Bowflex shatters under load

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

>
>"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <lohsea@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

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:08:13 -0400, 223rem <223rem@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

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:58:17 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy@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

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

>In article <4601819a.4476666@news.telus.net>, lohsea@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

"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <lohsea@3web.nettax> wrote in message
news:46038080.38007022@news.telus.net...
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:58:17 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy@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

"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <lohsea@3web.nettax> wrote in message
news:46038087.38013182@news.telus.net...
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:15:19 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <lohsea@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

In news:460382ef.38630147@news.telus.net,
Achim Nolcken Lohse <lohsea@3web.nettax> typed:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:08:13 -0400, 223rem <223rem@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

In article <460384bf.39093903@news.telus.net>, lohsea@3web.nettax (Achim
Nolcken Lohse) wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:50:07 -0400, willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <4601819a.4476666@news.telus.net>, lohsea@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.

Again, you think those goofy rods are made of the same composite materials
as being used in fighter jets? Please. Stop reading the marketing crap and
use your head.

>
> > 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.

Then you need to learn how to use the weights safely as millions of others
have and do every day.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

http://www.fastexercise.com/

ROM - The 4-Minute CrossTrainer. It may be a little pricey, but think of
it as a super-ultra-Bowflex.

"223rem" <223rem@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:S4idnb40853CRp7bnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@insightbb.co m...
> 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 -

"David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote
> "223rem" <223rem@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

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fkTMh.130477$_73.3074@newsread2.news.pas.eart hlink.net...
> "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>> "223rem" <223rem@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??

"David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote
> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote
>> "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>> "223rem" <223rem@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

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>> "223rem" <223rem@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?

On 22 Mar 2007 16:43:09 -0700, "Curt" <curtjames@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!)

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

>"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>"David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>> "223rem" <223rem@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.

"JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote
> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>"David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>> "223rem" <223rem@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?

I just KNOW there has to be some hidden analogy here between ammo and pet
food. Let's see: high quality pet food is very slightly more expensive than
the cheap shit; 45ACP Magic Bullet® ammunition is hundreds of times more
expensive that "cheap shit' ammo. A horribly failed analogy. Let's try
again. Federal's high quality ammo is to only slightly less expensive
crappy Russian surplus ammo as high quality pet food is to only slightly
less expensive death dealing Iams/Eukanuba/Nutro/Ol' Roy pet food.
Hmmm...that's better.

Yes, I'll take the free DVD. It's got be more more amusing than
Iam's/Eukanuba's/Nutro's pathetic attempts to justify their deception.

David

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:wuUMh.16976$Jl.15361@newsread3.news.pas.earth link.net...
> "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote
>>> "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>>> "223rem" <223rem@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.

f--- y--

>
> David
>

"David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:46043f68$0$4753$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>
> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:wuUMh.16976$Jl.15361@newsread3.news.pas.earth link.net...
>> "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote
>>>> "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>>>> "223rem" <223rem@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.
>
> f--- y--
>
Cohen, you f-----n tricked me! I did order the DVD and then clicked on the
last part and sure enough there is a 6 minute preview
- Dunno about the $15000 price tag - I can see a good rowing machine and a
stepper that is designed for full stretch and I read 'wreck your knees' into
it. I've seen stairclimbers that also have full stretch and you get a better
upper body workout with them than the ROM.
Also I perceive that they left out the chest as a muscle that needs a
workout or is this covered by doing dips? I like the idea of the full range
of motion but you know, you get that on the Total Trainer - absolute full
range of motion for $295 and it slides under your bed!

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:50:44 -0000, "Bully"
<bully62@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

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:28:38 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy@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

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:05:23 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:

>
>"223rem" <223rem@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:S4idnb40853CRp7bnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@insightbb.c om...
>> 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 -

That's because there are only two: rowing on the front seat, and
stepping on the rear.
>
>

--

Achim
_____/)
axethetax

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

>
>"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <lohsea@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

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:51:16 -0400, 223rem <223rem@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

["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@comcast.net (Will Brink)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <4601819a.4476666@news.telus.net>, lohsea@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

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

> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:50:44 -0000, "Bully"
> <bully62@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

["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@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Achim Nolcken Lohse wrote:
>>
>&