Lateral Delt "Machine" for Home

[Chris_A]

They're for people who are too lazy or intimidated to get on the floor and lift some real weights.

Again, no one said do away with free weights. But using a cable machine for rows or delt raises after a bentrow, or a leg press after a BB squat, is a nice addition to your routine.

It's trying to determine a way of converting loads used on a SM to FW. Why do you need to take any more than that away from it?

Yes. And it shows that the Smith Machine has some advantages. It's not evil.

I though it was the smith machine we were talking about in relation to knees, not the leg press.

Machines in general really, but the article with the biomechanical device showed that a smith machine squat with feet forward reduces force on the knees.

Pfff. In advance, Apologies to the moderators for taking this beyond a debate, but the street language thing really pi$$ed me off. What was the best part, then? Did the biomechanical model jump to attention and declare "johnny five, IS ALIVE".

Whoa, calm down. I wasn't attacking you. I was just stating that some of those studies are dry and whacky reads, but if you trudge through it, you can often get a useful bit of info. Usually that is.

And speaking of bad movies......Johnny Five?!?!?!

Lack of stabilisers isn't relevant to discussion on machines, or safety? What is relevant, then?

No, we're talking about machines in addition to free weights. And it all started with small machines such as a Lateral Delt Raise for isolation. When isolating the lateral delts, you use low weights (compared to bench and squat), so stabilizers aren't a big concern. Stabilizers only become a big issue on heavy compound lifts like a squat but not on a lateral raise. And this discussion doesn't say to exclude free weights at all, so your regular squat will hit your stabilizers.

Stabilisers can get weak, or lazy. Then can fire at the wrong time during movement, causing a host of compensation. Machines ENFORCE this, not CAUSE it, ENFORCE it.

I don't see how adding a Lateral Delt Raise, or a Leg Press exercise on a machine is going to undermine your stabilizers? You're still squatting, dead lifting, benching, etc. How does adding some isolation work on a machine for your rear delts weaken your stabilizers?

However, I agree 100% that if your training is based around compound movements, then the effects I just described are irrelevant.

Ok.

Again, your interpretation baffles me. Increases risk of injury, and subjecting you to injury are entirely different things.

If the study is correct, then risk of injury is very slim when squatting to parallel. Now, you have a choice, do you play it safe and only go to parallel, or do you roll the dice and go lower thus subjecting yourself to the “less safe” version of the squat.

Find the great lifters, find the great coaches, and learn from them.

The incredible thing is, I have.

A man named Frederick C. Hatfield, a.k.a. Dr. Squat, says that Smith Machine Squats are ok. More over, his ideal squat is the Safety Squat which utilizes a funky bar and a rack with handles for you to hold onto (nice toy). Certainly not the “old school” straight bar on the back grind.
http://www.newyorkbarbells.com/im-0210.html

Here’s what he has to say.

Safety Squats: The "safety squat bar" (sometimes called the
"Hatfield Bar") is, in my opinion, the safest method of squatting because
the shear on knees and low back are reduced significantly. The
accompanying sidebar compares safety squats with the conventional methods
of squatting.

Smith Machine Squats: Assuming that the machine is bolted to the
floor (most are not) and has a safety device (most do not), it's a pretty
safe alternative to conventional or safety squats.

http://staff.washington.edu/griffin/dr_squat.txt

Even more interesting than that, good ole Dr. Squat actually gave his stamp of approval to a weight training machine. A machine! Not free weights. Wow. Would you say Dr. Squat is too lazy to lift some real weight?
http://www.sportsci.org/jour/9901/fch.html

And I’m sure some of you know of Vince Gironda who used all sorts of machines and the incredibly intense 8x8 honest workout routine with incredible and undeniable results.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/becker26.htm
8x8 Routine

[KPj]

ok....quickly...

I don't have a mechanical/ model knee, fortunately, so that study doesn't apply to me.

I think in every post I made, I stated machines had their place. What I questioned from the start was the Smith Squat with feet out front. And the claim that you couldn't emphasise the glutes and hams with a free squat.

Safety bar squats are still free weights.

I think Dr Squats amazing, and it definitely adds credibility to the argument. However, Charles Poliquin was known for saying that the Smith Machine was invented by a physiotherapist to get more business. You also have the likes of Cressey, Robertson, Mike Boyle, etc that are on the same boat. Given what the last 3 especially specialise in, then Dr Squats opinion, or better put, description of a product he sells on his website, doesn't mean much to me. It pains me to say that. Everyone's got to make money some how. Not that i'm saying that's his only reason, it could easily be coincidence. Although, if I were learning about strength, Dr Squat is in my list of top 5 resources. Safety / injury related stuff, then he's further down the list than that...

And no, I wouldn't say he was lazy for using machines. Just like I don't think I am being lazy when I use them. I was emphasising, in light of the hypocrite comment, that I'm actually withholding my personal opinion from this discussion.

I know the smith machine isn't ALL evil, I use it quite a lot,

10 Uses for a Smith Machine
(It's not just a coat rack)
http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=810548


KPj

[Chris_A]

I don't have a mechanical/ model knee, fortunately, so that study doesn't apply to me.

But think of how that study applies to Steve Austin!

What I questioned from the start was the Smith Squat with feet out front. And the claim that you couldn't emphasize the glutes and hams with a free squat.

You can't do it to near the same degree as on a smith machine. It's not possible to push your feet 10 or more inches forward in front of you and lean back into the bar with a regular barbell. But, there are other ways to work glutes and hams. Maybe even better ways. The point was, the Smith Machine can be a handy tool, and biomechanical models show the Smith "Glute Squat" is easy on the knees and will not F*** your knees up.

Safety bar squats are still free weights.

Yes, but they use a special toy and not the old school cold iron OLY bar.

I think Dr Squats amazing, and it definitely adds credibility to the argument. However, Charles Poliquin was known for saying that the Smith Machine was invented by a physiotherapist to get more business. You also have the likes of Cressey, Robertson, Mike Boyle, etc that are on the same boat. Given what the last 3 especially specialise in, then Dr Squats opinion, or better put, description of a product he sells on his website, doesn't mean much to me. It pains me to say that.

See, that's the interesting thing about a debate like this. If you rely on a well respected coach/trainer that happens to agree with a less than accepted approach, then he gets discredited. That's the pick and chose thing I was talking about.

And no, I wouldn't say he was lazy for using machines. Just like I don't think I am being lazy when I use them. I was emphasising, in light of the hypocrite comment, that I'm actually withholding my personal opinion from this discussion.

What I meant by hypocrisy is how some people rely on certain gym lore and totally disregard others. They pick the parts they like such as how to squat, what rep range to use, etc, and discredit parts they don't like such as isolation exercises, machine use, multiple exercise per body part, etc. If it is all anecdotal in the first place, what is the criteria for saying this bit of lore is right and this bit is wrong? Personal opinion? Preference? Experience? Well, I've used machines with great success, so I'm gonna say they are good and have a place in a routine.

I know the smith machine isn't ALL evil, I use it quite a lot,

10 Uses for a Smith Machine
(It's not just a coat rack)
http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=810548

Nice article. I'm glad they put the Bench Throws in there.

[Chris_A]

Oh, and Poliquin says a Leg Extension Machine has it's uses, especially for bodybuilders.
http://www.charlespoliquin.com/index.ph ... 9&Catid=29

Poliquin also likes to have a "Gunz Day"!
http://www.charlespoliquin.com/index.ph ... 9&Catid=29

And, Poliquin pushes his own brand of supplements.
http://www.charlespoliquin.com/store/home.php

So, Poliquin, a well respected authority in training, says that a Leg Extension machine has its uses, he advocates a gunz day to build up your show muscles, and he pushes supplements. He’s starting to sound like that Joe guy. I like him!!

[Matt Z]

"It says "The squat 1RM was greater for the SM than the FWs;". The 1RM was greater with the Smith Machine than Free Weights. More weight means more work which means more gains." - Chris A

So, if I can lift more weight with a smith machine than I can with a barbell, so smith squats MUST be better than barbell squat? In that case, I can lift more with a sled leg press machine than I can with a smith machine, so leg presses must be better than smith squats. Meanwhile, I'm sure I can lift more with a forklift than I can with a sled leg press machine, so forklift lifts must be better than leg presses.

[Matt Z]

As for the article on squatting depth, it's unclear from the summary whether or not they actually tested stresses on knee durring full squats (squats performed below parallel). However, even if we are to assume that full squats stress the knees more than parallel squats, this would be at least partly offset by the difference in loading, since atheletes typically use more weight on parallel squats. Likewise, any reduction in knee stresses gained by performing partials (half or quarter squats) would be offset by the much heavier poundages typically used with these lifts.

[Chris_A]

So, if I can lift more weight with a smith machine than I can with a barbell, so smith squats MUST be better than barbell squat? In that case, I can lift more with a sled leg press machine than I can with a smith machine, so leg presses must be better than smith squats. Meanwhile, I'm sure I can lift more with a forklift than I can with a sled leg press machine, so forklift lifts must be better than leg presses.

The Smith Machine can be a good change of pace, but I'd not argue it is the only way to squat. It's obvious that free weight squats are #1.

A sled is a simple machine (physics), and sleds use an angle that, once you do the math, shows you are only moving 70% of the weight as compared to a pure vertical move. So 300lbs on a sled equates to only 210lbs of actual work.

Forklifts are much better for moving inventory, but they ain't gonna do squat (pun intended) for your body.

[Chris_A]

Likewise, any reduction in knee stresses gained by performing partials (half or quarter squats) would be offset by the much heavier poundages typically used with these lifts.

Dr. Squat says this on partial squats.

Partial Squats: Contrary to popular belief, squatting above the
parallel position -- knees at approximately 90 degrees flexion -- is
actually more dangerous that going to parallel or below.

http://staff.washington.edu/griffin/dr_squat.txt

[Matt Z]

You just contradicted the article you posted on squat depth.

[Matt Z]

That actually reminds me of something though. I remember reading an article on olympic lifting a while back that warned against catching the bar in the half front squat position while performing cleans. Supposedly it's much safer to either catch the clean in the full front squat position, or ride the bar down into a full front squat before changing diirections.

[Chris_A]

You just contradicted the article you posted on squat depth.

That's what is so great about studies and anectdotal instruction. Which do you want to believe? See my point yet?

[stuward]

That's why I prefer to listen to guys like Fred Hatfield who has walked the walk and has the education and knowledge to interpret studies correctly. It would take a lot of convincing for me to disregard something Fred said.

[Matt Z]

Science is great, but you have to be careful. There's a lot of bad research out there. Consequently, I try to view each study in light of all available information, including my own experience.

[Chris_A]

That's why I prefer to listen to guys like Fred Hatfield who has walked the walk and has the education and knowledge to interpret studies correctly. It would take a lot of convincing for me to disregard something Fred said.

And Fred, Dr. Squat, says the Smith Machine squat is ok. He also said machine exercise (a new one he was looking at) was worth a try. So, I guess machines ain't so bad then?

[Ironman]

Just because it's in Flex and Muaclemag doesn't mean it's right. There is no science to support 3-5 sets of 3-5 exercises per body part with lots of isolation and machines as laid out by Joe "knucklehead trying to sell magazines" Wieder.

There is plenty of science showing multiple sets and high volume work is superior to low volume.

A few are here.

And while you may think machines have no use in weight training and have no science behind them, I'd advise you to please pay attention to all the medical reports such as those on PubMed and see how those studies are being conducted. Beleive it or not, many of them are done on......drum roll.......machines. If that isn't science, then I've no idea what else to tell you.

Further, as you look at sites like PubMed, try to find a study showing machines are pointless and should be avoided. Please, find just one study showing that machines are ineffective. Just one.

Until then, yours is just an opinion.

That would be nice if I was arguing against high volume. However, in case you forgot about are last talk. I frequently do high volume workouts, just not all the time. I said there is no research that it has to be 3 to 5 of 3 to 5. Because it doesn't.

So we are back to reading comprehension, and refuting points I made rather than refuting random ones that I said nothing about.