
>
> >> On Feb 6, 1:42 pm, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
> >>> No, because you're pushing them horizontally, not vertically, and so not
> >>> against the force of gravity. You're not lifting them. That's the point.
>
> >>> Huh? What do you mean by "pushing horizontally [...] with a machine
> >>> supporting the weight"? And why is that harder than pushing against the
> >>> same load vertically?
>
> >>> Yes. Okay, we agree. This 'force of gravity' or 'gravitational
> >>> effect' is
> >>> applied to the arms, right? We're not talking about the pull of
> >>> gravity on
> >>> the weight stack or any part of the machine?
>
> --
> Bob Volkmer
> rev@IRC

On Feb 6, 10:22 pm, "Burr" <pitzra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d7443494-e2a5-4d30-aa79-d5850fe006c2@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 6, 7:42 pm, "Burr" <pitzra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com>
>
> >> > I did five years in the U.S. military and our ship got shot at at
> >> > least one time.
>
> >> > Okay, it was a mistake by a fellow NATO ship during a wave-the-flag
> >> > cruise, but still.
>
> >> IF--king Squid, if you did five years you must have been a "Officer"????
>
> >> Burr
>
> > heh
>
> > I was a JO, but not a junior officer - a journalist. Plenty of
> > collateral duties, though. Anyway, I'll spell America anyway you say,
> > Mr. Nam. I was in during the Reagan years. Pretty quiet sailing then.
>
> >
>
> Thank You, thank you very much.
>
> You still write?
>
> Burr

Only here and lesson plans. That's plenty!

--

On Feb 7, 7:24 am, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
[...]

> Go on, name names. Which country?

Kazakhstan, of course.

> And with what?

Poor accuracy, fortunately.

--

"Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com>
>>
>> Thank You, thank you very much.
>>
>> You still write?
>>
>> Burr
>
> Only here and lesson plans. That's plenty!
>
> --
>
>
You a teacher?

ABS everybody wants them. Then why don't people do something about
it? i made a blog that i really hope will help and motivate you to
achieve this goal www.superrippedabs.blogspot.com The key to getting
abs is through Patience and Persistence. If you put your mind to it
you can achieve anything (i know its cliche, but it's very true!)

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, rev wrote:

> Tom Anderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Prisoner at War wrote:
>>
>>> Your arms really isn't the point, see. Yes, in a sense, we do agree, but
>>> it's really got nothing to do with the weight of one's arms. That's just
>>> "total weight" to be pushed, regardless of the direction of the push.
>>> What makes the two directions of pushing feel so different (i.e., one
>>> harder to perform than the other) is that one is going 100% against
>>> gravity while laying down and pushing up, while maybe only 70% against
>>> gravity while seated upright and pushing out, forward.
>>
>> I'm getting the impression that you don't know how a chest press machine
>> works. You push forward, horizontally, on some levers. The levers are
>> connected by a spooky mechanism to a stack of weights - and they move
>> *vertically* (told you the mechanism was spooky!). So when you're doing a
>> machine chest press, you're lifting the weights 100% against gravity. So
>> the direction of push doesn't affect the way the weights relate to gravity
>> - but it does affect the way the weight of your arms relates to gravity,
>> since those aren't on the other end of the mechanism.
>
> While I am no engineer, I am puzzled why nobody has brought up the
> *spooky* mechanism in the chest press machine before . The use of and
> number of pulleys used in the spooky mechanism could well create a
> mechanical advantage and hence reduce the force needed to move the
> weight for any given distance.

This point gets made here occasionally, but i think it's misplaced. It
would be absolute madness to build a machine where to lift the 100 lb
weight, you didn't have to exert 100 lb of force. If there is mechanical
advantage, wouldn't the designer adjust the weights (or the labelling on
them) to compensate for it?

We need to go and take measurements of distances moved at the handles and
weight stack on our chest press machines, and then weigh the weights, to
see if this is happening or not.

tom

--
Next issue - Nigel and the slavegirls ... or, why capitalism can never
work!

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Prisoner at War wrote:

> On Feb 7, 7:29 am, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>> I'm getting the impression that you don't know how a chest press
>> machine works. You push forward, horizontally, on some levers. The
>> levers are connected by a spooky mechanism to a stack of weights - and
>> they move *vertically* (told you the mechanism was spooky!). So when
>> you're doing a machine chest press, you're lifting the weights 100%
>> against gravity. So the direction of push doesn't affect the way the
>> weights relate to gravity - but it does affect the way the weight of
>> your arms relates to gravity, since those aren't on the other end of
>> the mechanism.
>
> Can you show me a picture of what you mean, then? I'm pretty sure we
> have the same things in mind...there are a few different seated chest
> press machines in my gym, and thought their structural design is
> different, they all seem to work the same way.

Here is a lissom young lady doing a chest press (although they call it a
machine bench press):

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/exer...ne+Bench+Press

As you can see (especially with the videos or the zoomed-in pics), she
moves the handles roughly horizontally, but causes a weight stack to move
vertically.

She seems to be a bit of a chest exercise specialist:

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/exer...ch+Cable+Flyes
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/exer...ine+Cable+Flye
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/exer...able+Crossover

And hey, it's working for her o_O.

This, incidentally, is not a chest press:

http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/fit...est_press.html

That's not anything. I see people doing that sometimes, and i want to slap
them in the head for wasting their time and my oxygen.

> Look, all I'm saying is is: you jump farther when jumping horizontally
> than vertically (basically my shot put example). Weight of the legs (or
> arms, what you'd noted) doesn't matter 'cause it's factored in in both
> situations.

That analogy is no good, because when you do a horizontal chest press,
you're still lifting the weight vertically. It's like doing a long jump
with a rope tied to you that goes to a pulley and a weight stack. Or
something.

>> Oh, and for itto be 70% against gravity, you'd have to be pushing at 45
>> degrees.
>
> Whatever the exact percentage is; my point was that it's much less,
> which is why it's easier. Again, jumping straight up isn't going to
> take you further than jumping straight across. Why not? You're
> working against much more gravity in one case than the other...same
> thing with the seated chest press.

No, not the same at all.

tom

--
Next issue - Nigel and the slavegirls ... or, why capitalism can never
work!

On Feb 8, 11:57 am, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>
> Here is a lissom young lady doing a chest press (although they call it a
> machine bench press):
>
> http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/exer...ne+Bench+Press

Okay, my gym has Cybex ones just like that. They also have the less
common ones where barbell weight plates are stacked on top, like the
Avenger here: http://www.gracefitness.com/Avenger2.htm.

> As you can see (especially with the videos or the zoomed-in pics), she
> moves the handles roughly horizontally, but causes a weight stack to move
> vertically.

Yeah, but that's due to pulleys and whatnot, which, I now see, has
misled your thinking on this issue!

It doesn't matter where the weights are, or how they move -- what
matters, where *our* muscles are concerned, is how *they* are being
worked...and they are being worked the same, whether you use the
Avenger machine and the way that machine "stores" its weight or the
Cybex one and the different way that different machine "stores" its
weights...it's the *muscles* being worked that are under
investigation, and they are being worked the same way, biomechnically,
regardless of the pulley actions involved in the Cybex and the absence
of pulleys in the Avenger....

>
> She seems to be a bit of a chest exercise specialist:
>
> http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/exer...able+Crossover
>
> And hey, it's working for her o_O.

LOL, are you the guy that's been chasing all the girls out of the
weight room!!

You know, I don't see why a girl improving her pec muscles won't help
give her bust a slight lift as well...I know breasts are pure fat
(what a cute way of storing fat!), but they do lie on top of muscles,
and if those muscles were big, surely that would affect breast
appearance somehow! I know that's all supposed to be a myth, but I'm
not sure why, exactly....

> This, incidentally, is not a chest press:
>
> http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/fit...est_press.html
>
> That's not anything. I see people doing that sometimes, and i want to slap
> them in the head for wasting their time and my oxygen.

Maybe they're in physical rehab or something. Yeah, it's one of the
sillier exercises around, but I used to do them back in high school
with my first dumbbell set! IIRC, it's also featured in the late-'80s
edition of Arnold's "Encyclopedia of Bodybuilding," the one with him
smiling in a red tank top. Basically, it works your delts.

> That analogy is no good, because when you do a horizontal chest press,
> you're still lifting the weight vertically.

No, the weight is moving vertically in that Cybex machine you linked,
but your muscles are moving in the same way they do on flat bench
press. Remember, it's the actions of your *muscles* that's under
inquiry here! Someone could construct a seated machine chest press
such that the weight stack moves horizontally, after all...it would
look ridiculous, but it's possible -- so it's how the muscles move
that's important to our discussion, not how the weights are moved by
the machine or where they are "stored" (most to the side, some to the
back, a few "on top" as with the Avenger model).

> It's like doing a long jump
> with a rope tied to you that goes to a pulley and a weight stack. Or
> something.

Nah, man, you've got your eye on the wrong thing! Oh, you'd be a real
sucker for them disappearing coin tricks...!

> No, not the same at all.
>
> tom
>
> --
> Next issue - Nigel and the slavegirls ... or, why capitalism can never
> work!

It works the way slavery worked -- until technological advances render
it unnecessary.

It's ironic that capitalism talks about making life better for
everyone, but is predicated on most living more miserably than others
(how else to get your cheap labor and materials)...an interesting
perversion of the rising-tide-lifts-all-boats idea....

I think capitalism will have disappeared within five hundred years'
time. Though slavegirls are pretty cool.

On Feb 8, 11:49 am, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, rev wrote:
> > Tom Anderson wrote:
> >> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Prisoner at War wrote:
>
> >>> Your arms really isn't the point, see. Yes, in a sense, we do agree, but
> >>> it's really got nothing to do with the weight of one's arms. That's just
> >>> "total weight" to be pushed, regardless of the direction of the push.
> >>> What makes the two directions of pushing feel so different (i.e., one
> >>> harder to perform than the other) is that one is going 100% against
> >>> gravity while laying down and pushing up, while maybe only 70% against
> >>> gravity while seated upright and pushing out, forward.
>
> >> I'm getting the impression that you don't know how a chest press machine
> >> works. You push forward, horizontally, on some levers. The levers are
> >> connected by a spooky mechanism to a stack of weights - and they move
> >> *vertically* (told you the mechanism was spooky!). So when you're doing a
> >> machine chest press, you're lifting the weights 100% against gravity. So
> >> the direction of push doesn't affect the way the weights relate to gravity
> >> - but it does affect the way the weight of your arms relates to gravity,
> >> since those aren't on the other end of the mechanism.
>
> > While I am no engineer, I am puzzled why nobody has brought up the
> > *spooky* mechanism in the chest press machine before . The use of and
> > number of pulleys used in the spooky mechanism could well create a
> > mechanical advantage and hence reduce the force needed to move the
> > weight for any given distance.
>
> This point gets made here occasionally, but i think it's misplaced. It
> would be absolute madness to build a machine where to lift the 100 lb
> weight, you didn't have to exert 100 lb of force. If there is mechanical
> advantage, wouldn't the designer adjust the weights (or the labelling on
> them) to compensate for it?

The mechanical advantage is *inherent* and *inescapable*...this is why
free-weight exercises are always harder than the machine versions!
Again, machines make life easier...this is why I always say to people
that my commuting by bicycle hasn't anything to do with health at all
(if anything, I'm getting lung cancer from the rest of you)....

> We need to go and take measurements of distances moved at the handles and
> weight stack on our chest press machines, and then weigh the weights, to
> see if this is happening or not.

Hehe...you know, I wonder why the nerds at sci.physics haven't said
anything. ;-) They're probably laughing their asses off at meatheads
trying to figure out the first two pages of a high school physics
textbook! I know this 'cause I'm a nerd trapped in a jock's body....

> tom
>
> --
> Next issue - Nigel and the slavegirls ... or, why capitalism can never
> work!

On Feb 5, 1:06 am, Rock Brentwood <markw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

Yes, the same disparity is there, but in the case of a machine where
the chest press is done laying down, as in a flat bench press, the
disparity is much reduced, and entirely attributable to the "support
structures" of the machine stabilizing the weight. In the case of a
seated chest press machine, the disparity is only slightly due to that
weight-stabilizing support structure and more because of how the
muscles have to work against gravity.

Just think: jumping straight up into the air is harder than jumping
straight across the room (or throwing a shot put straight up as
opposed to straight across).

> 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.

It's significant enough such that people will always lift much more
poundage with a machine than on the original unassisted version of the
exercise, yes.

> The machine may take that away if it
> does not allow differential control for left and right.

No, even allowing for left/right differential control (what Shava X
had referred to as double-axial, I believe), the machine still
*necessarily* supports the weight and thereby stabilizes it for the
user. That's just inescapable. Machines make life easier.

> Even
> differential control on a machine may not be enough to make up the
> difference.

I suppose someone could design a machine to replicate the user-induced
stabilization of weight attendant to free-weight exercises, sure, but
then why not just do the free-weight version.

As a mechanical engineering problem, however, I do wonder if full
replication could be achieved...full range of movement, an infinite
variation of angles and vertices...it would be a useless thing, of
course -- why not just do the free-weight version -- but it would be
an interesting achievement to totally model all possible movement....

On Feb 8, 12:54 am, "Burr" <pitzra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[...]

> You a teacher?

http://curtjames.com/

--

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, Prisoner at War wrote:

> On Feb 8, 11:57 am, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>> Here is a lissom young lady doing a chest press (although they call it a
>> machine bench press):
>>
>> http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/exer...ne+Bench+Press
>
> Okay, my gym has Cybex ones just like that. They also have the less
> common ones where barbell weight plates are stacked on top, like the
> Avenger here: http://www.gracefitness.com/Avenger2.htm.
>
>> As you can see (especially with the videos or the zoomed-in pics), she
>> moves the handles roughly horizontally, but causes a weight stack to move
>> vertically.
>
> Yeah, but that's due to pulleys and whatnot, which, I now see, has
> misled your thinking on this issue!
>
> It doesn't matter where the weights are, or how they move -- what
> matters, where *our* muscles are concerned, is how *they* are being
> worked...

Yes. That's what i've been trying to explain. The way your muscles are
being worked is the same for both those machines, and a lying chest press
machine, and a Smith bench.

If there's a difference between the seated chest press and the Smith bench
press, therefore, it's got nothing to do with the way your muscles are
worked. The only difference between the two is that in the seated chest
press, you aren't lifting your arms, whereas in the lying Smith press, you
are.

tom

--
Plus, you gotta understand I can now type far, far faster than I can
think. This is not boasting - its admitting a personal tragedy. -- D

On Feb 9, 1:46 pm, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>
> Yes. That's what i've been trying to explain. The way your muscles are
> being worked is the same for both those machines, and a lying chest press
> machine, and a Smith bench.

The muscles being worked are the same -- glad we agree there, but then
why did you ask about whether we were talking about the same seated
chest press machines -- but the intensity of their effort isn't the
same (between laying down and pushing up and seated and pushing
forward) because of gravity vis-a-vis the angle of push!

> If there's a difference between the seated chest press and the Smith bench
> press, therefore, it's got nothing to do with the way your muscles are
> worked.

Or, to put it more succinctly, it's got to do with the physical fact
that pushing up is harder than pushing forward! You can push an out-
of-gas car forward, but damned if you'd be able to press it up...same
thing with throwing a shot put straight up versus straight across,
same principle involved in jumping vertically compared to
horizontally....

> The only difference between the two is that in the seated chest
> press, you aren't lifting your arms, whereas in the lying Smith press, you
> are.

I don't know why you remain so fixated on the arms...if you were
pushing with your tongue, lover-boy, it would still be much harder
pushing up than forward due to gravity and the angle of pushing
involved....

> tom
>
> --
> Plus, you gotta understand I can now type far, far faster than I can
> think. This is not boasting - its admitting a personal tragedy. -- D

My problem is that I'm using telepathy to communicate but people are
too busy listening to the sound of their own voices!

Dnia 2008-02-09 Prisoner at War napisa³(a):
> On Feb 9, 1:46 pm, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>> If there's a difference between the seated chest press and the Smith bench
>> press, therefore, it's got nothing to do with the way your muscles are
>> worked.
>
> Or, to put it more succinctly, it's got to do with the physical fact
> that pushing up is harder than pushing forward! You can push an out-
> of-gas car forward, but damned if you'd be able to press it up...

Tom is right. The direction in which you apply force doesn't matter,
the direction in which the weight moves does matter.

IOW - if you attached a rope to your car, put it over a tree branch, so
when you push it forward the car is lifted upward, you wouldn't be able
to press it forward either.

[...]
>> The only difference between the two is that in the seated chest
>> press, you aren't lifting your arms, whereas in the lying Smith press, you
>> are.
>
> I don't know why you remain so fixated on the arms...if you were
> pushing with your tongue, lover-boy, it would still be much harder
> pushing up than forward due to gravity and the angle of pushing
> involved....

I refrained from this discussion, because from experience I found that
people often have no idea about any leverages involved and so on, but
aren't you talking about two different chest press machines?

Oh, my. I shouldn't have asked.

>> Plus, you gotta understand I can now type far, far faster than I can
>> think. This is not boasting - its admitting a personal tragedy. -- D
>
> My problem is that I'm using telepathy to communicate but people are
> too busy listening to the sound of their own voices!

I suspect different machine. Find a picture which shows it, or
something, because what you say doesn't make much sense (which probably
is not what you mean).

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Feb 9, 5:48 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Tom is right. The direction in which you apply force doesn't matter,
> the direction in which the weight moves does matter.
>
> IOW - if you attached a rope to your car, put it over a tree branch, so
> when you push it forward the car is lifted upward, you wouldn't be able
> to press it forward either.
>
> I refrained from this discussion, because from experience I found that
> people often have no idea about any leverages involved and so on, but
> aren't you talking about two different chest press machines?
>
> Oh, my. I shouldn't have asked.
>
> I suspect different machine. Find a picture which shows it, or
> something, because what you say doesn't make much sense (which probably
> is not what you mean).
>
> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Um, I'd already provided for the "different machines" objection
earlier in this sub-thread, Post 94 in the googlegroups tree right
now, two posts back (counting only my own), complete with picture
(Tom's post before *that* had shown what he'd had in mind). Leverage
is not an issue, for the reasons I'd noted.

Why do you jump much further (are able to apply more force and thus do
more work) horizontally than vertically?

For the same reason a seated chest press machine (horizontal) is
easier than a flat bench press machine (vertical).

Dnia 2008-02-09 Prisoner at War napisa³(a):
> On Feb 9, 5:48 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Tom is right. The direction in which you apply force doesn't matter,
>> the direction in which the weight moves does matter.
>>
>> IOW - if you attached a rope to your car, put it over a tree branch, so
>> when you push it forward the car is lifted upward, you wouldn't be able
>> to press it forward either.
>>
>> I refrained from this discussion, because from experience I found that
>> people often have no idea about any leverages involved and so on, but
>> aren't you talking about two different chest press machines?
>>
>> Oh, my. I shouldn't have asked.
>>
>> I suspect different machine. Find a picture which shows it, or
>> something, because what you say doesn't make much sense (which probably
>> is not what you mean).
>>
>> --
>> Andrzej Rosa 1127R
>
> Um, I'd already provided for the "different machines" objection
> earlier in this sub-thread, Post 94 in the googlegroups tree right
> now, two posts back (counting only my own), complete with picture

http://www.gracefitness.com/Images/A...ChestPress.jpg
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/2002/machinebench2.jpg

You mean this? These are two different machines. You can (roughly) see
the leverages involved on Avenger machine, which are quite crazy,
actually. I mean one should be able to lift like thousand pounds, or so
there. The second machine with the hottie in seat uses different
approach, but we still don't know how far the weight stack moves up for
every foot the handle travels. By the looks of it, it seems to be about
3/4; that is for every four pounds on the weight stack the hottie has to
lift only three.

It's literally ancient physics. Archimedes figured it out some time
ago.

> (Tom's post before *that* had shown what he'd had in mind). Leverage
> is not an issue, for the reasons I'd noted.
>
> Why do you jump much further (are able to apply more force and thus do
> more work) horizontally than vertically?

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant, but being ignorant and
stubborn is often frowned upon, so, well, I frown upon you.

I'll explain it to you in simple terms, if you ask for an explanation.

> For the same reason a seated chest press machine (horizontal) is
> easier than a flat bench press machine (vertical).

In the grand scheme of things, indeed.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Feb 9, 7:28 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.gracefitness.com/Images/A...hinebench2.jpg
>
> You mean this? These are two different machines. You can (roughly) see
> the leverages involved on Avenger machine, which are quite crazy,
> actually. I mean one should be able to lift like thousand pounds, or so
> there. The second machine with the hottie in seat uses different
> approach, but we still don't know how far the weight stack moves up for
> every foot the handle travels. By the looks of it, it seems to be about
> 3/4; that is for every four pounds on the weight stack the hottie has to
> lift only three.

I don't know why the pulley action has got you and Tom all worked up.
One could conceivably design a flat bench press machine that also uses
a pulley or two, and still that flat bench would be harder than the
seated chest press -- because when pushing upwards, you're fighting
against 100% of gravity, whereas pushing horizontally, it's maybe 70
or 80%, significantly less.

> It's literally ancient physics. Archimedes figured it out some time
> ago.

It's very simple indeed. Nothing to do with pulleys.

> There is nothing wrong with being ignorant, but being ignorant and
> stubborn is often frowned upon, so, well, I frown upon you.

There is nothing wrong with displeasure, but displeasure due to self-
righteousness is ignorant, so you are ignorant.

> I'll explain it to you in simple terms, if you ask for an explanation.

No need; I've already explained it to you in the simplest terms
possible: pushing vertically is harder than pushing horizontally,
which is why a bullet goes farther straight across than straight up.

> In the grand scheme of things, indeed.

So WTF are you arguing about?

> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia 2008-02-10 Prisoner at War napisa³(a):
> On Feb 9, 7:28 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://www.gracefitness.com/Images/A...ChestPress.jpg
>> http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/2002/machinebench2.jpg
>>
>> You mean this? These are two different machines. You can (roughly) see
>> the leverages involved on Avenger machine, which are quite crazy,
>> actually. I mean one should be able to lift like thousand pounds, or so
>> there. The second machine with the hottie in seat uses different
>> approach, but we still don't know how far the weight stack moves up for
>> every foot the handle travels. By the looks of it, it seems to be about
>> 3/4; that is for every four pounds on the weight stack the hottie has to
>> lift only three.
>
> I don't know why the pulley action has got you and Tom all worked up.

People get worked up, because you write nonsense, and it hurts to read
it. ;-)

> One could conceivably design a flat bench press machine that also uses
> a pulley or two, and still that flat bench would be harder than the
> seated chest press

One could design a flat bench press machine with two pulleys, which
would be twice easier than a seated chest press machine.

> -- because when pushing upwards, you're fighting
> against 100% of gravity, whereas pushing horizontally, it's maybe 70
> or 80%, significantly less.

You mean like with pushing a car? While pushing a car you don't fight
gravity at all. You fight friction (and inertia, but that doesn't
amount to much).

>> It's literally ancient physics. Archimedes figured it out some time
>> ago.
>
> It's very simple indeed. Nothing to do with pulleys.

Oh, another nonsense. Even this "simple" part is very wrong. If it was
so obvious then Aristotle would be able to figure it out, but he didn't.

[...]
>> In the grand scheme of things, indeed.
>
> So WTF are you arguing about?

I'm just curious. What you write is bollocks, but I'd be glad to know
whether it comes from inability to express yourself or from ignorance.

At first I thought the former, but now it looks like the later is more
probable. Anyway, it's still nonsense, and common decency demands to
contest it. Usenet didn't sunk so low yet, that stuff like that will be
left unchallenged. ;-)

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

"Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eql285-7se.ln1@bakters.bandit.home...
> Dnia 2008-02-10 Prisoner at War napisa³(a):
>> On Feb 9, 7:28 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.gracefitness.com/Images/A...ChestPress.jpg
>>> http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/2002/machinebench2.jpg
>>>
>&g