Question on NordicFlex Gold
Stacy Munechika
machine?
How does it compare with Soloflex and other "home" gyms?
Thanks in advance!
you...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com
I just sold a Nordic Flex Gold World Class machine after a year of no muscle
gains. The isokinetic concept is great for toning what you already have, but
for the human body to add muscle mass it must be asked to do more than it
is accustomed to lifting in order for muscle hypertrophy to take place. The
isokinetic concept gives resistance as a function of how hard you push(or pull)
against the machine. By nature, the human body will only work as hard as it
has too. Kind of a catch 22 here. I've just started using freeweights and have
noticed an immediate response from my body (and yes I'm sore). I feel you
need both positive and negative resistance (which the Nordicflex doesn't
provide) in order to achieve muscle hypertrophy. Or at least in my case you
do.
Don Young (you...@manvm2.vnet.ibm.com)
Stephen Holt, CSCS
In article <1994Jan26.2...@rchland.ibm.com>, you...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (you...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com) writes:
>I've just started using freeweights and have
>noticed an immediate response from my body (and yes I'm sore). I feel you
>need both positive and negative resistance (which the Nordicflex doesn't
>provide) in order to achieve muscle hypertrophy. Or at least in my case you
>do.
>
Jones (the inventor of Nautilus) indicates that positive and
negative resistance are both needed for maximum hypertropy, with
negative resistance being far more important.
Stephen Holt, CSCS
you...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com
>|> In <1994Jan25.1...@kodak.rdcs.kodak.com>, Stacy Munechika <sta...@kodak.com> writes:
>|> >Does anyone have any experience with the NordicFlex Gold series fitness
>|> >machine?
>|> >How does it compare with Soloflex and other "home" gyms?
>|> >
>|> >Thanks in advance!
>
>the infomercials did not develop their bodies using NordicFlex,
>Soloflex etc. The answer is free weights, pure and simple. Machines
>are useful for exercises which cannot be duplicated using
>barbells and dumbells, for example, lat pulldowns. Save yourself
>some money and join a gym or buy a bench and some free weights.
>
Ditto. I was one of those suckers that bought into the Nordic Flex adds a
year ago. You can't tell in 30 days (there return policy time less the $100
shipping charge) that the machine will not add muscle mass.
I have now gone purely to free weights and boy do I feel the difference (could
hardly walk the other day after I beat my calfs to a pulp).
>The sad thing about these infomericals is that you see great
>athletes like Bruce Jenner promoting the junk. Quite degrading
>really
I quess anyone will do something for a $$buck$$. Is this the equivalent of
famous athletes "prostituting" themselves.
>
>Robert Joe
>rob...@flamingo.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM
Don Young (you...@manvm2.vnet.ibm.com)
keith.r.smith
>In article <CKKr9...@lcpd2.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM> rob...@flamingo.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM writes:
>>
>>I can't believe people actually buy crap like this. Those people in
>>the infomercials did not develop their bodies using NordicFlex,
>>Soloflex etc. The answer is free weights, pure and simple. Machines
>>are useful for exercises which cannot be duplicated using
>>barbells and dumbells, for example, lat pulldowns. Save yourself
>>some money and join a gym or buy a bench and some free weights.
>
>do free weight exercizes, and quickly pulled some muscles - no doubt
>due to bad form. I like the machines because they provide enforced
>discipline of movement and I feel safer (from unintended muscle
>stress). Why won't machines do as good a job as weights? I am
>specifically talking about ordinary people who just want to add
>a bit of muscle bulk or tone, not power lifters or "body builders".
>
>Dick Jackson
Hi Dick!
There are plusses and minuses to using machines, just as there are for using
free-weights. There are some things that are tough-to-impossible to do
with machines, and there are some things that are tough-to-impossible to
do with free-weights. That said, given the choice between spending
maybe a grand on a home-gym type machine that I am likely to outgrow
after a year or so (if I don't let it gather dust first), or maybe
400 bux on the following:
1) a sturdy bench w/o uprights
2) a pair of squat stands
3) a pair of safety stands ("catchers")
4) a barbell set with a coupla' dumbells and 400 pounds of iron
then I will go for the free-weights for economy and versatility. I don't
really care that this setup may be a bit of a bother at moving time, or
that it may take up a bit more space than your typical home-gym machine.
What I do not like about the machines in general, and home-gym type
machines in particular, is that they are designed to make you do certain
movements in a certain way, with certain hand positions. This may be
a good safety feature, but a real pain-in-the-butt when you are ready
to move onward and experiment to find what works best for you. Machines
also pretty much eliminate the need for form and balance b/c the weight
can only track in a certain path. This is also a good safety feature,
but it really comes up short when you are looking for a means of gaining
balanced development, as your stabilizer muscles have nothing to do.
Then there is the economy issue. The gear that I listed above is basically
the setup that I have. Well, okay, I have a lat machine too, but I get
the most usage, these days, out of the other stuff. A person whose training
goals are "a little mass and tone", can do that with little more than
a 110 pound barbell/dumbell set (40 bux, maybe?), a light-duty flat bench
w/o uprights (30 bux, maybe?), a pair if safety-stands (60 bux), and a
toe-raise board (build it yourself with 5 bux worth of hem fir).
You could even make a pair of light-duty safety stands (sawhorses) yourself,
and save about 45 bux... they need only be about 28" high, and wide enough
so that you can't miss them if you "lose it" in the middle of a lift.
If all you want is a little mass and some tone, then there are any number of
calisthenic exercises that you can do for free, or nearly so, with the
only special equipment being a toe-raise board, a mop-handle, and maybe
a doorway-chinning-bar for good measure. There are lotsa' folx that get
into really great shape from doing calisthenics and roadwork alone.
Check out the folx in a dance, theatre, or martial-arts class some time
if you want to verify this.
I think that it is a damn shame that many people think that they must spend
big bux on the latest glitzy exercise gear in order to get in shape. I think
that it is even worse when said people, after spending big bux on the glitzy
exercise gear, only use it a few times before allowing it to gather dust.
It is a lot less hurtful to spend 15 or 150 bux on equipment, and possibly
not use it, than it is to spend 1500 bux on gear, and probably not use it.
Trust me, the simple stuff that worked in our grandparents' day still works
today.
Keith R
Robert Joe
|> >Does anyone have any experience with the NordicFlex Gold series fitness
|> >machine?
|> >How does it compare with Soloflex and other "home" gyms?
|> >
|> >Thanks in advance!
I can't believe people actually buy crap like this. Those people in
the infomercials did not develop their bodies using NordicFlex,
Soloflex etc. The answer is free weights, pure and simple. Machines
are useful for exercises which cannot be duplicated using
barbells and dumbells, for example, lat pulldowns. Save yourself
some money and join a gym or buy a bench and some free weights.
The sad thing about these infomericals is that you see great
athletes like Bruce Jenner promoting the junk. Quite degrading
really.
Robert Joe
rob...@flamingo.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM
Douglas Holzworth
|> In article <CKKr9...@lcpd2.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM> rob...@flamingo.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM writes:
|> >|> >Does anyone have any experience with the NordicFlex Gold series fitness
|> >|> >machine?
|> >
|> >the infomercials did not develop their bodies using NordicFlex,
|> >Soloflex etc. The answer is free weights, pure and simple. Machines
|> >are useful for exercises which cannot be duplicated using
|> >barbells and dumbells, for example, lat pulldowns. Save yourself
|> >some money and join a gym or buy a bench and some free weights.
|>
|> do free weight exercizes, and quickly pulled some muscles - no doubt
|> due to bad form. I like the machines because they provide enforced
|> discipline of movement and I feel safer (from unintended muscle
|> stress). Why won't machines do as good a job as weights? I am
|> specifically talking about ordinary people who just want to add
|> a bit of muscle bulk or tone, not power lifters or "body builders".
|>
While I agree that the models/spokespeople almost assuredly did not make
their advances using the equipment they tout on the airwaves, I don't
agree that machines are a waste of time and the optimal route for all
is free weights. (Note: I'm talking machines in general, I'm not endorsing
any particular one.)
One advantage of many machines is that you can work harder safer. My schedule
and social circle makes it difficult (at best) to get a partner to spot.
Thus, when i use free weights, I can't work as hard for fear of having a
weight crash down on my face or chest. The machines significantly decrease
this risk. Using a nautilus machine gives me greater flexibility in
scheduling work-outs and increases the chances I'll stick with exercise.
I'm more likely to "work to failure," too.
My personal opinion: no one form is best. Combination or switching, depending
on circumstances has worked well for me. If a machine makes it more convenient
to work out, decreasing chances you'll skip or quit, I say "go for it!"
Robert Perry
>In article <CKnw4...@Colorado.EDU>, pe...@csn.org (Robert Perry) writes:
>|> In article <CKKr9...@lcpd2.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM> rob...@flamingo.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM writes:
deletedd****
>|> >Robert Joe
>|> Hey bob
>|
>What do you do outside when the wind chill is -60, like it seem to have been for
>the last month here? Not everyone lives in the sunny southland. Here in
>Minnesota it gets dark at 4:30 to 5:00 in the winter, and it is cold and
>slippery. Biking is nearly impossible, running only slightly less so. Indoor
>aerobic exercise is a lifesaver.
>>
Actually , I've gone running and skiing when it's 25 below with -75
windchill. However, if I *do * feel that it's getting too cold, I
often run stairs. Since I grew up near Chicago and did my undergrad
at Michigan State, I have an idea of how that is. And when I was
running track at MSU, I *did* do a lot of workouts when the temp was
-5F with a 30 mile per hour wind on a sheet of ice.
In other words, it's a question of how much you enjoy the outdoors and
what you do to deal with the cold more than how much the cold stops
you.
bert