Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press

Curt wrote:
> On Feb 3, 12:31 am, Bob Feduniak <robertfedun....RemoveThis@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.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Bob Feduniak
>
> Seated Chest Press? You mean a flat bench with an Olympic bar versus a
> Smith Bench?
>
> The latter takes the balancing part out of the equation. All you do is
> press up and lower the weight which makes it feel a lot easier than
> handling an Olympic bar with plates on it.
>
> Define "heavy weights."
>
> Heck define "Seated Chest Press."
>
> Regardless, the Smith Machine makes things easier because it does part
> of the "work" for you.
>
> --

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

"Curt" >
> Regardless, the Smith Machine makes things easier because it does part
> of the "work" for you.
>
> --

I don't like the Smith Machine, it makes me feel off balance.
I like free weights (if you ever bought them you won't think "free")

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

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, spodosaurus wrote:

> Tom Anderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, rev wrote:
>>
>>> Curt wrote:
>>>> On Feb 3, 12:31 am, Bob Feduniak <robertfedun....RemoveThis@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
>
> Some do now, but are this still 'true' smith machines?

Hmm. No - they're heretical. Burn them.

>> 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.
>
> 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.

Oh, agreed, completely. But we were comparing the Smith machine and the
chest press machine, and i think they're similar.

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 

"Curt" <curtjames.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8f6b9895-180d-49d9-8292-d24f03df0d80@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 3, 3:06 am, spodosaurus <spodosaurus.RemoveThis@_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!
>
I think Ari may have a point as 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

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

"David" <forgotwhy.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:47a57b52$0$25392$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Curt" <curtjames.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8f6b9895-180d-49d9-8292-d24f03df0d80@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 3, 3:06 am, spodosaurus <spodosaurus.TakeThisOut@_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!
>>
> I think Ari may have a point as 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
>
>> --
>
>

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

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

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

Curt wrote:
> 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!
>
> --

Got the money to fund the study? If not, you'll have to rely on theory
and anecdotal reports, just like the rest of us. The smith machine's use
is for strengthening very short distances along a complete ROM, such as
building strength with heavy weights for the few inches that comprise
the sticking point in a lift.

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

Ari

--
spammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply
Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor and literally save someone's life:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

"Curt" <curtjames.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:198fdfd1-96a7-49a3-ae51-7e9810a0d2fb@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 3, 5:03 am, "Burr" <pitzra....RemoveThis@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "David" <forgot....RemoveThis@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.
>
> --
>
>

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

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? Front squats are a variant which pushes
your stability more, so doing with a Smith machine, which is intrinsically
stable, is throwing away that benefit.

tom

--
What? Yeah!
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, rev wrote:
>
>> Curt wrote:
>>> On Feb 3, 12:31 am, Bob Feduniak <robertfedun....DeleteThis@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

Some do now, but are this still 'true' smith machines?

>
> 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.

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.

>
> tom
>


--
spammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply
Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor and literally save someone's life:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

"Curt" <curtjames.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:198fdfd1-96a7-49a3-ae51-7e9810a0d2fb@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 3, 5:03 am, "Burr" <pitzra....RemoveThis@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "David" <forgot....RemoveThis@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.
>
> --
I s'pose it has some uses. In my opinion it's best use is if you use it as
the bad example!

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

Curt wrote:
> On Feb 3, 7:04 am, spodosaurus <spodosaurus.DeleteThis@_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.
>
> --

Perhaps you didn't pick up on the subtle smirk in my words there.
Regardless, that guy isn't benching. He couldn't even handle that on a
barbell. He's also juiced to the gills, and so is his boyfriend with the
gyno.

How about addressing the bulk of my reply? Getting back to the point
you're trying to avoid:

"Got the money to fund the study? If not, you'll have to rely on theory
and anecdotal reports, just like the rest of us. The smith machine's use
is for strengthening very short distances along a complete ROM, such as
building strength with heavy weights for the few inches that comprise
the sticking point in a lift."

Ari

--
spammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply
Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor and literally save someone's life:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

Tom Anderson 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? Front squats are a variant which pushes
> your stability more, so doing with a Smith machine, which is intrinsically
> stable, is throwing away that benefit.

Most of this stability hype is pure nonsense. Look at it that way - it doesn't
scale at all. If unstable movements are best (for whatever reason) then one
should strive to do some circus stuff, when lifting toothpicks is a challenge
only the best can attempt. On the other hand doing smith machine squats, like
strongmen do in competition, would be totally pointless.

We do heavy resistance exercises to train muscles, not to train our balancing
skills.

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

"Andrzej Rosa"
>
> We do heavy resistance exercises to train muscles, not to train our
> balancing
> skills.
>
> --
> Andrzej Rosa

SO, are you saying you like Smith Machines or not???

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