Smith Macine Rules!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mars1107
  • Start date Start date
speaking of this subject i see this big guy come in to my gym that does smith machine upright rows, then shoulder press maching and then dumbells to polish it off? idk weird hes just a big built guy in general..i dont like this approach but it obviously works for him.
 
brownstown89 said:
speaking of this subject i see this big guy come in to my gym that does smith machine upright rows, then shoulder press maching and then dumbells to polish it off? idk weird hes just a big built guy in general..i dont like this approach but it obviously works for him.
Click to expand...

Relevant to the opposing thread in which we concluded unnecessary tension to the arms on a frequent basis hypertrophyed your friends arms yet it doesn't make sense.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
Sigh. Are you normally this argumentative over completely irrelevant points? I can see already that your completely linear philosophy and argumentative style is not going to serve you well with your clientelle.

The Dr. thing is an inside joke.

Exercise physiology and biology are inexorably linked: the former is informed intrinsically by the latter.
Click to expand...

Mullet,

Face it, you are starting to get extremely offensive and resorting to personal attacks because this fellow can debate his points back making your argument futile seeing as you want to be the victor here. He is expressing things from his views and you from yours. Quite, frankly this fellow deserves applaud because you got whoop. I speak for myself if someone would start debating something from an exercise philologist stand point of view and start bringing physiology terms many people would have stopped there. You've meet your match. :owned2:

Good Job GymRat7191
 
I repped mulletsoldier and applauded the valid points he brought up. I have no idea why he got so offensive, I have a strong belief and I'll express it. I've seen it work too many times, I give people something I've seen to be effective, not what science tells me will work. I never once got offensive and started personal attacks.
 
Sk8erboy said:
Mullet,

Face it, you are starting to get extremely offensive and resorting to personal attacks because this fellow can debate his points back making your argument futile seeing as you want to be the victor here. He is expressing things from his views and you from yours. Quite, frankly this fellow deserves applaud because you got whoop. I speak for myself if someone would start debating something from an exercise philologist stand point of view and start bringing physiology terms many people would have stopped there. You've meet your match. :owned2:

Good Job GymRat7191
Click to expand...

Huh?
 
GymRat7197 said:
I repped mulletsoldier and applauded the valid points he brought up. I have no idea why he got so offensive, I have a strong belief and I'll express it. I've seen it work too many times, I give people something I've seen to be effective, not what science tells me will work. I never once got offensive and started personal attacks.
Click to expand...

How did I become offensive? I said you were regurgitating the same points because you were. If you find me saying that a one-size-fits-all approach is ignorant as "offensive", then that is ridiculous to say the least.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
How did I become offensive? I said you were regurgitating the same points because you were. If you find me saying that a one-size-fits-all approach is ignorant as "offensive", then that is ridiculous to say the least.
Click to expand...

The 19 year old was a bit offensive. So was calling me argumentive because I disagreed with you. You were disgreeing with me too.
 
GymRat7197 said:
The 19 year old was a bit offensive. So was calling me argumentive because I disagreed with you. You were disgreeing with me too.
Click to expand...

I called you argumentative because you were arguing with me verbatim over moot points, including the distinction between exercise physiology and biology! That is literally being argumentative. Nitpicking on points that produce no resolution while completely ignoring the major points I put forward in post # 91 is being argumentative, man. Arguing for an incorrect definition of adaptation itself is argumentative. Jesus, hah.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
I called you argumentative because you were arguing with me verbatim over moot points, including the distinction between exercise physiology and biology! That is literally being argumentative. Nitpicking on points that produce no resolution while completely ignoring the major points I put forward in post # 91 is being argumentative, man. Arguing for an incorrect definition of adaptation itself is argumentative. Jesus, hah.
Click to expand...

I think we should agree to disagree on the subject. People reading this thread will gain a lot of information and pros and cons between machines and free weights, a lot of beneficial information.

Just let it go.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
I called you argumentative because you were arguing with me verbatim over moot points, including the distinction between exercise physiology and biology! That is literally being argumentative. Nitpicking on points that produce no resolution while completely ignoring the major points I put forward in post # 91 is being argumentative, man. Arguing for an incorrect definition of adaptation itself is argumentative. Jesus, hah.
Click to expand...

What???
 
GymRat7197 said:
The 19 year old was a bit offensive. So was calling me argumentive because I disagreed with you. You were disgreeing with me too.
Click to expand...

The import is that I stated you were argumentative not for your training philosophies, but that you were giving long-winded responses that had nothing to do with our discussion. If you read the thread, I was sticking to pretty nuts-and-bolts physiology/biology and you were arguing moot points and semantics. Seems pretty simple to me.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
The import is that I stated you were argumentative not for your training philosophies, but that you were giving long-winded responses that had nothing to do with our discussion. If you read the thread, I was sticking to pretty nuts-and-bolts physiology/biology and you were arguing moot points and semantics. Seems pretty simple to me.
Click to expand...

I was sticking to simple facts on why machines should come after free weights. All you had to say was that variety with regards to types of movements is beneficial. You didn't have to spout out with some intellectual mumbo jumbo. I started out discussing pros and cons of machines vs free weights and end up arguing with Stephen Hawking.

The reasons I stated free weights should come first in a hypertrophy/strength based scenario was perfectly legit. You used scientific terminology to mask the cons of the machine itself. I said they have their place, I said they're fine in a routine depended upon individual goals, I just said do them after free weights.
 
GymRat7197 said:
I was sticking to simple facts on why machines should come after free weights. All you had to say was that variety with regards to types of movements is beneficial. You didn't have to spout out with some intellectual mumbo jumbo. I started out discussing pros and cons of machines vs free weights and end up arguing with Stephen Hawking.

The reasons I stated free weights should come first in a hypertrophy/strength based scenario was perfectly legit. You used scientific terminology to mask the cons of the machine itself. I said they have their place, I said they're fine in a routine depended upon individual goals, I just said do them after free weights.
Click to expand...

ISSA teaches the use of free weights as primary exercises and machines as optional secondary support exercises.
 
GymRat7197 said:
I was sticking to simple facts on why machines should come after free weights. All you had to say was that variety with regards to types of movements is beneficial. You didn't have to spout out with some intellectual mumbo jumbo. I started out discussing pros and cons of machines vs free weights and end up arguing with Stephen Hawking.

The reasons I stated free weights should come first in a hypertrophy/strength based scenario was perfectly legit. You used scientific terminology to mask the cons of the machine itself. I said they have their place, I said they're fine in a routine depended upon individual goals, I just said do them after free weights.
Click to expand...

GymRat, that "scientific mumbo-jumbo" is how your body adapts to stimulus, and it has absolutely nothing to do with machines v., free-weights. Not sure what you are trying to drive at there. You were arguing against avoiding adaptation, which is one of the simplest and most legitimate premises of exercise physiology as a whole. If you allow your body to adapt, growth ceases - period. In the simplest terminology possible, growth is another term for disequillibrium: your body attempting to return to normal after the introduction of a stimulus. If you constantly move towards "normal" by using the exact same exercises you will not grow. You are arguing for this, and I gave you the scientific reasons why that does not make any sense whatsoever. That is in the simplest language I can give it to you.

For reference, major compound lifts continue to deliver results re: strength due to neuromuscular adaptations that occur as a result of massive and simultaneous muscle recruitment. Great for functional strength, not so great for lean mass development and shape.

Also, nowhere did I state machines are superior to free-weights; I think you are confused on what the thrust of my argument is. I feel like I am being Punk'd or something. Where is Ashton!?
 
Mulletsoldier said:
GymRat, that "scientific mumbo-jumbo" is how your body adapts to stimulus, and it has absolutely nothing to do with machines v., free-weights. Not sure what you are trying to drive at there. You were arguing against avoiding adaptation, which is one of the simplest and most legitimate premises of exercise physiology as a whole. If you allow your body to adapt, growth ceases - period. In the simplest terminology possible, growth is another term for disequillibrium: your body attempting to return to normal after the introduction of a stimulus. If you constantly move towards "normal" by using the exact same exercises you will not grow. You are arguing for this, and I gave you the scientific reasons why that does not make any sense whatsoever. That is in the simplest language I can give it to you.

For reference, major compound lifts continue to deliver results re: strength due to neuromuscular adaptations that occur as a result of massive and simultaneous muscle recruitment. Great for functional strength, not so great for lean mass development and shape.

Also, nowhere did I state machines are superior to free-weights; I think you are confused on what the thrust of my argument is. I feel like I am being Punk'd or something. Where is Ashton!?
Click to expand...

Can you cite any references for this pseudo-science?
 
Mulletsoldier said:
GymRat, that "scientific mumbo-jumbo" is how your body adapts to stimulus, and it has absolutely nothing to do with machines v., free-weights. Not sure what you are trying to drive at there. You were arguing against avoiding adaptation, which is one of the simplest and most legitimate premises of exercise physiology as a whole. If you allow your body to adapt, growth ceases - period. In the simplest terminology possible, growth is another term for disequillibrium: your body attempting to return to normal after the introduction of a stimulus. If you constantly move towards "normal" by using the exact same exercises you will not grow. You are arguing for this, and I gave you the scientific reasons why that does not make any sense whatsoever. That is in the simplest language I can give it to you.

For reference, major compound lifts continue to deliver results re: strength due to neuromuscular adaptations that occur as a result of massive and simultaneous muscle recruitment. Great for functional strength, not so great for lean mass development and shape.

Also, nowhere did I state machines are superior to free-weights; I think you are confused on what the thrust of my argument is. I feel like I am being Punk'd or something. Where is Ashton!?
Click to expand...

OK, I'm glad we cleared that up. But mulletsoldier, that's why I said increase the weight as often as possible. I said this workout should be better than the next. Meaning SOMETHING should change, usually IMO it being the weight. The change in weight gives your body something new to grow from, I catch your drift and I agree. But I think weight should be increased in linear progression, once a weight gets to the point where it's difficult to increase it's time to change SOMETHING to allow your body to break that plateau.
You'll find that we're not necessarily disagreeing on much at all.
 
GymRat7197 said:
OK, I'm glad we cleared that up. But mulletsoldier, that's why I said increase the weight as often as possible. I said this workout should be better than the next. Meaning SOMETHING should change, usually IMO it being the weight. The change in weight gives your body something new to grow from, I catch your drift and I agree. But I think weight should be increased in linear progression, once a weight gets to the point where it's difficult to increase it's time to change SOMETHING to allow your body to break that plateau.
You'll find that we're not necessarily disagreeing on much at all.
Click to expand...

Progressive overload is certainly important in inducing growth, and plays a major role in neuromuscular adaptation in particular.
 
Delita has a point, in the scientific terminology that you used, we really have no essential proof that it was legit. Not saying I disagree, I'm just saying it was new information to most of us and we have the choice to take your word for it or disbelieve it, I mean I for one have had a combined over 10,000 posts on various forums and haven't heard anything like that before. Not saying I disagree, but a source of information would be beneficial.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
Progressive overload is certainly important in inducing growth, and plays a major role in neuromuscular adaptation in particular.
Click to expand...

I agree. Progressive resistance is too though.

Progressive overload- overloading muscle by using various methods.

Progressive resistance- overloading muscle by adding weight.

Correct?
 
Delita420 said:
Every part that you cannot prove!
Click to expand...

How does this further the debate?

If you find something specific you want a reference for, I can surely point you in the proper directions. It seems a bit illogical to provide you references to something you are not aware of in the first place, no?

There is nothing to prove, really; nothing of what I said is in dispute, at least on your end. Until you challenge me on something, it is a bit difficult to "prove" something.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
How does this further the debate?

If you find something specific you want a reference for, I can surely point you in the proper directions. It seems a bit illogical to provide you references to something you are not aware of in the first place, no?

There is nothing to prove, really; nothing of what I said is in dispute, at least on your end. Until you challenge me on something, it is a bit difficult to "prove" something.
Click to expand...

I want some references that prove machines are an adequate replacement for free weights!
 
GymRat7197 said:
Delita has a point, in the scientific terminology that you used, we really have no essential proof that it was legit. Not saying I disagree, I'm just saying it was new information to most of us and we have the choice to take your word for it or disbelieve it, I mean I for one have had a combined over 10,000 posts on various forums and haven't heard anything like that before. Not saying I disagree, but a source of information would be beneficial.
Click to expand...

Yes, but which terminology, though?

Neuromuscular adaptation is far from "scientific mumbo-jumbo", and it is a pretty key part of exercise physiology. It describes a field of study that investigates the regulation of muscular contraction from the brain (neuro) to the muscle (muscular), and studies the generation of action potentials as they are carried out from the neuron to the individual fibers (myofibrils).

Effector protiens are also fairly common as well. Feel free to "Google" "effector proteins" or "effector proteins as transcription regulators".
 
My argument is in dedication of applying principles of progressive resistance and progressive overload as a frequent change. The post is above asking if the information was ideal on the principles, wouldn't they both apply of adding intensity OR volume as an increase in change which is the definition of "progression"?
 
GymRat7197 said:
I agree. Progressive resistance is too though.

Progressive overload- overloading muscle by using various methods.

Progressive resistance- overloading muscle by adding weight.

Correct?
Click to expand...

More or less. Progressive overload describes a linear progression of total volume: the intersection between weight and itensity.

Progressive resistance, as a principle, is what you are espousing here: same exercises, same weights, same sets, more weight. It is phenomenal for strength, but again, strength is not my goal.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
More or less. Progressive overload describes a linear progression of total volume: the intersection between weight and itensity.

Progressive resistance, as a principle, is what you are espousing here: same exercises, same weights, same sets, more weight. It is phenomenal for strength, but again, strength is not my goal.
Click to expand...

OK, I think we are in agreement.

Progressive overload meaning Person A failed at 3 x 8 on Week 2 of his training cycle. Ok week 3, he completed one set of 10, one set of 9, then one set of 8. That's progressive overload, correct? (progessive = increasing; overload = muscle exhaustion).

Progressive resistance meaning Person A bench pressed 3 x 5 with 185 lbs on week 1, then on week 4 completed 3 x 5 with 195. Progressive resistance, which has been my argument, is essential in ways to REACH progressive overload because weight is important in overloading the muscle.

I catch your drift, but you have at some point using principles of progressive resistance, your lifts are impressive. Therefore I'm assuming at one point you based a foundation of strength before contemplating a more bodybuilding / progressive overload approach?
 
Advantages of Free Weights:

Dumbbells and barbells are more effective in developing the smaller synergistic (helping) muscles and stabilizer muscles.

Free weight exercises more closely match the neurological patterns of associated sports skills from a biomechanical point of view, because of joint kinesthesis, leverage similarities, and bodily involvement.

Barbells and dumbbells are more versatile.

Barbells and dumbbells are less expensive.

Barbells and dumbbells take up less space.

Greater overall strength can be achieved using barbells and dumbbells.

Power is improved more efficiently and to a greater extent through the use of free weights.

Other aspects of fitness, including size, flexibility, reduced body fat, and muscle toning are achieved more efficiently through the use of free weights.

Disadvantages of Machines:

All machines are not alike, but most require the moving of a weight along a predetermined path (or track), making it nearly impossible to derive synergistic or stabilizer muscle strength.

Machines that control movement velocity (such as isokinetic machines) or vary the resistance over a given movement (such as Nautilus or Universal machines) have removed the “natural” aspect from the exercise. Many physiologists claim this renders such machines less effective in developing strength and size citing differing neurological input as the chief reason.

Because of machine construction constraints, it is generally impossible to achieve maximum velocity, and high-speed training is often a prerequisite in sports training. The machines may break, jerk about violently, or simply not accommodate such training.

Most machines are built to serve the average sized person. Very short or very tall people find it almost impossible to use many of the machines currently on the market.

Machines tend to be in a price range beyond the means of many gym owners, and often beyond the means of commercial spas as well.

Many machines are so specialized that one would have to purchase several in order to get even a marginally effective workout, floor space and budget permitting.

The space-age appearance of many machines lulls users into believing that high technology equals maximum efficiency in achieving fitness goals, a sentiment that is definitely not true. Nothing beats hard work.

The cam designs on variable resistance machines are frequently (more often than not) inaccurate; that is, they do not conform to the force curve of the intended movement. Thus, far less benefit is derived from its use than you would expect from free weights.
 
GymRat7197 said:
My argument is in dedication of applying principles of progressive resistance and progressive overload as a frequent change. The post is above asking if the information was ideal on the principles, wouldn't they both apply of adding intensity OR volume as an increase in change which is the definition of "progression"?
Click to expand...

This wording slightly confuses me; I am not entirely sure of what you are asking. I believe you are asking whether increasing volume or intensity qualifies as progressively overloading the stress on the muscle, just through different manners? In that case, they both do qualify.

My general point is that increasing "stress" or "work" is only one of the factors that results in muscular adaptation to exercise - i.e., growth. Recruitment patterns themselves play a large part in growth as well.
 
GymRat7197 said:
I catch your drift, but you have at some point using principles of progressive resistance, your lifts are impressive. Therefore I'm assuming at one point you based a foundation of strength before contemplating a more bodybuilding / progressive overload approach?
Click to expand...

Most certainly. If you read one of my posts, I say, though, that after reaching a certain level of development more aggressive principles in terms of avoiding adaptation must be employed; specifically if lean mass development is your goal. That is why I said "one-size-fits-all" is the wrong approach.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
This wording slightly confuses me; I am not entirely sure of what you are asking. I believe you are asking whether increasing volume or intensity qualifies as progressively overloading the stress on the muscle, just through different manners? In that case, they both do qualify.

My general point is that increasing "stress" or "work" is only one of the factors that results in muscular adaptation to exercise - i.e., growth. Recruitment patterns themselves play a large part in growth as well.
Click to expand...

Right. Progressive resistance would be overloading muscle, it would still be progression which is what even you said is the source of results, adapting being doing the same thing and progressive resistance (change in weight) and progressive overload (change in volume). Both are change and therefore would result in progression whether it be strength or size depended upon you goal.
 
GymRat7197 said:
Right. Progressive resistance would be overloading muscle, it would still be progression which is what even you said is the source of results, adapting being doing the same thing and progressive resistance (change in weight) and progressive overload (change in volume). Both are change and therefore would result in progression whether it be strength or size depended upon you goal.
Click to expand...

Yes, more or less. What I am trying to drive at though, GymRat, is that "stress load" is only one factor affecting muscle growth. Both PO and PR are different ways of increasing "stress load" in a linear week-by-week/day-by-day fashion. They are great, no doubt, but varying recruitment patterns through choosing varying movements, cadences and so forth results in important physiological responses. I will refrain from delving into these, as they deal with some of the transcription-dependent adaptations I was speaking about earlier.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
Yes, more or less. What I am trying to drive at though, GymRat, is that "stress load" is only one factor affecting muscle growth. Both PO and PR are different ways of increasing "stress load" in a linear week-by-week/day-by-day fashion. They are great, no doubt, but varying recruitment patterns through choosing varying movements, cadences and so forth results in important physiological responses. I will refrain from delving into these, as they deal with some of the transcription-dependent adaptations I was speaking about earlier.
Click to expand...

We are in agreement. I am just saying, that more exercises wouldn't be necessary until a bodypart plateaus. For example if you're still applying more weight on your bench press, IMO it isn't necessary to add more exercises, the muscle is being overloaded by applying weight, intensity and/or volume BOTH can provide sarcoplasmic hypertrophy provided the nutrition is ideal. Once your bench plateaus (or your chest) then it's necessary for more chest movements since progressive resistance cannot be further applied, but if it's your triceps causing you to fail, then adding tricep movements is necessary. If your goal is hypertrophy and strength doesn't apply to your goal, then if your triceps would stop growing, IMO, it'd be better to incorporate the principles of progressive overload to that particular muscle group.
 
I like the Smith also! Just feels great, but it's got to be smooth. Some are not....most.

Trivia! Who invented the Smith machine. Hint, he just turned I believe 95 a couple of weeks ago. He's a legend and one of my idols in BB.
 
I think the smith machine has its place for some things. In the process of finding a new gym that actually has a power / squat rack. However tonight I saw the best argument against the smith machine. A guy using a spotter on the smith machine! The guys were bigger built than I and lifting lighter flexing and strutting around when they were done. The smith machine lost alot of points with me after that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top