Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press

Burr wrote:

>
> "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???

I don't like it, and I think that doing normal squats on it feels bad,
but it doesn't mean that balancing the bar it what is best in squats.

Balancing the bar is simply a skill which has very little to do with
injury prevention or balanced muscular development. We could do
squats with cables (like this Cable Bar guy or Louie Simmons) and
be perfectly fine without this sport specific skill.

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

On Feb 3, 12:48 pm, Bob Feduniak <robertfedun....DeleteThis@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
> 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


It appears to be a simple matter of gravity and weight distribution.
There are similar machines at my gym, and they all push out that way.
I can do a whole heck of a lot more weight on them than I can do with
a free-weight barbell bench press, up to ninety pounds more! And
that's because pushing up, vertically, is inherently harder than
pushing away horizontally, especially when that horizontal push is
passively, indirectly helped by a support structure, such as you have
with a machine (remember, *all* machines make life easier).

I'm sure there's a Physics 101 principle and corresponding formula
involved, too, but to my mind -- and I'm not even mechanically
inclined -- it seems intuitively obvious why pushing weight against
gravity should be harder than pushing with a passive support structure.
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

..An embarrassingly obvious possible explanation just occurred to me.
When you do a prone bench press (whether free weights or Smith
machine) you need to fully extend your arms directly against the force
of gravity. When you do a seated chest press, you need only extend
your arms horizontally. That might explain why the prone press seems
to put more demands on the triceps and delts.

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

On Feb 4, 1:43 pm, Bob Feduniak <robertfedun....DeleteThis@msn.com> wrote:
> .An embarrassingly obvious possible explanation just occurred to me.
> When you do a prone bench press (whether free weights or Smith
> machine) you need to fully extend your arms directly against the force
> of gravity. When you do a seated chest press, you need only extend
> your arms horizontally. That might explain why the prone press seems
> to put more demands on the triceps and delts.
>
> Bob F

Uh, yeah, what I'd said.

Great minds think alike!
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Curt wrote:

> 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?

'Hit the muscle differently'? Have you learned NOTHING here? You can hit
different muscles, or distribute the load between the same muscles
differently (and for this purpose, different heads of a muscle count as
separate muscles, like the sternal and clavicular heads of the pectorals),
but if a muscle is under a certain amount of stress, that's that.

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

But don't blame the Canadians!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ieT_lf9wK28

> Don't make us waterboard you, Anderson.
>
> Hey, doubly seriously, doesn't that sound more like an extreme sport
> than anything???

I know! I was like "Waterboarding? Somebody buy me an orange tuxedo, i'm
a-going to Gitmo!".

tom

--
IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Andrzej Rosa wrote:

> rev wrote:
>
>> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> It isn't about balancing *skills* imo. It's about letting the
>> supporting/stabilizing tendons etc etc become stronger as well.
>
> And I called this hype.

Why?

Your point about it not scaling is nonsense. There's an optimum, where you
train the main muscles and their stabilisers in the right ratio to be able
to lift things safely. Train your main muscles more, and you risk injury,
or the inability to lift anything that's not a Smith machine bar, or an
olympic bar sitting on a rack; train the stabilisers more and you just
won't have the power to move things that you'd be able to stabilise. If
you were eating only steak, and i said you should eat some potatoes as
well, would you scoff, saying that it doesn't scale because you can't
survive on potatoes alone?

As for competitions - what? I'm not aware of a significant form of
competition based on Smith machines. Powerlifters and olympic lifters lift
barbells, and there's a family of strongman sports based on lifting rocks,
cabers, tractors, and god knows what, which is the exact opposite of the
Smith machine.

>> Strong muscles with weak supporting tissue leads to injury. You should
>> know this Andrzej.
>
> I know that machines can be dangerous. Take motorcycles for example...

Guns, Andrzej, you mean guns.

tom

--
IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

On Feb 4, 10:56 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 1:43 pm, Bob Feduniak <robertfedun... RemoveThis @msn.com> wrote:
>
> > .An embarrassingly obvious possible explanation just occurred to me.
> > When you do a prone bench press (whether free weights or Smith
> > machine) you need to fully extend your arms directly against the force
> > of gravity. When you do a seated chest press, you need only extend
> > your arms horizontally. That might explain why the prone press seems
> > to put more demands on the triceps and delts.
>
> > Bob F
>
> Uh, yeah, what I'd said.
>
> Great minds think alike!

Indeed, but I see now that your mind got there first. Your post got
me wondering why it should be inherently harder to push vertically
rather than horizontally when the weights (or stack) that you're
lifting move vertically the same amount in each case. Then it hit me
that you're also "bench pressing the weight of your arms" in one case
but not the other. Now I see that you were saying the same thing.
Time to go do some chest presses.

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

On Feb 4, 5:27 pm, Bob Feduniak <robertfedun... RemoveThis @msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> Indeed, but I see now that your mind got there first. Your post got
> me wondering why it should be inherently harder to push vertically
> rather than horizontally when the weights (or stack) that you're
> lifting move vertically the same amount in each case.

If that puzzled you, try this for a "brain-teaser"...why can't you
flat bench press as much using dumbbells for weight as you can using a
barbell and plates?

> Then it hit me
> that you're also "bench pressing the weight of your arms" in one case
> but not the other.

Well, it's more Physics 101, though I can't quote you the exact
principle or formula -- but pushing something up will always be harder
than merely pushing something away (horizontally)...try pushing your
spotter away from you, for instance, and then skewer him shish-ka-bob
style over the barbell and see how far you get lifting him up....

> Now I see that you were saying the same thing.
> Time to go do some chest presses.
>
> Bob F

What I want to know is why I get more of a triceps and front delt
workout from bench presses...the decline bench press is about the only
one where I seem to work the pecs primarily -- like I'm supposed to!
I also have "problems" working the lats on pull-ups and pull-downs
more than I do my biceps, no matter the angle of my back!

Happy benching, BTW. It truly is the All-American Lift!
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

"rev" <mfw DeleteThis @volkmer.biz>
>
> It isn't about balancing *skills* imo. It's about letting the
> supporting/stabilizing tendons etc etc become stronger as well. Strong
> muscles with weak supporting tissue leads to injury. You should know this
> Andrzej.
>
> Cheers
> --
> Bob Volkmer

But Bob,
If you don't use them they won't get any better.
If you can't control the weight then use less weight until you can, the
Smith Machine will make your control weaker.

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

On Feb 4, 7:28 pm, spodosaurus <spodosaurus.TakeThisOut@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
>
>
> So gravity takes a holiday when using the machine's weight stack. Uh huh.

Sigh...there is *less* of a downward gravitational effect pushing
something horizontally than pushing it vertically. Moreover, "it's
all you" in a free-weight barbell flat bench press, whereas it's
partly the machine (actually holding the weight for you) with one of
these seated chest presses.

In terms of absolute poundage, you'll always surpass your free-weight
barbell flat bench press 1RM on one of these machines...by far: though
I can do 405-lbs. using one of those machines, my real 1RM is only 335-
lbs.

Machines, by definition, make life easier.
 >> Stay informed about: Seated Chest Press vs Smith Machine Bench Press 

On Feb 4, 3:10 am, Andrzej Rosa <bakt....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]

> I know that machines can be dangerous.
> Take motorcycles for example...

Nom?

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

On Feb 4, 8:23 am, Tom Anderson <t....RemoveThis@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Curt wrote:
> > 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?
>
> 'Hit the muscle differently'? Have you learned NOTHING here?

Anderson, I know EVERYTHING. There is NOTHING I have not learned.
NOTHING!

However... my memory is toast. So...

> You can hit different muscles, or distribute the load between the same muscles
> differently (and for this purpose, different heads of a muscle count as
> separate muscles, like the sternal and clavicular heads of the pectorals),

Uh, THAT's what I meant. Does it hit the muscle differently so far as,
um, does it hit the muscle differently like the sternal versus
clavicular heads of the pectorals?

SEE?

> but if a muscle is under a certain amount of stress, that's that.

Okay.

> >> so doing with a Smith machine, which is intrinsically
> >> stable, is throwing away that benefit.
>
> > 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!!!
>
> But don't blame the Canadians!

Again, Imma U.S. 'merican. I reserve the right to blame any and all
nationalities, cultures, ethnicities, genders, this, that, and the
other so long as I can avoid blame resting squarely on MY SHOULDERS!
So there!

> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ieT_lf9wK28
>
> > Don't make us waterboard you, Anderson.
>
> > Hey, doubly seriously, doesn't that sound more like an extreme sport
> > than anything???
>
> I know! I was like "Waterboarding? Somebody buy me an orange tuxedo, i'm
> a-going to Gitmo!".

Don't take my joke and make it better, Anderson. You're just digging a
deeper hole for yourself!

(i KEED!)

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

On Feb 4, 12:49 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]

> I never lost a friend to a gun.

But they're dropping like flies over by the Smith machine???

Wuzzat?

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