Bowflex shatters under load

David wrote:
> "Curt" wrote
> > David wrote:
> > [...]
>
> >> Achim - don't pay any attention to
> >> that Curt guy -
>
> > Probably good advice there, actually. ;o)
>
> >> he is upset because the janitor that used
> >> to run the bldg where he works
>
> > And that David and Charles own.
>
> Curt, we own the *business* (such as it is
> we had 3 customers all year and 2 of them
> were just trying to get out of the rain) - not
> the building!

Hmm.

I forgot about that.

I'm not the company historian, you know.

[...]

> Like I said, we are doing a review at the end
> of Dec and if warranted, we will give you a
> suitable increase in your remuneration package.
> I am sorry we can't do it in Oct as originally
> planned as Charles will still be on that world
> cruise where he will be trying very hard to
> network so we can be more successful and
> afford that pay hike that you have been bugging
> us about for the last 3 years.

I'm not being unreasonable, imo. I'd simply like to get SOMEWHERE NEAR
minimum wage, okay???!

> (As you know the membership to that swanky
> golf club ($33000 annual) is just a little higher
> in priority for networking purposes as you can
> appreciate!)

Riiiiiight.

Have we gotten any business from those "swanky golf club" people
during the past three years? Any business at all?!

re the janitor

[...]

> >> stole Curt's calculator.
>
> > To his credit, he left the abacus and
> the sundial.
>
> The sundial? You have a sundial? Where
> did you get that from? I don't remember
> authorizing that acquisition.

The sundial was a gift from the Incas. You remember the Incas, that
little civilization that existed about the same time as my LAST
RAISE???

> You know, it's hard to get good help
> these days.

Harumph!

I resemble, er, resent that remark.

[...]

> Well, what did you expect? Some kind
> of medal?

A cookie would be nice.

> You need to count your blessings - (let's
> see you've got a stable and secure job,

A "stable" job, yes. Especially with all the manure I must endure.
And, yes, I suppose it is a secure job. I mean, who else would work
for what I'm paid?

> a bright future with prospects, perks of
> a stool, sundial, abacus etc and at least
> 2 good friends)

Yes, at least 2 good friends. Thank you, David. What's a reasonable
salary compared to friends like you and Charles?

re the janitor (part two!)

> Truth be known I never trusted that guy. Just a little too smug.

Agreed.

As smug as a bug in a rug? ;o)

--
Curt
 >> Stay informed about: Bowflex shatters under load 

David wrote:
> "Curt" wrote
[...]

> >> <snip> I would like to nominate your
> >> remark for the MHA
>
> > ) Hey, thanks, David, and duly noted
> > in my book of warm fuzzies.
>
> > But, seriously, there was NOTHING funny
> > about that remark at all.
>
> True, I was just trying to 'humour' you!

Hey, what are friends for, right?

--
Curt
 >> Stay informed about: Bowflex shatters under load 

ATP* wrote:
[...]

re Achim Nolcken Lohse

> I was hoping it happened halfway through
> your workout. That would explain the
> shaking in the preceding thread.

I haven't been paying attention to the shaking thread, but I suspect
that's worthy of a humour award nomination.

--
Curt
 >> Stay informed about: Bowflex shatters under load 

"Curt" <curtjames.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174606989.903315.265610@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> David wrote:
>> "Curt" wrote
>> > David wrote:
>> > [...]
>>
>> >> Achim - don't pay any attention to
>> >> that Curt guy -
>>
>> > Probably good advice there, actually. ;o)
>>
>> >> he is upset because the janitor that used
>> >> to run the bldg where he works
>>
>> > And that David and Charles own.
>>
>> Curt, we own the *business* (such as it is
>> we had 3 customers all year and 2 of them
>> were just trying to get out of the rain) - not
>> the building!
>
> Hmm.
>
> I forgot about that.
>
> I'm not the company historian, you know.
>
> [...]
>
>> Like I said, we are doing a review at the end
>> of Dec and if warranted, we will give you a
>> suitable increase in your remuneration package.
>> I am sorry we can't do it in Oct as originally
>> planned as Charles will still be on that world
>> cruise where he will be trying very hard to
>> network so we can be more successful and
>> afford that pay hike that you have been bugging
>> us about for the last 3 years.
>
> I'm not being unreasonable, imo. I'd simply like to get SOMEWHERE NEAR
> minimum wage, okay???!

I think it is 'near' now. Charles also thinks the same. How 'near' is near?
*Over* half the minimum wage I would say is near enough, no?

>
>> (As you know the membership to that swanky
>> golf club ($33000 annual) is just a little higher
>> in priority for networking purposes as you can
>> appreciate!)
>
> Riiiiiight.
>
> Have we gotten any business from those "swanky golf club" people
> during the past three years? Any business at all?!

Charles is almost certain that the time share plan with the Smedleys was
recommended by someone at the golf club. (of course the deal fell through
in the end because Charles couldn't make the meeting as he was having a
massage or something - he wanted to look his best for the meeting and of
course he fell asleep on the massage table and then the settlement could not
proceed and the client got the shits and walked off on the deal - that was
before your time)

>
> re the janitor
>
> [...]
>
>> >> stole Curt's calculator.
>>
>> > To his credit, he left the abacus and
>> the sundial.
>>
>> The sundial? You have a sundial? Where
>> did you get that from? I don't remember
>> authorizing that acquisition.
>
> The sundial was a gift from the Incas. You remember the Incas, that
> little civilization that existed about the same time as my LAST
> RAISE???

yada yada yada Incas Sminkas

>
>> You know, it's hard to get good help
>> these days.
>
> Harumph!
>
> I resemble, er, resent that remark.
>
> [...]
>
>> Well, what did you expect? Some kind
>> of medal?
>
> A cookie would be nice.
>
>> You need to count your blessings - (let's
>> see you've got a stable and secure job,
>
> A "stable" job, yes. Especially with all the manure I must endure.
> And, yes, I suppose it is a secure job. I mean, who else would work
> for what I'm paid?

We're doing our best Curt. You know giving you a pay raise now will simply
squander the working funds available to us for growth and development - then
there are advertising costs, rent to pay, lights and heating - that's not
all free you know! I think there is a soup kitchen nearby (that is if you
get *really* hungry!


>> a bright future with prospects, perks of
>> a stool, sundial, abacus etc and at least
>> 2 good friends)
>
> Yes, at least 2 good friends. Thank you, David. What's a reasonable
> salary compared to friends like you and Charles?

I know, I know. Doesn't sound fair does it? Curt., I'd love to chat but
have to race off now - the car dealership just phoned and they got the new
Alpha Romeo I was after - the 'classic' model with the gull wings just came
out - definitely we all go out for a spin one day - you will LOVE it!!
>
> re the janitor (part two!)
>
>> Truth be known I never trusted that guy. Just a little too smug.
>
> Agreed.
>
> As smug as a bug in a rug? ;o)

Back soon Curt, this car isn't nearly as large as the Bentley - probably
take you half the time to wash and polish it!

>
> --
> Curt
>
 >> Stay informed about: Bowflex shatters under load 

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:15:19 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:

>
>"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <lohsea.TakeThisOut@3web.nettax> wrote in message
>news:460220ed.45270171@news.telus.net...
....
>Well... I realize you would not have been "happy" to have the service issues
>but I meant "happy" with the machine as a fitness product.
>
>>
>> Actually, I went on at great length about its numerous defects and
>> shortcomings.
>>
>> OTOH, to suggest that it's unusable for its designed purpose - getting
>> and staying fit, is just nonsense. Unless, of course, you've had two
>> rods in a row snap on you. That would definitely send me ballistic.
>
>No of course it is not unusable - no one suggested that it was unusable.
>However there are a few nutcases around who maintain that Bowflex is sub par
>when it comes to evaluating fitness equipment. I have never used a Bowflex
>however being in the industry I do get reports and feedback on different
>equipment. Bowflex has never taken off in Australia because fitness
>specialist stores would not touch it. The method of resistance - the rods
>are an abomination. As you start the movement I believe the resistance level
>is around 60% and reaches 100% as you complete the movement. Which means
>that the first part of the movement is far too light and you are limited to
>the resistance you are able to handle at the end of the movement.

You're correct about the progressive resistance. It's been some years
since I actually measured it with a scale, so I couldn't say whether
your 60% figure is close or not. But it's certainly true that you
don't get the full rated resistance until you've bent the rod to the
maximum.


> You
>recruit most muscle fibres around the middle of the movement and it tapers
>off at the beginning and end. Very similar to the resistance you get from
>the rubber bands.

No, that's incorrect. I don't experience any resistance drop off at
the top end with the Bowflex. And my measurements using fish scales
don't indicate any such drop off either.

>Incrementation which is the primary method of goal setting is impossible
>with Bowflex - Show me how you bench press 200 lbs and add 2.5 lbs per week
>periodically - you can't do that.

Well, first of all, no matter how good your apparatus, or how strong
your motivation, there's a limit to how much strength you can gain.
And one of the biggest traps, as Arthur Ford demonstrated in the early
days of Nautilus, is overtraining resulting in fatigue and/or injury.

Superslow avoids this by minimizing explosive force and duration of
workout times on the one hand, and by emphasizing exercise to failure
followed by adequate recovery intervals on the other. This technique
makes the Bowflex system much more effective than it would otherwise
be.

Granted, the rods don't allow you to make the fine weight adjustments
possible with free weights. However, the fact that the way the rods
work allow the user to work to failure safely without a spotter makes
up for this to a large extent. Roughly speaking, a Superslow exercise
may be from three to 12 repetitions long. This provides enough
flexibility to allow a fairly smooth transition to larger resistance
by adding 5# or 10# rods. For instance, if I find that I'm able to do
eight or nine lateral raises with 30#, I might trade the two 5# rods
for two more 10s and use a total of 40# to fail after four reps.

The main problem with the rods is, as you remarked, their progressive
resistance, which results in insufficient load on the negative phase
and can severely limit loaded range of motion in some exercises. But
you can compensate for this somewhat by shortening the duration of the
negative phase and allowing slight acceleration at the bottom
turnaround.

> That's one of the reasons this system is a
>joke for serious weight training.

That's probably true for larger people. I'm not certain it's true for
smaller-boned people. But it's not a point I would even try to argue.
I've subscribed to the SuperSlow Protocol for a decade now, and its
primary goal is to build and maintain fitness without risking injury.
Building muscle volume is not a primary goal for me.

Now, you may be right to fault the Bowflex marketing people for
visually presenting the apparatus as a bodybuilding tool in their
infomercials. But the fact that the Bowflex isn't an effective
bodybuilding apparatus doesn't negate its capability as a fitness
tool. I used a NordicTrack ski machine for six years before switching
to the Bowflex, and I achieved better results with far shorter and
much less frequent exercise sessions with the latter. A lot of people,
perhaps most, find exercising a tedious, painful task, and so soon
lose their motivation to continue. I think the Bowflex makes it more
palatable for many of them.

--

Achim
_____/)
axethetax
 >> Stay informed about: Bowflex shatters under load 

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:08:13 -0400, 223rem <223rem DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:

>Achim Nolcken Lohse wrote:
>
>> Over two years ago I paid $1000 down on a $3500 leg press machine
>> optimized for SuperSlow.
>
>$3500 leg press machine?! Are you joking? If not, you're a fool.

Well, I'm referring to a well-built machine that works properly and
reliably.

>Leg
>pressing is far inferior to squatting.

Could be, if you don't value your knees. I'd rather pay $3500, and
pass on the knee replacement.
>
>The money you wasted on junk like Bowflex and leg presses could have
>used as gym fees, and today you'd be much stronger.

This might be a valid point if you like gyms. I can't stand the sight,
smell, or noise of them myself. And I've got better things to do with
my time than schedule gym sessions, and more fun ways to risk injury
that depending on spotters in a gym.




--

Achim
_____/)
axethetax
 >> Stay informed about: Bowflex shatters under load 

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:58:17 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy RemoveThis @yahoo.com.au>
wrote:

....
>>
>> OTOH, to suggest that it's unusable for its designed purpose - getting
>> and staying fit, is just nonsense. Unless, of course, you've had two
>> rods in a row snap on you. That would definitely send me ballistic.
>>
>> Still, two users out of two million (I'll assume that figure is
>> reasonable, just for sake of argument) reporting broken rods is more
>> indicative of a bad production lot of rods combined with a lapse in
>> quality control than design and materials failure across the board.
>
>I would say more than 2 users would have had a problem,
>Around 2 years ago 420,000 Bowflex machines were recalled due to mechanical
>problems. In Nov 2004 there was a recall of around 800,000 Power Pro models
>for various problems . Apparently this model was discontinued soon after the
>recall.

The recall of 2004 had nothing to do with the rods, or even the rod
boxes. It had to do with the bench breaking. Bowflex sent out hardware
to reinforce the bench and replace the bench locking mechanism with a
much stronger system. The Bowflex PowerPro was not taken out of
circulation. On the contrary, the warranty on all parts other than the
rods was doubled from five to ten years.

And discontinuing models and replacing them with newer desings is
normal marketing procedure. Hopefully the newer designs are an
improvement, but it certainly doesn't mean the discontinued models are
a failure.


--

Achim
_____/)
axethetax
 >> Stay informed about: Bowflex shatters under load 

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:50:07 -0400, willbrink.RemoveThis@comcast.net (Will Brink)
wrote:

>In article <4601819a.4476666.RemoveThis@news.telus.net>, lohsea.RemoveThis@3web.nettax (Achim
>Nolcken Lohse) wrote:
>
....
>> >
>> >Hmmm, plastic rods. No chance of problems there....
>> >
>> Correction: the rod holder box (the part that shattered) is plastic,
>> the rods are some sort of proprietary composite material.
>>
>> FWIW, I own two rifles with plastic stocks, and they are pretty tough
>
>And they are thicker and not required to be flexed thousands of time and
>made of different materials. Can't compare one to the other as some form
>of proof.

Composite materials are being used in airplanes and all sorts of
applications requiring materials to flex.

> If you like the bowflex and they will replace the parts, then
>stick with it. Don't believe any of the hype from their marketing dept. A
>flat bench and an olympic bar with a collection of weight would be more
>effective and cheaper. If you really wanted to go big time, a selection of
>dumbells and a power cage would be all you would need.

As stated previously in this thread. I started with a bench, weights,
dumbells, and barbells, managed to injure myself and put a hole in the
floor, and decided that I don't want to be manhandling heavy weights
that have serious injury potential.



--

Achim
_____/)
axethetax
 >> Stay informed about: Bowflex shatters under load 

"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <lohsea.RemoveThis@3web.nettax> wrote in message
news:46038080.38007022@news.telus.net...
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:58:17 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy.RemoveThis@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>
>>> OTOH, to suggest that it's unusable for its designed purpose - getting
>>> and staying fit, is just nonsense. Unless, of course, you've had two
>>> rods in a row snap on you. That would definitely send me ballistic.
>>>
>>> Still, two users out of two million (I'll assume that figure is
>>> reasonable, just for sake of argument) reporting broken rods is more
>>> indicative of a bad production lot of rods combined with a lapse in
>>> quality control than design and materials failure across the board.
>>
>>I would say more than 2 users would have had a problem,
>>Around 2 years ago 420,000 Bowflex machines were recalled due to
>>mechanical
>>problems. In Nov 2004 there was a recall of around 800,000 Power Pro
>>models
>>for various problems . Apparently this model was discontinued soon after
>>the
>>recall.
>
> The recall of 2004 had nothing to do with the rods, or even the rod
> boxes. It had to do with the bench breaking. Bowflex sent out hardware
> to reinforce the bench and replace the bench locking mechanism with a
> much stronger system. The Bowflex PowerPro was not taken out of
> circulation. On the contrary, the warranty on all parts other than the
> rods was doubled from five to ten years.
>
> And discontinuing models and replacing them with newer desings is
> normal marketing procedure. Hopefully the newer designs are an
> improvement, but it certainly doesn't mean the discontinued models are
> a failure.

Maybe, but discontinuing a model straight directly after a recall of 800,000
units must tell you something.
I know 1.2 million recalled units just rolls of the tongue but think about
it - this company in the space of 12 months as recalled 1,200,000 units -
can you imagine the expense, the embarassment, the loss of reputation? An
action like that is not taken lightly - total up the cost of freight and
whatever they had to do - I can't imagine it would have come under $100 per
unit as the actual cost of the exercise.
So Bowflex anted up 120 million dollars to rectify those minor little
problems. Is there a message there somewhere?


>
>
> --
>
> Achim
> _____/)
> axethetax
 >> Stay informed about: Bowflex shatters under load 

"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <lohsea DeleteThis @3web.nettax> wrote in message
news:46038087.38013182@news.telus.net...
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:15:19 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy DeleteThis @yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <lohsea DeleteThis @3web.nettax> wrote in message
>>news:460220ed.45270171@news.telus.net...
> ...
>>Well... I realize you would not have been "happy" to have the service
>>issues
>>but I meant "happy" with the machine as a fitness product.
>>
>>>
>>> Actually, I went on at great length about its numerous defects and
>>> shortcomings.
>>>
>>> OTOH, to suggest that it's unusable for its designed purpose - getting
>>> and staying fit, is just nonsense. Unless, of course, you've had two
>>> rods in a row snap on you. That would definitely send me ballistic.
>>
>>No of course it is not unusable - no one suggested that it was unusable.
>>However there are a few nutcases around who maintain that Bowflex is sub
>>par
>>when it comes to evaluating fitness equipment. I have never used a Bowflex
>>however being in the industry I do get reports and feedback on different
>>equipment. Bowflex has never taken off in Australia because fitness
>>specialist stores would not touch it. The method of resistance - the rods
>>are an abomination. As you start the movement I believe the resistance
>>level
>>is around 60% and reaches 100% as you complete the movement. Which means
>>that the first part of the movement is far too light and you are limited
>>to
>>the resistance you are able to handle at the end of the movement.
>
> You're correct about the progressive resistance. It's been some years
> since I actually measured it with a scale, so I couldn't say whether
> your 60% figure is close or not. But it's certainly true that you
> don't get the full rated resistance until you've bent the rod to the
> maximum.
>
>
>> You
>>recruit most muscle fibres around the middle of the movement and it tapers
>>off at the beginning and end. Very similar to the resistance you get from
>>the rubber bands.
>
> No, that's incorrect. I don't experience any resistance drop off at
> the top end with the Bowflex. And my measurements using fish scales
> don't indicate any such drop off either.

No there is no resistance drop off at the top end - the drop off is in the
muscle fibres recruited to perform the movement. So you are stronger in the
mid part of the movement but the Bowflex peaks at the end of the movement.
Therefore you are limited to what weight you can move at the end of the
movement which limits your progress obviously

>
>>Incrementation which is the primary method of goal setting is impossible
>>with Bowflex - Show me how you bench press 200 lbs and add 2.5 lbs per
>>week
>>periodically - you can't do that.
>
> Well, first of all, no matter how good your apparatus, or how strong
> your motivation, there's a limit to how much strength you can gain.
> And one of the biggest traps, as Arthur Ford demonstrated in the early
> days of Nautilus, is overtraining resulting in fatigue and/or injury.

We are not talking about overtraining here that is another subject
>
> Superslow avoids this by minimizing explosive force and duration of
> workout times on the one hand, and by emphasizing exercise to failure
> followed by adequate recovery intervals on the other. This technique
> makes the Bowflex system much more effective than it would otherwise
> be.

Whether it is superslow or super fast you lose the traditional goal setting
and motivation available to you with conventional weights where your load is
easily quantified

>
> Granted, the rods don't allow you to make the fine weight adjustments
> possible with free weights. However, the fact that the way the rods
> work allow the user to work to failure safely without a spotter makes
> up for this to a large extent. Roughly speaking, a Superslow exercise
> may be from three to 12 repetitions long. This provides enough
> flexibility to allow a fairly smooth transition to larger resistance
> by adding 5# or 10# rods. For instance, if I find that I'm able to do
> eight or nine lateral raises with 30#, I might trade the two 5# rods
> for two more 10s and use a total of 40# to fail after four reps.
>
> The main problem with the rods is, as you remarked, their progressive
> resistance, which results in insufficient load on the negative phase
> and can severely limit loaded range of motion in some exercises. But
> you can compensate for this somewhat by shortening the duration of the
> negative phase and allowing slight acceleration at the bottom
> turnaround.
>
>> That's one of the reasons this system is a
>>joke for serious weight training.
>
> That's probably true for larger people. I'm not certain it's true for
> smaller-boned people. But it's not a point I would even try to argue.
> I've subscribed to the SuperSlow Protocol for a decade now, and its
> primary goal is to build and maintain fitness without risking injury.
> Building muscle volume is not a primary goal for me.
>
What relevance does the large or smallness of your bones have to do with
anything??

> Now, you may be right to fault the Bowflex marketing people for
> visually presenting the apparatus as a bodybuilding tool in their
> infomercials. But the fact that the Bowflex isn't an effective
> bodybuilding apparatus doesn't negate its capability as a fitness
> tool. I used a NordicTrack ski machine for six years before switching
> to the Bowflex, and I achieved better results with far shorter and
> much less frequent exercise sessions with the latter.

of course you would, the ski machine is not designed for building muscle -
that machine builds cardio and endurance

>A lot of people,
> perhaps most, find exercising a tedious, painful task, and so soon
> lose their motivation to continue. I think the Bowflex makes it more
> palatable for many of them.
>

I don't have any problem with machines - you can get all those benefits with
standard home gyms that use stack weights i.e. pin loaded weights just like
you find in commercial gyms.
It is the rod principle that makes Bowflex a horses ass.



> --
>
> Achim
> _____/)
> axethetax
 >> Stay informed about: Bowflex shatters under load 

In news:460382ef.38630147@news.telus.net,
Achim Nolcken Lohse <lohsea DeleteThis @3web.nettax> typed:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:08:13 -0400, 223rem <223rem DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Achim Nolcken Lohse wrote:
>>
>>> Over two years ago I paid $1000 down on a $3500 leg press machine
>>> optimized for SuperSlow.
>>
>> $3500 leg press machine?! Are you joking? If not, you're a fool.
>
> Well, I'm referring to a well-built machine that works properly and
> reliably.
>
>> Leg
>> pressing is far inferior to squatting.
>
> Could be, if you don't value your knees. I'd rather pay $3500, and
> pass on the knee replacement.

Is leg pressing better for your knees than squatting?

>>
>> The money you wasted on junk like Bowflex and leg presses could have
>> used as gym fees, and today you'd be much stronger.
>
> This might be a valid point if you like gyms. I can't stand the sight,
> smell, or noise of them myself. And I've got better things to do with
> my time than schedule gym sessions, and more fun ways to risk injury
> that depending on spotters in a gym.



--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees
the opportunity in every difficulty." Sir Winston Churchill
 >> Stay informed about: Bowflex shatters under load 

http://www.fastexercise.com/

ROM - The 4-Minute CrossTrainer. It may be a little pricey, but think of
it as a super-ultra-Bowflex.
 >> Stay informed about: Bowflex shatters under load 

On 22 Mar 2007 16:43:09 -0700, "Curt" <curtjames.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:

>David wrote:
>> "Curt" wrote
>> > To his credit, he left the abacus and
>> the sundial.
>>
>> The sundial? You have a sundial? Where
>> did you get that from? I don't remember
>> authorizing that acquisition.
>
>The sundial was a gift from the Incas. You remember the Incas, that
>little civilization that existed about the same time as my LAST
>RAISE???

No, no. Gift from the Egyptians, or the Chinese, maybe.

The primary gift from the Incas: syphilis.
(the gift that keeps on giving!)
 >> Stay informed about: Bowflex shatters under load