newbie group question

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).

Sorry. Six days to go. Or is it seven? This newsgroup is like that
horror flick. You've posted and now you get killed. Please extend my
condolences to your next of kin, thanks.

[...]

>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?

Lyle, could it be balance required of the Olympic bar versus simply
pushing the weight without regard to balance of the Smith Machine? See
if you get your balance back after a few workouts thus increasing your
free weight benching performance.

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

"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?

If you have been doing bench presses consistently, your strength
hasn't really changed much. Your neuromuscular patterning has
changed. If you went back to the free weights, you would recover most
of your ability very quickly.
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

JMWell-if-you-ain't-pubmed's-bitch
<jmwilliams.RemoveThis@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

[...]

>neuromuscular patterning

[...]

Good grief. Neuromuscular patterning? You are a HOOT!

And y'know, Em, sometimes it's easier to just use the word *balance*
instead of "the complex calculations necessary to coordinate location
and balance inputs with muscular-skeletal outputs," but, hey, knock
yourself out.

Please!

(ba dump bump)

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

JMWould-someone-tell-me-why-he's-talking-to-me?
<jmwilliams_56.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Curt James wrote:
>> JMWell-if-you-ain't-pubmed's-bitch
>> <jmwilliams.RemoveThis@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >neuromuscular patterning
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Good grief. Neuromuscular patterning? You are a HOOT!
>>
>> And y'know, Em, sometimes it's easier to just use the word *balance*
>> instead of "the complex calculations necessary to coordinate location
>> and balance inputs with muscular-skeletal outputs," but, hey, knock
>> yourself out.
>
>Maybe I used th<snip>

Maybe you're a conduit? Maybe you're a hypocrite? Maybe you use nickel
words when a penny would do? Maybe you're a colossal jerk? Uh huh. ;o)

>Of course, Lyle is concerned that his six-rep bench went down to 195.
>Did you mention to him that you can't bench 195 once?

Hey, Lyle, I can't bench 195 once.

That was easy. Any other questions, pal?

>http://www.rustyiron.net/curtpics.htm

Top left is me in Daytona, Florida. That's my Harley in the
background. Top right is yours truly again, but this time in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. My bike's there somewhere, but the bike
visible (barely) belongs to a friend. And the pic on the bottom is
from a few years back. Yeah, I am such a stud.

Here, Em, add this one to your collection. Taken this month. Check out
my Buddha belly.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a36/imnoone/DSC01132.jpg

And, hey, I said make me a new one! Animate it and be quick about it.

Oh, and here's one for those of you who love the ladies.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a36/imnoone/tucker.jpg

Blurry, yes, sorry about that.

The pic is of Tracy Tucker. She was the winner of the women's
lightweight and overall competition at the recent NPC Pennsylvania
Championships held in Harrisburg, PA.

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

"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 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 

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
http://curtjames.com/
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

"JMW" <jmwilliams.DeleteThis@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:i9t9929bpbu4m8ld8956smusm9j7h926l4@4ax.com...
> "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?
>
> If you have been doing bench presses consistently, your strength
> hasn't really changed much. Your neuromuscular patterning has
> changed. If you went back to the free weights, you would recover most
> of your ability very quickly.

Odd use of some of these terms. If you can't bench what you used to,
your strength at benching has "changed much." That it will likely come
back quickly is true and is good, I agree, but "neuromusucular
patterning" is part of strength.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad.DeleteThis@earthlink.net> schreef:

> 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.

There is no need for a correlation.
People should look at it as if its a different exercise. Just like barbell
or cable rows.

> 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.

It doesnt have to be if properly used. Just make sure all the force output
is vertical, IOW, postition of body, or joints to be more precise wrt to the
gliders are critical.

> 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.

Agreed.
Both is better. Always.

> We used to have a regular poster here named Lyle.

Who?

> 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 those who like to
> respond to trolls. Try not to become entangled, or you'll miss out on my
> wise, sage, extraordinarily modest, advice.

Yeah, what David said. Be VERY carefull who you speak to.
There are actually some control freaks here that are going to convince you
that their tyraioning methods are superior to all the others.

Those people are best to be ignored.

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

"Pete" <phoutstra DeleteThis @wanadoo.nl> wrote:

>"David Cohen" <sammiesdad DeleteThis @earthlink.net> schreef:
>
>> 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.
>
>There is no need for a correlation.
>People should look at it as if its a different exercise. Just like barbell
>or cable rows.
>
>> 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.
>
>It doesnt have to be if properly used. Just make sure all the force output
>is vertical, IOW, postition of body, or joints to be more precise wrt to the
>gliders are critical.
>
>> 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.
>
>Agreed.
>Both is better. Always.
>
>> We used to have a regular poster here named Lyle.
>
>Who?
>
>> 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 those who like to
>> respond to trolls. Try not to become entangled, or you'll miss out on my
>> wise, sage, extraordinarily modest, advice.
>
>Yeah, what David said. Be VERY carefull who you speak to.
>There are actually some control freaks here that are going to convince you
>that their tyraioning methods are superior to all the others.
>
>Those people are best to be ignored.

By the same token, just because someone sticks his tongue up the arse
of every newbie who posts here doesn't mean that he know what he's
talking about.
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

JMWet-tongue-up-someone's-what? <jmwilliams.DeleteThis@enforcergraphics.f2s.com>
wrote:

[...]

><snip> sticks his tongue up the arse of every ne<snip>

[...]

You're weird. You're from (is it from?) Ohio and yet you're using the
word... arse.

And you can't say balance, noooooooooo, you got be all highfalutin'
and say neeuuuuuromuscular patterning. Pfft!

Elvira thought you were nutso with the tongue-in-ass thing, eh? I keep
telling you, ya just gotta find the right girl, Em. Relax and don't
get all tense and fall victim to that whole mean-spirited misplaced
aggression action.

....

For it is best to have loved and been kicked to the curb for being a
colossal jerk with an unappreciated interest in all things anal, yes,
than to have never loved at all!

Just a guess.

Whatever, Em. Shut up and make me another animated gif.

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 03:02:40 -0400, JMW
<jmwilliams.DeleteThis@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

>"Pete" <phoutstra.DeleteThis@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
>>"David Cohen" <sammiesdad.DeleteThis@earthlink.net> schreef:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>There is no need for a correlation.
>>People should look at it as if its a different exercise. Just like barbell
>>or cable rows.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>It doesnt have to be if properly used. Just make sure all the force output
>>is vertical, IOW, postition of body, or joints to be more precise wrt to the
>>gliders are critical.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>Agreed.
>>Both is better. Always.
>>
>>> We used to have a regular poster here named Lyle.
>>
>>Who?
>>
>>> 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 those who like to
>>> respond to trolls. Try not to become entangled, or you'll miss out on my
>>> wise, sage, extraordinarily modest, advice.
>>
>>Yeah, what David said. Be VERY carefull who you speak to.
>>There are actually some control freaks here that are going to convince you
>>that their tyraioning methods are superior to all the others.
>>
>>Those people are best to be ignored.
>
>By the same token, just because someone sticks his tongue up the arse
>of every newbie who posts here doesn't mean that he know what he's
>talking about.

There's that 'tongue up the arse' fixation again.

The use of the English spelling, as opposed to the more traditional
[here] American spelling, is perhaps quite 'tellling'!

mmmmm...
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad.RemoveThis@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?
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 03:11:12 -0400, Curt James <cwj111 RemoveThis @psu.edu> wrote:

>JMWell-if-you-ain't-pubmed's-bitch
><jmwilliams RemoveThis @enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>neuromuscular patterning
>
>[...]
>
>Good grief. Neuromuscular patterning? You are a HOOT!
>
>And y'know, Em, sometimes it's easier to just use the word *balance*
>instead of "the complex calculations necessary to coordinate location
>and balance inputs with muscular-skeletal outputs," but, hey, knock
>yourself out.
>
>Please!
>
>(ba dump bump)
>

One word will never suffice for Em when he can use ten, and give the
impression that he is a learned one!

HAGS!
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question