Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press

I'd appreciate any info re which muscles are more/less involved in
each of these exercises. It seems like they should work the same
muscles, but the two exercises feel very different--especially with
heavy weights, and I can't figure out why.

Thank you,

Bob Feduniak

"Bob Feduniak" <robertfeduniak@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4adb3224-cd53-4a7d-8761-4adfeb4e653d@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> I'd appreciate any info re which muscles are more/less involved in
> each of these exercises. It seems like they should work the same
> muscles, but the two exercises feel very different--especially with
> heavy weights, and I can't figure out why.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Bob Feduniak

"I THINK"

You have three Bench Presses, same muscles, inclined, declined and flat.
You have two seated "chest" presses to the chest and behind the neck to the
shoulders, same muscles I think just a different angle.

I do all the above once a week.


Burr

On Feb 3, 12:31 am, Bob Feduniak <robertfedun...@msn.com> wrote:

re Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press

> I'd appreciate any info re which muscles are more/less involved in
> each of these exercises. It seems like they should work the same
> muscles, but the two exercises feel very different--especially with
> heavy weights, and I can't figure out why.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Bob Feduniak

Seated Chest Press? You mean a flat bench with an Olympic bar versus a
Smith Bench?

The latter takes the balancing part out of the equation. All you do is
press up and lower the weight which makes it feel a lot easier than
handling an Olympic bar with plates on it.

Define "heavy weights."

Heck define "Seated Chest Press."

Regardless, the Smith Machine makes things easier because it does part
of the "work" for you.

--

Curt wrote:
> On Feb 3, 12:31 am, Bob Feduniak <robertfedun...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> re Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press
>
>> I'd appreciate any info re which muscles are more/less involved in
>> each of these exercises. It seems like they should work the same
>> muscles, but the two exercises feel very different--especially with
>> heavy weights, and I can't figure out why.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Bob Feduniak
>
> Seated Chest Press? You mean a flat bench with an Olympic bar versus a
> Smith Bench?
>
> The latter takes the balancing part out of the equation. All you do is
> press up and lower the weight which makes it feel a lot easier than
> handling an Olympic bar with plates on it.
>
> Define "heavy weights."
>
> Heck define "Seated Chest Press."
>
> Regardless, the Smith Machine makes things easier because it does part
> of the "work" for you.
>
> --

My assumption is that a seated chest press is in a machine, not a bench
press free weight. If I am right they are totally different lifts except
they both involve the chest. Define seated chest press indeed.
--
Bob Volkmer

Bob Feduniak wrote:
> I'd appreciate any info re which muscles are more/less involved in
> each of these exercises. It seems like they should work the same
> muscles, but the two exercises feel very different--especially with
> heavy weights, and I can't figure out why.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Bob Feduniak

What is a seated chest press according to you? In other words: what is
the exact machine you're using?

Aside from different positioning of the "bar" on the chest, the smith
machine forces you into a linear motion that is none to flash for the
shoulders. Just use a barbell.

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/

Burr wrote:
> "Bob Feduniak" <robertfeduniak@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:4adb3224-cd53-4a7d-8761-4adfeb4e653d@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> I'd appreciate any info re which muscles are more/less involved in
>> each of these exercises. It seems like they should work the same
>> muscles, but the two exercises feel very different--especially with
>> heavy weights, and I can't figure out why.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Bob Feduniak
>
> "I THINK"
>
> You have three Bench Presses, same muscles, inclined, declined and flat.
> You have two seated "chest" presses to the chest and behind the neck to the
> shoulders, same muscles I think just a different angle.

Ummm, what are you talking about?

>
> I do all the above once a week.
>
>
> Burr
>
>


--
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, 3:06 am, spodosaurus <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
[...]

> Aside from different positioning of the "bar" on the chest, the smith
> machine forces you into a linear motion that is none to flash for the
> shoulders. Just use a barbell.

[...]

Ari, point me to the definitive PubMedley type text that says the
Smith machine is harmful to ANY bodypart. Thx!

--

"Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8f6b9895-180d-49d9-8292-d24f03df0d80@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 3, 3:06 am, spodosaurus <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Aside from different positioning of the "bar" on the chest, the smith
>> machine forces you into a linear motion that is none to flash for the
>> shoulders. Just use a barbell.
>
> [...]
>
> Ari, point me to the definitive PubMedley type text that says the
> Smith machine is harmful to ANY bodypart. Thx!
>
I think Ari may have a point as the biomechanics of the smith machine are
linear and not right for presses and shoulder work - I think all the latest
gym machines work in an arc of some type.
trust me

> --

"Curt" >
> Regardless, the Smith Machine makes things easier because it does part
> of the "work" for you.
>
> --

I don't like the Smith Machine, it makes me feel off balance.
I like free weights (if you ever bought them you won't think "free")

Burr

"David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:47a57b52$0$25392$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> "Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8f6b9895-180d-49d9-8292-d24f03df0d80@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 3, 3:06 am, spodosaurus <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> Aside from different positioning of the "bar" on the chest, the smith
>>> machine forces you into a linear motion that is none to flash for the
>>> shoulders. Just use a barbell.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Ari, point me to the definitive PubMedley type text that says the
>> Smith machine is harmful to ANY bodypart. Thx!
>>
> I think Ari may have a point as the biomechanics of the smith machine are
> linear and not right for presses and shoulder work - I think all the
> latest gym machines work in an arc of some type.
> trust me
>
>> --
>
>

"I Think" that the Smith Machine was for squats only!

I still prefer the "Squat Rack" when I'm by myself or just open stands when
we are "squatting off"

Burr

On Feb 3, 5:03 am, "Burr" <pitzra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "David" <forgot...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
[...]

> > <snip> the biomechanics of the smith machine are
> > linear and not right for presses and shoulder work - I think all the
> > latest gym machines work in an arc of some type.
> > trust me
>

(plugs fingers in ears)

NOT LISTENING!

Sorry, David, you just can't help some people! ME!

> "I Think" that the Smith Machine was for squats only!

Was? Well, I love it for flat and incline benches. My chiropractor,
however, recommended dumbbells for seated presses.

> I still prefer the "Squat Rack" when I'm by myself or just open stands when
> we are "squatting off"
>
> Burr

Agreed. I've never squatted on a Smith machine. I have seen some
videos on MDTV's "In the Trenches" of bodybuilders using the Smith for
front squats, back squats, lunges and all manner of pressing
movements.

--

Curt wrote:
> On Feb 3, 3:06 am, spodosaurus <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Aside from different positioning of the "bar" on the chest, the smith
>> machine forces you into a linear motion that is none to flash for the
>> shoulders. Just use a barbell.
>
> [...]
>
> Ari, point me to the definitive PubMedley type text that says the
> Smith machine is harmful to ANY bodypart. Thx!
>
> --

Got the money to fund the study? If not, you'll have to rely on theory
and anecdotal reports, just like the rest of us. 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.

Anyway, smith machine bench presses are for twats that want to pretend
to train with weights.

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/

"Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:198fdfd1-96a7-49a3-ae51-7e9810a0d2fb@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 3, 5:03 am, "Burr" <pitzra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "David" <forgot...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> [...]
>
>> > <snip> the biomechanics of the smith machine are
>> > linear and not right for presses and shoulder work - I think all the
>> > latest gym machines work in an arc of some type.
>> > trust me
>>
>
> (plugs fingers in ears)
>
> NOT LISTENING!
>
> Sorry, David, you just can't help some people! ME!
>
>> "I Think" that the Smith Machine was for squats only!
>
> Was? Well, I love it for flat and incline benches. My chiropractor,
> however, recommended dumbbells for seated presses.
>
>> I still prefer the "Squat Rack" when I'm by myself or just open stands
>> when
>> we are "squatting off"
>>
>> Burr
>
> Agreed. I've never squatted on a Smith machine. I have seen some
> videos on MDTV's "In the Trenches" of bodybuilders using the Smith for
> front squats, back squats, lunges and all manner of pressing
> movements.
>
> --
>
>

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.

Burr

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, rev wrote:

> Curt wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 12:31 am, Bob Feduniak <robertfedun...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> re Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press
>>
>>> I'd appreciate any info re which muscles are more/less involved in
>>> each of these exercises. It seems like they should work the same
>>> muscles, but the two exercises feel very different--especially with
>>> heavy weights, and I can't figure out why.
>>
>> Seated Chest Press? You mean a flat bench with an Olympic bar versus a
>> Smith Bench?
>>
>> Heck define "Seated Chest Press."
>
> My assumption is that a seated chest press is in a machine, not a bench
> press free weight. If I am right they are totally different lifts except
> they both involve the chest. Define seated chest press indeed.

I don't know about 'totally different': they're both basically forward
pushing movements, where the pecs are the prime movers, and the triceps
second. The difference is that the Smith machine goes straight away from
the chest, with the hands not moving in the head/foot or centreline/flank
directions (rostrocaudal or mediolateral axes, to get technical!). With a
chest press machine, depending on the design, there could be movement in
both. This will affect the stresses on the joints, and the involvement of
supporting muscles like the deltoids. In terms of strength development,
it's probably a fairly minor difference, but it could make a big
difference in the way it feels.

tom

--
On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray,
Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right
answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of
confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage

Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, rev wrote:
>
>> Curt wrote:
>>> On Feb 3, 12:31 am, Bob Feduniak <robertfedun...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> re Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press
>>>
>>>> I'd appreciate any info re which muscles are more/less involved in
>>>> each of these exercises. It seems like they should work the same
>>>> muscles, but the two exercises feel very different--especially with
>>>> heavy weights, and I can't figure out why.
>>>
>>> Seated Chest Press? You mean a flat bench with an Olympic bar versus a
>>> Smith Bench?
>>>
>>> Heck define "Seated Chest Press."
>>
>> My assumption is that a seated chest press is in a machine, not a
>> bench press free weight. If I am right they are totally different
>> lifts except they both involve the chest. Define seated chest press
>> indeed.
>
> I don't know about 'totally different': they're both basically forward
> pushing movements, where the pecs are the prime movers, and the triceps
> second. The difference is that the Smith machine goes straight away from
> the chest, with the hands not moving in the head/foot or

Some do now, but are this still 'true' smith machines?

>
> centreline/flank directions (rostrocaudal or mediolateral axes, to get
> technical!). With a chest press machine, depending on the design, there
> could be movement in both. This will affect the stresses on the joints,
> and the involvement of supporting muscles like the deltoids. In terms of
> strength development, it's probably a fairly minor difference, but it
> could make a big difference in the way it feels.

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.

>
> tom
>


--
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/

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

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, spodosaurus wrote:

> Tom Anderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, rev wrote:
>>
>>> Curt wrote:
>>>> On Feb 3, 12:31 am, Bob Feduniak <robertfedun...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> re Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press
>>>>
>>>>> I'd appreciate any info re which muscles are more/less involved in each
>>>>> of these exercises. It seems like they should work the same muscles,
>>>>> but the two exercises feel very different--especially with heavy
>>>>> weights, and I can't figure out why.
>>>>
>>>> Seated Chest Press? You mean a flat bench with an Olympic bar versus a
>>>> Smith Bench?
>>>>
>>>> Heck define "Seated Chest Press."
>>>
>>> My assumption is that a seated chest press is in a machine, not a bench
>>> press free weight. If I am right they are totally different lifts except
>>> they both involve the chest. Define seated chest press indeed.
>>
>> I don't know about 'totally different': they're both basically forward
>> pushing movements, where the pecs are the prime movers, and the triceps
>> second. The difference is that the Smith machine goes straight away from
>> the chest, with the hands not moving in the head/foot or
>
> Some do now, but are this still 'true' smith machines?

Hmm. No - they're heretical. Burn them.

>> centreline/flank directions (rostrocaudal or mediolateral axes, to get
>> technical!). With a chest press machine, depending on the design, there
>> could be movement in both. This will affect the stresses on the joints,
>> and the involvement of supporting muscles like the deltoids. In terms
>> of strength development, it's probably a fairly minor difference, but
>> it could make a big difference in the way it feels.
>
> 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.

Oh, agreed, completely. But we were comparing the Smith machine and the
chest press machine, and i think they're similar.

tom

--
On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray,
Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right
answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of
confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage

On Feb 3, 9:02 am, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
[...]

> <snip> (rostrocaudal or mediolateral axes, <snip>

Beautiful. I'm saving that for when I have to cross that pesky bridge
à la Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

me: What do you mean? Rostrocaudal or mediolateral axes?
Bridgekeeper: Huh? I... I don't know that.
[he is thrown over the edge into the volcano]
Bridgekeeper: Auuuuuuuugh.

Sweet.

Wait, is rostrocaudal the same as mediolateral?
[he is thrown over]
me: Auuuuuuuugh.

(curtains close)

--

On Feb 3, 12:05 pm, spodosaurus <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
[...]

> <snip> but are this still 'true' smith machines?

Okay, Tarzan.

Ari-zan: ARE THIS STILL TROO SMITH? ME AM AGAINST SMITH MACHINE!

[...]

> 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.

A better question than "are this still 'true'?" would be, six month
later will you have gained strength?

Rhetorical.

--

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

Duh. I couldn't picture that. Though I've never seen or heard of a
Tuff Stuff Apollo5 machine, I have seen and used the Hammer Strength
vertical bench machine. Gotcha.

> 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

Agreed on that, Bob. The Hammer Strength definitely felt different,
heavier. With the flat bench with an Oly bar or the Smith machine you
can adjust yourself more than with the Hammer machine and, I'm
guessing, the Tuff Stuff machine, too. That is I can move myself up or
down the bench to align where the bar hits my chest. And I can arch my
back more on a bench than in the seated position of the Hammer, too.

> 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

You wrote:

"I'd appreciate any info re which muscles are more/less involved in
each of these exercises. It seems like they should work the same
muscles, but the two exercises feel very different--especially with
heavy weights, and I can't figure out why.

Thank you,

Bob Feduniak"

I'd say they work the same muscles but that the Smith or free weight
benching allows more flexibility so far as positioning yourself than
the Free Stuff or any vertical bench press machine. That fact (okay,
opinion) would create that different feel.

--

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.

--

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.
>
> Burr

Yeah, I just saw a guy doing front squats on the Smith at the gym
recently. Cool.

--

"Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:198fdfd1-96a7-49a3-ae51-7e9810a0d2fb@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 3, 5:03 am, "Burr" <pitzra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "David" <forgot...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> [...]
>
>> > <snip> the biomechanics of the smith machine are
>> > linear and not right for presses and shoulder work - I think all the
>> > latest gym machines work in an arc of some type.
>> > trust me
>>
>
> (plugs fingers in ears)
>
> NOT LISTENING!
>
> Sorry, David, you just can't help some people! ME!
>
>> "I Think" that the Smith Machine was for squats only!
>
> Was? Well, I love it for flat and incline benches. My chiropractor,
> however, recommended dumbbells for seated presses.
>
>> I still prefer the "Squat Rack" when I'm by myself or just open stands
>> when
>> we are "squatting off"
>>
>> Burr
>
> Agreed. I've never squatted on a Smith machine. I have seen some
> videos on MDTV's "In the Trenches" of bodybuilders using the Smith for
> front squats, back squats, lunges and all manner of pressing
> movements.
>
> --
I s'pose it has some uses. In my opinion it's best use is if you use it as
the bad example!

>
>

On Feb 3, 4:04 pm, "David" <forgot...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
[...]

> <snip> In my opinion it's best use is if you use it as
> the bad example!

Hey, I'm all about the bad example. At least in many areas of my life.
Why not in my gym equipment choices?

--

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? Front squats are a variant which pushes
your stability more, so doing with a Smith machine, which is intrinsically
stable, is throwing away that benefit.

tom

--
What? Yeah!

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Curt wrote:

> On Feb 3, 9:02 am, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> <snip> (rostrocaudal or mediolateral axes, <snip>
>
> Beautiful. I'm saving that for when I have to cross that pesky bridge
> à la Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
>
> me: What do you mean? Rostrocaudal or mediolateral axes?
> Bridgekeeper: Huh? I... I don't know that.
> [he is thrown over the edge into the volcano]
> Bridgekeeper: Auuuuuuuugh.
>
> Sweet.
>
> Wait, is rostrocaudal the same as mediolateral?
> [he is thrown over]
> me: Auuuuuuuugh.
>
> (curtains close)

Get on eBay and buy yourself a first-year anatomy textbook! Tortora and
Grabowski's a good one.

The best thing about 'rostrocaudal' is that it means 'from nose to tail'.
The point is that terms like 'front' and 'back' vary in meaning between
things like mice and men because we walk in different positions, but nose
and tail are constants.

tom

--
What? Yeah!

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?

> so doing with a Smith machine, which is intrinsically
> stable, is throwing away that benefit.
>
> tom

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!!!

Don't make us waterboard you, Anderson.

Hey, doubly seriously, doesn't that sound more like an extreme sport
than anything???

--

On Feb 3, 6:07 pm, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
[...]

> Get on eBay and buy yourself a first-year anatomy textbook! Tortora and
> Grabowski's a good one.

Thank you for the recommendation.

> The best thing about 'rostrocaudal' is that it means 'from nose to tail'.
> The point is that terms like 'front' and 'back' vary in meaning between
> things like mice and men because we walk in different positions, but nose
> and tail are constants.
>
> tom

I'm sure there's a punchline there somewhere, but forget it.

I do appreciate the definition/explanation. Hadn't bothered to look it
up, but it's an interesting word nonetheless.

Can you use that sucker in a sentence?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rostrocaudal

Oh, forget it. I don't have time for all those PhD-style words. NO!
(Retirement's not that far away though. Perhaps in my golden
years...)

--
--

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.
Regardless, that guy isn't benching. He couldn't even handle that on a
barbell. He's also juiced to the gills, and so is his boyfriend with the
gyno.

How about addressing the bulk of my reply? 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, just like the rest of us. 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."

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/

Tom Anderson 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? Front squats are a variant which pushes
> your stability more, so doing with a Smith machine, which is intrinsically
> stable, is throwing away that benefit.

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.

--
Andrzej Rosa

"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

Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> Tom Anderson 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? Front squats are a variant which pushes
>> your stability more, so doing with a Smith machine, which is intrinsically
>> stable, is throwing away that benefit.
>
> 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. Strong
muscles with weak supporting tissue leads to injury. You should know
this Andrzej.

Cheers
--
Bob Volkmer

"rev" <mfw@volkmer.biz>
>
> It isn't about balancing *skills* imo. It's about letting the
> supporting/stabilizing tendons etc etc become stronger as well. Strong
> muscles with weak supporting tissue leads to injury. You should know this
> Andrzej.
>
> Cheers
> --
> Bob Volkmer

But Bob,
If you don't use them they won't get any better.
If you can't control the weight then use less weight until you can, the
Smith Machine will make your control weaker.

Burr

Burr wrote:
> "rev" <mfw@volkmer.biz>
>> It isn't about balancing *skills* imo. It's about letting the
>> supporting/stabilizing tendons etc etc become stronger as well. Strong
>> muscles with weak supporting tissue leads to injury. You should know this
>> Andrzej.
>>
>> Cheers
>> --
>> Bob Volkmer
>
> But Bob,
> If you don't use them they won't get any better.
> If you can't control the weight then use less weight until you can, the
> Smith Machine will make your control weaker.
>
> Burr
>
>
Uhm, *confused* look. I thought that is what I was intimating. Apart
from a very few things, I agree with the statement (which I think Keith
made some years back) that the best use of the Smith is as a towel rack.


--
Bob Volkmer

rev wrote:

> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>> Tom Anderson 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? Front squats are a variant which pushes
>>> your stability more, so doing with a Smith machine, which is intrinsically
>>> stable, is throwing away that benefit.
>>
>> 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.

> Strong
> muscles with weak supporting tissue leads to injury. You should know
> this Andrzej.

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

--
Andrzej Rosa