Arnold and I returned to some max strength exercises today. The workout took one hour 44 minutes, not the three I previously asserted and which Chris Dorr called me on.
At any rate, we decided after some consideration to try Smith Squats. The basic reasoning was to go for range of motion. We'll publish the full analysis on Muscle Ventures tomorrow, and I'll have more to say then about our various plans. The skinny is that I think we succeeded in our quest for range of motion.
It was good to train with Arnold again. We took three to four minutes rest between sets. Here's what we did:
- Smith Squats (80%–90%): 177/6X2; 197/3X2; 177/1X2
- Single leg curls (70%): 35/7X5
- Bench press (80–90%): 155/6X2; 170/2X2
- Bent underhand EZ bar rows (80–90%): 135/6X2; 150/3X3
- Overhead dumbbell press (80–90%): 45/6X2; 50/3X3
- Seated calf (70%): 165/8X5
There was some work in the gym that intruded on our bench, so we did not do all three sets at 90%. It was harder doing squats on the Smith. I dropped weight at the end to maintain range.
It is not a bad thing to alter the training of the body between machine and free weight. It is controversial to many when an athlete, or someone that occupationally needs to maintain functional power, maybe a fireman or police officer, uses methods over a period of time, that may unbalance the agonist-antagonist muscle relationship or does not develop adequate stabilizing muscle support. The person becomes prone to injury during intense performance of their duty. Thus, the argument that bodybuilders have non-funtional muscle and that athletes should use body weight exercise and not weights. The argument that the smith machine is not a natural movement for the muscles and will result in susceptability to injury, if used be itself over a period of time, appears in the literature.
Yes, depth is important, but so are other facets of the extension of the legs under resistance.
The problem arises when one attempts to compare the amount of resistance used between different individuals and different machines. Not only is the leverage of an individual's bone structure, tendon attachment, etcetera, unique, but each machine has an individual set of design parameters that result in a human-machine interaction, resulting in a nonreproducible measurement between two individual movements.
It is not just a question of "purity" of "sport", but of historical evaluation of the multitude of aspects that become involved for the complex development of the human body and its endless application in life.
Posted by: Ralfe Sean | August 08, 2006 at 01:07
No doubt the analysis on Muscle Ventures will compare the Smith squats to the regular free-weight variety, but I hardly think mixing the two will create mass panic. Now, if you remain on the dark side ... :)
Posted by: Scott | August 08, 2006 at 05:27
Ralfe, thanks for that thoughtful response. We really used the Smith as a diagnostic step. Was it flexibility or balance or some combination? We're likely to keep the Smith mixed in there.
Scott and Ralfe, there's a level of expediency here. We are looking to optimize muscular development. We haven't given up on freestanding squats. In fact, I ordered a DVD from Eric Cressey on that very topic. However, it's clear that our performance in the freestanding squat is not giving us all we could get.
Posted by: Bud Gibson | August 08, 2006 at 14:53