I Wanna Look Like A Soloflex Ad
Scott Babb
magazine cover shot, I just want to get into what I consider
reasonable shape. The guys in the Soloflex ads look about right to me
<MCP on>(well, the ladies in the ads look better, but I'd rather look
AT them than LIKE them ;-)<MCP off> Does anyone know how effective a
Soloflex would be at getting me to look like those guys? Does anyone
have any better suggestions? I'm 6'5" and about 215#. I have no
problem changing weight and I've weighed between 165# and 265# (!) in
the past 10 years. I'm on a downward trend currently, planning to
settle in at around 205. What do you recommend?
I've only been netted for about a month, so I apologize if this is on
a FAQ list or a generally accepted "bad thing to ask."
--Scott
--
/===========================================================================\
/ These are opinions, which are my opinions and belong | Scott L. Babb \
\ to me and not Summa Four, and I own them. -- M. Python| ad...@summa4.mv.com /
\===========================================================================/
Jim Stewart Sun-Bloomington MN SE
sent for a brochure. For one thing, I found the price to be too
high, even though it does promise to work all parts of the body.
Also, I couldn't imagine this machine really being able to offer
anywhere near the intensity of a free-weight or conventional weight
machine workout. The machine really doesn't look like it could
stand up to an intense workout, especially if someone over 200#
consistently used it. You may notice that the ads have never shown
anyone over about 160# using a Soloflex. I don't know if I would
get into the inverted sit-up position and comfortably work my abs
if I was a sturdy 200# on this machine - I'd be too afraid that I
might knock the machine over and take me with it!
However, since I don't own a Soloflex, and I do own lots of free
weights, and your standard bench press, incline press, squat rack,
preacher curl, leg extension/curl, and calf machine, I probably
am biased towards free weights.
One other key note - I can pick up a Sat. or Sun. newspaper, on
any given weekend, and find at least 2-3 Soloflex's for sale. The
ad usually says something about the unit being in excellent condition,
or hardly used, or something to that effect. This makes me wonder
why all those Soloflex's are being sold, especially if they are
sold so soon after being purchased...
--
Ira B. Ekhaus
I like my soloflex. The number of used machines is a tribute
to slick marketing that pulls in marginal people who want the
result, without having considered the work involved.
The slflx is very sturdy, (I'm 6'0", 210), and size is no problem
(do you remember all those weider adds with the 5'2" athletes using
the benches?.
You can combine the rubber bands with free weights (dumbells in the sides
of the bar) to get a very broad range of resistance curves). This really
helps avoid some sticking points in pressing exercises.
The used ones are the better value but they are a bit expensive.
ira
Jeff Wabik
> I don't want to to look like a 'roid monster and I'm not looking for a
> magazine cover shot, I just want to get into what I consider
> reasonable shape. The guys in the Soloflex ads look about right to me
Ugh. Now.. I'm not specificially picking on you, Scott.. but I'm
tired of hearing how people, "Want to get in shape, but don't want to
look like those guys in the magazines." The reality of the situation
is that even if you wanted to, you probably couldn't.. So.. Please
completely erase any such worries from your head... In general,
developing a physique like a professional bodybuilder takes years and
years and years of training, good genetics, and an ample supply of
steroids. Getting to look like the guy in the guys(/girls) in the
soloflex commercials will be difficult enough.
Every body is different. If you wanna look like the guy in the
Soloflex commercials, you'll need to: Eat a good diet (low fat, high
carbs, adequate protein), and train hard (either free weights, or
whatever, and aerobic exercise).. Everyone has opinions on wether free
weights are better than Soloflex, or Nautilus.. I'm sure you'll get
plenty of comments (mine is that nothing comes close to free weights
in a good gym with a good partner pushing you.), so I wont get into
it.
-Jeff (Who'd like to look like one of the 'roid monsters) 8^)
--
Jeff Wabik E/Mail: jwa...@msc.edu
Minnesota Supercomputer Center AT&T: +1 612 626 0211
Minneapolis, MN FAX: +1 612 624 6550
Tim Peters
>...
>For one thing, I found the price to be too high, even though it does
>promise to work all parts of the body.
Is expensive, but also very well made. "Too high" is hard to judge, but
I too suspect their profit margin is mighty healthy.
>Also, I couldn't imagine this machine really being able to offer
>anywhere near the intensity of a free-weight or conventional weight
>machine workout.
Suggest that intensity is an attribute of the person, not the equipment.
If you can configure the equipment to exceed your limits, you can get as
intense as you like and still fail <grin>.
> The machine really doesn't look like it could stand up to an intense
>workout, especially if someone over 200# consistently used it.
Turns out it can. The shipping weight is well over 200#, and a couple
hundred pounds of welded steel is a lot tougher than a couple hundred
pounds of flesh.
>... I don't know if I would get into the inverted sit-up position and
>comfortably work my abs if I was a sturdy 200# on this machine - I'd be
>too afraid that I might knock the machine over and take me with it!
Well, I did it again just a couple hours ago, & lived to type about it
<grin>. Seriously, I was nervous about that the first few times, but
turns out it's no problem. The machine *can* tip, especially with the
leg-extension attachment, but never has in my experience -- reasonable
caution is more than enough to prevent it. The biggest danger with the
inverted sit-up is that the mount & dismount are clumsy, and I can easily
picture someone in very poor shape (without sufficient grip strength or
sense of balance) falling on their head.
>However, since I don't own a Soloflex, and I do own lots of free
>weights, and your standard bench press, incline press, squat rack,
>preacher curl, leg extension/curl, and calf machine, I probably
>am biased towards free weights.
More power to you! I prefer free weights too. Soloflex is a
compromise, best for those with very little time and/or very little
space and/or no training partner or spotter. It's a relatively safe and
quick and thorough way to get a good solo workout. Doubt that a
hardcore bodybuilder would have much use for one; but think it's a fine
machine for people with different goals.
>One other key note - I can pick up a Sat. or Sun. newspaper, on
>any given weekend, and find at least 2-3 Soloflex's for sale. The
>ad usually says something about the unit being in excellent condition,
>or hardly used, or something to that effect. This makes me wonder
>why all those Soloflex's are being sold, especially if they are
>sold so soon after being purchased...
Sure you might not have an axe to grind here <0.3 grin>? I can find 2-3
used barbell sets "in excellent condition" too ...
The Soloflex ads show people in good shape using light resistance for
single sets. That illustrates the range of the machine (in a half-hour
commercial, it's about all they *can* show, really ...), but grossly
misrepresents what a real workout is like. I don't care if you're
stretching rubber or heaving iron or tossing bags of concrete, to-
failure resistance exercise is damned hard *work*. I'd be surprised if
half the people who bought one had any real idea what they were getting
into (I did).
Far as I've seen, most people drop most exercise programs -- I know for
sure that I do <grin>. Doubt that Soloflex is worse than the norm in
this respect. To the contrary, maybe the nicest thing about the
Soloflex for me is that when I *do* slough off for a month (for whatever
reason), it's sitting right in my living room just begging to be used
again. And so far it's always won that battle.
one-guy-who-isn't-selling-ly y'rs - tim
Tim Peters Kendall Square Research Corp
t...@ksr.com, ksr!t...@uunet.uu.net
awe...@splvx1.csc.ti.com
I purchased a Soloflex about a year ago, and I am perfectly satisified
with it. At the time that I purchased it, I had been working out on a
Universal machine. I found the Soloflex to be superior to the Universal in
a few aspects. There were more exercises that could be done, the movement
was smoother, and it takes some balancing from left to right during the
movement.
I weigh about 170#, but I dont think that there would be any problem
of sturdiness with the machine for people weighing in the lower 200's.
If you are seriously considering buying a Soloflex, look in the
newspapers, call someone, and go try it out. There are a lot of people who
see the commercials for Soloflex, buy one, then find out that they don't have
the dedication to stick with it. It takes dedication for any weight program.
I purchased mine used, and have used it for the full body workout
three times a week, without it showing signs of wear. I have seen good
improvement while using it and I am convienced that it is the best home
workout weight machine that you can buy for a reasonable cost.
That's just my $.02 worth.
Erik Reuter
COMB and DAMARK catalogs? They end up costing a bit under $250 including
shipping, including leg and butterfly attachments. That is a certainly a lot
less than the Soloflex. These may not be as well made (although you never
know), but it could be worth a look if your budget is tight. Both catalogs do
offer a money back gurantee if you don't like it, but you will be out round
trip shipping charges.
MARK HALL
my body; I have lost 20 pounds of fat and noticed improved
definition in major muscle groups. BUT, the Soloflex alone did
not account for the progress. I've changed my eating habits,
I'm getting the proper amount of rest, and probably more important,
I'm staying mentally focused during my workouts.
Over the years, I've worked with free-weight (I still own
450 lbs. and a bench), Nautilus, and Soloflex. The only
Soloflex exercise that doesn't equate well to its free-weight
equivalent (IMHO) is the standing barbell curl; I still prefer
a curl bar and plates for this exercise. Additionally, the
Soloflex allows you to work to failure without worrying about
caving in your chest, head, other body-part. The peace-of-mind
from this factor alone has improved my intensity on movements.
During the first year or so, my wife and I "played" with the machine; workouts were infrequent and usually left incomplete. Our usage was about
once per week for 20 minutes. During the last 4 months, we both
use the machine a minimum of 3 days per week for 1.5 hours per
session. Some days the machine gets extra use for off-day abdominal work. During these sessions, I've noticed minimal wear and no reduction in
resistance from the bands. The machine stands about six feet tall,
and the cross-member is about four feet long. Primary constuction
is from 3" square steel. It is *very* sturdy.
(Note: you may also use free-weight with the Soloflex)
Overall, I'm pleased with the machine. The cost is high, but have
you compared other machines, or *equivalent quality* free-weight
equipment? There are also some opportunity costs to be considered:
you won't need to go to a gym, you will not have your garage, base-
ment, other room (ours sits in the corner of a bedroom) full of equipment, and
you won't require the services of a spotter. As with any machine,
it only provides results if you use it. I didn't notice any resultsuntil I began using the equipment consistently, eating a balanced diet, getting
enough rest, and keeping mentally focused. (Maybe I'll look like
a Soloflex ad in another 8 months! :-) ) Whatever you decide,
good luck with your program, and I hope you find this info
useful.
Mark Hall (N4ZUK) MH...@ducvax.auburn.edu
144 Parker Hall
Auburn University, AL 36849
Tim Peters
>Has anyone seen the resistance band workout machines advertised in the latest
>COMB and DAMARK catalogs?
Have seen the catalogs in person <grin> but not the machines -- hope
someone else has hands-on experience.
>They end up costing a bit under $250 including shipping, including leg
>and butterfly attachments. That is certainly a lot less than the Soloflex.
"A lot less" is right: about 4X less.
>These may not be as well made (although you never know), but it could
>be worth a look if your budget is tight.
Agree. One caution: as I recall the fine print in these ads, the max
resistance was around 180#. Don't know whether that's because they're
too cheap to supply more straps or because that's all the machine is
built to handle or ... but definitely something to get an answer to
before buying one if your goals go beyond general toning.
180# might sound like a lot to a beginner, but an average guy will
quickly outgrow that for chest & leg work if they just keep pushing.
The Soloflex handles 400# worth of strap resistance with no trouble, and
the manual claims (I haven't tried this) that the main arm can safely be
loaded with up to 500# of plates in addition.
whether-your-floor-can-stand-it-is-a-different-question<grin>-ly y'rs
Tim Peters
>...
>The only Soloflex exercise that doesn't equate well to its free-weight
>equivalent (IMHO) is the standing barbell curl; I still prefer a curl
>bar and plates for this exercise.
Someone else mentioned that here a few months ago, and I'll add a "me
too!". Worse, the only serious injury I've gotten from using SF is what
feels like a bicep tendon tear from a combination of the standing SF
curl and the one-armed curl on the leg extension. Both movements always
felt extremely unnatural to me, and I'll only do them now with very
light resistance. Curiously, a standing *reverse* curl (overhand grip)
feels perfectly normal ...
The other exercise that feels very different to me (but unlike the curl
not "bad different", just "different different" <grin>) is the squat.
At the bottom of the movement the resistance is very light, and because
of that I don't think it hits the gleuts as well.
On the other hand:
>Additionally, the Soloflex allows you to work to failure without
>worrying about caving in your chest, head, other body-part. The
>peace-of-mind from this factor alone has improved my intensity on
>movements.
Same here -- *no* fear of loading up to the max. But there is a real
danger of having a hand slip off the bar during a sweaty wide-gripped
lift; last year William Sequeira suggested the obvious (so many things
are in retrospect <grin>) expedient of using a set of lifting gloves,
and that does the job. Highly recommended.
> ... (Maybe I'll look like a Soloflex ad in another 8 months! :-) )
Hope you do, Mark -- I could use the inspiration <grin>.
we-got-rubber-in-our-veins-ly y'rs - tim
Tye Botting, SysAdmin
eer3...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Erik Reuter) writes:
>Has anyone seen the resistance band workout machines advertised in the latest
>COMB and DAMARK catalogs? They end up costing a bit under $250 including
>shipping, including leg and butterfly attachments. That is a certainly a lot
>less than the Soloflex. These may not be as well made (although you never
>know), but it could be worth a look if your budget is tight. Both catalogs do
Yeah, I got one a year ago or so, when I was wanting a bit of a
change, and also to get more work on my shoulders and chest (I only work out
at home, alone - no spotters and such). Anyhoo, I'm happy with it, and it
seems to have all the functionality of a Soloflex, with the exception of the
ability to let you do the hanging inverted sit-ups and chin-ups (but then I
had a chin up bar already). I see no reason not to get one as opposed to a
real Soloflex... However, I do agree that hardcore bodybuilders probably
wouldn't have much use for 'em. The one I got was from Damark, for $188 plus
s&h, and came with bands, butterfly, and leg attachments included. You can
order more bands if you want, also.
One other thing that I think should be mentioned, is that it takes
some time to reconfigure the machine (and probably soloflex too, by the look
of it) for the next exercise, unlike having an adequate free weight supply or
a universal machine...
_____________________________________________________________________________
INET: war...@pro-haven.cts.com | Tye Botting, pro-haven SysAdmin
UUCP: crash!pro-haven!warlock | Pariahs' Haven BBS, TX 409/693-8262
Rob Bernardo
>I don't want to to look like a 'roid monster and I'm not looking for a
>magazine cover shot, I just want to get into what I consider
>reasonable shape. The guys in the Soloflex ads look about right to me
><MCP on>(well, the ladies in the ads look better, but I'd rather look
>AT them than LIKE them ;-)<MCP off>
Ugh, flaunting one's heterosexuality again. :-) :-)
(Btw, what does "MCP" stand for?)
> Does anyone know how effective a
>Soloflex would be at getting me to look like those guys? Does anyone
>have any better suggestions? I'm 6'5" and about 215#. I have no
>problem changing weight and I've weighed between 165# and 265# (!) in
>the past 10 years. I'm on a downward trend currently, planning to
>settle in at around 205. What do you recommend?
I think you might underestimate how much muscle you'll have to add to
look like them. My guess is that at 6'5", to have the same proportions
(unless you are extremely narrow) you're going to need to weigh close to
240 lean lbs.
Let's say the guys in the Soloflex ads are 6' even and weigh 195#.
Now weight is a function of volume, not height, and volume (hence weight)
increases with the *cube* of height increases (keeping proportions the same).
p = number of pounds in Scott's desired weight
(72)(72)(72) 195
------------ = ---
(77)(77)(77) p
p = 238
Another way of putting this is if a weight of 205# for you at 6'5" was
proportional to the Soloflex guys at 6' even, they'd have to weigh:
(72)(72)(72) p
----------- = ---
(75)(75)(75) 205
p = 168
Now my experience is that equally proportioned men of different heights
are not perceived as equally proportioned. My experience is that shorter
men need to be proportionately thicker than average-heighted people in
order to come across as just as "beefy". So you may not need to weigh
240# to appear as beefy as the Soloflex guy.
--
Rob Bernardo Mt. Diablo Software Solutions
email: r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US home phone: (510) 827-4301
Rogene Eichler [mf12801]
I do own a Soloflex. I am 5'6", and 145lbs, female. I enjoy it
quite a bit and feel that it is balanced enough that it will
not tip over when working out hard. My fiance, however, is
5'10" and 190. He finds it quite uncomfortable for his body size.
I have to spot him, because the machine often tips with his
size, weight, and force.
The only problem I have is that the resistance is not continuous
within the full range of motion. To get a balanced work out,
I head to the Y. It is great for when you want to do a quick
few sets at home.
I would try it out to make sure that your body frame and style
are a good fit before investing $1100.
Rogene Eichler
Richard Ottolini
strength exercises alone at home or in public in the gym. I suspect some
people who buy home strength equipment get bored or unmotivated and abandon
it, while others like them because they avoid the hassles of a gym.
In my case, my workout style is exercise style depends on the exercise.
I like running alone because I feel competative running with other people.
On the other hand, I get bored weightlifting alone and like the energy of
other people around.
EvilTwin
In article <1991Sep15.1...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US> r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US (Rob Bernardo) writes:
>(Btw, what does "MCP" stand for?)
>
ala Tron, Master Control Program. I think. Watch the movie.
EvilTwin -
Steve Venable
Continuing the thread...
I bought one of the Soloflex-type machines offered by DAMARK (oh, I can't remember the name... Gym/Flex or something like that). I must say I am fairly satisfied. I had spent much time looking for Soloflex, used or otherwise. Almost bought one but due to price differences felt I had to try the Gym/Flex.
Must say it is not quite up to what I think a Soloflex would be. Can't add free weights, can't do inverted situps, can't take as many resistance bands, etc. But for the price difference, it does do what I wanted and that is allow me to workout without a spotter at home. Also I have seen a *marked* difference in my physique but this is due to my really using the machine whereas I didn't use the weight bench I have.
Some points to consider for others contemplating purchase of these types
(including Soloflex)...
1) Persons over 6' may have difficulty. I am 6' and the Gym/Flex is "just" tall enough. Any taller and some of the overhead exercises wouldn't be doable.
2) Movement though the exercise is limited and resistance varies. That is more resistance occurs at end of motion and bands do have limited stretch.
3) Any machine takes some time to reconfigure. The Gym/Flex uses threaded bolts, it takes time to turn them in and out. The Soloflex may be better here.
4) The machine doesn't do the workout for you. :)
--
___ _____ ____ _ _ ____ Steven F. Venable
/ ___) (_ _) | ___) | || | | ___) Martin Marietta Orlando
\__ \ | | | _)_ | || | | _)_ Voice: [407] 356-3927 or -6958
(____/ |_| |____) \__/ |____) Email: Steve-...@orl.mmc.com
Disclaimer: Any statements made by the above named party(s) should not be
construed to be representative of any party in particular; especially not
that of the employer.
Daniel Mocsny
> 4) The machine doesn't do the workout for you. :)
Another thing to remember: the machine doesn't improve after years
of hard training, either!
--
Daniel Mocsny
Internet: dmo...@minerva.che.uc.edu
Home box: dmo...@piglet.cincinnati.oh.usa (theoretically...)
or: minerva.che.uc.edu!piglet!dmocsny
Troy Allen Cross
says:
I think it stands for Male Chauvinist Pig.
Troy
Rick Marsico
ste...@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Steve Venable) says:
>
>Continuing the thread...
>
>But for the price difference, it does do what I wanted and that is allow me to
>m
>physique but this is due to my really using the machine whereas I didn't use e
>th
>weight bench I have.
>
IMO, there are better combinations of equipment you can buy for your dollar
than the soloflex which will provide the same self-spotting features.
For example, an incline/decline bench at $230, a power rack at $300, and
an olympic set at approx. $250 with dumbells will give you a better
workout at a lesser cost than the soloflex. Before purchasing a soloflex
shop around. You can virtually build a complete home gym for your dollar.
Rick
Don Hermes
So, What does someone sell a used Soloflex machine for ?
Rogene Eichler [mf12801]
So, What does someone sell a used Soloflex machine for ?
************ I'll sell you mine for $800
Rogene Eichle
Jim Wood
If you think the guy in the Soloflex Ad looks like that
by virtue of Soloflex alone, think again.
Jim Wood [jw...@siemens.siemens.com]
Siemens Corporate Research, 755 College Road East, Princeton, NJ 08540
(609) 734-3643
Novorolsky
>
> So, What does someone sell a used Soloflex machine for ?
>
Sorry, couldn't resist.....
Flames > /dev/null 2>&1
========================================================
**paul novorolsky
( !att!iwcs!pgn, p...@iwcs.att.com)
========================================================