Squats-Normal vs. Smith

[Guinness]

From time to time on this board, I see a squat thread where a bunch of bro's basically come in and rip smith squats. I guess what I'd like to know from you folks is, why?

Why do most consider smith squats useless and normal, free-bar squats so much better? And please refrain from answers like, "Cuz that's what I do, and have always done, and I'm friggin huge!". Give me some real evidence that shows why free-bar squats are better...I know some of you out there are kinesiology or physiology majors, or are really students of the iron game and get into it on that level...I'd like to hear from you folks.

 

[needsize]

This is just my .02 cents worth, but I think reg squats are more effective as the require many more muscles to stabilize during the rep. Squatting heavy will build everything from your back down to your calves. Plus it doesn't lock you into a preset range of motion as the smith machine does, which can lead to injury.

 

[gymtime]

I'm not a trainer and I haven't had a major in about ten years. But I don't think I need any of that to understand why freeweights are better than machine excercises. Needsize said it. Whether it's squats, bench, mil press, whatever. Incorporating stablizer muscles into an excercise is more beneficial than not incorporating them, as you do using a machine.

And no one on this board with a brain in his head will tell you that smith machines are "useless." They're just not as productive as freeweights.

This aspect of weightlifting is not rocket surgery. It's a pretty basic rule of the game.

 

[Blood&Iron]

This has, I think, been addressed before. As the others said, the Smith machine locks one into an unnatural groove, e.g. the bar moves straight up and down. Look at someone perform a free weight squat. The motion is something like a compressed, backwards S(Can't really give a better description.) Additionally, the Smith machine uninvolves the hamstrings which, among other things, stabilize the knee joint. One more disadvantage is that while free weight squatting requires a very strong lower back, which many trainees tend to otherwise neglect, Smith machine squats require almost nothing in the way of lower back strength.

 

[Natural_Teen]

My 2 cents is that free weight squats are great for building mass on the lower body. Though if you want to target just the hams and quads, and not the glutes, smith machine squats work much better as those muscles are the only things that hold one up while parallel in the squat motion.

 

[TheGame2001]

natural teen

Your not going to get very far until you figure it out natural teen. your way off dude. free squats are better for hams, quads, glutes than smith machine ever thought about doing.

And thats basic bodybuilding 101, not rocket science.

Good luck.

 

[javaguru]

Most machines are designed for the "average" person, nautilus machines are desined for a 5'9" 154lb male, the more you deviate from the average the less effective the machine becomes. Likewise, free weights translate into greater "real world" performance due to requiring your entire body to work as a unit. I don't want to just look strong, I want to be strong!

 

[Guinness]

Well, some of the responses were pretty good, but honestly, I'm still not convinced.

Needsize/Blood&Iron,

You guys might be right....there might be something to the whole up and down motion issue....But I gotta be honest with you guys, I have to disagree when you say you don't feel it in the hams or lower back. When I do smith squats, I feel both, and glutes too. I try to go parallel or below on every rep and believe me, the next day, my butt, quads and hams are all pretty sore. Now, I'd have to agree that smith squats don't affect lower back as much as regular squats, but for my money, that's exactly the point. With smith squats, you are able to remove or at least lessen the impact of your lower back on your exercise performance, and for me, that's a good thing. Now, I know what you guys are going to say, just make your lower back stronger..quit being a puss. But here's my take on that...for me, the point of doing squats is to target legs....quads, hams, and glutes. If I want to work lower back, I'll do hyper-extensions or dead lifts. So, by minimizing the role of weaker stabilizer muscles, including lower back, I feel like I'm focusing more on leg development and hitting my target muscles better.

The other thing I like is that you can change slightly, the impact that the motion has on your legs by adjusting your foot placement. The closer your feet are to the bar, the more I feel as though you are working all of the upper legs like a traditional squat. The farther away you move your legs from the bar, it feels to me like you are isolating the quads a little more. With traditional squats, you certainly don't have the luxury of moving your feet around like this, because of the role of balance in the movement.

Not to be a prick here, but I still haven't read any convincing evidence that shows me that traditional squats are more effective at building your legs that smith squats. Flame away if you must....

 

[needsize]

Guinness, not going to flame you, you had some good points. Besides, all of this just our opinions anyway.
But I've always found that if I squat heavy first, then do a quad isolation exercise next, ie, deep hack squats, that's when I get the best leg growth.

 

[TheGame2001]

Guinness

I guess the best argument is guys with big legs do free squats. Guys with little legs do smith machine thingys.
Thats the best arugment.