programming codes for Stairmaster 4000PT
Mike Whitman
machines at the club where I work out. I could program the time in by hand
on the "old" models by entering 1010 before starting my workout. Is there a
code on the newer style machines that will alow me to do the same. I hate to
do just a 20 min workout and then have to start over to get my full 45 min
workout in. By the new Stairmaster 4000PT I mean the model that has the
rollercoaster mode. Any info would be appreciated. Thanks,
-- mike --
--
-=--------- Michael C. Whitman
---===------- National System Engineer - Telecom
-----=====----- Pyramid Technology Corporation
-------=======--- 1921 Gallows Road, Suite 250
---------=========- Vienna, VA 22182
Phone: (703) 848-2050 Pager: (800)sky-page pin# 45300
Alan Monday-US Operations Program Mgr.
Have you tried it? I hope they didn't change it without telling.
Philip Earnhardt
The new Stairmasters our club got now prompt for the workout time
after weight, course choice, and intensity level. The 1010 code still
prompts for a time; on the new machines, this time is the *maximum*
time that you can enter during the normal sequence. Any time up to 45
minutes can be put in for the "1010 code" maximum-time parameter.
All in all, it's pretty silly, since most everyone knew about hitting "1010
<ENTER>" before they started working out on the older machines in order to set
the time. For some folks, they either don't know the difference between the
new and old functionality or don't care -- they will set the machine's maximum
time to the time they want to work out. The machine's max is typically set
below the time I want to work out; I'll always use "1010 <ENTER>" to reset the
time before I start on the machine.
Mike, it's possible that Stairmaster gave the clubs some means of changing the
programming on the machines; maybe you can't use "1010 <ENTER>" on your new
machines. I haven't looked at a manual yet; you might want to see if your club
will lend you a manual.
Since we're talking about Stairmasters, how many other people get peeved by
folks who crank up the machines to a high intensity and then lock their
elbows, leaning on the handrails? How about the folks who literally lay their
heads down on the machines? Are there any clubs out there that encourage
good form on the machines? Do they have any success?
Phil Earnhardt p...@netwise.com
Netwise, Inc. Boulder, CO (303) 442-8280
Bruce Greer
>In article <87...@male.EBay.Sun.COM> al...@usops.EBay.Sun.COM writes:
>>I have worked out on the 4000 PT. I used the same 1010 code as usual.
>>Have you tried it? I hope they didn't change it without telling.
>>
>>mi...@pyrdc.UUCP (Mike Whitman) writes:
>>> We have just gotten a number of the 'new' model of StairMaster 4000 PT
>>> machines at the club where I work out. I could program the time in by hand
>>> on the "old" models by entering 1010 before starting my workout. Is there a
>>> code on the newer style machines that will alow me to do the same.
>
>The new Stairmasters our club got now prompt for the workout time
>after weight, course choice, and intensity level. The 1010 code still
>prompts for a time; on the new machines, this time is the *maximum*
>time that you can enter during the normal sequence. Any time up to 45
>minutes can be put in for the "1010 code" maximum-time parameter.
>
that there is some control code that he can use that will permanently
set the maximum time to something lower than 45 mins. That's what ours
are set at now. He said that once that change was made, he'd need a service
rep to reset it. Maybe that has something to do with why you can't reset
yours.
--
Bruce Greer VMID: GREER at CAMBRIDG
IBM Technical Computing IBMNET: br...@sim.cambridge.ibm.com
101 Main Street Internet: br...@claven.cambridge.ibm.com
Cambridge, MA 02142 All opinions expressed here will be denied later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach,
teach Software Design.
Alison Chaiken
>Since we're talking about Stairmasters, how many other people get peeved by
>folks who crank up the machines to a high intensity and then lock their
>elbows, leaning on the handrails? How about the folks who literally lay their
>heads down on the machines?
Yes!! I have many times tried to convince folks that they should lower
the intensity level and use correct form instead of cranking the
machine all they way up. I have even heard people complain, "I can't
use Stairmaster; it hurts my arms and back," and I know instinctively
what their problem is!
--
Alison Chaiken ali...@wsrcc.com
(202)767-3603 [daytime] uunet!wsrcc!alison
Daniel Mocsny
>p...@athena.mit.edu (Philip Earnhardt) writes:
>>Since we're talking about Stairmasters, how many other people get peeved by
>>folks who crank up the machines to a high intensity and then lock their
>>elbows, leaning on the handrails? How about the folks who literally lay their
>>heads down on the machines?
>
>Yes!! I have many times tried to convince folks that they should lower
>the intensity level and use correct form instead of cranking the
>machine all they way up. I have even heard people complain, "I can't
>use Stairmaster; it hurts my arms and back," and I know instinctively
>what their problem is!
This is a problem inherent with all make-believe forms of exercise:
they have no absolute measure of performance. Therefore, the exerciser
has no external frame of reference to enforce proper technique. In real
exercises that involve movement, or lifting a real weight, or some other
measurable result, improper technique shows up immediately in reduced
performance.
Trying to convince people to use Stairmasters, etc., correctly is
probably a waste of time. If these people are using such machines,
instead of going out and getting some real exercise (e.g., running,
riding a bike, rollerblading, etc.), then they probably *want* to take
some kind of a shortcut on hard work. If they don't get results, that's
not your problem.
--
Daniel Mocsny
Internet: dmo...@minerva.che.uc.edu
Home box: dmo...@piglet.cincinnati.oh.us
or: minerva.che.uc.edu!piglet!dmocsny
Siddarth Subramanian
>Trying to convince people to use Stairmasters, etc., correctly is
>probably a waste of time. If these people are using such machines,
>instead of going out and getting some real exercise (e.g., running,
>riding a bike, rollerblading, etc.), then they probably *want* to take
>some kind of a shortcut on hard work.
This is an extremely condescending remark (besides being untrue).
Most people I know who use machines like the Stairmaster do it to
cross-train from other kinds of exercise. For me (a runner) the
stair machines are a good workout for my quads without the impact
stress of running. I run between 40 and 70 miles a week (depending on
what I'm training for) and the stair machines are a good second
workout that I can get in two or three times a week. I don't think I'm
taking a shortcut on hard work. Do you?
--
Disclaimer: Nothing in this statement may be construed as constituting
a disclaimer.
Siddarth Subramanian INTERNET: sidd...@cs.utexas.edu
Austin, Texas UUCP: uunet!cs.utexas.edu!siddarth
Phil Earnhardt
>>Yes!! I have many times tried to convince folks that they should lower
>>the intensity level and use correct form instead of cranking the
>>machine all they way up. I have even heard people complain, "I can't
>>use Stairmaster; it hurts my arms and back," and I know instinctively
>>what their problem is!
>
>This is a problem inherent with all make-believe forms of exercise:
>they have no absolute measure of performance. Therefore, the exerciser
>has no external frame of reference to enforce proper technique. In real
>exercises that involve movement, or lifting a real weight, or some other
>measurable result, improper technique shows up immediately in reduced
>performance.
Gee, looks like that knocks out most of the aerobic exercise equipment
in clubs. How about treadmills? Do they involve movement? Do they
encourage improper technique? How about exercise bikes?
>Trying to convince people to use Stairmasters, etc., correctly is
>probably a waste of time. If these people are using such machines,
>instead of going out and getting some real exercise (e.g., running,
>riding a bike, rollerblading, etc.), then they probably *want* to take
>some kind of a shortcut on hard work. If they don't get results, that's
>not your problem.
Dan, there's no reason why virtually any of the aerobic exercise
equipment in clubs can't be used properly. The problem is that there's
a general assumption that people don't need instruction on such
equipment. You also have to have a sense of participating in the
exercise; folks who can't do that may want to look elsewhere.
Folks who do "real" exercise still have no guarantee of correct form,
either. As someone who skates a lot, I've seen pleanty of in-liners
who don't have a clue about decent form. The same goes for bicyclists,
and, to a lesser extent, runners. Many of these "real" exercisers are
abusing the exercise in the most fundamental way -- exceeding their
appropriate intensity for aerobic exercise.
No matter what types of exercise folks choose, they need a clear sense
of purpose. The stairmaster abusers just are a bit confused.
I agree with the benefits of outdoor exercise; I'm just not convinced
there's a categorical relationship between outdoor exercise and good
form.
>Daniel Mocsny
>Internet: dmo...@minerva.che.uc.edu
Daniel Mocsny
>In article <1991Oct21.0...@piglet.cincinnati.oh.us> dmo...@piglet.CINCINNATI.OH.US (Daniel Mocsny) writes:
>>This is a problem inherent with all make-believe forms of exercise:
>>they have no absolute measure of performance. Therefore, the exerciser
>>has no external frame of reference to enforce proper technique. In real
>>exercises that involve movement, or lifting a real weight, or some other
>>measurable result, improper technique shows up immediately in reduced
>>performance.
>
>Gee, looks like that knocks out most of the aerobic exercise equipment
>in clubs. How about treadmills? Do they involve movement? Do they
>encourage improper technique? How about exercise bikes?
Ride your real bike to the gym, and lift real weights when you get
there. I'm not sure about the point of treadmills; if the weather
permits getting to the gym, it certainly permits obtaining a similar
exercise outside.
I see hundreds of people driving cars to gyms in perfectly good weather,
so they can sit inside on exercise bikes. This is sheer madness!
I see strong, muscular people who act like big babies when it comes
to carting those god-like bodies around. Have we totally lost touch?
>>Trying to convince people to use Stairmasters, etc., correctly is
>>probably a waste of time. If these people are using such machines,
>>instead of going out and getting some real exercise (e.g., running,
>>riding a bike, rollerblading, etc.), then they probably *want* to take
>>some kind of a shortcut on hard work. If they don't get results, that's
>>not your problem.
>
>Dan, there's no reason why virtually any of the aerobic exercise
>equipment in clubs can't be used properly.
Of course. Except that those people who refuse to do so, when the
correct form is obvious (and obviously harder), are not worth preaching
to. Let them go through the motions and believe they are getting some
benefit.
>The problem is that there's
>a general assumption that people don't need instruction on such
>equipment. You also have to have a sense of participating in the
>exercise; folks who can't do that may want to look elsewhere.
Any bozo can figure out the right way to use a StairMaster. If a
person is sort of bouncing the thing with a 2" range of motion, they
know *exactly* what they are(n't) doing. The instructions are hanging
right on the thing.
>Folks who do "real" exercise still have no guarantee of correct form,
>either. As someone who skates a lot, I've seen pleanty of in-liners
>who don't have a clue about decent form. The same goes for bicyclists,
>and, to a lesser extent, runners. Many of these "real" exercisers are
>abusing the exercise in the most fundamental way -- exceeding their
>appropriate intensity for aerobic exercise.
Without ever going directly head-to-head with real athletes in real
sports, a person has a hard time developing a concept of what constitutes
a real workout. Machines are a reasonable tool for a real athlete who
has some temporary barrier to real training (such as an injury or
particularly brutal weather). But among the legions of make-believe
athletes who *never* go outside and try any real exercises, a
substantial fraction will have little interest in correct form and
hard work. You can see this in every gym; I'm only arguing the obvious
here.
>No matter what types of exercise folks choose, they need a clear sense
>of purpose. The stairmaster abusers just are a bit confused.
I disagree. Try to persuade one of them to try a real sport; you'll see
what I mean. They are not confused at all.
>I agree with the benefits of outdoor exercise; I'm just not convinced
>there's a categorical relationship between outdoor exercise and good
>form.
On a StairMaster, there is no penalty for poor form, except some
ill-defined and hard-to-measure long-term failure to "get results".
In a real sport, poor form immediately shows up as poor performance.
Such as in bicycling, if you don't pedal well, you get blown out the
back. After a person gets dropped in the boonies a few times, they
find themselves motivated to ask for some pointers. I've watched this
happen routinely. On the other hand, with the StairMaster, a person
can happily misuse it forever, and never have any reason to question
that something could be wrong. Which is one big selling point for
StairMasters.
Why else would people be lining up to use StairMasters in a gym in
which the same people use the elevator so they can avoid climbing the
real stairway between floors? Duh.
Daniel Mocsny
>
>In article <1991Oct21.0...@piglet.cincinnati.oh.us>, dmo...@piglet.cincinnati.oh.us (Daniel Mocsny) writes:
>|> Trying to convince people to use Stairmasters, etc., correctly is
>|> probably a waste of time. If these people are using such machines,
>|> instead of going out and getting some real exercise (e.g., running,
>|> riding a bike, rollerblading, etc.), then they probably *want* to take
>|> some kind of a shortcut on hard work.
>
Ah, but did you comprehend what I wrote?
>First, not everyone can enjoy the great outdoors year-round. Educate yourself
>about various diabilities that make it impossible to exercise outdoors 12
>months a year.
Notice that I did not advise against using indoor exercise machines.
I advised against bothering to tell people who are voluntarily misusing
these machines to use good form. It will be a waste of breath.
>Second, consider that some people work during the day and have family lives at
>night such that exercising before 9pm is out of the question. Using a
>StairMaster or some such equivalent after the kids are asleep is often the
>sole option.
So, do you use a full range of motion on your StairMaster? Or do you
set the resistance high, and merely bounce lightly on the foot bars?
I'm not going to tell anybody how to use a StairMaster. A person who
doesn't want to be "honest" with a machine is clearly selecting the
machine, over a real form of exercise, so they can avoid having to
be "honest". I have seen this at every health club I have been to.
I have also seen people using equipment according to its design.
>And a bit of unsolicited advice: Don't trivialize other people's reasons for
>not participating in what you consider to be the ultimate forms of exercise.
I am waiting for the day when health-conscious building owners
install StairMasters in their elevators. Eventually, we'll have exercise
so far removed from the reality of every day life that people won't
remember that it confers any practical benefits.
There is an importance to real exercise. We should not lose sight of
this despite disabilities, weather, desires for convenience, or
schedules. There are no shortcuts---yet. Shiny chrome, computer
displays, synthesized voices, and climate control don't do the work
for the athlete. The human body evolved to move through real
environments. It responds best, over the long run, when given the
opportunity to do what it wants to do.
Stephen Chan
> >Folks who do "real" exercise still have no guarantee of correct form,
> >either. As someone who skates a lot, I've seen pleanty of in-liners
> >who don't have a clue about decent form. The same goes for bicyclists,
> >and, to a lesser extent, runners. Many of these "real" exercisers are
> >abusing the exercise in the most fundamental way -- exceeding their
> >appropriate intensity for aerobic exercise.
>
> Without ever going directly head-to-head with real athletes in real
> sports, a person has a hard time developing a concept of what constitutes
> a real workout. Machines are a reasonable tool for a real athlete who
> has some temporary barrier to real training (such as an injury or
> particularly brutal weather). But among the legions of make-believe
> athletes who *never* go outside and try any real exercises, a
> substantial fraction will have little interest in correct form and
> hard work. You can see this in every gym; I'm only arguing the obvious
> here.
Well, you're being a little hypercritical. There are lots of
amateur atheletes who have no fear of hard work, but they sometimes
have more enthusiasm than common sense.
Besides, not everyone *wants* to be a TRUE athlete. Some of
us are only interested in maintaining a good level of health.
I don't consider myself to be an "athlete" - I just try to
stay in decent shape. Sometimes I lift, sometimes I go out and climb
stairs (a local academic building has 36 stories, I climb up it twice
... but I take the elevators down, to save my knees. Sometimes I just jog.
I don't do such things competitively. Why should I? I
practice good form to avoid injury and get maximum benefit from the
exercise. But I don't compare myself to "real athletes" - I don't
have the time or inclination to do so.
Granted, there are lots of posers in gyms, who are there for
vanity's sake. But it's not necessary to throw blanket accusations at
everyone who isn't a "true athlete".
- Stephen Chan
Computer Dweeb (software) Carnegie Mellon Telecommunications Dept.
EMAIL: sc...@andrew.cmu.edu PHONE: (412)268-5115
Bruce Greer
>Ride your real bike to the gym, and lift real weights when you get
>there. I'm not sure about the point of treadmills; if the weather
>permits getting to the gym, it certainly permits obtaining a similar
>exercise outside.
>
>I see hundreds of people driving cars to gyms in perfectly good weather,
>so they can sit inside on exercise bikes. This is sheer madness!
>
REAL pavement. REAL sand, glass, water, potholes. REAL cars driven
by REAL lunatics who see bicyclists as an obstacle. A lot of the same
goes for running. I think most gym exercise equipment provides a safer
more convenient alternative to doing the REAL thing. Your body probably
can't tell the difference anyway. The quality of the exercise is pretty
much the same.
>Trying to convince people to use Stairmasters, etc., correctly is
>probably a waste of time. If these people are using such machines,
>instead of going out and getting some real exercise (e.g., running,
>riding a bike, rollerblading, etc.), then they probably *want* to take
>some kind of a shortcut on hard work. If they don't get results, that's
>not your problem.
>
Maybe these "fake" exercisers don't have time to go out and do any of
your "real" exercise. Granted, I see people who use the Stairmaster
incorrectly and cheat, thinking that they're burning lots more calories
because the machine is telling them so. But for the people who use
the machine correctly, I think it's BETTER than going up and down stairs.
The Stairmaster provides all the benefits of climbing stairs without as
much shock to the knees and ankles, not to mention the fact that you
don't have to climb down a Stairmaster before you can start to climb up
again. I've yet to find something that conditions my legs better for
skiing - but I suppose you think I should drive up to Maine every day
so I can do some REAL skiing instead of the sissy Stairmaster!
>
>Any bozo can figure out the right way to use a StairMaster. If a
>person is sort of bouncing the thing with a 2" range of motion, they
>know *exactly* what they are(n't) doing. The instructions are hanging
>right on the thing.
Well, you've convinced me of one thing - there's at least one bozo out
there. Sorry if we all aren't as "enlightened" as you.
>
>
>Without ever going directly head-to-head with real athletes in real
I think you may have been going head-to-head a little too much. ;-)
>sports, a person has a hard time developing a concept of what constitutes
>a real workout. Machines are a reasonable tool for a real athlete who
>has some temporary barrier to real training (such as an injury or
>particularly brutal weather). But among the legions of make-believe
>athletes who *never* go outside and try any real exercises, a
>substantial fraction will have little interest in correct form and
>hard work. You can see this in every gym; I'm only arguing the obvious
>here.
I will agree that there are people who waste their time on exercise
equipment. I'll also agree that it isn't as easy to cheat if you are
actually running, climbing stairs, bicycling, etc. But to say that
aerobic exercise equipment is only used by people who are looking for
short-cuts is a little off the mark. I may have the time to spend on
REAL exercise, but I can't run - my knees and ankles can't take it,
I don't have a bike, I'm not paying $150 on roller blades. But I go
to a club that costs me less than $25 a month. I do the work and get
results - all on FAKE equipment.
>
>Why else would people be lining up to use StairMasters in a gym in
>which the same people use the elevator so they can avoid climbing the
>real stairway between floors? Duh.
^^^
I think that pretty much sums up your argument.
>
>--
>Daniel Mocsny
>Internet: dmo...@minerva.che.uc.edu
>Home box: dmo...@piglet.cincinnati.oh.us
>or: minerva.che.uc.edu!piglet!dmocsny
Mark Hall
)In article <1991Oct22....@claven.cambridge.ibm.com> br...@claven.cambridge.ibm.com (Bruce Greer) writes:
)>>
)>Granted, I see people who use the Stairmaster
)>incorrectly and cheat, thinking that they're burning lots more calories
)>because the machine is telling them so. But for the people who use
)
)Please enlighten me. As someone who does not use the Stairmaster, but
)has used Lifestep, Lifecycle, and related equipment, I am a little unsure
)as to how someone might "cheat" at it. If you check your pulse and
)find it at >140, isn't it true that you are getting a workout?
Let's see: you are imitating moving your body weight up stairs.
1) Rest as much of your weight on your arms as possible. Bend over,
place both forearms and your head on the bars.
2) Instead of lifting your legs, just flex your foot. Two inches
of pedal movement should be sufficient.
You have transformed "raising your entire body weight" to "calf
exercise at about half body weight". Look Ma!! I just climbed 300
flights of stairs!!
These methods are on display every day at my club.
Anyone want to know how to cheat at bench presses? (fooling yourself
for fun and ego gratification is not limited to stairmaster users.)
- mark
Stephen Chan
> You seem to be forgetting some of the REAL risks of riding a bike:
> REAL pavement. REAL sand, glass, water, potholes. REAL cars driven
> by REAL lunatics who see bicyclists as an obstacle.
Frankly, I consider that to be a bonus. It keeps you on your
toes - makes you feel like you're really alive.
Of course, I also like mountain biking down steep dirt paths :-)
> Bruce Greer VMID: GREER at CAMBRIDG
- Stephen Chan
Brian Hjelle
>>
>incorrectly and cheat, thinking that they're burning lots more calories
>because the machine is telling them so. But for the people who use
Please enlighten me. As someone who does not use the Stairmaster, but
has used Lifestep, Lifecycle, and related equipment, I am a little unsure
as to how someone might "cheat" at it. If you check your pulse and
find it at >140, isn't it true that you are getting a workout?
(I know that the "calories burned" seems to be a function of wishful
thinking for many of these machines -particularly Lifestep).
Brian
Daniel Mocsny
>right. My objection was to your attitude and your implication that
>StairMastering is not a real (legitimate) form of exercise. You said:
>
> > This is a problem inherent with all make-believe forms of exercise:
I didn't say anything about "legitimacy", whatever that can possibly
mean. (What is a "legitimate" form of exercise? Are you talking about
legality here?)
All forms of ergometric exercise machines are clearly "make-believe"
in the sense that they are specifically designed to simulate some
real form of exercise. There is really no point in arguing this, as it
is obvious. If you want to feel embarrassed about engaging in simulated
exercise, be my guest. Personally, I am not embarrassed when I sit down
to a rowing ergometer, or play with the Stairmaster, etc. I know I am
getting some make-believe activity, which will be almost as effective
as the real thing, if I concentrate on working hard enough.
What's the matter with you people? Are you so lacking in self-confidence
that you are all stung to the heart if someone appears to deride what
you like to do? Sheesh.
Ride a bike in my town some time. People will laugh at you, throw things
at you, cut you off, tell you to get the f*&$ off the road, etc. So?
Do we expect that everyone else has to love us and approve of everything
we do?
>Obviously, if the person is misusing (or underusing in that they're not using
>it often enough), they're not gaining the full set of benefits. However, the
>same can be said about lifting and biking.
Of course, but if you are doing something really wrong when you ride a
bike, you get dropped by your biking buddies. My point (if we can keep
it in mind) is that real exercises provide more to keep the exerciser
honest. Exercise simulators eliminate this check, and a certain fraction
of people who use simulators *like* that.
I just said that if you see someone mis-using an exercise simulator,
don't waste your breath trying to get them to train the way YOU think
they should train.
>You know, riding a bike to a gym and lifting weights to a hard-core naturalist
>isn't "real" at all either, you realize that, don't you? My point is that
>realness just doesn't apply in this forum. There is no ultimate exercise;
>there is no universal exercise.
No matter how "unreal" a particular exercise is, a machine which
*SIMULATES* that exercise is always less real. This is obvious, and
hardly worth arguing about.
Every reputable coach understands the greater benefits of "real"
exercises vs. simulations thereof. Climbing real stairs is more
effective than using the Stairmaster. Riding a real bicycle is more
effective than using a stationary bike. Lifting free weights is more
effective than using a Universal-type machine, etc. Everybody knows
this. You only use machines if you are injured or have some other
disability, or the weather is incredibly bad, or you want to isolate
some particular aspect of technique, or you are stuck for
some other reason.
However, lots of people are turning things around today, and making
simulated exercises the PRIMARY basis of their training. And some of them
are using very poor form. I am just suggesting that machines are much
more forgiving of poor form, and that is very likely why some of these
people prefer to use them.
>And yes, I notice it when someone's misusing an exercise machine or when
>they're extremely goal-oriented wrt exercising (my favorite is the "wedding
>plan"). Nonetheless, it's not my place to berate them or to declare that
>their choice of exercise and machinery is unreal.
But it apparently *IS* your place to tell *ME* what I should do. How
interesting.
>Lose the hangup about realness.
I don't believe I have that hangup. I do not need to defend myself
when I use a simulator.
>You cannot provide a global defininition for
>"real" exercise.
No, but I can define a partial ordering on the set. A simulated exercise
is always less "real" than whatever movement it simulates. All coaches
understand this.
Daniel Mocsny
>|> Ride your real bike to the gym, and lift real weights when you get
>|> there. I'm not sure about the point of treadmills; if the weather
>|> permits getting to the gym, it certainly permits obtaining a similar
>|> exercise outside.
>
>might) understand why it is that some people have to drive their "big cars" to
>the gym.
The vast majority of people who drive cars to the gym do not suffer from
any serious physical disability which would prevent them from riding a
bicycle to the gym. Riding a bicycle to the gym is not any more
physically demanding than what most of them are going to do in the gym
when they get there.
> I think it has something to do with exercising in controlled
>environments. Try listening for a pollen count sometime and pay attention to
>what they say afterwards on bad days: "People with [chronic] respiratory
>problems should be aware and avoid exertion in the outdoors..." is the gist.
I know dozens of people who are in better physical condition than I am,
yet they are significantly lazier. And many of them will point to those
who are less fortunate than they are, and say, "Yeah, but what about
the people who live in the Yukon in the winter? How are *they* going to
ride a bike to the gym?"
>And there are a thousand other reasons for why it is that someone might have
>to drive to the gym.
And of these, one or two may sometimes actually apply to the person
giving the reason.
> I'm fortunate that I don't have to, but I think I'm
>open-minded enough to understand why people do it. Sheesh.
I think I am even more open-minded than you. I can understand that
lots of people value comfort and convenience very highly. I don't need
to dream up fancy excuses to dance around the obvious.
For example, I have a friend who thinks nothing of riding his bicycle
50 to 100 miles on a recreational ride, but he would rather drive the
5 miles to work because using the bike is such a "hassle". If I tried
to find some disability to excuse my friend's laziness, I would be
doing him a disservice. I have told him he is lazy, and he essentially
agrees. (As much as his ego permits.)
Only an uptight person cares whether someone else thinks they are lazy,
after all.
>And sorry that we can't all be a Grizzly Adams and brave the elements as you
>would see fit.
Me too. I'm even more sorry that the non Grizzly Adamses make my life
more difficult.
Again, why are you threatened by my criticisms?
> Certainly, I'm not saying that everyone who drives to the gym
>or who fails to take advantage of every living second for exercise is 100%
>correct; I am saying that it's not your place to judge them across the line.
Yet in your article, you pass judgement on me. Why is it OK for you
to judge me, but not OK for me to judge others? Are you better than
me? I don't think you've proven that yet.
>The thing that you might want to try doing is to lightening up --
What do you mean by "lighten up"? Do you mean I should stop doing
what you are doing? I.e., I should stop expressing my opinions and
telling other people I know better than they do?
Your actions suggest you think lightening up is a bad idea, and I agree
with you.
>if
>you're not happy with your own program, improve it; otherwise, be [quietly]
>grateful that those people in their big cars are doing *something* to maintain
>or achieve better health. Period.
They are doing *something* to degrade my health. Why would I be grateful
for that? Do you think I should be a masochist? Are you a masochist?
Phil Earnhardt
> On a StairMaster, there is no penalty for poor form, except some
> ill-defined and hard-to-measure long-term failure to "get results".
> In a real sport, poor form immediately shows up as poor performance.
> Such as in bicycling, if you don't pedal well, you get blown out the
> back. After a person gets dropped in the boonies a few times, they
> find themselves motivated to ask for some pointers. I've watched
> this happen routinely. On the other hand, with the StairMaster, a
> person can happily misuse it forever, and never have any reason to
> question that something could be wrong. Which is one big selling
> point for StairMasters.
Later, Dan reminds us:
> Of course, but if you are doing something really wrong when you ride a
> bike, you get dropped by your biking buddies. My point (if we can keep
> it in mind) is that real exercises provide more to keep the exerciser
> honest. Exercise simulators eliminate this check, and a certain fraction
> of people who use simulators *like* that.
Unfortunately, it is just not true. Dan, have you ever used the
Concept II erg? Do you understand what the computer is doing --
measuring the work done on each stroke? That the machines can indeed
be used to keep people honest -- the measurement of time for a
programmed distance is an objective measurement of effort.
If you know a way to cheat on these machines, you should let us know.
Better yet, keep it to yourself and go to Cambridge, MA in February.
You can take first place in the Crash-B sprints, winning the world
championships. Break the world record, if you like. I think there are
some $$ to be won.
Biking and running and "real" exercises have many rewards. There's
just no reason to claim that exercise machines can't give objective
benchmarks. I could easily imagine doing Concept II erg-type
measurements on stair-climbing machines...
Phil Earnhardt
>But the result is simple to ignore, if a person wants to ignore it.
>You and I can sit down at side-to-side ergometers, you can beat
>your brains out while I stare at the ladies who are thoughtful
>enough to wear thong leotards, and when we both quit after X minutes,
>I will still be RIGHT NEXT TO YOU. Your numbers will be bigger than
>mine, but what does that mean?
It means you're foolish to compare the numbers unless you started at
the same time. Actually, you're probably still foolish to not be
concentrating on your own performance. Remember, these are time trials.
>On the other hand, if we were out rowing real shells next to each
>other, you would quickly leave me behind. That would be *much* harder
>for me to ignore. If I don't keep up, I'm just not rowing with you.
This is getting a little bit silly. The first claim was that one
couldn't objectively measure performance on "make-believe" machines.
This was untrue. The next claim is that the mechanism for comparison
doesn't work well. Also untrue. Let me describe how it works, Dan:
You set the machine to a *distance* of 2500 meters (make-believe
meters, to be sure. I believe it's an estimate of distances that you'd
get in an 8). The timer starts automatically on your first stroke. At
the end of the 2500 meters, you get your time frozen on the display,
down to the 1/10 of a second. If you're interested in a synchronized
race, get a starter to crank you up. Concept II even has a software
package that graphically shows relative positions on a color monitor.
Some clubs have members post times for 2500 meters on a board -- an
erg challenge ladder of sorts. Concept II will annually publish all
times that people send to them during the year for their 2500 meter
performance. You can compare yourself to others in your age/sex group
and make your mark for posterity. It's all very objective.
This is definitely different than what happens in "real-believe"
races. Concept II erg races are time trials with the added benefit
that you can even conduct them simultaneously if you want to. It's not
a better or worse format; it's just different.
>I see this all the time in bicycling and aerobics. In bicycling, the
>burning question is how to keep up with the fastest people on the
>climbs. In aerobics, nobody ever asks how to "work harder" than the
>hardest-working person in class. Often, one does not even know who
>that is. I think there is some interest in not appearing to be the
>biggest klutz in the class...But on a Stairmaster, one does not even
>have that much. (How many people fall off the Stairmaster?)
The level one wants to work in an aerobics class is your *aerobic*
level. It's not a competetion. Usually, that's what folks on the
Stairmasters are doing, too. You're blurring a distinction between
mainstream fitness and athletic training.
>Ergometer races are possible. This has a long history in bicycling,
>for example. However, I've been trying to say that if you see a person
>who is misusing an exercise simulator, you can be pretty sure they
>aren't interested in objective measurements that are possible. We are
>talking about the people who you will not see at the Crash-B sprints...
Actually, it's possible for any Joe Blow who wants to submit his time
for publication to Concept II. This is probably a great motivation to
some rowers-at-large. These folks can enter a nationwide competetion
in the privacy of their own club/home.
Some people may just be using an erg for aerobic fitness; they may
base their workout speed on their aerobic training level. For many, an
occasional test is a great source of motivation...
>Daniel Mocsny
Phil Earnhardt p...@netwise.com
Netwise, Inc. Boulder, CO (303) 442-8280
What's your best time for a 2500 meter piece?
Hilary Lane
>your brains out while I stare at the ladies who are thoughtful
>enough to wear thong leotards, and when we both quit after X minutes,
Not only does it seem that Dan thinks he's mr. macho for thinking he's doing
"real" exercises, he seems to be a sexist, chauvanist, too. Dan, I thought
you never set foot in a health club because they are "unreal?" How do you know
what the women wear? Or do you just go to ogle?
The bottom line is, it doesn't matter what Dan thinks about exercise. He's not
the epitamy of knowledge. Just continue to do what you're doing and you'll feel
good. It seems silly to waste your time defending your method of exercise over
Dan's; it's almost a religious issue. As one who does both indoor and outdoor
exercise ("real" and "fake"), I see no difference in benefits; they are both
worthwhile for me.
--
Hilary Lane
Netwise, Inc., Boulder, Colorado
hil...@netwise.com
Douglas Bender
Two months ago, I dug out my Weider weight set that I got when I was 13
or 14. They are vinyl and filled with cement. Your typical starter set.
Anyways, I am looking for steel plates so I can put more weight on the
bars.
Is there a difference between steel plates ??? From going to various
stores, Weider has three different colours, black, gold and chrome. The
chrome ones are about 50% more expensive than the others (Granted, they
have a nicer finish). Does Weider have a good line of steel plates ? I
have tried other York equipment and I am not impressed with their
quality.
Any other good companies ???
Thanks
Doug
--
______________________________________________________________
/_____________________________________________________________/\
\ "You're never alone with a schizophrenic ! " - Ian Hunter \ \
\_____________________________________________________________\/
Bruce Greer
>Of course, but if you are doing something really wrong when you ride a
>bike, you get dropped by your biking buddies.
With an attitude like yours, I'm surprised you can get anyone to ride
with you. . .
> My point (if we can keep
>it in mind) is that real exercises provide more to keep the exerciser
>honest. Exercise simulators eliminate this check, and a certain fraction
>of people who use simulators *like* that.
>
>I just said that if you see someone mis-using an exercise simulator,
>don't waste your breath trying to get them to train the way YOU think
>they should train.
In other words, Dan, you're a very helpful and caring person. ;-)
>
>>You know, riding a bike to a gym and lifting weights to a hard-core naturalist
>>isn't "real" at all either, you realize that, don't you? My point is that
>>realness just doesn't apply in this forum. There is no ultimate exercise;
>>there is no universal exercise.
>
>No matter how "unreal" a particular exercise is, a machine which
>*SIMULATES* that exercise is always less real. This is obvious, and
>hardly worth arguing about.
Obvious to who? I think anything that raises your heart rate can be
considered aerobic exercise. Stairmaster does that. Even people who
use it incorrectly probably get some benefit out of it.
>
>Every reputable coach understands the greater benefits of "real"
>exercises vs. simulations thereof. Climbing real stairs is more
>effective than using the Stairmaster.
Bullshit. More effective at what? Trashing my knees? Ankles?
> Riding a real bicycle is more
>effective than using a stationary bike.
Why? Cause there's scenery going by? Does balancing the bike have any
physical benefits? A good bike can simulate hills and valleys, but I
suppose it can't simulate potholes, sand, glass, ice, rain and wind.
> Lifting free weights is more
>effective than using a Universal-type machine, etc. Everybody knows
>this. You only use machines if you are injured or have some other
>disability, or the weather is incredibly bad, or you want to isolate
>some particular aspect of technique, or you are stuck for
>some other reason.
If everybody knows this then why is it a FAQ in this group? That's a
whole other can of worms that you'll probably open - but I won't.
>
>However, lots of people are turning things around today, and making
>simulated exercises the PRIMARY basis of their training. And some of them
>are using very poor form. I am just suggesting that machines are much
>more forgiving of poor form, and that is very likely why some of these
>people prefer to use them.
I do agree with this. It's the way you choose to make your point that
annoys the crap out of me.
>
>>And yes, I notice it when someone's misusing an exercise machine or when
>>they're extremely goal-oriented wrt exercising (my favorite is the "wedding
>>plan"). Nonetheless, it's not my place to berate them or to declare that
>>their choice of exercise and machinery is unreal.
>
>But it apparently *IS* your place to tell *ME* what I should do. How
>interesting.
>
>>Lose the hangup about realness.
>
>I don't believe I have that hangup. I do not need to defend myself
>when I use a simulator.
If you don't think so, go back through this article and count the number
of "real"s and the number of "simulated"s.
>
>>You cannot provide a global defininition for
>>"real" exercise.
>
>No, but I can define a partial ordering on the set. A simulated exercise
>is always less "real" than whatever movement it simulates. All coaches
>understand this.
>
Dan, you have a "real" talent for getting on people's nerves. An exercise
program should be something that is developed on a personal basis.
As long as someone is achieving "real" results, then they're doing "real"
exercise. It doesn't matter that the machine that they're using
simulates a more natural form of exercise - the work that they're doing
is "real" work and burning "real" calories.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a "real" job to get back to - and judging
by the amount typing you've been doing, Dan, that's probably something you
wouldn't understand.
>--
>Daniel Mocsny
>Internet: dmo...@minerva.che.uc.edu
>Home box: dmo...@piglet.cincinnati.oh.us
>or: minerva.che.uc.edu!piglet!dmocsny
--
Bruce Greer VMID: GREER at CAMBRIDG
Troy Allen Cross
(Douglas Bender) says:
>
> Two months ago, I dug out my Weider weight set that I got when I was 13
> or 14. They are vinyl and filled with cement. Your typical starter set.
> Anyways, I am looking for steel plates so I can put more weight on the
> bars.
> Is there a difference between steel plates ??? From going to various
> stores, Weider has three different colours, black, gold and chrome. The
> chrome ones are about 50% more expensive than the others (Granted, they
> have a nicer finish). Does Weider have a good line of steel plates ? I
> have tried other York equipment and I am not impressed with their
> quality.
I buy the cheap (35 cents a pound) generic plates.
I am completely satisfied with them.
Weight is weight. What matters is what you do with them.
However, the generic plates are usually the same width from center
to edge (no thick edging), so hold on tightly or you may loose a toe. ;-)
Also, because of this fact, you can put more on a bar, dumbbell,
equipment, etc.
F.Y.I. Troy "the generic weight lifter"
Phil Earnhardt
>In article <1991Oct23.0...@netwise.com> p...@netwise.com (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>> Biking and running and "real" exercises have many rewards. There's
>> just no reason to claim that exercise machines can't give objective
>> benchmarks. I could easily imagine doing Concept II erg-type
>> measurements on stair-climbing machines...
>
>not relate to ones effectiveness in the real thing. The person with
>the most power will usually win the Crash B sprints. It says nothing
>about his form. If he can't feather the oars well, he won't do well.
>If he can't place the oar into the water correctly he won't do well.
In the context of the current thread, it would be useful to say why
erg races are different from bike races. The Crash-B sprints are
basically time trials on ergs.
>It is a different measure of ability. If the objective is to row
>X distance in the shortest amount of time, I don't think an erg is all
>that is necessary to determine how well a person would row.
Clearly, rowing on the water is different. My favourite T-shirt slogan
from Crash-B was "put and erg and a rower into the water and THEY WILL
SINK." On the other hand, the basic strokes are pretty darn similar.
There's more than power involved -- one must have great extension on
the stroke. Erg rowers will almost never "crab" their oars on the
recovery. The sequence of engaging your muscles on an erg on the
stroke is the same that "real" rowers use.
Consider the case of Olympic Rower Dan Suddath, one of America's best
rowers in the mid-80s. Why was able to string together so many wins
and high placements in Crash-B? Why didn't he get blown away by the
fakers?
>I believe there are techniques (cheating if you will) which will
>register better results, i.e. if the rowing rate is the same I believe
>you can get different results.
As I've said, if you figure out how, go and do it at Crash-B. Win it.
Break the world record. Just beat Suddath. Someone working at Kendall
Square Research (even if it is in Waltham :-) should be able to find
the races...
Getting back to the thread at hand, one could also claim that there
are ways to "cheat" while doing a bike time trial. Look at the clip-on
bar controversies in the Tour de France in the late 80s. I'm just left
with 2 questions at this point:
1. Don't you agree that the Concept II computer is a unique and
marvelous device?
(For those unfamiliar with Concept II erg history, the earlier
"computer" was an analog bicycle speedometer/odomoter. In those days,
the Crash-B staff had a bear of a time calibrating the machines--they
used strobes and sundry. Besides being one of the only computers to
measure work, the new computers are well-calibrated.)
2. Do you agree with the fundamental distinction between your
suggested "cheating" on an erg (or possible "cheating" in a bicycle
time trial) and the thing that started this discussion -- "riding the
rails" on a Stairmaster machine?
>eug...@ksr.com uunet!eugene
>ksr!eug...@uunet.uu.net att!ksr.com!eugene
Eugene Yi-jen Pan
> Better yet, keep it to yourself and go to Cambridge, MA in February.
> You can take first place in the Crash-B sprints, winning the world
> championships. Break the world record, if you like. I think there are
> some $$ to be won.
>
> Biking and running and "real" exercises have many rewards. There's
> just no reason to claim that exercise machines can't give objective
> benchmarks. I could easily imagine doing Concept II erg-type
> measurements on stair-climbing machines...
>
> Phil Earnhardt p...@netwise.com
> Netwise, Inc. Boulder, CO (303) 442-8280
Producing an objective amount of energy transferred to a machine does
not relate to ones effectiveness in the real thing. The person with
the most power will usually win the Crash B sprints. It says nothing
about his form. If he can't feather the oars well, he won't do well.
If he can't place the oar into the water correctly he won't do well.
It is a different measure of ability. If the objective is to row
X distance in the shortest amount of time, I don't think an erg is all
that is necessary to determine how well a person would row.
I believe there are techniques (cheating if you will) which will
register better results, i.e. if the rowing rate is the same I believe
you can get different results.
--
eug...@ksr.com uunet!eugene
ksr!eug...@uunet.uu.net att!ksr.com!eugene
Seth Breidbart
`This is a problem inherent with all make-believe forms of exercise:
`they have no absolute measure of performance.
Actually, they may have more of a measure of performance than "real"
exercise. If I run, without timing myself, I have no idea how well
I'm doing. The StairMaster will tell me how much I've done.
` Therefore, the exerciser
`has no external frame of reference to enforce proper technique. In real
`exercises that involve movement, or lifting a real weight, or some other
`measurable result, improper technique shows up immediately in reduced
`performance.
Actually, improper technique usually shows up immediately in _enhanced_
performance. Most people can lift _heavier_ weights when they cheat.
`Trying to convince people to use Stairmasters, etc., correctly is
`probably a waste of time.
But telling them the difference might not be. Some people don't know
(the machine doesn't tell you what posture to stand in), and they
might be willing to learn. Others might have reasons for what they're
doing. I spend some of my time standing straight, most of it leaning
slightly forward (in order to read), and some of it as bent forward as
I can. This works different muscles.
` If these people are using such machines,
`instead of going out and getting some real exercise (e.g., running,
`riding a bike, rollerblading, etc.), then they probably *want* to take
`some kind of a shortcut on hard work. If they don't get results, that's
`not your problem.
I'm lazy. If I run, ride a bike, etc., I'll tend to slow down since
there's nothing forcing me to exercise. On a StairMaster, I get my
pulse into the range of 160-170, and keep it there for two hours. I
consider that good exercise. Where do you get your pulse up to, and
how long do you keep it there?
And there are several major advantages to exercise machines. I have a
low threshhold of boredom, and I can read while using one. Also, the
scenery in my health club is better than that outdoors.
`So, do you use a full range of motion on your StairMaster? Or do you
`set the resistance high, and merely bounce lightly on the foot bars?
I get a reasonable range of motion. The instructions specifically
tell you _not_ to hit the top or bottom of the range.
`I'm not going to tell anybody how to use a StairMaster. A person who
`doesn't want to be "honest" with a machine is clearly selecting the
`machine, over a real form of exercise, so they can avoid having to
`be "honest". I have seen this at every health club I have been to.
`I have also seen people using equipment according to its design.
As I already mentioned, I don't have to be "honest" when doing "real"
exercise.
`There is an importance to real exercise. We should not lose sight of
`this despite disabilities, weather, desires for convenience, or
`schedules. There are no shortcuts---yet. Shiny chrome, computer
`displays, synthesized voices, and climate control don't do the work
`for the athlete. The human body evolved to move through real
`environments. It responds best, over the long run, when given the
`opportunity to do what it wants to do.
Riding a manufactured (artificial) bicycle over paved roads is hardly
what the human body evolved to do. If you want to go running,
barefoot, in national forests, I'll agree that that's "natural". The
"shortcut" is to force myself to do as much work as I can, and certain
types of equipment are better for that than others. The StairMaster
and LifeCycle are the best I've found so far.
`Ride your real bike to the gym, and lift real weights when you get
`there. I'm not sure about the point of treadmills; if the weather
`permits getting to the gym, it certainly permits obtaining a similar
`exercise outside.
Hah! It can be 10 degrees F (-18 C) out, snowing, with icy streets
and lots of slush on the ground. I can still walk to my health club,
but I'd hate to try to run, and bicycling would be exceedingly foolhardy.
`Without ever going directly head-to-head with real athletes in real
`sports, a person has a hard time developing a concept of what constitutes
`a real workout.
A pulse rate of 165 for two hours qualifies, in my book. BTW, (I'm
sure I have this slightly wrong; this being USENET, somebody will
correct me :-) the only sports are boxing and bullfighting. All the
rest are games.
`On a StairMaster, there is no penalty for poor form, except some
`ill-defined and hard-to-measure long-term failure to "get results".
`In a real sport, poor form immediately shows up as poor performance.
`Such as in bicycling, if you don't pedal well, you get blown out the
`back.
But if I bicycle alone, there's no back to get blown out of. You're
claiming an advantage for a form of exercise (bicycling) that actually
applies to the fact that you do it with other people who will enforce
your form.
`All forms of ergometric exercise machines are clearly "make-believe"
`in the sense that they are specifically designed to simulate some
`real form of exercise. There is really no point in arguing this, as it
`is obvious. If you want to feel embarrassed about engaging in simulated
`exercise, be my guest. Personally, I am not embarrassed when I sit down
`to a rowing ergometer, or play with the Stairmaster, etc. I know I am
`getting some make-believe activity, which will be almost as effective
`as the real thing, if I concentrate on working hard enough.
Actually, it's the other way around. Rowing is designed to simulate
ergometers. The motions are very similar, and the equipment often
cheaper. :-)
`Ride a bike in my town some time. People will laugh at you, throw things
`at you, cut you off, tell you to get the f*&$ off the road, etc. So?
`Do we expect that everyone else has to love us and approve of everything
`we do?
No, but when they start hitting me with their cars, I begin to think
that bicycle riding can be unhealthy.
`Of course, but if you are doing something really wrong when you ride a
`bike, you get dropped by your biking buddies. My point (if we can keep
`it in mind) is that real exercises provide more to keep the exerciser
`honest. Exercise simulators eliminate this check, and a certain fraction
`of people who use simulators *like* that.
No, the people you do real exercises with provide the check. By the
way, what do you mean by "dropped"? Do they stop talking to you,
leave you behind in their dust, or hit you over the head with a
baseball bat?
`Every reputable coach understands the greater benefits of "real"
`exercises vs. simulations thereof. Climbing real stairs is more
`effective than using the Stairmaster. Riding a real bicycle is more
`effective than using a stationary bike. Lifting free weights is more
`effective than using a Universal-type machine, etc. Everybody knows
`this. You only use machines if you are injured or have some other
`disability, or the weather is incredibly bad, or you want to isolate
`some particular aspect of technique, or you are stuck for
`some other reason.
Do you know of any (successful) rowers who don't lift weights? If
rowing is so much better, how come they all do weightlifting too?
(This from my brother, who used to row for Penn and now rows for the
NY Athletic Club.) Both practice at rowing and weightlifting are
required for optimal performance at rowing.
`However, lots of people are turning things around today, and making
`simulated exercises the PRIMARY basis of their training.
The PRIMARY purposes of my training are to lose weight and to increase
my cardiovascular health. I've lost over 50 pounds since June, and
have no difficulty keeping my pulse at 90% of the stupid (220 - age)
formula's maximum.
`A simulated exercise is always less "real" than whatever movement it
`simulates. All coaches understand this.
I don't simulate any movements. I actually perform them. The fact
that I use a machine just makes them healthier: Running up 1,000
flights of real stairs has the following problems: (i) The atmosphere
in the stairwells of the Empire State Building is very dusty. (ii)
I'd either have to stop and ride the elevator back down several times
(interfering with cardiovascular benefit), or run down the stairs
(also interfering with cardiovascular benefit, and also having very
high impacts on my ankles and knees). (iii) Running on real stairs
has much more impact than the StairMaster.
`But the result is simple to ignore, if a person wants to ignore it.
`You and I can sit down at side-to-side ergometers, you can beat
`your brains out while I stare at the ladies who are thoughtful
`enough to wear thong leotards, and when we both quit after X minutes,
`I will still be RIGHT NEXT TO YOU. Your numbers will be bigger than
`mine, but what does that mean?
I can sit down outside your front door while you go for a bike ride.
When you finish and return home, I will still be RIGHT NEXT TO YOU.
So what?
`I see this all the time in bicycling and aerobics. In bicycling, the
`burning question is how to keep up with the fastest people on the
`climbs. In aerobics, nobody ever asks how to "work harder" than the
`hardest-working person in class. Often, one does not even know who
`that is. I think there is some interest in not appearing to be the
`biggest klutz in the class...But on a Stairmaster, one does not even
`have that much. (How many people fall off the Stairmaster?)
On a StairMaster, I can compare _my_ result today with _my_ result
yesterday, thereby learning how well I'm doing. Racing against
someone else, if I do relatively better, I don't know if I'm improving
or if he is having a bad day.
Seth se...@fid.morgan.com
Tom Kuchar
>In several different articles, Daniel Mocsny writes:
>
>` Therefore, the exerciser
>`has no external frame of reference to enforce proper technique. In real
>`exercises that involve movement, or lifting a real weight, or some other
>`measurable result, improper technique shows up immediately in reduced
>`performance.
>
>Actually, improper technique usually shows up immediately in _enhanced_
>performance. Most people can lift _heavier_ weights when they cheat.
>
I think this is a gross misrepresentation. For instance, if I'm doing
curls improperly, sure I can `curl' more weight. I can swing my body
back and forth and give the weight more momentum than I could with
just my bicep alone. But the idea is to work on my bicep alone, to isolate
it. If I'm swinging my body to move the weight, then I'm using more muscles
than just my bicep. This can hardly be called enhanced performance.
Someone who is performing curls correctly with 15% less weight is actually
working the bicep, making it stronger. If I swing my body, I'm not really
accomplishing much in the way of gaining strength.
To relate this to personal experience, I improved my form running
about two years ago. As a result, I increased my speed. If you can
tell me how I can degrade my form running and increase my performance
and then I'll believe you. I'm always looking for ways to get faster.
Tom Kuchar
kuc...@buast7.bu.edu
Department of Astronomy
Boston Univerity
J Green
>Of course, but if you are doing something really wrong when you ride a
>bike, you get dropped by your biking buddies. My point (if we can keep
>it in mind) is that real exercises provide more to keep the exerciser
>honest. Exercise simulators eliminate this check, and a certain fraction
>of people who use simulators *like* that.
honest? huh
I'm interested in finding out exactly *what* one could be doing wrong that
would keep him/her from keeping up with biking buddies.
I ride with a friend of mine alot (recreational riding, for fun). There
are a some reasons that one person can ride faster than another.
For one, everyone has different ability levels. My friend is a better
rider for lots of reasons. She has better lung capacity. Her legs are
stronger. She's had more riding experience than I have.
If I can bench 135 and she can only bench 100, does that mean she is
doing something *wrong*??? I think it means I am stronger (as long as
*I* am not cheating/arching back/whatever).
On top of her better ability, her bike is better/lighter. (one rider could
be riding a Trek or a racer and the other could have a crappy old bike, but
it's not quite that bad!).
Luckily we ride for recreational purposes and my friend doesn't "drop"
me if I can't always keep up with her! (but I try)
Am I really doing something dreadfully wrong? or is it just possible that
she's just a better/stronger biker than I am? If I am doing something
wrong or you can suggest things for me to try I would be very appreciative!
Janice
Jason Hunsaker
> I see hundreds of people driving cars to gyms in perfectly good weather,
> so they can sit inside on exercise bikes. This is sheer madness!
How so? I for one drive to the gym because after I workout, I shower.
Why get cleaned-up at the gym only to get all sweaty jogging home?
Why waste all the time it takes to walk home just to avoid getting
sweaty and having to shower again when you get home?
Why not just wait and shower at home? Well, because I don't have a
steam room at my home or a jacuzzi. I like to shave in the steam room
and relax in the jacuzzi. Is there anything wrong with wanting to do that?
> Without ever going directly head-to-head with real athletes in real
> sports, a person has a hard time developing a concept of what constitutes
> a real workout.
Why must competition be a factor in getting a "real" work-out?
What about solo biking, hiking, mountain climbing, or even ballet?
Can none of these activities provide a "real" workout?
> Why else would people be lining up to use StairMasters in a gym in
> which the same people use the elevator so they can avoid climbing the
> real stairway between floors? Duh.
I use elevators to avoid getting sweaty. I don't like to sweat unless
I'm dressed for it. I has a tendancy to produce unfavorable odors and to
stain clothing despite the best antipersperants and deodorants (in case you
hadn't noticed).
--
Jason Hunsaker -|- Logan, Utah -|- Internet: sl...@cc.usu.edu
Jason Hunsaker
> Anyone want to know how to cheat at bench presses? (fooling yourself
> for fun and ego gratification is not limited to stairmaster users.)
Sure. I'm curious.
Eugene Yi-jen Pan
> In article <EUGENE.91O...@trout.ksr.com> eug...@ksr.com (Eugene Yi-jen Pan) writes:
> In the context of the current thread, it would be useful to say why
> erg races are different from bike races. The Crash-B sprints are
> basically time trials on ergs.
Who said they were different? I was trying to follow the thread of
real vs. simulated. Both are competitions.
> Consider the case of Olympic Rower Dan Suddath, one of America's best
> rowers in the mid-80s. Why was able to string together so many wins
> and high placements in Crash-B? Why didn't he get blown away by the
> fakers?
>
The converse is not true. I don't understand this logic.
>
> >I believe there are techniques (cheating if you will) which will
> >register better results, i.e. if the rowing rate is the same I believe
> >you can get different results.
>
> As I've said, if you figure out how, go and do it at Crash-B. Win it.
> Break the world record. Just beat Suddath. Someone working at Kendall
> Square Research (even if it is in Waltham :-) should be able to find
> the races...
>
Just because someone cheats, it doesn't mean they will be the best. I
can cheat on the bench press, with my back arched to the moon, but I
still won't be able to out bench Bill Kazmier (sp).
Jason Hunsaker
> I think there is some interest in not appearing to be the
> biggest klutz in the class...But on a Stairmaster, one does not even
> have that much. (How many people fall off the Stairmaster?)
Umm....Well...I was trying to take big steps without holding onto the
handrails....kinda like trying to "simulate" the "real" thing.....when I
lost my balance and fell down ten fights of stairs before I hit the floor....
:)
[I don't use the Stairmaster anymore 'cause I'm afraid to climb that high
anymore]
:)
Seth Breidbart
`In article <1991Oct24.2...@fid.morgan.com> se...@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
`>In several different articles, Daniel Mocsny writes:
`>
`>` Therefore, the exerciser
`>`has no external frame of reference to enforce proper technique. In real
`>`exercises that involve movement, or lifting a real weight, or some other
`>`measurable result, improper technique shows up immediately in reduced
`>`performance.
`>
`>Actually, improper technique usually shows up immediately in _enhanced_
`>performance. Most people can lift _heavier_ weights when they cheat.
`>
`
`I think this is a gross misrepresentation. For instance, if I'm doing
`curls improperly, sure I can `curl' more weight. I can swing my body
`back and forth and give the weight more momentum than I could with
`just my bicep alone. But the idea is to work on my bicep alone, to isolate
`it. If I'm swinging my body to move the weight, then I'm using more muscles
`than just my bicep. This can hardly be called enhanced performance.
`Someone who is performing curls correctly with 15% less weight is actually
`working the bicep, making it stronger. If I swing my body, I'm not really
`accomplishing much in the way of gaining strength.
OK, I was slightly inaccurate. I should have said
"Actually, improper technique usually shows up immediately in
apparently _enhanced_ performance..."
^^^^^^^^^^
As you say, while you're not accomplishing much in the way of gaining
strength, you're using a heavier weight to do it. Since gaining
strength is long-term (you don't notice it immediately), and the
weight you're using is right in front of you, you can _think_ you're
doing better. (That's the generic "you"--I assume that you,
personally, know better.)
Seth
Phil Earnhardt
>
>Who said they were different? I was trying to follow the thread of
>real vs. simulated. Both are competitions.
Dan Mocsny says that they're different; he says that exercise machines are
"make-believe" exercises. He's also said that it's fairly easy to cheat on
such machines.
>> Consider the case of Olympic Rower Dan Suddath, one of America's best
>> rowers in the mid-80s. Why was able to string together so many wins
>> and high placements in Crash-B? Why didn't he get blown away by the
>> fakers?
>>
>The converse is not true. I don't understand this logic.
Explain to us why the folks who never get in a real rowing shell didn't beat
Dan Suddath. The "make-believers" are able to concentrate on their "fake"
sport all year; poor Dan has to deal with all those subtle nuances of real
rowing for most of the year. If any can figure out how to cheat, it would
surely be one of those year-round fakers.
>>>I believe there are techniques (cheating if you will) which will
>>>register better results, i.e. if the rowing rate is the same I believe
>>>you can get different results.
>>
>> As I've said, if you figure out how, go and do it at Crash-B. Win it.
>> Break the world record. Just beat Suddath. Someone working at Kendall
>> Square Research (even if it is in Waltham :-) should be able to find
>> the races...
>>
>Just because someone cheats, it doesn't mean they will be the best. I
>can cheat on the bench press, with my back arched to the moon, but I
>still won't be able to out bench Bill Kazmier (sp).
What you're saying is that, assuming someone can cheat on an erg, they can
only cheat a little bit.
I'll re-ask the question you didn't answer from my last posting: do you see a
distinction between this and what some folks do on the Stairmaster?
Are you going to quantify how much you can cheat on the machine? Could you
share the secrets of cheating on a CII erg with your news-buddies? How about
if you coach one of the top 20 finishers from last year's Crash-B .... put him
over the top! Even if the cheating only helps a little bit, you should be able
to get one of the top-20 into first place.
Or is it that you *just know* it's possible to cheat on an erg, but you
yourself don't know how?
>eug...@ksr.com uunet!eugene
>ksr!eug...@uunet.uu.net att!ksr.com!eugene
Daniel Mocsny
>In article <1991Oct22....@piglet.cincinnati.oh.us>, dmo...@piglet.cincinnati.oh.us (Daniel Mocsny) writes:
>|> All forms of ergometric exercise machines are clearly "make-believe"
>|> in the sense that they are specifically designed to simulate some
>|> real form of exercise.
In article <33...@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> b...@sei.cmu.edu (Barbara Zayas) writes:
>I understand exactly what you're getting at, but what is "the real thing" to
>you? Is it, as you seem to imply in other messages, running, lifting, or
>roller blading? If so, then they, too, are mere imitations. All exercise,
>then, will hark back to a more phystically-oriented time for humans -- like
>when we hunted and stalked our own food. Lifting? What is it? It's a form
>of mimickry also. So, by your very standards, lifting is unreal. As is
>biking. Everything, then, would be unreal.
Of course. However, sometimes I hunt for food on my bicycle. (I find
it at the grocery store, already dead.)
>Wonder why do you feel that running, roller blading, and lifting are "real"
>whereas "playing" on a StairMaster is not.
Careful: I said they were "real exercises". Of course they simulate
and/or exaggerrate real *movements* such as hunting, warfare, chasing
after reluctant mates, etc.
An activity which simulates an unreal activity is itself doubly unreal.
That is not saying anything anything bad about it. Unless you have
some problem with doing something you yourself consider "unreal".
>>> If you want to feel embarrassed about engaging in simulated
>|> exercise, be my guest.
>
>And I never claimed to be embarrassed about a thing. In fact, I am quite
>satisfied with my exercise patterns. I simply resented the fact that you
>claim something that is valid and legit to be unreal.
But you yourself have argued that all forms of exercise are unreal.
Do you resent your own argument now?
Also, how does being "unreal" prevent an activity from being "valid"
and "legit"? I advised not to preach to the sloppy StairMaster users
*precisely* because they have probably made up their minds about what
is valid and legit, even if it disagrees with your [rhetorical you]
concept.
I am beginning to suspect that you think when I call an activity
"make believe", I am suggesting that you should feel badly about it.
No way. Fantasy is an important ingredient for mental health.
>|> >And yes, I notice it when someone's misusing an exercise machine or when
>|> >they're extremely goal-oriented wrt exercising (my favorite is the "wedding
>|> >plan"). Nonetheless, it's not my place to berate them or to declare that
>|> >their choice of exercise and machinery is unreal.
>|>
>|> But it apparently *IS* your place to tell *ME* what I should do. How
>|> interesting.
>
>When something that I feel impassioned about is attacked, if possible, I will
>reply and make rebuttal.
Someone may just as well "attack" your concept of the right way to
exercise by doing something "wrong" in front of you. It's all a matter
of how you choose to react to what a person says or does. If I call
an activity "unreal", you imagine yourself "attacked". That fascinates
me.
You may recall that lots of people have pointed out how dangerous,
inconvenient, threatening, etc., a place the Real World is to exercise
in. Obviously, they want to avoid many aspects of reality when they
exercise, so they go into a controlled (i.e., less real) environment.
I have stated that this is a feature, not a bug. But then people want
to get upset when I call a spade a spade. It seems to me that if people
are happy to have escaped reality to some extent, they should not mind
when someone observes this. If people do mind, I can only conclude they
are embarrassed about something.
I shield myself from reality to various extents when I exercise.
For example, when it is cold, I put on clothes. I also don't try to
lift weights on the superhighway. I *like* getting out of the rain
once in a while. But at the same time, I like to stay connected to
reality to some extent. But not everybody else does.
> The people at my gym who engage in wedding plan exercise
>are not criticising me or my exercise plans. Had they, I would have done
>exactly what I'm doing here, just not via ascii.
I don't follow the first sentence. What is "wedding plan exercise"?
Daniel Mocsny
>Unfortunately, it is just not true. Dan, have you ever used the
>Concept II erg? Do you understand what the computer is doing --
>measuring the work done on each stroke? That the machines can indeed
>be used to keep people honest -- the measurement of time for a
>programmed distance is an objective measurement of effort.
But the result is simple to ignore, if a person wants to ignore it.
You and I can sit down at side-to-side ergometers, you can beat
your brains out while I stare at the ladies who are thoughtful
enough to wear thong leotards, and when we both quit after X minutes,
I will still be RIGHT NEXT TO YOU. Your numbers will be bigger than
mine, but what does that mean?
On the other hand, if we were out rowing real shells next to each
other, you would quickly leave me behind. That would be *much* harder
for me to ignore. If I don't keep up, I'm just not rowing with you.
I see this all the time in bicycling and aerobics. In bicycling, the
burning question is how to keep up with the fastest people on the
climbs. In aerobics, nobody ever asks how to "work harder" than the
hardest-working person in class. Often, one does not even know who
that is. I think there is some interest in not appearing to be the
biggest klutz in the class...But on a Stairmaster, one does not even
have that much. (How many people fall off the Stairmaster?)
>If you know a way to cheat on these machines, you should let us know.
Hah! If I let you know, you'd put a guard on the room the night
before the race :-)
>Biking and running and "real" exercises have many rewards. There's
>just no reason to claim that exercise machines can't give objective
>benchmarks. I could easily imagine doing Concept II erg-type
>measurements on stair-climbing machines...
Ergometer races are possible. This has a long history in bicycling,
for example. However, I've been trying to say that if you see a person
who is misusing an exercise simulator, you can be pretty sure they
aren't interested in objective measurements that are possible. We are
talking about the people who you will not see at the Crash-B sprints...
Kim Manton
In article <1991Oct21.0...@piglet.cincinnati.eh.us> dmo...@piglet.CINCINNATI.OH.US (Daniel Mocsny) writes:
>
>
>probably a waste of time. If these people are using such machines,
>instead of going out and getting some real exercise (e.g., running,
>riding a bike, rollerblading, etc.), then they probably *want* to take
>some kind of a shortcut on hard work. If they don't get results, that's
>not your problem.
oh dear. now i have to get my dander up...
in my case, my workout consists of: 40-60 minute run in German weather
every day, 200 situps, various Wu Shu (kung fu) and Tai Chi exercises,
plus 20-40 each of the 5 tibetan vitality exercises. this is "real" exercise.
and that's before i even venture to poke my face in the door of
the wu shu studio. you don't want to know what they do to us in
there....
last year i had to stop running due to knee and hip damage from
running on the hard ice (ankle twists from slipping from time to time)
that invariably accumulates on the sidewalks and park routes here
in munich during the winter. however, i have to get in about 40-60 minutes
of serious aerobic activity every day (wu shu is also a bit hard
on the joints, so i have to go easy there, as well) or i start having
lung problems (a congenital weakness) and end up in the emergency ward. the
wu shu and sit ups, etc. i do just because i like martial arts. but
nothing beats running for sheer aerobic activity. especially in a
blizzard. except, possibly, climbing lots of stairs in a blizzard.
i got away with not running for about 9 months, but now it's time
to pay the piper...the lungs are complaining again. so, it's
back to hitting the pavement and the wu shu mat. i am NOT
looking for quick results. i am looking to live through an
injury-free, oxygen-mask-free winter. which means finding a partial
alternative to running during the coming Ice Age.
Next year we may be in finland. then i can run in blizzards in
the dark! oboy.
i hate aerobics classes and any kind of group workout except
martial arts. and sometimes the groupiness of that gets on my
nerves. i like to workout by myself. and if i'm up to wallowing
through the snow to get to a gym, then i may as well go running
and save major bucks. swimming pools are closed in the winter.
since i have no german driving license, i get plenty of walking
in, but it just ain't the same as running as far as my lungs are
concerned. neither is ice skating. skiing is ok, but can't do
that every day in an urban environment. SO NOW WHAT?
THUS *MY* SOLUTION:
this year i want to avoid the inevitable injuries. so, i am going
to buy a stair climbing machine and/or stationary bike to alternate
with the running during the nuclear winter we are going to have this
year. i'm also not too fond of the muscle injuries that come from
trying to run for 40-60 minutes in sub-zero weather. but i don't
want to end up with a bunch of IV's stuck in my arm, either. i have
to get a solid aerobic workout. preferably not involving jane fonda.
i have a tiny studio apt, and thar ain't room enough fer both of us.
i need something small and compact and vertical. AND INEXPENSIVE.
so nordic track is out.
i'm sure i can find a way to get some Real Exercise out of a
stair climber SOMEHOW.
so, your assumption that: "If these people are using such machines,
instead of going out and getting some real exercise (e.g., running,
riding a bike, rollerblading, etc.), then they probably *want* to take
some kind of a shortcut on hard work" is out of line, and sounds like
the pronouncement of a dilettante.
anything that gets you moving &/or lifting &/or breathing is Real
Exercise. Ask an MD.
it is my experience that stair climbers are in fact "real exercise,"
and i do know what real exercise is. i would like to see you survive
an hour with my wu shu master, if *you* would like to become enlightened
on the matter.
* * * * * * *
and now a question for the real experts out there: any suggestions
regarding how to cope with the cold and avoid muscle pulls, etc, while
running during harsh winters? this year i am buying a thermal suit
to run in, which should help some. i really would like to continue
running this year if at all possible. it already started snowing about
a week ago (mid october). yucko. well, at least i wasn't back
home being burned to a crisp in the oakland firestorm. i will think
of that when my teeth start to chatter...
and before anyone starts to refer to me as "he," i'm a "she."
-kim
Geoffrey Craig Langdale
Ah yes, cheating at bench presses. It never ceases to amaze me how you will
see people-
1) Bouncing the bar off their chest
2) Letting the bar drop like an express train to their chest then stopping it
mostly with the elasticity of their chest muscles.
3) Doing forced reps for the whole ****** set!! I saw this guy pumping out
reps with 50kg, and he had his mate helping for every single rep...
4) Lifting arses about 10 cm off the bench for better leverage.
and so on...
Anything for an impressive bench press poundage.. :-)
And while we're on peeves in the gym, what about the guys who train chest,
biceps, abs and a bit of shoulder and back, but very little. No leg training.
No back training. Almost all effort concentrated on bicep curls, flyes and
bench presses. Are these people cliches, just inexperienced (don't know any
other movements), or on some secret training split I haven't heard of. And
funny how they always show in the summer :-)
--
Geoff Langdale, | What is the frequency, Kenneth?
sometimes known as | - Anon.
905...@ugrad.cs.su.oz.au | You're only as old as the woman you feel.
| - Groucho Marx
Rheal Nadeau
>isn't until the attack is underway.
>
> ...
>And clearly, you don't know what you're talking about in this particular
>arena. For people with URIs, exerting yourself under unhealthy conditions
>(poor air quality) is life-threatening. If you want, I can provide the name
>of several organizations who will confirm this and who would be more than
>happy to educate you about such matters.
>
I know of several marathoners who suffer from severe asthma, including
Peter Maher, Canada's top marathoner. I believe Peter recently petitioned
the Olympic Committee to provide a pollution-free marathon in Barcelona -
no cars on the road (close the entire road, not just one lane for runners),
and use electric vehicles for the press/cameras rather than gas-powered.
Peter wasn't the only runner with URIs who suffered the effect of pollution
from nearby vehicles in the recent world championships. I somehow doubt
these guys do all their exercising on tread-mills.
Now, what is the major cause of poor air quality? Too many people driving
too many cars. So, should we fix the problem, or the symptom?
>
>Oh come on. If you're truly upset about pollution issues, address that
>directly.
>
Dan has, many times, in other forums. I mostly agree with him -
we are a lazy society, valuing short cuts and convenience to the
extent of losing any sight of what makes life worthwhile. Then
we act all surprised when the bill comes due - now where did all
that pollution come from?
>Bye bye Daniel. Enjoy living in your dream world.
>
Now, who lives in a dream world? The person who drives to the air-
conditioned gym in his air-conditioned car, then exercises on some
fancy machines with fancy readouts to tell him how he's doing? Or
the person who steps out his own front door, and starts cycling or
running or walking (come on, ANYONE can walk). Of course, that
means sweating and struggling up a hill (sorry, no short cuts here),
and potholes, and bugs. On the other hands, I've got memories of
beautiful sunsets, some deer along the bike path, the pleasure of
cycling through a warm Indian-summer rain (last night, in fact).
And when I finish a run or a bike ride, I KNOW how hard I've worked -
no need to wonder how accurate the display is on this darn machine.
Ten miles is ten miles, when they're real miles and not estimates on
a machine.
Now, if you prefer to work on the machines, and do it honestly, and
get the benefits - then good for you. But no matter how much time
I've even spent on a machine (an old exercise bike, usually), I've
never had the feeling I'd gotten that good a workout - there's
nothing like the miles going by on the road to make the workout
seem worthwhile, and motivate you to do it again next time.
--
The Rhealist (Rheal Nadeau) | Bell-Northern Research
Internet: nad...@bnr.ca | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
BNR neither endorses nor censors my views | (613) 763-4266
Phil Earnhardt
>And when I finish a run or a bike ride, I KNOW how hard I've worked -
>no need to wonder how accurate the display is on this darn machine.
>Ten miles is ten miles, when they're real miles and not estimates on
>a machine.
Then you must be profoundly confused why races held over the same "real
miles" come up with different times year after year. Perhaps you've heard of
drafting on bicycles? How about the effects of wind, temperature, humidity,
and direct sunlight over the "real miles" of a course? Unless you closely
monitor all of these--and any changes that happen to them along your
course--you really don't know how exactly how hard you have to work to cover
the "real miles" of your workout.
If you work out on a well-maintained Concept II erg in an indoor location
that maintains reasonable temperature/humidity you can indeed get a more
predictable workout than you can possibly get outside. Note: I don't think
this sort of accuracy is all that important. Just don't delude yourself that
"real-believe" outdoor exercise machines have this inherent "advantage" over
"make-believe" machines.
>Now, if you prefer to work on the machines, and do it honestly, and
>get the benefits - then good for you. But no matter how much time
>I've even spent on a machine (an old exercise bike, usually), I've
>never had the feeling I'd gotten that good a workout - there's
>nothing like the miles going by on the road to make the workout
>seem worthwhile, and motivate you to do it again next time.
For you, outdoor exercise is the answer. For others, indoor exercise
machines are the answer. Many of us do both. Long ago, the American Red
Cross figured out to say this most succintly:
It takes all types.
>The Rhealist (Rheal Nadeau) | Bell-Northern Research
Phil Earnhardt p...@netwise.com
Daniel Mocsny
>I've been thinking about something Daniel Mocsny said:
>>Of course, but if you are doing something really wrong when you ride a
>>bike, you get dropped by your biking buddies. My point (if we can keep
>>it in mind) is that real exercises provide more to keep the exerciser
>>honest. Exercise simulators eliminate this check, and a certain fraction
>>of people who use simulators *like* that.
>
>honest? huh
>I'm interested in finding out exactly *what* one could be doing wrong that
>would keep him/her from keeping up with biking buddies.
How about, "not working hard enough"?
This was the original complaint about the StairMasterPoseurs that
kicked off this delightful thread about 6,000,000 articles ago. Some
People lay their heads down on the top of the StairMaster and just
bounce their calves on it with a 2" range of motion. Generally when
we say someone is using a StairMaster incorrectly, we mean that they
are violating the DanMocsnyHairShirtPuritanPhysiologicalWorkEthic,
which makes them ExtraOrdinarilyBadPersons, and everyone who ever
exercised indoors should definitely misconstrue this as a
GraveUnforgiveablePersonalInsult, and flame me off the NET (good
luck on that one, it will take a fresh approach). Or at least, write
their congressperson.
There are other mistakes you can make on a bike, such as forgetting
to pump your tires, putting your shoes on backwards, facing the wrong
way, applying the brakes on a climb, etc. Notice that I didn't say
"forgetting your shorts"; I noticed that once about 30 miles into
the ride, but not because it slowed me down. (That should interest
the lightness fanatics.)
>I ride with a friend of mine alot (recreational riding, for fun). There
>are a some reasons that one person can ride faster than another.
>
>For one, everyone has different ability levels. My friend is a better
>rider for lots of reasons. She has better lung capacity. Her legs are
>stronger. She's had more riding experience than I have.
>If I can bench 135 and she can only bench 100, does that mean she is
>doing something *wrong*???
Yes, she's probably using her arms.
> I think it means I am stronger (as long as
>*I* am not cheating/arching back/whatever).
Oh, you mean the famous "London Bridge"?
>Luckily we ride for recreational purposes and my friend doesn't "drop"
>me if I can't always keep up with her! (but I try)
"Dropping" people has great recreational value. Try it some time, you'll
quickly understand what I mean. :-) It's the next best thing to raising
a stink on the NET.
>Am I really doing something dreadfully wrong? or is it just possible that
>she's just a better/stronger biker than I am? If I am doing something
>wrong or you can suggest things for me to try I would be very appreciative!
Well, this is a tough question to answer without seeing you in action.
(Of course, even if I saw you it might still be a tough question.)
If two athletes have equal motivation and equal attention to technique,
they will still usually perform differently if we measure them with
fine enough resolution.
Athletes differ in raw ability, technique, level of conditioning (how
much they have trained), and motivation.
Measuring motivation is tricky. If your friend rides faster than you,
she may be stronger/better/better conditioned, or she may just like to
work harder (use more of what she has).
Sometimes you know when you simply can't go
any faster. Usually, you figure this out when your legs are burning
like the fires of Hades, or you are gasping for air like a fish out
of water, or you are about to see your breakfast again, or all three
at once. If you are pretty sure that you just can't work any harder,
then you can be pretty sure you aren't getting dropped for lack of
motivation. You can only do your best. Your best can get better if
you find effective ways for you to train.
If your friend feels good while you are feeling distressed, then the
difference is probably not motivation.
Brian Hjelle
>
>
>And while we're on peeves in the gym, what about the guys who train chest,
>biceps, abs and a bit of shoulder and back, but very little. No leg training.
I don't care how other people train, really. Amusing sometimes, that's
about it. What *is* irksome is when people, usually "packs" of 20-30
yearold guys, decide to hog the only of a particular machine or
bench for 20-30 minutes. I'm sure this type of activity results in
lots more sales of home workout gear (do these guys all work for
Soloflex or something?).
Brian
Frank E Seipel
I have been doing the StairMaster for about 3 years now; I started on
the upright, escalator model, and now use the more common floor machine.
I've had good results with it.
I agree about form; almost everyone where I work out puts their hands on
the handrails not to rest them, but to support their body. I recommend
placing your hands on top the console, thumbs up. In this position it is
very difficult to cheat. I use the machine for 45 minutes at full speed;
I still can't help myself from taking about a minute of 'breaks' during
the exercise, in which I support my weight with my hands on the handrails.
I think ideally you should use the machine hands-free, but I've never
seen this done for long periods of time at the higher speeds.
I believe the greatest design flaw is the inability to change a program
once it is initiated, without resetting the machine. I always use the
machine in manual myself, and on occasion, when I'm tired, lower the
speed for the last few minutes. Is there any great advantage to changing
the difficulty with time, as opposed to this flat-line profile I follow?
Finally, does anyone know where I could acquire a used StairMaster, of the
escalator type model? Also, many people like the 'frills' of the StairMaster;
they like to see how long they have used it, how many calories were burned,
etc. One can't deny it is an extremely popular machine.
J Green
>How about, "not working hard enough"?
Yea, that must be it. I'm not working hard enough.
First you say that I must be doing something wrong if I can't keep
up with biking buddies. When I ask you what I could be doing wrong
(so that I can correct it and do better) you tell me I must not be
trying hard enuf! (or maybe i forgot my shorts, hehe)!
>>If I can bench 135 and she can only bench 100, does that mean she is
>>doing something *wrong*???
>Yes, she's probably using her arms.
just for the record...
No, she does NOT use her arms. She is NOT doing anything wrong. She uses
proper technique, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with motivation.
It's just that I am stronger, have been lifting longer, and can lift
heavier weights. (and no, i don't do the "London Bridge", cute phrase tho)
So if one person can't do something as well as another it must be that
they aren't doing it right or they aren't trying hard enough?
As for biking ... She has more biking experience, stronger legs, and
stronger lungs. and it doesn't have anything to do with motivation.
If there is something about proper *technique* that I could be doing
wrong, please tell me so that I can improve it. But please don't tell
me that I'm not trying hard enough!
Janice
Dick King
>
>last year i had to stop running due to knee and hip damage from
>of serious aerobic activity every day (wu shu is also a bit hard
>on the joints, so i have to go easy there, as well) or i start having
>
>this year i want to avoid the inevitable injuries. ...
>and now a question for the real experts out there: any suggestions
>regarding how to cope with the cold and avoid muscle pulls, etc, while
>running during harsh winters?
Well this isn't exactly the question you were asking, but swimming is the
"book" exercise for those whose joints and lungs both have chronic problems.
You have to find an indoor pool that fits your geography, of course...
The air you actually breathe comes pre-humidified, there are no shocks except
on the rare occasions you bump into another swimmer, the skin temperature is
kept at 80-81 deg, etc. etc.
-dk
A Warren Pratten
|> In article <32...@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> 905...@basser.cs.su.OZ.AU (Geoff Langdale) writes:
|> >
|> >
|> >And while we're on peeves in the gym, what about the guys who train chest,
|> >biceps, abs and a bit of shoulder and back, but very little. No leg training.
|>
|>
|> I don't care how other people train, really. Amusing sometimes, that's
|> [stuff deleted]
|> Brian
Nothing is more frustrating than waiting for a machine that is being used by
someone who clearly has no clue what they are doing on it. I really wish
someone would take these people aside and explain a few things to them...
like range of motion, like controlled movements, like working on the whole body.
I don't know what benefit people think they are going to get flailing around
on one or two machines for 20 minutes.
For people like that on the net here is a hint....
BENCH PRESS ONLY DOES NOT EQUAL A TOTAL WORKOUT!!!
--
A Warren Pratten
Department of Computer Science
The University of Western Ontario
Alison Chaiken
>about it.
I agree with you as long as people aren't doing something actively
dangerous. I can't watch folks go too deep on the dip or curl their
lower backs on the deadlift without speaking up. No matter how rude
the person might think I am for correcting them, I always think, "If
he [or she] gets hurt and I haven't spoken up, how will I feel?" Of
course there's one guy who works out at my gym to whom every single
serious lifter in the gym has spoken to about his dangerous form.
Sometimes you have to give up.
--
Alison Chaiken ali...@wsrcc.com
(202)767-3603 [daytime] uunet!wsrcc!alison
Fletcher Chem
>In article <ysc...@lynx.unm.edu>, bhj...@vaxine.unm.edu (Brian Hjelle) writes:
>|> In article <32...@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> 905...@basser.cs.su.OZ.AU (Geoff Langdale) writes:
>Nothing is more frustrating than waiting for a machine that is being used by
>someone who clearly has no clue what they are doing on it. I really wish
>someone would take these people aside and explain a few things to them...
>like range of motion, like controlled movements, like working on the whole body.
>
aside and explain a few things to him/her. For all I know you could be peeved
at me. I workout three times a week and have made approx. 20-40% improvement
on all of my lifts since I began in July. I THINK I am doing things
correctly, but I am not sure. I would welcome any advice from anyone that
KNOWS what they are doing. I don't KNOW but I pay attention and I'm trying.
Stop whining and speak up next time. Ask the lifter if he/she would like
a hand with a particular exercise. Then tell s/he how to maximize the
effort.
RF
A Warren Pratten
If I were to help everyone who used bad form while working out I'd never
get a chance to work out myself. I personally subscribe to the philosophy
that says "If you are going to workout with weights use strict form and
managable weight". The people I was complaining about in my original
message (see above the flame) are the people that lift whatever
they can however they can. This usually means that these
people use incorrect form and they don't use full range of movement.
An example of this is a guy in the gym that benches 180 kg but only
bents his elbows about 10 degrees. In other words he benches this
weight from straight arm position to about 10 degree bend in elbows.
We are talking about lifting this weight about 3 inches. I am not
sure what this is suppose to accomplish but it certainly isn't going
to build a huge chest (elbows maybe).
BTW RF.. watch how you quote people. Although it was my comments you
flamed you attributed my comments to two other people. I am sure they
don't want to be associated with my remarks at all.
mic...@sail.tymnet.com
wear workout clothes that smell. I sweat a lot at the gym
as do most people, and I'm sure I don't smell too rosy after
my workout. But PLEASE, be considerate to everyone
else and do not wear the same workout clothes for a month!
I was on the stair machine one evening, stuck next to
some guy that was overpowering. And the fan was blowing his
stench in my direction. It was horrible.
Hilary Lane
>I was on the stair machine one evening, stuck next to
>some guy that was overpowering. And the fan was blowing his
>stench in my direction. It was horrible.
I agree, but what also bugs me is those who wear perfume. When they get
sweaty, the stench is nausiating! Especially when those people are on the
stair machine and the fan blows the smell everywhere! That goes for aftershave,
too.
--
Hilary Lane
Netwise, Inc., Boulder, Colorado
hil...@netwise.com