Smith Machines - good or bad?

"General Grievous" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I tried one today... not sure if I liked it or not...

1) do you really feel this machine helps place
less stress onthe lower back?

All I can tell you is it places less stress on MY back.

Quoted message said:

2) Where do your feet really belong when you do this
exercise, and where should your knees end up, behind
your toes, or in front?

I place my feet a little wider than shoulder width and pretty far forward so
that my back remains vertical.

General Grievous said:

I tried one today... not sure if I liked it or not...

1) do you really feel this machine helps place
less stress on the lower back?

Maybe so. But so does good form on barbell squats.

Quoted message said:

2) Where do your feet really belong when you do this
exercise,

Like a real squat, under the bar.

Quoted message said:

and where should your knees end up, behind
your toes, or in front?

Generally in front unless you use a wide stance.

Bob Garrison said:

"General Grievous" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I tried one today... not sure if I liked it or not...

1) do you really feel this machine helps place
less stress onthe lower back?

All I can tell you is it places less stress on MY back.

I'm willing to accept that you FEEL it places less stress on your back,
but, unfortunately, biomechanics says otherwise.

Look at a well done barbell squat from the side. NOT linear.

Look at the human spine. NOT linear. Our spines were designed, by
evolution or God (pick one), to be a horizontal non-load bearing
support structure of a four legged creature. Then those freakin'
proto-apes just HAD to stand up. And their spines adapted as best they
could, primarily by curving in a number of places.

Look at the path of the bar of a Smith machine squat. Designed for a
non-humanoid creature.

Are you a non-humanoid, Bob? A Denibian slime worm? A Jovian fire
dragon? NO!

David

David Cohen said:

Look at the path of the bar of a Smith machine squat. Designed for a
non-humanoid creature.

Are you a non-humanoid, Bob? A Denibian slime worm? A Jovian fire
dragon? NO!

Don't be so quick to judge.

Dally

On 23 Sep 2005 18:39:38 -0700, "David Cohen" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

to be a horizontal non-load bearing
support structure of a four legged creature. Then those freakin'
proto-apes just HAD to stand up. And their spines adapted as best they
could, primarily by curving in a number of places.

What a moron.

"David Cohen" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:1127525978.851236.122730
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

Look at the human spine. NOT linear. Our spines were designed, by
evolution or God (pick one),

Why only one?

Hugh

--
Exercise is a dirty word. Whenever I hear it, I wash my mouth out with
chocolate. ("Ladi"😉

Hugh Beyer said:

"David Cohen" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Look at the human spine. NOT linear. Our spines were designed, by
evolution or God (pick one),

Why only one?

Mutual exclusivity.

David

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

Quoted message said:

Bob Garrison said:

"General Grievous" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I tried one today... not sure if I liked it or not...

1) do you really feel this machine helps place
less stress onthe lower back?

All I can tell you is it places less stress on MY back.

I'm willing to accept that you FEEL it places less stress on your back,
but, unfortunately, biomechanics says otherwise.

Look at a well done barbell squat from the side. NOT linear.

Look at the human spine. NOT linear. Our spines were designed, by
evolution or God (pick one), to be a horizontal non-load bearing
support structure of a four legged creature. Then those freakin'
proto-apes just HAD to stand up. And their spines adapted as best they
could, primarily by curving in a number of places.

Look at the path of the bar of a Smith machine squat. Designed for a
non-humanoid creature.

Are you a non-humanoid, Bob? A Denibian slime worm? A Jovian fire
dragon? NO!

Pick one, but you just implied that we were on all fours; therefore, it
could only be evolution?

"David Cohen" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:1127529485.978203.306270
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

Hugh Beyer said:

"David Cohen" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Look at the human spine. NOT linear. Our spines were designed, by
evolution or God (pick one),

Why only one?

Mutual exclusivity.

Nonsense.

I hammered together a chicken coop this summer. Was the coop made by the
hammer or by me?

Hugh

--
Exercise is a dirty word. Whenever I hear it, I wash my mouth out with
chocolate. ("Ladi"😉

Hugh Beyer said:

"David Cohen" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Hugh Beyer said:

"David Cohen" <[email hidden]> wrote

> Look at the human spine. NOT linear. Our spines were designed, by
> evolution or God (pick one),

Why only one?

Mutual exclusivity.

Nonsense.

I hammered together a chicken coop this summer. Was the coop made by the
hammer or by me?

Nonsense. It was designed by God, and you're just a tool in his
gaysome hand.

John said:

"David Cohen" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Bob Garrison said:

"General Grievous" <[email hidden]> wrote
>I tried one today... not sure if I liked it or not...
>
> 1) do you really feel this machine helps place
> less stress onthe lower back?

All I can tell you is it places less stress on MY back.

I'm willing to accept that you FEEL it places less stress on your back,
but, unfortunately, biomechanics says otherwise.

Look at a well done barbell squat from the side. NOT linear.

Look at the human spine. NOT linear. Our spines were designed, by
evolution or God (pick one), to be a horizontal non-load bearing
support structure of a four legged creature. Then those freakin'
proto-apes just HAD to stand up. And their spines adapted as best they
could, primarily by curving in a number of places.

Look at the path of the bar of a Smith machine squat. Designed for a
non-humanoid creature.

Are you a non-humanoid, Bob? A Denibian slime worm? A Jovian fire
dragon? NO!

Pick one, but you just implied that we were on all fours; therefore, it
could only be evolution?

I was throwing a bone to those who wanted to have it both ways, with
God creating evolution at some point. That way, they can sound like
rational persons by saying "of course evolution is reality" but still
satisfy that irrational human need for a supreme being by saying "but
God created the Universe and the natural laws which lead to evolution".

David

DZ said:

Hugh Beyer said:

"David Cohen" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Hugh Beyer wrote:
> "David Cohen" <[email hidden]> wrote
>
>> Look at the human spine. NOT linear. Our spines were designed, by
>> evolution or God (pick one),
>
> Why only one?

Mutual exclusivity.

Nonsense.

I hammered together a chicken coop this summer. Was the coop made by the
hammer or by me?

Nonsense. It was designed by God, and you're just a tool in his
gaysome hand.

If it had been designed by God, the wind won't have knocked it over and
let the coyote eat the chickens.

God does not play dice with the chickens.

David

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

Quoted message said:

DZ said:

Hugh Beyer said:

"David Cohen" <[email hidden]> wrote
> Hugh Beyer wrote:
>> "David Cohen" <[email hidden]> wrote
>>
>>> Look at the human spine. NOT linear. Our spines were designed, by
>>> evolution or God (pick one),
>>
>> Why only one?
>
> Mutual exclusivity.

Nonsense.

I hammered together a chicken coop this summer. Was the coop made by
the hammer or by me?

Nonsense. It was designed by God, and you're just a tool in his
gaysome hand.

If it had been designed by God, the wind won't have knocked it over and
let the coyote eat the chickens.

God does not play dice with the chickens.

Beat me to it.

If that coop was designed by God, I'm becoming an atheist.

Hugh

(The wind, by the way, will not knock it over. A tactical nuke, maybe.)

--
Exercise is a dirty word. Whenever I hear it, I wash my mouth out with
chocolate. ("Ladi"😉

David Cohen said:

DZ said:

Hugh Beyer said:

"David Cohen" <[email hidden]> wrote
> Hugh Beyer wrote:
>> "David Cohen" <[email hidden]> wrote
>>
>>> Look at the human spine. NOT linear. Our spines were designed, by
>>> evolution or God (pick one),
>>
>> Why only one?
>
> Mutual exclusivity.

Nonsense.

I hammered together a chicken coop this summer. Was the coop made by the
hammer or by me?

Nonsense. It was designed by God, and you're just a tool in his
gaysome hand.

If it had been designed by God, the wind won't have knocked it over and
let the coyote eat the chickens.

God does not play dice with the chickens.

Stop telling God how to make chicken coops.

This thread had so much potential!

General Grievous said:

This thread had so much potential!

What's the complaint? You got all your chicken coop questions answered.

David

JMW said:

David Cohen said:

DZ said:

Hugh Beyer <[email hidden]> wrote:
> "David Cohen" <[email hidden]> wrote
>> Hugh Beyer wrote:
>>> "David Cohen" <[email hidden]> wrote
>>>
>>>> Look at the human spine. NOT linear. Our spines were designed, by
>>>> evolution or God (pick one),
>>>
>>> Why only one?
>>
>> Mutual exclusivity.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> I hammered together a chicken coop this summer. Was the coop made by the
> hammer or by me?

Nonsense. It was designed by God, and you're just a tool in his
gaysome hand.

If it had been designed by God, the wind won't have knocked it over and
let the coyote eat the chickens.

God does not play dice with the chickens.

Stop telling God how to make chicken coops.

I have a close, personal, relationship with God.

I ask God for lots of things.

God always answers.

The answer is always "No".

God is a Woman.

David

General Grievous said:

This thread had so much potential!

Last year about this time I started to realize I could not handle my Smith
machine anymore. Ie I could not add any more weight without feeling like my
back was breaking at the lowest point. When heavily loaded my body did not
want to move in the same direction as the machine was making me. I finally
switched gyms to one that has a Powerrack. Mfw advice helped me lots in my
decision. It did not take long before I was putting on the same weights on a
free barbell squat as I did in the machine. Just to show how it actually
hindered me more than it helped me. Weights aren't all that impressive like
I do 3*8 at 80 kg. However if that's on a free bar I should be able to do
lots more in the machine which I couldn't. Besides, I feel lots stronger now
having built all the stabilizing muscles too.

--
Perre
I gave up on SPAM and redirected it to hotmail instead.

General Grievous said:

This thread had so much potential!

I have a serious problem with Smith machines. Even if you don't buy
the bio-mechanical issues of the smith machine's single plane of
operation, Smith machines are still more expensive and less versatile
than weights and a power rack. Not to mention the fact that Smith
machines don't teach balance and don't recruit as many support
muscles. I have a limited amount of time to train, and I simply don't
have time for gimmicks.

Jason