Member
This is a good question, and I'll give you the answer I'm not sure anyone else here will. A Smith machine is just a tool. Like any tool, it might be a good fit for a given task, or it might be a poor one; it depends entirely on the task. Anyone who tells you that the Smith machine — or most any other tool, for that matter — is categorically useless is in fact just giving you dogma, and probably trying to sell you something.Originally Posted by Peter Bex
Obviously if one's goal is to win a barbell squat competition, they're going to have to barbell squat. Beyond that things get fuzzier. Somebody who wants to grow their quads but doesn't care about how much they can squat may well be better served by the Smith machine. The reduced stability demands of such a machine are a detriment to the lifter who wants to get better at a movement, but an advantage to the lifter who is just using the movement as a means to an end, like hypertrophy. The long-femured lifter may have trouble achieving maximal depth with an upright posture in a barbell squat, and may have an easier time with a Smith machine (or a hack squat or pendulum squat, etc). And so on.
So if your friend cares about getting good at barbell squatting, he's definitely barking up the wrong tree. But if he doesn't, I think you should let him be.
TMPHBITEU
Absolutely true. If the task is getting better at using a Smith machine, using a Smith machine for 6-8 weeks works pretty well. If the task is getting stronger, it doesn't work very well, if at all. The hilarious part is that getting strong under a barbell also gets you strong under the Smith machine, but that doesn't work the other way.
Member
Probably the most effective responses sadly.
I'd also add:
4. Science has shown that it isn't safe and effective for muscle building.
Member
I think the "uselessness" of a Smith machine is somewhat overstated here. Not WRONG, exactly, but overstated.
The real problem with trying to sort through fitness stuff like this is that pretty much everything works *a little bit*. Is a Smith machine a good way to add numbers to your squat? Obviously not. Will it add NOTHING to you squat? This really depends on who is doing it, what their squat is, and what they are trying to do. If someone takes their Smith machine squat from 90 pounds (omitting the weight of the bar because this is inconsistent across machines) to 180 pounds (which isn't necessarily an uncommon thing), this might take their squat from, oh, maybe the empty bar to 135. Depending on your genetics, you might go even further: there ARE some freaks out there who get bigger and stronger just from hanging around the weight section. They are more common than you think, especially since gyms and fitness in general select for these people. There is no shortage of big strong guys who got that way doing completely stupid shit. This, however, isn't an excuse to be stupid.
The more concerning demographic, as Rip has often clarified, is the guys for whom this ISN'T the case. They will work on the Smith machine and their progress will stop dead flat at six weeks. Maybe they added twenty pounds to their squat, if they're lucky. They won't be able to add weight to the Smith machine squats past this point (I don't think there really are that many people with monstrous Smith machine squats with terrible barbell squats: the Smith machine is still exerting a force against an external resistance, and you can't really "cheat" this fact indefinitely) and they'll either give up or just bang their head into the wall for years.
The question is, then, why does the Smith machine squat not work as well? To be fair, some of this is just Rip and other coaches noticing this. Everyone who is big and strong has a big squat. The best way to get a big squat is to squat. Anyone with the genetic predisposition to get big and strong by doing Smith machine squats will tend to select themselves out of working with strength coaches.
However, the way this actually manifests itself provokes some insights into why this might be. Subby alludes to my favorite pet theory (though it's mostly baseless and I wouldn't bet money on it) that squatting (and for that matter, bench pressing) a free weight on a barbell provokes some unique stress mechanism based on it being more of an imminent threat to the organism. The fear you experience when dropping down with a limit rep on your back is some deep animal threat that tells you you HAVE to be able to resist this or you will be CRUSHED. So only lifts which threaten your life actually make you stronger.
But this seems a bit fanciful. The more straightforward answer I think has to do with physical differences in the movement. A somewhat common, well intentioned, but rather weak argument common in the fitness space is that the lack of "balance" doesn't train "stabilizer muscles." This has been echoed a few times in this thread in perhaps more sensible terms (omitting the bizarre concept of "stabilizer muscles" and extolling the training/practice of balance as a good in itself), but I still tend to think it's not quite on the mark. For one, most people reject this benefit outright, stating that their "training goals" don't include balance or their "stabilizer muscles." And this argument doesn't really have any answer to that. We can't make you want to improve your ability to balance heavy weights. And even if we could, it's an argument built on sand since 1) "balance" isn't even clearly a physiological adaptation which can be provoked, 2) after correct form is learned it does not become meaningfully harder to keep a heavier weight in balance (rather, you are just more severely punished for failing to keep it in balance) and this is backed up by advanced barbell lifters failing to demonstrate supernatural feats of balance outside of the weight room, and 3) the lifts do not involve a balance element uniformly. Sure, the squat and press does, but is that really the same system at work in the bench press? The deadlift? You might describe letting the bar move forward of midfoot as coming "off balance" on the deadlift but this really isn't the same thing. The barbell lifts involve a balance element in that they require control over heavy weights but there isn't really a compelling argument that "keeping them in balance" is required to actually provoke the adaptation: rather, keeping them in balance is required to *make the weight go up*
With this in mind, I think the answer is more subtle, and has to do with the basic criteria according to which the barbell lifts are selected. The human body is, for the most part, optimized for the movement of objects in free space. The movement patterns ("normal human movement patterns", as it were) the musculoskeletal system can undergo did not evolve under any pressure to move in grooves or along arcs. The loads the components of the system (the muscles, but also the tendons and the bones) are "intended" to experience are therefor a product of the movement. What load is experienced where is more complicated than it is worth considering, since what you teach and train is the movement, which takes care of that. But even looking at it a little bit indicates it's quite exquisitely complicated, and as such the confounding factor of the Smith machine rails have the potential to disrupt it quite profoundly.
How it disrupts it is a) it moves outside the effective range of motion. The effective range of motion of the lifts is a function of their movement pattern. Any disruption of this will, by necessity, either add motion to the lift which is not effective (i.e., by developing a moment arm, or through a position only accessibly by alternate muscle relaxation and extension, such as an excessively deep squat, or a deep deficit deadlift) or abbreviate motion. It also b) reduces the amount of muscle mass involved. If the rails contribute ANYthing to the lift (that is, the lift deviates by more than the tolerances of the bushings from a perfectly straight line) then that is a muscle that is working in the barbell lift, that is not working in the Smith machine variant. This is two (and I'd argue, perhaps the most important) of the criteria which decide whether a lift is worth doing. These alone will massively impact the training stimulus the exercise can provide. And that is ultimately all we are talking about: the Smith machine is, while perhaps not completely incapable of providing a training stimulus, only capable of providing a fraction of what a barbell squat does: an increase in weight alone does not actually make up for this if these two criteria are violated. Some people are capable of progressing with an abbreviated stimulus. Those people don't need to care what anyone in here says. YOU and your friend, most certainly do.
Interestingly, this does imply that Rip's contention that a squat can be done in with a Smith machine as easily as it can be done in a closet with a hamster is not entirely accurate. It is at least theoretically possible to execute a squat so perfectly, with such a perfect reproduction of the barbell movement pattern (i.e., so that the bushings hover millimeters away from the rails) that the only force experienced is a force directed perfectly upward. But this would not only probably be practically impossible, but require a much greater focus on technique than a slightly messier barbell squat would provide, negating it's one putative advantage.
Member
He's enthusiastic about it because he says it allows him to squat without having to think about technique (he struggles especially with
My friend struggled with knee pain in the squat before with a different personal trainer who used high bar squat and bad technique.
I've seen offhand comments here that Smith machine squats can hurt your knees, so that's an argument he'll be interested to hear.
What's the mechanism by which that happens?
First off, hurt and achie are two different things. So, when you say hurt his knee I take it patellar tendinitis due to your knees going to far forward and not squating with the hips. So why would a vertical fix position help the knee pain? Why not squat in the low bar position focusing on sitting your hips back and driving with the postior chain? If his knees hurt while doing this he may benefit from box squats. There is a good video on here about it.
Member
Ok, but if the task is dying in a gym the smith machine wins.
✓ Member
Wow, just logged in this morning to see all the replies here. These are certainly helpful, thanks everyone!
This had occurred to me too but more like a half-formed thought. Seeing it worded this clearly definitely helps, thanks!
If the bar is being "forced" by the machine into a position that disallows assuming the correct hip and back angle on the way down, the knees would have to compensate.
It makes sense that this would lead to the knee pain issues I've read about before.
Sure, but a snark can also come across as admitting you don't know why (or can't be arsed to explain). Especially for stubborn people that'll cause them to ignore you rather than be "shamed" out of doing the silly thing.
This sounds scary and jives with the first reply in this thread. I'll definitely bring this up.
Perhaps I should try a Smith machine myself, to get more of a "feel" for the issues described here. I've never even seen one in real life, probably that's also why I was unable to formulate a good opinion about them.
He doesn't care much about that. Unfortunately his strength goals are somewhat ill-defined. He "just wants to stay healthy".
Getting as big and strong as possible is explicitly a non-goal for him, and he wants to keep his abs (which he made very clear)...
I guess this leads to all the fuckery with different "personal trainers" and gyms and not even trying the program for more than two weeks.
But he has asked me about coaching him, so I want to be able to explain to him the benefits and disadvantages as clearly as possible.
The situation is a bit weird anyway since he's now (also?) doing a program from his new gym - I guess it's part of the package and would be weird/awkward to ignore?
I intend to have a chat with him about that too. I can't coach him properly if there's interference from "another coach".
Probably I'll have to fire him as a client if he's not ready to do the program.
Member
I think it’s obvious that a movement with greater demand for neurological coordination will have more direct carryover to a movement with less demand than vice versa.
But:
1) This still essentially assumes the conclusion that one’s training goal is maximal strength as measured by the barbell squat. This is of course a respectable goal but far from a universal one.
2) Even if we limit ourselves to discussing strength — note that I was talking about hypertrophy above — it’s silly to suggest that someone undergoing progressive overload over a long period of time on a more stable movement (like a smith machine) will see zero carryover to a less stable movement. This is easy to demonstrate by using the barbell squat as the more stable movement in the thought experiment. For example, a split squat is less stable than a bilateral barbell squat, therefore it has greater demand for neurological coordination and balance. Do you think that a person who has developed a very strong barbell squat will see zero carryover the first time they attempt a heavy split squat? Of course not. They will likely perform worse at the split squat than someone who has specialized in that movement, but they will still be able to express some of their strength. Then in a relatively short time, they will adapt to the movement pattern and be able to express more of their strength.
Obviously lots of people do stupid shit in the gym that wastes their time and doesn’t get them any closer to their goals. But the idea that everyone has the same goal and that all movements and training approaches can be neatly categorized into useful and useless will only hold you back, even if it makes for compelling pull quotes. In reality these things often exist on a continuum, where “better” and “worse” are highly context dependent.
TMPHBITEU
LV, this is a strength training forum. There is a reason why we squat, deadlift, and press with a barbell and not a machine that controls your movement pattern. Can you elaborate from there?
Member
Remarkable restraint, Rip. I am impressed. You didn't bite.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote