Bowflex shatters under load

David wrote:
[...]

Geez, would it kill you to schnip a bit of that schtufff, David. ;o)

i KEED! Hey, quote it all, pal. QUOTE IT ALL!

> Ok Ok, fer Christ's sake! you've convinced
> me - I'm going for this Bowflex thing - will get
> the new Power Pro model - I hear now they
> are offering as accessories a helmet, and hard
> plastic vest and eye goggles for some reason -
> they say these things should be worn at all
> times because it "adds resistance" to the
> exercise or

*OR* KEEPS THE MACHINE FROM ~*KILLING YOU!!!*~

(David, this is also known as squeezing as many laughs out of the same
joke as possible.)

> some such thing!

Okay.

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

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:28:38 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy.RemoveThis@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:

....
>>
>>> 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

OK, then I'll concede your point. However, if one were to substitute
any number of more expensive exercise machines for the Bowflex,
similar defects in resitance curve would be found, otherwise,
SuperSlow wouldn't be able to sell its specialized single-exercise
machines at $8,000+ a piece.
>
>>
>>>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

I'd say that your statement "...add 2.5 lbx per week periodically...",
while ambiguous, suggests overtraining.
>>
>> 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

Again, we're talking at cross purposes. You're talking about the
motivational problems of bodybuilders and/or power lifters intent on
obtaining results that are easily quantified and verified.

I'm talking about a hugely larger segment of the population who want
primarily to build and maintain muscular strength, range of motion,
and increased metabolic rate, and whose only readily verifiable
measure of success will be reduction or maintenance of their waist
measurement.

These two groups or so different, there's probably no overlap. Their
motivations are totally distinct. Where your bodybuilders/powerlifters
enjoy the camaradery of the gym, and don't begrudge the time spent
there or in travelling to and fro, the group I refer to want to spend
as little time and incur as little inconvenience as possible
maintaining fitness.

An extreme example of this is the purchasers of the ROM QuickGym
machine regularly advertised in upscale magazines as well as fitness
magazines. It claims to get you in shape and keep you fit, regardless
of your current condition, with only four minutes of exercise per day.


It costs US$14,615 plus $700 to $1,000 shipping, or you can try it for
a trial period of 30 days for a mere cost of US$1,500 (in the
continental US) or US$2,500 (in Alaska, Hawaii, or Canada). Assuming
two people are using it during the trial period,Alaskans, Hawaiians
and Canadians will be paying US$625 per hour of use! Yet this company
has been successfully selling this apparatus at approximately the same
price (it went up from US$12,000 in 2004) for more than a decade.

I believe that the vast majority people shopping for exercise
equipment share the motivational bent of the people who buy the ROM,
and would probably try one themselves if they could afford it.

....
>>
>>> 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??

Clearly, the size of your bones limits the size of your muscles. A
person with a smaller bone structure is going to have smaller muscle
volume, all other things being equal. I'm six feet tall and weigh
roughly 200 lbs., this makes leg presses (or squats) with the 410#
Bowflex somewhat inadequate for me. Someone who is only 5 foot 6
inches is likely to find leg presses or squats with the Bowflex more
effective.
>
...
>
>.... the ski machine is not designed for building muscle -
>that machine builds cardio and endurance

Now you're being silly.

I assure you that a a ski machine will build muscle, just as cutting
sugar cane, loading trucks, or hiking the mountains will build muscle.
As for "cardio", as the SuperSlow Guild has said for years - that is
meaningless bunk. There IS no such thing as cardio. There's not the
slightest evidence that you can "build up" your heart muscle. And
endurance is just an aspect of strength, fitness, and general health.

I still have my Nordictrack, and thanks to a friendly welder, I have a
supply of spare front frames for it. If I thought that spending 30
minutes a day with my heart rate in the aerobic "cardio" zone offered
any benefit over my Bowflex workouts, I would use it. But I haven't
seen a shred of experimental evidence to support this. So I haven't
used it in six years.

My Superslow workouts on the Bowflex last 40 minutes from start to
finish, excluding setup and takedown of the equipment. And my average
interval between workouts over the past six years has been 10 days,
with better results than I got from the NordicTrack in one tenth of
the time.


......
>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.


There are a number of problems with machines using stack weights:

1. they take up a lot of space, so many people just don't have room
for them in their homes

2. they're very heavy, so there are floors that would be unable to
support them

3. their bulk and weight make them difficult to transport, which
creates special problems for people who live in rural communities

The Bowflex (at least the PowerPro model), OTOH, is lightweight,
compact, easy to collapse and move around, and has a minimal footprint
for storage. Without the lat tower or leg extension attachments it can
even be loaded into the back of a station wagon or hatchback without
disassembly.

So, yes, it's certainly a compromise solution, but it's allowed a lot
of people to build and maintain fitness in their homes who would
otherwise not exercised at all, just as the NordicTrack did before it.
--

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

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:18:38 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy.DeleteThis@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:

>
>"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <lohsea.DeleteThis@3web.nettax> wrote in message
>news:46038080.38007022@news.telus.net...

>>.... 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?

No need to imagine. Sony and Mercedes Benz have had similar recalls
recently. I don't see their brands going down in flames.

>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?

I'm only aware of the Bowflex PowerPro recalls, so I can't comment
critically on your total recall numbers. I suspect the $100 per recall
guesstimate is on the high side though. Keep in mind that all the
hardware except for the rods are manufactured abroad. And when you do
a mass parts replacement, there are no marketing costs, and
production, warehousing, and shipping costs can be minimized because
you know how many pieces you need, and where they're going.

OTOH, these costs go a long way toward explaining the very high
purchase price of the Bowflex. Marketing, liability, and warranty
support are huyge costs.

I've been through the same experience with Nordictrack. Thirteen years
ago, when I bought my Nordictrack ski exerciser, Nordictrack had the
largest exercise machine sales in North America. They also offered the
best available warranty - 10 years on all parts. A few years later,
they reduced their warranty to two years, and then they went bankrupt.


Before my ten year warranty had expired, the company was out of
business and the warranty was worthless. But before that happened,
they replaced the front frame of my machine three times, the front
upright twice, and the front pulley system once, partly because of
poor design, and partly because of inept pre- and post-sales customer
service (it took me two years and six or seven calls to customer
service to learn that they had an extended length upright that should
have been shipped to me initially because of my height).

So, which is a better deal - a cheaper machine that becomes a
paperweight when it breaks and the warranty proves worthless, or one
that costs 20% or 30% more, but has warranty support and retains
market value?

I'd say that Bowflex is doing much better than Nordictrack by its
customers.



--

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

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:50:44 -0000, "Bully"
<bully62.RemoveThis@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:

....
>>> 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?

I think so, and especially with free weights. With a leg press you can
limit the motion so that you can fail at the bottom turnaround without
injuring yourself. Failing at the bottom of a squat could be extremely
damaging. Add to that the risks posed by losing your balance or
twisting during the squat, and I beleive there's a very significant
advantage to using a well-designed leg press machine.



--

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

In article <46045e71.16993233.TakeThisOut@news.telus.net>,
lohsea.TakeThisOut@3web.nettax (Achim Nolcken Lohse) wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:50:44 -0000, "Bully"
> <bully62.TakeThisOut@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>
> ...
> >>> 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?
>
> I think so, and especially with free weights. With a leg press you can
> limit the motion so that you can fail at the bottom turnaround without
> injuring yourself. Failing at the bottom of a squat could be extremely
> damaging. Add to that the risks posed by losing your balance or
> twisting during the squat, and I beleive there's a very significant
> advantage to using a well-designed leg press machine.

You'd be wrong. There is no danger of failing at the bottom of a squat
if you are in a rack. Even if you aren't - olympic style weightlifters
fail all the time in front squat or catch without injury. Pragmatically
free weight lifters like powerlifters and olympic lifters have a very
low chance of injury compared to other sports and they both squat a lot.

Injury in the leg press often occurs from rounding the back at the
bottom or during a heavy session. There are so many safeguards in the
squat movement it is actually pretty safe. Knee health in olympic
weightlifters is very good and exceeds the general population according
to a study done in the 70's.

It has been studied often and the studies favour the squat. I'm too lazy
to do the search - I'm off to the gym to lift!

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

["Followup-To:" header set to misc.fitness.weights.]
Dnia 2007-03-23 Achim Nolcken Lohse napisa³(a):
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:50:07 -0400, willbrink.TakeThisOut@comcast.net (Will Brink)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <4601819a.4476666.TakeThisOut@news.telus.net>, lohsea.TakeThisOut@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.

Because they are much lighter than metal, but it's beyond the point.
Metal springs would work much better, because they generally do not
shatter, or can be made this way. After some use they will simply get
longer, easier to pull, but won't shatter into tiny parts flying
through your room in random directions. Even rubber bands are better
than composite rods.

But here we face a serious marketing problem. "Wall exercisers" are
known for at least a hundred years, so it's hard to market them as a
space age novelty. Besides, if you take in account that all those
machines were always meant to be sold and gather dust, not to be used,
what's the difference between rods which shatter and springs or rubber
bands? Rods are made of some magic materials, which at least partially
could justify high price tag.

Do you want to know a secret? I have all needed parts and tools to
make composite rods in my bedroom. They will be damn strong, and they
will most probably not shatter when they will eventually fail, and if
after several tests to destruction I'd found that they do shatter, I'd
put them into a webbing sleeve, to prevent shattered fragments from
flying into an eye of a kid. I assure you that I can do all that in my
bedroom, with virtually no tools and very little expertise. You could
too, after I told you how. We couldn't make metal or rubber in a
bedroom.

Now, how much did you pay for your "high tech" towel rack (it was meant
as a dust gatherer, you know I'm right)? Did it hurt to sit afterwards?

>> 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,

You should start with bodyweight exercises. How many pushups could you
do at this time? How many pullups? How many dips (I used to use
chairs for that, now I use "blast straps" hung from a doorframe mounted
chinup bar). Could you afford a backpack and some plates in it for
extra load? Could you afford rubber "chest expander" for some very
portable way to increase difficulty of pushups?

You lacked the know-how, not the tools or space. They used your
ignorance to get into your wallet.

> managed to injure myself and put a hole in the floor,

Could you afford a sheet of plywood to put a hole in, instead of the
floor (use glue-in carpeting on top, if you work out in a slippery
shoes)?

> and decided that I don't want to be manhandling heavy weights
> that have serious injury potential.

Because you can't bench without a spotting device? Dips are better
anyway, so what's the problem? Not the spotting device, because you
can get it (or build it) for pocket money.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
 >> Stay informed about: Bowflex shatters under load 

["Followup-To:" header set to misc.fitness.weights.]
Dnia 2007-03-23 Achim Nolcken Lohse napisa³(a):
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:08:13 -0400, 223rem <223rem.TakeThisOut@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.

This is nonsense. You can build your legs to whatever level you like
without spending a single dollar. Simply do one-legged exercises. As
it happens, they are very safe from a biomechanical point of view and
they require very little extra load. And they are in fashion too.

>>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.

Bowflex isn't the only option between a full blown home gym and a
commercial gym. You don't need machines. I'm pretty sure that if you
go superslow (which you happen to like) you'll need assistance more
often than an external load.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
 >> Stay informed about: Bowflex shatters under load 

"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <lohsea DeleteThis @3web.nettax> wrote in message
news:46044c23.12307078@news.telus.net...
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:28:38 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy DeleteThis @yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>
>>>> 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
>
> OK, then I'll concede your point. However, if one were to substitute
> any number of more expensive exercise machines for the Bowflex,
> similar defects in resitance curve would be found, otherwise,
> SuperSlow wouldn't be able to sell its specialized single-exercise
> machines at $8,000+ a piece.
>>
>>>
>>>>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
>
> I'd say that your statement "...add 2.5 lbx per week periodically...",
> while ambiguous, suggests overtraining.
>>>
>>> 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
>
> Again, we're talking at cross purposes. You're talking about the
> motivational problems of bodybuilders and/or power lifters intent on
> obtaining results that are easily quantified and verified.
>
> I'm talking about a hugely larger segment of the population who want
> primarily to build and maintain muscular strength, range of motion,
> and increased metabolic rate, and whose only readily verifiable
> measure of success will be reduction or maintenance of their waist
> measurement.
>
> These two groups or so different, there's probably no overlap. Their
> motivations are totally distinct. Where your bodybuilders/powerlifters
> enjoy the camaradery of the gym, and don't begrudge the time spent
> there or in travelling to and fro, the group I refer to want to spend
> as little time and incur as little inconvenience as possible
> maintaining fitness.
>
> An extreme example of this is the purchasers of the ROM QuickGym
> machine regularly advertised in upscale magazines as well as fitness
> magazines. It claims to get you in shape and keep you fit, regardless
> of your current condition, with only four minutes of exercise per day.
>
>
> It costs US$14,615 plus $700 to $1,000 shipping, or you can try it for
> a trial period of 30 days for a mere cost of US$1,500 (in the
> continental US) or US$2,500 (in Alaska, Hawaii, or Canada). Assuming
> two people are using it during the trial period,Alaskans, Hawaiians
> and Canadians will be paying US$625 per hour of use! Yet this company
> has been successfully selling this apparatus at approximately the same
> price (it went up from US$12,000 in 2004) for more than a decade.
>
> I believe that the vast majority people shopping for exercise
> equipment share the motivational bent of the people who buy the ROM,
> and would probably try one themselves if they could afford it.
>
> ...
>>>
>>>> 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??
>
> Clearly, the size of your bones limits the size of your muscles. A
> person with a smaller bone structure is going to have smaller muscle
> volume, all other things being equal. I'm six feet tall and weigh
> roughly 200 lbs., this makes leg presses (or squats) with the 410#
> Bowflex somewhat inadequate for me. Someone who is only 5 foot 6
> inches is likely to find leg presses or squats with the Bowflex more
> effective.
>>
> ..
>>
>>.... the ski machine is not designed for building muscle -
>>that machine builds cardio and endurance
>
> Now you're being silly.
>
> I assure you that a a ski machine will build muscle, just as cutting
> sugar cane, loading trucks, or hiking the mountains will build muscle.
> As for "cardio", as the SuperSlow Guild has said for years - that is
> meaningless bunk. There IS no such thing as cardio. There's not the
> slightest evidence that you can "build up" your heart muscle. And
> endurance is just an aspect of strength, fitness, and general health.
>
> I still have my Nordictrack, and thanks to a friendly welder, I have a
> supply of spare front frames for it. If I thought that spending 30
> minutes a day with my heart rate in the aerobic "cardio" zone offered
> any benefit over my Bowflex workouts, I would use it. But I haven't
> seen a shred of experimental evidence to support this. So I haven't
> used it in six years.
>
> My Superslow workouts on the Bowflex last 40 minutes from start to
> finish, excluding setup and takedown of the equipment. And my average
> interval between workouts over the past six years has been 10 days,
> with better results than I got from the NordicTrack in one tenth of
> the time.
>
>
> .....
>>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.
>
>
> There are a number of problems with machines using stack weights:
>
> 1. they take up a lot of space, so many people just don't have room
> for them in their homes
>
> 2. they're very heavy, so there are floors that would be unable to
> support them
>
> 3. their bulk and weight make them difficult to transport, which
> creates special problems for people who live in rural communities
>
> The Bowflex (at least the PowerPro model), OTOH, is lightweight,
> compact, easy to collapse and move around, and has a minimal footprint
> for storage. Without the lat tower or leg extension attachments it can
> even be loaded into the back of a station wagon or hatchback without
> disassembly.
>
> So, yes, it's certainly a compromise solution, but it's allowed a lot
> of people to build and maintain fitness in their homes who would
> otherwise not exercised at all, just as the NordicTrack did before it.
> --

Ok Ok, fer Christ's sake! you've convinced me - I'm going for this Bowflex
thing - will get the new Power Pro model - I hear now they are offering as
accessories a helmet, and hard plastic vest and eye goggles for some
reason - they say these things should be worn at all times because it "adds
resistance" to the exercise or some such thing!


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

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:51:16 -0400, 223rem <223rem.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:

>http://www.fastexercise.com/
>
>ROM - The 4-Minute CrossTrainer. It may be a little pricey, but think of
>it as a super-ultra-Bowflex.

Funny you should say that. As it happens, I watched the free DVD
infomercial they send out just yesterday. The "explanation" of its
operating principles sounded like mumbo jumbo to me. But I'd certainly
give it a try if it didn't cost $1500 to try it for 309 days.



--

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

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>I subscribe to Consumer Reports because, with regard to cars, appliances,
>TVs, cameras, etcetera, I look for good values. I subscribe to Gun Tests
>because, with most firearms, I look for good values.
>
>But there are other types of product categories that I have a "fascination"
>for. For which I might find personal enjoyment in owning absurdly expensive
>versions.
>
>If I had a spare $15,000 lying around, I could easily see myself ordering a
>ROM.
>
>Why do you seem to have an issue with that? I've never stated that it was a
>good value, or best for anyone regardless of income. To state the obvious,
>it's my money. I earned it.

I see it as a matter of proportion: the cost of the gizmo compared to
how much of a waste it is. Consider these points:

[a] You don't need a $15,000 gizmo to perform a Tabata Protocol.

[b] People frequently have a $1,000 treadmill or elliptical trainer
gathering dust because they can't force themselves to engage in the
standard aerobic routine on a regular basis. How much more of a waste
would it be to have a $15,000 ROM gathering dust because the owners
can't force themselves to regularly engage in an exercise routine that
leaves Olympic speed skaters exhausted?
 >> Stay informed about: Bowflex shatters under load 

"Curt" <curtjames.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174698353.822108.86390@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> David wrote:
> [...]
>
> Geez, would it kill you to schnip a bit of that schtufff, David. ;o)

Sorry I knew I should have snipped some of it . . . sorry (more comments
below)

>
> i KEED! Hey, quote it all, pal. QUOTE IT ALL!
>
>> Ok Ok, fer Christ's sake! you've convinced
>> me - I'm going for this Bowflex thing - will get
>> the new Power Pro model - I hear now they
>> are offering as accessories a helmet, and hard
>> plastic vest and eye goggles for some reason -
>> they say these things should be worn at all
>> times because it "adds resistance" to the
>> exercise or

> Again, we're talking at cross purposes. You're talking about the
> motivational problems of bodybuilders and/or power lifters intent on
> obtaining results that are easily quantified and verified.
>
> I'm talking about a hugely larger segment of the population who want
> primarily to build and maintain muscular strength, range of motion,
> and increased metabolic rate, and whose only readily verifiable
> measure of success will be reduction or maintenance of their waist
> measurement.
>
> These two groups or so different, there's probably no overlap. Their
> motivations are totally distinct. Where your bodybuilders/powerlifters
> enjoy the camaradery of the gym, and don't begrudge the time spent
> there or in travelling to and fro, the group I refer to want to spend
> as little time and incur as little inconvenience as possible
> maintaining fitness.
>
> An extreme example of this is the purchasers of the ROM QuickGym
> machine regularly advertised in upscale magazines as well as fitness
> magazines. It claims to get you in shape and keep you fit, regardless
> of your current condition, with only four minutes of exercise per day.
>
>
> It costs US$14,615 plus $700 to $1,000 shipping, or you can try it for
> a trial period of 30 days for a mere cost of US$1,500 (in the
> continental US) or US$2,500 (in Alaska, Hawaii, or Canada). Assuming
> two people are using it during the trial period,Alaskans, Hawaiians
> and Canadians will be paying US$625 per hour of use! Yet this company
> has been successfully selling this apparatus at approximately the same
> price (it went up from US$12,000 in 2004) for more than a decade.
>
> I believe that the vast majority people shopping for exercise
> equipment share the motivational bent of the people who buy the ROM,
> and would probably try one themselves if they could afford it.
>
> ...
>>>
>>>> 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??
>
> Clearly, the size of your bones limits the size of your muscles. A
> person with a smaller bone structure is going to have smaller muscle
> volume, all other things being equal. I'm six feet tall and weigh
> roughly 200 lbs., this makes leg presses (or squats) with the 410#
> Bowflex somewhat inadequate for me. Someone who is only 5 foot 6
> inches is likely to find leg presses or squats with the Bowflex more
> effective.
>>
> ..
>>
>>.... the ski machine is not designed for building muscle -
>>that machine builds cardio and endurance
>
> Now you're being silly.
>
> I assure you that a a ski machine will build muscle, just as cutting
> sugar cane, loading trucks, or hiking the mountains will build muscle.
> As for "cardio", as the SuperSlow Guild has said for years - that is
> meaningless bunk. There IS no such thing as cardio. There's not the
> slightest evidence that you can "build up" your heart muscle. And
> endurance is just an aspect of strength, fitness, and general health.
>
> I still have my Nordictrack, and thanks to a friendly welder, I have a
> supply of spare front frames for it. If I thought that spending 30
> minutes a day with my heart rate in the aerobic "cardio" zone offered
> any benefit over my Bowflex workouts, I would use it. But I haven't
> seen a shred of experimental evidence to support this. So I haven't
> used it in six years.
>
> My Superslow workouts on the Bowflex last 40 minutes from start to
> finish, excluding setup and takedown of the equipment. And my average
> interval between workouts over the past six years has been 10 days,
> with better results than I got from the NordicTrack in one tenth of
> the time.
>
>
> .....
>>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.
>
>
> There are a number of problems with machines using stack weights:
>
> 1. they take up a lot of space, so many people just don't have room
> for them in their homes
>
> 2. they're very heavy, so there are floors that would be unable to
> support them
>
> 3. their bulk and weight make them difficult to transport, which
> creates special problems for people who live in rural communities
>
> The Bowflex (at least the PowerPro model), OTOH, is lightweight,
> compact, easy to collapse and move around, and has a minimal footprint
> for storage. Without the lat tower or leg extension attachments it can
> even be loaded into the back of a station wagon or hatchback without
> disassembly.
>
> So, yes, it's certainly a compromise solution, but it's allowed a lot
> of people to build and maintain fitness in their homes who would
> otherwise not exercised at all, just as the NordicTrack did before it.
>
> Again, we're talking at cross purposes. You're talking about the
> motivational problems of bodybuilders and/or power lifters intent on
> obtaining results that are easily quantified and verified.
>
> I'm talking about a hugely larger segment of the population who want
> primarily to build and maintain muscular strength, range of motion,
> and increased metabolic rate, and whose only readily verifiable
> measure of success will be reduction or maintenance of their waist
> measurement.
>
> These two groups or so different, there's probably no overlap. Their
> motivations are totally distinct. Where your bodybuilders/powerlifters
> enjoy the camaradery of the gym, and don't begrudge the time spent
> there or in travelling to and fro, the group I refer to want to spend
> as little time and incur as little inconvenience as possible
> maintaining fitness.
>
> An extreme example of this is the purchasers of the ROM QuickGym
> machine regularly advertised in upscale magazines as well as fitness
> magazines. It claims to get you in shape and keep you fit, regardless
> of your current condition, with only four minutes of exercise per day.
>
>
> It costs US$14,615 plus $700 to $1,000 shipping, or you can try it for
> a trial period of 30 days for a mere cost of US$1,500 (in the
> continental US) or US$2,500 (in Alaska, Hawaii, or Canada). Assuming
> two people are using it during the trial period,Alaskans, Hawaiians
> and Canadians will be paying US$625 per hour of use! Yet this company
> has been successfully selling this apparatus at approximately the same
> price (it went up from US$12,000 in 2004) for more than a decade.
>
> I believe that the vast majority people shopping for exercise
> equipment share the motivational bent of the people who buy the ROM,
> and would probably try one themselves if they could afford it.
>
> ...
>>>
>>>> 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??
>
> Clearly, the size of your bones limits the size of your muscles. A
> person with a smaller bone structure is going to have smaller muscle
> volume, all other things being equal. I'm six feet tall and weigh
> roughly 200 lbs., this makes leg presses (or squats) with the 410#
> Bowflex somewhat inadequate for me. Someone who is only 5 foot 6
> inches is likely to find leg presses or squats with the Bowflex more
> effective.
>>
> ..
>>
>>.... the ski machine is not designed for building muscle -
>>that machine builds cardio and endurance
>
> Now you're being silly.
>
> I assure you that a a ski machine will build muscle, just as cutting
> sugar cane, loading trucks, or hiking the mountains will build muscle.
> As for "cardio", as the SuperSlow Guild has said for years - that is
> meaningless bunk. There IS no such thing as cardio. There's not the
> slightest evidence that you can "build up" your heart muscle. And
> endurance is just an aspect of strength, fitness, and general health.
>
> I still have my Nordictrack, and thanks to a friendly welder, I have a
> supply of spare front frames for it. If I thought that spending 30
> minutes a day with my heart rate in the aerobic "cardio" zone offered
> any benefit over my Bowflex workouts, I would use it. But I haven't
> seen a shred of experimental evidence to support this. So I haven't
> used it in six years.
>
> My Superslow workouts on the Bowflex last 40 minutes from start to
> finish, excluding setup and takedown of the equipment. And my average
> interval between workouts over the past six years has been 10 days,
> with better results than I got from the NordicTrack in one tenth of
> the time.
>
>
> .....
>>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.
>
>
> There are a number of problems with machines using stack weights:
>
> 1. they take up a lot of space, so many people just don't have room
> for them in their homes
>
> 2. they're very heavy, so there are floors that would be unable to
> support them
>
> 3. their bulk and weight make them difficult to transport, which
> creates special problems for people who live in rural communities
>
> The Bowflex (at least the PowerPro model), OTOH, is lightweight,
> compact, easy to collapse and move around, and has a minimal footprint
> for storage. Without the lat tower or leg extension attachments it can
> even be loaded into the back of a station wagon or hatchback without
> disassembly.
>
> So, yes, it's certainly a compromise solution, but it's allowed a lot
> of people to build and maintain fitness in their homes who would
> otherwise not exercised at all, just as the NordicTrack did before it.
> > Again, we're talking at cross purposes. You're talking about the
> motivational problems of bodybuilders and/or power lifters intent on
> obtaining results that are easily quantified and verified.
>
> I'm talking about a hugely larger segment of the population who want
> primarily to build and maintain muscular strength, range of motion,
> and increased metabolic rate, and whose only readily verifiable
> measure of success will be reduction or maintenance of their waist
> measurement.
>
> These two groups or so different, there's probably no overlap. Their
> motivations are totally distinct. Where your bodybuilders/powerlifters
> enjoy the camaradery of the gym, and don't begrudge the time spent
> there or in travelling to and fro, the group I refer to want to spend
> as little time and incur as little inconvenience as possible
> maintaining fitness.
>
> An extreme example of this is the purchasers of the ROM QuickGym
> machine regularly advertised in upscale magazines as well as fitness
> magazines. It claims to get you in shape and keep you fit, regardless
> of your current condition, with only four minutes of exercise per day.
>
>
> It costs US$14,615 plus $700 to $1,000 shipping, or you can try it for
> a trial period of 30 days for a mere cost of US$1,500 (in the
> continental US) or US$2,500 (in Alaska, Hawaii, or Canada). Assuming
> two people are using it during the trial period,Alaskans, Hawaiians
> and Canadians will be paying US$625 per hour of use! Yet this company
> has been successfully selling this apparatus at approximately the same
> price (it went up from US$12,000 in 2004) for more than a decade.
>
> I believe that the vast majority people shopping for exercise
> equipment share the motivational bent of the people who buy the ROM,
> and would probably try one themselves if they could afford it.
>
> ...
>>>
>>>> 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??
>
> Clearly, the size of your bones limits the size of your muscles. A
> person with a smaller bone structure is going to have smaller muscle
> volume, all other things being equal. I'm six feet tall and weigh
> roughly 200 lbs., this makes leg presses (or squats) with the 410#
> Bowflex somewhat inadequate for me. Someone who is only 5 foot 6
> inches is likely to find leg presses or squats with the Bowflex more
> effective.
>>
> ..
>>
>>.... the ski machine is not designed for building muscle -
>>that machine builds cardio and endurance
>
> Now you're being silly.
>
> I assure you that a a ski machine will build muscle, just as cutting
> sugar cane, loading trucks, or hiking the mountains will build muscle.
> As for "cardio", as the SuperSlow Guild has said for years - that is
> meaningless bunk. There IS no such thing as cardio. There's not the
> slightest evidence that you can "build up" your heart muscle. And
> endurance is just an aspect of strength, fitness, and general health.
>
> I still have my Nordictrack, and thanks to a friendly welder, I have a
> supply of spare front frames for it. If I thought that spending 30
> minutes a day with my heart rate in the aerobic "cardio" zone offered
> any benefit over my Bowflex workouts, I would use it. But I haven't
> seen a shred of experimental evidence to support this. So I haven't
> used it in six years.
>
> My Superslow workouts on the Bowflex last 40 minutes from start to
> finish, excluding setup and takedown of the equipment. And my average
> interval between workouts over the past six years has been 10 days,
> with better results than I got from the NordicTrack in one tenth of
> the time.
>
>
> .....
>>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.
>
>
> There are a number of problems with machines using stack weights:
>
> 1. they take up a lot of space, so many people just don't have room
> for them in their homes
>
> 2. they're very heavy, so there are floors that would be unable to
> support them
>
> 3. their bulk and weight make them difficult to transport, which
> creates special problems for people who live in rural communities
>
> The Bowflex (at least the PowerPro model), OTOH, is lightweight,
> compact, easy to collapse and move around, and has a minimal footprint
> for storage. Without the lat tower or leg extension attachments it can
> even be loaded into the back of a station wagon or hatchback without
> disassembly.
>
> So, yes, it's certainly a compromise solution, but it's allowed a lot
> of people to build and maintain fitness in their homes who would
> otherwise not exercised at all, just as the NordicTrack did before it.
> > Again, we're talking at cross purposes. You're talking about the
> motivational problems of bodybuilders and/or power lifters intent on
> obtaining results that are easily quantified and verified.
>
> I'm talking about a hugely larger segment of the population who want
> primarily to build and maintain muscular strength, range of motion,
> and increased metabolic rate, and whose only readily verifiable
> measure of success will be reduction or maintenance of their waist
> measurement.
>
> These two groups or so different, there's probably no overlap. Their
> motivations are totally distinct. Where your bodybuilders/powerlifters
> enjoy the camaradery of the gym, and don't begrudge the time spent
> there or in travelling to and fro, the group I refer to want to spend
> as little time and incur as little inconvenience as possible
> maintaining fitness.
>
> An extreme example of this is the purchasers of the ROM QuickGym
> machine regularly advertised in upscale magazines as well as fitness
> magazines. It claims to get you in shape and keep you fit, regardless
> of your current condition, with only four minutes of exercise per day.
>
>
> It costs US$14,615 plus $700 to $1,000 shipping, or you can try it for
> a trial period of 30 days for a mere cost of US$1,500 (in the
> continental US) or US$2,500 (in Alaska, Hawaii, or Canada). Assuming
> two people are using it during the trial period,Alaskans, Hawaiians
> and Canadians will be paying US$625 per hour of use! Yet this company
> has been successfully selling this apparatus at approximately the same
> price (it went up from US$12,000 in 2004) for more than a decade.
>
> I believe that the vast majority people shopping for exercise
> equipment share the motivational bent of the people who buy the ROM,
> and would probably try one themselves if they could afford it.
>
> ...
>>>
>>>> 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??
>
> Clearly, the size of your bones limits the size of your muscles. A
> person with a smaller bone structure is going to have smaller muscle
> volume, all other things being equal. I'm six feet tall and weigh
> roughly 200 lbs., this makes leg presses (or squats) with the 410#
> Bowflex somewhat inadequate for me. Someone who is only 5 foot 6
> inches is likely to find leg presses or squats with the Bowflex more
> effective.
>>
> ..
>>
>>.... the ski machine is not designed for building muscle -
>>that machine builds cardio and endurance
>
> Now you're being silly.
>
> I assure you that a a ski machine will build muscle, just as cutting