Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press

On Feb 3, 3:06 am, spodosaurus <spodosaurus.DeleteThis@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
[...]

> Aside from different positioning of the "bar" on the chest, the smith
> machine forces you into a linear motion that is none to flash for the
> shoulders. Just use a barbell.

[...]

Ari, point me to the definitive PubMedley type text that says the
Smith machine is harmful to ANY bodypart. Thx!

--
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

"Bob Feduniak" <robertfeduniak.RemoveThis@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4adb3224-cd53-4a7d-8761-4adfeb4e653d@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> I'd appreciate any info re which muscles are more/less involved in
> each of these exercises. It seems like they should work the same
> muscles, but the two exercises feel very different--especially with
> heavy weights, and I can't figure out why.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Bob Feduniak

"I THINK"

You have three Bench Presses, same muscles, inclined, declined and flat.
You have two seated "chest" presses to the chest and behind the neck to the
shoulders, same muscles I think just a different angle.

I do all the above once a week.


Burr
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

On Feb 3, 5:03 am, "Burr" <pitzra....TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "David" <forgot....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
[...]

> > <snip> the biomechanics of the smith machine are
> > linear and not right for presses and shoulder work - I think all the
> > latest gym machines work in an arc of some type.
> > trust me
>

(plugs fingers in ears)

NOT LISTENING!

Sorry, David, you just can't help some people! ME!

> "I Think" that the Smith Machine was for squats only!

Was? Well, I love it for flat and incline benches. My chiropractor,
however, recommended dumbbells for seated presses.

> I still prefer the "Squat Rack" when I'm by myself or just open stands when
> we are "squatting off"
>
> Burr

Agreed. I've never squatted on a Smith machine. I have seen some
videos on MDTV's "In the Trenches" of bodybuilders using the Smith for
front squats, back squats, lunges and all manner of pressing
movements.

--
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

Thanks to all for your responses. Here's some added info in response
to questions in your responses:

I use a Tuff Stuff Apollo5 machine for seated chest presses. So I'm
sitting straight up and pressing horizontally at a 90 degree angle to
my chest. It seems like this should involve exactly the same muscles
as a prone bench press or prone Smith press (apart from not involving
supporting muscles with the machines). But it "feels" as though there
is much more strain on my arms with the traditional bench press or the
prone Smith machine bench press. By "heavy weights" I mean weights
for which 1 - 4 reps is difficult. For me, that's in the 200 lb area
on the bench. I don't know if the numbers on the weight stacks of
machines mean anything, It's the whole stack on the Apollo5.

Thanks again,

Bob F
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

On Feb 3, 9:02 am, Tom Anderson <t....DeleteThis@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
[...]

> <snip> (rostrocaudal or mediolateral axes, <snip>

Beautiful. I'm saving that for when I have to cross that pesky bridge
à la Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

me: What do you mean? Rostrocaudal or mediolateral axes?
Bridgekeeper: Huh? I... I don't know that.
[he is thrown over the edge into the volcano]
Bridgekeeper: Auuuuuuuugh.

Sweet.

Wait, is rostrocaudal the same as mediolateral?
[he is thrown over]
me: Auuuuuuuugh.

(curtains close)

--
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

On Feb 3, 12:05 pm, spodosaurus <spodosaurus DeleteThis @_yahoo_.com> wrote:
[...]

> <snip> but are this still 'true' smith machines?

Okay, Tarzan.

Ari-zan: ARE THIS STILL TROO SMITH? ME AM AGAINST SMITH MACHINE!

[...]

> Spend six months working on a chest press machine. Get up to a maximum.
> Then see if you can come anywhere near that on a barbell bench press.

A better question than "are this still 'true'?" would be, six month
later will you have gained strength?

Rhetorical.

--
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

On Feb 3, 12:48 pm, Bob Feduniak <robertfedun... RemoveThis @msn.com> wrote:
> Thanks to all for your responses. Here's some added info in response
> to questions in your responses:
>
> I use a Tuff Stuff Apollo5 machine for seated chest presses. So I'm
> sitting straight up and pressing horizontally at a 90 degree angle to

Duh. I couldn't picture that. Though I've never seen or heard of a
Tuff Stuff Apollo5 machine, I have seen and used the Hammer Strength
vertical bench machine. Gotcha.

> my chest. It seems like this should involve exactly the same muscles
> as a prone bench press or prone Smith press (apart from not involving
> supporting muscles with the machines). But it "feels" as though there
> is much more strain on my arms with the traditional bench press or the

Agreed on that, Bob. The Hammer Strength definitely felt different,
heavier. With the flat bench with an Oly bar or the Smith machine you
can adjust yourself more than with the Hammer machine and, I'm
guessing, the Tuff Stuff machine, too. That is I can move myself up or
down the bench to align where the bar hits my chest. And I can arch my
back more on a bench than in the seated position of the Hammer, too.

> prone Smith machine bench press. By "heavy weights" I mean weights
> for which 1 - 4 reps is difficult. For me, that's in the 200 lb area
> on the bench. I don't know if the numbers on the weight stacks of
> machines mean anything, It's the whole stack on the Apollo5.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Bob F

You wrote:

"I'd appreciate any info re which muscles are more/less involved in
each of these exercises. It seems like they should work the same
muscles, but the two exercises feel very different--especially with
heavy weights, and I can't figure out why.

Thank you,

Bob Feduniak"

I'd say they work the same muscles but that the Smith or free weight
benching allows more flexibility so far as positioning yourself than
the Free Stuff or any vertical bench press machine. That fact (okay,
opinion) would create that different feel.

--
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

On Feb 3, 7:04 am, spodosaurus <spodosaurus.RemoveThis@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
[...]

> Anyway,

Anyway!

I say you give some idiot enough rope and they'll eventually hang
themselves. To wit:

> smith machine bench presses are for twats that
> want to pretend to train with weights.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CrRqDj4323Y

>
> Ari

Riiiiight.

--
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

On Feb 3, 8:24 am, "Burr" <pitzra... DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
[...]

> I did do front squats on a Smith machine a few times just because it was
> setup and ready to go. I think it's OK for front squats.
>
> Burr

Yeah, I just saw a guy doing front squats on the Smith at the gym
recently. Cool.

--
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, rev wrote:

> Curt wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 12:31 am, Bob Feduniak <robertfedun....TakeThisOut@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> re Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press
>>
>>> I'd appreciate any info re which muscles are more/less involved in
>>> each of these exercises. It seems like they should work the same
>>> muscles, but the two exercises feel very different--especially with
>>> heavy weights, and I can't figure out why.
>>
>> Seated Chest Press? You mean a flat bench with an Olympic bar versus a
>> Smith Bench?
>>
>> Heck define "Seated Chest Press."
>
> My assumption is that a seated chest press is in a machine, not a bench
> press free weight. If I am right they are totally different lifts except
> they both involve the chest. Define seated chest press indeed.

I don't know about 'totally different': they're both basically forward
pushing movements, where the pecs are the prime movers, and the triceps
second. The difference is that the Smith machine goes straight away from
the chest, with the hands not moving in the head/foot or centreline/flank
directions (rostrocaudal or mediolateral axes, to get technical!). With a
chest press machine, depending on the design, there could be movement in
both. This will affect the stresses on the joints, and the involvement of
supporting muscles like the deltoids. In terms of strength development,
it's probably a fairly minor difference, but it could make a big
difference in the way it feels.

tom

--
On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray,
Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right
answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of
confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

On Feb 3, 4:04 pm, "David" <forgot....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
[...]

> <snip> In my opinion it's best use is if you use it as
> the bad example!

Hey, I'm all about the bad example. At least in many areas of my life.
Why not in my gym equipment choices?

--
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

On Feb 3, 5:52 pm, Tom Anderson <t... RemoveThis @urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Curt wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 8:24 am, "Burr" <pitzra... RemoveThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> >> I did do front squats on a Smith machine a few times just because it was
> >> setup and ready to go. I think it's OK for front squats.
>
> > Yeah, I just saw a guy doing front squats on the Smith at the gym
> > recently. Cool.
>
> Surely this is missing the point?

(rolls eyes)

BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT *COOL!!!*

> Front squats are a variant which pushes
> your stability more,

Seriously, is its purpose only to push your stability more? Don't
front squats also hit the muscle differently which would be a benefit
whether you're doing them with a free Oly bar and plates as well as
within the confines of the Smith machine?

> so doing with a Smith machine, which is intrinsically
> stable, is throwing away that benefit.
>
> tom

WE'RE U.S. AMERICANS! (Even if some of us are living overseas.) WE
RESERVE THE VERY RIGHT TO THROW BENEFITS AWAY!!!! HOMELAND SECURITY,
TAKE MY FREEDOMS NOW!!!

Don't make us waterboard you, Anderson.

Hey, doubly seriously, doesn't that sound more like an extreme sport
than anything???

--
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

On Feb 3, 6:07 pm, Tom Anderson <t....TakeThisOut@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
[...]

> Get on eBay and buy yourself a first-year anatomy textbook! Tortora and
> Grabowski's a good one.

Thank you for the recommendation.

> The best thing about 'rostrocaudal' is that it means 'from nose to tail'.
> The point is that terms like 'front' and 'back' vary in meaning between
> things like mice and men because we walk in different positions, but nose
> and tail are constants.
>
> tom

I'm sure there's a punchline there somewhere, but forget it.

I do appreciate the definition/explanation. Hadn't bothered to look it
up, but it's an interesting word nonetheless.

Can you use that sucker in a sentence?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rostrocaudal

Oh, forget it. I don't have time for all those PhD-style words. NO!
(Retirement's not that far away though. Perhaps in my golden
years...)

--
--
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press