Hammer Strength Iso-Lateral bench vs Smith Machine

i would use neither. stick to decline or flat-bench dumbbell press.

the hammer flat-bench always hurt my shoulders.

the problem with machines is not their strength curves or their
leverages or their cam design--the problem with machines, and the smith
counts too, is due to the origins and insertions of tendons. when your
joints are required to perform a very specific flexion in a very
specific range, the body cannot correctly compensate for changes in
alignment of tendon insertions. this causes stress to dissipate
unevenly through the tendon structure and can lead to injury.

"Bob Garrison" <bob6333> wrote

Quoted message said:

Same objections?

Hammerstrength machines allow greater freedom of movement, so, they are
better.

Freedom of movement: dumbbells > barbell > Hammerstrength > Smith.

David

David Cohen said:

"Bob Garrison" <bob6333> wrote

Quoted message said:

Same objections?

Hammerstrength machines allow greater freedom of movement, so, they are
better.

Freedom of movement: dumbbells > barbell > Hammerstrength > Smith.

so you recommend a dumbell in each hand for all types of presses and
lifts? myraide

Quoted message said:

David

Pez D Spencer said:

i would use neither. stick to decline or flat-bench dumbbell press.

the hammer flat-bench always hurt my shoulders.

the problem with machines is not their strength curves or their
leverages or their cam design--the problem with machines, and the smith
counts too, is due to the origins and insertions of tendons. when your
joints are required to perform a very specific flexion in a very
specific range, the body cannot correctly compensate for changes in
alignment of tendon insertions. this causes stress to dissipate
unevenly through the tendon structure and can lead to injury.

Then perhaps you could explain how Hammer Strength Iso-Lateral Bench
negatively affects the medial attachment of the pectoralis major.
Please feel free to include any references to the literature.

"Myraide" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

David Cohen said:

"Bob Garrison" <bob6333> wrote

Quoted message said:

Same objections?

Hammerstrength machines allow greater freedom of movement, so, they are
better.

Freedom of movement: dumbbells > barbell > Hammerstrength > Smith.

so you recommend a dumbell in each hand for all types of presses and
lifts?

No. But as freedom of movement of the affected joints decrease, the
incidence of problems increase.

The Smith machine is SO restrictive in freedom of movement, allowing only
one dimensional movement, that the incidence of orthopedic problems is, for
me, too high. In this regard, the Hammerstrength machine is better. Is it
good enough? Depends. On you, your joints, your age, your weight amounts,
etcetera.

As machines go, Hammerstrengh ones are amoung the best.

David

When I don't lift free weights and try to use machines (such as when I
am staying at a hotel) I always seem to feel my joints get tweaked. My
personal experience is that machines are more hazardous for me since my
body can't move through its natural range of motion. I feel that
regular free weight squats are better for me than the leg press sled
for this reason. I have tried the Hammerstrength and while it does
give more motion than most I still don't feel like it works my muscles
as well as free weights. People are different and I guess some people
may like using machines but I don't, the closest I like to go is cable
exercises and the fly machine. The constant tension on the fly machine
feels like it works me better than dumbell flys. Some cable exercises
(pulldowns, triceps, etc) are very useful in my opinion.

James

"David Cohen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Myraide" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

David Cohen said:

"Bob Garrison" <bob6333> wrote
> Same objections?

Hammerstrength machines allow greater freedom of movement, so, they are
better.

Freedom of movement: dumbbells > barbell > Hammerstrength > Smith.

so you recommend a dumbell in each hand for all types of presses and
lifts?

No. But as freedom of movement of the affected joints decrease, the
incidence of problems increase.

The Smith machine is SO restrictive in freedom of movement, allowing only
one dimensional movement, that the incidence of orthopedic problems is,
for me, too high. In this regard, the Hammerstrength machine is better. Is
it good enough? Depends. On you, your joints, your age, your weight
amounts, etcetera.

As machines go, Hammerstrengh ones are amoung the best.

David

The additional freedom of motion is good. The other aspect (the change to
plate loaded machines) was smart marketing but does not provide the "real
weight" that it appears to at first glance. The machines I've seen all
provide some mechanical advantage. I guess from a psychological point of
view, it's "like doing freeweights" to the casual gym user.

"ATP*" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"David Cohen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Myraide" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

David Cohen wrote:
> "Bob Garrison" <bob6333> wrote
> > Same objections?
>
> Hammerstrength machines allow greater freedom of movement, so, they are
> better.
>
> Freedom of movement: dumbbells > barbell > Hammerstrength > Smith.

so you recommend a dumbell in each hand for all types of presses and
lifts?

No. But as freedom of movement of the affected joints decrease, the incidence
of problems increase.

The Smith machine is SO restrictive in freedom of movement, allowing only one
dimensional movement, that the incidence of orthopedic problems is, for me,
too high. In this regard, the Hammerstrength machine is better. Is it good
enough? Depends. On you, your joints, your age, your weight amounts,
etcetera.

As machines go, Hammerstrengh ones are amoung the best.

David

The additional freedom of motion is good. The other aspect (the change to
plate loaded machines) was smart marketing but does not provide the "real
weight" that it appears to at first glance. The machines I've seen all provide
some mechanical advantage. I guess from a psychological point of view, it's
"like doing freeweights" to the casual gym user.

I find the differential to be 5-10 pounds.

ATP* said:

David Cohen said:

"Myraide" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

David Cohen wrote:
> "Bob Garrison" <bob6333> wrote
> > Same objections?
>
> Hammerstrength machines allow greater freedom of movement, so, they are
> better.
>
> Freedom of movement: dumbbells > barbell > Hammerstrength > Smith.

so you recommend a dumbell in each hand for all types of presses and
lifts?

No. But as freedom of movement of the affected joints decrease, the
incidence of problems increase.

The Smith machine is SO restrictive in freedom of movement, allowing only
one dimensional movement, that the incidence of orthopedic problems is,
for me, too high. In this regard, the Hammerstrength machine is better. Is
it good enough? Depends. On you, your joints, your age, your weight
amounts, etcetera.

As machines go, Hammerstrengh ones are amoung the best.

The additional freedom of motion is good. The other aspect (the change to
plate loaded machines) was smart marketing but does not provide the "real
weight" that it appears to at first glance. The machines I've seen all
provide some mechanical advantage. I guess from a psychological point of
view, it's "like doing freeweights" to the casual gym user.

And just because it's a plate-loaded Hammer Strength machine, that
doesn't mean its ergonomics are better than other machines. I won't
do preacher curls with free weights: too much potential for
overextension. I do like the Nautilus preacher curl machine in my
gym. However, when I out of town last fall, I used the Hammer
Strength preacher curl machine in another gym, and I didn't like it at
all. It was much too variable in the force curve. Brand names aren't
always the determinative factor.

That said, most Hammer Strength machines are pretty decent.

"ATP*" wrote

Quoted message said:

The additional freedom of motion is good. The other aspect (the change to
plate loaded machines) was smart marketing but does not provide the "real
weight" that it appears to at first glance. The machines I've seen all
provide some mechanical advantage. I guess from a psychological point of
view, it's "like doing freeweights" to the casual gym user.

Actually Gary Jones did not consider that when designing the Hammer line of
machines. He wanted something that was a small foot print machine that
broke down to be shipped and assembled on site. Up to that time, nobody did
this with gym equipment.

He wanted to substantially reduce the cost of the machine, so he made them
plateloaded. This led eventually to weights with handles cast into them.
The so called "hammer weights" became more common than ordinary round plates
in the gym. The problem with making the machine so compact was that the
leverages were off. So it took more weights to simulate a free weight
movement.

This becomes a royal pain in the ass for gym owners who must now buy
substantial amounts of olympic plates. It is also a big pain for the big
boys. The have to stack on lots of weights to use the machines, which makes
plates scarce for the normal folks in the gym.

It was all to make a small, cheap version of nautilus machines. It was set
up on a small shop when Gary Jones moved out from his dad's (Arthur Jones)
place. He had the expertise on a big, ancient HP modeling program. He used
this program to design the Hammer line. Up to and including all the "joints"
where the machine was fastened together.

It was economics, cheap shipping and cheap manufacturing that was primary
criteria. And it was rumored at the time, it was Gary's way of showing dad
that he could make it on his own. He thought dad's designs were too
complicated and big.

Of course, Gary has since sold out to Life Fitness. He now has more money
than God or his dad. He is designing [censored] for life fitness and has sold out
in every way possible. But the original Hammer Strength line is still
intact. It has some new pretty colors.

And various folks can sit around and speculate about the real reason why the
lever arms are so short.

But in reality, then as now, it was always about the money.

Lee Michaels