Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press

"Curt" <curtjames.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d7443494-e2a5-4d30-aa79-d5850fe006c2@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 6, 7:42 pm, "Burr" <pitzra....TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "Curt" <curtja....TakeThisOut@gmail.com>
>>
>> > I did five years in the U.S. military and our ship got shot at at
>> > least one time.
>>
>> > Okay, it was a mistake by a fellow NATO ship during a wave-the-flag
>> > cruise, but still.
>>
>> IF--king Squid, if you did five years you must have been a "Officer"????
>>
>> Burr
>
> heh
>
> I was a JO, but not a junior officer - a journalist. Plenty of
> collateral duties, though. Anyway, I'll spell America anyway you say,
> Mr. Nam. I was in during the Reagan years. Pretty quiet sailing then.
>
> --

Thank You, thank you very much.

You still write?

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

On Feb 7, 7:29 am, Tom Anderson <t....RemoveThis@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>
> I'm getting the impression that you don't know how a chest press machine
> works. You push forward, horizontally, on some levers. The levers are
> connected by a spooky mechanism to a stack of weights - and they move
> *vertically* (told you the mechanism was spooky!). So when you're doing a
> machine chest press, you're lifting the weights 100% against gravity. So
> the direction of push doesn't affect the way the weights relate to gravity
> - but it does affect the way the weight of your arms relates to gravity,
> since those aren't on the other end of the mechanism.

Can you show me a picture of what you mean, then? I'm pretty sure we
have the same things in mind...there are a few different seated chest
press machines in my gym, and thought their structural design is
different, they all seem to work the same way.

Look, all I'm saying is is: you jump farther when jumping horizontally
than vertically (basically my shot put example). Weight of the legs
(or arms, what you'd noted) doesn't matter 'cause it's factored in in
both situations.

> Oh, and for itto be 70% against gravity, you'd have to be pushing at 45
> degrees.

Whatever the exact percentage is; my point was that it's much less,
which is why it's easier. Again, jumping straight up isn't going to
take you further than jumping straight across. Why not? You're
working against much more gravity in one case than the other...same
thing with the seated chest press.

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

On Feb 6, 10:51 pm, Bob Feduniak <robertfedun....RemoveThis@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> I think we're saying the same thing in different ways.
>
> Bob F

We certainly do seem to be going in circles! Which is to say, we're
hovering over the same thing, yes...but I think I'm much closer to
it.

You guys are talking "weight of the arms"...I'm saying no way is that
an issue. Just think about throwing something straight up as to
straight across the field...or jumping straight up compared to jumping
straight across the room...the weight of your arms or legs is
irrelevant, as they are the same in both situations....
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Curt wrote:

> On Feb 6, 7:03 am, "Burr" <pitzra... DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> In Service, 3 years, six months, three days, 5 hours and 15 minutes.
>
> Did you get shot at? At least one time?
>
> I did five years in the U.S. military and our ship got shot at at
> least one time.
>
> Okay, it was a mistake by a fellow NATO ship during a wave-the-flag
> cruise, but still.

Go on, name names. Which country? And with what? I'm assuming nobody
flicked a 4.5" shell at you. Was it the Italians, with that pansy little
76 mm gun of theirs?

tom

--
Science of a sufficiently advanced form is indistinguishable from magic
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Prisoner at War wrote:

> Your arms really isn't the point, see. Yes, in a sense, we do agree,
> but it's really got nothing to do with the weight of one's arms. That's
> just "total weight" to be pushed, regardless of the direction of the
> push. What makes the two directions of pushing feel so different (i.e.,
> one harder to perform than the other) is that one is going 100% against
> gravity while laying down and pushing up, while maybe only 70% against
> gravity while seated upright and pushing out, forward.

I'm getting the impression that you don't know how a chest press machine
works. You push forward, horizontally, on some levers. The levers are
connected by a spooky mechanism to a stack of weights - and they move
*vertically* (told you the mechanism was spooky!). So when you're doing a
machine chest press, you're lifting the weights 100% against gravity. So
the direction of push doesn't affect the way the weights relate to gravity
- but it does affect the way the weight of your arms relates to gravity,
since those aren't on the other end of the mechanism.

Oh, and for itto be 70% against gravity, you'd have to be pushing at 45
degrees.

tom

> On Feb 6, 1:42 pm, Tom Anderson <t... DeleteThis @urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>> No, because you're pushing them horizontally, not vertically, and so not
>> against the force of gravity. You're not lifting them. That's the point.
>>
>> Huh? What do you mean by "pushing horizontally [...] with a machine
>> supporting the weight"? And why is that harder than pushing against the
>> same load vertically?
>>
>> Yes. Okay, we agree. This 'force of gravity' or 'gravitational effect' is
>> applied to the arms, right? We're not talking about the pull of gravity on
>> the weight stack or any part of the machine?

--
Science of a sufficiently advanced form is indistinguishable from magic
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

I did allude to it several times, actually, when I said things like
"support structure" and "machines make things easier."



On Feb 7, 4:48 pm, rev <m....TakeThisOut@volkmer.biz> wrote:
>
>
> While I am no engineer, I am puzzled why nobody has brought up the
> *spooky* mechanism in the chest press machine before . The use of and
> number of pulleys used in the spooky mechanism could well create a
> mechanical advantage and hence reduce the force needed to move the
> weight for any given distance.
>
> Some light discussion of mechanical advantage cab be found herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_advantage
>
>
>
> > Oh, and for itto be 70% against gravity, you'd have to be pushing at 45
> > degrees.
>
> > tom
>
> >> On Feb 6, 1:42 pm, Tom Anderson <t....TakeThisOut@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
> >>> No, because you're pushing them horizontally, not vertically, and so not
> >>> against the force of gravity. You're not lifting them. That's the point.
>
> >>> Huh? What do you mean by "pushing horizontally [...] with a machine
> >>> supporting the weight"? And why is that harder than pushing against the
> >>> same load vertically?
>
> >>> Yes. Okay, we agree. This 'force of gravity' or 'gravitational
> >>> effect' is
> >>> applied to the arms, right? We're not talking about the pull of
> >>> gravity on
> >>> the weight stack or any part of the machine?
>
> --
> Bob Volkmer
> rev@IRC
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

On Feb 6, 10:22 pm, "Burr" <pitzra....TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Curt" <curtja....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d7443494-e2a5-4d30-aa79-d5850fe006c2@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 6, 7:42 pm, "Burr" <pitzra....TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> "Curt" <curtja....TakeThisOut@gmail.com>
>
> >> > I did five years in the U.S. military and our ship got shot at at
> >> > least one time.
>
> >> > Okay, it was a mistake by a fellow NATO ship during a wave-the-flag
> >> > cruise, but still.
>
> >> IF--king Squid, if you did five years you must have been a "Officer"????
>
> >> Burr
>
> > heh
>
> > I was a JO, but not a junior officer - a journalist. Plenty of
> > collateral duties, though. Anyway, I'll spell America anyway you say,
> > Mr. Nam. I was in during the Reagan years. Pretty quiet sailing then.
>
> >
>
> Thank You, thank you very much.
>
> You still write?
>
> Burr

Only here and lesson plans. That's plenty!

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

On Feb 7, 7:24 am, Tom Anderson <t....DeleteThis@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
[...]

> Go on, name names. Which country?

Kazakhstan, of course.

> And with what?

Poor accuracy, fortunately.

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

Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Prisoner at War wrote:
>
>> Your arms really isn't the point, see. Yes, in a sense, we do agree,
>> but it's really got nothing to do with the weight of one's arms.
>> That's just "total weight" to be pushed, regardless of the direction
>> of the push. What makes the two directions of pushing feel so
>> different (i.e., one harder to perform than the other) is that one is
>> going 100% against gravity while laying down and pushing up, while
>> maybe only 70% against gravity while seated upright and pushing out,
>> forward.
>
> I'm getting the impression that you don't know how a chest press machine
> works. You push forward, horizontally, on some levers. The levers are
> connected by a spooky mechanism to a stack of weights - and they move
> *vertically* (told you the mechanism was spooky!). So when you're doing
> a machine chest press, you're lifting the weights 100% against gravity.
> So the direction of push doesn't affect the way the weights relate to
> gravity - but it does affect the way the weight of your arms relates to
> gravity, since those aren't on the other end of the mechanism.
>

While I am no engineer, I am puzzled why nobody has brought up the
*spooky* mechanism in the chest press machine before . The use of and
number of pulleys used in the spooky mechanism could well create a
mechanical advantage and hence reduce the force needed to move the
weight for any given distance.

Some light discussion of mechanical advantage cab be found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_advantage




> Oh, and for itto be 70% against gravity, you'd have to be pushing at 45
> degrees.
>
> tom
>
>> On Feb 6, 1:42 pm, Tom Anderson <t... RemoveThis @urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>
>>> No, because you're pushing them horizontally, not vertically, and so not
>>> against the force of gravity. You're not lifting them. That's the point.
>>>
>>> Huh? What do you mean by "pushing horizontally [...] with a machine
>>> supporting the weight"? And why is that harder than pushing against the
>>> same load vertically?
>>>
>>> Yes. Okay, we agree. This 'force of gravity' or 'gravitational
>>> effect' is
>>> applied to the arms, right? We're not talking about the pull of
>>> gravity on
>>> the weight stack or any part of the machine?
>


--
Bob Volkmer
rev@IRC
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

"Curt" <curtjames.RemoveThis@gmail.com>
>>
>> Thank You, thank you very much.
>>
>> You still write?
>>
>> Burr
>
> Only here and lesson plans. That's plenty!
>
> --
>
>
You a teacher?
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

On Feb 8, 11:49 am, Tom Anderson <t....TakeThisOut@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, rev wrote:
> > Tom Anderson wrote:
> >> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Prisoner at War wrote:
>
> >>> Your arms really isn't the point, see. Yes, in a sense, we do agree, but
> >>> it's really got nothing to do with the weight of one's arms. That's just
> >>> "total weight" to be pushed, regardless of the direction of the push.
> >>> What makes the two directions of pushing feel so different (i.e., one
> >>> harder to perform than the other) is that one is going 100% against
> >>> gravity while laying down and pushing up, while maybe only 70% against
> >>> gravity while seated upright and pushing out, forward.
>
> >> I'm getting the impression that you don't know how a chest press machine
> >> works. You push forward, horizontally, on some levers. The levers are
> >> connected by a spooky mechanism to a stack of weights - and they move
> >> *vertically* (told you the mechanism was spooky!). So when you're doing a
> >> machine chest press, you're lifting the weights 100% against gravity. So
> >> the direction of push doesn't affect the way the weights relate to gravity
> >> - but it does affect the way the weight of your arms relates to gravity,
> >> since those aren't on the other end of the mechanism.
>
> > While I am no engineer, I am puzzled why nobody has brought up the
> > *spooky* mechanism in the chest press machine before . The use of and
> > number of pulleys used in the spooky mechanism could well create a
> > mechanical advantage and hence reduce the force needed to move the
> > weight for any given distance.
>
> This point gets made here occasionally, but i think it's misplaced. It
> would be absolute madness to build a machine where to lift the 100 lb
> weight, you didn't have to exert 100 lb of force. If there is mechanical
> advantage, wouldn't the designer adjust the weights (or the labelling on
> them) to compensate for it?

The mechanical advantage is *inherent* and *inescapable*...this is why
free-weight exercises are always harder than the machine versions!
Again, machines make life easier...this is why I always say to people
that my commuting by bicycle hasn't anything to do with health at all
(if anything, I'm getting lung cancer from the rest of you)....

> We need to go and take measurements of distances moved at the handles and
> weight stack on our chest press machines, and then weigh the weights, to
> see if this is happening or not.

Hehe...you know, I wonder why the nerds at sci.physics haven't said
anything. They're probably laughing their asses off at meatheads
trying to figure out the first two pages of a high school physics
textbook! I know this 'cause I'm a nerd trapped in a jock's body....

> tom
>
> --
> Next issue - Nigel and the slavegirls ... or, why capitalism can never
> work!
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

On Feb 5, 1:06 am, Rock Brentwood <markw... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> No, that can't be it; because the same disparity is there even on
> machines where the push is straight up and in every other way the same
> as a bench press.

Yes, the same disparity is there, but in the case of a machine where
the chest press is done laying down, as in a flat bench press, the
disparity is much reduced, and entirely attributable to the "support
structures" of the machine stabilizing the weight. In the case of a
seated chest press machine, the disparity is only slightly due to that
weight-stabilizing support structure and more because of how the
muscles have to work against gravity.

Just think: jumping straight up into the air is harder than jumping
straight across the room (or throwing a shot put straight up as
opposed to straight across).

> I thought early on that it might be psychological. But now I'm
> beginning to realise that this may be nothing more than old wisdom:
> the burdening brought on by the need for fine balance control plays a
> significant part in the lifting.

It's significant enough such that people will always lift much more
poundage with a machine than on the original unassisted version of the
exercise, yes.

> The machine may take that away if it
> does not allow differential control for left and right.

No, even allowing for left/right differential control (what Shava X
had referred to as double-axial, I believe), the machine still
*necessarily* supports the weight and thereby stabilizes it for the
user. That's just inescapable. Machines make life easier.

> Even
> differential control on a machine may not be enough to make up the
> difference.

I suppose someone could design a machine to replicate the user-induced
stabilization of weight attendant to free-weight exercises, sure, but
then why not just do the free-weight version.

As a mechanical engineering problem, however, I do wonder if full
replication could be achieved...full range of movement, an infinite
variation of angles and vertices...it would be a useless thing, of
course -- why not just do the free-weight version -- but it would be
an interesting achievement to totally model all possible movement....
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, rev wrote:

> Tom Anderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Prisoner at War wrote:
>>
>>> Your arms really isn't the point, see. Yes, in a sense, we do agree, but
>>> it's really got nothing to do with the weight of one's arms. That's just
>>> "total weight" to be pushed, regardless of the direction of the push.
>>> What makes the two directions of pushing feel so different (i.e., one
>>> harder to perform than the other) is that one is going 100% against
>>> gravity while laying down and pushing up, while maybe only 70% against
>>> gravity while seated upright and pushing out, forward.
>>
>> I'm getting the impression that you don't know how a chest press machine
>> works. You push forward, horizontally, on some levers. The levers are
>> connected by a spooky mechanism to a stack of weights - and they move
>> *vertically* (told you the mechanism was spooky!). So when you're doing a
>> machine chest press, you're lifting the weights 100% against gravity. So
>> the direction of push doesn't affect the way the weights relate to gravity
>> - but it does affect the way the weight of your arms relates to gravity,
>> since those aren't on the other end of the mechanism.
>
> While I am no engineer, I am puzzled why nobody has brought up the
> *spooky* mechanism in the chest press machine before . The use of and
> number of pulleys used in the spooky mechanism could well create a
> mechanical advantage and hence reduce the force needed to move the
> weight for any given distance.

This point gets made here occasionally, but i think it's misplaced. It
would be absolute madness to build a machine where to lift the 100 lb
weight, you didn't have to exert 100 lb of force. If there is mechanical
advantage, wouldn't the designer adjust the weights (or the labelling on
them) to compensate for it?

We need to go and take measurements of distances moved at the handles and
weight stack on our chest press machines, and then weigh the weights, to
see if this is happening or not.

tom

--
Next issue - Nigel and the slavegirls ... or, why capitalism can never
work!
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press