[quote]Brant_Drake wrote:
So, Smith machine = good for quads, not good as a squat replacement. I think that’s why they are put down so much.
A lot of pro BB’s seem to do both, which makes sense.
[/quote]
Well, I think it depends on why you were doing squats in the first place. Most BB’ers use them to build the quads, not to try to build the entire lower body.
i agree with a few of the above posters. for a while i was not doing any squats, not because i was a pussy, but because i have genetically poor ankle flexability, it’s so bad i can’t squat down more than a few inches without my heels popping up. i’ve got a very tight achilles tendon.
one day i tried smith squats just out of desperation, the non-angled version mind you, and to my suprise, i could replicate the proper squatting motion seemlessly. i started out a year ago with a max squat of 225-35 for a few reps.
just last leg day i repped 315 for 6 after a couple other worksets and 4-5 worksets of leg press before the squats. what i’m trying to say, besides highlighting my improvements and the fact that I KNOW smith squats have made my entire leg(s) bigger is that it is a very effective exercise IF, as one of the previous posters highlighted, you know how to do the movement properly.
the way i like doing them is more of a constant movement, tension type movement i move in a piston like pattern going to parallel but at the same time avoididng lockout. the great thing about smith squats is you don’t need to stabalize the bar, you can just worry about exploding with your quads and bouncing yourself back up. you can generate a lot of force with smith squats imo.
[quote]Train_smart wrote:
i agree with a few of the above posters. for a while i was not doing any squats, not because i was a pussy, but because i have genetically poor ankle flexability, it’s so bad i can’t squat down more than a few inches without my heels popping up. i’ve got a very tight achilles tendon.
one day i tried smith squats just out of desperation, the non-angled version mind you, and to my suprise, i could replicate the proper squatting motion seemlessly. i started out a year ago with a max squat of 225-35 for a few reps.
just last leg day i repped 315 for 6 after a couple other worksets and 4-5 worksets of leg press before the squats. what i’m trying to say, besides highlighting my improvements and the fact that I KNOW smith squats have made my entire leg(s) bigger is that it is a very effective exercise IF, as one of the previous posters highlighted, you know how to do the movement properly.
the way i like doing them is more of a constant movement, tension type movement i move in a piston like pattern going to parallel but at the same time avoididng lockout. the great thing about smith squats is you don’t need to stabalize the bar, you can just worry about exploding with your quads and bouncing yourself back up. you can generate a lot of force with smith squats imo.[/quote]
yeah, You can worry just about exploding, and you can really test your limits because you can always stop the bar if you cant push it back up. I go insane on the smith machine and seem to get a great rush from squatting big numbers. So thats all that matters right ?
Hey thanks guys by the way you really gave me a little bit more faith about what i’m doing, and get this. Today I was doing powercleans and this pussy who supervises the gym at my school said "Theres to many people here for you to be doing that, how many more reps you got ?
" I stated firmly “1 more set” and the guy backed up and said all defensively “OH ok well 1 more set” and I was like “Yeah…” Guess im gonna have to do hang cleans in the corner or something from now on. He was also a little pissed that I slammed the weight on the mat when i was done but hey what can you do ? …
Squats are awesome for developing a strong core. Don’t forget that squats are a complete total body excerise. If your happy with just isolating your quads then the smith is fine but i use squats to also develop my core.
[quote]triple-10sets wrote:
He was also a little pissed that I slammed the weight on the mat when i was done but hey what can you do ? …[/quote]
Not slam the weights?
[quote]d-ahluwalia wrote:
Squats are awesome for developing a strong core. Don’t forget that squats are a complete total body excerise. If your happy with just isolating your quads then the smith is fine but i use squats to also develop my core. [/quote]
Try doing a set of “20 rep squats” (use at least a 10RM, though I actually use more like an 8RM or 9RM on the smith because I don’t have to worry about balance) on the Smith machine and then tell me that your core wasn’t screaming while holding up that weight between say the 18th and 19th rep, or the 19th and 20th rep. Just because you don’t have to balance the weight doesn’t mean that your core must not still support the spine/transfer the strength generated from your legs into the bar.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
d-ahluwalia wrote:
Squats are awesome for developing a strong core. Don’t forget that squats are a complete total body excerise. If your happy with just isolating your quads then the smith is fine but i use squats to also develop my core.
Try doing a set of “20 rep squats” (use at least a 10RM, though I actually use more like an 8RM or 9RM on the smith because I don’t have to worry about balance) on the Smith machine and then tell me that your core wasn’t screaming while holding up that weight between say the 18th and 19th rep, or the 19th and 20th rep. Just because you don’t have to balance the weight doesn’t mean that your core must not still support the spine/transfer the strength generated from your legs into the bar.
[/quote]
I’ve gotta say as well that I think the whole stabilizer thing is overstated. Not that it’s completely invalid, but I have a tough time accepting the long held belief that there are these ethereal muscles that are entirely disengaged with anything, but absolutely free weights. None of this is to in any way denigrate free weights as they make up the vast majority of my work, but I’m just finally saying what I’ve thought for a long time. I’ve never read a satisfactory defense of this though it’s almost universally accepted and repeated. I can’t be the only one who’s spent time thinking about this and been left unsettled.
I’m also not trying to start an argument about free weights vs. machines as I don’t see a conflict, at least for bodybuilding. I’m just saying that I’ve never been content believing wholesale the stabilizer argument in any of the forms I’ve seen it presented. It’s just stated as if to question it makes you a flat Earth proponent or something.
[quote]Scott M wrote:
triple-10sets wrote:
He was also a little pissed that I slammed the weight on the mat when i was done but hey what can you do ? …
Not slam the weights?[/quote]
Who would have thought?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
d-ahluwalia wrote:
Squats are awesome for developing a strong core. Don’t forget that squats are a complete total body excerise. If your happy with just isolating your quads then the smith is fine but i use squats to also develop my core.
Try doing a set of “20 rep squats” (use at least a 10RM, though I actually use more like an 8RM or 9RM on the smith because I don’t have to worry about balance) on the Smith machine and then tell me that your core wasn’t screaming while holding up that weight between say the 18th and 19th rep, or the 19th and 20th rep. Just because you don’t have to balance the weight doesn’t mean that your core must not still support the spine/transfer the strength generated from your legs into the bar.
I’ve gotta say as well that I think the whole stabilizer thing is overstated. Not that it’s completely invalid, but I have a tough time accepting the long held belief that there are these ethereal muscles that are entirely disengaged with anything, but absolutely free weights. None of this is to in any way denigrate free weights as they make up the vast majority of my work, but I’m just finally saying what I’ve thought for a long time. I’ve never read a satisfactory defense of this though it’s almost universally accepted and repeated. I can’t be the only one who’s spent time thinking about this and been left unsettled.
I’m also not trying to start an argument about free weights vs. machines as I don’t see a conflict, at least for bodybuilding. I’m just saying that I’ve never been content believing wholesale the stabilizer argument in any of the forms I’ve seen it presented. It’s just stated as if to question it makes you a flat Earth proponent or something.[/quote]
Im glad to meet you tribulus. You seem to be a man that thinks for yourself. Today on the smith I did a 45 on each side, 50 reps. threw a 25 on each side after that and did 20 reps, threw a 10 on there after that and did 12, all with 1 minute rest. Thighs were screaming like a porn actress doing anal with Moe Monster. My core, and whole body for that matter was drained so nobody can tell me the smith machine dont work
[quote]triple-10sets wrote:
Moe Monster. [/quote]
Is he your favorite.
[quote]1morerep wrote:
what’s wrong with smith squats? i see many pro bodybuilders including them their routines. i do them and my quads are coming along fine. [/quote]
Someone decided that since they lock your legs into an unnatural path they are bad for your knees. There is probably some truth to it but in typical T-Nation fashion everyone over reacts.
[quote]triple-10sets wrote:
Yeah, well the title sais it all. In my gym we dont have a regular squat rack. Should I even bother with the smith machine, or just do light weight that I can put over my head like 135 for crazy reps. Thanks.[/quote]
pistols with a heavy dumbell.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
1morerep wrote:
what’s wrong with smith squats? i see many pro bodybuilders including them their routines. i do them and my quads are coming along fine.
Someone decided that since they lock your legs into an unnatural path they are bad for your knees. There is probably some truth to it but in typical T-Nation fashion everyone over reacts.[/quote]
Mine is slightly angled. I don’t know, I think it depends on how you place your feet. It feels completely natural to me.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
You can do squats in the Smith machine, I’ve done them before. The movement pattern is a little different from regular BB squats, but still can be effective.
Of course, the other suggestions that brant made are good options as well.[/quote]
If you place your feet forward of the bar it turns the smith into a hack squat. And if you are glutial dominant, it would be a good option and more effective at hitting your quads than a back squat.
Im lower body deficiant as of right now. Im building it up though slowly but surely
[quote] but it takes the hamstrings mostly out of the equation.
So, Smith machine = good for quads, not good as a squat replacement. I think that’s why they are put down so much
[/quote]
I completely disagree, if anything the smith machine allowed me to work my hamstrings more as i went “much deeper”. I am not advocating at all that smith is better than regular squat; but am disagreeing with regard to hamstring not being work. The same could be said for regular squats — quads only worked as people dont just go down that deep; hamstring being worked relates to the depth of the squat…and i can always get lower in a smith machine and definitely feel it my hamstrings
The smith machine will bring about great gains that can be translated to the squat in both technique and strengh— though if i had a choice – i would do both only for reason that smith allows me to get lower— which is something i am working on…
I’m saying most people who slam the smith machine have never used it either at all or properly. I view it as another valid and useful tool, not as a substitute.
I have no problem hitting my hamstrings and glutes with it though it takes a more forward foot placement and purposely leveraging with the back of my legs rather than pushing with my quads. In either case the whole leg is used, but with differing emphasis. You can’t do that with a barbell, at least I can’t.
[quote]triple-10sets wrote:
Im lower body deficiant as of right now. Im building it up though slowly but surely [/quote]
And your attitude is improving which will get you even further still.
I’ve seen Jay Cutler and Mark Dugdale do Smith Machine Squats with good form and get good results. These are the only times I’ve ever seen good squatting in a Smith Machine.
The Smith Machines they were using also had a straight bar path.
I’m not going to get into the argument about Smith Machines verses Barbells. Here’s why I don’t use them
But what I will say is that angled-path Smith Machines are an awful idea. If you do a squat correctly, the bar moves straight. It’s damn near impossible to break parallel in angled-path Smith Machines without assuming some very unnatural positions.
But seriously, even if Smith Machine Squats are the best squat in the world, does this gym that only has a Smith Machine really have the right equipment for serious training? Does it have a 45’ Back Raise? Do the Dumbbells go past 50lbs? Does the music suck? Is it conducive at all to serious training?