Bowflex is a joke
net2crup
opinion: Bowflex SUCKS. I went back to using my trusty $20 dumbells.
The 30 day money back guarantee is a rip off, you have to pay for the
shipping expenses $200 to receive bowflex and another $200 to send it
back. What A JOKE.
Lee Michaels
"net2crup" <net2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cc75d6f2.02010...@posting.google.com...
They get you coming and going.
Leonard F. Agius
I've had my Bowflex (and a NordicTrack Elliptical Trainer) for over a year,
and I'm in almost as good a shape today @ age 42 as I was six years ago,
when I was able to make it to the gym for eight hours a week worth of weight
training.
If the Bowflex didn't feel right to you, then fine. Does it suck for
everyone? Of course not.
--
--
Fight SPAM!!! Remove the _nospam from the above address to send e-mail.
The opinions expressed are my own.
"net2crup" <net2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cc75d6f2.02010...@posting.google.com...
______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION = http://www.binaries.net
Keith Hobman
<lfagius...@wnol.net> wrote:
> Well that's your opinion.
>
> I've had my Bowflex (and a NordicTrack Elliptical Trainer) for over a year,
> and I'm in almost as good a shape today @ age 42 as I was six years ago,
> when I was able to make it to the gym for eight hours a week worth of weight
> training.
Why do these people only appear when a Bowflex is mentioned? Why do we
always get some new people posting whenever Bowflex is criticized?
Anyhow Leonard almost everyone agrees Bowflex is _not_ better than
nothing. You can get as good a workout using bodyweight for resistance.
However, if spending hundreds of $'s on a Bowflex motivates you to train -
great. That is a good thing. I'm suprised it would motivate a person
myself.
--
Keith Hobman
"We who are about to squat, salute you!" (Lyle McDonald)
Intruder
of equipment which I paid over $1200, I'd use it too.
"Keith Hobman" <kho...@sk.sympaticoNOSPAM.ca> wrote in message
news:khobman-0801...@192.168.0.2...
Keith Hobman
<MI_In...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Perhaps the motivation comes from the all that money spent. If I saw a piece
> of equipment which I paid over $1200, I'd use it too.
Yeah, that is a possibility. I think motivation should be deeper than that
for it to last. I personally _like_ working out, so I guess I don't
understand people who feel its a chore.
Lee Michaels
Speaking of motivation and good results with the Bowflex. I would love to
see some statistical information on the actual percentage of people who buy
these things and use them. I don't think the number is very high. If
someone was to get good results with a bowflex, it is because they are very
motivated. The same could be said for any kind of training.
I think that the reason that many people including myself object to the
bowfles, is all the advertising hype. We know that the models on TV did not
end looking that way because of the bowfles. Following a long tradition in
America, weight trained athletes and "fitness models" are hawking wares that
have nothing to do with their results. The whole premise is use our wonder
machine and you can be good looking too. We don't buy it with beer
commerecials, but many do with this fitness junk hawked on our TV screens.
I also find it desturbing that everyone is promoting instant solutions. Buy
this machine and continue to be a complete moron about your body. I wonder
how many people who have even basic information about their bodies would buy
such a machine. As Keith pointed out, you can acheive some basic results
with just your bodyweight.
You need two things to do that. One is motivation. The other is some basic
information and respect for the the potential of the human body. Bowflex
does not inspire this kind of thing.
Bryce Lane
I think it is perhaps the American obsession with "the tech fix" where "a
machine" is always and in all circumstances superior to no machine.
I (and alot of other people) can show anyone in only a few minutes how to
get a much better workout with nothing more than a space on the floor or
some cheep dumbells but they want the machine!
Its some kind of weird mass conditioning. Its like to do anything we have to
"buy something" first to be really doing it.
Bryce
>
>
Lee Michaels
"Bryce Lane" <joand...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:ptG_7.83892$fo5.21...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
Yep, there are two steps.
First buy a heavily advertised "solution".
Secondly, remain ignorant. Under no circumstances increase your knowledge
base.
Bryce Lane
> > I think it is perhaps the American obsession with "the tech fix" where
"a
> > machine" is always and in all circumstances superior to no machine.
> >
> > I (and alot of other people) can show anyone in only a few minutes how
to
> > get a much better workout with nothing more than a space on the floor or
> > some cheep dumbells but they want the machine!
> >
> > Its some kind of weird mass conditioning. Its like to do anything we
have
> to
> > "buy something" first to be really doing it.
> >
>
> Yep, there are two steps.
>
> First buy a heavily advertised "solution".
>
> Secondly, remain ignorant. Under no circumstances increase your knowledge
> base.
Yes. Its amazing how many people wear "jogging shoes" who don't jog, "hiking
boots" who don't hike, SUV's and jeeps that never get dirty and "Game rooms"
in the house where there is a thick layer of dust on all the games. Not to
mention expensive exercise machines that never get "exercised".
I have always suspected that the greatest part of the American GNP and GDP
figures is stuff simply purchased, held temporarily and sent straight to the
landfill. If we are remembered in the future for anything it will be as "the
mysterious people who made all this crap they never used". "The waste-ites"
Bryce
>
>
Lee Michaels
How about the home workshop where all the benches and power tools are
stacked with boxes? Obviously not much "work" taking place there.
The layer of dust on almost anything should provide a clue as to how often
it is used.
Bryce Lane
> >
>
> How about the home workshop where all the benches and power tools are
> stacked with boxes? Obviously not much "work" taking place there.
>
> The layer of dust on almost anything should provide a clue as to how often
> it is used.
Yes, just plain dust! No sawdust!
Bryce
>
>
Watson Davis
There have been some perfect examples of the Tech Fix here recently.
Remember the woman that preferred to do the machines because she felt
they were designed to work muscles that she wouldn't be able to work
with free weights (.. or something like that)?
People think these machines must be better because they're machines.
Watson (the ninja of nice) Davis
Bryce Lane
> >Its some kind of weird mass conditioning. Its like to do anything we have
to
> >"buy something" first to be really doing it.
>
> There have been some perfect examples of the Tech Fix here recently.
> Remember the woman that preferred to do the machines because she felt
> they were designed to work muscles that she wouldn't be able to work
> with free weights (.. or something like that)?
>
> People think these machines must be better because they're machines.
Its gotta be better or they wouln't have made one of these gems and charged
so much for the priveledge of owning one...right?
The larger the price, the longer the pitch, the dumber the mark.....The
bigger the profit!
Some things never change.
Bryce
Bryce Lane
I remember one of the best posts ever around here was some guy asking what
to do with his new machine and the answer was something like:
Tilt machine up onto shoulders and squat to bottom postion..rise...repeat
Crawl under machine, push machine to arms length, lower to chest...repeat
Etc.
Bryce
>
>
JCulp
<wat...@watsonmusic.com> wrote:
[snip]
>There have been some perfect examples of the Tech Fix here recently.
>Remember the woman that preferred to do the machines because she felt
>they were designed to work muscles that she wouldn't be able to work
>with free weights (.. or something like that)?
>
>People think these machines must be better because they're machines.
>
>Watson (the ninja of nice) Davis
You left out "new", it must be better if it was just brought out.
Those "old" weights cant be as good as the "new" machine. Even better
if it is a "new system" or "turbo". :-)
JCulp
<leemc...@attbi.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Speaking of motivation and good results with the Bowflex. I would love to
>see some statistical information on the actual percentage of people who buy
>these things and use them. I don't think the number is very high. If
>someone was to get good results with a bowflex, it is because they are very
>motivated. The same could be said for any kind of training.
>
What are the numbers on new gym memberships? People are people, they
try things out.
With weight training they find out that it is HARD work ! That's why
most people stop, whether they join a gym or by a machine for home.
Having a machine at home may be the one thing that makes a difference
to a person. Space, size, even weight matter to some people. So does
the time it takes to go to a gym, worrying about being ridiculed at
gym, being around strangers, etc....
JCulp
Humiliation and embarassment are huge motivators. First they are
embarassed they are out of shape, and then humiliated that they paid
so much for a weight machine, that they are too lazy to use.
OTOH, some people just dont know better and the BF looks good to them
and they buy it and use it. Bravo for the effort, that's way better
than the average Joe....
User8747869
for me 6-7 years ago. I was 13 at that time and I only used it for 3 months
because by then I had already grew out of it. I was never able to get even a
decent leg workout with it due to the low resistance availability. I even
purchased extra power rods along with some other shitty accessories in that 3
month time period, but it was still not enough to get a good leg workout. One
of the accessories that I purchased was some part that I had broke while using
it, because while attempting to get a good workouts I was increasing the risk
of damaging it. After that, I bought a free weight set, and I haven't used
anything but free weights since then, Bowflex definitely sucks.
I'll be honest here...I did experience some gains (mostly upper body) with
Bowflex, but I attribute the gains to the fact that it was my first time being
exposed to resistance training other than bodyweight. Also, I only weighted a
little over 100lbs at the time. Maybe Bowflex could be useful as an
introduction to resistance training if your rich, but in my opinion, free
weights are superior.
MK Randall
box and carrying it up and down a flight of stairs a few times a day. That
makes it easier to ship it back at the end of the trial period.
"Bryce Lane" <joand...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:wGK_7.87404$WK1.21...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
> I remember one of the best posts ever around here was some guy asking what
> to do with his new machine and the answer was something like:
>
> Tilt machine up onto shoulders and squat to bottom postion..rise...repeat
>
> Crawl under machine, push machine to arms length, lower to chest...repeat
>
> Etc.
>
> Bryce
>
> >
> >
>
>
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
Leonard F. Agius
"JCulp" <jc...@midsouth.rr.fat.com> wrote in message
news:3c3b93d...@news-server.midsouth.rr.com...
Leonard F. Agius
What really frosts me is that the anti-Bowflex people seemed to miss the
part where I said "I'm in almost as good a shape today @ age 42 as I was six
years ago,
when I was able to make it to the gym for eight hours a week worth of weight
training."
I didn't go into buying a Bowflex blind. I have been training with free
weights for well over ten years, and when I went into the gym in the late
1989, early 1990, I weighed nearly 205 pounds, at five foot six inches, and
all of it flab. Waist was like 38 inches. I couldn't even bench press 85
pounds, and squatting was out of the question. When I got married six years
ago, I was 175, waist 34 inches, benching 235 lbs regularly, and squatting
285 pounds.
A couple of job changes broke my old routine more than anything else, plus a
serious injury to my shoulder precluded lifting for over a year. Fourteen
months ago I took delivery of the Bowflex, and a year ago the elliptical
trainer. I've knocked off 35 pounds, my waist line is going down, and my
endurance is way up. Is it taking longer than if I was using free weights?
Maybe. But I now workout six to eight hours a week regularly, and find it
easier to adjust my schedule to working out at home, without factoring drive
time to the gym, etc. Another six months of this, and I should be easily in
as good a shape as I was six years, without having to hire a trainer, or be
looking for a spotter every damn time I'm in the gym. Plus, not waiting for
anyone to finish with a piece of equipment I need or want means I finish my
workout faster, and can circuit train anytime I want.
"JCulp" <jc...@midsouth.rr.fat.com> wrote in message
news:3c3b9615...@news-server.midsouth.rr.com...
Leonard F. Agius
anything on the market, including the Bowflex.
However, a number of factors precluded me from getting back into a gym on a
regular basis.
One, the Detroit area sucks for having decent gyms within a short driving
distance, that open decent hours. Closest gym to me has over two million
dollars of new equipment into it, and yet the S.O.B. won't open on Saturday
before 9 am and Sunday before 10 am.
Two, I need a piece of equipment that wouldn't require a spotter, especially
on higher weights/resistance.
Three, working out isn't a chore, but I'm an outside sales rep who has had
some fat ass sales managers (in the past, not currently - better say that so
I don't get canned - lol!) who figure if you have time for the gym, you're
screwing off on company time to make it to the gym (and this was a constant
issue with one office manager eight to nine years ago, to the point where I
had to quit that job, because my sales manager of the time wouldn't back me
up). Given the choice between a good home work out, or none at all (or catch
flack for going to the gym "when us desk rats can't fit it into our
schedules" - my f***ing heart bleeds for you lazy bastards), I'll keep up
with my Bowflex and NordicTrack, and anyone who wants to criticize that
effort can go play in the traffic.
"Keith Hobman" <kho...@sk.sympaticoNOSPAM.ca> wrote in message
news:khobman-0801...@192.168.0.2...
Bryce Lane
"MK Randall" <mran...@mmm.com> wrote in message
news:a1hhj1$gjo$1...@magnum.mmm.com...
> I was going to suggest strapping a few 45 lb. plates onto the outside of
the
> box and carrying it up and down a flight of stairs a few times a day.
That
> makes it easier to ship it back at the end of the trial period.
Might be good for the UPS guy too!
Bryce
MauriceV
<lfagius...@wnol.net> wrote:
>What really frosts me is that the anti-Bowflex people seemed to miss the
>part where I said "I'm in almost as good a shape today @ age 42 as I was six
>years ago, when I was able to make it to the gym for eight hours a week worth
>of weight training."
Riddle me this, Batman: Write down the amount of "weight" you can
bench press for ten reps with your Bowflex. Go down to the gym, load
that amount of weight on a bar, try to do ten reps. I predict complete
muscle failure before you've completed five reps.
--
AVANTI...FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC
gps
Will you do the same in reverse? I'd be interested to hear both
results.
ps
JCulp
Switch that to DB's and I wouldnt, but I would be surprised if he
failed before 5 reps.
This assumes that he is accustomed to both styles of lifting. Simply
ignoring an Oly bar and doing DB's for months can lower your first
attempt at a return to an Oly bar. You need to use it or lose it with
regard to how efficient your muscles work in a particular movement.
JCulp
off topic.
OTOH, there is so much OT stuff here anyway.... :-)
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 12:59:11 -0500, "Leonard F. Agius"
Keith Hobman
<lfagius...@wnol.net> wrote:
> I've always enjoyed working out, and free weights are vastly superior to
> anything on the market, including the Bowflex.
>
> However, a number of factors precluded me from getting back into a gym on a
> regular basis.
>
> One, the Detroit area sucks for having decent gyms within a short driving
> distance, that open decent hours. Closest gym to me has over two million
> dollars of new equipment into it, and yet the S.O.B. won't open on Saturday
> before 9 am and Sunday before 10 am.
>
> Two, I need a piece of equipment that wouldn't require a spotter, especially
> on higher weights/resistance.
>
> Three, working out isn't a chore, but I'm an outside sales rep who has had
> some fat ass sales managers (in the past, not currently - better say that so
> I don't get canned - lol!) who figure if you have time for the gym, you're
> screwing off on company time to make it to the gym.
Gotcha on point one and three.
Point two I don't get.
I powerlift and in training regulalry go over 500 lbs in the squat and
deadlift and 300 in the bench and I never use a spotter. There is no need
for one. I'm making good progress without using one.
IMO spotters basically help people work their ego. I watched tapes of
Simmon's lifters training and the only time a spotter comes into play is
on maximum effort work when they can't lift the weight. The spotters never
force a rep through or help the lifter lift. But when someone asks me to
spot in our gym (with about 25% of the strength of a typical Westside
lifter) they want me to lift the weight for them. They normally don't ask
a second time after I help them through a 20 second concentric rep.
Keith Hobman
Maur...@REMOVETHISFIRSTbellsouth.net (MauriceV) wrote:
There is more to being 'in shape' then strength - especially bench press
strength. And if he can bench the same for 5 reps as his did six years ago
he could still argue the strength end is as good.
As a powerlifter it was hard for me to key in that first sentence...
MauriceV
>MauriceV wrote:
<snip>
>> Riddle me this, Batman: Write down the amount of "weight" you can
>> bench press for ten reps with your Bowflex. Go down to the gym, load
>> that amount of weight on a bar, try to do ten reps. I predict complete
>> muscle failure before you've completed five reps.
>
>Will you do the same in reverse? I'd be interested to hear both
>results.
>ps
The point here is that - in contrast to free weights - the Bowflex
(and similar equipment) only offer the selected resistance over the
last fraction of an inch of the exercise. - The guy said he's in
similar or better shape now than he was whenever. If he based this
statement in part on being able to move around the same "weight" (with
his Bowflex equipment) as he did before (using free weights) he is
mistaken, and the test I proposed will quickly prove this.
I've heard former Bowflex users state that they were surprised at how
weak they had become using the Bowflex equipment. For this reason, a
day at the gym (after several months using Bowflex) usually spells the
end of their use of Bowflex.
--
AVANTI...FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC
Bryce Lane
etc).....Avg cost under $100 for a bar, plates, dumbell handles and platform
if you know where to look or can use simple handtools.
The biggest people in the world work out with freeweights ....Same as above.
The most dangerous people in the world (fighters, wrestlers, boxers) work
out with freeweights, each other, and bodyweight exercises.....Free or same
as above.
The people with the most endurance in the world use the road, the water and
their own bodyweight....All free.
Show me how a $700 machine can be more cost effective than any of these.
Bryce
Lee Michaels
"Keith Hobman" wrote
> But when someone asks me to
> spot in our gym (with about 25% of the strength of a typical Westside
> lifter) they want me to lift the weight for them. They normally don't ask
> a second time after I help them through a 20 second concentric rep.
>
You bastard Keith!! You are actually making them lift the weight. Don't you
know how things are done in the gym. You will never get hired as a personal
trainer if you keep this kind of nonsense up!!
Lyle McDonald
So what.
Seriously, so what.
Or does being able to bench XXX in a weight room have some important
value/meaning in society that I'm unaware of? Outside of a powerlifting
competition or impressing other idiots, how much you can bench is pretty
irrelevant in the big scheme of things.
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
>
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2002 12:20:24 -0800, gps <gst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >MauriceV wrote:
> <snip>
> >> Riddle me this, Batman: Write down the amount of "weight" you can
> >> bench press for ten reps with your Bowflex. Go down to the gym, load
> >> that amount of weight on a bar, try to do ten reps. I predict complete
> >> muscle failure before you've completed five reps.
> >
> >Will you do the same in reverse? I'd be interested to hear both
> >results.
> >ps
>
> The point here is that - in contrast to free weights - the Bowflex
> (and similar equipment) only offer the selected resistance over the
> last fraction of an inch of the exercise. - The guy said he's in
> similar or better shape now than he was whenever. If he based this
> statement in part on being able to move around the same "weight" (with
> his Bowflex equipment) as he did before (using free weights) he is
> mistaken, and the test I proposed will quickly prove this.
I may be inferring something from the original poster's satemetn (and
I'm coming into this thread late), but most people don't refer to 'being
in shape' relative to how much weight they can life. Not unless they
are explicitly performance oriented strenght athlets.
As blasphemous as this is to the average MFW'er, some people only give
the first fuck about how they look. And that's what they use to
determine being 'in shape or not'. Being able to squat or clean a house
isn't the primary goal.
If the original poster is happy with his physique, etc in terms of being
'in shape', it makes the first fuck of differences whether he lifts free
weights, rocks or uses a bowflex. So quit projecting your strength
oriented bias onto him.
I'll let Whit pick it up from here, this is his particular rant.
Lyle
gps
>
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2002 12:20:24 -0800, gps <gst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >MauriceV wrote:
> <snip>
> >> Riddle me this, Batman: Write down the amount of "weight" you can
> >> bench press for ten reps with your Bowflex. Go down to the gym, load
> >> that amount of weight on a bar, try to do ten reps. I predict complete
> >> muscle failure before you've completed five reps.
> >
> >Will you do the same in reverse? I'd be interested to hear both
> >results.
> >ps
>
> The point here is that -
You're point, but mine is that I'd like to see you try the same exercise
in reverse. Take your free weight 10rm and try it on a bowflex. I've
never tried one and I'd like to know what the perceived exertion might
be compared to free. You seem interested in getting him to try 10rm
bowflex on free, so you should be willing to do the same and then you
can both report your results. While it will be a meaningless sample
size, it would be interesting.
> in contrast to free weights - the Bowflex
> (and similar equipment) only offer the selected resistance over the
> last fraction of an inch of the exercise. -
So you've tried bowflex and found that there is only a fraction of an
inch worth of resistance in a bench rom?
> The guy said he's in
> similar or better shape now than he was whenever. If he based this
> statement in part on being able to move around the same "weight" (with
> his Bowflex equipment) as he did before (using free weights) he is
> mistaken, and the test I proposed will quickly prove this.
So let's see what would be proved by my test.
> I've heard former Bowflex users state that they were surprised at how
> weak they had become using the Bowflex equipment. For this reason, a
> day at the gym (after several months using Bowflex) usually spells the
> end of their use of Bowflex.
Sounds reasonable.
ps
gps
Whit, put it down; now back away slowly. That's it...slowly.
ps
Watson Davis
wrote:
Unless you want to be able to push things away from you that are in
front of you. Then the bench press becomes pretty important.
Now I'm starting to wonder if you spend a lot of time on the pec deck.
MauriceV
wrote:
>MauriceV wrote:
<snip>
>> The point here is that - in contrast to free weights - the Bowflex
>> (and similar equipment) only offer the selected resistance over the
>> last fraction of an inch of the exercise. - The guy said he's in
>> similar or better shape now than he was whenever. If he based this
>> statement in part on being able to move around the same "weight" (with
>> his Bowflex equipment) as he did before (using free weights) he is
>> mistaken, and the test I proposed will quickly prove this.
>
>I may be inferring something from the original poster's satemetn (and
>I'm coming into this thread late), but most people don't refer to 'being
>in shape' relative to how much weight they can life. Not unless they
>are explicitly performance oriented strenght athlets.
>
>As blasphemous as this is to the average MFW'er, some people only give
>the first fuck about how they look. And that's what they use to
>determine being 'in shape or not'. Being able to squat or clean a house
>isn't the primary goal.
>
>If the original poster is happy with his physique, etc in terms of being
>'in shape', it makes the first fuck of differences whether he lifts free
>weights, rocks or uses a bowflex. So quit projecting your strength
>oriented bias onto him.
<snip>
Projecting, shmojecting - or something like that. I understood
perfectly that he was referring MAINLY to the way he looks, and have
no beef with that. But he didn't specifically refer to appearance
(unless my memory is playing tricks on me), he said Bowflex got him
into similar shape. I think shape - while it does have a huge visual
component - also includes other aspects such as strength and stamina.
After all, someone who looks the way he did when he was a marathon
runner cannot be said to be in the same "shape" he was in unless he
can run a decent race. Or am I just weird?
So... According to this definition of shape, he may look similar
thanks to Bowflex, but from the point of view of strength or stamina
(or whatever) that doesn't mean Bowflex provides similar results to
the free weights he had used before.
--
AVANTI...FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC
Vesku
> > Two, I need a piece of equipment that wouldn't require a spotter,
especially
> > on higher weights/resistance.
> Point two I don't get.
Me neither: the only two lifts one could theoretically use a spotter for are
barbell benches and squats with maximum poundages, which one can not do
often anyway.
> force a rep through or help the lifter lift. But when someone asks me to
> spot in our gym (with about 25% of the strength of a typical Westside
> lifter) they want me to lift the weight for them. They normally don't ask
> a second time after I help them through a 20 second concentric rep.
IT'S ALL YOU!
Thanks for this, funniest post of the day :-)
/vesku
Vesku
news:cc75d6f2.02010...@posting.google.com...
> Okay I have to admit I was fooled in buying Bowflex. An honest to god
> opinion: Bowflex SUCKS. I went back to using my trusty $20 dumbells.
> The 30 day money back guarantee is a rip off, you have to pay for the
> shipping expenses $200 to receive bowflex and another $200 to send it
> back. What A JOKE.
Bowflex is way superior to free weights, IMHO, but only if you train in
zero-gravity conditions.
/vesku
MauriceV
>MauriceV wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2002 12:20:24 -0800, gps <gst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >MauriceV wrote:
>> <snip>
>> >> Riddle me this, Batman: Write down the amount of "weight" you can
>> >> bench press for ten reps with your Bowflex. Go down to the gym, load
>> >> that amount of weight on a bar, try to do ten reps. I predict complete
>> >> muscle failure before you've completed five reps.
>> >
>> >Will you do the same in reverse? I'd be interested to hear both
>> >results.
>> >ps
>>
>> The point here is that -
>
>You're point, but mine is that I'd like to see you try the same exercise
>in reverse. Take your free weight 10rm and try it on a bowflex. I've
>never tried one and I'd like to know what the perceived exertion might
>be compared to free. You seem interested in getting him to try 10rm
>bowflex on free, so you should be willing to do the same and then you
>can both report your results. While it will be a meaningless sample
>size, it would be interesting.
I'd be more than happy to participate in such an experiment.
>> in contrast to free weights - the Bowflex
>> (and similar equipment) only offer the selected resistance over the
>> last fraction of an inch of the exercise. -
>
>So you've tried bowflex and found that there is only a fraction of an
>inch worth of resistance in a bench rom?
I haven't tried Bowflex, but I understand the physics involved. I
didn't say the equipment only provided resistance over the last
fraction of an inch; let me spell it out: As the infomercials state,
the Bowflex is based on the bow (as in bow and arrow). Ever practiced
archery? The farther you pull back on the arrow, the harder it gets.
Bowflex works the same way: The resistance at the beginning of the
repetition starts of relatively light, then increases until the full
resistance is felt right at the end of the repetition. This is very
different from working with free weights, in a bench press, for
example, the Bowflex user gets used to moving (for illustrative
purposes) fifty pounds one inch off his chest, seventy pounds for the
next inch, blah blah blah, until he locks his arms out at, say, 300
pounds. Now put this guy on a bench in a gym. Halfway through the set
his muscles - unaccustomed to raising 300 pounds off his chest - are
going to give out.
>> The guy said he's in
>> similar or better shape now than he was whenever. If he based this
>> statement in part on being able to move around the same "weight" (with
>> his Bowflex equipment) as he did before (using free weights) he is
>> mistaken, and the test I proposed will quickly prove this.
>
>So let's see what would be proved by my test.
Anytime.
--
AVANTI...FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC
MauriceV
<applauds> Well said.
--
AVANTI...FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC
rcp
gps <gst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3C3CDB6F...@ix.netcom.com...
....
What gets me is that the people touting "functional strength" etc. are so
often ivory-tower weenies and the like who have about zero use for
"functional" strength anyways.
Furthermore, I know some phenomenal athletes who can kick 16 different
styles of ass and who use Hammerstrength almost exclusively.
The lack of carryover is grossly overemphasized here (MFW) imnsho.
I just think a lot of people knee-jerk into the "machines are bad, mkay"
mantra much too easily.
Whit
rcp
> The strongest people in the world use freeweights (or event items, big
rocks
> etc).....Avg cost under $100 for a bar, plates, dumbell handles and
platform
> if you know where to look or can use simple handtools.
>
> The biggest people in the world work out with freeweights ....Same as
above.
>
In my understanding, the biggest people in the world use BOTH machines and
free weights, although free weights could be justifiably called the
foundation.
Whit
Bryce Lane
"rcp" <r...@home.com> wrote in message
news:sK9%7.18246$Vz3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
:
: Bryce Lane <joand...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
1.) The foundation is highly important.
2.) The bowflex is not even comaparable the gym machines I dislike.
3.) Even sturdy machines are highly optional even for them.
Bryce
Robert Dorf
<Snip>
>
> What gets me is that the people touting "functional strength" etc. are so
> often ivory-tower weenies and the like who have about zero use for
> "functional" strength anyways.
When serious, I'd say that machine training can be used to achieve the goals
of many trainees, and regular sports training should get you some carryover
from the strength developed with machines. I'd also say that there's some
distance between a viable and an optimal approach.
But the first part of your post above strongly suggests that someone with a
degree or three once broke your heart.
;-)
rcp
>
> "rcp" <r...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:sK9%7.18246$Vz3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> :
> : Bryce Lane <joand...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> : news:da4%7.88456$fo5.22...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
> : > The strongest people in the world use freeweights (or event items, big
> : rocks
> : > etc).....Avg cost under $100 for a bar, plates, dumbell handles and
> : platform
> : > if you know where to look or can use simple handtools.
> : >
> : > The biggest people in the world work out with freeweights ....Same as
> : above.
> : >
> :
> : In my understanding, the biggest people in the world use BOTH machines
and
> : free weights, although free weights could be justifiably called the
> : foundation.
>
>
> 1.) The foundation is highly important.
>
Yes
> 2.) The bowflex is not even comaparable the gym machines I dislike.
>
I LIKE gym machines. I know nothing about the bowflex, so I don't comment
on it in particular.
However, the point is that big guys use (often) weights and machines, so it
is misleading at best to imply that they don't use machines. I like
machines, so I give props where they are due. If you had said "the biggest
people don't use bowflex" I would agree, obviously. However, they do use
machines.
> 3.) Even sturdy machines are highly optional even for them.
>
I don't want to get into a wank about "highly" optional. I am not one of
these aforementioned "big guys" so I can't state authoritatitively whether
they are highly optional or not. Maybe you have this knowledge about them
being highly optional. Is it "possible" for a guy to get freaky huge w/o
weights? Maybe, but it is probably much more efficient to use weights.
Regardless, it is obviously possible to get big using both, guys do it all
the time, and at least they believe machines have a benefit or they wouldn't
use them.
There are some excellent machines out there e.g. hammerstrength. I know
fuck-all about the bowflex in particular, whether it sux or not, so I won't
comment.
Whit
rcp
Robert Dorf <rober...@japan.com> wrote in message
news:u3qcp5i...@news.supernews.com...
>
> "rcp" <r...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:oG9%7.18238$Vz3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> <Snip>
> >
> > What gets me is that the people touting "functional strength" etc. are
so
> > often ivory-tower weenies and the like who have about zero use for
> > "functional" strength anyways.
>
> When serious, I'd say that machine training can be used to achieve the
goals
> of many trainees, and regular sports training should get you some
carryover
> from the strength developed with machines. I'd also say that there's some
> distance between a viable and an optimal approach.
>
> But the first part of your post above strongly suggests that someone with
a
> degree or three once broke your heart.
>
> ;-)
That's cute, but I am serious about the ivory-tower thing. I see people
lifting weights who work in the trenches all the time - soldiers, marines,
firefighters, cops, laborers, etc. These are people who use their strength
in "real world" situations every day.
I know one guy who is a very good freestyle wrestler who uses Smith Machine
squats, and Hammerstrength. The guy is WICKED strong.
Whit
rcp
Watson Davis <wat...@watsonmusic.com> wrote in message
news:AA5B5A0EDC40EC61.85043B7E...@lp.airnews.net...
This could become one of those twisted functional strength things.
The bench press has little relation to pushing something away from you, in
that it is done lying down, with the back pressing into the bench
When you are pushing things away from you, unless you are lying down, you
are standing, your back is "free floating", and it is a different task
I am NOT saying the bench press won't offer some help at this "real world"
example, but it hardly meets the "functional strength" standard so often
touted here as necessary/desireable for "real world" examples.
So, using a hammer strength press for example, while one is sitting up, is
at least in SOME way, MORE functionally transferable than in an exercise
while one is lying down, although both stabilize the back, in a way that is
not done in th real world example.
Regardless, football players have known for years that the bench press helps
put on upper body mass, and helps general pressing and pushing strength.
So does the hammerstrength, I might add. Especially if one is practicing
one's sport (or real world strength feat) in addition to using the bp, or
the hammerstrength, there will probably be a decent carryover.
Regardless, very few people who lift weights, of any sort, will have much
if any need for this great "functional strength" in their daily lives.
However, big pectorals look good on the beach, Ren.
Another example, I'd like to mention is the pullup. Nearly everybody here
and elsewhere recommends the pullup with the thumb wrapped around the bar.
In MOST real world examples where one is pulling oneself up, a false grip is
used, since it isn't usually a bar that you have to pull yourself over, but
instead it is a ledge, etc.
However, you often won't hear people recommending false grip. That is
because the "bar" is looked at something holy and pure since it is related
to the free weight (which are usually grasped on a bar).
Whit
Whit
Robert Dorf
>
> Robert Dorf <rober...@japan.com> wrote in message
> news:u3qcp5i...@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > "rcp" <r...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:oG9%7.18238$Vz3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > <Snip>
> > >
> > > What gets me is that the people touting "functional strength" etc. are
> so
> > > often ivory-tower weenies and the like who have about zero use for
> > > "functional" strength anyways.
> >
> > When serious, I'd say that machine training can be used to achieve the
> goals
> > of many trainees, and regular sports training should get you some
> carryover
> > from the strength developed with machines. I'd also say that there's
some
> > distance between a viable and an optimal approach.
> >
> > But the first part of your post above strongly suggests that someone
with
> a
> > degree or three once broke your heart.
> >
> lifting weights who work in the trenches all the time - soldiers, marines,
> firefighters, cops, laborers, etc. These are people who use their
strength
> in "real world" situations every day.
Can't reply to this part without being unnecessarily smartass. I
acknowledge your experience. But see below for a thought stolen mostly (I
think) from Siff.
> I know one guy who is a very good freestyle wrestler who uses Smith
Machine
> squats, and Hammerstrength. The guy is WICKED strong.
I'm sure he is, and I'm in the "any training done consistently will have
some benefits" camp anyway. But the examples you've given are all people
who practice the motor skills they need for their specific types of strength
every day, people who'd probably be wicked strong without ever touching a
weight. The skill and stabilizer training they need are part of their jobs.
The fact that a free style wrestler / fire fighter / marine is able to
become strong while relying on machines for some or all of his in-gym
training doesn't mean all that much when discussing how to optimally improve
the "real world" strength of sedentary people.
rcp
First of all, the point is that most people could give "fuck-all" about
improving their real world strength, and it is also a false dichotomy to say
that freeweights do it, and machines don't.
It is a matter of degree.
Most people, especially here in the internet and MFW, with some of the
exceptions I listed, rarely if ever use their "real world" strength, nor do
they need to hear all this machines are bad bollocks.
What is important is hard work, with progressive resistance, sound
nutrition, safe technique, and rest.
Whit
Robert Dorf
True, but then I didn't set up that dichotomy, so I'm not going to worry
about it.
> It is a matter of degree.
Yup.
> Most people, especially here in the internet and MFW, with some of the
> exceptions I listed, rarely if ever use their "real world" strength, nor
do
> they need to hear all this machines are bad bollocks.
Unless they're interested in building more strength for those rare
occasions, or trying to get the most bang for their buck from their
training, or...
> What is important is hard work, with progressive resistance, sound
> nutrition, safe technique, and rest.
Agreed, if I can put a "most" in front of "important".
rcp
Sometimes, machines and weights can give MORE bang for the buck, than just
weights. That is a point to consider.
IMO, a trainer who discounts machines is cheating himself.
Free weights alone are not necessarily the fastest or best way to size
gains.
Whit
rcp
I'm proud of you.
There is still a little bit of the runner in you, wanting to be heard.
I know you read George Sheehan when nobody is looking, and you salivate over
Suzy Favor Hamilton pics...
Whit
jrc
"rcp" <r...@home.com> wrote in message
news:dEg%7.18710$Vz3.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
I realize that I am not considered a regular (long time learning lurker) in
the mfw so I may be dousing myself in gasoline and handing out matches by
chiming in at this point. But what the hell, it was cold here when I got out
of bed anyway.
As far as pushing someone away goes. The pecks are really the third or
fourth muscle called on in doing this. I am coming from a martial arts
background btw, so everything that I assert needs to preconditioned as my
opinion as coming from such. IOW I am not asserting any of this to be
scientific fact even though the cross post yesterday afternoon says I should
do so adamantly.
I would actually say that in the manner we are taught to "launch" someone
away from us the first muscle called upon is the glutes. Second would be the
lats, third is a tie betweeen delts and tris and fourth is the chest. For a
good example of this, go outside put your hands on the tailgate of your
Ford, which is a very common position, and in very very slow motion try to
move it while it is in park. Pay close attention to the order that you call
upon muscles.
If you want something that the bench is the best exercise to improve, try
this. Find someone slightly smaller then you. (more fun if it is a very
attractive member of the opposite sex) Bear hug them from behind, and try to
keep their rib cage from expanding when they breathe. Disclaimer...please
don't try this for more then about ten seconds unless your subject is
someone you really do not like, or you know where Neal Fabian lives ;)
If there is another semi newbie on this ng that would be interested in
joining in I have a propostition. I have recently restarted my excersize
routine. I am not in it to gain visible size. I am a big person to begin
with. I use mainly the machines where I go. Not because I feel that they are
better, but because they fit into my purposes and time frames better. The
only things that I do as "free weight" are chin-ups and dips. I actually do
those on a machine for the purpose of weight assistance as I weigh about 270
and can't quite pull it off on my own right now. My proposition is this. If
there is someone on here that is starting a free weight program I suggest
that we start a daily thread that lists what we are doing at the gym. Then
every month or two or three we spend one week doing the others chosen
methods and see how we are able to cross between the two.
I am setting myself up for beating here I know. But I just thought that
since I am on the machines anyway that maybe we could get somewhat of a
first hand experience in how the two trainings cross over. I realize that
there are many factors to be considered here and welcome any comments on
what would need to be done in order to make it as close a comparison as
possible, but it could be interesting, no?
I am 6'4" tall and weighed 272 on tues night after work out and 1.5 litres
of water. I have a LARGE bone structure (10" wrists) . My upper arms are
about 19" in the morning with no pump. My thighs are 32" at the same time.
My waist is 40". I have no idea what any of my lifts are right now except
that I require 100 pounds in assistance to squeak out about 10-12 chin ups
and dips. I know that I will have to have my body fat checked in order to do
this right. My goals are not weight or size specific. Mainly I would like to
get into the 12-14% bf range and have enought strength and wind that no-one
can touch me at the dojo. I have started a mostly compound movement
push/pull/legs split with cardio on the non lift days. Anyone fit the bill
for the other side of this little experiment?
Ryan
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 90,000 Groups! - 17 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Hoff
Obviously, I'm no expert. And I'm still very much in the mode of wanting to
hit the most muscles in the least time, so I try to use as many compound
free-weight exercises as possible.
But isn't there alot of truth in the above?
I mean, if one was looking to just maximally increase the size of your
quads, for example, wouldn't it make sense to use a leg press machine, in
order to place maximum load on the quads, without worrying about lower back,
etc.?
Later
Hoff
Lee Michaels
"Hoff" <hoffm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Zbi%7.56817$Z24.16...@typhoon.jacksonville.mediaone.net...
Big leg presses will do your lower back in nicely if they are done with full
range of motion. I have seen partials done on the leg press for size. But
you quickly get into more weights than many machines can handle.
Watson Davis
Yadda yadda yadda.
I have been in real world situations where my back has been supported
and I've pushed something away from me.
Watson (the ninja of nice) Davis
>
Lee Michaels
"Watson Davis wrote
>
> Yadda yadda yadda.
>
> I have been in real world situations where my back has been supported
> and I've pushed something away from me.
>
Fighting off all those adoring women??
rcp
I don;t deny you have. However, in the vast majority of situations, where
one pushes against a person, or an object, one is not backed against a wall,
or lying down.
The bench press is an exercise. It happens to be an exercise that is great
for building upper bodies. It also happens to be an exercise that one
competes in if doing powerlifting. It is not a particularly decent exercise
for "functional" strength when compared to the push press, the pullup, the
dip, etc. Not that I think functional strength is particularly important
for most people, just making an analogy.
Whit
Robert Dorf
rcp
jrc <jc...@wrv.com> wrote in message news:3c3daf77$1...@post.newsfeed.com...
Yes, I agree.
I am coming from a martial arts
> background btw, so everything that I assert needs to preconditioned as my
> opinion as coming from such. IOW I am not asserting any of this to be
> scientific fact even though the cross post yesterday afternoon says I
should
> do so adamantly.
>
> I would actually say that in the manner we are taught to "launch" someone
> away from us the first muscle called upon is the glutes. Second would be
the
> lats, third is a tie betweeen delts and tris and fourth is the chest.
I would agree with that assessment.
That is why the push press is much more functional for this task, than the
bench press.
That sounds kewl
> I am setting myself up for beating here I know. But I just thought that
> since I am on the machines anyway that maybe we could get somewhat of a
> first hand experience in how the two trainings cross over. I realize that
> there are many factors to be considered here and welcome any comments on
> what would need to be done in order to make it as close a comparison as
> possible, but it could be interesting, no?
>
We can beat you mercilessly, if it will make you feel better.
Whit
jrc
>That is why the push press is much more functional for this task, than the
> bench press.
I am ignorant here, please describe.
> We can beat you mercilessly, if it will make you feel better.
>
> Whit
>
O.K. but only about the neck and upper back please.
Lyle McDonald
>
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2002 23:27:43 GMT, Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >MauriceV wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 12:59:11 -0500, "Leonard F. Agius"
> >> <lfagius...@wnol.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >What really frosts me is that the anti-Bowflex people seemed to miss the
> >> >part where I said "I'm in almost as good a shape today @ age 42 as I was six
> >> >years ago, when I was able to make it to the gym for eight hours a week worth
> >> >of weight training."
> >>
> >> Riddle me this, Batman: Write down the amount of "weight" you can
> >> bench press for ten reps with your Bowflex. Go down to the gym, load
> >> that amount of weight on a bar, try to do ten reps. I predict complete
> >> muscle failure before you've completed five reps.
> >
> >So what.
> >
> >Seriously, so what.
> >
> >Or does being able to bench XXX in a weight room have some important
> >value/meaning in society that I'm unaware of? Outside of a powerlifting
> >competition or impressing other idiots, how much you can bench is pretty
> >irrelevant in the big scheme of things.
>
> Unless you want to be able to push things away from you that are in
> front of you. Then the bench press becomes pretty important.
Only if you're doing it lying on your back.
Which is where all this functional/real world shit starts to fall apart.
Last time I checked, there are few activities (in sport or in life)
requiring me to push something away from me while I'm lying flat on my
back (well, I can think of one offhand and it's only a real issue if
you're trying to get your partner OFF of you which usually isn't the goal).
yet somehow the bench press is a 'functional' movement.
Umm...ok.
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
So if you train someone in the weight room on 'non-functional'
exercises, wo'nt they get that same motor learning/skill/stabilizer
training required for real-life by doing real life activities?
That is, say you're training an older individual. Put 'em all on machines.
But what they really need to to is improve their ability to life the
garbage can or groceries or something like that. Once they are stronger
and start actually lifting the garbage can/groceries, won't that have
the same effect on motor learning/skill as the folks Whit is referring to?
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
When did you turn into Pete? ;)
Lyle
Rob
from the table) start with your feet and how well you are connected to the
ground.
"jrc" <jc...@wrv.com> wrote in message news:3c3daf77$1...@post.newsfeed.com...
ltcomma...@yahoo.com
>
<<<
efwefwef
<<<<<<<<<<<<<fucking hardcore>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<
vadfvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvqerfrqeffqefqwf
<vdsaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
jrc
Agreed, Agreed. Sorry about that. I tend to leave the legs outa things as
they are considered a given in the martial arts. At least in the martial
arts in which people don't fly. No stances = no karate. Thanks for reminding
me.
"Rob" <liftalo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a1kfac$get$1...@newshost.mot.com...
> I'd argue that the bench and pushing people away (and pushing yourself
away
> from the table) start with your feet and how well you are connected to the
> ground.
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Robert Dorf
"Lyle McDonald" <lyl...@onr.com> wrote in message
news:3C3DC0A7...@onr.com...
bag handling strength to carry over, you can give the trainee exercises that
recruit a lot of motor units (deadlifts, squats, whatever; Olympic moves may
not be best for grocery carrying practice), give them exercises that
simulate the activity they're trying to perform (not always a good idea for
athletes, as they can learn incorrect recruitment patterns, but we're still
talking about grandpa and his groceries), or train him on "non-functional"
exercises and then do real grocery bag carrying drills to teach him to use
his new strength to lift the bags. But if he's only shopping once a week or
so, he's probably not getting enough practice to apply his non-functionally
built strength to the task. If he's shopping daily, re-enforcing his bag
handling skilz, it's much less of an issue, and would only come up when he's
trying to use his strength for non bag related tasks (say helping grandma
carry the bodies into the backyard for burning).
Hoff
news:fxi%7.20909$762.166578@rwcrnsc54...
>
<snippage>
> > I mean, if one was looking to just maximally increase the size of your
> > quads, for example, wouldn't it make sense to use a leg press machine,
in
> > order to place maximum load on the quads, without worrying about lower
> back,
> > etc.?
> >
>
> Big leg presses will do your lower back in nicely if they are done with
full
> range of motion. I have seen partials done on the leg press for size. But
> you quickly get into more weights than many machines can handle.
>
>
I'm sure you're right about doing your lower back in. But it does seem to
remove at least some of the limiting factors due to stabilizers, such as
lower back. i.e., I seemed to be able to put much more load on my quads, as
compared to full squats.
Hoff
Hoff
<snipperino>
>
> When did you turn into Pete? ;)
>
> Lyle
Hmm. Dunno. I guess I'll have to work on the whole drug thing, though.
That, and add about 90 or so lbs...
Later
Hoff
Lyle McDonald
Well said.
One issue to consider in this is that older folks in this specific
situation (since that's the example I happened to pick in this case)
aren't necessarily the best in terms of motor learning in the first
place. Sometimes, the time it might take to teach them to do a 'more
functional' movement in the first place is simply too long compared to
the benefits. That is, teaching someone to squat/DL (or for god sakes
OL) in good form may not be cost effective time wise relative to the
benefits. Strenghtening them generally may do them a world more good
even if that means using (gasp) machines and other foo-foo crap.
But that's fairly tangential to the original discussion.
except for the general point that any choice of
exercise/modality/whatever is alwyays a cost/benefit type of analysis.
For some people, whatever benefit gleaned by having access to gym
equipment (whether real or perceived) may be offset by the reality that
they can't (or won't) get to the gym consistently.
So home exercise equipment may be a better choice. And, as Whit will
surely continue to point out, as free weight/functional
strength/squat/bench/DL centric the average MFW'er is (noting that the
MFW regularsd are hardly representative of the majority of workout or
even gym going folks), most people could give a fuck for functional
strength. Maybe they should, but that's a different issue entirely.
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
>
> "Lee Michaels" <leemc...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:fxi%7.20909$762.166578@rwcrnsc54...
> >
> <snippage>
>
> > > I mean, if one was looking to just maximally increase the size of your
> > > quads, for example, wouldn't it make sense to use a leg press machine,
> in
> > > order to place maximum load on the quads, without worrying about lower
> > back,
> > > etc.?
> > >
> >
> > Big leg presses will do your lower back in nicely if they are done with
> full
> > range of motion. I have seen partials done on the leg press for size. But
> > you quickly get into more weights than many machines can handle.
> >
> >
>
> I'm sure you're right about doing your lower back in.
Depends on the machine, form used, and a lot on hamstring flexibility.
You can blow out your back leg pressing if you really try. But it's no
different than most exercises in this regard: it comes down to proper
vs. improper useage and good vs. bad form.
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
And you'll have to become Eastern European.
Lyle
Bryce Lane
I lost the original post to this.
My argument was based on cost-efficiency, thats it. Lot of people use
machines, but are they necessary or responsible or anyone sucess or failure.
I don't think so.
About your friend who wrestles. Did it ever occur to you that freestyle
wrestling is one of the meanest freeweight workouts there is. The weight
doesn't sit there, it fights back! And talk about going to failure!!! Your
friend is only doing a little supplemental work with the machines.
There are wrestlers in my town who never touch a weight who are extremely
strong (trust me! I know!) and look it also. An hour of freestyle or GR
makes your average gym workout look like a day at the spa.
Bryce
:
:
rcp
Bryce Lane <joand...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:j%j%7.89319$fo5.22...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
>
> I lost the original post to this.
>
> My argument was based on cost-efficiency, thats it. Lot of people use
> machines, but are they necessary or responsible or anyone sucess or
failure.
> I don't think so.
>
I would agree with that.
I think simply that, especially if one is working out at a gym that has both
freeweights AND machines, that the machines can be a good part of your
program and give better results than solely weights.
> About your friend who wrestles. Did it ever occur to you that freestyle
> wrestling is one of the meanest freeweight workouts there is.
Yes. Everytime he pins me and I am gasping for breath, it occurs to me.
The weight
> doesn't sit there, it fights back!
ANd DOES IT
And talk about going to failure!!! Your
> friend is only doing a little supplemental work with the machines.
>
He works out pretty damn hard. He only does the wrestling two days a week.
He does the weights 2-3 times a week.
> There are wrestlers in my town who never touch a weight who are extremely
> strong (trust me! I know!) and look it also. An hour of freestyle or GR
> makes your average gym workout look like a day at the spa.
>
> Bryce
word.
Whit
>
> :
> :
>
>
>
Nina
My parents aren't all that old - 57 and 54. I would never, in a
trillion years, teach them to use free weights. They don't take
instruction, are stubborn, have zero sense of their bodies in relation
to the weights and the fear factor is too large for them to partake.
Even something like a seated dumbell shoulder press ended in a screaming
match (the machine at the gym was taken, so I thought I'd just show them
another way to do it). If my parents didn't have the machines, they
wouldn't lift at all. Ever.
<random story>
Dad did, in a fit of machismo, want to take a hack at bench press when I
was setting up my weights. I helped him with a liftoff, he did 10 reps
just wobbling all over the place (I had instructed him how to set up his
hands evenly, but of course I'm just a silly girl) and then just threw
the weight back into my hands and walked away, essentially just bailing
on me. I had to lean over to catch the damn thing and wrenched my back.
He didn't have a clue. Ow.
</random story>
Cheers,
Nina
"We are all awaiting the instant gratification granted us through
the blessed affirmations of Her Royal Highness, The SlackMistress."
-Mike Turco
geek_girl
Never had 80 lbs of fur and exuberance attacking you, have you? I'm sure the
Reverend Lola would be happy to demonstrate when you have your cult meeting.
>(well, I can think of one offhand and it's only a real issue if
>you're trying to get your partner OFF of you which usually isn't the goal).
>
Usually not, but I wanted to get to work by 10 this morning. The Canadian boy
weighs about twice as much as the Reverend, but he's not quite as exuberant, so
it was actually easier.
>yet somehow the bench press is a 'functional' movement.
I guess in my case it would be more functional if the weights were furry and
squirmy.
>Umm...ok.
>
>Lyle
rcp
jrc <jc...@wrv.com> wrote in message news:3c3d...@post.newsfeed.com...
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
>
> >That is why the push press is much more functional for this task, than
the
> > bench press.
>
> I am ignorant here, please describe.
>
The push press is a press done with a leg drive.
Many people, especially those outside the OLing world, might call it a
"cheat" press. This goes to the argument that the correct way to do almost
any exercise is based on one's goals, not some uniform standard of
correctness. Similar analogies could be made to cheat curls, bench press
that don't reach the chest, etc.
Anyway...
There are two basic variations of the push press...
They are both done standing.
In variation 1, the classic push press, one starts with the bar resting on
the clavicles/shoulders as in the starting position for a clean grip front
squat, or a military press. One dips into about 1/8 to 1/4 squat depth,
then quickly reverses direction and straightens the legs driving upwards,
maybe even goes up briefly on the toes. The bar will (hopefully) fly up and
you continue to press hard to bring it to an overhead position. One can do
more weight than in a standard press, because of the leg drive. Thus, it
would be "cheating" if one's goal was to maximally stress the pressing
muscles THROUGH A FULL RANGE OF MOTION. Because of the leg drive, the arms
don't really kick in until the weight is relatively well up over the head,
so it does not work the pressing muscles through a full range of motion like
a strict military press would. Also, make sure you don't hit yourself in
the chin with the bar!
You can also do the push press with the bar resting on the traps, which is
easier for many people.
Make sure when you lower the bar, that you absorb the shock by bending the
knees as the bar is replaced on your clavicles/traps.
When the bar is locked overhead, the legs should be straight. If you have
to bend your legs in order to lock it overhead you are doing basically a
power jerk, not a push press.
Whit
Lyle McDonald
> >Last time I checked, there are few activities (in sport or in life)
> >requiring me to push something away from me while I'm lying flat on my
> >back
>
> Never had 80 lbs of fur and exuberance attacking you, have you? I'm sure the
> Reverend Lola would be happy to demonstrate when you have your cult meeting.
Christ, I said 'few activities' not 'NO activities'.
Implying that there are some but they are the exception to the rule.
Dogs like me anyhow.
>
> >(well, I can think of one offhand and it's only a real issue if
> >you're trying to get your partner OFF of you which usually isn't the goal).
> >
>
> Usually not, but I wanted to get to work by 10 this morning. The Canadian boy
> weighs about twice as much as the Reverend, but he's not quite as exuberant, so
> it was actually easier.
What happened to the 'no more Canadians' rule, my child?
Lyle
geek_girl
>
>geek_girl wrote:
>
>> >Last time I checked, there are few activities (in sport or in life)
>> >requiring me to push something away from me while I'm lying flat on my
>> >back
>>
>> Never had 80 lbs of fur and exuberance attacking you, have you? I'm sure the
>> Reverend Lola would be happy to demonstrate when you have your cult meeting.
>
>Christ, I said 'few activities' not 'NO activities'.
>Implying that there are some but they are the exception to the rule.
Dood, I was just messing with ya.
>Dogs like me anyhow.
>
I have a hard time believing that, but anyway, she only "attacks" people she
likes.
>>
>> >(well, I can think of one offhand and it's only a real issue if
>> >you're trying to get your partner OFF of you which usually isn't the goal).
>> >
>>
>> Usually not, but I wanted to get to work by 10 this morning. The Canadian boy
>> weighs about twice as much as the Reverend, but he's not quite as exuberant, so
>> it was actually easier.
>
>What happened to the 'no more Canadians' rule, my child?
Oh, I am so weak. Can you give me some absolution, Rev Beyotch?
>Lyle
Lyle McDonald
>
> In article <3C3DD3FE...@onr.com>, Lyle McDonald says...
> >
> >geek_girl wrote:
> >
> >> >Last time I checked, there are few activities (in sport or in life)
> >> >requiring me to push something away from me while I'm lying flat on my
> >> >back
> >>
> >> Never had 80 lbs of fur and exuberance attacking you, have you? I'm sure the
> >> Reverend Lola would be happy to demonstrate when you have your cult meeting.
> >
> >Christ, I said 'few activities' not 'NO activities'.
> >Implying that there are some but they are the exception to the rule.
>
> Dood, I was just messing with ya.
>
> >Dogs like me anyhow.
> >
>
> I have a hard time believing that, but anyway, she only "attacks" people she
> likes.
Hmm, that phrase about pets and their owners being similar keeps coming
back to me...
> >>
> >> >(well, I can think of one offhand and it's only a real issue if
> >> >you're trying to get your partner OFF of you which usually isn't the goal).
> >> >
> >>
> >> Usually not, but I wanted to get to work by 10 this morning. The Canadian boy
> >> weighs about twice as much as the Reverend, but he's not quite as exuberant, so
> >> it was actually easier.
> >
> >What happened to the 'no more Canadians' rule, my child?
>
> Oh, I am so weak. Can you give me some absolution, Rev Beyotch?
I'm not sure you deserve it after this.
Lyle
I mean...he's Canadian for god's sake. Have some pride, woman.
geek_girl
>
>geek_girl wrote:
>>
>> In article <3C3DD3FE...@onr.com>, Lyle McDonald says...
>> >
>> >geek_girl wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Last time I checked, there are few activities (in sport or in life)
>> >> >requiring me to push something away from me while I'm lying flat on my
>> >> >back
>> >>
>> >> Never had 80 lbs of fur and exuberance attacking you, have you? I'm sure the
>> >> Reverend Lola would be happy to demonstrate when you have your cult meeting.
>> >
>> >Christ, I said 'few activities' not 'NO activities'.
>> >Implying that there are some but they are the exception to the rule.
>>
>> Dood, I was just messing with ya.
>>
>> >Dogs like me anyhow.
>> >
>>
>> I have a hard time believing that, but anyway, she only "attacks" people she
>> likes.
>
>Hmm, that phrase about pets and their owners being similar keeps coming
>back to me...
>
Apparently so, cause you already used it on me today. <yawn>
>> >>
>> >> >(well, I can think of one offhand and it's only a real issue if
>> >> >you're trying to get your partner OFF of you which usually isn't the goal).
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Usually not, but I wanted to get to work by 10 this morning. The Canadian boy
>> >> weighs about twice as much as the Reverend, but he's not quite as exuberant, so
>> >> it was actually easier.
>> >
>> >What happened to the 'no more Canadians' rule, my child?
>>
>> Oh, I am so weak. Can you give me some absolution, Rev Beyotch?
>
>I'm not sure you deserve it after this.
Oh, fine, I'll just do it on the web site. But I'm not sure that point 'n' click
absolution will give me that clean, fully absolved feeling I so desire.
>Lyle
>I mean...he's Canadian for god's sake. Have some pride, woman.
I think it was the red goatee that did me in.
Lyle McDonald
> >I mean...he's Canadian for god's sake. Have some pride, woman.
>
> I think it was the red goatee that did me in.
Tickled you in all those special spots, eh?
Lyle
looks evil with a goatee
geek_girl
>
>geek_girl wrote:
>>
>> In article <3C3DF13F...@onr.com>, Lyle McDonald says...
>
>> >I mean...he's Canadian for god's sake. Have some pride, woman.
>>
>> I think it was the red goatee that did me in.
>
>Tickled you in all those special spots, eh?
I'm not sure "tickled" is the right word. I seem to have beard burn in some odd
places.
Now is THAT TMI?
MauriceV
<wat...@watsonmusic.com> wrote:
>I have been in real world situations where my back has been supported
>and I've pushed something away from me.
Such as when in a fight you end up on your back with the other guy on
top of you. It's hard to pin a guy who can push you off of him using
only one arm.
It's also useful in dealing with nymphomaniacs. You know, the kind of
girl who trips you up and is both naked and on top of you before you
hit the floor. ;-)
--
AVANTI...FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC
David Cohen
"rcp" <r...@home.com> wrote:> > Bryce
>
> word.
>
> Whit
>
I'm collecting these. They could be valuable, or useful, some day.
David "Henry Kissinger" Cohen
MK Randall
...As far as pushing someone away goes... I am coming from a martial arts
background ...the manner we are taught to "launch" someone away from us the
first muscle called upon is the glutes. Second would be the lats, third is a
tie betweeen delts and tris and fourth is the chest.
In most of the martial arts I'm familiar with, you launch people with your
"Ki" or "Chi"
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
jrc
I did put the disclaimer on there about it being the martial arts in which
people don't fly, didn't I? ;) I am speaking from my own experiences, and I
don't have any with internal energy strikes, or any of the others things
that would fall within the same category. In our school we tend to use the
hips and proper form to push/strike people. I know, not very mystical, but
it hurts just the same.
"MK Randall" <mran...@mmm.com> wrote in message
news:a1l5kf$jj2$1...@magnum.mmm.com...
Lyle McDonald
No, but it gives me an idea for a new niche hardcore site.
Assuming it doesn't already exist.
Lyle
reverend and future pornographer
Watson Davis
>
>Watson Davis <wat...@watsonmusic.com> wrote in message
>news:650BAEBB18F9A31A.3EEA641A...@lp.airnews.net...
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:26:33 GMT, "rcp" <r...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Watson Davis <wat...@watsonmusic.com> wrote in message
>> >news:AA5B5A0EDC40EC61.85043B7E...@lp.airnews.net...
>> >> On Wed, 09 Jan 2002 23:27:43 GMT, Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >MauriceV wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 12:59:11 -0500, "Leonard F. Agius"
>> >> >> <lfagius...@wnol.net> wrote:
>> >> >Or does being able to bench XXX in a weight room have some important
>> >> >value/meaning in society that I'm unaware of? Outside of a
>powerlifting
>> >> >competition or impressing other idiots, how much you can bench is
>pretty
>> >> >irrelevant in the big scheme of things.
>> >>
>> >> Unless you want to be able to push things away from you that are in
>> >> front of you. Then the bench press becomes pretty important.
>> >>
>> >
>> >This could become one of those twisted functional strength things.
>> >
>> >The bench press has little relation to pushing something away from you,
>in
>> >that it is done lying down, with the back pressing into the bench
>>
>> Yadda yadda yadda.
>>
>> I have been in real world situations where my back has been supported
>> and I've pushed something away from me.
>>
>
>I don;t deny you have. However, in the vast majority of situations, where
>one pushes against a person, or an object, one is not backed against a wall,
>or lying down.
But there are plenty of situations where you ARE backed against a wall
or on the ground. And building upper body strength with a bench press
will have some carryover even when the back isn't supported. Let's
face it, if you get into a shoving match with me (185# bodyweight and
180# bencher), you're going to have a much easier time than if you get
into a shoving match with someone who weighs the same as I do but
benches 300-400 pounds.
>
>The bench press is an exercise. It happens to be an exercise that is great
>for building upper bodies. It also happens to be an exercise that one
>competes in if doing powerlifting. It is not a particularly decent exercise
>for "functional" strength when compared to the push press, the pullup, the
>dip, etc. Not that I think functional strength is particularly important
>for most people, just making an analogy.
This whole "functional" strength thing is crap. I can think of more
situations where I've had to bench press than I have had to push press
and I've never had to dip or pull up in real life. It all depends on
whose "real life" you're talking about.
If we were really worried about functional strength, we'd be opening
cans that were progressively harder to open, carrying progressively
heavier grocery sacks and doing more sled dragging/pushing stuff.
Let's hope Bulma's father hurries up and develops that gravity room so
we can move around normally at 400x gravity as our workouts.
Watson (the ninja of nice) Davis
Watson Davis
<leemc...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>"Watson Davis wrote
>>
>> Yadda yadda yadda.
>>
>> I have been in real world situations where my back has been supported
>> and I've pushed something away from me.
>>
>
>Fighting off all those adoring women??
It's a dirty job but someone's got to do it.
And it better be me.
MauriceV
<wat...@watsonmusic.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Let's hope Bulma's father hurries up and develops that gravity room so
>we can move around normally at 400x gravity as our workouts.
Heh! I've read that by the time a world champion free diver reaches a
depth of 400 feet, his chest (usually 44 inches or so) has been
compressed to about 18 inches (the size of an average weightlifter's
neck). It takes a special breed of man to handle that kind of pressure
- and that's only at about 14 atmospheres. 400x gravity would crush
even someone like that like a grape. - Actually, like a grape under
the heel of a giant the size of an entire herd of African elephant.
But I get your drift...
Just for interest's sake: A two-pound hand would weight 800 pounds at
400x gravity. - Guess one can forget about even wiping the sweat from
one's brow. ;-)
Rob
You should see Gotan's diaper pins. Pliers just snap when you use them to
try and open the little suckers...
rcp
YES, EXACTLY. And that is my whole point. This whole "functional strength"
thing, and machines are bad thing is way way way overrated.
Strong is strong. And even if strong, is leg press strong, it's still
strong.
>
> >
> >The bench press is an exercise. It happens to be an exercise that is
great
> >for building upper bodies. It also happens to be an exercise that one
> >competes in if doing powerlifting. It is not a particularly decent
exercise
> >for "functional" strength when compared to the push press, the pullup,
the
> >dip, etc. Not that I think functional strength is particularly important
> >for most people, just making an analogy.
>
> This whole "functional" strength thing is crap
Yes, that is my point. Read back and see that this was my original point,
that people slag on machines etc. because they don't build "functional
strength".
. I can think of more
> situations where I've had to bench press than I have had to push press
> and I've never had to dip or pull up in real life. It all depends on
> whose "real life" you're talking about.
>
If one IS talking functional strength, then moving one's own bodyweight up
and over obstacles etc. is a lot more common than any real world bench
press. Dips and pullups are much more closely related to moving one's own
bodyweight through space, up and over objects, etc.
Again, MOST people could give fuck-all about functional strength. AND even
machines make one stronger.
> If we were really worried about functional strength, we'd be opening
> cans that were progressively harder to open, carrying progressively
> heavier grocery sacks and doing more sled dragging/pushing stuff.
>
word
Whit
JCulp
<wat...@watsonmusic.com> wrote:
[snip]
>But there are plenty of situations where you ARE backed against a wall
>or on the ground. And building upper body strength with a bench press
>will have some carryover even when the back isn't supported. Let's
>face it, if you get into a shoving match with me (185# bodyweight and
>180# bencher), you're going to have a much easier time than if you get
>into a shoving match with someone who weighs the same as I do but
>benches 300-400 pounds.
Shoving? I'd want to pull you. I cant hurt you nearly as bad by
shoving you away. OTOH, If I can pull you around, you're (not you
personally watson) toast. Of course, I actually avoid violence at all
costs. :-)
FWIW, I have always considered bicep/lat strength the most useful or
"functional" for day to day stuff. Basically you cant lift/carry
anything if you cant pull it and hold to you. After that it would be
leg/lower back strength and then finally the "pushing" muscles.
[snip]
Kevin Haggerty
<wat...@watsonmusic.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:26:33 GMT, "rcp" <r...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>Watson Davis <wat...@watsonmusic.com> wrote in message
>>news:AA5B5A0EDC40EC61.85043B7E...@lp.airnews.net...
>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2002 23:27:43 GMT, Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >Or does being able to bench XXX in a weight room have some important
>>> >value/meaning in society that I'm unaware of? Outside of a powerlifting
>>> >competition or impressing other idiots, how much you can bench is pretty
>>> >irrelevant in the big scheme of things.
>>>
>>> Unless you want to be able to push things away from you that are in
>>> front of you. Then the bench press becomes pretty important.
>>>
>>
>>This could become one of those twisted functional strength things.
>>
>>The bench press has little relation to pushing something away from you, in
>>that it is done lying down, with the back pressing into the bench
>
>Yadda yadda yadda.
>
>I have been in real world situations where my back has been supported
>and I've pushed something away from me.
Same here, although this may bring us back to the idea that we are the
same person...
One example I can remember off the top of my head is when we were
trying to stow one of those modular dance floors back into it's place
in a storage room (in my wonderful not-real job). The room had soft
rubber floor overlays, the dance floor was on a cart, and it had to be
pushed into position perpendicular to the long length of the room. I
walked into the room to see a couple guys trying to wrestle the cart
into position, getting nowhere. I asked that they let me give it a
try. Since there was no room between the cart and the wall to get
sufficient leverage to use my legs, I just planted my back against the
wall and pressed it away. Now, I'm not sure about anyone else, but
I'm pretty sure the movement was a real world situation that was
functionally similar to the bench press...
--
Kevin Haggerty
kev...@purdue.edu
August Pamplona
news:3c3e35e...@basic.bs.webusenet.com...
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 19:48:45 -0500, Watson Davis
> <wat...@watsonmusic.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >Let's hope Bulma's father hurries up and develops that gravity room so
> >we can move around normally at 400x gravity as our workouts.
>
> Heh! I've read that by the time a world champion free diver reaches a
> depth of 400 feet, his chest (usually 44 inches or so) has been
> compressed to about 18 inches (the size of an average weightlifter's
> neck). It takes a special breed of man to handle that kind of pressure
That would have to be clearly wrong. The only thing that is compressible
in your chest is air (which is what, ~5 liters at most? --assuming you're
not HYOOUUGE). Imagine the chest completely empty of air (or alternatively,
empty your lungs as much as you can and, realizing that there's probably not
much air left and that it isn't capable of getting much smaller --1
liter???--, take your measurement), that's as small as it's likely to get.
August Pamplona
P.S. I was also going to accuse you of using an outrageous depth in your
example but looking at actual records I see that I was being very 80's (if
not earlier) in my thinking.
--
"They are a little bit smelly, and there's something about the way they move
their antennae. But they look nicer when you put a little circuit on their
backs and remove their wings."
--Raphael Holzer
a.a. # 1811
To email replace 'necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale' with 'cosmicaug'