International journal of sports physiology and performance · 2025
Comparative Effects of the Free Weights and Smith Machine Squat and Bench Press: The Important Role of Specificity for Strength Adaptations.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Marcos-Frutos Daniel, Miras-Moreno Sergio, Márquez Gonzalo, García-Ramos Amador
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Although previous studies have compared strength-training adaptations between free weights (FW) and machine-guided exercises, those studies did not use a Smith machine (SM), which most closely replicates the exercises performed with FW. Thus, the aim of the present study was to investigate the chronic effects of strength-focused, velocity-based training regimens using FW versus SM.
METHODS: Thirty-seven sport-science students (14 female) were assigned, balanced by sex and relative strength, to either an FW or SM training group. The training program lasted 8 weeks (2 sessions/wk), and participants performed 4 sets per exercise (back squat and bench press) at 70% of their 1-repetition maximum with moderate effort levels (20%-25% velocity loss). Load-velocity profile parameters (load-axis intercept, velocity-axis intercept, and area under the load-velocity relationship line), cross-sectional areas of the vastus lateralis and pectoralis major muscles, and the number of repetitions to failure in the bench-press exercise were assessed before and after the training program. Mechanical variables were assessed using both FW and SM.
RESULTS: All variables, with the exception of back-squat velocity-axis intercept (P = .124), improved in both training groups. The changes in load-axis intercept and area under the load-velocity relationship line were more pronounced when the training and testing conditions matched. Failure in the bench-press exercise and cross-sectional areas of the vastus lateralis and pectoralis major showed comparable improvements for both training groups, while velocity-axis intercept tended to improve more in the SM group.
CONCLUSIONS: The general population, unconcerned with the specificity of strength adaptations, can choose a training modality (FW or SM) based on personal preferences.
METHODS: Thirty-seven sport-science students (14 female) were assigned, balanced by sex and relative strength, to either an FW or SM training group. The training program lasted 8 weeks (2 sessions/wk), and participants performed 4 sets per exercise (back squat and bench press) at 70% of their 1-repetition maximum with moderate effort levels (20%-25% velocity loss). Load-velocity profile parameters (load-axis intercept, velocity-axis intercept, and area under the load-velocity relationship line), cross-sectional areas of the vastus lateralis and pectoralis major muscles, and the number of repetitions to failure in the bench-press exercise were assessed before and after the training program. Mechanical variables were assessed using both FW and SM.
RESULTS: All variables, with the exception of back-squat velocity-axis intercept (P = .124), improved in both training groups. The changes in load-axis intercept and area under the load-velocity relationship line were more pronounced when the training and testing conditions matched. Failure in the bench-press exercise and cross-sectional areas of the vastus lateralis and pectoralis major showed comparable improvements for both training groups, while velocity-axis intercept tended to improve more in the SM group.
CONCLUSIONS: The general population, unconcerned with the specificity of strength adaptations, can choose a training modality (FW or SM) based on personal preferences.