# 20 rep squat routine with smith machine?



## dsc123 (Apr 15, 2010)

The gym I go to doesn't have a squat rack so is the only option with a smith machine?


----------



## MyK (Apr 15, 2010)

www.exrx.net

http://www.exrx.net/Lists/ExList/ThighWt.html


----------



## Gazhole (Apr 15, 2010)

No, no, a hundred times no. I cannot think of many things more dangerous to do in the gym than this idea.

I'm afraid you're either going to have to ditch the 20 squat program, find a gym with a rack, or do it with hack squats. It won't be anywhere near as effective with hacks though, unfortunately.


----------



## Triple Threat (Apr 15, 2010)

Gazhole said:


> No, no, a hundred times no. I cannot think of many things more dangerous to do in the gym than this idea.



What about doing 20 rep squats while standing on a swiss ball?  Would that qualify as being more dangerous?


----------



## dsc123 (Apr 15, 2010)

im going to have to change gym for a few months then


----------



## ALBOB (Apr 15, 2010)

Gazhole said:


> No, no, a hundred times no. I cannot think of many things more dangerous to do in the gym than this idea.





Bullshit.  Smith squats most definitely aren't as effective as regular squats but they are NOT dangerous. 

YouTube - uk's strongest man 2007 day 2 squat






YouTube Video


----------



## ALBOB (Apr 15, 2010)

YouTube - Richard Skog Squat 345kg (759 lbs) x 2 reps






YouTube Video


----------



## dsc123 (Apr 15, 2010)

Personally i cant see how it can be dangerous, i know its less effective so will change gym for a few months and then go back to my local gym


----------



## Phineas (Apr 15, 2010)

dsc123 said:


> Personally i cant see how it can be dangerous, i know its less effective so will change gym for a few months and then go back to my local gym



Throughout the squat rep on the Smith machine you're forcing your body to move in a fixed (i.e. straight) plane of motion -- during which your spine is in a much-compromised and potentially damaging position.

Have you ever seen someone doing "deadlifts" on a smith machine? It looks very awkward and unnatural. Reason? Particularly with major lifts such as deads and squats, the body is meant (as it is designed by nature...) to move in its natural rhythm, that is adjust and balance based on the nature of the movement and the contours of the involved muscles. On a smith machine "deadlift" the bar can go only one way up and that's perfectly straight. This is NOT how the movement was intended to be performed -- nor is it the way the hamstrings and hips were designed to pull objects.

The same goes for squats. Your body needs to adjust; it needs leeway in the movement so that your muscles can balance the object as needed. Forcing them to work against fixed resistance neglects often-overlooked (by gym dumbasses) stablizer muscles and forces the primary working muscles and the spine in dangerous positions.

RE: the video posted above -- just because people HAVE squatted large weights on Smith machines and left injury-free doesn't mean it's safe. If I went downhill in rush-hour traffic without a helmet and with shot breaks but made it out fine does that mean my ride was safe? No. Just because something is dangerous doesn't mean it's guarenteed to hurt you; it just means the likelihood of problems arising is high(er).


----------



## dsc123 (Apr 15, 2010)

k i guess that answers that cheers, is it also dangerous to squat using lighter weights?


----------



## Gazhole (Apr 15, 2010)

Phineas said:


> Throughout the squat rep on the Smith machine you're forcing your body to move in a fixed (i.e. straight) plane of motion -- during which your spine is in a much-compromised and potentially damaging position.
> 
> Have you ever seen someone doing "deadlifts" on a smith machine? It looks very awkward and unnatural. Reason? Particularly with major lifts such as deads and squats, the body is meant (as it is designed by nature...) to move in its natural rhythm, that is adjust and balance based on the nature of the movement and the contours of the involved muscles. On a smith machine "deadlift" the bar can go only one way up and that's perfectly straight. This is NOT how the movement was intended to be performed -- nor is it the way the hamstrings and hips were designed to pull objects.
> 
> ...



This.

The 20 rep squat program is dangerous enough as it is, squatting heavy weights for long sets on a complicated exercise that few people can actually do properly anyway, with the added risk of actually passing out near the end.

Add all this to a fixed plane of motion like Phineas has described and you have big problems. Not only that, but you're adding all the extra risk when the program isn't going to work as well anyway.

As a minor point, i rarely see anybody using a spotter with the smith machine because people see it as safer than a regular squat. If you pass out or lose balance on a regular squat, the bar can dump into the rack and you'll get out with some minor injuries. You pass out on a smith, and the only way the bar is gonna move is straight down. Bye bye vertebrae!

Sure those strongmen guys can do huge weights on a smith, they are STRONGMEN - they can do huge weights on ANYTHING. I highly doubt they trained up to that squatting strength exclusively on a smith machine.


----------



## ALBOB (Apr 15, 2010)

Dr. Frederick Hatfield is arguably the world's foremost authority on squats.  He disagrees with you:

http://staff.washington.edu/griffin/dr_squat.txt


----------



## dsc123 (Apr 15, 2010)

i started the 6 week course yesterday and used the smith machine, felt like my legs were going to collapse when finished! and legs ache like never before today, its so hard but hopefully will be worth it! am joining a different gym for 3 months tomorrow that two of my mates go two and will use a barbell with two of my mates spotting so it will be more effective. when my 3 months is up and i return to my local gym will the smith machine be ok to use for light weights and high reps?


----------



## Phineas (Apr 15, 2010)

ALBOB said:


> Dr. Frederick Hatfield is arguably the world's foremost authority on squats.  He disagrees with you:
> 
> http://staff.washington.edu/griffin/dr_squat.txt



"Smith Machine Squats:  Assuming that the machine is bolted to the
floor (most are not) and has a safety device (most do not), it's a pretty
safe alternative to conventional or safety squats. since he same technique
rules apply to Smith squats as apply to safety squats.  The effect is
derived from the fact that you're actually "leaning" against the bar,
thereby minimizing shear forces in the lower back.  However, shear on the
knees is still considerable.  Beware!"

You're not "leaning" against the bar. You're resting underneath it, just like in a free-weight squat. The load is still focussed at the top of your spine, and thus the spinae erector must take the force. 

Hell, I've felt lower back sheer when using the smith just for calf raises, let alone squats.


----------



## Phineas (Apr 15, 2010)

dsc123 said:


> i started the 6 week course yesterday and used the smith machine, felt like my legs were going to collapse when finished! and legs ache like never before today, its so hard but hopefully will be worth it! am joining a different gym for 3 months tomorrow that two of my mates go two and will use a barbell with two of my mates spotting so it will be more effective. when my 3 months is up and i return to my local gym will the smith machine be ok to use for light weights and high reps?



You shouldn't squat with a Smith PERIOD -- light or heavy weight. At any intensity you're still forcing your spine into a compromised position. Just use the squat rack.

I don't understand why people feel the need to use the Smith anyway. If you adjust the safety bars the rack is perfectly safe. If you fall the bars will catch the BB. On the other hand, if you suddenly ran into trouble on the Smith and all that weight comes down on you and within a fraction of a second your spine is contorting, sending muscles and nerves into painful spasms, do you think you're going to make the connection to "hook the bars in"? 

Have you ever actually had a close call on squats? You usually don't have time to think about how to respond. This is why safety bars are crucial. Smith machine is simpler and more convenient, but safer? As a now-seasoned squatter who started for 3 months of the Smith I can safely (pun fucking intended) assure it is not safer.

Looks can be deceiving. I'll admit, a squat rack is an intimdating place, especially if you've never regularly performed free-weight squats. But, take it from a former Smith-head....the free weight squat is so liberating..it just feels smoother and healthier...because IT IS!


----------



## ALBOB (Apr 15, 2010)

Phineas said:


> You're not "leaning" against the bar. You're resting underneath it, just like in a free-weight squat. The load is still focussed at the top of your spine, and thus the spinae erector must take the force.




True, if you're doing it wrong.  And if you're doing it wrong then Smith Machine squats are every bit as dangerous as you've been saying.

On the other hand, if you do it the way you're SUPPOSED to, you've got your feet forward of the bar and are leaning against the bar.  This keeps your spine straight and removes the sheer forces you've been speaking of.  When done correctly, Smith Machine squats are every bit as safe as regular squats.

(Notice I said "safe", still not as EFFECTIVE.)


----------



## Merkaba (Apr 16, 2010)

ALBOB said:


> Dr. Frederick Hatfield is arguably the world's foremost authority on squats.  He disagrees with you:
> 
> http://staff.washington.edu/griffin/dr_squat.txt



When was this written?  It reeks of 70's


----------



## Mr.BTB (Apr 16, 2010)

I have done the 20 reps program a few times and I love it! I have seen no diff in using a smith or a real squat rack, I like the real one more ofcourse. But if it is all you have then just be sure you go light until you get used to it, also I have seen others do it by holding dumbbells either side of them and do the program.

I agree with what albob said about standing right so as you dont stuff your back.


----------



## MyK (Apr 16, 2010)

ALBOB said:


> Dr. Frederick Hatfield is arguably the world's foremost authority on squats. He disagrees with you:
> 
> http://staff.washington.edu/griffin/dr_squat.txt


 

yeah, probably not gonna take advice from someone who recommends "twisting squats"..


....even though he calls himself "Dr Squat"

... just sayin


----------



## Phineas (Apr 16, 2010)

ALBOB said:


> True, if you're doing it wrong.  And if you're doing it wrong then Smith Machine squats are every bit as dangerous as you've been saying.
> 
> On the other hand, if you do it the way you're SUPPOSED to, you've got your feet forward of the bar and are leaning against the bar.  This keeps your spine straight and removes the sheer forces you've been speaking of.  When done correctly, Smith Machine squats are every bit as safe as regular squats.
> 
> (Notice I said "safe", still not as EFFECTIVE.)



First of all, this would no longer be a proper squat.

Secondly, explain to me how this reduces the stress on the lower back. This would essentially be a standing reverse leg press. And, as we all know, leg press is notorious for placing stress on the lower back.

I agree with Merkaba. That "Dr's" information sounds decades old.


----------



## MCx2 (Apr 16, 2010)

Phineas said:


> Have you ever actually had a close call on squats?



Hell yeah I have. I dumped the weight and walked away unharmed.


----------



## Phineas (Apr 16, 2010)

MCx2 said:


> Hell yeah I have. I dumped the weight and walked away unharmed.



Good man. 

I trust this possible with the SAFETY of the...heh...safety bars!


----------



## Merkaba (Apr 16, 2010)

MyK 3.0 said:


> yeah, probably not gonna take advice from someone who recommends "twisting squats"..
> 
> 
> ....even though he calls himself "Dr Squat"
> ...



I know.  It's like I read that, then re read it, and still didn't believe it. My brain said no fucking way, and seemed to quarantine the comment, much like Nortons would do any other trojan horse of nonsense.


----------



## Phineas (Apr 16, 2010)

ALBOB said:


> Dr. Frederick Hatfield is arguably the world's foremost authority on squats.  He disagrees with you:
> 
> http://staff.washington.edu/griffin/dr_squat.txt



Ya, and Arnold Schwarzenegger (sorry Arnold, you're my idol but this is true..) says pec dec develops the inner chest and creates striations. Even though we now know you can't isolation parts of the chest, and striations have nothing to do with training -- only bodyfat. He also advocates high reps as a mean of "toning" muscles. He also advocates training regularly to failure. He also advocated wide-grip pullups and pulldowns (which, by the way, are hard on the RC) as good ways to "widen" the lats, when we now know lat growth is linear. He also advocated training with almost as much as half isolation and machine work. He also advocated extensive cardio to be as important as diet a means of fat loss, even though we now know extensive cardio can be easily detrimental when on a calorie deficit. He also advocated low fat on a cut, even though we now accept higher fat intake on cuts as wiser to allow ketosis to kick in (with decreased carbs, of course). He also advocated higher reps on a cut to "cut up", even though we now know when on a cut lower volume at higher intensity is more efficient to trigger the brain to send signals to maintain the mass. 

Reputations can be deceiving.


----------



## twarrior (Apr 18, 2010)

Phineas said:


> Ya, and Arnold Schwarzenegger (sorry Arnold, you're my idol but this is true..) says pec dec develops the inner chest and creates striations. Even though we now know you can't isolation parts of the chest, and striations have nothing to do with training -- only bodyfat. He also advocates high reps as a mean of "toning" muscles. He also advocates training regularly to failure. He also advocated wide-grip pullups and pulldowns (which, by the way, are hard on the RC) as good ways to "widen" the lats, when we now know lat growth is linear. He also advocated training with almost as much as half isolation and machine work. He also advocated extensive cardio to be as important as diet a means of fat loss, even though we now know extensive cardio can be easily detrimental when on a calorie deficit. He also advocated low fat on a cut, even though we now accept higher fat intake on cuts as wiser to allow ketosis to kick in (with decreased carbs, of course). He also advocated higher reps on a cut to "cut up", even though we now know when on a cut lower volume at higher intensity is more efficient to trigger the brain to send signals to maintain the mass.
> 
> Reputations can be deceiving.




Considering Arnolds physique and his well documented workout routines I'd say his reputations is far superior to some 22 year old punk.  How dare you blaspheme the  "The Austrian Oak".


----------



## Phineas (Apr 18, 2010)

twarrior said:


> Considering Arnolds physique and his well documented workout routines I'd say his reputations is far superior to some 22 year old punk.  How dare you blaspheme the  "The Austrian Oak".



First of all, as I mentioned in my post, Arnold is my bodybuilding idol. I admire his dedication. However, much has been learned in the 35 years since he retired (not including his one-off stint at '80 Olympia).

As I'm sure we all know, physiques -- good OR bad -- aren't necessarily an indication of training. There are many whose physiques are bland and average, yet train very intelligently and intensely and have some of the highest squats amongst amateurs. 

Then there are the ones we see in the gym who are the opposite. I call them the Tap Out Shirt lifters. The guys who come in trendy clothing, swing 60s on arm curls, perform mostly isolation not only cheating but getting "spotters" to further help then cheat. They perform deadlifts with rounded backs. They squat down 1/3 of the way. Their form is atrocious. Their programs are overdone, imbalanced, and not even programs (they just show up and arm curl a lot and throw in other random shit). And yet, they're ripped. 

I'm not a "punk". My point was/is that just because of someone's reputation you can't take their opinions to be solid gold. Arnold is generally hailed as the greatest BB'er of all time, and I agree. But, much has changed in 35 years, and many of his priced principles and lessons are now redundant.

This is why laws are constantly amended; as times change we learn more, and realize we were wrong before. For the longest time the smartest minds on our planet believed the Earth was flat. Crazy? Ya, it's ludicrous. 

Also, at one point the best BB'ers believed training to failure on every set was crucial to muscle development. Is that true? No, that's highly counterproductive.

In short, just because Arnold had an amazing physique doesn't mean everything he taught is true. Improper training can still work, but does that make it SAFE or the MOST EFFICIENT? No. It also took him over a decade of training as well as some minor steroid use to develop that physique.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 18, 2010)

Phineas said:


> First of all, as I mentioned in my post, Arnold is my bodybuilding idol. I admire his dedication. However, much has been learned in the 35 years since he retired (not including his one-off stint at '80 Olympia).



Don't forget that he also used steroids.  Maybe not as much as today's BBers, but he used them.


----------



## Gazhole (Apr 18, 2010)

twarrior said:


> Considering Arnolds physique and his well documented workout routines I'd say his reputations is far superior to some 22 year old punk.  How dare you blaspheme the  "The Austrian Oak".



It's this mentality thats holding sport and exercise science back a decade. I don't care how famous, successful, or experienced you are - if you're wrong, you're wrong.

Arnold is a legend, no doubt. Arnold had one of the best physiques we will ever see, no doubt. Arnold knew bodybuilding inside out, no doubt. But come on - he was a genetic freak, was on AAS, and was in his prime over 20 years ago.

He's one of my all-time heroes in and outside bodybuilding, but science is science and to base your methods on out-dated or even downright false information just for the sake of hero worship is idiotic.


----------



## twarrior (Apr 18, 2010)

He's not the only genetic freak.  have you seen the size of your nose in your avatar pic!! Wow!


----------



## Gazhole (Apr 18, 2010)

twarrior said:


> He's not the only genetic freak.  have you seen the size of your nose in your avatar pic!! Wow!



Don't mess with me, i'm a boxer.


----------



## Phineas (Apr 18, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Don't forget that he also used steroids.  Maybe not as much as today's BBers, but he used them.



Ya, I mentioned that in my rebuttal above.


----------

