Serious question about Smith machine

[LudwigVan]

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?

I think I understand the value of those movements better than most. As you can see next to my user name, I joined this forum in 2008. I read the books, put in my time under the bar, gained a lot of body weight, and hit numbers in the gym that were far from world class but still more than most people ever achieve.

But I thought it was funny to see this thread when I logged in on a whim yesterday, because it speaks directly to the way my training mindset has evolved. 16 years ago, when I was new to the concept of training hard, I probably would’ve asked a similar question to this thread. I would’ve seen a friend using the Smith machine and felt a need to spread the gospel of barbells to him. If he didn’t see it my way I would’ve chalked him up as someone of inferior character who just didn’t want to work hard. But the fact is, powerlifting-style training was all I actually knew. I understand now that while the things I believed then weren’t wrong per se, my mindset was limiting.

The bottom line is, as a purely social question, there’s no need to tell your friend or anyone else that they should be doing things your way. If your training methods are so superior, chances are they’ll catch on and ask you to teach them. If not, who cares what they do? It’s their life.

And as a question of training methodology, I think it behooves us to be open-minded and eschew rigid, categorical thinking. Of course a Smith squat isn’t a barbell squat, just like a dumbbell bench press isn’t a barbell bench press, and so on. They’re different movements with different advantages and disadvantages. Squatting on a BOSU ball is dumb as hell for almost everybody, but for somebody training for the circus it might be just the thing. Personally I wish I’d learned to think this way a little sooner, but better late than never.

✌️

[Maybach]

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

1) All strong people have a big squat. They might not have the biggest squat they could ever get, but if you are strong, you can squat a lot. If you can't squat a lot, you are not strong.

2) All big muscular guys are strong. People are somehow misled by Olympia competitors saying they "don't have that big a squat", comparing themselves to dedicated strength athletes. Chris Bumstead who is constantly trotted out as a guy who "doesn't train for strength and so isn't very strong" does 405x10s.

3) All strong guys are big. This is harder to see because there are some very small guys, who are genetically gifted, who are quite strong. Fitness media tends to select for these. A 165 pound guy who can bench 450 pounds is going to win every competition he enters, and so has no incentive to get any bigger, even if bulking up would make him stronger. But YOU, reading this, are not one of these guys.

[Strategerie]

Sure, but a snark can also come across as admitting you don't know why (or can't be arsed to explain).

Snark is warranted when the answer can be found within the source material. It's encouraged when those who have familiarised themselves with that source material are accused of being dogmatic.

If your friend wants to be safe in the gym, it's probably best to avoid use of The Guillotine.

[Bluefan75]

1) All strong people have a big squat. They might not have the biggest squat they could ever get, but if you are strong, you can squat a lot. If you can't squat a lot, you are not strong.

2) All big muscular guys are strong. People are somehow misled by Olympia competitors saying they "don't have that big a squat", comparing themselves to dedicated strength athletes. Chris Bumstead who is constantly trotted out as a guy who "doesn't train for strength and so isn't very strong" does 405x10s.

3) All strong guys are big. This is harder to see because there are some very small guys, who are genetically gifted, who are quite strong. Fitness media tends to select for these. A 165 pound guy who can bench 450 pounds is going to win every competition he enters, and so has no incentive to get any bigger, even if bulking up would make him stronger. But YOU, reading this, are not one of these guys.

And there is the other problem. We're all brought up with the "you can be anything you want to be if you work hard enough" mentality. And while it is mostly true in most areas of life, those who propogate this mentality seem to think it applies to areas in which genetic gifts are a dominant factor. The "no talent, all hustle" shortstop that makes it to the big leagues is actually extremely talented, he is just not talented compared to a very select group of even more talented players.

While I don't mean this in terms of someone can't get their squat up to a significant number, "a man's gotta know his limitations" is good advice for at least providing the point of view surrounding things. There's a difference between "can't bench 450" and "can't bench 450 while staying at 165" that gets lost very quickly.

[IlPrincipeBrutto]

This is a good question

Apologies for the thread highjack but ... look who's back!

Out of curiosity, I went to check your post history, and within ten entries I was back in 2013... Tom Narvaez, Kyle Scuhant, Kregna (!) in the same page.
What memories.

IPB

[gregpall603]

You rarely see Smith squatters with bar over midfoot, usually 8-12" away.

[Maybach]

And there is the other problem. We're all brought up with the "you can be anything you want to be if you work hard enough" mentality. And while it is mostly true in most areas of life, those who propogate this mentality seem to think it applies to areas in which genetic gifts are a dominant factor. The "no talent, all hustle" shortstop that makes it to the big leagues is actually extremely talented, he is just not talented compared to a very select group of even more talented players.

While I don't mean this in terms of someone can't get their squat up to a significant number, "a man's gotta know his limitations" is good advice for at least providing the point of view surrounding things. There's a difference between "can't bench 450" and "can't bench 450 while staying at 165" that gets lost very quickly.

This confuses people in both directions, especially young guys.

They see lightweight powerlifters, and either go "oh, *I* can be that strong if I lift for a while. I weight 150, and THAT guy weighs 150, so I just gotta train hard and I'll get there one day," ignoring that that guy was probably repping twice their current max the first week he walked into the gym. Sure, he's been lifitng for five years, but he was posting competitive numbers after his first year, and spent the next four adding thirty pounds. He's already winning meets and he wants to look good on Instagram, so he stays at 150.

OR, they look at those little powerlifters and say "hey! Those guys are SMALL! I don't want to be SMALL! I want to get SWOLE! Obviously that guy is small because he only trains for strength. I don't care about having a big squat, I just want to look muscular" and so they do "hypertrophy" and never get their squat past 315 and wonder why they aren't gaining muscle. They will look to the bodybuilders who "don't do heavy squats" and say "hey, those guys got plenty big." All the while ignoring the fact that the guy who says he "doesn't squat all that much" only doesn't do so because he can squat six hundred pounds which would cause his Achilles tendons to snap like silly putty when he's full of steroids during show prep.

This also gets carried over to discussions about MMA fighters (always a delightful discourse). "This featherweight MMA fighter could beat a bodybuilder twice his size, that means you don't need to be big and strong!" That featherweight fighter has a BMI of 28 and can throw the guy twice his weight over his shoulder. This does not mean YOUR six foot, 150 pound, 2oo pound squatting ass doesn't need to get bigger and stronger.

Rob Santana said something that I always come back to on a podcast a bit ago: if this stuff is not happening by accident for you, it's not ever going to happen. If you aren't deadlifting 405 your first day, you are not going to be a competitive "lightweight powerlifter." If you are not already large and lean, you probably aren't ever going to be (there's a reason bodybuilder's "before" pictures usually feature them when they're thirteen years old").

[dalan]

Rob Santana said something that I always come back to on a podcast a bit ago: if this stuff is not happening by accident for you, it's not ever going to happen. If you aren't deadlifting 405 your first day, you are not going to be a competitive "lightweight powerlifter." If you are not already large and lean, you probably aren't ever going to be (there's a reason bodybuilder's "before" pictures usually feature them when they're thirteen years old").

I never thought of it like that but Robert's explanation of good genetics is a great way to put it. I imagine we've all known "that guy" who doesn't train at all or trains without any real consistency or anything resembling a plan and still looks more lean and muscular than the majority of people who try to look that way.

Love the prepubescent "before" pics showing their supposed lack of genetics. Then you see pics of them when they were 16 looking like mini Arnold already.

[Jenni]

A buddy of mine who is somewhat interested in strength training got assigned Smith machine squats by the fancy gym he just joined.
He's enthusiastic about it because he says it allows him to squat without having to think about technique (he struggles especially with the grip).

This is why I try not to discuss this shit with my friends. The truth is that your buddy is avoiding something that an almost 50 year old woman does multiple times a week and that objectively makes him a pussy on this topic. There's no excuse. None. Get the hell under the bar and do it right and your knees get stronger along with your ability to stabilize the bar. The Smith machine is half-assery. That's the argument. You wanna be the guy who half-asses your life?

[smokeyjones]

But I thought it was funny to see this thread when I logged in on a whim yesterday, because it speaks directly to the way my training mindset has evolved. 16 years ago, when I was new to the concept of training hard, I probably would’ve asked a similar question to this thread. I would’ve seen a friend using the Smith machine and felt a need to spread the gospel of barbells to him. If he didn’t see it my way I would’ve chalked him up as someone of inferior character who just didn’t want to work hard. But the fact is, powerlifting-style training was all I actually knew. I understand now that while the things I believed then weren’t wrong per se, my mindset was limiting.

Just kind of sounds like a natural Dunning - Kruger progression / you humbling yourself a bit.

If your friend is going on a fitness journey & you've recently tackled those questions yourself. It's natural to be a bit interested. You'll also have more conviction if you've recently had to weigh up / pick a method yourself. Happens with everything & then yep "gospel of barbells" or cross fit, running, fasting, paleo, carnivore, vegan etc.

)And, honestly some degree of it is needed. If you've got no knowledge and suddenly have: 20 different leg exercises, various rep, set & frequencies & 100s of contradictory opinions. Ya gotta pick (and justify something. Which, as far as OPs original question goes. Is probably the only advantage of your friend doing smith machine squats. It's better than doing nothing / being paralyzed fixating on what to do.

Becoming less dogmatic after that period is also pretty normal. And, while some people might dismiss it as silly bullshit / laziness, mixing it up is a good way to add some spice to the gym/relationship. If you've been doing full body, low rep, squatting 3x a week for the last 4 months. A cheeky chest day and some higher rep machine could be the only thing keeping you from a divorce.

After time though. The machines & cables, pulleys, ropes, chains etc lose that initial dopamine rush & you up erring back to the regular. Ultimately you might even remove them from the bedroom entirely.


The folk in this thread have already done a steller job of explaining the disadvantages of the smith machine. Re strength/athletic/functional/real life pursuits, the smith machine has little pros over a barbell. Beyond injury (and I'm often dubious of folk who claim this) a smith machine squat is not a replacement to a barbell squat.

Re body building at an intermediate advanced level. Even if often more of an accessory or substitute rather than a replacement. The smith machine arguably has some benefits:

• more quad isolation. Since they're usually more a focus than hamstrings & many want that waspy V shape. So many are scared of too much lower back work.
• Less taxing systemically on the body. Which can be useful when your 2nd work out is later today & the one after that is the next morning.
• Less taxing when doing higher reps which can have hypertrophy benefits. A double digit rep barbell squat is rough.
• Easier to get a deep stretch. If you're hot on that "stretch mediated hypertrophy" buzz
• Safer to push to absolute failure. With more certainty it's the quads getting fried instead of other factors cutting the set short
• additions to a squat work out as either pre-exhaustion sets or extra quad volume after barbell squats.
• A less risky replacement for advanced bodybuilders. Especially ones whose livelihood depends on it. While brutally effective, sticking 400 pounds on your back might not be a good idea when you're 2 weeks out from a show and have been eating 1500 calories a day for the last 6 weeks.