Bowflex shatters under load

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad RemoveThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
>"David" <forgotwhy RemoveThis @yahoo.com.au> wrote
>> "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.
>>
>> it is odd that their website doesn't have any photos of the various
>> exercises you can do on this machine -
>
>Order the DVD. It's free.
>
>David
>the one with the DVD, not you

Since you have expressed an interest in the ROM, might I also interest
you in some .45ACP Magic Bullet® ammunition for your Kimber? I
produce them myself, carefully and individually, from high-quality
ingredients. At $150.00 per cartridge, they're a bit pricey, but
despite the negative opinions of so-called "experts," they are truly
effective for one-shot kills of vampires, werewolves, re-animated
corpses, and other serious threats. Would you like a free DVD?
 >> Stay informed about: Bowflex shatters under load 

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:59:40 -0400, JMW <jmwilliams.RemoveThis@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

>"David Cohen" <sammiesdad.RemoveThis@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>"David" <forgotwhy.RemoveThis@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>> "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.
>>>
>>> it is odd that their website doesn't have any photos of the various
>>> exercises you can do on this machine -
>>
>>Order the DVD. It's free.
>>
>>David
>>the one with the DVD, not you
>
>Since you have expressed an interest in the ROM, might I also interest
>you in some .45ACP Magic Bullet® ammunition for your Kimber? I
>produce them myself, carefully and individually, from high-quality
>ingredients. At $150.00 per cartridge, they're a bit pricey, but
>despite the negative opinions of so-called "experts," they are truly
>effective for one-shot kills of vampires, werewolves, re-animated
>corpses, and other serious threats. Would you like a free DVD?

Don't fall for this.
For the one-shot *vampire* kill, you need a *wood-jacketed* round.

Available at $149.99 each from Buck Shot Industries. Use the coupon
code "STAFFY" and save $2.
 >> Stay informed about: Bowflex shatters under load 

Lucas Buck <sbcpark.RemoveThis@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
> JMW <jmwilliams.RemoveThis@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>>"David Cohen" <sammiesdad.RemoveThis@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>"David" <forgotwhy.RemoveThis@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>>> "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.
>>>>
>>>> it is odd that their website doesn't have any photos of the various
>>>> exercises you can do on this machine -
>>>
>>>Order the DVD. It's free.
>>>
>>>David
>>>the one with the DVD, not you
>>
>>Since you have expressed an interest in the ROM, might I also interest
>>you in some .45ACP Magic Bullet® ammunition for your Kimber? I
>>produce them myself, carefully and individually, from high-quality
>>ingredients. At $150.00 per cartridge, they're a bit pricey, but
>>despite the negative opinions of so-called "experts," they are truly
>>effective for one-shot kills of vampires, werewolves, re-animated
>>corpses, and other serious threats. Would you like a free DVD?
>
>Don't fall for this.
>For the one-shot *vampire* kill, you need a *wood-jacketed* round.

Ignore this tripe. He is just another naysaying so-called "expert"
who knows nothing about our special combination of bullet jacketing
ingredients which assure a one-shot kill on all serious threats like
vampires. Naturally, a one-shot kill is essential to Kimber owners
with Wilson Combat Mags. To overcome the problem of the $150 per
bullet price, you should read:
www.WhyAreMagicBulletsSoExpensive.com

So the question here should not be "Why are Magic Bullets® so
expensive?" but "What is it worth to you to stop a raging vampire with
only one shot from your Kimber?"
 >> Stay informed about: Bowflex shatters under load 

223rem <223rem DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:

>David Cohen wrote:> "JMW" <jmwilliams DeleteThis @enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote
>
>> I subscribe to Consumer Reports because, with regard to cars, appliances,
>> TVs, cameras, etcetera, I look for good values.
>
>Consumer Reports considers handling and the fun to drive factor
>irrelevant. If you like to drive a boring, "reliable" car, then yes,
>follow their recommendations.

I don't need a vehicle to be a penile surrogate.
 >> Stay informed about: Bowflex shatters under load 

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:49:01 -0600, Hobbes <khobman800 RemoveThis @yahoo.com>
wrote:

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

Really, olympic style weightlifters are NEVER injured when they fail
in a front squat?

>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.

Oh, so they DO get injured, just never when they're doing squats?

>

>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.

"pretty safe"! Now there's a reassuring phrase.

> Knee health in olympic
>weightlifters is very good and exceeds the general population according
>to a study done in the 70's.

Well, that's a cheery thought. To think that a bunch of dedicated
athletes have better knees than the general population. Has it
occurred to you that people with bad knees probably never get into
weightlifting? Or that those who injure themselves while trying it out
will probably stop pretty fast?

A study in the 70's. I guess they figured - quit while you're ahead.
And after all that time, it's probably impossible to check how well
controlled the study was, let alone replicate it.

I HAVE noticed quite a few world class lifters with pressure bandages
on their knees. I guess that's to remind them that there's no chance
of injury?
>

--

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

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 23:01:47 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
<bakters DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

> ... one-legged exercises.... are very safe from a biomechanical point of view

Baloney.

There's nothing safe about one-legged exercises. You can injure your
back as well as your knee. And you certainly can't do one-legged
squats to failure safely.

--

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

Achim Nolcken Lohse wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 23:01:47 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
> <bakters.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> ... one-legged exercises.... are very safe from a biomechanical point of view
>
> Baloney.
>
> There's nothing safe about one-legged exercises. You can injure your
> back as well as your knee. And you certainly can't do one-legged
> squats to failure safely.
>

For god's sake quit being such a pussy. Do some heavy squats, they'll
increase your testosterone level. You need that badly.
 >> Stay informed about: Bowflex shatters under load 

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:44:27 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
<bakters.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>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.

The Bowflex rods are all sheathed in a rubber sleeve, presumably for
that very reason. Maybe you've noticed that neither the original
poster of the "broken rod" thread, nor the later poster who had it
happen twice in a row, have posted any details of their mishap.

So far, there's been no report of any flying rod fragments. The rods
themselves are anchored in the rod box by their bases, and hooked onto
the cable at the other end, which would tend to limit their movement
when they break.

> 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.

So, if I understand you correctly, all "composite" materials are the
same, and you could make exact duplicates of the Bowflex rods in your
bedroom? I wonder why they don't manufacture them in China and save a
lot of money?

How many engineers do you have on tap to certify that the rods and
associated hardware are fit for the job?

How would you determine that the rod holders could only handle 410#
worth of rods and still have a reasonable margin of saftey?

How much money could you put aside for warranty repairs, recalls, and
the occasional successful liability lawsuit?

How many lawyers could you afford to retain to handle the inevitable
frivolous and predatory lawsuits?

....[remainder of moralistic harangue snipped]

--

Achim
_____/)
axethetax
 >> 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.

That is not so - many weight machines have variable resistance - Bowflex is
simply just like a rubber band - starts easy ends hard - that is only
consistent with rubber band machines which are generally considered garbage

>>
>>>
>>>>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.

why does adding a small amt of weight periodically suggest 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.
>

Anyone who lifts weights or does progressive resistance training is
critically concerned with incrementation. That is the very definition of
progressive resistance That is what it is all about - having the capacity to
add a small quantifiable amount of weight in cycles to your routine


> 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

No, there is no relevance to the ROM machine to the real world - the only
reason ROM machine is 'successful' is the perception that money can buy
fitness. So for people that $15k is small change they will buy that
abomination because of the perception that it is a time efficient fitness
machine that brings miraculous results. It won't deliver much more than
simpler machines at a fraction the money.

> 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.

I believe you are wrong

>
> ...
>>>
>>>> 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.

I'm totally lost - tall people, short people, bigger boned. smaller boned .
.. . so what? Whatever their physiology users will gain benefit or not
depending on many factors - why bring the size of their bones into the
discussion?


>>
> ..
>>
>>.... the ski machine is not designed for building muscle -
>>that machine builds cardio and endurance
>
> Now you're being silly.

Huh?

>
> 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.

All the activities you mention will build muscle very inefficiently compared
to a lifting program using progressive resistance

> 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.

So what you are saying is that VO2 max is a meaningless value - so a
sedentary person who has a VO2 max of 25ml of oxygen per Kg of body weight
per minute of exercise is no different to a highly trained athlete with a
VO2 of 3 times that?

> And
> endurance is just an aspect of strength, fitness, and general health.

So?

>
> 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.

Bowflex will not allow you to work out aerobically or if it can it will be
highly inefficient and your perceived effort will go through the roof

>
> 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.

Achim you are pretty green about what various equipment is designed to
achieve. Endurance is different from hypertrophy - you are saying that a
toaster gave you better results than blender. You got better results from a
screw driver than a hammer.

>
>
> .....
>>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

Wrong - the Bowflex may even have a larger footprint than a typical home
gym - those rods take up a lot of space

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

Wrong - no engineers would rate a floor that can't hold up around 500 kgs
per sq meter. An entire weight machine will only weight around 130 kgs

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

who cares - it still only takes half an hour to take a weights machine apart
and another half hour to put it together

>
> 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.
>
I am not convinced

> 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.

It created more clothes hangers than any other device in the history of
mankind

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

"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <lohsea DeleteThis @3web.nettax> wrote in message
news:460444e6.10454114@news.telus.net...
> 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.

The difference is that Sony and MB have delivered excellence over many
years - so an occasional recall will not cause their rep to be damaged
unduly. Bowflex delivers something less than excellence

>
>>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.

Freight alone must average $40-$50. Also what about the return freight - the
recalls would have been fixed and returned presumeably

> 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.
>

Huh?? Minimize all you like there is will be a hard cost involved - double
freight, handling, labour cost of repairs, cost of parts - there is the
'marketing' costs of advertising the recall - it is expensive advertising to
do a recall - $100 a unit would be underestimated

> 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.
>
So?

>
> 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).

What does Nordic Trac have to do with the price of rice in China?

>
> 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?

You are making comparisons that have no relevance to the debate - you are
comparing a toaster with a blender. Why do you say Bowflex retains market
value?? I would be very surprised if the 2nd hand machines sold in ebay are
even approaching half the new price.

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

IMO both machines are garbage - Nordictrac hits your hip flexors not much
different than the discredited air walkers

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

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fkTMh.130477$_73.3074@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "David" <forgotwhy.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>> "223rem" <223rem.TakeThisOut@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.
>>
>> it is odd that their website doesn't have any photos of the various
>> exercises you can do on this machine -
>
> Order the DVD. It's free.
>
> David
> the one with the DVD, not you
I'm an instant gratification kind of guy. If I have to wait 3 days and fill
out a form . . . anyways I can't justify that kind of denieros - If you
have a DVD why not just tell the common folk here wtf it does??
 >> Stay informed about: Bowflex shatters under load 

"David" <forgotwhy.RemoveThis@yahoo.com.au> wrote
> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad.RemoveThis@earthlink.net> wrote
>> "David" <forgotwhy.RemoveThis@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>> "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.
>>>
>>> it is odd that their website doesn't have any photos of the various
>>> exercises you can do on this machine -
>>
>> Order the DVD. It's free.
>>
> I'm an instant gratification kind of guy. If I have to wait 3 days and
> fill out a form . . . anyways I can't justify that kind of denieros - If
> you have a DVD why not just tell the common folk here wtf it does??

Jason Earl and I have sworn allegience to the Cult of the ROM.

Order the DVD. It's free. There is no subliminal message contained therein.
You will want to watch it over and over. It's good. Very very good.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Bowflex shatters under load 

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:14:49 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy RemoveThis @yahoo.com.au>
wrote:

>
>"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <lohsea RemoveThis @3web.nettax> wrote in message
>news:46044c23.12307078@news.telus.net...
> - Bowflex is
>simply just like a rubber band - starts easy ends hard - that is only
>consistent with rubber band machines which are generally considered garbage

I've never exercised with a "rubber band" machine, so I couldn't say.
But I have seen a number of side-by-side reviews of the Bowflex and
Soloflex. All of them considered the Bowflex significantly superior.
Furthermore, the Bowflex has been favourably reviewed as a home
exercise machine by more than one publication.

....
>>
>> I'd say that your statement "...add 2.5 lbx per week periodically...",
>> while ambiguous, suggests overtraining.
>
>why does adding a small amt of weight periodically suggest overtraining?

Do the math. Add 2.5lbs every week for a year- that's 130 lbs. In two
years it's 260. Are you planning to die or just retire from
weightlifting before you get to year five?
>
....
>>
>
>Anyone who lifts weights or does progressive resistance training is
>critically concerned with incrementation. That is the very definition of
>progressive resistance That is what it is all about - having the capacity to
>add a small quantifiable amount of weight in cycles to your routine

Really! You're saying bragging rights are the primary goal of your
weightlifting activity. To me, this smacks of obsessive behaviour.
....
>No, there is no relevance to the ROM machine to the real world - the only
>reason ROM machine is 'successful' is the perception that money can buy
>fitness. So for people that $15k is small change they will buy that
>abomination because of the perception that it is a time efficient fitness
>machine that brings miraculous results. It won't deliver much more than
>simpler machines at a fraction the money.

And what's your evidence for this conclusion?
>
....

>
>I'm totally lost - tall people, short people, bigger boned. smaller boned .
>. . so what? Whatever their physiology users will gain benefit or not
>depending on many factors - why bring the size of their bones into the
>discussion?

Because you mentioned the resistance limits of the Bowflex. Obviously
it's more capable of providing meaningful resistance to people who are
equipped with smaller muscles. Surely you don't believe that muscle
size can be augmented endlessly?
>
>>>
>> ..
>>>
>>>.... the ski machine is not designed for building muscle -
>>>that machine builds cardio and endurance
>>
>> Now you're being silly.
>
>Huh?
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>All the activities you mention will build muscle very inefficiently compared
>to a lifting program using progressive resistance

Possibly. But an inefficient exercise program that's followed is still
infinitely more effective than an efficient program that's not.

Furthermore, lifting carries a much higher risk of injury and of more
serious injuury, than the Bowflex. Most people would rather be fit and
healthy than ripped but crippled.


>
>> 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.
>
>So what you are saying is that VO2 max is a meaningless value - so a
>sedentary person who has a VO2 max of 25ml of oxygen per Kg of body weight
>per minute of exercise is no different to a highly trained athlete with a
>VO2 of 3 times that?

I didn't say anything of the sort. Just that there's no evidence that
your VO2 max has anything to do with so-called "aerobic" or
"endurance" exercise, as opposed to any other sort of exercise.

And I think the term "sedentary" as you use it is just as much mumbo
jumbo as "cardio" or "aerobic". What exercise ISN'T "cardio" or
"aerobic"? You can only do anaerobic exercise for a few seconds.

Anyway, you keep changing the subject from ordinary people using
resistance apparatus to improve fitness to elite athletes trying to
set records, and then calling the Bowflex and similar home apparatus
"garbage" because they don't suit the needs of such athletes.
>
>> And
>> endurance is just an aspect of strength, fitness, and general health.
>
>So?
>
So - you seem to apply a different standard to ski exercisers, and I
don't see why.

>>
>> 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.
>
>Bowflex will not allow you to work out aerobically or if it can it will be
>highly inefficient and your perceived effort will go through the roof

Since I work out to skeletomuscular failure while maintaining steady
breathing, my Bowflex workouts are by definition aerobic. I have no
idea what you mean by aerobic "inefficiency", or "perceived effort".


>>
>> 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.
>
>Achim you are pretty green about what various equipment is designed to
>achieve.

And you seem selectively naive. You confuse genuine functionality with
marketing mumbo jumbo when it comes to ski exercisers, but strangely,
show no such weakness when considering the Bowflex.

>Endurance is different from hypertrophy -

Maybe, but what does it have to do with exercising your muscles?

There may be a genetic predisposition to larger muscles or longer
muscles, but my understanding is that all muscles only grow in the
same way.


>you are saying that a
>toaster gave you better results than blender. You got better results from a
>screw driver than a hammer.

Actually, I've simply expounded my reasons for using a Bowflex. While
you keep blustering on about it being a total waste of time and money.


.....

>>
>> 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
>
>Wrong - the Bowflex may even have a larger footprint than a typical home
>gym - those rods take up a lot of space

Rubbish!
>
>>
>> 2. they're very heavy, so there are floors that would be unable to
>> support them
>
>Wrong - no engineers would rate a floor that can't hold up around 500 kgs
>per sq meter. An entire weight machine will only weight around 130 kgs

More rubbish.
>
>>
>> 3. their bulk and weight make them difficult to transport, which
>> creates special problems for people who live in rural communities
>
>who cares - it still only takes half an hour to take a weights machine apart
>and another half hour to put it together

I care. And so do a lot of other people. And I question your figures.
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>I am not convinced

Why am I not surprised?
>
>> 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.
>
>It created more clothes hangers than any other device in the history of
>mankind

Do you have a shred of proof that there are more unused Bowflexes than
unused free weights, or ski exercisers or steppers, for that matter?


Your childish hyperbole shows that your antagonism for the Bowflex
isn't based on reason or reflection but on an unhealthy emotional
identification with your fitness routine.
--

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