Bowflex Vs Nordic Trac Free Motion Unit
Jack Bruss
system. They will both cost me about the same. It will be used by me, my
wife and kids. I'm kind of leaning toward the Nordic unit, because I like
it's simplicity, but I've seen good comments about bowflex.
I'd appreciate any input from those of you with experience on either unit.
Thanks,
Jack
Lee Michaels
"Jack Bruss" <jbr...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9Cfmf.6794$Dk...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
Both are overpriced pieces of crap.
If you are serious about training, buy some iron.
If you want toys that will be rarely used and not give much in the way of
results, buy the crap that you mentioned.
Dally
Lee, what do you think of the incline sliding thing that Chuck Norris
advertises? I've heard people actually use those.
I agree that the rubber-band stuff is all crap - the variable resistance
drives me nuts whenever I use a dusty one at a friend's house that I
visit for a week-end once in a while. I can buy resistance tubes for
$30 that do nearly everything the full bowflex do.
But I've also used universal-type machines with weight stacks that I was
happy with - sometimes in hotels, and a dusty one in the basement of a
friend's house.
I'm not familiar with the "XTREME" or "Free Motion" and maybe they're
not based on tension rods, maybe they're weight stacks. I know that
Bowflex has an amazingly expensive version of adjustable dumbbells that
I'd love to have if money weren't an object.
But I agree with you in principle: a power cage, a bench and a bunch of
iron is a better investment all-around.
Dally
Curt James
>Jack Bruss wrote
re Bowflex Xtreme and Nordic Trac Free Motion strength system
>> I'd appreciate any input from those of you with experience on either unit.
>Both are overpriced pieces of crap.
>
>If you are serious about training, buy some iron.
>
>If you want toys that will be rarely used and not give much in the way of
>results, buy the crap
While I have no Bowflex or Nordic Trac experience, I'll cast my vote
for iron. Buy yourself a series of solid dumbbells and a solid bench.
I'm guessing that'd be a much better investment.
--
Jack Bruss
couple of arms that can be placed in about 10 different positions, high and
low. Here's the web site to see it:
http://www.nordictrack.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ProductDisplay?prmenbr=153&prrfnbr=494082&cgrfnbr=46529&rootcat=46525
"Dally" <Da...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:3vthlpF...@individual.net...
Dally
> The Nordic Free Motion is not a rod system, it's a weight stack with a
> couple of arms that can be placed in about 10 different positions, high and
> low. Here's the web site to see it:
> http://www.nordictrack.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ProductDisplay?prmenbr=153&prrfnbr=494082&cgrfnbr=46529&rootcat=46525
It looks expensive and not conducive to working your legs. Look for
some Universal weight stack machines, too. I googled and quickly found
this site as an example:
http://www.gungfu.com/cart-htm/exercise_gear_gym_equipment_universal_gyms.htm
Dally
Lee Michaels
"Dally" <Da...@myself.com> wrote
>
> Lee, what do you think of the incline sliding thing that Chuck Norris
> advertises? I've heard people actually use those.
>
Chuck Norris may be a karate champ, but he is a total retard when it comes
to exercise. I can't stand to listen to more than a couple minutes of him
hawking that pulley and sliding board thingy. I just want to run from the
room screaming while covering my ears. I make it a point never to buy
anthing recommended by a scamming celebrity carny barker.
General rule of thumb, anything that professes to be a hundred machines in
one can not provide quality individual movements. Also, anything that
restricts movements to machine defined arcs or lines is suspect. It doesn't
mean you can't make good machines. It just means they will not be cheap or
have a hundred movements.
I always tell people to think of gym equipment as tools. But good tools
desgned for the job. Pay your money and buy good tools. Gimmicky things
hyped on TV hardly qualify by that definition. If you think about it, most
complicated machines out there are never used very much. Therefore their
function is to separate people from their money and look pretty in the
garage.
> I agree that the rubber-band stuff is all crap - the variable resistance
> drives me nuts whenever I use a dusty one at a friend's house that I visit
> for a week-end once in a while. I can buy resistance tubes for $30 that
> do nearly everything the full bowflex do.
>
And you can assemble some some chunks of lumber, bolts, etc. and make
equipment that is far SUPERIOR to that blowflex thingy.
> But I've also used universal-type machines with weight stacks that I was
> happy with - sometimes in hotels, and a dusty one in the basement of a
> friend's house.
>
Sure, simple movements for a middle age accountant. Particulary if just
trying to maintain a little. I still would not consider them serious tools
for making big changes in the body.
> I'm not familiar with the "XTREME" or "Free Motion" and maybe they're not
> based on tension rods, maybe they're weight stacks.
Some of the vertical station exercise units actually have a couple good
movements you can do on them. But it misses the point on functionality and
cost by a mile. Some weights and standard gym equipment would cost far less
and allow many more productive movements.
Which is not the argument that most people want to hear. People shop for
this stuff like it a designer chair for the living room. Needless to say,
these folks will rarely achieve anything productive with these purchases.
(Except it does look good, therefore achieving their interior design goals.)
> I know that Bowflex has an amazingly expensive version of adjustable
> dumbbells that I'd love to have if money weren't an object.
I know that I am a traditionalist and hard ass when it comes to dumbells.
But I have two basic recommendations.
First is simply to bite the bullet and buy the pro style dumbells. These
are the fixed weight dumbells that you see in commercial gyms. Buy a handle
or some plates each month. I have put people on these programs over ten
years ago and they are still buying some plates, etc to this day.
You only need a few fixed weights dimbells for your movements. Get a
changable set of handles or two to tide you over or for big weight
meovements.
The simple matter is that the smaller those dumbells are, the more versatile
they are. Increased range in the movements and just generally safer. Those
big adjustable dumbells are clumsy at best. And I just don't think they are
all that safe.
The other sugestion that many women like is to just buy a solid set of
dumbells that go to forty pounds. For most women, this is all that they
will need. Some husbands like this because they get the 40 pound set as a
"starter" set. Then they start putting together the traditional pro style
dumbells beginning with 45 lbs.
But if you go for cast, remember, smaller is better and no sharp edges.
Which means no hex head dumbells.
>
> But I agree with you in principle: a power cage, a bench and a bunch of
> iron is a better investment all-around.
>
You agree with me IN PRINCIPLE???
I am crushed Dally, just crushed!! ;)
David
conform with their ideas of free weights and a power cage. Even if they
haven;t the faintest idea of what you are referring to, they haven;t seen or
tried the items - they will tell you that the items are crap. In this case,
the Bowflex machine is crap mainly because of the rod resistance system - if
you prefer machines to free weights you are in pretty good company i.e. 90%
of those that go to gyms and health clubs use machines with stack weights
and depending on your training you will get excellent results. If you go to
a fitness specialist store you will find home gyms using weights for
resistance and often depending on price you will find one that works well,
has decent biomechanics, smooth movements and a good variety of exercises.
Sorry I can't comment on the Nordic unit - although it looks interesting you
have to try it to see if the bio mechanics are right and it seems
comfortable etc
David
>
>> "Jack Bruss" <jbr...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:9Cfmf.6794$Dk...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>
>>>I'm looking at buying a Bowflex Xtreme or a Nordic Trac Free Motion
>>>strength system. They will both cost me about the same. It will be used
>>>by me, my wife and kids. I'm kind of leaning toward the Nordic unit,
>>>because I like it's simplicity, but I've seen good comments about
>>>bowflex.
>>>
>>>I'd appreciate any input from those of you with experience on either
>>>unit.
>>>
>>
>> Dosen't matter.
>>
>> Both are overpriced pieces of crap.
>>
>> If you are serious about training, buy some iron.
>>
>> If you want toys that will be rarely used and not give much in the way of
>> results, buy the crap that you mentioned.
>
> Lee, what do you think of the incline sliding thing that Chuck Norris
> advertises? I've heard people actually use those.
Don't worry too much about what Lee thinks. This item gives an excellent
upper body workout - the cables duplicate movements that would compare with
what a gymnast does although with the benefit of 'assistance' i.e. depending
on the angle you set the platform. These machines have versions that are
better than others depending on the quality of the pulleys and whether you
can add free weights to help with incrementation etc
JMW
Dally wrote:
> Jack Bruss wrote:
> > The Nordic Free Motion is not a rod system, it's a weight stack with a
> > couple of arms that can be placed in about 10 different positions, high and
> > low. Here's the web site to see it:
> > http://www.nordictrack.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ProductDisplay?prmenbr=153&prrfnbr=494082&cgrfnbr=46529&rootcat=46525
>
> It looks expensive and not conducive to working your legs.
It's nothing more than a fancy, compact version of a cable crossover
machine. Think about the limited uses for a cable crossover machine,
and you quickly realize what a poor investment this would be for an
overall workout.
JMW
> "Dally" <Da...@myself.com> wrote:
> > Lee Michaels wrote:
> >
> >> "Jack Bruss" <jbr...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
> >> news:9Cfmf.6794$Dk...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> >>
> >>>I'm looking at buying a Bowflex Xtreme or a Nordic Trac Free Motion
> >>>strength system. They will both cost me about the same. It will be used
> >>>by me, my wife and kids. I'm kind of leaning toward the Nordic unit,
> >>>because I like it's simplicity, but I've seen good comments about
> >>>bowflex.
> >>>
> >>>I'd appreciate any input from those of you with experience on either
> >>>unit.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Dosen't matter.
> >>
> >> Both are overpriced pieces of crap.
> >>
> >> If you are serious about training, buy some iron.
> >>
> >> If you want toys that will be rarely used and not give much in the way of
> >> results, buy the crap that you mentioned.
> >
> > Lee, what do you think of the incline sliding thing that Chuck Norris
> > advertises? I've heard people actually use those.
>
> Don't worry too much about what Lee thinks. This item gives an excellent
> upper body workout - the cables duplicate movements that would compare with
> what a gymnast does although with the benefit of 'assistance' i.e. depending
> on the angle you set the platform. These machines have versions that are
> better than others depending on the quality of the pulleys and whether you
> can add free weights to help with incrementation etc
Uh-huh. It's good for geriatric and rehab movements, like most of the
equipment that you hawk. For serious resistance training, it's almost
worthless.
And Lee has demonstrated on many occasions that he knows more about
this stuff than you do. Stick to treadmills and topsy-turvy chairs,
David.
David
"JMW" <jmwill...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134146387.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I don;t hawk anything. Did one guy a favour a long time ago and he has since
rewarded me with his personal experience and how that topsy turvy machine
has helped his condition. You or anyone else will never be offered a product
by me so save your 'hawk' comments for Brinks and Friedes.
There are thousands of people who get excellent results from the slide
machines - depends on your goals and preferences.
David
Just for the record my company doesn't sell this slide product. Has never
sold one. Doesn;t mean I don;t believe they work well and allow a range of
exercises not possible with free weights. 95% of the items offered in
infomercials I agree are crap - this being an exception
>
David
The feature of a cable cross over is that the pulley pick up point is
lateral which eliminates many of the exercises you can do if the pick up
point is in front of you like in this machine. As far as I can see there is
not much in common between this and a cable cross over.
John
<leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
>If you want toys that will be rarely used and not give much in the way of
>results, buy the crap that you mentioned
That description of "toys" certainly doesn't apply to Lee's GF's
dildo, which gets plenty use since roids shriveled up his nutsack, and
the Viagra stopped working.
/ ~ \
|\__/
| |
| . |
| `.` |
__| `` | `.` |/~~\
/ | | | `` |/~~\
| | | | | `` | /
\ ` . . | |
\ . . ` /
\ . . /
\ . /
| . |
| |
| |
Lee Michaels
"JMW" wrote
David's post.
1) David follows the Hudson Troll Protocols. He dismiss out of hand anybody
who has any valid information. Because this interferes with the Hudson
Troll program of actually having anybody here discuss serious training
issues. It interfers with their serious soap operas and troll dramas.
2) David actually sells crap like this?? Does this make him an objective
source as to how well this crap functions?
3) Gymnastic like movements?? Is this a good thing for aging joints? Or
weak joints?? Or untrained induviduals??
4) Most of these heavily advertised products are over priced and flimsy.
And depend on gullible people buying the hype. Just how does this help
people with serious training goals David? Or even more important, how does
this address the serious safety issues of using such compromised equipment??
Are you seriously suggesting that it is a good idea to stack weights onto a
mangle of thin wall tubing, cable and two inch pulleys?? And then climb
onto this monstrosity and do a movement of some kind? Sound scary to me.
There are hundreds of exercises that are more productive and safer.
Jason Earl
> "Jack Bruss" <jbr...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:9Cfmf.6794$Dk...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>> I'm looking at buying a Bowflex Xtreme or a Nordic Trac Free Motion
>> strength system. They will both cost me about the same. It will be used
>> by me, my wife and kids. I'm kind of leaning toward the Nordic unit,
>> because I like it's simplicity, but I've seen good comments about bowflex.
>>
>> I'd appreciate any input from those of you with experience on either unit.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jack
> Jack - there are people here who will call anything 'crap' that
> doesn;t conform with their ideas of free weights and a power
> cage.
The reason for this is simple, when it comes to versatility and price
free weights and a power cage simply can not be beat. Sure, you can
spend three times as much on some sort of fancy machine that might be
*nearly* as good as free weights and a power cage, but what's the
point in that.
> Even if they haven;t the faintest idea of what you are referring to,
> they haven't seen or tried the items - they will tell you that the
> items are crap.
99.9% of the machines made today *are* crap. The few that aren't are
overpriced compared to free weights.
> In this case, the Bowflex machine is crap mainly because of the rod
> resistance system
And the Nordic Trac system is also likely to be crap isn't it. Even
if it isn't crap, it's almost certainly not competitively priced to
iron.
> if you prefer machines to free weights you are in pretty good
> company i.e. 90% of those that go to gyms and health clubs use
> machines with stack weights and depending on your training you will
> get excellent results.
Yes, 90% of the folks that go to gyms and health clubs use machines.
However, how many of the folks that use machines get "excellent"
results? Sure, resistance machines are better than nothing, but
that's hardly an endorsement when you consider that they are far more
expensive than plain iron. If you do look at the subset of gym goers
that get "excellent" results the vast majority of them are over in the
free weight section. If you limit the field to serious and
professional athletes there is essentially no one that relies
primarily on machines.
> If you go to a fitness specialist store you will find home gyms
> using weights for resistance and often depending on price you will
> find one that works well, has decent biomechanics, smooth movements
> and a good variety of exercises. Sorry I can't comment on the
> Nordic unit - although it looks interesting you have to try it to
> see if the bio mechanics are right and it seems comfortable etc
Why don't you just come out and tell us which machine it is that you
would recommend? I would be highly interested in the mythical machine
that is a useful replacement for free weights. Assuming that a useful
replacement for free weights exists what is the likelihood of a newbie
going to a fitness specialist and getting the right machine? My
experience with "fitness specialty stores" is that they invariably
steer me towards the Bowflex or something remarkably similar.
Send a newbie into a store looking for an Olympic weight set and a
power rack and chances are much better of them getting what they need
(and at a lower price to boot). Seriously, I just don't see how it is
that anyone can argue for resistance machines over free weights for
someone who is just starting out. Machines aren't even *safer* than
free weights.
Jason
JMW
I have never given you much credit for understanding biomechanics; I
offer even less credit now. Have you ever even used a cable crossover
machine? If anything, this device offers even less options because the
central weight tower prevents you from performing bent crossovers with
the pulleys perfectly lateral to your movement, while a cable crossover
would allow you to do everything this machine does by simply taking a
few steps back from the crossmember.
In case you or the OP don't really know what a decent cable crossover
machine looks like:
http://www.pfc-fitness.com/files/CPB00004/539.jpg
Note that the pulleys slide from top to bottom in increments of about
three inches and will swivel in either direction so that one can
stand/kneel/sit outward from the crossmember, thereby placing the
pulleys (your so-called "pick up point") to your anterior. No, you
won't have both pulleys directly in front of you, but if you actually
look at the Nordic Track device, it won't adjust into that position,
either, and the biomechanical difference between the angles that the
two machines will permit is essentially nil.
Dally
Lee, just to be clear, I'm talking about something like this:
http://www.totalgym.com/products/9000.details.html with the optional
"telescoping squat stand."
The reason I mentioned this to begin with is that my BIL actually uses
this a lot and likes it. Another BIL actually uses a universal
four-station machine. Sure, squats are better than leg extensions, no
question about it, but if you'd really DO the leg extensions and the
barrier to entry for doing squats in a power cage is too high, well...
The TotalGym or Universal machine wins.
I DO agree with you in principle - I wish I had a power cage. But I
honestly think I'd have gotten more regular use out of a universal
four-station thing. I wish I had an overhead cable or some way of doing
seated rows quite often, and the Total Gym would work for that as well.
Being elitist is fine - it's worth knowing what the BEST choice is in
terms of conditioning. But it's also important to consider space needs
and actual workout patterns.
Dally
JMW
Jason Earl wrote:
> "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> writes:
> >
> > Jack - there are people here who will call anything 'crap' that
> > doesn;t conform with their ideas of free weights and a power
>
> Why don't you just come out and tell us which machine it is that you
> would recommend? I would be highly interested in the mythical machine
> that is a useful replacement for free weights. Assuming that a useful
> replacement for free weights exists what is the likelihood of a newbie
> going to a fitness specialist and getting the right machine? My
> experience with "fitness specialty stores" is that they invariably
> steer me towards the Bowflex or something remarkably similar.
This is David's "fitness specialty store":
http://www.onlyfitness.com.au/
Decide for yourself how much he really knows about serious resistance
training.
David
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:59idne4QBLaYXgTe...@comcast.com...
>
[......]
> Another confirmation as to why I have David killfiled. Some comments about
> David's post.
>
> 1) David follows the Hudson Troll Protocols. He dismiss out of hand
> anybody who has any valid information. Because this interferes with the
> Hudson Troll program of actually having anybody here discuss serious
> training issues. It interfers with their serious soap operas and troll
> dramas.
>
> 2) David actually sells crap like this?? Does this make him an objective
> source as to how well this crap functions?
We don't sell things that don;t work - that includes Bowflex type machines.
>
> 3) Gymnastic like movements?? Is this a good thing for aging joints? Or
> weak joints?? Or untrained induviduals??
You have incrementation that works by adjusting the angle of the platform
>
> 4) Most of these heavily advertised products are over priced and flimsy.
> And depend on gullible people buying the hype. Just how does this help
> people with serious training goals David? Or even more important, how
> does this address the serious safety issues of using such compromised
> equipment??
I am not endorsing flimsy machines with safety issues
>
> Are you seriously suggesting that it is a good idea to stack weights onto
> a mangle of thin wall tubing, cable and two inch pulleys?? And then climb
> onto this monstrosity and do a movement of some kind? Sound scary to me.
refer to the reply above - there are many machines around that are built to
high standards - they are normally sold in specialty stores
>
> There are hundreds of exercises that are more productive and safer.
>
each to his own
David
"Jason Earl" <je...@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:87r78mp...@workhorse.earlhome...
> "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> writes:
>
>> "Jack Bruss" <jbr...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:9Cfmf.6794$Dk...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>> I'm looking at buying a Bowflex Xtreme or a Nordic Trac Free Motion
>>> strength system. They will both cost me about the same. It will be
>>> used
>>> by me, my wife and kids. I'm kind of leaning toward the Nordic unit,
>>> because I like it's simplicity, but I've seen good comments about
>>> bowflex.
>>>
>>> I'd appreciate any input from those of you with experience on either
>>> unit.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jack
>
>> Jack - there are people here who will call anything 'crap' that
>> doesn;t conform with their ideas of free weights and a power
>> cage.
>
> The reason for this is simple, when it comes to versatility and price
> free weights and a power cage simply can not be beat. Sure, you can
> spend three times as much on some sort of fancy machine that might be
> *nearly* as good as free weights and a power cage, but what's the
> point in that.
Some people like free weights. Some like machines. Whether the machines are
'fancy' or whether you are not happy with the price tag are not relevant to
what we are talking about
>
>> Even if they haven;t the faintest idea of what you are referring to,
>> they haven't seen or tried the items - they will tell you that the
>> items are crap.
>
> 99.9% of the machines made today *are* crap. The few that aren't are
> overpriced compared to free weights
I agree the vast majority of machines on the market today are inferior. Of
course they are dearer than free weights.
>> In this case, the Bowflex machine is crap mainly because of the rod
>> resistance system
>
> And the Nordic Trac system is also likely to be crap isn't it. Even
> if it isn't crap, it's almost certainly not competitively priced to
> iron.
>
Your argument seems to be based on price.
>> if you prefer machines to free weights you are in pretty good
>> company i.e. 90% of those that go to gyms and health clubs use
>> machines with stack weights and depending on your training you will
>> get excellent results.
>
> Yes, 90% of the folks that go to gyms and health clubs use machines.
> However, how many of the folks that use machines get "excellent"
> results? Sure, resistance machines are better than nothing, but
> that's hardly an endorsement when you consider that they are far more
> expensive than plain iron. If you do look at the subset of gym goers
> that get "excellent" results the vast majority of them are over in the
> free weight section. If you limit the field to serious and
> professional athletes there is essentially no one that relies
> primarily on machines.
Again your argument is based on price. You have no argument from me about
the virtues of free weights. My point is that there are plenty of reasons
why machines offer certain advantages. You will never convince people who
are happy with machines to use free weights.
>
>> If you go to a fitness specialist store you will find home gyms
>> using weights for resistance and often depending on price you will
>> find one that works well, has decent biomechanics, smooth movements
>> and a good variety of exercises. Sorry I can't comment on the
>> Nordic unit - although it looks interesting you have to try it to
>> see if the bio mechanics are right and it seems comfortable etc
>
> Why don't you just come out and tell us which machine it is that you
> would recommend?
I will then be accused of 'hawking'.
I would be highly interested in the mythical machine
> that is a useful replacement for free weights. Assuming that a useful
> replacement for free weights exists what is the likelihood of a newbie
> going to a fitness specialist and getting the right machine? My
> experience with "fitness specialty stores" is that they invariably
> steer me towards the Bowflex or something remarkably similar.
You may have a point. I don't know how they market equipment in the USA
>
> Send a newbie into a store looking for an Olympic weight set and a
> power rack and chances are much better of them getting what they need
> (and at a lower price to boot). Seriously, I just don't see how it is
> that anyone can argue for resistance machines over free weights for
> someone who is just starting out. Machines aren't even *safer* than
> free weights.
That all depends on whether the person using free weights knows what they
are doing
>
> Jason
David
Of course
>If anything, this device offers even less options because the
> central weight tower prevents you from performing bent crossovers with
> the pulleys perfectly lateral to your movement, while a cable crossover
> would allow you to do everything this machine does by simply taking a
> few steps back from the crossmember.
No, you are wrong again. Taking a few steps back does not close up the
distance between pulleys to allow anything but very wide and distorted
lateral type movements that provide no worthwhile exercise
>
> In case you or the OP don't really know what a decent cable crossover
> machine looks like:
>
> http://www.pfc-fitness.com/files/CPB00004/539.jpg
Thanks, nice machine
> Note that the pulleys slide from top to bottom in increments of about
> three inches and will swivel in either direction so that one can
> stand/kneel/sit outward from the crossmember, thereby placing the
> pulleys (your so-called "pick up point") to your anterior. No, you
> won't have both pulleys directly in front of you, but if you actually
> look at the Nordic Track device, it won't adjust into that position,
> either, and the biomechanical difference between the angles that the
> two machines will permit is essentially nil.
>
My point is that comparing the two machines are apples and oranges -no
relation between the two concepts
JMW
>
>"Jason Earl" <je...@xmission.com> wrote:
>>
>> Why don't you just come out and tell us which machine it is that you
>> would recommend?
>
>I will then be accused of 'hawking'.
Isn't this the resistance training device you recommend for a
"commercial gym workout in your home"?
David
"JMW" <j...@event.horizon> wrote in message
news:mekjp195ik1evf4d7...@4ax.com...
No
JMW
>"JMW" <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
>> "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Jason Earl" <je...@xmission.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you just come out and tell us which machine it is that you
>>>> would recommend?
>>>
>>>I will then be accused of 'hawking'.
>>
>> Isn't this the resistance training device you recommend for a
>> "commercial gym workout in your home"?
>>
>> http://www.onlyfitness.com.au/gyms_8210.htm
>
>No
That's your company. And that's what the text says.
David
"JMW" <j...@event.horizon> wrote in message
You are wrong.
Keep in mind that meddling in other peoples private lives without invitation
or provocation may not be in your best interest.
Lee Michaels
"Dally" <Da...@myself.com> wrote
>
> Being elitist is fine - it's worth knowing what the BEST choice is in
> terms of conditioning. But it's also important to consider space needs
> and actual workout patterns.
>
space, some wood pounded together with nails and some iron. And it provided
superior results and more versatility compared to that slanted board thingy.
And at a much lower price tag.
I am not the one being elitist here.
You are.
Jason Earl
What people *like* has very little to do with how *effective* the
exercise is. People spend billions of dollars each year on quack
medicines like creams that "melt fat."
The reason that gym machines sell is the same reason that people spend
actual money for the latest "miracle workout." They simply don't know
any better. You have to be pretty clueless to not know that building
muscle requires some resistance training. Even morons know that you
have to lift weights to get big muscles. However, lifting weights
looks dangerous and scary, and so they look for a substitute for free
weights that seems like it would be safer.
Never mind that machines aren't any safer than free weights. Sure,
your less likely to drop a plate on your foot. But the real danger is
that poor form or poor biomechanics will cause some sort of an injury.
>>> Even if they haven;t the faintest idea of what you are referring
>>> to, they haven't seen or tried the items - they will tell you that
>>> the items are crap.
>>
>> 99.9% of the machines made today *are* crap. The few that aren't
>> are overpriced compared to free weights
>
> I agree the vast majority of machines on the market today are
> inferior. Of course they are dearer than free weights.
Which is why I have a hard time recommending anything but free
weights.
>>> In this case, the Bowflex machine is crap mainly because of the
>>> rod resistance system
>>
>> And the Nordic Trac system is also likely to be crap isn't it.
>> Even if it isn't crap, it's almost certainly not competitively
>> priced to iron.
>
> Your argument seems to be based on price.
Only partially. On a price/performance basis free weights obviously
win. Free weights are cheap, plentiful, and fairly easy to use.
However, if a machine came along that was superior to free weights
then it could be argued that perhaps such a magical machine might be
worth the higher price. The reality is that machines are not only
inferior to free weights (and generally *vastly* inferior), but they
are also far more expensive.
There are two kinds of people that argue for machines. The first is
the person that happens to sell fitness equipment. The higher price
and larger profit margins that accompany machines guarantees a
financial incentive, but the real kicker is that machines are simply
an easier sell. Heck, I've lost track of how many times people that
know me have asked if this or that machine would be "easier" than free
weights. Everyone wants to be more fit, they just aren't interested
in lifting weights to get there.
The second kind of person that argues for machines is the commercial
gym owner. A huge portion of their livelihood consists of convincing
newbies (that generally won't show up after the first month) that they
should sign up for an expensive long term contract. Expensive
machines are one of their primary tools. Only the truly wealthy could
afford to outfit their home gym with the ridiculous array of machines
that commercial gyms offer. If the commercial gym owner can convince
the newbie that fitness requires $10,000 worth of equipment then the
obvious answer is to pay for a gym membership.
Never mind that $150 invested in an Olympic barbell and a set of
Olympic weights would be far more convenient and effective than 99.9%
of the machines in the commercial gym.
>>> if you prefer machines to free weights you are in pretty good
>>> company i.e. 90% of those that go to gyms and health clubs use
>>> machines with stack weights and depending on your training you
>>> will get excellent results.
>>
>> Yes, 90% of the folks that go to gyms and health clubs use
>> machines. However, how many of the folks that use machines get
>> "excellent" results? Sure, resistance machines are better than
>> nothing, but that's hardly an endorsement when you consider that
>> they are far more expensive than plain iron. If you do look at the
>> subset of gym goers that get "excellent" results the vast majority
>> of them are over in the free weight section. If you limit the
>> field to serious and professional athletes there is essentially no
>> one that relies primarily on machines.
>
> Again your argument is based on price. You have no argument from me
> about the virtues of free weights. My point is that there are plenty
> of reasons why machines offer certain advantages. You will never
> convince people who are happy with machines to use free weights.
Price is just another nail in the coffin. Elite athletes would gladly
pay any amount of money for an edge. Yet somehow they all seem to use
free weights. That's because machines are not a replacement for free
weights. Machines are less effective and more expensive. Even if a
machine existed that was "as effective" as free weights, it would
still be more expensive. To many people expense is a definite factor,
but even in cases where it isn't a factor free weights still win.
>>> If you go to a fitness specialist store you will find home gyms
>>> using weights for resistance and often depending on price you will
>>> find one that works well, has decent biomechanics, smooth
>>> movements and a good variety of exercises. Sorry I can't comment
>>> on the Nordic unit - although it looks interesting you have to try
>>> it to see if the bio mechanics are right and it seems comfortable
>>> etc
>>
>
>> Why don't you just come out and tell us which machine it is that
>> you would recommend?
>
> I will then be accused of 'hawking'.
That's fair enough. You probably would be accused of hawking.
>> I would be highly interested in the mythical machine that is a
>> useful replacement for free weights. Assuming that a useful
>> replacement for free weights exists what is the likelihood of a
>> newbie going to a fitness specialist and getting the right machine?
>> My experience with "fitness specialty stores" is that they
>> invariably steer me towards the Bowflex or something remarkably
>> similar.
>
> You may have a point. I don't know how they market equipment in the
> USA
Trust me. I went into several fitness stores looking for equipment
when I first decided to start lifting weights. I was invariably
pointed toward some sort of "complete home gym." Most of these
contraptions didn't even allow for any sort of "squat type" movement,
the salesperson would instead point to the leg extension/leg curl
attachment.
>> Send a newbie into a store looking for an Olympic weight set and a
>> power rack and chances are much better of them getting what they
>> need (and at a lower price to boot). Seriously, I just don't see
>> how it is that anyone can argue for resistance machines over free
>> weights for someone who is just starting out. Machines aren't even
>> *safer* than free weights.
>
> That all depends on whether the person using free weights knows what
> they are doing
Are you trying to say that a person using machines doesn't have to
know what they are doing? If you are doing a squat movement it
doesn't really matter if you are using free weights, a smith machine,
or some other contraption. Any way you slice it you still have
hundreds of pounds of weight on your back, and enough downward force
to seriously injure your spine, your hips or your knees. You still
have to worry about proper form. The only difference is that many
machines actually *force* you to use bad form by not allowing your
body to move along natural lines.
That, in my opinion, is the final and fatal strike against machines.
They aren't safer than free weights. The fact that they "appear"
safer than free weights leads newbies to jump in without learning
proper form.
It's a fun discussion though, thanks for the thoughtful and polite
response.
Jason
JMW
> "JMW" <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
> > "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >>"JMW" <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
> >>> "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>"Jason Earl" <je...@xmission.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why don't you just come out and tell us which machine it is that you
> >>>>> would recommend?
> >>>>
> >>>>I will then be accused of 'hawking'.
> >>>
> >>> Isn't this the resistance training device you recommend for a
> >>> "commercial gym workout in your home"?
> >>>
> >>> http://www.onlyfitness.com.au/gyms_8210.htm
> >>
> >>No
> >
> > That's your company. And that's what the text says.
>
> You are wrong.
> Keep in mind that meddling in other peoples private lives without invitation
> or provocation may not be in your best interest.
Really? You seem to be amused when Hudson does it to people, such as
Dally and myself.
But, then again, to quote an old MFWer:
"He is a puppy with a slipper. Always cute, always amusing, unless it
is your slipper."
-- Richard Bray
Jason Earl
I think that you have to cut David a little slack here (assuming that
this truly is his business). If you are going to sell fitness
equipment then you pretty much have to offer this sort of a thing, as
it is what people want. That's the funny thing about sales.
Sometimes you have to sell people what they want, and not what is good
for them.
Jason
David
> exercise is.
You are wrong. No matter how effective an exercise is, if you don't 'like'
it you won't do it. There is nothing wrong with machines per say unless you
are talking about junk. In which case you have no argument from me.
> People spend billions of dollars each year on quack
> medicines like creams that "melt fat."
We are not talking about creams but I take your point
>
> The reason that gym machines sell is the same reason that people spend
> actual money for the latest "miracle workout." They simply don't know
> any better. You have to be pretty clueless to not know that building
> muscle requires some resistance training.
Machines give you resistance training.
> Even morons know that you
> have to lift weights to get big muscles. However, lifting weights
> looks dangerous and scary, and so they look for a substitute for free
> weights that seems like it would be safer.
>
> Never mind that machines aren't any safer than free weights. Sure,
> your less likely to drop a plate on your foot. But the real danger is
> that poor form or poor biomechanics will cause some sort of an injury.
Plenty of dangers with free weights as well.
>
>>>> Even if they haven;t the faintest idea of what you are referring
>>>> to, they haven't seen or tried the items - they will tell you that
>>>> the items are crap.
>>>
>>> 99.9% of the machines made today *are* crap. The few that aren't
>>> are overpriced compared to free weights
>>
>> I agree the vast majority of machines on the market today are
>> inferior. Of course they are dearer than free weights.
>
> Which is why I have a hard time recommending anything but free
> weights.
You are free to recommend anything you like.
>
>>>> In this case, the Bowflex machine is crap mainly because of the
>>>> rod resistance system
>>>
>>> And the Nordic Trac system is also likely to be crap isn't it.
>>> Even if it isn't crap, it's almost certainly not competitively
>>> priced to iron.
>>
>> Your argument seems to be based on price.
>
> Only partially. On a price/performance basis free weights obviously
> win. Free weights are cheap, plentiful, and fairly easy to use.
> However, if a machine came along that was superior to free weights
> then it could be argued that perhaps such a magical machine might be
> worth the higher price. The reality is that machines are not only
> inferior to free weights (and generally *vastly* inferior), but they
> are also far more expensive.
It boils down to personal goals and preferences. This is a debate that has
been going on since
Adam. This is nothing new.
>
> There are two kinds of people that argue for machines. The first is
> the person that happens to sell fitness equipment. The higher price
> and larger profit margins that accompany machines guarantees a
> financial incentive, but the real kicker is that machines are simply
> an easier sell. Heck, I've lost track of how many times people that
> know me have asked if this or that machine would be "easier" than free
> weights. Everyone wants to be more fit, they just aren't interested
> in lifting weights to get there.
I disagree. People are conditioned to machines mainly because of their
predominance in health clubs.
> The second kind of person that argues for machines is the commercial
> gym owner. A huge portion of their livelihood consists of convincing
> newbies (that generally won't show up after the first month) that they
> should sign up for an expensive long term contract. Expensive
> machines are one of their primary tools. Only the truly wealthy could
> afford to outfit their home gym with the ridiculous array of machines
> that commercial gyms offer. If the commercial gym owner can convince
> the newbie that fitness requires $10,000 worth of equipment then the
> obvious answer is to pay for a gym membership.
>
Maybe
> Never mind that $150 invested in an Olympic barbell and a set of
> Olympic weights would be far more convenient and effective than 99.9%
> of the machines in the commercial gym.
Machines have their place. A number of exercises are pretty hard to do with
free weights
>
>>>> if you prefer machines to free weights you are in pretty good
>>>> company i.e. 90% of those that go to gyms and health clubs use
>>>> machines with stack weights and depending on your training you
>>>> will get excellent results.
>>>
>>> Yes, 90% of the folks that go to gyms and health clubs use
>>> machines. However, how many of the folks that use machines get
>>> "excellent" results? Sure, resistance machines are better than
>>> nothing, but that's hardly an endorsement when you consider that
>>> they are far more expensive than plain iron. If you do look at the
>>> subset of gym goers that get "excellent" results the vast majority
>>> of them are over in the free weight section. If you limit the
>>> field to serious and professional athletes there is essentially no
>>> one that relies primarily on machines.
>>
>> Again your argument is based on price. You have no argument from me
>> about the virtues of free weights. My point is that there are plenty
>> of reasons why machines offer certain advantages. You will never
>> convince people who are happy with machines to use free weights.
>
> Price is just another nail in the coffin. Elite athletes would gladly
> pay any amount of money for an edge. Yet somehow they all seem to use
> free weights. That's because machines are not a replacement for free
> weights. Machines are less effective and more expensive. Even if a
> machine existed that was "as effective" as free weights, it would
> still be more expensive. To many people expense is a definite factor,
> but even in cases where it isn't a factor free weights still win.
The proof is in the eating. Most people are aware of free weights yet they
choose machines. Machines (the good ones) provide an excellent workout
I don't doubt what you say.
>>> Send a newbie into a store looking for an Olympic weight set and a
>>> power rack and chances are much better of them getting what they
>>> need (and at a lower price to boot). Seriously, I just don't see
>>> how it is that anyone can argue for resistance machines over free
>>> weights for someone who is just starting out. Machines aren't even
>>> *safer* than free weights.
>>
>> That all depends on whether the person using free weights knows what
>> they are doing
>
> Are you trying to say that a person using machines doesn't have to
> know what they are doing? If you are doing a squat movement it
> doesn't really matter if you are using free weights, a smith machine,
> or some other contraption. Any way you slice it you still have
> hundreds of pounds of weight on your back, and enough downward force
> to seriously injure your spine, your hips or your knees. You still
> have to worry about proper form. The only difference is that many
> machines actually *force* you to use bad form by not allowing your
> body to move along natural lines.
>
Yes of course -
> That, in my opinion, is the final and fatal strike against machines.
> They aren't safer than free weights. The fact that they "appear"
> safer than free weights leads newbies to jump in without learning
> proper form.
I never said 'safety' was an issue - never.
> It's a fun discussion though, thanks for the thoughtful and polite
> response.
I agree!
>
JMW
> >> "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >>>"JMW" <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
> >>>> "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"Jason Earl" <je...@xmission.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why don't you just come out and tell us which machine it is that you
> >>>>>> would recommend?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I will then be accused of 'hawking'.
> >>>>
> >>>> Isn't this the resistance training device you recommend for a
> >>>> "commercial gym workout in your home"?
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.onlyfitness.com.au/gyms_8210.htm
> >>>
> >>>No
> >>
> >> That's your company. And that's what the text says.
> >
> > You are wrong. Keep in mind that meddling in other peoples private
> > lives without invitation or provocation may not be in your best
> > interest.
>
> I think that you have to cut David a little slack here (assuming that
> this truly is his business). If you are going to sell fitness
> equipment then you pretty much have to offer this sort of a thing, as
> it is what people want. That's the funny thing about sales.
> Sometimes you have to sell people what they want, and not what is good
> for them.
Please review a handful of David's responses to Will Brink. Then
explain to me why I'm required to cut him a little slack.
David
> David wrote:
>> "JMW" <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
>> > "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> >>"JMW" <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
>> >>> "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>"Jason Earl" <je...@xmission.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Why don't you just come out and tell us which machine it is that
>> >>>>> you
>> >>>>> would recommend?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>I will then be accused of 'hawking'.
>> >>>
>> >>> Isn't this the resistance training device you recommend for a
>> >>> "commercial gym workout in your home"?
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.onlyfitness.com.au/gyms_8210.htm
>> >>
>> >>No
>> >
>> > That's your company. And that's what the text says.
>>
>> You are wrong.
>> Keep in mind that meddling in other peoples private lives without
>> invitation
>> or provocation may not be in your best interest.
>
> Really? You seem to be amused when Hudson does it to people, such as
> Dally and myself.
I don't remember being amused with either of you - not ever
> But, then again, to quote an old MFWer:
>
> "He is a puppy with a slipper. Always cute, always amusing, unless it
> is your slipper."
I don't recall complaining. Just pointed out two things
1. You are wrong
2. It may not be in your best interest to involve yourself in other people's
private lives
But Richard's is an amusing quote in any case
David
Elzi seemed to agree with me as did others in the debate about saliva vs
blood. Brinks talked about references which when challenged was unable to
produce.
David
Plus I studiously avoided making any reference to Dally's private life - not
even ever referring to her by her real name - even her real first name for
that matter. So please don't try to make excuses for your behaviour
JRH
This is just more of Lee Michaels "trolling" which does nothing but
invite retaliation. And once again it is in blind support of John
Williams. I think that indicates quite clearly who are the real
"trolls" here.
What they have both failed to notice or acknowledge, is that since
David the Oz and I have started posting regularly again, people are
returning and the Group is picking up again.
Point proven! ;o)
Have a great weekend folks - you know I am!
TFIF!
Curt James
>That's the funny thing about sales. Sometimes you have to
>sell people what they want, and not what is good for them.
And then there's also dealing with the quirky, eccentric, or possibly
mentally ill. As a college student, I worked for GNC selling their
pills and potions. An individual entered the store and said, something
like, "Give me the best product you have."
No comment on the best *for what* unfortunately. I asked that question
but the wacko simply repeated their statement. Eventually, after
several revolutions of this ping pong question and answer session, I
reached to the shelf nearest to me and handed them whatever package it
was. The individual purchased the product and left the store.
Odd.
But, yes, sometimes you have to sell people what they want, and not
what is good for them.
Hmm. More than ten years after the fact, I suppose I could have looked
at the guy and sold him the product that I assumed would be the best
for him or, yeah, that would've given me the largest commission. As I
recall, I just wanted him out of the store.
--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/
JRH
This is Williams "trolling" now, and also "stalking" David the Oz, who
has never mentioned his business or attempted to promote it.
Williams has as usual gone searching the Internet to try and find
something to use as a weapon, and he has chosen this man's business
and livelihood to ridicule and attempt to discredit.
Is there any further proof require that John Williams is obsessed and
not all there mentally?
HAGW! ;o)
TFIF!
Curt James
>Please review a handful of David's responses to
>Will Brink. Then explain to me why I'm required
>to cut him a little slack.
Brink's very often been something of an incredible dick as have you.
No slack requested, but you might wanna take a look at your own
behavior.
And no charge, pal!
--
JMW
> "JMW" <jmwill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > David wrote:
> >> "JMW" <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
> >> > "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> >>"JMW" <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
> >> >>> "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>"Jason Earl" <je...@xmission.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Why don't you just come out and tell us which machine it is that
> >> >>>>> you
> >> >>>>> would recommend?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>I will then be accused of 'hawking'.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Isn't this the resistance training device you recommend for a
> >> >>> "commercial gym workout in your home"?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> http://www.onlyfitness.com.au/gyms_8210.htm
> >> >>
> >> >>No
> >> >
> >> > That's your company. And that's what the text says.
> >>
> >> You are wrong.
> >> Keep in mind that meddling in other peoples private lives without
> >> invitation
> >> or provocation may not be in your best interest.
> >
> > Really? You seem to be amused when Hudson does it to people, such as
> > Dally and myself.
>
> I don't remember being amused with either of you - not ever
TXPWe.50328$FA3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au
VI4Me.86152$oJ.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au
> > But, then again, to quote an old MFWer:
> >
> > "He is a puppy with a slipper. Always cute, always amusing, unless it
> > is your slipper."
>
> I don't recall complaining. Just pointed out two things
> 1. You are wrong
About what?
> 2. It may not be in your best interest to involve yourself in other people's
> private lives
And why is that?
> But Richard's is an amusing quote in any case
I hope you appreciate the context.
JMW
That's good. At least I'll be paying you what your advice is worth.
JRH
Why it's the original Heath Robinson! ;o)
David
Your statement is wrong - you are bright enough to know what you said. It is
wrong. What word are you having trouble with?
>> 2. It may not be in your best interest to involve yourself in other
>> people's
>> private lives
>
> And why is that?
>
Does Macys tell Sears?
JRH
>David wrote:
>> "JMW" <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
>> > "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> >>"JMW" <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
>> >>> "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>"Jason Earl" <je...@xmission.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Why don't you just come out and tell us which machine it is that you
>> >>>>> would recommend?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>I will then be accused of 'hawking'.
>> >>>
>> >>> Isn't this the resistance training device you recommend for a
>> >>> "commercial gym workout in your home"?
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.onlyfitness.com.au/gyms_8210.htm
>> >>
>> >>No
>> >
>> > That's your company. And that's what the text says.
>>
>> You are wrong.
>> Keep in mind that meddling in other peoples private lives without invitation
>> or provocation may not be in your best interest.
>
>Really? You seem to be amused when Hudson does it to people, such as
>Dally and myself.
But Hudson only does it by way of retaliation and after much
provocation and many warnings.
Both you and Dally get just what you deserve; you really are a great
tart and a typical bully Williams, as you really don't like a taste of
your own medicine do you?
Remember Williams, it was you who taught me to play this devious game
all those years ago - coward!
You are an obsessed stalker John Williams - what are you?
JRH
wrote:
A sound and fair observation Jason.
JRH
That's between Brinks and the Oz, and has nothing to do with you John
Williams. Have a look at some of the crap Brinks has posted to the Oz,
particularly about David's doctor son!
David
"JRH" <j...@fit.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lfvjp11sd22mq3ge9...@4ax.com...
Obviously it's a one way street with these arseholes.
JRH
wrote:
I prefer to call them the ignoble brown and puckered! ;o)
Are ya havin a good one mate? I am! ;o)
TFIF!
Curt James
I scribbled:
>> And no charge, pal!
>
>That's good. At least I'll be paying you what your
>advice is worth.
Oh, ho, ho, HO! JMW, the razor-sharp wit. You amaze me.
--
David
[.....]
>
> I prefer to call them the ignoble brown and puckered! ;o)
I like the imagery. But they are essentially nice people, right?
> Are ya havin a good one mate? I am! ;o)
>
it's got better lately!
> TFIF!
JRH
wrote:
>
>"JRH" <j...@fit.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:910kp152lrk6m4kki...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:02:45 +1000, "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>
>[.....]
>
>>
>> I prefer to call them the ignoble brown and puckered! ;o)
>
>I like the imagery. But they are essentially nice people, right?
Curly, Larry and Mo are my favourite arseholes at MFW!
JMW
It is? I wrote, "That's your company. And that's what the text says."
The text is unquestionable. Anyone can read it here (unless you change
it):
http://www.onlyfitness.com.au/gyms_8210.htm
And if it's not your company, perhaps you can explain the references to
it in several email addresses you used in 2003 posts to MFW:
3fb921b9$0$13673$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au
3fb920a5$0$20488$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au
pjhfb.135107$bo1.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au
> >> 2. It may not be in your best interest to involve yourself in other
> >> people's
> >> private lives
> >
> > And why is that?
> >
> Does Macys tell Sears?
How very cryptic of you.
> >> But Richard's is an amusing quote in any case
> >
> > I hope you appreciate the context.
(And I'm still hoping ...)
The Queen of Cans and Jars
> Chuck Norris may be a karate champ, but he is a total retard when it comes
> to exercise.
David
Maybe the key is the date - 2003. Now it is 2005. I hope it didn't take you
too long to find those references.
>> >> 2. It may not be in your best interest to involve yourself in other
>> >> people's
>> >> private lives
>> >
>> > And why is that?
>> >
>> Does Macys tell Sears?
>
> How very cryptic of you.
>
>> >> But Richard's is an amusing quote in any case
>> >
>> > I hope you appreciate the context.
>
> (And I'm still hoping ...)
I already said it was amusing.
Jason Earl
> "Jason Earl" <je...@xmission.com> wrote in message
> news:87mzjan...@workhorse.earlhome...
>> "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> writes:
>>
>>> "Jason Earl" <je...@xmission.com> wrote in message
>> What people *like* has very little to do with how *effective* the
>> exercise is.
>
> You are wrong. No matter how effective an exercise is, if you don't
> 'like' it you won't do it. There is nothing wrong with machines per
> say unless you are talking about junk. In which case you have no
> argument from me.
That's an excellent point. It is better to do a poor exercise than to
do nothing at all. Assuming, of course, that the exercise in question
doesn't promote injury (which is not necessarily the case with
machines).
>> People spend billions of dollars each year on quack
>> medicines like creams that "melt fat."
>
> We are not talking about creams but I take your point
Popularity != effectiveness.
>> The reason that gym machines sell is the same reason that people
>> spend actual money for the latest "miracle workout." They simply
>> don't know any better. You have to be pretty clueless to not know
>> that building muscle requires some resistance training.
>
> Machines give you resistance training.
Which is the reasoning behind the people purchasing machines. They
are scared of weights, or they think that weights look too hard and so
they instead opt for a machine. Even I can't argue with the fact that
machines provide resistance.
>> Even morons know that you have to lift weights to get big muscles.
>> However, lifting weights looks dangerous and scary, and so they
>> look for a substitute for free weights that seems like it would be
>> safer.
>>
>> Never mind that machines aren't any safer than free weights. Sure,
>> your less likely to drop a plate on your foot. But the real danger is
>> that poor form or poor biomechanics will cause some sort of an injury.
>
> Plenty of dangers with free weights as well.
Of course free weights are dangerous. Lifting a couple hundred pounds
over your head is inherently dangerous whether that weight is attached
to a barbell or some sort of machine. My point is that machines are
also dangerous, and in many cases they actually put the user in *more*
danger of a serious injury. What's more, the fact that they seem
"safer" leads people to believe that they don't need to worry as much
about form, and that's just not true.
>>>>> Even if they haven;t the faintest idea of what you are referring
>>>>> to, they haven't seen or tried the items - they will tell you
>>>>> that the items are crap.
>>>>
>>>> 99.9% of the machines made today *are* crap. The few that aren't
>>>> are overpriced compared to free weights
>>>
>>> I agree the vast majority of machines on the market today are
>>> inferior. Of course they are dearer than free weights.
>>
>> Which is why I have a hard time recommending anything but free
>> weights.
>
> You are free to recommend anything you like.
As are you, of course.
>>>>> In this case, the Bowflex machine is crap mainly because of the
>>>>> rod resistance system
>>>>
>>>> And the Nordic Trac system is also likely to be crap isn't it.
>>>> Even if it isn't crap, it's almost certainly not competitively
>>>> priced to iron.
>>>
>>> Your argument seems to be based on price.
>>
>> Only partially. On a price/performance basis free weights
>> obviously win. Free weights are cheap, plentiful, and fairly easy
>> to use. However, if a machine came along that was superior to free
>> weights then it could be argued that perhaps such a magical machine
>> might be worth the higher price. The reality is that machines are
>> not only inferior to free weights (and generally *vastly*
>> inferior), but they are also far more expensive.
>
> It boils down to personal goals and preferences. This is a debate
> that has been going on since Adam. This is nothing new.
If it's just a question of goals and preferences then what are the
"goals" that would cause someone to "prefer" machines? Seriously,
name one single solitary goal that would encourage someone to purchase
a home gym machine over a less expensive set of free weights and a
power rack.
It's not a question of goals and preferences, it's a question of
ignorance. People purchase machines because they don't have access to
the facts. Full stop.
>> There are two kinds of people that argue for machines. The first is
>> the person that happens to sell fitness equipment. The higher price
>> and larger profit margins that accompany machines guarantees a
>> financial incentive, but the real kicker is that machines are simply
>> an easier sell. Heck, I've lost track of how many times people that
>> know me have asked if this or that machine would be "easier" than free
>> weights. Everyone wants to be more fit, they just aren't interested
>> in lifting weights to get there.
>
> I disagree. People are conditioned to machines mainly because of their
> predominance in health clubs.
Yes, and I cover why health clubs have machines further down. Here's
a hint though, it's not because machines are more effective, safer, or
less expensive than free weights.
>> The second kind of person that argues for machines is the
>> commercial gym owner. A huge portion of their livelihood consists
>> of convincing newbies (that generally won't show up after the first
>> month) that they should sign up for an expensive long term
>> contract. Expensive machines are one of their primary tools. Only
>> the truly wealthy could afford to outfit their home gym with the
>> ridiculous array of machines that commercial gyms offer. If the
>> commercial gym owner can convince the newbie that fitness requires
>> $10,000 worth of equipment then the obvious answer is to pay for a
>> gym membership.
>>
>
> Maybe
>
>> Never mind that $150 invested in an Olympic barbell and a set of
>> Olympic weights would be far more convenient and effective than
>> 99.9% of the machines in the commercial gym.
>
> Machines have their place. A number of exercises are pretty hard to
> do with free weights
Granted. There are some useful exercises that can be done with
machines. In fact, here's an excellent article entitled "10 Uses for
a Smith Machine (It's not just a coat rack)."
http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=810548
While there are some movements that are hard to do with free weights,
there are all sorts of movements that are basically impossible to do
with machines. Any of the Olympic lifts, for example, are right out.
Popularity <> effectiveness.
Ok, to sum up here. The one real question that I have for you is what
is the "goal" that would lead a sane, informed person to purchase a
home gym over a power rack and free weights. When it comes to
building muscle, increasing athletic performance, etc. free weights
have the advantage. Heck, free weights even take up less space than a
serious home gym that would profess to replace weights. Machines
aren't safer than free weights, and they cost more too.
So what's the upside to machines?
Jason
Jason Earl
> Jason Earl wrote:
<snip>
>> > You are wrong. Keep in mind that meddling in other peoples
>> > private lives without invitation or provocation may not be in
>> > your best interest.
>>
>> I think that you have to cut David a little slack here (assuming
>> that this truly is his business). If you are going to sell fitness
>> equipment then you pretty much have to offer this sort of a thing,
>> as it is what people want. That's the funny thing about sales.
>> Sometimes you have to sell people what they want, and not what is
>> good for them.
>
> Please review a handful of David's responses to Will Brink. Then
> explain to me why I'm required to cut him a little slack.
That's a good point. Still, stooping to someone else's level is
hardly ever a good tactic. Even on USENET keeping the moral high
ground is a useful tactic.
Jason
David
OK. To reply in reverse - if you did *not* have as a requirement to train
particularly for meets or contests you might choose a machine. If you did
not need particularly to use stabilizer muscles you might choose a machine .
If hypertrophy is all you are after you can achieve that with machines and
in some cases "easier" with machines depending on the movements involved. If
time is a factor you would go with a machine. Otherwise as I said - this
argument is as old as 'top posting' etc - it really does boil down to
preference IMO. I once asked a Korean martial arts expert which discipline
he thought was the best. He put his hand on my shoulder and said "Friend,
whatever you select is not important. The secret is to do it"
The Queen of Cans and Jars
But selling shitty exercise equipment because you'd rather make a buck
than have integrity is ok? Where's the "moral high ground" in that
equation?
JMW
Excuses? Who needs excuses? I'm simply addressing the subject at
hand. You made assertions about the value of certain exercise
equipment, and at the same time, you denigrated the opinions of others.
I merely established what type of exercise equipment you actually
sell, thereby describing certain biases you may hold in that regard.
Would you care to explain why that behavio[u]r requires excuses?
Jason Earl
> Jason Earl <je...@xmission.com> wrote:
>
>>That's the funny thing about sales. Sometimes you have to
>>sell people what they want, and not what is good for them.
>
> And then there's also dealing with the quirky, eccentric, or
> possibly mentally ill. As a college student, I worked for GNC
> selling their pills and potions. An individual entered the store and
> said, something like, "Give me the best product you have."
>
> No comment on the best *for what* unfortunately. I asked that
> question but the wacko simply repeated their statement. Eventually,
> after several revolutions of this ping pong question and answer
> session, I reached to the shelf nearest to me and handed them
> whatever package it was. The individual purchased the product and
> left the store.
>
> Odd.
Not as odd as you would think. Most people know more about how their
car works than how their body works, and about the only thing that the
average person knows about their car is where the gasoline goes.
Health and fitness is a very very complicated subject, and most people
simply aren't interested in putting in the effort to gain enough
knowledge on the subject to even begin to be educated. Of those
people that *are* interested in studying the subject many of them get
sidetracked by listening to experts that are quacks. My wife has an
aunt that is a wonderful person. However, every time we go see her
she tries to sell me a pair of shoes with magnets in them or some sort
of gizmo that shoots light into my muscles. She has an herbal remedy
for everything (some of which even work). If she spent half of the
time reading actual medical research that she spends reading her
sorcerous tomes she would know a ton about health and fitness.
All of us want to be healthy, but hardly any of us have any idea what
actually works. There are lots of people that are more than happy to
take advantage of that universal desire coupled with an almost equally
universal ignorance. This is especially easy because most of the
things that are truly effective at maintaining health also seem like
such hard work. Promise people an "easier" way, and you have
something that can sell millions.
> But, yes, sometimes you have to sell people what they want, and not
> what is good for them.
When you work in sales, the customer is always right. Even if they
are insane.
> Hmm. More than ten years after the fact, I suppose I could have
> looked at the guy and sold him the product that I assumed would be
> the best for him or, yeah, that would've given me the largest
> commission. As I recall, I just wanted him out of the store.
In a similar situation, as a college student, I am sure that I would
have offered the person what I thought was the best for him. Now that
I am older and wiser I realize that those sorts of snap diagnosis are
basically crap shoots. I would now go for the sale with the largest
commission. At least that way *someone* benefits from the exchange.
Jason
Dally
That's pretty harsh. Ethics requires that you not trick people, but
there's nothing wrong with selling things to people that they want, can
afford, and you can provide without anyone getting hurt. By your
standards no one could ever work as a clerk in any grocery store (they
sell crappy refined carb products) or sell gas to gas guzzling vehicles
or ugly fashions. Does your Ex sell over-priced bicycles to yuppies who
don't need fiber carbon?
Dally
JMW
David wrote:
You were the one who announced that your son was a physician. And I
was the one who asked why you seek medical advice on Usenet.
Just thought I'd set the record straight.
Curt James
> Machines aren't safer than free weights,
I've seen jpegs of people with their knee /reversed/ (for lack of a
better term) under a load of monster plates, but I've never seen an
equivalent pic of someone being crushed by a Universal gym.
And I witnessed a guy drop 315 on his chest. He wasn't split in half
as I would have been, but he wasn't smiling either. Never seen that
happen on a machine. Of course I have worried over that cable in front
of my face as I do machine curls. Half expecting it to snap and take
an eyeball out.
Still, I'd say that machines can certainly be safer than free weights.
In fact, I'd call a power cage a machine of sorts. Built to make those
free weights more safe to exercise with.
> and they cost more too.
Price is not always an obstacle or a consideration.
> So what's the upside to machines?
They're fairly idiot-proof. You won't get stuck in them or under them.
For some, they're a significant investment and, therefore, serve as a
motivational tool: "Dammit, I paid how much for that load of crap? I
am working out today! That money will not go to waste."
--
Dally
> Jason Earl <je...@xmission.com> wrote:
>
>>So what's the upside to machines?
>
> They're fairly idiot-proof. You won't get stuck in them or under them.
> For some, they're a significant investment and, therefore, serve as a
> motivational tool: "Dammit, I paid how much for that load of crap? I
> am working out today! That money will not go to waste."
Some other upsides: they are easy to figure out. Learning good form for
powerlifting is not easily done on your own, and knowing all the body
parts and the exercises for them isn't obvious to most people, either.
There's a sharp learning curve for a powerrack and bunch of iron. The
OP wanted something for people who obviously haven't even started that
curve. Why not let them start with lat pulldowns and leg extensions for
a few years before they realize they could make better progress by
stepping up to free weights?
Dally
David
Of course. What was I thinking? You are one of the nice guys here!
Jason Earl
> "Jason Earl" <je...@xmission.com> wrote in message
<big fat snip>
I am a bit sad you didn't comment on my t-nation article, though, that
was a beaut.
>> Ok, to sum up here. The one real question that I have for you is
>> what is the "goal" that would lead a sane, informed person to
>> purchase a home gym over a power rack and free weights. When it
>> comes to building muscle, increasing athletic performance,
>> etc. free weights have the advantage. Heck, free weights even take
>> up less space than a serious home gym that would profess to replace
>> weights. Machines aren't safer than free weights, and they cost
>> more too.
>>
>> So what's the upside to machines?
>>
>> Jason
>
>
> OK. To reply in reverse - if you did *not* have as a requirement to
> train particularly for meets or contests you might choose a
> machine.
Why might you choose a machine? What's the advantage?
> If you did not need particularly to use stabilizer muscles
> you might choose a machine.
Ok, so if your goal was to get less of a workout in the same time
period (you aren't working your stabilizers) then you might use a
machine. I don't think that passes the "sane and informed" test.
> If hypertrophy is all you are after you can achieve that with
> machines and in some cases "easier" with machines depending on the
> movements involved.
How is it easier? Hypertrophy is mainly a question of using enough
weight at the correct volume. Using a machine adds nothing other than
the fact that it is easier to change resistance. Bodybuilders are the
primary example of athletes that focus on hypertrophy, and they
primarily use free weights.
> If time is a factor you would go with a machine.
That's crap. No matter what sort of workout you do there is probably
enough time between sets to change resistance. Heck, if you are
looking for a workout that is effective with very little time
investment take a look at the Tabata Thrusters or Tabata Front
squats. Four minutes and you are literally done.
> Otherwise as I said - this argument is as old as 'top posting' etc -
> it really does boil down to preference IMO.
I have yet to see an argument that doesn't boil down to, "look it only
took me a second to add 200 pounds." That's a neat trick, but it's
not particularly useful in real life.
> I once asked a Korean martial arts expert which discipline he
> thought was the best. He put his hand on my shoulder and said
> "Friend, whatever you select is not important. The secret is to do
> it"
I can't argue with that. Doing something, even something that is
suboptimal is better than doing nothing at all. Besides, the mind is
a powerful thing. It's like my wife's aunt and the magnets, it's all
bunk but just her belief in the stuff makes her feel a little better.
If you believe in your machines, how can I argue with that?
Jason
David
I give out personal information about my family on a 'need to know' basis.
You don't need to know
dami...@oldman.org
wrote:
>
>Yes, 90% of the folks that go to gyms and health clubs use machines.
>However, how many of the folks that use machines get "excellent"
>results? Sure, resistance machines are better than nothing, but
>that's hardly an endorsement when you consider that they are far more
>expensive than plain iron. If you do look at the subset of gym goers
>that get "excellent" results the vast majority of them are over in the
>free weight section. If you limit the field to serious and
>professional athletes there is essentially no one that relies
>primarily on machines.
When I work out, I use iron (BBs, DBs, and KBs) and rubber bands.
I initially tried machines, but I never made decent gains.
It would be a mistake to say that elite athletes probably have little
use for machines. (I know you used the word "primarily.")
http://it.commercial.lifefitness.com/content.cfm/lifefitnessathletes
http://www.sherdog.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-111315.html
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/football/nfl/specials/preview/2005/08/03/vikings.trainer/
http://www.hawaii.edu/cgi-bin/vtour?Manoa=a=7
http://www.power-lift.com/a2.asp
Jason Earl
Like I said, in sales the customer is always right. That's the moral
high ground when selling people stuff. If they ask for your opinion,
you should give it, and you should also be knowledgeable enough so
that you can be a genuine help, but if someone wants to make a bad
purchase, that's their decision. Heck, it's even possible that they
might know better than you do.
David is right about one thing. People are less intimidated by
machines. Take a look in any gym and the machines are getting put
through the motions. Sure, the smart lifters are over on the free
weights. But the folks on the machines are generally doing better
than the folks at home on their couches.
Jason
David
The placebo effect apparently is huge in medicine. Mind is a powerful tool.
Jason, it's not that I particularly believe in machines - but I do believe
that there are two sides to the story. I just googled 'free weights or
machines' and got a ton of sites - one of them
http://www.bodytrends.com/articles/strength/machinesvs.htm. The original
response was to the poster who asked about a couple of machines and he was
immediately shot down strictly on the basis of the free weights argument. I
was pointing out that you should take the product on it's merit and not
simply discard it on that one criterion
David
Curt James
>I'm simply addressing the subject at hand.
Liar.
>you denigrated the opinions of others.
See? Yo widdle feewings aww huuuurt.
>Would you care to explain why that behavio[u]r
>requires excuses?
You're nothing more than a crybaby bitch. Pissing about your opinion
being (gasp) denigrated and yet responding with a condescending and/or
mocking *behavio[u]r*.
/You/ require an excuse. Hth!
--
JMW
I never asked what your son did. Neither did anyone else. You
offered it up to bolster one of your arguments.
As to you asking for Usenet medical advice, that was more of a
rhetorical question, given that you are the father of a physician. I
don't suppose I'm the only one who considers that a bit odd.
David
"JMW" <j...@event.horizon> wrote in message
news:pj6kp158q7ino990c...@4ax.com...
So sue me
Jason Earl
> Curt James wrote:
>
>> Jason Earl <je...@xmission.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So what's the upside to machines?
>> They're fairly idiot-proof. You won't get stuck in them or under
>> them. For some, they're a significant investment and, therefore,
>> serve as a motivational tool: "Dammit, I paid how much for that
>> load of crap? I am working out today! That money will not go to
>> waste."
>
> Some other upsides: they are easy to figure out. Learning good form
> for powerlifting is not easily done on your own, and knowing all the
> body parts and the exercises for them isn't obvious to most people,
> either.
They *seem* easy to figure out. However, if you are doing a bench
press in a machine or in a power rack the same form is required if you
want to maintain your rotator cuffs. You still have to learn to push
your shoulder blades together, and keep your elbows in. The only
difference is that in a power rack you are more likely to actually try
and figure out what good form entails before you load up and lift and
that in a machine you are more likely to be stuck in an artificial
groove that is potentially joint damaging.
> There's a sharp learning curve for a powerrack and bunch of iron.
> The OP wanted something for people who obviously haven't even
> started that curve. Why not let them start with lat pulldowns and
> leg extensions for a few years before they realize they could make
> better progress by stepping up to free weights?
The learning curve is exactly the same as long as the movements are
the same. Of course, in most machines the movements are not the same
because they try and replace squats with knee crushing leg extensions.
This just *seems* safer.
Jason
JRH
wrote:
>
>"JMW" <j...@event.horizon> wrote in message
[...]
>>>>> >>Please review a handful of David's responses to Will Brink. Then
>>>>> >>explain to me why I'm required to cut him a little slack.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > That's between Brinks and the Oz, and has nothing to do with you John
>>>>> > Williams. Have a look at some of the crap Brinks has posted to the
>>>>> > Oz,
>>>>> > particularly about David's doctor son!
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously it's a one way street with these arseholes.
>>>>
>>>> You were the one who announced that your son was a physician. And I
>>>> was the one who asked why you seek medical advice on Usenet.
>>>>
>>>> Just thought I'd set the record straight.
>>>
>>>I give out personal information about my family on a 'need to know' basis.
>>>You don't need to know
>>
>> I never asked what your son did. Neither did anyone else. You
>> offered it up to bolster one of your arguments.
>>
>> As to you asking for Usenet medical advice, that was more of a
>> rhetorical question, given that you are the father of a physician. I
>> don't suppose I'm the only one who considers that a bit odd.
>
>So sue me
John Williams would need a more thorough knowledge of the law, than
his duties as an assistant prosecutor in Wayne County has bestowed
upon him, to enable him to go to those lengths.
Isn't he a horrible miserable old bugger?
David
"JRH" <j...@fit.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e87kp15gkqh7hkkfa...@4ax.com...
I guess he sees himself as the ultimate archivist. Where does he find the
time?
Curt James
>"David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>"JMW" <jmwill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> David wrote:
>>>> "JRH" <j...@fit.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> > "JMW" <jmwill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >>Jason Earl wrote:
>>>> >>> "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> writes:
>>>> >>> > "JMW" <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
>>>> >>> >> "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>> >>> >>>"JMW" <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
>>>> >>> >>>> "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>> >>> >>>>>
>>>> >>> >>>>>"Jason Earl" <je...@xmission.com> wrote:
>>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>> >>>>>> Why don't you just
SNIP EVERYTHING BUT WHAT IS NECESSARY TO MAKE YOUR POST???
Just a suggestion, but we all know how well those things go over in
this newsgroup. Meh.
>I don't suppose I'm the only one who considers
>that a bit odd.
I consider you a bit odd.
--
JRH
wrote:
He's obviously got bugger all else to do, and he's clearly some sort
of a crackpot.
JMW
You amuse me, Curt. Yelling and stomping your feet like one of your
elementary school students.
But you may mature someday. Hell, someday, you might even get laid.
JMW
Good heavens, what dull lads your are! You don't seem to realize that
it takes very little time if you know what you're doing. It helps to
have a good memory, too.
Naturally, memory is the mortal enemy of denial.
Lee Michaels
"Dally" wrote in
>
> There's a sharp learning curve for a powerrack and bunch of iron. The OP
> wanted something for people who obviously haven't even started that curve.
> Why not let them start with lat pulldowns and leg extensions for a few
> years before they realize they could make better progress by stepping up
> to free weights?
>
What are you trying to do to these people, cripple them?
Free standing squats with no weights would be a far superior exercise than
leg extnsions.
Curt James
>You amuse me, Curt.
Cool.
>Yelling and stomping your feet like one of your
>elementary school students.
Yelling and stomping are both still around, yes, but your behavior is
much closer to the description I'd use: Individuals who think they
have the answer, but all too often don't.
>But you may mature someday.
Where's the fun in THAT?
>Hell, someday, you might even get laid.
ahahaHA!
What was that about maturity?
JMW: "Neener, neener! You might even get laid!"
Piece o' work.
--
JMW
>JMW <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
>
>>You amuse me, Curt.
>
>Cool.
>
>>Yelling and stomping your feet like one of your
>>elementary school students.
>
>Yelling and stomping are both still around, yes, but your behavior is
>much closer to the description I'd use: Individuals who think they
>have the answer, but all too often don't.
What answer would that be, Curt?
>JMW: "Neener, neener! You might even get laid!"
Did I strike a raw nerve, Curt?
Curt James
>Good heavens, what dull lads your are!
I always love when people do that.
What dull lads youR are?
Sweet. You friggin' idiot.
D'OH!
--
ATP*
"Dally" <Da...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:3vthlpF...@individual.net...
>
> Lee, what do you think of the incline sliding thing that Chuck Norris
> advertises? I've heard people actually use those.
>
Christie Brinkley "loves the back and forth motion."
Curt James
re Individuals who think they have the answer, but all too often don't
>What answer would that be, Curt?
That you have issues.
You feel threatened, imo, for whatever reason and, apparently, by a
number of individuals and so react in a negative and rude manner.
Hey, calling you a crybaby bitch is neither negative nor especially
rude as it's pure D truth. You'll define your terms as you see fit, of
course.
>>JMW: "Neener, neener! You might even get laid!"
>
>Did I strike a raw nerve, Curt?
Not at all. What you struck was out.
You showed yourself to be an immature whiner who stoops to the most
childish of insults that your limited creativity can muster. It's
cool. And it's also cool if you have to tell yourself that you're
/winning/ some grand debate when all you're really doing is
participating in a minor pissing contest to no real purpose other
than, maybe, entertainment.
I don't think I amuse you at all. I repeat: You are a liar. You are
upset that certain individuals are playing in what you consider your
personal sandbox. Are you the one who was swapping tales with
what'sherface or is that the other guy? Regardless, your behavior is
anything but exceptional to newsgroups. Your behavior is, in fact,
common.
How's that feel? And have I struck any nerves or, perhaps, a chord?
--
David
>You showed yourself to be an immature whiner who stoops to the most
>childish of insults that your limited creativity can muster
To quote your alter ego: kettle/black
/ ~ \
|\__/
| |
| . |
| `.` |
__| `` | `.` |/~~\
/ | | | `` |/~~\
| | | | | `` | /
\ ` . . | |
\ . . ` /
\ . . /
\ . /
| . |
| |
| |
JMW
David
"JMW" <j...@event.horizon> wrote in message
I'll remember to not deny that.
Jack Bruss
"David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4399af60$0$18197$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Jack Bruss" <jbr...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:9Cfmf.6794$Dk...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>> I'm looking at buying a Bowflex Xtreme or a Nordic Trac Free Motion
>> strength system. They will both cost me about the same. It will be used
>> by me, my wife and kids. I'm kind of leaning toward the Nordic unit,
>> because I like it's simplicity, but I've seen good comments about
>> bowflex.
>>
>> I'd appreciate any input from those of you with experience on either
>> unit.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jack
> Jack - there are people here who will call anything 'crap' that doesn;t
> conform with their ideas of free weights and a power cage. Even if they
> haven;t the faintest idea of what you are referring to, they haven;t seen
> or tried the items - they will tell you that the items are crap. In this
> case, the Bowflex machine is crap mainly because of the rod resistance
> system - if you prefer machines to free weights you are in pretty good
> company i.e. 90% of those that go to gyms and health clubs use machines
> with stack weights and depending on your training you will get excellent
> results. If you go to a fitness specialist store you will find home gyms
> using weights for resistance and often depending on price you will find
> one that works well, has decent biomechanics, smooth movements and a good
> variety of exercises. Sorry I can't comment on the Nordic unit - although
> it looks interesting you have to try it to see if the bio mechanics are
> right and it seems comfortable etc
>
Thanks for the comment. I gather by the responses to my original post that
most here are very serious lifters. I'm 60 years old, and have been working
out on machines in a gym where I work for the past 4 years or so, and I'm
just trying to slow down the effects of aging. I expect to retire in the
next year, so that's why I'd like some kind of machine at home. I do
already have at home a set of dumbells up to 100 lbs and a bench. I'm not
sure if that will enable me to work most muscles, like a bowflex or the
Nordic would.
Jack
JMW
Jason Earl
> Thanks for the comment. I gather by the responses to my original
> post that most here are very serious lifters.
We're opinionated blowhards for the most part (and that's probably
being generous).
> I'm 60 years old, and have been working out on machines in a gym
> where I work for the past 4 years or so, and I'm just trying to slow
> down the effects of aging.
Aren't we all.
> I expect to retire in the next year, so that's why I'd like some
> kind of machine at home.
Working out at home is the best. There's never a line, you don't have
to worry about traffic, and you're done with your workout in the same
amount of time that it used to take you to drive up and back.
> I do already have at home a set of dumbells up to 100 lbs and a
> bench. I'm not sure if that will enable me to work most muscles,
> like a bowflex or the Nordic would.
It's hard to beat dumbbells for versatility, especially if you have a
set that goes as heavy as yours does. I would suggest getting an
Olympic bar and some weight to complement your dumbbells and make
doing exercises like squats and deadlifts a little easier and calling
it good. Free weights are fun.
However, I do agree with David on one count, and that is a machine is
way better than doing nothing at all. If you don't feel comfortable
with free weights and you don't mind buying a machine then by all
means get a machine. I don't know what to suggest though. Perhaps we
can get David to "hawk" something.
Jason
David
of machines. If you don't mind shlepping weight plates a little, then you
are mostly there with a bench and dumbells. Some exercises for you
http://www.dumbbell-exercise.com/
David
> "Jack Bruss" <jbr...@wi.rr.com> writes:
>
>> Thanks for the comment. I gather by the responses to my original
>> post that most here are very serious lifters.
>
> We're opinionated blowhards for the most part (and that's probably
> being generous).
>
>> I'm 60 years old, and have been working out on machines in a gym
>> where I work for the past 4 years or so, and I'm just trying to slow
>> down the effects of aging.
>
> Aren't we all.
>
>> I expect to retire in the next year, so that's why I'd like some
>> kind of machine at home.
>
> Working out at home is the best. There's never a line, you don't have
> to worry about traffic, and you're done with your workout in the same
> amount of time that it used to take you to drive up and back.
>
>> I do already have at home a set of dumbells up to 100 lbs and a
>> bench. I'm not sure if that will enable me to work most muscles,
>> like a bowflex or the Nordic would.
>
> It's hard to beat dumbbells for versatility, especially if you have a
> set that goes as heavy as yours does. I would suggest getting an
> Olympic bar and some weight to complement your dumbbells and make
> doing exercises like squats and deadlifts a little easier and calling
> it good. Free weights are fun.
Good advice
>
> However, I do agree with David on one count, and that is a machine is
> way better than doing nothing at all. If you don't feel comfortable
> with free weights and you don't mind buying a machine then by all
> means get a machine. I don't know what to suggest though. Perhaps we
> can get David to "hawk" something.
Not a chance! Do I look like I just stepped off the bus? I would never here
the end of it. There is a guy on this ng that will remind you in 10 years
about 'that time you tried to flog some gear' etc etc. You don't know the
half of it.
David
"Joe Humble" <joeh...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:c8skp117qb92ec1pv...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 07:28:32 +1000, "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"JMW" <jmwill...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1134163595.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>> Jason Earl wrote:
>>>> "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> writes:
>>>> > "JMW" <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
>>>> >>>"JMW" <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
>>>> >>>> "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>"Jason Earl" <je...@xmission.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> you
>>>> >>>>>> would recommend?
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>I will then be accused of 'hawking'.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Isn't this the resistance training device you recommend for a
>>>> >>>> "commercial gym workout in your home"?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> http://www.onlyfitness.com.au/gyms_8210.htm
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>No
>>>> >>
>>>> >> That's your company. And that's what the text says.
>>>> >
>>>> > You are wrong. Keep in mind that meddling in other peoples private
>>>> > lives without invitation or provocation may not be in your best
>>>> > interest.
>>>>
>>>> I think that you have to cut David a little slack here (assuming that
>>>> this truly is his business). If you are going to sell fitness
>>>> equipment then you pretty much have to offer this sort of a thing, as
>>>> it is what people want. That's the funny thing about sales.
>>>> Sometimes you have to sell people what they want, and not what is good
>>>> for them.
>>>
>>> explain to me why I'm required to cut him a little slack.
>>
>>blood. Brinks talked about references which when challenged was unable to
>>produce.
>>
>
> Yep, one of your shining moments on MFW and one of Will's lower ones.
> Not that it was even a big deal except that he really went down hard
> on that one. In fact he still claims to this day he was "right".
> Quite the case of the classic IOM really.
>
>
Well, Brink has made an art out of back pedalling, ducking and weaving.
Funny how some people just can't bear to be wrong and make a bad situation
(for them) worse by not taking it on the chin. You're right about IOM.
JRH
Good heavens, does this indicate a degree of levity from the sinister
John Williams?
Well done Williams, you old bugger! ;o)
JRH
That sums him up for what he is Curt, a nasty and predictable old
"troll", who likes to hurl silly names at other people.