Bowflex shatters under load

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:44:27 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
<bakters@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

Achim Nolcken Lohse wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 23:01:47 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
> <bakters@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.

"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <lohsea@3web.nettax> wrote in message
news:46044c23.12307078@news.telus.net...
> 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.

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

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

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

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

>
>"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <lohsea@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

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

So if you fail at the bottom of the leg press, where does the weight go? If
I fail at the bottom of the squat I can just lose the weight onto the
safeties.

> Failing at the bottom of a squat could be extremely
> damaging.

See above

> Add to that the risks posed by losing your balance

How would one lose one's balance during the squat? Hang on,you're the guy
who injured yourself with a dumbbell or barbell right? That put a hole
through you floor? Have you ever lost your balance whilst squatting?

> or twisting during the squat,

Twisting??? Why would you twist whilst you are squatting?

> and I beleive there's a very significant
> advantage to using a well-designed leg press machine.

For the record: IMO you're talking horseshit.

--
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 news:mh99031nok06r6lpumikmb7rrtlmkc4c6c@4ax.com,
JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> typed:
> 223rem <223rem@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> David Cohen wrote:> "JMW" <jmwilliams@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.

You might want one of these though: http://www.arielmotor.co.uk/

--
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 news:4604bbaf.40867048@news.telus.net,
Achim Nolcken Lohse <lohsea@3web.nettax> typed:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 23:01:47 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
> <bakters@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.

Why not?

--
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 news:56k38iF29asamU1@mid.individual.net,
Bully <bully62@proteinbars.co.ok> typed:
> In news:mh99031nok06r6lpumikmb7rrtlmkc4c6c@4ax.com,
> JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> typed:
>> 223rem <223rem@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> David Cohen wrote:> "JMW" <jmwilliams@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.
>
> You might want one of these though: http://www.arielmotor.co.uk/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaWoo82zNUA

--
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

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:35:13 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:

>
>"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <lohsea@3web.nettax> wrote in message
>news:460444e6.10454114@news.telus.net...
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:18:38 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au>
>
>>>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
>
So you say. But your only objective evidence is the recall. And since
Sony and Mercedes' recalls are not proof that they are "garbage"
manufacturers, neither can the Bowflex recall provide such proof.

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

You don't know what you're talking about. There was no "return
freight". Bowflex simply sent out an upgrade kit. Furthermore, you
don't seem to understand that large corporations don't pay anywhere
near the surface freight charges ordinary individuals do.

>
>> 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

I guess it's miracle then! They not only swallowed these huge costs,
but doubled the warranty of their own accord, and then went on to
produce even more models, larger than the discontinued one, presumably
so they could lose even more money on the next recall.
>
>> 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?

So Bowflex has treated its customers better than NordicTrack did.
>
>>
>> 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.

Nonsense. Both machines were marketed and received popularly as a safe
and effective way to get fit and stay fit at home.


>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.


The warranty is non-transferable, so there should be a significant
drop in market value on resale. Check out what a perfectly funtioning
NordicTrack will fetch. Or any number of other used exercise machines.
Why do you think people buy new car replacement insurance? The minute
you drive the vehicle off the lot, the market value nosedives, even
WITH a fully transferable warranty.
>
>>
>> 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

Well, I've never seen a published dispute of the NordicTrack's
functionality as a cross-country simulator. And it was touted as North
America's most popular exercise machine for many years.



--

Achim
_____/)
axethetax

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 07:37:32 -0000, "Bully"
<bully62@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:

.....
>
>So if you fail at the bottom of the leg press, where does the weight go?

That depends on the design of the leg press. But even without any
device to hold the weights, your position on a leg press machine is
inherently more stable and less vulnerable.

.....
>
>How would one lose one's balance during the squat?

How does one EVER loser one's balance? One side is weaker, or there's
a distraction, you have a muscle spasm...

>Hang on,you're the guy
>who injured yourself with a dumbbell or barbell right?

dumbell, doing preacher curls.

>That put a hole through you floor?

No, that was a barbell. It upended off the rack when I pulled the
wrong weight off.

>Have you ever lost your balance whilst squatting?

No.
>
>> or twisting during the squat,

No.
>
>Twisting??? Why would you twist whilst you are squatting?

You get distracted by something, turn your head, who knows? Why would
you twist or lose your balance when you're walking?

I suppose you've never had a weight slip out of your hands either.



--

Achim
_____/)
axethetax

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 07:45:50 -0000, "Bully"
<bully62@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:

....
>>
>> 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.
>
>Why not?
>
You'll lose your balance, twist, and fall to the floor. Do it often
enough, and you're pretty much bound to injure yourself.

But if that's what it takes to be "manly", as 223rem suggests, maybe
it's worthwile for you.

I'll pass. I've got enough injuries and no craving for more
testosterone.


--

Achim
_____/)
axethetax

"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <lohsea@3web.nettax> wrote in message
news:4604e23b.50736563@news.telus.net...
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:35:13 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <lohsea@3web.nettax> wrote in message
>>news:460444e6.10454114@news.telus.net...
>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:18:38 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au>
>>
>>>>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
>>
> So you say. But your only objective evidence is the recall. And since
> Sony and Mercedes' recalls are not proof that they are "garbage"
> manufacturers, neither can the Bowflex recall provide such proof.
>
> ...
>>
>>Freight alone must average $40-$50. Also what about the return freight -
>>the
>>recalls would have been fixed and returned presumeably
>
> You don't know what you're talking about. There was no "return
> freight". Bowflex simply sent out an upgrade kit. Furthermore, you
> don't seem to understand that large corporations don't pay anywhere
> near the surface freight charges ordinary individuals do.

What does the word 'recall' mean to you? 'recall' means the machine is
returned. Look it up. I know all about freight rates - freight is a major
cost factor no matter how large the company

>
>>
>>> 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
>
> I guess it's miracle then! They not only swallowed these huge costs,
> but doubled the warranty of their own accord, and then went on to
> produce even more models, larger than the discontinued one, presumably
> so they could lose even more money on the next recall.

If they doubled the warranty they would have had to have done it on their
own accord - no one else doubles the warranty. Of course they thought it was
good marketing as they made a mess of their reputation so a longer warranty
would have helped restore some of their shattered reputation

>>
>>> 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?
>
> So Bowflex has treated its customers better than NordicTrack did.
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> Nonsense. Both machines were marketed and received popularly as a safe
> and effective way to get fit and stay fit at home.
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> The warranty is non-transferable, so there should be a significant
> drop in market value on resale. Check out what a perfectly funtioning
> NordicTrack will fetch. Or any number of other used exercise machines.
> Why do you think people buy new car replacement insurance? The minute
> you drive the vehicle off the lot, the market value nosedives, even
> WITH a fully transferable warranty.

I didn't say that Bowflex held it;s market value - you said it - now you are
saying they lose significantly on resale - so which is it?

>>
>>>
>>> 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
>
> Well, I've never seen a published dispute of the NordicTrack's
> functionality as a cross-country simulator. And it was touted as North
> America's most popular exercise machine for many years.
>

That;s a laugh - "America's most popular exercise machine" - so what? Ezy
riders were America;s most popular exercise item just a few years ago - now
they are recognized as America's worst piece of junk - add the Air Walkers
to that list - first very popular and then totally discredited

>
>
> --
>
> Achim
> _____/)
> axethetax

"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <lohsea@3web.nettax> wrote in message
news:4604c41c.43024843@news.telus.net...
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:14:49 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <lohsea@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?
>>

The amount of weight you add and the interval depends on your progress - I
gave you an example - use your head - the operative word is 'periodically'

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

goal setting - you're starting to make me think you;re a troll

> ...
>>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?

it's my opinion.

>>
> ...
>
>>
>>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?

stick to the subject - I can't go off on every tangent that your whim takes
you

>>
>>>>
>>> ..
>>>>
>>>>.... 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 someone else said - you have to learn how to do things properly - any
activity can be dangerous - I broke my leg the first time I went skiing
because I didn;t know what I was doing

>
>>
>>> 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.
>

do some research - I'm not being paid to educate you


> 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.

we're not on the same train - you're a beginner trying to mix it with
experts

>>
>>> 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".

do some research - I would like to educate you but 4 years is a long time
for me to set aside for the task

>
>
>>>
>>> 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.

I have to find someone to translate what you just said

>
>>Endurance is different from hypertrophy -
>
> Maybe, but what does it have to do with exercising your muscles?

Achim - are you sure you are being serious?
>
> 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.
>

You're sucked in my the hype and that someone you admire endorsed the
product - that is the sum total of it
>
> ....
>
>>>
>>> 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!

Cite?
>>>
>>> 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.

Evidence?
>>>
>>> 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.

I've been in this industry for 20 years - I know the facts and 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?

It's just a gut feeling

>
>
> 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.

I don't have a fitness routine

> --
>
> Achim
> _____/)
> axethetax

In news:4604f44a.55360918@news.telus.net,
Achim Nolcken Lohse <lohsea@3web.nettax> typed:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 07:45:50 -0000, "Bully"
> <bully62@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Why not?
>>
> You'll lose your balance,

Do you have problems with your balance?

> twist, and fall to the floor. Do it often
> enough, and you're pretty much bound to injure yourself.
>
> But if that's what it takes to be "manly", as 223rem suggests, maybe
> it's worthwile for you.
>
> I'll pass. I've got enough injuries and no craving for more
> testosterone.



--
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 news:4604eb3b.53041149@news.telus.net,
Achim Nolcken Lohse <lohsea@3web.nettax> typed:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 07:37:32 -0000, "Bully"
> <bully62@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>
> ....
>>
>> So if you fail at the bottom of the leg press, where does the weight
>> go?
>
> That depends on the design of the leg press. But even without any
> device to hold the weights, your position on a leg press machine is
> inherently more stable and less vulnerable.

Your opinion only.

>
> ....
>>
>> How would one lose one's balance during the squat?
>
> How does one EVER loser one's balance? One side is weaker, or there's
> a distraction, you have a muscle spasm...
>
>> Hang on,you're the guy
>> who injured yourself with a dumbbell or barbell right?
>
> dumbell, doing preacher curls.
>
>> That put a hole through you floor?
>
> No, that was a barbell. It upended off the rack when I pulled the
> wrong weight off.
>
>> Have you ever lost your balance whilst squatting?
>
> No.
>>
>>> or twisting during the squat,
>
> No.

Have you ever squatted?

>>
>> Twisting??? Why would you twist whilst you are squatting?
>
> You get distracted by something, turn your head, who knows?

Why the fuck would you turn your head while you are squatting?

> Why would you twist or lose your balance when you're walking?

Possibly because your level of concentration is somewhat different between
walking and squatting. For most people on this group walking is done with
unconscious competence. Squatting with a heavy[*] weight for me is done
with conscious competence, therefore requiring a much greater degree of
concentration.
[*] heavy being the operative word in this sentence. Light squatting is
done, for me, more with unconscious competence.

>
> I suppose you've never had a weight slip out of your hands either.



--
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

"Bully" <bully62@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>Bully <bully62@proteinbars.co.ok> typed:
>> JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> typed:
>>> 223rem <223rem@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> David Cohen wrote:> "JMW" <jmwilliams@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.
>>
>> You might want one of these though: http://www.arielmotor.co.uk/
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaWoo82zNUA

I wonder if it's street-legal in the USA. The ones on the US site do
appear to have a full light package. On the open road, you could
certainly outrun the police, but they probably wouldn't have to do
much research in order to come looking for you at home.

In article <4604bb6d.40801274@news.telus.net>,
lohsea@3web.nettax (Achim Nolcken Lohse) wrote:

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

Sarcasm aside, any athlete has a chance of injury. But if squatting was
inherently unsafe you'd see this population with a high amount of injury
- instead they have a much lower chance of injury than virtually any
other sport.

You do see belts and neoprene sleeves on some lifters. They are not
pressure bandages on olympic weightlifters - that is very, very rare
since it would interfere with the drop under the bar. The neoprene
serves to keep the knee warm more than anything else.

At best any movement is 'pretty safe'. People get hurt tieing their
shoes up. My point is simply that the free weight squat is a safer
movement than the leg press. Do what you want with your money.

--
Keith