Serious question about Smith machine

[McBee99]

Which is a bit wacky seeing as his method only uses machines.

Everyone has their own opinion of course. I'm sure you could find someone out there who truly believes the shake weight is the best training tool ever made. They're not going to have a fun time defending that position as objective truth though.

Even the most hypertrophic focused, purely aesthetics, lifters incorporate free weights into their routine. Being a "strictly machine lifter" is not the norm for any expert or advanced athlete in any field. His view is shared by himself & people who sell machines.

Smokey, when has it ever been indicated that the majority was right about anything?

I would imagine the free weight supremacy concept stems from Joe Weider.

I have been in this business for 48 years. I have explored all of it.

I am well aware of your extensive resume Rip. You are unmatched in the field.

What were your findings? That it only worked for 4 to 6 weeks?

[Mark Rippetoe]

I would imagine the free weight supremacy concept stems from Joe Weider.

This is pointless. Have fun with this guy.

[MaximumMichael]

If you get fully locked on with the SS method, just imagine your progress in another 14 months. (Less than that, even...)

I certainly hope so, and I can see progress in the few weeks I've been following it, though I sometimes itch to get to the gym more than twice per week so might add two accessory days (usually vertical rowing, bicep x 1, triceps x 1, leg extension, straight legged deadlifts, chest fly, rear delts), though I'm not sure if it is contributing or detracting. I never took squatting seriously (using the smith) until about 5 months ago but just wish I'd started earlier and had faith in the process. Yesterday I tried the smith squat for what was defo the last time in an attempt to overload it because I had a poor session the previous week, and as expected, it was defo the cause of back pain. Balance on the barbell squat is mainly the issue for me. Also, does not having big traps contribute? I am quite slender and don't have much meat on which to rest the barbell.

I will also take this opportunity to talk about the DOMS, or even immediately soreness. I believe that soreness is an excellent indicator or growth, or at least some sort of stimulation. For years, even when I've cycled 180km, my quads and glutes never get sore, even when barbell squatting a heavy load. I'm not sure if it is because I cannot activate the muscles because I'm not overloading them enough (85kg is a struggle right now) and/or the lower back is taking the hit when I'm in the hole?

[heinz83]

Mother of God.

[LuciusSulla]

All Smith Machines should be heaped onto a giant pyre, ritually melted down and recycled as Power Racks and Squat Racks!

[SmokeyStrong]

Although I’m not going to use either dumbbells or machines, I was still hoping to learn and better understand the basic logic behind barbells being superior to the two alternatives, incase I ever have to explain it to somebody else as well.

I was reading this article and it’s explained that one of the downsides to dumbbells is that they are “not stable in the hands in the same way a barbell is… They can move independently in all three axes, and stabilizing them is a supposed feature of their use. It's also a limiting factor in how much weight you can use in each hand… In other words, you can't dumbbell bench or press with half in each hand of what you can bench or press with a bar.”

But in reading through this thread and also this other article about machines, it’s said that barbells are superior to smith machines because you have the additional task needing to balance.

Dumbbells are less balanced but you can’t do as much weight, smith machines are “perfectly balanced” and you can do more weight. Is it just a Goldilocks situation and barbells are ‘just right’ in the middle?