Bowflex shatters under load
Achim Nolcken Lohse
I started my workout. The plastic rod box holding the flex rods broke
loose from the machine's vertical shaft and both ends of the box
shattered, scattering jagged shards of plastic in all directions. I
found pieces scattered as far as 15 feet away.
The rods also caused some minor damage to the drywall behind the
apparatus, and just missed hitting two windows. Both ends of the box,
each holding two 50# rods were broken open, and three of the six 50#
broke through the plastic where their bases are screwed into the box.
The box is not the original one bought six years ago, but a much more
recent replacement.
Since I follow SuperSlow protocol, my workouts are quite brief and
infrequent. I guesstimate the total time this box has been under load
of any kind is less than 50 hours total, and the total time under
maximum load less than 20% of that, or 10 hours.
The exercise I had begun was a seated calf raise using all of the rods
at once, preparatory to doing a leg press.
Since the PowerPro provides no suitable foot brace for using the full
power of the rods in either of these exercises (the resistance is
progressive, so you only get 410# resistance when all the rods are
pulled right down to the pulley), I've added a third (bolt-on) foot
rest, suitably reinforced, where the bench is bolted to the frame.
This is the only way anyone with an inside pant leg measurement less
than 43 inches can flex the rods fully using the waist belt (even so,
the resistance is insufficient for me, so I use the calf-raise to
pre-fatigue my calf muscles).
In accordance with SuperSlow protocol, I take great care to avoid any
sudden or explosive movements. To overcome the lack of leverage at the
beginning of my calf-raise and leg-press exercises (the only two out
of a total of 11 in which I use more than 200# resistance) I
pre-tension the rods and lock them in stages, using tie-down webbing
belts. This makes mounting and dismounting the apparatus much safer
and comfortable. I had just completed the last pre-tensioning stage,
and was half-way into position for my first positive calf raise (ie.
the rods were roughly at 80% flex), when the rod box shattered and the
entire rod bundle went flying until stopped by the tie-down straps
(without the tie-down straps, the rods would have had another two feet
of free travel, and could possibly have broken one or both of the two
windows on either side of the PowerPro, which faces into a corner of
my sun room).
All of the four screws that hold the rod box to the upright frame were
still in place. The sequence of breakage isn't obvious. There's an
almost straight vertical break line in the box where it sits between
the lat tower and the PowerPro's upright shaft. Perhaps this broke
first and set off a chain reaction on the back side. Or the box may
have cracked first all around the four screws that hold it to the back
of the upright. The latter area has always been the weakest spot on my
machine. Cracks there have appeared on every box I've ever had
immediately after first use, no matter how much care I've taken in
installation. This box was the fourth I've installed.
Aside from the complete destruction of the main rod box, the upgrade
sub-box (which slides into the main box to allow adding two 50# rods
at the far end) was also ruined, in that the holding screw of one of
the rods broke through the base. Looking at the pattern of box damage,
it appears likely that the initial break occurred on one side, as all
three of the 50# rods broke through the rod box base on the right
side, while no rods broke free on the left. The rubber sheathing on
the two front 50# rods and one of the 10# rods is also torn in a
couple of places.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this incident is that I had no
warning. As mentioned previously, the rod boxes always have cracks.
After four replacements, and taking every possible precaution
(replacing the stock phillips-head composite holding screws with cap
head screws of the same thread and dimensions, and making absolutely
sure they went it square and weren't overtightened), the cracks
continued to appear immediately, and I had to decide to either ignore
them or stop using the Bowflex altogether. The cracks are extremely
hard to see in the rodbox material, and there have been in suggestions
from the manufacturers to help the user decide when they've become
critical.
As it happens, I had done a full workout routine without any sign of
problems only a few days before, and so this incident took me entirely
by surprise. Happily, I had a functional spare box in my Bowflex parts
collection, so after taking a series of photos to document the affair,
I replaced the box and completed my exercise routine.
Since I have previously encourage others here to try the Bowflex
PowerPro, I now feel obliged to post this warning for anyone using
this machine or other Bowflex machines employing the same rod box.
As mentioned above, the effects of this breakage were likely limited
in this case by my use of tie-down straps which significantly reduced
the range of flight of the rods and box once they cut loose from the
frame. So a similar occurrence on a stock machine could be much more
dangerous.
It may be that this could never happen on an unmodified PowerPro
machine simply because it's impossible to flex the complete 410#
complement of rods to the maximum using the provided foot rests
(unless you're 7 feet tall!). However, although I've never had a
chance to inspect the later models, from the online pictures it
appears that one might be able to use the full resistance while doing
squats with some of them.
One precaution I strongly recommend, and intend to follow diligently
myself in view of this breakdown, is to ALLWAYS WEAR EYE-PROTECTION
when using the Bowflex.
This posting was my first priority, so I haven't contacted Bowflex
about this problem yet. If there's any expression of interest here,
I'll be happy to post follow-up information as I receive it.
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
David
"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <loh...@3web.nettax> wrote in message
news:45ff1a25...@news.telus.net...
junk.
Achim Nolcken Lohse
wrote:
>
>"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <loh...@3web.nettax> wrote in message
>news:45ff1a25...@news.telus.net...
>> My Bowflex PowerPro with Lat Tower failed dangerously this weekend as
>> I started my workout. The plastic rod box holding the flex rods broke
>> loose from the machine's vertical shaft and both ends of the box
>> shattered, scattering jagged shards of plastic in all directions. I
>> found pieces scattered as far as 15 feet away.
>>
>....
>>
>> One precaution I strongly recommend, and intend to follow diligently
>> myself in view of this breakdown, is to ALLWAYS WEAR EYE-PROTECTION
>> when using the Bowflex.
>>
>> This posting was my first priority, so I haven't contacted Bowflex
>> about this problem yet. If there's any expression of interest here,
>> I'll be happy to post follow-up information as I receive it.
>>
>>
>Let's face it Achim, to make a very long story shorter, you bought a pile of
>junk.
>
Compared to what? Sure, if I had had US$28,000 (plus shipping) to
spare, and the room to put it in, I would have bought a minimal
Superslow apparatus (leg press, chest press, and pull-down machines)
instead.
The fact is that the Bowflex was strongly endorsed by Ellington
Darden, who has some serious professional credentials in the fitness
community, and quite a few owners have reported that this apparatus
worked satisfactorily for them. For many people, the Bowflex PowerPro
was the ONLY serious workout apparatus they could fit into their
living space.
This was also my situation when I bought it. And with care and some
ingenuity, I was able to get reasonably adequate service out of mine
for six years, despite being six feet tall and 200+ lbs.
Most importantly, though, there are thousands of these machines out
there, and I feel the owners should be alerted to the hazard I've just
encountered, since Bowflex has a very poor record on this score.
I don't think posting "my Bowflex PowerPro is a piece of junk" would
have achieved that goal. I know I wouldn't have paid much attention to
such a message.
BTW - I've notified Nautilus, the current owners of Bowflex, of the
problem, and am waiting to hear back from them.
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
David
"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <loh...@3web.nettax> wrote in message
I guess it depends on your goals - if you are serious about gaining muscle
mass you would never use a Bowflex - not one serious bodybuilder uses
Bowflex - it is popular for one reason only and that is the power of
advertising - I am not saying that free weights is the only alternative -
you can use machines with stack weights that will work infinitely better
than Bowflex, This system never got a foothold in Australia although the
importers have tried mainly because they did not have massive advertising
dollars. The biomechanics is poor, the incrementation is a joke. Range of
motion is suspect (I haven't used it I admit this is hearsay) If you ever
see a commercial quality version of Bowflex used in any health club or gym
anywhere in the world, be sure to let me know. It is a con job and makes a
great coat hanger
Achim Nolcken Lohse
Lohse) wrote:
.....
>>
>>"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <loh...@3web.nettax> wrote in message
>>news:45ff1a25...@news.telus.net...
>>> My Bowflex PowerPro with Lat Tower failed dangerously this weekend as
>>> I started my workout. The plastic rod box holding the flex rods broke
>>> loose from the machine's vertical shaft and both ends of the box
>>> shattered, scattering jagged shards of plastic in all directions. I
>>> found pieces scattered as far as 15 feet away.
>>>
>>....
>>>
Update: received an e-mail from Nautilus Canada today in response to
my mail reporting the Bowflex problem above.
The good news: Nautilus has extended the blanket warranty on the
PowerPro from five years to ten. They're shipping me a replacement for
the broken rod box and are also replacing the three rods whose rubber
sleeves were torn in the mishap. My only cost is a shipping charge of
CAD$15 plus tax.
The bad news: there appears to be no concern as to the safety aspect.
I wasn't questioned as to the details, nor were photos of the broken
parts requested. So it appears such failure reports are not routinely
investigated or analysed.
Hopefully they are recorded and flagged when a certain number
occur....
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
Achim Nolcken Lohse
wrote:
>
>"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <loh...@3web.nettax> wrote in message
>news:460029bc...@news.telus.net...
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:01:31 +1000, "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
...
>
>
>I guess it depends on your goals - if you are serious about gaining muscle
>mass you would never use a Bowflex - not one serious bodybuilder uses
>Bowflex -
That may be true, and understandably - the 410# resistance at maximum
extension isn't enough to fatigue the major muscles with normal
technique.
>it is popular for one reason only and that is the power of
>advertising -
I have to disagree there. I've read lots of posts from people who,
like myself, find the marketing technique extremely off-putting. I
haven't really looked at what's available since buying my PowerPro
early in 2001, so things may have changed considerably. But back then,
I couldn't find anything with a comparably small footprint in use and
in storage.
At that time, I set the Bowflex up with the bench between the foot of
my bed on one side, and a bookshelf on the other, while the rods came
down into my closet on one side and between the bed and a chest of
drawers on the other. And when I was done, the whole thing stood in a
corner and took up little more than four square feet of floor space.
Add to that the ability to transit from one exercise to another quite
quickly and, not least important, the relatively low risk of
self-injury, and you had a fairly good desing. Of course it's only
later that you find out about the shoddy workmanship, the ill-fitting
off-the-shelf parts, and some of the more serious limiations of the
configuration (notably, the lack of adequate footrests for leg press).
/
>I am not saying that free weights is the only alternative -
>you can use machines with stack weights that will work infinitely better
>than Bowflex, This system never got a foothold in Australia although the
>importers have tried mainly because they did not have massive advertising
>dollars. The biomechanics is poor, the incrementation is a joke. Range of
>motion is suspect (I haven't used it I admit this is hearsay) If you ever
>see a commercial quality version of Bowflex used in any health club or gym
>anywhere in the world, be sure to let me know. It is a con job and makes a
>great coat hanger
Well, my reason for trying it was the endorsement of Ellington Darden,
who cited excellent training results in a fairly substantial group of
subjects using the Bowflex. Certainly this was not a group of
bodybuilders, and there were diet and hyrdration aspects of Darden's
regime. But the reported results were impressive for anyone who just
wanted to get fit and remain fit safely by working out alone and using
home equipment that didn't require the dedication of a whole room.
Sure, a Smith machine would work better, and a good leg press wouldn't
hurt either. But how would a person living in an apartment or a small
house ever accomodate such equipment? I started out with an ordinary
bench and free weights, and quickly managed to injure myself and put a
hole in the floor. I was lucky the injury wasn't too serious, although
like many such weightlifting injuries, it took months to recover. It
made me think about the damage a little 25lb weight can do when
dropped on your foot, etc., and I decided to take a safer course....
It's really too bad that Nautilus/Bowflex have elected to stress the
marketing and ignore the quality, because I think there is potential
in the concept, if only it were developed properly.
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
David
"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <loh...@3web.nettax> wrote in message
I give you a guarantee that a celebrity endorsement means nothing -
specially when Nautilus dangle $1m in front of him.
Just have a look at "body by Jake" this guy would have to be the biggest con
man on earth -- touting crunch machines that will "trim inches from your abs
in 7 days or your money back"
But if you like Bowflex, that is the bottom line.
I guess 2 million users can't be wrong
Curt
> My Bowflex PowerPro with Lat Tower
> failed dangerously this weekend <snip>
> both ends of the box shattered, scattering
> jagged shards of plastic in all directions.
[...]
Nice. Shrapnel just adds that extra something to a workout.
> Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this
> incident is that I had no warning.
[...]
And, hey, who doesn't love surprises?
> One precaution I strongly recommend,
> and intend to follow diligently myself
> in view of this breakdown, is to ALLWAYS
^^^^^^^^^^^^
> WEAR EYE-PROTECTION
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> when using the Bowflex.
No pun intended? Regardless, obviously that's great advice. I'd
include body armor as you stated the shrapnel spanned a distance of 15
feet minimum, right? Took out some drywall? I'll guess that'd sever a
few things you'd rather not have severed. Fingers, nose, oh, jugular,
etc.?
> <snip> I haven't contacted Bowflex
> about this problem yet.
I mighta made THAT phonecall BEFORE posting to MFW.
> If there's any expression of interest here,
> I'll be happy to post follow-up information
> as I receive it.
(raises hand)
> Achim
Glad you weren't injured. Definitely post a follow-up.
And, uh, double up on your sweats if you don't get the body armor. A
nice bicycle helmet might not be a bad idea either. Do they make those
with a visor?
--
Curt
David
"Curt" <curt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174470983.1...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Achim - don't pay any attention to that Curt guy - he is upset because the
janitor that used to run the bldg where he works quit and as a parting
gesture he stole Curt's hat and relieved himself in it - then stole Curt's
calculator. Of course he is Chairman of the Humour Committee and what that
really means is that we 'humour' him.
> --
> Curt
>
>
Will Brink
Nolcken Lohse) wrote:
> My Bowflex PowerPro with Lat Tower failed dangerously this weekend as
> I started my workout. The plastic rod box holding the flex rods broke
> loose from the machine's vertical shaft and both ends of the box
> shattered, scattering jagged shards of plastic in all directions. I
> found pieces scattered as far as 15 feet away.
Hmmm, plastic rods. No chance of problems there....
--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com
"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural
Ken
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:01:31 +1000, "David" <forgot...@yahoo.com.au>
> The fact is that the Bowflex was strongly endorsed by Ellington
> Darden, who has some serious professional credentials in the fitness
> community, and quite a few owners have reported that this apparatus
> worked satisfactorily for them. For many people, the Bowflex PowerPro
> was the ONLY serious workout apparatus they could fit into their
> living space.
>
I have a lot of respect for Ellington Darden, but if he has been
promoting Bowflex as a good way to subsantially increase muscle mass,
you need to consider his ties to Arthur Jones and the Nautilus
company.
Ken
Achim Nolcken Lohse
>Achim Nolcken Lohse wrote:
>
>> My Bowflex PowerPro with Lat Tower
>> failed dangerously this weekend <snip>
>> both ends of the box shattered, scattering
>> jagged shards of plastic in all directions.
>[...]
>
>Nice. Shrapnel just adds that extra something to a workout.
Hey, I didn't chronograph the fragments! One of the things that makes
the Bowflex relatively save to use is the resistance curve of the
rods, which precludes their developing any serious velocity.
...
>
>> One precaution I strongly recommend,
>> and intend to follow diligently myself
>> in view of this breakdown, is to ALLWAYS
>^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> WEAR EYE-PROTECTION
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> when using the Bowflex.
>
>No pun intended? Regardless, obviously that's great advice. I'd
>include body armor as you stated the shrapnel spanned a distance of 15
>feet minimum, right?
My guess is that none of the plastic fragments would have enough
energy to do more than scratch the skin. Eyes, on the other hand,
might be injured by an unlucky impact.
>Took out some drywall? I'll guess that'd sever a
>few things you'd rather not have severed. Fingers, nose, oh, jugular,
>etc.?
No, the slight damage to the drywall was caused by the rod bundle, not
the box fragments. That said, it must be remembered that my machine is
equipped with the lat tower attachment that doesn't come standard with
the bare-bones PowerPro. And this tower sits between the rod box and
the user, providing significant shielding from flying fragments and
unleashed rods. A standard PowerPro wouldn't provide this shielding.
>
>> <snip> I haven't contacted Bowflex
>> about this problem yet.
>
>I mighta made THAT phonecall BEFORE posting to MFW.
As reported in my subsequent post, I've done that now, and (as
expected), they haven't expressed concern for the safety implications
of my experience. They're shipping me a replacement rod box and three
rods to replace those whose sleeves were torn in the mishap.
>
>> If there's any expression of interest here,
>> I'll be happy to post follow-up information
>> as I receive it.
>
>(raises hand)
>
...
>
>Glad you weren't injured. Definitely post a follow-up.
Thank you!
>
>And, uh, double up on your sweats if you don't get the body armor. A
>nice bicycle helmet might not be a bad idea either. Do they make those
>with a visor?
>
See above. However, I am wearing the safety glasses religiously, and
am now examining the back of the rod box, where it's anchored to the
frame upright, for serious cracks before and after every exercise
session.
...
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
Achim Nolcken Lohse
wrote:
>In article <45ff1a25...@news.telus.net>, loh...@3web.nettax (Achim
>Nolcken Lohse) wrote:
>
>> My Bowflex PowerPro with Lat Tower failed dangerously this weekend as
>> I started my workout. The plastic rod box holding the flex rods broke
>> loose from the machine's vertical shaft and both ends of the box
>> shattered, scattering jagged shards of plastic in all directions. I
>> found pieces scattered as far as 15 feet away.
>
>
>Hmmm, plastic rods. No chance of problems there....
>
Correction: the rod holder box (the part that shattered) is plastic,
the rods are some sort of proprietary composite material.
FWIW, I own two rifles with plastic stocks, and they are pretty tough
- much tougher than wood, and a lot lighter than steel (I DID manage
to break one in two by dropping myself and my motorbike on it in
subzero temperature - but Steyr replaced it at no charge).
I've always felt the rod box was the weakest part of the Bowflex (I've
got five of them in various states of deterioration in my parts
collection). But, like many of the Bowflex's features, this may be
more a problem of shoddy implementation than a flaw in the conceptual
design.
Such an expensive apparatus (I paid CAD$1600 for a demo unit six years
ago, and shelled out another couple of hundred for the lat tower and
accessories two years later) should come with bolts instead of screws,
and exact torquing specs for all fasteners. Hell, I've got a $300 roof
rack for my VW Golf that comes with its own torque wrench!
One simple enhancement that I've undertaken is to replace all the
stock phillips-head screws that hold the rods in the rod box, and the
rod box to the frame, with socket-and-slot cap-head screws of the same
size and thread. This is the best one can do with fastener holes that
should have been threaded for bolts but weren't. The socket and cap
head allows one to better insure the screws are centered and not
overtightened. They also make later removal a lot easier.
I'm still waiting to find out how many removal-insertion cycles the
rod bases will sustain before reaming out. I found out a few years ago
that Bowflex was aware of this problem, because they have two sizes of
screws for the rod bases. They start with #8's, and then transition to
#10's. I found that loosening was a major problem with the #8's,
resulting in damage to both the screw hole and the grooves in the rod
bases that prevent them from rotating. I therefore replaced all of
these screws with the composite thread (ie. wider gap between cutting
edges) cap-head #10's, and have not had any loosening since, despite
the fact that there's already been considerable wear on the
positioning grooves from the initial use period.
The problem is that the 5# and 10# rods are pretty narrow, and may not
take a larger diameter screw without cracking.
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
Achim Nolcken Lohse
wrote:
...
>>
>> And, uh, double up on your sweats if you don't get the body armor. A
>> nice bicycle helmet might not be a bad idea either. Do they make those
>> with a visor?
>>
>
>Achim - don't pay any attention to that Curt guy - he is upset because the
>janitor that used to run the bldg where he works quit and as a parting
>gesture he stole Curt's hat and relieved himself in it - then stole Curt's
>calculator. Of course he is Chairman of the Humour Committee and what that
>really means is that we 'humour' him.
>
>> --
No problem. Good, clean humour always spices things up a bit.
I try to do my homework, so although I haven't posted here for six
years, I did download and look through some 11,000 headers IIRC in
misc.fitness.weights (my ISP's news server co-ordinators must think
highly of this group, because they keep three months' worth of
messages) before posting again. So I've already had a taste of the
Humour Committee's servings.
But thanks for the heads up.
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
nickmo...@hotmail.com
Achim - The bowflex is total and complete junk, I've never seen a
worst product on the market, it really is a piece of garbage. I
wouldn't take one for free, in fact if you paid me to have a brand new
one I'd decline.
Go get a used home gym - if you can't afford a new one just buy
used.....but really, Bowflex is garbage. Also, you only get
resistance one way which is ridiculous.
For $300 you can get yourself a Weider Home Gym 9635 (I believe thats
the model) THey are bottom of the line however they are FAR supriour
than Bowflex.
nickmo...@hotmail.com
> But if you like Bowflex, that is the bottom line.
> I guess 2 million users can't be wrong- Hide quoted text -
David - they are wrong, its garbage :)
Achim Nolcken Lohse
Just to clarify - Darden reported in one of his books (the title
escapes me at the moment) on success in using the Bowflex, together
with a diet and hydration regimen, as a tool for achieving and
maintaining fitness and leanness. This, together with his early
association with the development of HIT and later SuperSlow, persuaded
me to try the Bowflex as a solution to my space problems.
The Bowflex PowerPro User's Manual, copyright 1997, that I received
with my PowerPro in 2001 also contained as an addendum "Dr. Ellington
Darden's 6 Week Fast Fat Loss - Body Leanness Program" - a 23-page
guide, consisting of PowerPro workout routines, guidelines for
hydration, diet advice and meal plans, and instructions for fat
measurement and record keeping.
The addendum is prefaced by "A Personal Guarantee From Dr. Ellington
Darden" which guarantees significant weight reduction (about 28 lbs
for men, 17 for women) in six weeks using the Bowflex three times a
week while following his dietary and hydration regime.
So Darden did not endorse the Bowflex as a superior apparatus for
building muscle mass, but as a tool, combined with diet, for producing
leanness.
Since I had already been a practicioner of HIT/SuperSlow technique for
some years, and also had my own well-developed ideas on nutrition, I
followed neither the workout plan, nor the dietary program, except for
an early nod to the hydration program (which I believe makes sense and
works, if you can stick to it). Even so, I achieved satisfactory
fitness results until I ran into the limitations of the PowerPro.
After that, all I could manage was to maintain my musculature, but not
build it further.
I did contact Darden by e-mail a couple of years on, and asked him for
his suggestions on better implementing SuperSlow protocol on the
Bowflex. The progressive resistance of the rods poses a serious
technical difficulty in integrating the Bowflex into standard SS
technique, particularly in achieving good timing, smooth turnarounds,
and especially in avoiding unloading at the bottom turnarounds.
I'm sorry to report that his response seemed unenthusiastic and less
than helpful. Still, I don't think that in any way invalidates his
earlier work.
While he may have benefitted financially from his endorsement of the
Bowflex, I believe he reported his results honestly, and that his
endorsement fo the Bowflex likely helped many thousands of people who
would otherwise not have done so attain and maintain a good level of
fitness. I'm quite certain I would never have spent close to $2000 on
this apparatus without his endorsement.
And while it didn't help me become another Arnold Schwarzenegger, it
did help me to stay reasonably fit and muscular for half a decade. And
that made the investment worthwhile for me, even though I've been
looking for something better (that I can afford!) for several years
now.
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
Achim Nolcken Lohse
...
>
>Achim - The bowflex is total and complete junk, I've never seen a
>worst product on the market, it really is a piece of garbage.
>I wouldn't take one for free, in fact if you paid me to have a brand new
>one I'd decline.
Have you READ my posts? I've been using it for six years. What is your
expertise based on?
>
> Also, you only get resistance one way which is ridiculous.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's news to me. Please explain...
>
>For $300 you can get yourself a Weider Home Gym 9635 (I believe thats
>the model) THey are bottom of the line however they are FAR supriour
>than Bowflex.
Over two years ago I paid $1000 down on a $3500 leg press machine
optimized for SuperSlow.
The only reason I'm still using my Bowflex exclusively is that the
vendor/designer/builder of the ordered leg press machine has tied up
my money by stringing me along for 18 months past the promised
delivery date, and refuses to refund my advance payment (a refund I
demanded four months ago, when he missed his second delivery extension
by four months).
So trust me, I'm not in the market for Weider Home Gyms of any grade.
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
David
<nickmo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174502210.8...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I totally agree - but if Achim is happy with his machine . . . . what can I
say . . . .I mean we if all chased the same girl . . . .
>
Mike
Heads up? Up who.....
>
> Achim
> _____/)
> axethetax
Curt
[...]
re Bowflex Quality Assurance and Safety
> <snip> they haven't expressed concern
> for the safety implications of my experience.
Sweet. I'm feelin' the Bowflex loooove.
> They're shipping me a replacement rod box
> and three rods to replace those whose
> sleeves were torn in the mishap.
Yes, "They're shipping me a replacement rod box and three rods to
replace those whose sleeves were torn in the mishap." Also known as
THEY'RE ~*STILL*~ TRYING TO KILL ME!!!!!!!
[...]
> <snip> I am wearing the safety glasses
> religiously, and am now examining the
> back of the rod box, where it's anchored
> to the frame upright, for serious cracks
> before and after every exercise session.
Sounds like a wise plan or course of action, Achim.
> Achim
--
Curt
Curt
[...]
> Achim - don't pay any attention to
> that Curt guy -
Probably good advice there, actually. ;o)
> he is upset because the janitor that used
> to run the bldg where he works
And that David and Charles own.
> quit
However, that's NO reflection on the extremely generous financial
package offered by D & C Inc., of course.
> and as a parting gesture he stole Curt's
> hat and relieved himself in it - then
Yes, THEN! As if the "relieved himself in it" wasn't gesture enough.
Hmph!
> stole Curt's calculator.
To his credit, he left the abacus and the sundial.
> Of course he is Chairman of the Humour
> Committee
Yes, the Humour Committee, hereafter to be referred to as the "Device
Used to Offer Mean-Spirited Comments About People I Don't Like Because
That's What That Goof JWM (Whatever) Says, Right?" Committee, David.
You can use the acronym, uh, the DUTOM-SCAPIDLBTWTGJ(W)S,R? Committee.
It's simpler that way. Thanks.
> and what that really means is that
> we 'humour' him.
Like the janitor humoured me? Because that case is pending.
--
Curt
Curt
[...]
> <snip> Good, clean humour always
> spices things up a bit.
Agreed!
> I try to do my homework, so although
> I haven't posted here for six years,
Welcome back.
> I did download and look through some
> 11,000 headers IIRC in misc.fitness.weights
> (my ISP's news server co-ordinators must
> think highly of this group, because they
> keep three months' worth of messages)
> before posting again.
Cool!
> So I've already had a taste of the Humour
> Committee's servings.
Oh.
Well, my condolences, naturally.
[...]
--
Curt
David
> Achim Nolcken Lohse wrote:
> [...]
>
> re Bowflex Quality Assurance and Safety
>
>> <snip> they haven't expressed concern
>> for the safety implications of my experience.
>
> Sweet. I'm feelin' the Bowflex loooove.
>
>> They're shipping me a replacement rod box
>> and three rods to replace those whose
>> sleeves were torn in the mishap.
>
> Yes, "They're shipping me a replacement rod box and three rods to
> replace those whose sleeves were torn in the mishap." Also known as
> THEY'RE ~*STILL*~ TRYING TO KILL ME!!!!!!!
Pity it is against the rules as you are the Chairman but I would like to
nominate your remark for the MHA
Curt
> "Curt" wrote
> > Achim Nolcken Lohse wrote:
> > [...]
>
>
> >> They're shipping me a replacement rod box
> >> and three rods to replace those whose
> >> sleeves were torn in the mishap.
>
> > Yes, "They're shipping me a replacement
> > rod box and three rods to replace those
> > whose sleeves were torn in the mishap."
> > Also known as THEY'RE ~*STILL*~ TRYING
> > TO KILL ME!!!!!!!
>
> Pity it is against the rules as you are the
> Chairman but I would like to nominate your
> remark for the MHA
:o) Hey, thanks, David, and duly noted in my book of warm fuzzies.
But, seriously, there was NOTHING funny about that remark at all. Yes,
sadly, it's just ANOTHER example of my uuuuuuusing the Humour Awards
as a means to unfairly pick on people I do not like, per JWM's recent
post. Yes, I have a grudge against Mr. Bowflex.
It's true.
--
Curt
David
> David wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Achim - don't pay any attention to
>> that Curt guy -
>
> Probably good advice there, actually. ;o)
>
>> he is upset because the janitor that used
>> to run the bldg where he works
>
> And that David and Charles own.
Curt, we own the *business* (such as it is we had 3 customers all year and 2
of them were just trying to get out of the rain) - not the building!
>
>> quit
>
> However, that's NO reflection on the extremely generous financial
> package offered by D & C Inc., of course.
Like I said, we are doing a review at the end of Dec and if warranted, we
will give you a suitable increase in your remuneration package. I am sorry
we can't do it in Oct as originally planned as Charles will still be on that
world cruise where he will be trying very hard to network so we can be more
successful and afford that pay hike that you have been bugging us about for
the last 3 years. (As you know the membership to that swanky golf club
($33000 annual) is just a little higher in priority for networking purposes
as you can appreciate!)
>
>> and as a parting gesture he stole Curt's
>> hat and relieved himself in it - then
>
> Yes, THEN! As if the "relieved himself in it" wasn't gesture enough.
> Hmph!
>
>> stole Curt's calculator.
>
> To his credit, he left the abacus and the sundial.
The sundial? You have a sundial? Where did you get that from? I don't
remember authorizing that acquisition. You know, it's hard to get good help
these days.
>
>> Of course he is Chairman of the Humour
>> Committee
>
> Yes, the Humour Committee, hereafter to be referred to as the "Device
> Used to Offer Mean-Spirited Comments About People I Don't Like Because
> That's What That Goof JWM (Whatever) Says, Right?" Committee, David.
>
> You can use the acronym, uh, the DUTOM-SCAPIDLBTWTGJ(W)S,R? Committee.
> It's simpler that way. Thanks.
Well, what did you expect? Some kind of medal? You need to count your
blessings - (let's see you've got a stable and secure job, a bright future
with prospects, perks of a stool, sundial, abacus etc and at least 2 good
friends)
>
>> and what that really means is that
>> we 'humour' him.
>
> Like the janitor humoured me? Because that case is pending.
Truth be known I never trusted that guy. Just a little too smug.
>
> --
> Curt
>
David
> David wrote:
>> "Curt" wrote
>> > Achim Nolcken Lohse wrote:
>> > [...]
>>
>> > re Bowflex <snip>
>>
>> >> They're shipping me a replacement rod box
>> >> and three rods to replace those whose
>> >> sleeves were torn in the mishap.
>>
>> > Yes, "They're shipping me a replacement
>> > rod box and three rods to replace those
>> > whose sleeves were torn in the mishap."
>> > Also known as THEY'RE ~*STILL*~ TRYING
>> > TO KILL ME!!!!!!!
>>
>> Pity it is against the rules as you are the
>> Chairman but I would like to nominate your
>> remark for the MHA
>
> :o) Hey, thanks, David, and duly noted in my book of warm fuzzies.
>
> But, seriously, there was NOTHING funny about that remark at all.
True, I was just trying to 'humour' you!
ATP*
"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <loh...@3web.nettax> wrote in message
> My Bowflex PowerPro with Lat Tower failed dangerously this weekend as
> I started my workout.
I was hoping it happened halfway through your workout. That would explain
the shaking in the preceding thread.
Achim Nolcken Lohse
No, that's not me reporting in the previous thread - two other Bowflex
users. I seem to have gotten rather better mileage out of mine.
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
Achim Nolcken Lohse
wrote:
Did I say "happy" at any time?
Actually, I went on at great length about its numerous defects and
shortcomings.
OTOH, to suggest that it's unusable for its designed purpose - getting
and staying fit, is just nonsense. Unless, of course, you've had two
rods in a row snap on you. That would definitely send me ballistic.
Still, two users out of two million (I'll assume that figure is
reasonable, just for sake of argument) reporting broken rods is more
indicative of a bad production lot of rods combined with a lapse in
quality control than design and materials failure across the board.
The trouble is that government makes it so damn hard to report these
problems. I don't know what it's like in the USA, but here in Canada,
I've tried to report an extremely dangerous automotive confusion to
Transport Canada staff, and been told to buzz off because the
manufacturer, General Motors, provided the same misinformation to the
commercial database Transport Canada uses as their service technicians
receive.
The issue involved the size of the front disk rotors on a 12 valve 95
Geo Tracker, which are listed in the GM manuals as being 10mm thick
from the factory, and needing to be replaced at <8mm. The problem is
that the rotors on this model actually started at 17mm thick and
minimum thickness is 15mm. The result is that three different GM
dealers serviced my Tracker and passed the brakes. My GM service
manual said the same thing. I finally took the car to a Suzuki dealer,
and they told me that my rotors were way past the safety limit, at
just over 10mm (I kept and measured them myself).
Twelve years later, GM still has never sent out a warning bulletin
about the dangerous brake misinformation, and as far as I can tell, GM
service shops still don't know any better. When I tried to buy a new
clutch for this model in November 2000, I learned the same situation
applied there. In fact, I had to persuade Centreforce, which makes
the best premium clutch for the Tracker, that the information they got
from GM was incorrect, even six years later. The nearest GM dealer had
no clue either.
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
David
"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <loh...@3web.nettax> wrote in message
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 05:15:24 +1000, "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>
>><nickmo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1174502210.8...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Mar 21, 4:52 am, "David" <forgot...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But if you like Bowflex, that is the bottom line.
>>>> I guess 2 million users can't be wrong- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> David - they are wrong, its garbage :)
>>
>>I totally agree - but if Achim is happy with his machine . . . . what can
>>I
>>say . . . .I mean we if all chased the same girl . . . .
>>
> Did I say "happy" at any time?
>
> Actually, I went on at great length about its numerous defects and
> shortcomings.
>
> OTOH, to suggest that it's unusable for its designed purpose - getting
> and staying fit, is just nonsense. Unless, of course, you've had two
> rods in a row snap on you. That would definitely send me ballistic.
>
> Still, two users out of two million (I'll assume that figure is
> reasonable, just for sake of argument) reporting broken rods is more
> indicative of a bad production lot of rods combined with a lapse in
> quality control than design and materials failure across the board.
I would say more than 2 users would have had a problem,
Around 2 years ago 420,000 Bowflex machines were recalled due to mechanical
problems. In Nov 2004 there was a recall of around 800,000 Power Pro models
for various problems . Apparently this model was discontinued soon after the
recall.
Will comment about your experience below a little later - sad how consumers
are treated these days. You almost need to threaten a class action to get
any response
David
"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <loh...@3web.nettax> wrote in message
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 05:15:24 +1000, "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>
>><nickmo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1174502210.8...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Mar 21, 4:52 am, "David" <forgot...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But if you like Bowflex, that is the bottom line.
>>>> I guess 2 million users can't be wrong- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> David - they are wrong, its garbage :)
>>
>>I totally agree - but if Achim is happy with his machine . . . . what can
>>I
>>say . . . .I mean we if all chased the same girl . . . .
>>
> Did I say "happy" at any time?
Well... I realize you would not have been "happy" to have the service issues
but I meant "happy" with the machine as a fitness product.
>
> Actually, I went on at great length about its numerous defects and
> shortcomings.
>
> OTOH, to suggest that it's unusable for its designed purpose - getting
> and staying fit, is just nonsense. Unless, of course, you've had two
> rods in a row snap on you. That would definitely send me ballistic.
No of course it is not unusable - no one suggested that it was unusable.
However there are a few nutcases around who maintain that Bowflex is sub par
when it comes to evaluating fitness equipment. I have never used a Bowflex
however being in the industry I do get reports and feedback on different
equipment. Bowflex has never taken off in Australia because fitness
specialist stores would not touch it. The method of resistance - the rods
are an abomination. As you start the movement I believe the resistance level
is around 60% and reaches 100% as you complete the movement. Which means
that the first part of the movement is far too light and you are limited to
the resistance you are able to handle at the end of the movement. You
recruit most muscle fibres around the middle of the movement and it tapers
off at the beginning and end. Very similar to the resistance you get from
the rubber bands.
Incrementation which is the primary method of goal setting is impossible
with Bowflex - Show me how you bench press 200 lbs and add 2.5 lbs per week
periodically - you can't do that. That's one of the reasons this system is a
joke for serious weight training.
Will Brink
Nolcken Lohse) wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:03:20 -0400, will...@comcast.net (Will Brink)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <45ff1a25...@news.telus.net>, loh...@3web.nettax (Achim
> >Nolcken Lohse) wrote:
> >
> >> My Bowflex PowerPro with Lat Tower failed dangerously this weekend as
> >> I started my workout. The plastic rod box holding the flex rods broke
> >> loose from the machine's vertical shaft and both ends of the box
> >> shattered, scattering jagged shards of plastic in all directions. I
> >> found pieces scattered as far as 15 feet away.
> >
> >
> >Hmmm, plastic rods. No chance of problems there....
> >
> Correction: the rod holder box (the part that shattered) is plastic,
> the rods are some sort of proprietary composite material.
>
> FWIW, I own two rifles with plastic stocks, and they are pretty tough
And they are thicker and not required to be flexed thousands of time and
made of different materials. Can't compare one to the other as some form
of proof. If you like the bowflex and they will replace the parts, then
stick with it. Don't believe any of the hype from their marketing dept. A
flat bench and an olympic bar with a collection of weight would be more
effective and cheaper. If you really wanted to go big time, a selection of
dumbells and a power cage would be all you would need.
223rem
> Sure, a Smith machine would work better,
The Smith machine is a dangerous piece of garbage, and the Bowflex is
just garbage.
Join a freaking gym and lift free weights. Hell, even bodyweight
exercises are going to be more beneficial than anything you can do in a
Smith machine or a bowlfex.
223rem
> Over two years ago I paid $1000 down on a $3500 leg press machine
> optimized for SuperSlow.
$3500 leg press machine?! Are you joking? If not, you're a fool. Leg
pressing is far inferior to squatting.
The money you wasted on junk like Bowflex and leg presses could have
used as gym fees, and today you'd be much stronger.
But perhaps you're trolling.
Andrzej Rosa
Dnia 2007-03-22 Achim Nolcken Lohse napisał(a):
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 05:15:24 +1000, "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>
>><nickmo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1174502210.8...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Mar 21, 4:52 am, "David" <forgot...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But if you like Bowflex, that is the bottom line.
>>>> I guess 2 million users can't be wrong- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> David - they are wrong, its garbage :)
>>
>>I totally agree - but if Achim is happy with his machine . . . . what can I
>>say . . . .I mean we if all chased the same girl . . . .
>>
> Did I say "happy" at any time?
>
> Actually, I went on at great length about its numerous defects and
> shortcomings.
>
> OTOH, to suggest that it's unusable for its designed purpose
You mean, as a towel rack?
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Curt
> "Curt" wrote
> > David wrote:
> > [...]
>
> >> Achim - don't pay any attention to
> >> that Curt guy -
>
> > Probably good advice there, actually. ;o)
>
> >> he is upset because the janitor that used
> >> to run the bldg where he works
>
> > And that David and Charles own.
>
> Curt, we own the *business* (such as it is
> we had 3 customers all year and 2 of them
> were just trying to get out of the rain) - not
> the building!
Hmm.
I forgot about that.
I'm not the company historian, you know.
[...]
> Like I said, we are doing a review at the end
> of Dec and if warranted, we will give you a
> suitable increase in your remuneration package.
> I am sorry we can't do it in Oct as originally
> planned as Charles will still be on that world
> cruise where he will be trying very hard to
> network so we can be more successful and
> afford that pay hike that you have been bugging
> us about for the last 3 years.
I'm not being unreasonable, imo. I'd simply like to get SOMEWHERE NEAR
minimum wage, okay???!
> (As you know the membership to that swanky
> golf club ($33000 annual) is just a little higher
> in priority for networking purposes as you can
> appreciate!)
Riiiiiight.
Have we gotten any business from those "swanky golf club" people
during the past three years? Any business at all?!
re the janitor
[...]
> >> stole Curt's calculator.
>
> > To his credit, he left the abacus and
> the sundial.
>
> The sundial? You have a sundial? Where
> did you get that from? I don't remember
> authorizing that acquisition.
The sundial was a gift from the Incas. You remember the Incas, that
little civilization that existed about the same time as my LAST
RAISE???
> You know, it's hard to get good help
> these days.
Harumph!
I resemble, er, resent that remark.
[...]
> Well, what did you expect? Some kind
> of medal?
A cookie would be nice.
> You need to count your blessings - (let's
> see you've got a stable and secure job,
A "stable" job, yes. Especially with all the manure I must endure.
And, yes, I suppose it is a secure job. I mean, who else would work
for what I'm paid?
> a bright future with prospects, perks of
> a stool, sundial, abacus etc and at least
> 2 good friends)
Yes, at least 2 good friends. Thank you, David. What's a reasonable
salary compared to friends like you and Charles?
re the janitor (part two!)
> Truth be known I never trusted that guy. Just a little too smug.
Agreed.
As smug as a bug in a rug? ;o)
--
Curt
Curt
> "Curt" wrote
[...]
> >> <snip> I would like to nominate your
> >> remark for the MHA
>
> > :o) Hey, thanks, David, and duly noted
> > in my book of warm fuzzies.
>
> > But, seriously, there was NOTHING funny
> > about that remark at all.
>
> True, I was just trying to 'humour' you!
Hey, what are friends for, right?
--
Curt
Curt
[...]
re Achim Nolcken Lohse
> I was hoping it happened halfway through
> your workout. That would explain the
> shaking in the preceding thread.
I haven't been paying attention to the shaking thread, but I suspect
that's worthy of a humour award nomination.
--
Curt
David
I think it is 'near' now. Charles also thinks the same. How 'near' is near?
*Over* half the minimum wage I would say is near enough, no?
>
>> (As you know the membership to that swanky
>> golf club ($33000 annual) is just a little higher
>> in priority for networking purposes as you can
>> appreciate!)
>
> Riiiiiight.
>
> Have we gotten any business from those "swanky golf club" people
> during the past three years? Any business at all?!
Charles is almost certain that the time share plan with the Smedleys was
recommended by someone at the golf club. (of course the deal fell through
in the end because Charles couldn't make the meeting as he was having a
massage or something - he wanted to look his best for the meeting and of
course he fell asleep on the massage table and then the settlement could not
proceed and the client got the shits and walked off on the deal - that was
before your time)
>
> re the janitor
>
> [...]
>
>> >> stole Curt's calculator.
>>
>> > To his credit, he left the abacus and
>> the sundial.
>>
>> The sundial? You have a sundial? Where
>> did you get that from? I don't remember
>> authorizing that acquisition.
>
> The sundial was a gift from the Incas. You remember the Incas, that
> little civilization that existed about the same time as my LAST
> RAISE???
yada yada yada Incas Sminkas
>
>> You know, it's hard to get good help
>> these days.
>
> Harumph!
>
> I resemble, er, resent that remark.
>
> [...]
>
>> Well, what did you expect? Some kind
>> of medal?
>
> A cookie would be nice.
>
>> You need to count your blessings - (let's
>> see you've got a stable and secure job,
>
> A "stable" job, yes. Especially with all the manure I must endure.
> And, yes, I suppose it is a secure job. I mean, who else would work
> for what I'm paid?
We're doing our best Curt. You know giving you a pay raise now will simply
squander the working funds available to us for growth and development - then
there are advertising costs, rent to pay, lights and heating - that's not
all free you know! I think there is a soup kitchen nearby (that is if you
get *really* hungry!
>> a bright future with prospects, perks of
>> a stool, sundial, abacus etc and at least
>> 2 good friends)
>
> Yes, at least 2 good friends. Thank you, David. What's a reasonable
> salary compared to friends like you and Charles?
I know, I know. Doesn't sound fair does it? Curt., I'd love to chat but
have to race off now - the car dealership just phoned and they got the new
Alpha Romeo I was after - the 'classic' model with the gull wings just came
out - definitely we all go out for a spin one day - you will LOVE it!!
>
> re the janitor (part two!)
>
>> Truth be known I never trusted that guy. Just a little too smug.
>
> Agreed.
>
> As smug as a bug in a rug? ;o)
Back soon Curt, this car isn't nearly as large as the Bentley - probably
take you half the time to wash and polish it!
>
> --
> Curt
>
Achim Nolcken Lohse
>Achim Nolcken Lohse wrote:
>
>> Over two years ago I paid $1000 down on a $3500 leg press machine
>> optimized for SuperSlow.
>
>$3500 leg press machine?! Are you joking? If not, you're a fool.
Well, I'm referring to a well-built machine that works properly and
reliably.
>Leg
>pressing is far inferior to squatting.
Could be, if you don't value your knees. I'd rather pay $3500, and
pass on the knee replacement.
>
>The money you wasted on junk like Bowflex and leg presses could have
>used as gym fees, and today you'd be much stronger.
This might be a valid point if you like gyms. I can't stand the sight,
smell, or noise of them myself. And I've got better things to do with
my time than schedule gym sessions, and more fun ways to risk injury
that depending on spotters in a gym.
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
Achim Nolcken Lohse
wrote:
...
>>
>> OTOH, to suggest that it's unusable for its designed purpose - getting
>> and staying fit, is just nonsense. Unless, of course, you've had two
>> rods in a row snap on you. That would definitely send me ballistic.
>>
>> Still, two users out of two million (I'll assume that figure is
>> reasonable, just for sake of argument) reporting broken rods is more
>> indicative of a bad production lot of rods combined with a lapse in
>> quality control than design and materials failure across the board.
>
>I would say more than 2 users would have had a problem,
>Around 2 years ago 420,000 Bowflex machines were recalled due to mechanical
>problems. In Nov 2004 there was a recall of around 800,000 Power Pro models
>for various problems . Apparently this model was discontinued soon after the
>recall.
The recall of 2004 had nothing to do with the rods, or even the rod
boxes. It had to do with the bench breaking. Bowflex sent out hardware
to reinforce the bench and replace the bench locking mechanism with a
much stronger system. The Bowflex PowerPro was not taken out of
circulation. On the contrary, the warranty on all parts other than the
rods was doubled from five to ten years.
And discontinuing models and replacing them with newer desings is
normal marketing procedure. Hopefully the newer designs are an
improvement, but it certainly doesn't mean the discontinued models are
a failure.
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
Achim Nolcken Lohse
wrote:
>
>"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <loh...@3web.nettax> wrote in message
>news:460220ed...@news.telus.net...
...
>Well... I realize you would not have been "happy" to have the service issues
>but I meant "happy" with the machine as a fitness product.
>
>>
>> Actually, I went on at great length about its numerous defects and
>> shortcomings.
>>
>> OTOH, to suggest that it's unusable for its designed purpose - getting
>> and staying fit, is just nonsense. Unless, of course, you've had two
>> rods in a row snap on you. That would definitely send me ballistic.
>
>No of course it is not unusable - no one suggested that it was unusable.
>However there are a few nutcases around who maintain that Bowflex is sub par
>when it comes to evaluating fitness equipment. I have never used a Bowflex
>however being in the industry I do get reports and feedback on different
>equipment. Bowflex has never taken off in Australia because fitness
>specialist stores would not touch it. The method of resistance - the rods
>are an abomination. As you start the movement I believe the resistance level
>is around 60% and reaches 100% as you complete the movement. Which means
>that the first part of the movement is far too light and you are limited to
>the resistance you are able to handle at the end of the movement.
You're correct about the progressive resistance. It's been some years
since I actually measured it with a scale, so I couldn't say whether
your 60% figure is close or not. But it's certainly true that you
don't get the full rated resistance until you've bent the rod to the
maximum.
> You
>recruit most muscle fibres around the middle of the movement and it tapers
>off at the beginning and end. Very similar to the resistance you get from
>the rubber bands.
No, that's incorrect. I don't experience any resistance drop off at
the top end with the Bowflex. And my measurements using fish scales
don't indicate any such drop off either.
>Incrementation which is the primary method of goal setting is impossible
>with Bowflex - Show me how you bench press 200 lbs and add 2.5 lbs per week
>periodically - you can't do that.
Well, first of all, no matter how good your apparatus, or how strong
your motivation, there's a limit to how much strength you can gain.
And one of the biggest traps, as Arthur Ford demonstrated in the early
days of Nautilus, is overtraining resulting in fatigue and/or injury.
Superslow avoids this by minimizing explosive force and duration of
workout times on the one hand, and by emphasizing exercise to failure
followed by adequate recovery intervals on the other. This technique
makes the Bowflex system much more effective than it would otherwise
be.
Granted, the rods don't allow you to make the fine weight adjustments
possible with free weights. However, the fact that the way the rods
work allow the user to work to failure safely without a spotter makes
up for this to a large extent. Roughly speaking, a Superslow exercise
may be from three to 12 repetitions long. This provides enough
flexibility to allow a fairly smooth transition to larger resistance
by adding 5# or 10# rods. For instance, if I find that I'm able to do
eight or nine lateral raises with 30#, I might trade the two 5# rods
for two more 10s and use a total of 40# to fail after four reps.
The main problem with the rods is, as you remarked, their progressive
resistance, which results in insufficient load on the negative phase
and can severely limit loaded range of motion in some exercises. But
you can compensate for this somewhat by shortening the duration of the
negative phase and allowing slight acceleration at the bottom
turnaround.
> That's one of the reasons this system is a
>joke for serious weight training.
That's probably true for larger people. I'm not certain it's true for
smaller-boned people. But it's not a point I would even try to argue.
I've subscribed to the SuperSlow Protocol for a decade now, and its
primary goal is to build and maintain fitness without risking injury.
Building muscle volume is not a primary goal for me.
Now, you may be right to fault the Bowflex marketing people for
visually presenting the apparatus as a bodybuilding tool in their
infomercials. But the fact that the Bowflex isn't an effective
bodybuilding apparatus doesn't negate its capability as a fitness
tool. I used a NordicTrack ski machine for six years before switching
to the Bowflex, and I achieved better results with far shorter and
much less frequent exercise sessions with the latter. A lot of people,
perhaps most, find exercising a tedious, painful task, and so soon
lose their motivation to continue. I think the Bowflex makes it more
palatable for many of them.
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
Achim Nolcken Lohse
wrote:
>In article <4601819a...@news.telus.net>, loh...@3web.nettax (Achim
>Nolcken Lohse) wrote:
>
...
>> >
>> >Hmmm, plastic rods. No chance of problems there....
>> >
>> Correction: the rod holder box (the part that shattered) is plastic,
>> the rods are some sort of proprietary composite material.
>>
>> FWIW, I own two rifles with plastic stocks, and they are pretty tough
>
>And they are thicker and not required to be flexed thousands of time and
>made of different materials. Can't compare one to the other as some form
>of proof.
Composite materials are being used in airplanes and all sorts of
applications requiring materials to flex.
> If you like the bowflex and they will replace the parts, then
>stick with it. Don't believe any of the hype from their marketing dept. A
>flat bench and an olympic bar with a collection of weight would be more
>effective and cheaper. If you really wanted to go big time, a selection of
>dumbells and a power cage would be all you would need.
As stated previously in this thread. I started with a bench, weights,
dumbells, and barbells, managed to injure myself and put a hole in the
floor, and decided that I don't want to be manhandling heavy weights
that have serious injury potential.
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
David
"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <loh...@3web.nettax> wrote in message
Maybe, but discontinuing a model straight directly after a recall of 800,000
units must tell you something.
I know 1.2 million recalled units just rolls of the tongue but think about
it - this company in the space of 12 months as recalled 1,200,000 units -
can you imagine the expense, the embarassment, the loss of reputation? An
action like that is not taken lightly - total up the cost of freight and
whatever they had to do - I can't imagine it would have come under $100 per
unit as the actual cost of the exercise.
So Bowflex anted up 120 million dollars to rectify those minor little
problems. Is there a message there somewhere?
>
>
> --
>
> Achim
> _____/)
> axethetax
David
"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <loh...@3web.nettax> wrote in message
No there is no resistance drop off at the top end - the drop off is in the
muscle fibres recruited to perform the movement. So you are stronger in the
mid part of the movement but the Bowflex peaks at the end of the movement.
Therefore you are limited to what weight you can move at the end of the
movement which limits your progress obviously
>
>>Incrementation which is the primary method of goal setting is impossible
>>with Bowflex - Show me how you bench press 200 lbs and add 2.5 lbs per
>>week
>>periodically - you can't do that.
>
> Well, first of all, no matter how good your apparatus, or how strong
> your motivation, there's a limit to how much strength you can gain.
> And one of the biggest traps, as Arthur Ford demonstrated in the early
> days of Nautilus, is overtraining resulting in fatigue and/or injury.
We are not talking about overtraining here that is another subject
>
> Superslow avoids this by minimizing explosive force and duration of
> workout times on the one hand, and by emphasizing exercise to failure
> followed by adequate recovery intervals on the other. This technique
> makes the Bowflex system much more effective than it would otherwise
> be.
Whether it is superslow or super fast you lose the traditional goal setting
and motivation available to you with conventional weights where your load is
easily quantified
>
> Granted, the rods don't allow you to make the fine weight adjustments
> possible with free weights. However, the fact that the way the rods
> work allow the user to work to failure safely without a spotter makes
> up for this to a large extent. Roughly speaking, a Superslow exercise
> may be from three to 12 repetitions long. This provides enough
> flexibility to allow a fairly smooth transition to larger resistance
> by adding 5# or 10# rods. For instance, if I find that I'm able to do
> eight or nine lateral raises with 30#, I might trade the two 5# rods
> for two more 10s and use a total of 40# to fail after four reps.
>
> The main problem with the rods is, as you remarked, their progressive
> resistance, which results in insufficient load on the negative phase
> and can severely limit loaded range of motion in some exercises. But
> you can compensate for this somewhat by shortening the duration of the
> negative phase and allowing slight acceleration at the bottom
> turnaround.
>
>> That's one of the reasons this system is a
>>joke for serious weight training.
>
> That's probably true for larger people. I'm not certain it's true for
> smaller-boned people. But it's not a point I would even try to argue.
> I've subscribed to the SuperSlow Protocol for a decade now, and its
> primary goal is to build and maintain fitness without risking injury.
> Building muscle volume is not a primary goal for me.
>
What relevance does the large or smallness of your bones have to do with
anything??
> Now, you may be right to fault the Bowflex marketing people for
> visually presenting the apparatus as a bodybuilding tool in their
> infomercials. But the fact that the Bowflex isn't an effective
> bodybuilding apparatus doesn't negate its capability as a fitness
> tool. I used a NordicTrack ski machine for six years before switching
> to the Bowflex, and I achieved better results with far shorter and
> much less frequent exercise sessions with the latter.
of course you would, the ski machine is not designed for building muscle -
that machine builds cardio and endurance
>A lot of people,
> perhaps most, find exercising a tedious, painful task, and so soon
> lose their motivation to continue. I think the Bowflex makes it more
> palatable for many of them.
>
I don't have any problem with machines - you can get all those benefits with
standard home gyms that use stack weights i.e. pin loaded weights just like
you find in commercial gyms.
It is the rod principle that makes Bowflex a horses ass.
> --
>
> Achim
> _____/)
> axethetax
Bully
Achim Nolcken Lohse <loh...@3web.nettax> typed:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:08:13 -0400, 223rem <223...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Achim Nolcken Lohse wrote:
>>
>>> Over two years ago I paid $1000 down on a $3500 leg press machine
>>> optimized for SuperSlow.
>>
>> $3500 leg press machine?! Are you joking? If not, you're a fool.
>
> Well, I'm referring to a well-built machine that works properly and
> reliably.
>
>> Leg
>> pressing is far inferior to squatting.
>
> Could be, if you don't value your knees. I'd rather pay $3500, and
> pass on the knee replacement.
Is leg pressing better for your knees than squatting?
>>
>> The money you wasted on junk like Bowflex and leg presses could have
>> used as gym fees, and today you'd be much stronger.
>
> This might be a valid point if you like gyms. I can't stand the sight,
> smell, or noise of them myself. And I've got better things to do with
> my time than schedule gym sessions, and more fun ways to risk injury
> that depending on spotters in a gym.
--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees
the opportunity in every difficulty." Sir Winston Churchill
Will Brink
Nolcken Lohse) wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:50:07 -0400, will...@comcast.net (Will Brink)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <4601819a...@news.telus.net>, loh...@3web.nettax (Achim
> >Nolcken Lohse) wrote:
> >
> ...
> >> >
> >> >Hmmm, plastic rods. No chance of problems there....
> >> >
> >> Correction: the rod holder box (the part that shattered) is plastic,
> >> the rods are some sort of proprietary composite material.
> >>
> >> FWIW, I own two rifles with plastic stocks, and they are pretty tough
> >
> >And they are thicker and not required to be flexed thousands of time and
> >made of different materials. Can't compare one to the other as some form
> >of proof.
>
> Composite materials are being used in airplanes and all sorts of
> applications requiring materials to flex.
Again, you think those goofy rods are made of the same composite materials
as being used in fighter jets? Please. Stop reading the marketing crap and
use your head.
>
> > If you like the bowflex and they will replace the parts, then
> >stick with it. Don't believe any of the hype from their marketing dept. A
> >flat bench and an olympic bar with a collection of weight would be more
> >effective and cheaper. If you really wanted to go big time, a selection of
> >dumbells and a power cage would be all you would need.
>
> As stated previously in this thread. I started with a bench, weights,
> dumbells, and barbells, managed to injure myself and put a hole in the
> floor, and decided that I don't want to be manhandling heavy weights
> that have serious injury potential.
Then you need to learn how to use the weights safely as millions of others
have and do every day.
223rem
ROM - The 4-Minute CrossTrainer. It may be a little pricey, but think of
it as a super-ultra-Bowflex.
David
"223rem" <223...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:S4idnb40853CRp7b...@insightbb.com...
> http://www.fastexercise.com/
>
> ROM - The 4-Minute CrossTrainer. It may be a little pricey, but think of
> it as a super-ultra-Bowflex.
it is odd that their website doesn't have any photos of the various
exercises you can do on this machine -
David Cohen
> "223rem" <223...@gmail.com> wrote
>> http://www.fastexercise.com/
>>
>> ROM - The 4-Minute CrossTrainer. It may be a little pricey, but think of
>> it as a super-ultra-Bowflex.
>
> it is odd that their website doesn't have any photos of the various
> exercises you can do on this machine -
Order the DVD. It's free.
David
the one with the DVD, not you
David
"David Cohen" <sammi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fkTMh.130477$_73....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
out a form . . . anyways I can't justify that kind of denieros - If you
have a DVD why not just tell the common folk here wtf it does??
David Cohen
> "David Cohen" <sammi...@earthlink.net> wrote
>> "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>> "223rem" <223...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> http://www.fastexercise.com/
>>>>
>>>> ROM - The 4-Minute CrossTrainer. It may be a little pricey, but think
>>>> of it as a super-ultra-Bowflex.
>>>
>>> it is odd that their website doesn't have any photos of the various
>>> exercises you can do on this machine -
>>
>> Order the DVD. It's free.
>>
> fill out a form . . . anyways I can't justify that kind of denieros - If
> you have a DVD why not just tell the common folk here wtf it does??
Jason Earl and I have sworn allegience to the Cult of the ROM.
Order the DVD. It's free. There is no subliminal message contained therein.
You will want to watch it over and over. It's good. Very very good.
David
JMW
Since you have expressed an interest in the ROM, might I also interest
you in some .45ACP Magic Bullet® ammunition for your Kimber? I
produce them myself, carefully and individually, from high-quality
ingredients. At $150.00 per cartridge, they're a bit pricey, but
despite the negative opinions of so-called "experts," they are truly
effective for one-shot kills of vampires, werewolves, re-animated
corpses, and other serious threats. Would you like a free DVD?
Lucas Buck
>David wrote:
>> "Curt" wrote
>> > To his credit, he left the abacus and
>> the sundial.
>>
>> The sundial? You have a sundial? Where
>> did you get that from? I don't remember
>> authorizing that acquisition.
>
>The sundial was a gift from the Incas. You remember the Incas, that
>little civilization that existed about the same time as my LAST
>RAISE???
No, no. Gift from the Egyptians, or the Chinese, maybe.
The primary gift from the Incas: syphilis.
(the gift that keeps on giving!)
Lucas Buck
Don't fall for this.
For the one-shot *vampire* kill, you need a *wood-jacketed* round.
Available at $149.99 each from Buck Shot Industries. Use the coupon
code "STAFFY" and save $2.
David Cohen
I just KNOW there has to be some hidden analogy here between ammo and pet
food. Let's see: high quality pet food is very slightly more expensive than
the cheap shit; 45ACP Magic Bullet® ammunition is hundreds of times more
expensive that "cheap shit' ammo. A horribly failed analogy. Let's try
again. Federal's high quality ammo is to only slightly less expensive
crappy Russian surplus ammo as high quality pet food is to only slightly
less expensive death dealing Iams/Eukanuba/Nutro/Ol' Roy pet food.
Hmmm...that's better.
Yes, I'll take the free DVD. It's got be more more amusing than
Iam's/Eukanuba's/Nutro's pathetic attempts to justify their deception.
David
David
f--- y--
>
> David
>
David
"David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:46043f68$0$4753$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
last part and sure enough there is a 6 minute preview
- Dunno about the $15000 price tag - I can see a good rowing machine and a
stepper that is designed for full stretch and I read 'wreck your knees' into
it. I've seen stairclimbers that also have full stretch and you get a better
upper body workout with them than the ROM.
Also I perceive that they left out the chest as a muscle that needs a
workout or is this covered by doing dips? I like the idea of the full range
of motion but you know, you get that on the Total Trainer - absolute full
range of motion for $295 and it slides under your bed!
Achim Nolcken Lohse
wrote:
...
>>
>>> You
>>>recruit most muscle fibres around the middle of the movement and it tapers
>>>off at the beginning and end. Very similar to the resistance you get from
>>>the rubber bands.
>>
>> No, that's incorrect. I don't experience any resistance drop off at
>> the top end with the Bowflex. And my measurements using fish scales
>> don't indicate any such drop off either.
>
>No there is no resistance drop off at the top end - the drop off is in the
>muscle fibres recruited to perform the movement. So you are stronger in the
>mid part of the movement but the Bowflex peaks at the end of the movement.
>Therefore you are limited to what weight you can move at the end of the
>movement which limits your progress obviously
OK, then I'll concede your point. However, if one were to substitute
any number of more expensive exercise machines for the Bowflex,
similar defects in resitance curve would be found, otherwise,
SuperSlow wouldn't be able to sell its specialized single-exercise
machines at $8,000+ a piece.
>
>>
>>>Incrementation which is the primary method of goal setting is impossible
>>>with Bowflex - Show me how you bench press 200 lbs and add 2.5 lbs per
>>>week
>>>periodically - you can't do that.
>>
>> Well, first of all, no matter how good your apparatus, or how strong
>> your motivation, there's a limit to how much strength you can gain.
>> And one of the biggest traps, as Arthur Ford demonstrated in the early
>> days of Nautilus, is overtraining resulting in fatigue and/or injury.
>
>We are not talking about overtraining here that is another subject
I'd say that your statement "...add 2.5 lbx per week periodically...",
while ambiguous, suggests overtraining.
>>
>> Superslow avoids this by minimizing explosive force and duration of
>> workout times on the one hand, and by emphasizing exercise to failure
>> followed by adequate recovery intervals on the other. This technique
>> makes the Bowflex system much more effective than it would otherwise
>> be.
>
>Whether it is superslow or super fast you lose the traditional goal setting
>and motivation available to you with conventional weights where your load is
>easily quantified
Again, we're talking at cross purposes. You're talking about the
motivational problems of bodybuilders and/or power lifters intent on
obtaining results that are easily quantified and verified.
I'm talking about a hugely larger segment of the population who want
primarily to build and maintain muscular strength, range of motion,
and increased metabolic rate, and whose only readily verifiable
measure of success will be reduction or maintenance of their waist
measurement.
These two groups or so different, there's probably no overlap. Their
motivations are totally distinct. Where your bodybuilders/powerlifters
enjoy the camaradery of the gym, and don't begrudge the time spent
there or in travelling to and fro, the group I refer to want to spend
as little time and incur as little inconvenience as possible
maintaining fitness.
An extreme example of this is the purchasers of the ROM QuickGym
machine regularly advertised in upscale magazines as well as fitness
magazines. It claims to get you in shape and keep you fit, regardless
of your current condition, with only four minutes of exercise per day.
It costs US$14,615 plus $700 to $1,000 shipping, or you can try it for
a trial period of 30 days for a mere cost of US$1,500 (in the
continental US) or US$2,500 (in Alaska, Hawaii, or Canada). Assuming
two people are using it during the trial period,Alaskans, Hawaiians
and Canadians will be paying US$625 per hour of use! Yet this company
has been successfully selling this apparatus at approximately the same
price (it went up from US$12,000 in 2004) for more than a decade.
I believe that the vast majority people shopping for exercise
equipment share the motivational bent of the people who buy the ROM,
and would probably try one themselves if they could afford it.
...
>>
>>> That's one of the reasons this system is a
>>>joke for serious weight training.
>>
>> That's probably true for larger people. I'm not certain it's true for
>> smaller-boned people. But it's not a point I would even try to argue.
>> I've subscribed to the SuperSlow Protocol for a decade now, and its
>> primary goal is to build and maintain fitness without risking injury.
>> Building muscle volume is not a primary goal for me.
>>
>What relevance does the large or smallness of your bones have to do with
>anything??
Clearly, the size of your bones limits the size of your muscles. A
person with a smaller bone structure is going to have smaller muscle
volume, all other things being equal. I'm six feet tall and weigh
roughly 200 lbs., this makes leg presses (or squats) with the 410#
Bowflex somewhat inadequate for me. Someone who is only 5 foot 6
inches is likely to find leg presses or squats with the Bowflex more
effective.
>
..
>
>.... the ski machine is not designed for building muscle -
>that machine builds cardio and endurance
Now you're being silly.
I assure you that a a ski machine will build muscle, just as cutting
sugar cane, loading trucks, or hiking the mountains will build muscle.
As for "cardio", as the SuperSlow Guild has said for years - that is
meaningless bunk. There IS no such thing as cardio. There's not the
slightest evidence that you can "build up" your heart muscle. And
endurance is just an aspect of strength, fitness, and general health.
I still have my Nordictrack, and thanks to a friendly welder, I have a
supply of spare front frames for it. If I thought that spending 30
minutes a day with my heart rate in the aerobic "cardio" zone offered
any benefit over my Bowflex workouts, I would use it. But I haven't
seen a shred of experimental evidence to support this. So I haven't
used it in six years.
My Superslow workouts on the Bowflex last 40 minutes from start to
finish, excluding setup and takedown of the equipment. And my average
interval between workouts over the past six years has been 10 days,
with better results than I got from the NordicTrack in one tenth of
the time.
.....
>I don't have any problem with machines - you can get all those benefits with
>standard home gyms that use stack weights i.e. pin loaded weights just like
>you find in commercial gyms.
>It is the rod principle that makes Bowflex a horses ass.
There are a number of problems with machines using stack weights:
1. they take up a lot of space, so many people just don't have room
for them in their homes
2. they're very heavy, so there are floors that would be unable to
support them
3. their bulk and weight make them difficult to transport, which
creates special problems for people who live in rural communities
The Bowflex (at least the PowerPro model), OTOH, is lightweight,
compact, easy to collapse and move around, and has a minimal footprint
for storage. Without the lat tower or leg extension attachments it can
even be loaded into the back of a station wagon or hatchback without
disassembly.
So, yes, it's certainly a compromise solution, but it's allowed a lot
of people to build and maintain fitness in their homes who would
otherwise not exercised at all, just as the NordicTrack did before it.
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
Achim Nolcken Lohse
Funny you should say that. As it happens, I watched the free DVD
infomercial they send out just yesterday. The "explanation" of its
operating principles sounded like mumbo jumbo to me. But I'd certainly
give it a try if it didn't cost $1500 to try it for 309 days.
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
Achim Nolcken Lohse
wrote:
That's because there are only two: rowing on the front seat, and
stepping on the rear.
>
>
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
Achim Nolcken Lohse
<bul...@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
...
>>> Leg
>>> pressing is far inferior to squatting.
>>
>> Could be, if you don't value your knees. I'd rather pay $3500, and
>> pass on the knee replacement.
>
>Is leg pressing better for your knees than squatting?
I think so, and especially with free weights. With a leg press you can
limit the motion so that you can fail at the bottom turnaround without
injuring yourself. Failing at the bottom of a squat could be extremely
damaging. Add to that the risks posed by losing your balance or
twisting during the squat, and I beleive there's a very significant
advantage to using a well-designed leg press machine.
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
Achim Nolcken Lohse
wrote:
>
>"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <loh...@3web.nettax> wrote in message
>news:46038080...@news.telus.net...
>>.... The Bowflex PowerPro was not taken out of
>> circulation. On the contrary, the warranty on all parts other than the
>> rods was doubled from five to ten years.
>>
>> And discontinuing models and replacing them with newer desings is
>> normal marketing procedure. Hopefully the newer designs are an
>> improvement, but it certainly doesn't mean the discontinued models are
>> a failure.
>
>Maybe, but discontinuing a model straight directly after a recall of 800,000
>units must tell you something.
>I know 1.2 million recalled units just rolls of the tongue but think about
>it - this company in the space of 12 months as recalled 1,200,000 units -
>can you imagine the expense, the embarassment, the loss of reputation?
No need to imagine. Sony and Mercedes Benz have had similar recalls
recently. I don't see their brands going down in flames.
>An
>action like that is not taken lightly - total up the cost of freight and
>whatever they had to do - I can't imagine it would have come under $100 per
>unit as the actual cost of the exercise.
>So Bowflex anted up 120 million dollars to rectify those minor little
>problems. Is there a message there somewhere?
I'm only aware of the Bowflex PowerPro recalls, so I can't comment
critically on your total recall numbers. I suspect the $100 per recall
guesstimate is on the high side though. Keep in mind that all the
hardware except for the rods are manufactured abroad. And when you do
a mass parts replacement, there are no marketing costs, and
production, warehousing, and shipping costs can be minimized because
you know how many pieces you need, and where they're going.
OTOH, these costs go a long way toward explaining the very high
purchase price of the Bowflex. Marketing, liability, and warranty
support are huyge costs.
I've been through the same experience with Nordictrack. Thirteen years
ago, when I bought my Nordictrack ski exerciser, Nordictrack had the
largest exercise machine sales in North America. They also offered the
best available warranty - 10 years on all parts. A few years later,
they reduced their warranty to two years, and then they went bankrupt.
Before my ten year warranty had expired, the company was out of
business and the warranty was worthless. But before that happened,
they replaced the front frame of my machine three times, the front
upright twice, and the front pulley system once, partly because of
poor design, and partly because of inept pre- and post-sales customer
service (it took me two years and six or seven calls to customer
service to learn that they had an extended length upright that should
have been shipped to me initially because of my height).
So, which is a better deal - a cheaper machine that becomes a
paperweight when it breaks and the warranty proves worthless, or one
that costs 20% or 30% more, but has warranty support and retains
market value?
I'd say that Bowflex is doing much better than Nordictrack by its
customers.
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
Andrzej Rosa
Dnia 2007-03-23 Achim Nolcken Lohse napisał(a):
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:50:07 -0400, will...@comcast.net (Will Brink)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <4601819a...@news.telus.net>, loh...@3web.nettax (Achim
>>Nolcken Lohse) wrote:
>>
> ...
>>> >
>>> >Hmmm, plastic rods. No chance of problems there....
>>> >
>>> Correction: the rod holder box (the part that shattered) is plastic,
>>> the rods are some sort of proprietary composite material.
>>>
>>> FWIW, I own two rifles with plastic stocks, and they are pretty tough
>>
>>And they are thicker and not required to be flexed thousands of time and
>>made of different materials. Can't compare one to the other as some form
>>of proof.
>
> Composite materials are being used in airplanes and all sorts of
> applications requiring materials to flex.
Because they are much lighter than metal, but it's beyond the point.
Metal springs would work much better, because they generally do not
shatter, or can be made this way. After some use they will simply get
longer, easier to pull, but won't shatter into tiny parts flying
through your room in random directions. Even rubber bands are better
than composite rods.
But here we face a serious marketing problem. "Wall exercisers" are
known for at least a hundred years, so it's hard to market them as a
space age novelty. Besides, if you take in account that all those
machines were always meant to be sold and gather dust, not to be used,
what's the difference between rods which shatter and springs or rubber
bands? Rods are made of some magic materials, which at least partially
could justify high price tag.
Do you want to know a secret? I have all needed parts and tools to
make composite rods in my bedroom. They will be damn strong, and they
will most probably not shatter when they will eventually fail, and if
after several tests to destruction I'd found that they do shatter, I'd
put them into a webbing sleeve, to prevent shattered fragments from
flying into an eye of a kid. I assure you that I can do all that in my
bedroom, with virtually no tools and very little expertise. You could
too, after I told you how. We couldn't make metal or rubber in a
bedroom.
Now, how much did you pay for your "high tech" towel rack (it was meant
as a dust gatherer, you know I'm right)? Did it hurt to sit afterwards?
>> If you like the bowflex and they will replace the parts, then
>>stick with it. Don't believe any of the hype from their marketing dept. A
>>flat bench and an olympic bar with a collection of weight would be more
>>effective and cheaper. If you really wanted to go big time, a selection of
>>dumbells and a power cage would be all you would need.
>
> As stated previously in this thread. I started with a bench, weights,
> dumbells, and barbells,
You should start with bodyweight exercises. How many pushups could you
do at this time? How many pullups? How many dips (I used to use
chairs for that, now I use "blast straps" hung from a doorframe mounted
chinup bar). Could you afford a backpack and some plates in it for
extra load? Could you afford rubber "chest expander" for some very
portable way to increase difficulty of pushups?
You lacked the know-how, not the tools or space. They used your
ignorance to get into your wallet.
> managed to injure myself and put a hole in the floor,
Could you afford a sheet of plywood to put a hole in, instead of the
floor (use glue-in carpeting on top, if you work out in a slippery
shoes)?
> and decided that I don't want to be manhandling heavy weights
> that have serious injury potential.
Because you can't bench without a spotting device? Dips are better
anyway, so what's the problem? Not the spotting device, because you
can get it (or build it) for pocket money.
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Hobbes
loh...@3web.nettax (Achim Nolcken Lohse) wrote:
You'd be wrong. There is no danger of failing at the bottom of a squat
if you are in a rack. Even if you aren't - olympic style weightlifters
fail all the time in front squat or catch without injury. Pragmatically
free weight lifters like powerlifters and olympic lifters have a very
low chance of injury compared to other sports and they both squat a lot.
Injury in the leg press often occurs from rounding the back at the
bottom or during a heavy session. There are so many safeguards in the
squat movement it is actually pretty safe. Knee health in olympic
weightlifters is very good and exceeds the general population according
to a study done in the 70's.
It has been studied often and the studies favour the squat. I'm too lazy
to do the search - I'm off to the gym to lift!
--
Keith
Andrzej Rosa
Dnia 2007-03-23 Achim Nolcken Lohse napisał(a):
>
>>Achim Nolcken Lohse wrote:
>>
>>> Over two years ago I paid $1000 down on a $3500 leg press machine
>>> optimized for SuperSlow.
>>
>>$3500 leg press machine?! Are you joking? If not, you're a fool.
>
> Well, I'm referring to a well-built machine that works properly and
> reliably.
>
>>pressing is far inferior to squatting.
>
> Could be, if you don't value your knees. I'd rather pay $3500, and
> pass on the knee replacement.
This is nonsense. You can build your legs to whatever level you like
without spending a single dollar. Simply do one-legged exercises. As
it happens, they are very safe from a biomechanical point of view and
they require very little extra load. And they are in fashion too.
>>The money you wasted on junk like Bowflex and leg presses could have
>>used as gym fees, and today you'd be much stronger.
>
> This might be a valid point if you like gyms. I can't stand the sight,
> smell, or noise of them myself. And I've got better things to do with
> my time than schedule gym sessions, and more fun ways to risk injury
> that depending on spotters in a gym.
Bowflex isn't the only option between a full blown home gym and a
commercial gym. You don't need machines. I'm pretty sure that if you
go superslow (which you happen to like) you'll need assistance more
often than an external load.
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
JMW
>"JMW" <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote
>> "David Cohen" <sammi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>"David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>>> "223rem" <223...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> http://www.fastexercise.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> ROM - The 4-Minute CrossTrainer. It may be a little pricey, but think
>>>>> of
>>>>> it as a super-ultra-Bowflex.
>>>>
>>>> it is odd that their website doesn't have any photos of the various
>>>> exercises you can do on this machine -
>>>
>>>Order the DVD. It's free.
>>>
>>>David
>>>the one with the DVD, not you
>>
>> Since you have expressed an interest in the ROM, might I also interest
>> you in some .45ACP Magic Bullet® ammunition for your Kimber? I
>> produce them myself, carefully and individually, from high-quality
>> ingredients. At $150.00 per cartridge, they're a bit pricey, but
>> despite the negative opinions of so-called "experts," they are truly
>> effective for one-shot kills of vampires, werewolves, re-animated
>> corpses, and other serious threats. Would you like a free DVD?
>
>I just KNOW there has to be some hidden analogy here between ammo and pet
>food.
No, the analogy is between the Magic Bullet® and the ROM. Of course,
there may be a further analogy between a fascination with overpriced
pet food and a fascination with an exercise gizmo that costs as much
as a brand new Volkswagen Rabbit® and promises a full cardio workout
in four minutes.
Although I didn't see the DVD, I did go to:
http://www.WhyIsItSoExpensive.com
In their own words, they bait-and-switch you with the first sentence
of the second paragraph:
So the question here should not be "Why is it so expensive?"
but "What is it worth to you to get into good shape and good
health and stay that way with only 4 minutes per day of
ROM-exercise?"
They never tell you why their gizmo is so outrageously expensive,
except to whinge about their marketing expense; they simply feed you
more crap about how it's worth every penny to get a mythical
four-minute workout.
JMW
> JMW <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>>"David Cohen" <sammi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>"David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>>> "223rem" <223...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> http://www.fastexercise.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> ROM - The 4-Minute CrossTrainer. It may be a little pricey, but think of
>>>>> it as a super-ultra-Bowflex.
>>>>
>>>> it is odd that their website doesn't have any photos of the various
>>>> exercises you can do on this machine -
>>>
>>>Order the DVD. It's free.
>>>
>>>David
>>>the one with the DVD, not you
>>
>>Since you have expressed an interest in the ROM, might I also interest
>>you in some .45ACP Magic Bullet® ammunition for your Kimber? I
>>produce them myself, carefully and individually, from high-quality
>>ingredients. At $150.00 per cartridge, they're a bit pricey, but
>>despite the negative opinions of so-called "experts," they are truly
>>effective for one-shot kills of vampires, werewolves, re-animated
>>corpses, and other serious threats. Would you like a free DVD?
>
>Don't fall for this.
>For the one-shot *vampire* kill, you need a *wood-jacketed* round.
Ignore this tripe. He is just another naysaying so-called "expert"
who knows nothing about our special combination of bullet jacketing
ingredients which assure a one-shot kill on all serious threats like
vampires. Naturally, a one-shot kill is essential to Kimber owners
with Wilson Combat Mags. To overcome the problem of the $150 per
bullet price, you should read:
www.WhyAreMagicBulletsSoExpensive.com
So the question here should not be "Why are Magic Bullets® so
expensive?" but "What is it worth to you to stop a raging vampire with
only one shot from your Kimber?"
Curt
[...]
> <snip> might I also interest you in some
> .45ACP Magic Bullet® ammunition<snip>?
> I produce them myself, carefully and individually,
> from high-quality ingredients. At $150.00 per
> cartridge, they're a bit pricey, but<snip>
I'll purchase one cartridge, please.
> despite the negative opinions of so-called
> "experts," they are truly effective for one-shot
> kills of vampires, werewolves, re-animated
> corpses, and other serious threats.
I'll even pick it up, thus saving you on postage. After all, you did
invite me to visit your home, right? Said to give you a call, iirc.
Otoh, you haven't supplied the requested address nor phone number.
> Would you like a free DVD?
Sure! Of course, I suspect the cartridges - like vampires, werewolves,
and re-animated corpses - are from your imagination. And, yeah, the
free DVD offer is probably just as valid as your Ohio invite.
No surprise.
--
Curt
David
"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <loh...@3web.nettax> wrote in message
Ok Ok, fer Christ's sake! you've convinced me - I'm going for this Bowflex
thing - will get the new Power Pro model - I hear now they are offering as
accessories a helmet, and hard plastic vest and eye goggles for some
reason - they say these things should be worn at all times because it "adds
resistance" to the exercise or some such thing!
> Achim
> _____/)
> axethetax
Curt
[...]
> f--- y--
I'd like to buy a vowel.
--
Curt
David Cohen
Oh. OK. My mistake. Sorry.
> Of course,
> there may be a further analogy between a fascination with overpriced
> pet food and a fascination with an exercise gizmo that costs as much
> as a brand new Volkswagen Rabbit® and promises a full cardio workout
> in four minutes.
Since Canidae, for example, is only slightly more expensive than Ol' Roys
and Iams, you have, once again, tried an absurdly bad analogy. But back to
Magic Bullet® and the ROM.
> Although I didn't see the DVD, I did go to:
>
> http://www.WhyIsItSoExpensive.com
>
> In their own words, they bait-and-switch you with the first sentence
> of the second paragraph:
>
> So the question here should not be "Why is it so expensive?"
> but "What is it worth to you to get into good shape and good
> health and stay that way with only 4 minutes per day of
> ROM-exercise?"
>
> They never tell you why their gizmo is so outrageously expensive,
> except to whinge about their marketing expense; they simply feed you
> more crap about how it's worth every penny to get a mythical
> four-minute workout.
You make an accurate observation that there is a "fascination" with things
that cost significantly more than similar items. An $1800 pocket knife that
cuts like a $25 pocket knife, a $1200 gun that shoots as well as a $300 gun,
an expensive purebred dog that makes as loving a companion as a free animal
shelter mutt, a $4000 Rolex that tells time as well as a $25 Timex, an
exercise machine that costs ten times anything similar.
But it brings up the concept of "worth it". A concept which is very
individual, that really precludes comment, snide or otherwise, by others.
I would never even think to criticize Bill Gates for owning a $50 million
home, although it certainly wouldn't be "worth it" to me. I wouldn't even
think of criticizing JohnTravolta for owning a 747, although it certainly
wouldn't be "worth it" to me.
I have, on numerous occasions, recommended a good bench, an inexpensive
cage, and a barbell set for a perfectly usuable weightlifting setup. I
have, on numerous occasions, recommended Bryce Lane's site for totally free,
very effective, body weight workouts.
I subscribe to Consumer Reports because, with regard to cars, appliances,
TVs, cameras, etcetera, I look for good values. I subscribe to Gun Tests
because, with most firearms, I look for good values.
But there are other types of product categories that I have a "fascination"
for. For which I might find personal enjoyment in owning absurdly expensive
versions.
If I had a spare $15,000 lying around, I could easily see myself ordering a
ROM.
Why do you seem to have an issue with that? I've never stated that it was a
good value, or best for anyone regardless of income. To state the obvious,
it's my money. I earned it.
You one of them thar Midwest Commie pinkos?
David
Curt
[...]
Geez, would it kill you to schnip a bit of that schtufff, David. ;o)
i KEED! Hey, quote it all, pal. QUOTE IT ALL!
> Ok Ok, fer Christ's sake! you've convinced
> me - I'm going for this Bowflex thing - will get
> the new Power Pro model - I hear now they
> are offering as accessories a helmet, and hard
> plastic vest and eye goggles for some reason -
> they say these things should be worn at all
> times because it "adds resistance" to the
> exercise or
*OR* KEEPS THE MACHINE FROM ~*KILLING YOU!!!*~
(David, this is also known as squeezing as many laughs out of the same
joke as possible.)
> some such thing!
Okay.
--
Curt
David
"Curt" <curt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174698353....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> David wrote:
> [...]
>
> Geez, would it kill you to schnip a bit of that schtufff, David. ;o)
Sorry I knew I should have snipped some of it . . . sorry (more comments
below)
>
> i KEED! Hey, quote it all, pal. QUOTE IT ALL!
>
>> Ok Ok, fer Christ's sake! you've convinced
>> me - I'm going for this Bowflex thing - will get
>> the new Power Pro model - I hear now they
>> are offering as accessories a helmet, and hard
>> plastic vest and eye goggles for some reason -
>> they say these things should be worn at all
>> times because it "adds resistance" to the
>> exercise or
> Again, we're talking at cross purposes. You're talking about the
>
> *OR* KEEPS THE MACHINE FROM ~*KILLING YOU!!!*~
>
> (David, this is also known as squeezing as many laughs out of the same
> joke as possible.)
>
>> some such thing!
>
> Okay.
Yes I think there is something about overmilking jokes!
>
> --
> Curt
>
JMW
>
>I subscribe to Consumer Reports because, with regard to cars, appliances,
>TVs, cameras, etcetera, I look for good values. I subscribe to Gun Tests
>because, with most firearms, I look for good values.
>
>But there are other types of product categories that I have a "fascination"
>for. For which I might find personal enjoyment in owning absurdly expensive
>versions.
>
>If I had a spare $15,000 lying around, I could easily see myself ordering a
>ROM.
>
>Why do you seem to have an issue with that? I've never stated that it was a
>good value, or best for anyone regardless of income. To state the obvious,
>it's my money. I earned it.
I see it as a matter of proportion: the cost of the gizmo compared to
how much of a waste it is. Consider these points:
[a] You don't need a $15,000 gizmo to perform a Tabata Protocol.
[b] People frequently have a $1,000 treadmill or elliptical trainer
gathering dust because they can't force themselves to engage in the
standard aerobic routine on a regular basis. How much more of a waste
would it be to have a $15,000 ROM gathering dust because the owners
can't force themselves to regularly engage in an exercise routine that
leaves Olympic speed skaters exhausted?
223rem
> I subscribe to Consumer Reports because, with regard to cars, appliances,
> TVs, cameras, etcetera, I look for good values.
Consumer Reports considers handling and the fun to drive factor
irrelevant. If you like to drive a boring, "reliable" car, then yes,
follow their recommendations. As to digital cameras, see
www.dpreview.com. It is free and much more informative than CR.
> But there are other types of product categories that I have a "fascination"
> for. For which I might find personal enjoyment in owning absurdly expensive
> versions.
>
> If I had a spare $15,000 lying around, I could easily see myself ordering a
> ROM.
Hah. Incredible. Well, me, I'd build an extension to my garage for use
as weight room, I'd buy a weightlifting platform, and a full set of
Eleiko bumper plates and two Eleiko olympic bars.
JMW
>David Cohen wrote:> "JMW" <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote
>
>> I subscribe to Consumer Reports because, with regard to cars, appliances,
>> TVs, cameras, etcetera, I look for good values.
>
>Consumer Reports considers handling and the fun to drive factor
>irrelevant. If you like to drive a boring, "reliable" car, then yes,
>follow their recommendations.
I don't need a vehicle to be a penile surrogate.
Achim Nolcken Lohse
<bak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ... one-legged exercises.... are very safe from a biomechanical point of view
Baloney.
There's nothing safe about one-legged exercises. You can injure your
back as well as your knee. And you certainly can't do one-legged
squats to failure safely.
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
Achim Nolcken Lohse
<bak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Do you want to know a secret? I have all needed parts and tools to
>make composite rods in my bedroom. They will be damn strong, and they
>will most probably not shatter when they will eventually fail, and if
>after several tests to destruction I'd found that they do shatter, I'd
>put them into a webbing sleeve, to prevent shattered fragments from
>flying into an eye of a kid.
The Bowflex rods are all sheathed in a rubber sleeve, presumably for
that very reason. Maybe you've noticed that neither the original
poster of the "broken rod" thread, nor the later poster who had it
happen twice in a row, have posted any details of their mishap.
So far, there's been no report of any flying rod fragments. The rods
themselves are anchored in the rod box by their bases, and hooked onto
the cable at the other end, which would tend to limit their movement
when they break.
> I assure you that I can do all that in my
>bedroom, with virtually no tools and very little expertise. You could
>too, after I told you how. We couldn't make metal or rubber in a
>bedroom.
So, if I understand you correctly, all "composite" materials are the
same, and you could make exact duplicates of the Bowflex rods in your
bedroom? I wonder why they don't manufacture them in China and save a
lot of money?
How many engineers do you have on tap to certify that the rods and
associated hardware are fit for the job?
How would you determine that the rod holders could only handle 410#
worth of rods and still have a reasonable margin of saftey?
How much money could you put aside for warranty repairs, recalls, and
the occasional successful liability lawsuit?
How many lawyers could you afford to retain to handle the inevitable
frivolous and predatory lawsuits?
...[remainder of moralistic harangue snipped]
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
Achim Nolcken Lohse
wrote:
>In article <46045e71...@news.telus.net>,
> loh...@3web.nettax (Achim Nolcken Lohse) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:50:44 -0000, "Bully"
>> <bul...@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> >>> Leg
>> >>> pressing is far inferior to squatting.
>> >>
>> >> Could be, if you don't value your knees. I'd rather pay $3500, and
>> >> pass on the knee replacement.
>> >
>> >Is leg pressing better for your knees than squatting?
>>
>> I think so, and especially with free weights. With a leg press you can
>> limit the motion so that you can fail at the bottom turnaround without
>> injuring yourself. Failing at the bottom of a squat could be extremely
>> damaging. Add to that the risks posed by losing your balance or
>> twisting during the squat, and I beleive there's a very significant
>> advantage to using a well-designed leg press machine.
>
>You'd be wrong. There is no danger of failing at the bottom of a squat
>if you are in a rack. Even if you aren't - olympic style weightlifters
>fail all the time in front squat or catch without injury.
Really, olympic style weightlifters are NEVER injured when they fail
in a front squat?
>Pragmatically
>free weight lifters like powerlifters and olympic lifters have a very
>low chance of injury compared to other sports and they both squat a lot.
Oh, so they DO get injured, just never when they're doing squats?
>
>Injury in the leg press often occurs from rounding the back at the
>bottom or during a heavy session. There are so many safeguards in the
>squat movement it is actually pretty safe.
"pretty safe"! Now there's a reassuring phrase.
> Knee health in olympic
>weightlifters is very good and exceeds the general population according
>to a study done in the 70's.
Well, that's a cheery thought. To think that a bunch of dedicated
athletes have better knees than the general population. Has it
occurred to you that people with bad knees probably never get into
weightlifting? Or that those who injure themselves while trying it out
will probably stop pretty fast?
A study in the 70's. I guess they figured - quit while you're ahead.
And after all that time, it's probably impossible to check how well
controlled the study was, let alone replicate it.
I HAVE noticed quite a few world class lifters with pressure bandages
on their knees. I guess that's to remind them that there's no chance
of injury?
>
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
223rem
For god's sake quit being such a pussy. Do some heavy squats, they'll
increase your testosterone level. You need that badly.
David
"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <loh...@3web.nettax> wrote in message
news:46044c23...@news.telus.net...
> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>
>>>> You
>>>>recruit most muscle fibres around the middle of the movement and it
>>>>tapers
>>>>off at the beginning and end. Very similar to the resistance you get
>>>>from
>>>>the rubber bands.
>>>
>>> No, that's incorrect. I don't experience any resistance drop off at
>>> the top end with the Bowflex. And my measurements using fish scales
>>> don't indicate any such drop off either.
>>
>>No there is no resistance drop off at the top end - the drop off is in the
>>muscle fibres recruited to perform the movement. So you are stronger in
>>the
>>mid part of the movement but the Bowflex peaks at the end of the movement.
>>Therefore you are limited to what weight you can move at the end of the
>>movement which limits your progress obviously
>
> OK, then I'll concede your point. However, if one were to substitute
> any number of more expensive exercise machines for the Bowflex,
> similar defects in resitance curve would be found, otherwise,
> SuperSlow wouldn't be able to sell its specialized single-exercise
> machines at $8,000+ a piece.
That is not so - many weight machines have variable resistance - Bowflex is
simply just like a rubber band - starts easy ends hard - that is only
consistent with rubber band machines which are generally considered garbage
>>
>>>
>>>>Incrementation which is the primary method of goal setting is impossible
>>>>with Bowflex - Show me how you bench press 200 lbs and add 2.5 lbs per
>>>>week
>>>>periodically - you can't do that.
>>>
>>> Well, first of all, no matter how good your apparatus, or how strong
>>> your motivation, there's a limit to how much strength you can gain.
>>> And one of the biggest traps, as Arthur Ford demonstrated in the early
>>> days of Nautilus, is overtraining resulting in fatigue and/or injury.
>>
>>We are not talking about overtraining here that is another subject
>
> I'd say that your statement "...add 2.5 lbx per week periodically...",
> while ambiguous, suggests overtraining.
why does adding a small amt of weight periodically suggest overtraining?
>>>
>>> Superslow avoids this by minimizing explosive force and duration of
>>> workout times on the one hand, and by emphasizing exercise to failure
>>> followed by adequate recovery intervals on the other. This technique
>>> makes the Bowflex system much more effective than it would otherwise
>>> be.
>>
>>Whether it is superslow or super fast you lose the traditional goal
>>setting
>>and motivation available to you with conventional weights where your load
>>is
>>easily quantified
>
> Again, we're talking at cross purposes. You're talking about the
> motivational problems of bodybuilders and/or power lifters intent on
> obtaining results that are easily quantified and verified.
>
> I'm talking about a hugely larger segment of the population who want
> primarily to build and maintain muscular strength, range of motion,
> and increased metabolic rate, and whose only readily verifiable
> measure of success will be reduction or maintenance of their waist
> measurement.
>
Anyone who lifts weights or does progressive resistance training is
critically concerned with incrementation. That is the very definition of
progressive resistance That is what it is all about - having the capacity to
add a small quantifiable amount of weight in cycles to your routine
> These two groups or so different, there's probably no overlap. Their
> motivations are totally distinct. Where your bodybuilders/powerlifters
> enjoy the camaradery of the gym, and don't begrudge the time spent
> there or in travelling to and fro, the group I refer to want to spend
> as little time and incur as little inconvenience as possible
> maintaining fitness.
>
> An extreme example of this is the purchasers of the ROM QuickGym
> machine regularly advertised in upscale magazines as well as fitness
> magazines. It claims to get you in shape and keep you fit, regardless
> of your current condition, with only four minutes of exercise per day.
>
>
> It costs US$14,615 plus $700 to $1,000 shipping, or you can try it for
> a trial period of 30 days for a mere cost of US$1,500 (in the
> continental US) or US$2,500 (in Alaska, Hawaii, or Canada). Assuming
> two people are using it during the trial period,Alaskans, Hawaiians
> and Canadians will be paying US$625 per hour of use! Yet this company
> has been successfully selling this apparatus at approximately the same
No, there is no relevance to the ROM machine to the real world - the only
reason ROM machine is 'successful' is the perception that money can buy
fitness. So for people that $15k is small change they will buy that
abomination because of the perception that it is a time efficient fitness
machine that brings miraculous results. It won't deliver much more than
simpler machines at a fraction the money.
> price (it went up from US$12,000 in 2004) for more than a decade.
>
> I believe that the vast majority people shopping for exercise
> equipment share the motivational bent of the people who buy the ROM,
> and would probably try one themselves if they could afford it.
I believe you are wrong
>
> ...
>>>
>>>> That's one of the reasons this system is a
>>>>joke for serious weight training.
>>>
>>> That's probably true for larger people. I'm not certain it's true for
>>> smaller-boned people. But it's not a point I would even try to argue.
>>> I've subscribed to the SuperSlow Protocol for a decade now, and its
>>> primary goal is to build and maintain fitness without risking injury.
>>> Building muscle volume is not a primary goal for me.
>>>
>>What relevance does the large or smallness of your bones have to do with
>>anything??
>
> Clearly, the size of your bones limits the size of your muscles. A
> person with a smaller bone structure is going to have smaller muscle
> volume, all other things being equal. I'm six feet tall and weigh
> roughly 200 lbs., this makes leg presses (or squats) with the 410#
> Bowflex somewhat inadequate for me. Someone who is only 5 foot 6
> inches is likely to find leg presses or squats with the Bowflex more
> effective.
I'm totally lost - tall people, short people, bigger boned. smaller boned .
. . so what? Whatever their physiology users will gain benefit or not
depending on many factors - why bring the size of their bones into the
discussion?
>>
> ..
>>
>>.... the ski machine is not designed for building muscle -
>>that machine builds cardio and endurance
>
> Now you're being silly.
Huh?
>
> I assure you that a a ski machine will build muscle, just as cutting
> sugar cane, loading trucks, or hiking the mountains will build muscle.
All the activities you mention will build muscle very inefficiently compared
to a lifting program using progressive resistance
> As for "cardio", as the SuperSlow Guild has said for years - that is
> meaningless bunk. There IS no such thing as cardio. There's not the
> slightest evidence that you can "build up" your heart muscle.
So what you are saying is that VO2 max is a meaningless value - so a
sedentary person who has a VO2 max of 25ml of oxygen per Kg of body weight
per minute of exercise is no different to a highly trained athlete with a
VO2 of 3 times that?
> And
> endurance is just an aspect of strength, fitness, and general health.
So?
>
> I still have my Nordictrack, and thanks to a friendly welder, I have a
> supply of spare front frames for it. If I thought that spending 30
> minutes a day with my heart rate in the aerobic "cardio" zone offered
> any benefit over my Bowflex workouts, I would use it. But I haven't
> seen a shred of experimental evidence to support this. So I haven't
> used it in six years.
Bowflex will not allow you to work out aerobically or if it can it will be
highly inefficient and your perceived effort will go through the roof
>
> My Superslow workouts on the Bowflex last 40 minutes from start to
> finish, excluding setup and takedown of the equipment. And my average
> interval between workouts over the past six years has been 10 days,
> with better results than I got from the NordicTrack in one tenth of
> the time.
Achim you are pretty green about what various equipment is designed to
achieve. Endurance is different from hypertrophy - you are saying that a
toaster gave you better results than blender. You got better results from a
screw driver than a hammer.
>
>
> .....
>>I don't have any problem with machines - you can get all those benefits
>>with
>>standard home gyms that use stack weights i.e. pin loaded weights just
>>like
>>you find in commercial gyms.
>>It is the rod principle that makes Bowflex a horses ass.
>
>
> There are a number of problems with machines using stack weights:
>
> 1. they take up a lot of space, so many people just don't have room
> for them in their homes
Wrong - the Bowflex may even have a larger footprint than a typical home
gym - those rods take up a lot of space
>
> 2. they're very heavy, so there are floors that would be unable to
> support them
Wrong - no engineers would rate a floor that can't hold up around 500 kgs
per sq meter. An entire weight machine will only weight around 130 kgs
>
> 3. their bulk and weight make them difficult to transport, which
> creates special problems for people who live in rural communities
who cares - it still only takes half an hour to take a weights machine apart
and another half hour to put it together
>
> The Bowflex (at least the PowerPro model), OTOH, is lightweight,
> compact, easy to collapse and move around, and has a minimal footprint
> for storage. Without the lat tower or leg extension attachments it can
> even be loaded into the back of a station wagon or hatchback without
> disassembly.
>
I am not convinced
> So, yes, it's certainly a compromise solution, but it's allowed a lot
> of people to build and maintain fitness in their homes who would
> otherwise not exercised at all, just as the NordicTrack did before it.
It created more clothes hangers than any other device in the history of
mankind
> --
>
> Achim
> _____/)
> axethetax
David
"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <loh...@3web.nettax> wrote in message
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:18:38 +1000, "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <loh...@3web.nettax> wrote in message
>>news:46038080...@news.telus.net...
>
>>>.... The Bowflex PowerPro was not taken out of
>>> circulation. On the contrary, the warranty on all parts other than the
>>> rods was doubled from five to ten years.
>>>
>>> And discontinuing models and replacing them with newer desings is
>>> normal marketing procedure. Hopefully the newer designs are an
>>> improvement, but it certainly doesn't mean the discontinued models are
>>> a failure.
>>
>>Maybe, but discontinuing a model straight directly after a recall of
>>800,000
>>units must tell you something.
>>I know 1.2 million recalled units just rolls of the tongue but think about
>>it - this company in the space of 12 months as recalled 1,200,000 units -
>>can you imagine the expense, the embarassment, the loss of reputation?
>
> No need to imagine. Sony and Mercedes Benz have had similar recalls
> recently. I don't see their brands going down in flames.
The difference is that Sony and MB have delivered excellence over many
years - so an occasional recall will not cause their rep to be damaged
unduly. Bowflex delivers something less than excellence
>
>>An
>>action like that is not taken lightly - total up the cost of freight and
>>whatever they had to do - I can't imagine it would have come under $100
>>per
>>unit as the actual cost of the exercise.
>
>>So Bowflex anted up 120 million dollars to rectify those minor little
>>problems. Is there a message there somewhere?
>
> I'm only aware of the Bowflex PowerPro recalls, so I can't comment
> critically on your total recall numbers. I suspect the $100 per recall
> guesstimate is on the high side though.
Freight alone must average $40-$50. Also what about the return freight - the
recalls would have been fixed and returned presumeably
> Keep in mind that all the
> hardware except for the rods are manufactured abroad. And when you do
> a mass parts replacement, there are no marketing costs, and
> production, warehousing, and shipping costs can be minimized because
> you know how many pieces you need, and where they're going.
>
Huh?? Minimize all you like there is will be a hard cost involved - double
freight, handling, labour cost of repairs, cost of parts - there is the
'marketing' costs of advertising the recall - it is expensive advertising to
do a recall - $100 a unit would be underestimated
> OTOH, these costs go a long way toward explaining the very high
> purchase price of the Bowflex. Marketing, liability, and warranty
> support are huyge costs.
>
> I've been through the same experience with Nordictrack. Thirteen years
> ago, when I bought my Nordictrack ski exerciser, Nordictrack had the
> largest exercise machine sales in North America. They also offered the
> best available warranty - 10 years on all parts. A few years later,
> they reduced their warranty to two years, and then they went bankrupt.
>
So?
>
> Before my ten year warranty had expired, the company was out of
> business and the warranty was worthless. But before that happened,
> they replaced the front frame of my machine three times, the front
> upright twice, and the front pulley system once, partly because of
> poor design, and partly because of inept pre- and post-sales customer
> service (it took me two years and six or seven calls to customer
> service to learn that they had an extended length upright that should
> have been shipped to me initially because of my height).
What does Nordic Trac have to do with the price of rice in China?
>
> So, which is a better deal - a cheaper machine that becomes a
> paperweight when it breaks and the warranty proves worthless, or one
> that costs 20% or 30% more, but has warranty support and retains
> market value?
You are making comparisons that have no relevance to the debate - you are
comparing a toaster with a blender. Why do you say Bowflex retains market
value?? I would be very surprised if the 2nd hand machines sold in ebay are
even approaching half the new price.
>
> I'd say that Bowflex is doing much better than Nordictrack by its
> customers.
>
IMO both machines are garbage - Nordictrac hits your hip flexors not much
different than the discredited air walkers
>
>
> --
>
> Achim
> _____/)
> axethetax
Achim Nolcken Lohse
wrote:
>
>"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <loh...@3web.nettax> wrote in message
>news:46044c23...@news.telus.net...
> - Bowflex is
>simply just like a rubber band - starts easy ends hard - that is only
>consistent with rubber band machines which are generally considered garbage
I've never exercised with a "rubber band" machine, so I couldn't say.
But I have seen a number of side-by-side reviews of the Bowflex and
Soloflex. All of them considered the Bowflex significantly superior.
Furthermore, the Bowflex has been favourably reviewed as a home
exercise machine by more than one publication.
...
>>
>> I'd say that your statement "...add 2.5 lbx per week periodically...",
>> while ambiguous, suggests overtraining.
>
>why does adding a small amt of weight periodically suggest overtraining?
Do the math. Add 2.5lbs every week for a year- that's 130 lbs. In two
years it's 260. Are you planning to die or just retire from
weightlifting before you get to year five?
>
...
>>
>
>Anyone who lifts weights or does progressive resistance training is
>critically concerned with incrementation. That is the very definition of
>progressive resistance That is what it is all about - having the capacity to
>add a small quantifiable amount of weight in cycles to your routine
Really! You're saying bragging rights are the primary goal of your
weightlifting activity. To me, this smacks of obsessive behaviour.
...
>No, there is no relevance to the ROM machine to the real world - the only
>reason ROM machine is 'successful' is the perception that money can buy
>fitness. So for people that $15k is small change they will buy that
>abomination because of the perception that it is a time efficient fitness
>machine that brings miraculous results. It won't deliver much more than
>simpler machines at a fraction the money.
And what's your evidence for this conclusion?
>
...
>
>I'm totally lost - tall people, short people, bigger boned. smaller boned .
>. . so what? Whatever their physiology users will gain benefit or not
>depending on many factors - why bring the size of their bones into the
>discussion?
Because you mentioned the resistance limits of the Bowflex. Obviously
it's more capable of providing meaningful resistance to people who are
equipped with smaller muscles. Surely you don't believe that muscle
size can be augmented endlessly?
>
>>>
>> ..
>>>
>>>.... the ski machine is not designed for building muscle -
>>>that machine builds cardio and endurance
>>
>> Now you're being silly.
>
>Huh?
>
>>
>> I assure you that a a ski machine will build muscle, just as cutting
>> sugar cane, loading trucks, or hiking the mountains will build muscle.
>
>All the activities you mention will build muscle very inefficiently compared
>to a lifting program using progressive resistance
Possibly. But an inefficient exercise program that's followed is still
infinitely more effective than an efficient program that's not.
Furthermore, lifting carries a much higher risk of injury and of more
serious injuury, than the Bowflex. Most people would rather be fit and
healthy than ripped but crippled.
>
>> As for "cardio", as the SuperSlow Guild has said for years - that is
>> meaningless bunk. There IS no such thing as cardio. There's not the
>> slightest evidence that you can "build up" your heart muscle.
>
>So what you are saying is that VO2 max is a meaningless value - so a
>sedentary person who has a VO2 max of 25ml of oxygen per Kg of body weight
>per minute of exercise is no different to a highly trained athlete with a
>VO2 of 3 times that?
I didn't say anything of the sort. Just that there's no evidence that
your VO2 max has anything to do with so-called "aerobic" or
"endurance" exercise, as opposed to any other sort of exercise.
And I think the term "sedentary" as you use it is just as much mumbo
jumbo as "cardio" or "aerobic". What exercise ISN'T "cardio" or
"aerobic"? You can only do anaerobic exercise for a few seconds.
Anyway, you keep changing the subject from ordinary people using
resistance apparatus to improve fitness to elite athletes trying to
set records, and then calling the Bowflex and similar home apparatus
"garbage" because they don't suit the needs of such athletes.
>
>> And
>> endurance is just an aspect of strength, fitness, and general health.
>
>So?
>
So - you seem to apply a different standard to ski exercisers, and I
don't see why.
>>
>> I still have my Nordictrack, and thanks to a friendly welder, I have a
>> supply of spare front frames for it. If I thought that spending 30
>> minutes a day with my heart rate in the aerobic "cardio" zone offered
>> any benefit over my Bowflex workouts, I would use it. But I haven't
>> seen a shred of experimental evidence to support this. So I haven't
>> used it in six years.
>
>Bowflex will not allow you to work out aerobically or if it can it will be
>highly inefficient and your perceived effort will go through the roof
Since I work out to skeletomuscular failure while maintaining steady
breathing, my Bowflex workouts are by definition aerobic. I have no
idea what you mean by aerobic "inefficiency", or "perceived effort".
>>
>> My Superslow workouts on the Bowflex last 40 minutes from start to
>> finish, excluding setup and takedown of the equipment. And my average
>> interval between workouts over the past six years has been 10 days,
>> with better results than I got from the NordicTrack in one tenth of
>> the time.
>
>Achim you are pretty green about what various equipment is designed to
>achieve.
And you seem selectively naive. You confuse genuine functionality with
marketing mumbo jumbo when it comes to ski exercisers, but strangely,
show no such weakness when considering the Bowflex.
>Endurance is different from hypertrophy -
Maybe, but what does it have to do with exercising your muscles?
There may be a genetic predisposition to larger muscles or longer
muscles, but my understanding is that all muscles only grow in the
same way.
>you are saying that a
>toaster gave you better results than blender. You got better results from a
>screw driver than a hammer.
Actually, I've simply expounded my reasons for using a Bowflex. While
you keep blustering on about it being a total waste of time and money.
....
>>
>> There are a number of problems with machines using stack weights:
>>
>> 1. they take up a lot of space, so many people just don't have room
>> for them in their homes
>
>Wrong - the Bowflex may even have a larger footprint than a typical home
>gym - those rods take up a lot of space
Rubbish!
>
>>
>> 2. they're very heavy, so there are floors that would be unable to
>> support them
>
>Wrong - no engineers would rate a floor that can't hold up around 500 kgs
>per sq meter. An entire weight machine will only weight around 130 kgs
More rubbish.
>
>>
>> 3. their bulk and weight make them difficult to transport, which
>> creates special problems for people who live in rural communities
>
>who cares - it still only takes half an hour to take a weights machine apart
>and another half hour to put it together
I care. And so do a lot of other people. And I question your figures.
>
>>
>> The Bowflex (at least the PowerPro model), OTOH, is lightweight,
>> compact, easy to collapse and move around, and has a minimal footprint
>> for storage. Without the lat tower or leg extension attachments it can
>> even be loaded into the back of a station wagon or hatchback without
>> disassembly.
>>
>I am not convinced
Why am I not surprised?
>
>> So, yes, it's certainly a compromise solution, but it's allowed a lot
>> of people to build and maintain fitness in their homes who would
>> otherwise not exercised at all, just as the NordicTrack did before it.
>
>It created more clothes hangers than any other device in the history of
>mankind
Do you have a shred of proof that there are more unused Bowflexes than
unused free weights, or ski exercisers or steppers, for that matter?
Your childish hyperbole shows that your antagonism for the Bowflex
isn't based on reason or reflection but on an unhealthy emotional
identification with your fitness routine.
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
Bully
Achim Nolcken Lohse <loh...@3web.nettax> typed:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:50:44 -0000, "Bully"
> <bul...@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>> Leg
>>>> pressing is far inferior to squatting.
>>>
>>> Could be, if you don't value your knees. I'd rather pay $3500, and
>>> pass on the knee replacement.
>>
>> Is leg pressing better for your knees than squatting?
>
> I think so, and especially with free weights. With a leg press you can
> limit the motion so that you can fail at the bottom turnaround without
> injuring yourself.
So if you fail at the bottom of the leg press, where does the weight go? If
I fail at the bottom of the squat I can just lose the weight onto the
safeties.
> Failing at the bottom of a squat could be extremely
> damaging.
See above
> Add to that the risks posed by losing your balance
How would one lose one's balance during the squat? Hang on,you're the guy
who injured yourself with a dumbbell or barbell right? That put a hole
through you floor? Have you ever lost your balance whilst squatting?
> or twisting during the squat,
Twisting??? Why would you twist whilst you are squatting?
> and I beleive there's a very significant
> advantage to using a well-designed leg press machine.
For the record: IMO you're talking horseshit.
--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees
the opportunity in every difficulty." Sir Winston Churchill
Bully
JMW <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> typed:
You might want one of these though: http://www.arielmotor.co.uk/
Bully
Bully
Bully <bul...@proteinbars.co.ok> typed:
> In news:mh99031nok06r6lpu...@4ax.com,
> JMW <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> typed:
>> 223rem <223...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> David Cohen wrote:> "JMW" <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com>
>>> wrote
>>>> I subscribe to Consumer Reports because, with regard to cars,
>>>> appliances, TVs, cameras, etcetera, I look for good values.
>>>
>>> Consumer Reports considers handling and the fun to drive factor
>>> irrelevant. If you like to drive a boring, "reliable" car, then yes,
>>> follow their recommendations.
>>
>> I don't need a vehicle to be a penile surrogate.
>
> You might want one of these though: http://www.arielmotor.co.uk/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaWoo82zNUA
Achim Nolcken Lohse
wrote:
>
>"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <loh...@3web.nettax> wrote in message
>news:460444e6...@news.telus.net...
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:18:38 +1000, "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au>
>
>>>Maybe, but discontinuing a model straight directly after a recall of
>>>800,000
>>>units must tell you something.
>>>I know 1.2 million recalled units just rolls of the tongue but think about
>>>it - this company in the space of 12 months as recalled 1,200,000 units -
>>>can you imagine the expense, the embarassment, the loss of reputation?
>>
>> No need to imagine. Sony and Mercedes Benz have had similar recalls
>> recently. I don't see their brands going down in flames.
>
>The difference is that Sony and MB have delivered excellence over many
>years - so an occasional recall will not cause their rep to be damaged
>unduly. Bowflex delivers something less than excellence
>
So you say. But your only objective evidence is the recall. And since
Sony and Mercedes' recalls are not proof that they are "garbage"
manufacturers, neither can the Bowflex recall provide such proof.
...
>
>Freight alone must average $40-$50. Also what about the return freight - the
>recalls would have been fixed and returned presumeably
You don't know what you're talking about. There was no "return
freight". Bowflex simply sent out an upgrade kit. Furthermore, you
don't seem to understand that large corporations don't pay anywhere
near the surface freight charges ordinary individuals do.
>
>> Keep in mind that all the
>> hardware except for the rods are manufactured abroad. And when you do
>> a mass parts replacement, there are no marketing costs, and
>> production, warehousing, and shipping costs can be minimized because
>> you know how many pieces you need, and where they're going.
>>
>
>Huh?? Minimize all you like there is will be a hard cost involved - double
>freight, handling, labour cost of repairs, cost of parts - there is the
>'marketing' costs of advertising the recall - it is expensive advertising to
>do a recall - $100 a unit would be underestimated
I guess it's miracle then! They not only swallowed these huge costs,
but doubled the warranty of their own accord, and then went on to
produce even more models, larger than the discontinued one, presumably
so they could lose even more money on the next recall.
>
>> OTOH, these costs go a long way toward explaining the very high
>> purchase price of the Bowflex. Marketing, liability, and warranty
>> support are huyge costs.
>>
>> I've been through the same experience with Nordictrack. Thirteen years
>> ago, when I bought my Nordictrack ski exerciser, Nordictrack had the
>> largest exercise machine sales in North America. They also offered the
>> best available warranty - 10 years on all parts. A few years later,
>> they reduced their warranty to two years, and then they went bankrupt.
>>
>So?
So Bowflex has treated its customers better than NordicTrack did.
>
>>
>> Before my ten year warranty had expired, the company was out of
>> business and the warranty was worthless. But before that happened,
>> they replaced the front frame of my machine three times, the front
>> upright twice, and the front pulley system once, partly because of
>> poor design, and partly because of inept pre- and post-sales customer
>> service (it took me two years and six or seven calls to customer
>> service to learn that they had an extended length upright that should
>> have been shipped to me initially because of my height).
>
>What does Nordic Trac have to do with the price of rice in China?
>
>>
>> So, which is a better deal - a cheaper machine that becomes a
>> paperweight when it breaks and the warranty proves worthless, or one
>> that costs 20% or 30% more, but has warranty support and retains
>> market value?
>
>You are making comparisons that have no relevance to the debate - you are
>comparing a toaster with a blender.
Nonsense. Both machines were marketed and received popularly as a safe
and effective way to get fit and stay fit at home.
>Why do you say Bowflex retains market
>value?? I would be very surprised if the 2nd hand machines sold in ebay are
>even approaching half the new price.
The warranty is non-transferable, so there should be a significant
drop in market value on resale. Check out what a perfectly funtioning
NordicTrack will fetch. Or any number of other used exercise machines.
Why do you think people buy new car replacement insurance? The minute
you drive the vehicle off the lot, the market value nosedives, even
WITH a fully transferable warranty.
>
>>
>> I'd say that Bowflex is doing much better than Nordictrack by its
>> customers.
>>
>
>IMO both machines are garbage - Nordictrac hits your hip flexors not much
>different than the discredited air walkers
Well, I've never seen a published dispute of the NordicTrack's
functionality as a cross-country simulator. And it was touted as North
America's most popular exercise machine for many years.
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
Achim Nolcken Lohse
<bul...@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
....
>
>So if you fail at the bottom of the leg press, where does the weight go?
That depends on the design of the leg press. But even without any
device to hold the weights, your position on a leg press machine is
inherently more stable and less vulnerable.
....
>
>How would one lose one's balance during the squat?
How does one EVER loser one's balance? One side is weaker, or there's
a distraction, you have a muscle spasm...
>Hang on,you're the guy
>who injured yourself with a dumbbell or barbell right?
dumbell, doing preacher curls.
>That put a hole through you floor?
No, that was a barbell. It upended off the rack when I pulled the
wrong weight off.
>Have you ever lost your balance whilst squatting?
No.
>
>> or twisting during the squat,
No.
>
>Twisting??? Why would you twist whilst you are squatting?
You get distracted by something, turn your head, who knows? Why would
you twist or lose your balance when you're walking?
I suppose you've never had a weight slip out of your hands either.
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
Achim Nolcken Lohse
<bul...@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
...
>>
>> There's nothing safe about one-legged exercises. You can injure your
>> back as well as your knee. And you certainly can't do one-legged
>> squats to failure safely.
>
>Why not?
>
You'll lose your balance, twist, and fall to the floor. Do it often
enough, and you're pretty much bound to injure yourself.
But if that's what it takes to be "manly", as 223rem suggests, maybe
it's worthwile for you.
I'll pass. I've got enough injuries and no craving for more
testosterone.
--
Achim
_____/)
axethetax
David
"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <loh...@3web.nettax> wrote in message
What does the word 'recall' mean to you? 'recall' means the machine is
returned. Look it up. I know all about freight rates - freight is a major
cost factor no matter how large the company
>
>>
>>> Keep in mind that all the
>>> hardware except for the rods are manufactured abroad. And when you do
>>> a mass parts replacement, there are no marketing costs, and
>>> production, warehousing, and shipping costs can be minimized because
>>> you know how many pieces you need, and where they're going.
>>>
>>
>>Huh?? Minimize all you like there is will be a hard cost involved - double
>>freight, handling, labour cost of repairs, cost of parts - there is the
>>'marketing' costs of advertising the recall - it is expensive advertising
>>to
>>do a recall - $100 a unit would be underestimated
>
> I guess it's miracle then! They not only swallowed these huge costs,
> but doubled the warranty of their own accord, and then went on to
> produce even more models, larger than the discontinued one, presumably
> so they could lose even more money on the next recall.
If they doubled the warranty they would have had to have done it on their
own accord - no one else doubles the warranty. Of course they thought it was
good marketing as they made a mess of their reputation so a longer warranty
would have helped restore some of their shattered reputation
I didn't say that Bowflex held it;s market value - you said it - now you are
saying they lose significantly on resale - so which is it?
>>
>>>
>>> I'd say that Bowflex is doing much better than Nordictrack by its
>>> customers.
>>>
>>
>>IMO both machines are garbage - Nordictrac hits your hip flexors not much
>>different than the discredited air walkers
>
> Well, I've never seen a published dispute of the NordicTrack's
> functionality as a cross-country simulator. And it was touted as North
> America's most popular exercise machine for many years.
>
That;s a laugh - "America's most popular exercise machine" - so what? Ezy
riders were America;s most popular exercise item just a few years ago - now
they are recognized as America's worst piece of junk - add the Air Walkers
to that list - first very popular and then totally discredited
>
>
> --
>
> Achim
> _____/)
> axethetax
David
"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <loh...@3web.nettax> wrote in message
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:14:49 +1000, "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <loh...@3web.nettax> wrote in message
>>news:46044c23...@news.telus.net...
>> - Bowflex is
>>simply just like a rubber band - starts easy ends hard - that is only
>>consistent with rubber band machines which are generally considered
>>garbage
>
> I've never exercised with a "rubber band" machine, so I couldn't say.
> But I have seen a number of side-by-side reviews of the Bowflex and
> Soloflex. All of them considered the Bowflex significantly superior.
> Furthermore, the Bowflex has been favourably reviewed as a home
> exercise machine by more than one publication.
>
> ...
>>>
>>> I'd say that your statement "...add 2.5 lbx per week periodically...",
>>> while ambiguous, suggests overtraining.
>>
>>why does adding a small amt of weight periodically suggest overtraining?
>
> Do the math. Add 2.5lbs every week for a year- that's 130 lbs. In two
> years it's 260. Are you planning to die or just retire from
> weightlifting before you get to year five?
>>
The amount of weight you add and the interval depends on your progress - I
gave you an example - use your head - the operative word is 'periodically'
> ...
>>>
>>
>>Anyone who lifts weights or does progressive resistance training is
>>critically concerned with incrementation. That is the very definition of
>>progressive resistance That is what it is all about - having the capacity
>>to
>>add a small quantifiable amount of weight in cycles to your routine
>
> Really! You're saying bragging rights are the primary goal of your
> weightlifting activity. To me, this smacks of obsessive behaviour.
goal setting - you're starting to make me think you;re a troll
> ...
>>No, there is no relevance to the ROM machine to the real world - the only
>>reason ROM machine is 'successful' is the perception that money can buy
>>fitness. So for people that $15k is small change they will buy that
>>abomination because of the perception that it is a time efficient fitness
>>machine that brings miraculous results. It won't deliver much more than
>>simpler machines at a fraction the money.
>
> And what's your evidence for this conclusion?
it's my opinion.
>>
> ...
>
>>
>>I'm totally lost - tall people, short people, bigger boned. smaller boned
>>.
>>. . so what? Whatever their physiology users will gain benefit or not
>>depending on many factors - why bring the size of their bones into the
>>discussion?
>
> Because you mentioned the resistance limits of the Bowflex. Obviously
> it's more capable of providing meaningful resistance to people who are
> equipped with smaller muscles. Surely you don't believe that muscle
> size can be augmented endlessly?
stick to the subject - I can't go off on every tangent that your whim takes
you
>>
>>>>
>>> ..
>>>>
>>>>.... the ski machine is not designed for building muscle -
>>>>that machine builds cardio and endurance
>>>
>>> Now you're being silly.
>>
>>Huh?
>>
>>>
>>> I assure you that a a ski machine will build muscle, just as cutting
>>> sugar cane, loading trucks, or hiking the mountains will build muscle.
>>
>>All the activities you mention will build muscle very inefficiently
>>compared
>>to a lifting program using progressive resistance
>
> Possibly. But an inefficient exercise program that's followed is still
> infinitely more effective than an efficient program that's not.
>
> Furthermore, lifting carries a much higher risk of injury and of more
> serious injuury, than the Bowflex. Most people would rather be fit and
> healthy than ripped but crippled.
>
As someone else said - you have to learn how to do things properly - any
activity can be dangerous - I broke my leg the first time I went skiing
because I didn;t know what I was doing
>
>>
>>> As for "cardio", as the SuperSlow Guild has said for years - that is
>>> meaningless bunk. There IS no such thing as cardio. There's not the
>>> slightest evidence that you can "build up" your heart muscle.
>>
>>So what you are saying is that VO2 max is a meaningless value - so a
>>sedentary person who has a VO2 max of 25ml of oxygen per Kg of body weight
>>per minute of exercise is no different to a highly trained athlete with a
>>VO2 of 3 times that?
>
> I didn't say anything of the sort. Just that there's no evidence that
> your VO2 max has anything to do with so-called "aerobic" or
> "endurance" exercise, as opposed to any other sort of exercise.
>
> And I think the term "sedentary" as you use it is just as much mumbo
> jumbo as "cardio" or "aerobic". What exercise ISN'T "cardio" or
> "aerobic"? You can only do anaerobic exercise for a few seconds.
>
do some research - I'm not being paid to educate you
> Anyway, you keep changing the subject from ordinary people using
> resistance apparatus to improve fitness to elite athletes trying to
> set records, and then calling the Bowflex and similar home apparatus
> "garbage" because they don't suit the needs of such athletes.
we're not on the same train - you're a beginner trying to mix it with
experts
>>
>>> And
>>> endurance is just an aspect of strength, fitness, and general health.
>>
>>So?
>>
> So - you seem to apply a different standard to ski exercisers, and I
> don't see why.
>
>>>
>>> I still have my Nordictrack, and thanks to a friendly welder, I have a
>>> supply of spare front frames for it. If I thought that spending 30
>>> minutes a day with my heart rate in the aerobic "cardio" zone offered
>>> any benefit over my Bowflex workouts, I would use it. But I haven't
>>> seen a shred of experimental evidence to support this. So I haven't
>>> used it in six years.
>>
>>Bowflex will not allow you to work out aerobically or if it can it will be
>>highly inefficient and your perceived effort will go through the roof
>
> Since I work out to skeletomuscular failure while maintaining steady
> breathing, my Bowflex workouts are by definition aerobic. I have no
> idea what you mean by aerobic "inefficiency", or "perceived effort".
do some research - I would like to educate you but 4 years is a long time
for me to set aside for the task
>
>
>>>
>>> My Superslow workouts on the Bowflex last 40 minutes from start to
>>> finish, excluding setup and takedown of the equipment. And my average
>>> interval between workouts over the past six years has been 10 days,
>>> with better results than I got from the NordicTrack in one tenth of
>>> the time.
>>
>>Achim you are pretty green about what various equipment is designed to
>>achieve.
>
> And you seem selectively naive. You confuse genuine functionality with
> marketing mumbo jumbo when it comes to ski exercisers, but strangely,
> show no such weakness when considering the Bowflex.
I have to find someone to translate what you just said
>
>>Endurance is different from hypertrophy -
>
> Maybe, but what does it have to do with exercising your muscles?
Achim - are you sure you are being serious?
>
> There may be a genetic predisposition to larger muscles or longer
> muscles, but my understanding is that all muscles only grow in the
> same way.
>
>
>>you are saying that a
>>toaster gave you better results than blender. You got better results from
>>a
>>screw driver than a hammer.
>
> Actually, I've simply expounded my reasons for using a Bowflex. While
> you keep blustering on about it being a total waste of time and money.
>
You're sucked in my the hype and that someone you admire endorsed the
product - that is the sum total of it
>
> ....
>
>>>
>>> There are a number of problems with machines using stack weights:
>>>
>>> 1. they take up a lot of space, so many people just don't have room
>>> for them in their homes
>>
>>Wrong - the Bowflex may even have a larger footprint than a typical home
>>gym - those rods take up a lot of space
>
> Rubbish!
Cite?
>>>
>>> 2. they're very heavy, so there are floors that would be unable to
>>> support them
>>
>>Wrong - no engineers would rate a floor that can't hold up around 500 kgs
>>per sq meter. An entire weight machine will only weight around 130 kgs
>
> More rubbish.
Evidence?
>>>
>>> 3. their bulk and weight make them difficult to transport, which
>>> creates special problems for people who live in rural communities
>>
>>who cares - it still only takes half an hour to take a weights machine
>>apart
>>and another half hour to put it together
>
> I care. And so do a lot of other people. And I question your figures.
I've been in this industry for 20 years - I know the facts and figures
>>
>>>
>>> The Bowflex (at least the PowerPro model), OTOH, is lightweight,
>>> compact, easy to collapse and move around, and has a minimal footprint
>>> for storage. Without the lat tower or leg extension attachments it can
>>> even be loaded into the back of a station wagon or hatchback without
>>> disassembly.
>>>
>>I am not convinced
>
> Why am I not surprised?
>>
>>> So, yes, it's certainly a compromise solution, but it's allowed a lot
>>> of people to build and maintain fitness in their homes who would
>>> otherwise not exercised at all, just as the NordicTrack did before it.
>>
>>It created more clothes hangers than any other device in the history of
>>mankind
>
> Do you have a shred of proof that there are more unused Bowflexes than
> unused free weights, or ski exercisers or steppers, for that matter?
It's just a gut feeling
>
>
> Your childish hyperbole shows that your antagonism for the Bowflex
> isn't based on reason or reflection but on an unhealthy emotional
> identification with your fitness routine.
I don't have a fitness routine
> --
>
> Achim
> _____/)
> axethetax
Bully
Achim Nolcken Lohse <loh...@3web.nettax> typed:
> <bul...@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>
>>> There's nothing safe about one-legged exercises. You can injure your
>>> back as well as your knee. And you certainly can't do one-legged
>>> squats to failure safely.
>>
>> Why not?
>>
> You'll lose your balance,
Do you have problems with your balance?
> twist, and fall to the floor. Do it often
> enough, and you're pretty much bound to injure yourself.
>
> But if that's what it takes to be "manly", as 223rem suggests, maybe
> it's worthwile for you.
>
> I'll pass. I've got enough injuries and no craving for more
> testosterone.
--
Bully
Achim Nolcken Lohse <loh...@3web.nettax> typed:
> <bul...@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>
> ....
>>
>> So if you fail at the bottom of the leg press, where does the weight
>> go?
>
> That depends on the design of the leg press. But even without any
> device to hold the weights, your position on a leg press machine is
> inherently more stable and less vulnerable.
Your opinion only.
>
> ....
>>
>> How would one lose one's balance during the squat?
>
> How does one EVER loser one's balance? One side is weaker, or there's
> a distraction, you have a muscle spasm...
>
>> Hang on,you're the guy
>> who injured yourself with a dumbbell or barbell right?
>
> dumbell, doing preacher curls.
>
>> That put a hole through you floor?
>
> No, that was a barbell. It upended off the rack when I pulled the
> wrong weight off.
>
>> Have you ever lost your balance whilst squatting?
>
> No.
>>
>>> or twisting during the squat,
>
> No.
Have you ever squatted?
>>
>> Twisting??? Why would you twist whilst you are squatting?
>
> You get distracted by something, turn your head, who knows?
Why the fuck would you turn your head while you are squatting?
> Why would you twist or lose your balance when you're walking?
Possibly because your level of concentration is somewhat different between
walking and squatting. For most people on this group walking is done with
unconscious competence. Squatting with a heavy [*] weight for me is done
with conscious competence, therefore requiring a much greater degree of
concentration.
[*] heavy being the operative word in this sentence. Light squatting is
done, for me, more with unconscious competence.
>
> I suppose you've never had a weight slip out of your hands either.
--
JMW
>Bully <bul...@proteinbars.co.ok> typed:
>> JMW <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> typed:
>>> 223rem <223...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> David Cohen wrote:> "JMW" <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com>
>>>> wrote
>>>>> I subscribe to Consumer Reports because, with regard to cars,
>>>>> appliances, TVs, cameras, etcetera, I look for good values.
>>>>
>>>> Consumer Reports considers handling and the fun to drive factor
>>>> irrelevant. If you like to drive a boring, "reliable" car, then yes,
>>>> follow their recommendations.
>>>
>>> I don't need a vehicle to be a penile surrogate.
>>
>> You might want one of these though: http://www.arielmotor.co.uk/
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaWoo82zNUA
I wonder if it's street-legal in the USA. The ones on the US site do
appear to have a full light package. On the open road, you could
certainly outrun the police, but they probably wouldn't have to do
much research in order to come looking for you at home.
Hobbes
Sarcasm aside, any athlete has a chance of injury. But if squatting was
inherently unsafe you'd see this population with a high amount of injury
- instead they have a much lower chance of injury than virtually any
other sport.
You do see belts and neoprene sleeves on some lifters. They are not
pressure bandages on olympic weightlifters - that is very, very rare
since it would interfere with the drop under the bar. The neoprene
serves to keep the knee warm more than anything else.
At best any movement is 'pretty safe'. People get hurt tieing their
shoes up. My point is simply that the free weight squat is a safer
movement than the leg press. Do what you want with your money.
--
Keith
223rem
> Sarcasm aside, any athlete has a chance of injury. But if squatting was
> inherently unsafe you'd see this population with a high amount of injury
> - instead they have a much lower chance of injury than virtually any
> other sport.
You're wasting your time on a troll (or a complete imbecile).
Hobbes
223rem <223...@gmail.com> wrote:
Possibly. The jury is deliberating even as we speak.
:^)
--
Keith