newbie group question

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5r6lg.7410$lp.2422@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "lyle" <lgoldstein27.TakeThisOut@nyc.rr.com> wrote
>>I am newbie and lurked for a little while. I thought I post a question
>> (I hope I dont get killed). I joined a small basement gym last year and
>> have a workout partner. We have progressed on the barbell bench press
>> to about 240lbs (with bar). Not a full set of 10 but about 5 clean
>> after pyramiding up from lower weights. We also did db presses.
>> The genius owners of the gym decided to upgrade and since its a
>> basement gym they replaced the barbell bench with a smith machine 2
>> months ago. My partner and I figured the weight of smith machine bar
>> was about 15-20 pounds and compensated for it by adding more weight. We
>> also continued to do db presses. We could comfortably do db presses 80
>> lbs flat and probably 90lb with assistance.
>> We recently went to another gym and did the barbell bench press and we
>> could do no more 6 reps of 195lbs.
>> Anybody ever had this experience? I dont think I lost any strength
>> because I could db presses around the same weight I was doing when I
>> was benching 240lbs. Could smith machine really screw you up that bad?
>
> Yes. More accurately, there is no consistent correlation between weight
> moved on a Smith machine version of any free weight exercise and the
> actual free weight exercise. The linear, single plane, stabilized movement
> of the Smith machine has two effects: negating any possibility of
> comparison to free weights, and, the really bad news, greatly increases
> the risk to the joints involved, especially shoulder.
>
> I have no problem with a gym owner adding Smith machines, because that's
> what the public wants, but any gym that actually replaces a free weight
> barbell bench with a Smith machine needs to be your former gym.
>
> We used to have a regular poster here named Lyle. In the Way Back Time. He
> has not, at least, joined the "Former MFW Regulars That Make National News
> And Go To Prison" Club. It was, to say the least, a more...uh,
> interesting...group back then. I won't hold you to those standards
>
> If you've lurked for a while, you should have figured out by now that MFW
> has a large number of trolls, troll enablers,

and exactly to whom are you referring?

> and those who like to respond to trolls. Try not to become entangled, or
> you'll miss out on my wise, sage, extraordinarily modest, advice.
>
> David
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

"David" <forgotwhy.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com.au> wrote
> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote >>
>> "lyle" <lgoldstein27.TakeThisOut@nyc.rr.com> wrote
>>>I am newbie and lurked for a little while. I thought I post a question
>>> (I hope I dont get killed). I joined a small basement gym last year and
>>> have a workout partner. We have progressed on the barbell bench press
>>> to about 240lbs (with bar). Not a full set of 10 but about 5 clean
>>> after pyramiding up from lower weights. We also did db presses.
>>> The genius owners of the gym decided to upgrade and since its a
>>> basement gym they replaced the barbell bench with a smith machine 2
>>> months ago. My partner and I figured the weight of smith machine bar
>>> was about 15-20 pounds and compensated for it by adding more weight. We
>>> also continued to do db presses. We could comfortably do db presses 80
>>> lbs flat and probably 90lb with assistance.
>>> We recently went to another gym and did the barbell bench press and we
>>> could do no more 6 reps of 195lbs.
>>> Anybody ever had this experience? I dont think I lost any strength
>>> because I could db presses around the same weight I was doing when I
>>> was benching 240lbs. Could smith machine really screw you up that bad?
>>
>> Yes. More accurately, there is no consistent correlation between weight
>> moved on a Smith machine version of any free weight exercise and the
>> actual free weight exercise. The linear, single plane, stabilized
>> movement of the Smith machine has two effects: negating any possibility
>> of comparison to free weights, and, the really bad news, greatly
>> increases the risk to the joints involved, especially shoulder.
>>
>> I have no problem with a gym owner adding Smith machines, because that's
>> what the public wants, but any gym that actually replaces a free weight
>> barbell bench with a Smith machine needs to be your former gym.
>>
>> We used to have a regular poster here named Lyle. In the Way Back Time.
>> He has not, at least, joined the "Former MFW Regulars That Make National
>> News And Go To Prison" Club. It was, to say the least, a more...uh,
>> interesting...group back then. I won't hold you to those standards
>>
>> If you've lurked for a while, you should have figured out by now that MFW
>> has a large number of trolls, troll enablers,
>
> and exactly to whom are you referring?

Ya' know, they do make pretty good meds for paranoia.

Loons like Mr Hankey are examples of non-compliance, not ineffectiveness.

David
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

"Curt James" <cwj111 DeleteThis @psu.edu> wrote in message
news:uqt992dkk97h1k6dip371su278iegtufb3@4ax.com...
> Cohen <sammiesdad DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>If you've lurked for a while, you should have figured out by now that MFW
>>has a large number of trolls, troll enablers,
>
> What? I've never heard the term...
>
>>and those who like to respond to trolls.
>
> Wait, wait, yes, I'm suddenly familiar with this term, but, really you
> shouldn't hold JMW accountable for responding to posts he finds
> especially interesting and jpeg-producing worthy, yes?
>
>>Try not to become entangled, or you'll miss out on my wise, sage,
>>extraordinarily modest, advice.
>
> Such shtik! You forgot exceedingly sarcastic, perhaps?

Curt, I don't think you should be responding to this Cohen troll. Do you?
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

"David" <forgotwhy DeleteThis @yahoo.com.au> wrote
> "Curt James" <cwj111 DeleteThis @psu.edu> wrote
>> Cohen <sammiesdad DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>If you've lurked for a while, you should have figured out by now that MFW
>>>has a large number of trolls, troll enablers,
>>
>> What? I've never heard the term...
>>
>>>and those who like to respond to trolls.
>>
>> Wait, wait, yes, I'm suddenly familiar with this term, but, really you
>> shouldn't hold JMW accountable for responding to posts he finds
>> especially interesting and jpeg-producing worthy, yes?
>>
>>>Try not to become entangled, or you'll miss out on my wise, sage,
>>>extraordinarily modest, advice.
>>
>> Such shtik! You forgot exceedingly sarcastic, perhaps?
>
> Curt, I don't think you should be responding to this Cohen troll. Do you?

I am feeling quite enabled.

David
the modest one, not the paranoid one
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:03:41 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy.RemoveThis@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:

>
>"Curt James" <cwj111.RemoveThis@psu.edu> wrote in message
>news:uqt992dkk97h1k6dip371su278iegtufb3@4ax.com...
>> Cohen <sammiesdad.RemoveThis@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>If you've lurked for a while, you should have figured out by now that MFW
>>>has a large number of trolls, troll enablers,
>>
>> What? I've never heard the term...
>>
>>>and those who like to respond to trolls.
>>
>> Wait, wait, yes, I'm suddenly familiar with this term, but, really you
>> shouldn't hold JMW accountable for responding to posts he finds
>> especially interesting and jpeg-producing worthy, yes?
>>
>>>Try not to become entangled, or you'll miss out on my wise, sage,
>>>extraordinarily modest, advice.
>>
>> Such shtik! You forgot exceedingly sarcastic, perhaps?
>
>Curt, I don't think you should be responding to this Cohen troll. Do you?
>

I think 'nursey boy' needs rehabilitating; responding to him and
appreciating his input once again, can help enormously in this
important remedial endeavour!

HAGS!
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

Cohen <sammiesdad RemoveThis @earthlink.net> wrote:

>"David" <forgotwhy RemoveThis @yahoo.com.au> wrote
>> "Curt James" <cwj111 RemoveThis @psu.edu> wrote
>>> Cohen <sammiesdad RemoveThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>If you've lurked for a while, you should have figured out by now
>>>>that MFW has a large number of trolls, troll enablers,
>>>
>>> What? I've never heard the term...
>>>
>>>>and those who like to respond to trolls.
>>>
>>> Wait, wait, yes, I'm suddenly familiar with this term, but, really you
>>> shouldn't hold JMW accountable for responding to posts he finds
>>> especially interesting and jpeg-producing worthy, yes?
>>>
>>>>Try not to become entangled, or you'll miss out on my wise, sage,
>>>>extraordinarily modest, advice.
>>>
>>> Such shtik! You forgot exceedingly sarcastic, perhaps?
>>
>> Curt, I don't think you should be responding to this Cohen troll.
>> Do you?

Why not? There are worse people I could (and do) reply to!

To wit: HEY, EMMY! COHEN'S ANOTHER CONDUIT! TAKE A NOTE, PAL!

>I am feeling quite enabled.

As every conduit should feel.

>David
>the modest one, not the paranoid one

--
Curt
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad RemoveThis @earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:R67lg.14343$921.11762@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "David" <forgotwhy RemoveThis @yahoo.com.au> wrote
>> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad RemoveThis @earthlink.net> wrote >>
>>> "lyle" <lgoldstein27 RemoveThis @nyc.rr.com> wrote
>>>>I am newbie and lurked for a little while. I thought I post a question
>>>> (I hope I dont get killed). I joined a small basement gym last year and
>>>> have a workout partner. We have progressed on the barbell bench press
>>>> to about 240lbs (with bar). Not a full set of 10 but about 5 clean
>>>> after pyramiding up from lower weights. We also did db presses.
>>>> The genius owners of the gym decided to upgrade and since its a
>>>> basement gym they replaced the barbell bench with a smith machine 2
>>>> months ago. My partner and I figured the weight of smith machine bar
>>>> was about 15-20 pounds and compensated for it by adding more weight. We
>>>> also continued to do db presses. We could comfortably do db presses 80
>>>> lbs flat and probably 90lb with assistance.
>>>> We recently went to another gym and did the barbell bench press and we
>>>> could do no more 6 reps of 195lbs.
>>>> Anybody ever had this experience? I dont think I lost any strength
>>>> because I could db presses around the same weight I was doing when I
>>>> was benching 240lbs. Could smith machine really screw you up that bad?
>>>
>>> Yes. More accurately, there is no consistent correlation between weight
>>> moved on a Smith machine version of any free weight exercise and the
>>> actual free weight exercise. The linear, single plane, stabilized
>>> movement of the Smith machine has two effects: negating any possibility
>>> of comparison to free weights, and, the really bad news, greatly
>>> increases the risk to the joints involved, especially shoulder.
>>>
>>> I have no problem with a gym owner adding Smith machines, because that's
>>> what the public wants, but any gym that actually replaces a free weight
>>> barbell bench with a Smith machine needs to be your former gym.
>>>
>>> We used to have a regular poster here named Lyle. In the Way Back Time.
>>> He has not, at least, joined the "Former MFW Regulars That Make National
>>> News And Go To Prison" Club. It was, to say the least, a more...uh,
>>> interesting...group back then. I won't hold you to those standards
>>>
>>> If you've lurked for a while, you should have figured out by now that
>>> MFW has a large number of trolls, troll enablers,
>>
>> and exactly to whom are you referring?
>
> Ya' know, they do make pretty good meds for paranoia.
>
> Loons like Mr Hankey are examples of non-compliance, not ineffectiveness.
>
> David

I just thought that where trolls and enablers are concerned that you would
be referring to the obvious ones (like Curt and Charles.) not one of the
long term and highly respected regulars!
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:57:24 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy DeleteThis @yahoo.com.au>
wrote:

>
>"David Cohen" <sammiesdad DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:R67lg.14343$921.11762@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "David" <forgotwhy DeleteThis @yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote >>
>>>> "lyle" <lgoldstein27 DeleteThis @nyc.rr.com> wrote
>>>>>I am newbie and lurked for a little while. I thought I post a question
>>>>> (I hope I dont get killed). I joined a small basement gym last year and
>>>>> have a workout partner. We have progressed on the barbell bench press
>>>>> to about 240lbs (with bar). Not a full set of 10 but about 5 clean
>>>>> after pyramiding up from lower weights. We also did db presses.
>>>>> The genius owners of the gym decided to upgrade and since its a
>>>>> basement gym they replaced the barbell bench with a smith machine 2
>>>>> months ago. My partner and I figured the weight of smith machine bar
>>>>> was about 15-20 pounds and compensated for it by adding more weight. We
>>>>> also continued to do db presses. We could comfortably do db presses 80
>>>>> lbs flat and probably 90lb with assistance.
>>>>> We recently went to another gym and did the barbell bench press and we
>>>>> could do no more 6 reps of 195lbs.
>>>>> Anybody ever had this experience? I dont think I lost any strength
>>>>> because I could db presses around the same weight I was doing when I
>>>>> was benching 240lbs. Could smith machine really screw you up that bad?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. More accurately, there is no consistent correlation between weight
>>>> moved on a Smith machine version of any free weight exercise and the
>>>> actual free weight exercise. The linear, single plane, stabilized
>>>> movement of the Smith machine has two effects: negating any possibility
>>>> of comparison to free weights, and, the really bad news, greatly
>>>> increases the risk to the joints involved, especially shoulder.
>>>>
>>>> I have no problem with a gym owner adding Smith machines, because that's
>>>> what the public wants, but any gym that actually replaces a free weight
>>>> barbell bench with a Smith machine needs to be your former gym.
>>>>
>>>> We used to have a regular poster here named Lyle. In the Way Back Time.
>>>> He has not, at least, joined the "Former MFW Regulars That Make National
>>>> News And Go To Prison" Club. It was, to say the least, a more...uh,
>>>> interesting...group back then. I won't hold you to those standards
>>>>
>>>> If you've lurked for a while, you should have figured out by now that
>>>> MFW has a large number of trolls, troll enablers,
>>>
>>> and exactly to whom are you referring?
>>
>> Ya' know, they do make pretty good meds for paranoia.
>>
>> Loons like Mr Hankey are examples of non-compliance, not ineffectiveness.
>>
>> David
>
>I just thought that where trolls and enablers are concerned that you would
>be referring to the obvious ones (like Curt and Charles.) not one of the
>long term and highly respected regulars!
>>
>>
>

You Sir, are a cunt!

I just thought you ought to know that! ;o)
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

"Charles" <jrh.TakeThisOut@msn.com> wrote in message
news:lc2a92hff3s24l517hrfqpfs16qvnunr3c@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:03:41 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Curt James" <cwj111.TakeThisOut@psu.edu> wrote in message
>>news:uqt992dkk97h1k6dip371su278iegtufb3@4ax.com...
>>> Cohen <sammiesdad.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>If you've lurked for a while, you should have figured out by now that
>>>>MFW
>>>>has a large number of trolls, troll enablers,
>>>
>>> What? I've never heard the term...
>>>
>>>>and those who like to respond to trolls.
>>>
>>> Wait, wait, yes, I'm suddenly familiar with this term, but, really you
>>> shouldn't hold JMW accountable for responding to posts he finds
>>> especially interesting and jpeg-producing worthy, yes?
>>>
>>>>Try not to become entangled, or you'll miss out on my wise, sage,
>>>>extraordinarily modest, advice.
>>>
>>> Such shtik! You forgot exceedingly sarcastic, perhaps?
>>
>>Curt, I don't think you should be responding to this Cohen troll. Do you?
>>
>
> I think 'nursey boy' needs rehabilitating; responding to him and
> appreciating his input once again, can help enormously in this
> important remedial endeavour!

ok, we'll pretend to appreciate him again. good idea. anything to help the
rehab process
>
> HAGS!
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

"Charles" <jrh RemoveThis @msn.com> wrote in message
news:4s2a92late463s1vdmdsc1ufa96c4kc692@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:57:24 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy RemoveThis @yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"David Cohen" <sammiesdad RemoveThis @earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:R67lg.14343$921.11762@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>> "David" <forgotwhy RemoveThis @yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>>> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad RemoveThis @earthlink.net> wrote >>
>>>>> "lyle" <lgoldstein27 RemoveThis @nyc.rr.com> wrote
>>>>>>I am newbie and lurked for a little while. I thought I post a question
>>>>>> (I hope I dont get killed). I joined a small basement gym last year
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> have a workout partner. We have progressed on the barbell bench
>>>>>> press
>>>>>> to about 240lbs (with bar). Not a full set of 10 but about 5 clean
>>>>>> after pyramiding up from lower weights. We also did db presses.
>>>>>> The genius owners of the gym decided to upgrade and since its a
>>>>>> basement gym they replaced the barbell bench with a smith machine 2
>>>>>> months ago. My partner and I figured the weight of smith machine bar
>>>>>> was about 15-20 pounds and compensated for it by adding more weight.
>>>>>> We
>>>>>> also continued to do db presses. We could comfortably do db presses
>>>>>> 80
>>>>>> lbs flat and probably 90lb with assistance.
>>>>>> We recently went to another gym and did the barbell bench press and
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> could do no more 6 reps of 195lbs.
>>>>>> Anybody ever had this experience? I dont think I lost any strength
>>>>>> because I could db presses around the same weight I was doing when I
>>>>>> was benching 240lbs. Could smith machine really screw you up that
>>>>>> bad?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. More accurately, there is no consistent correlation between
>>>>> weight
>>>>> moved on a Smith machine version of any free weight exercise and the
>>>>> actual free weight exercise. The linear, single plane, stabilized
>>>>> movement of the Smith machine has two effects: negating any
>>>>> possibility
>>>>> of comparison to free weights, and, the really bad news, greatly
>>>>> increases the risk to the joints involved, especially shoulder.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no problem with a gym owner adding Smith machines, because
>>>>> that's
>>>>> what the public wants, but any gym that actually replaces a free
>>>>> weight
>>>>> barbell bench with a Smith machine needs to be your former gym.
>>>>>
>>>>> We used to have a regular poster here named Lyle. In the Way Back
>>>>> Time.
>>>>> He has not, at least, joined the "Former MFW Regulars That Make
>>>>> National
>>>>> News And Go To Prison" Club. It was, to say the least, a more...uh,
>>>>> interesting...group back then. I won't hold you to those standards
>>>>>
>>>>> If you've lurked for a while, you should have figured out by now that
>>>>> MFW has a large number of trolls, troll enablers,
>>>>
>>>> and exactly to whom are you referring?
>>>
>>> Ya' know, they do make pretty good meds for paranoia.
>>>
>>> Loons like Mr Hankey are examples of non-compliance, not
>>> ineffectiveness.
>>>
>>> David
>>
>>I just thought that where trolls and enablers are concerned that you would
>>be referring to the obvious ones (like Curt and Charles.) not one of the
>>long term and highly respected regulars!
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> You Sir, are a cunt!
>
> I just thought you ought to know that! ;o)

I was joking! (I know I'm not a long term regular!)
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

JMW wrote:

> "oregonchick" <not_here.TakeThisOut@comcat.net> wrote:
>
>>"David Cohen" <sammiesdad.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:5r6lg.7410 >
>>
>>>We used to have a regular poster here named Lyle. In the Way Back Time. He
>>>has not, at least, joined the "Former MFW Regulars That Make National News
>>>And Go To Prison" Club. It was, to say the least, a more...uh,
>>>interesting...group back then. I won't hold you to those standards
>>
>>Geesh! I've noticed that too. What the hell happened? WHere are all the
>>regulars from circa 2004?
>
>
> 2004? Many of the regulars had already left by then. Lyle now
> presides as guru over his own ashram, and some of his loyal followers
> post there. Being female, you may be thinking of Nina and Sarah Jane;
> yes, that's where they hang out, although Sarah Jane occasionally pops
> up here.

I talk with (or just keep silent and read) Nina and Krista on a daily
basis and Sarah Jane almost as often. Usenet is so 1990's. Blogs are
where the action is.

Dally
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

"Dally" <Dally.DeleteThis@myself.com> wrote in message
news:4fm6vbF1h26olU2@individual.net...
> JMW wrote:
>
>> "oregonchick" <not_here.DeleteThis@comcat.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"David Cohen" <sammiesdad.DeleteThis@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:5r6lg.7410
>>> >
>>>
>>>>We used to have a regular poster here named Lyle. In the Way Back Time.
>>>>He has not, at least, joined the "Former MFW Regulars That Make National
>>>>News And Go To Prison" Club. It was, to say the least, a more...uh,
>>>>interesting...group back then. I won't hold you to those standards
>>>
>>>Geesh! I've noticed that too. What the hell happened? WHere are all
>>>the regulars from circa 2004?
>>
>>
>> 2004? Many of the regulars had already left by then. Lyle now
>> presides as guru over his own ashram, and some of his loyal followers
>> post there. Being female, you may be thinking of Nina and Sarah Jane;
>> yes, that's where they hang out, although Sarah Jane occasionally pops
>> up here.
>
> I talk with (or just keep silent and read) Nina and Krista on a daily
> basis and Sarah Jane almost as often. Usenet is so 1990's. Blogs are
> where the action is.

where do I go for that?
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

Dally <Dally.DeleteThis@myself.com> wrote:

>Usenet is so 1990's. Blogs are where the action is.

Please proceed post-haste to the nearest blog. TY!

--
Curt
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question