|
Closed Thread
Results 151 to 180 of 200
Thread: Bowflex Vs. Free weights
-
12-27-2010, 05:41 PM #151
- Join Date: Apr 2007
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 4,824
- Rep Power: 4692
-
12-27-2010, 08:19 PM #152
-
-
12-27-2010, 09:40 PM #153
-
12-27-2010, 10:02 PM #154
- Join Date: Apr 2007
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 4,824
- Rep Power: 4692
No, prove that the TYPE of resistance will provide an equal stimulus to GRAVITY base resistance. You can't prove it it's not been tested on advanced bodybuilders. How can you (Mr studies) make this claim when it's not been researched or studied? Anything written by you on this matter is pure speculation.
-
12-27-2010, 10:11 PM #155
Perhaps because I never made the claim that the bowflex provides optimal resistance for advanced trainees. In fact I stated that one of the biggest problems is that the bowflex only offers approximately 300 lbs of resistance in its basic model, which would not be enough for more advanced trainees.
Perhaps, due to the limited resistance the bowflex would no longer offer enough overload to cause the muscle to adapt much further.
Perhaps because my original argument stated that progressive overload was what was needed.
Perhaps because one of the blessings you have with being stupid is because you don't understand precisely how stupid you are.
Previously another poster made some pretty bold claims regarding "bulgarian research" proving that your argument is correct. Why don't you hound him for a bit so that he actually provides us with this Bulgarian research so that you can have the "AHA, I told you that you are wrong" moment you are so desperately trying to create, because unfortunately at this moment your stupid is showing.
-
12-27-2010, 10:15 PM #156
- Join Date: Mar 2008
- Location: Cumming, Georgia, United States
- Posts: 130,807
- Rep Power: 564606
Bowflex is inferior. Simple as that.
/thread
Seriously.
-
-
12-27-2010, 10:18 PM #157
-
12-28-2010, 02:35 AM #158
bold claims?, not really. it just reinforced what bodybuilders already know instinctively & have proven over the decades. all he did was explain the mechanism of how & why it is the way it is, even if he didnt it wont change the fact that it is the way it is. like i said i didnt see him selling or promoting anything, so i would say the claim that the alternative bowflex resistance being just as effective as free weights is what i would label the 'bold claim', not reinforcing what everybody already knows with a technical explanation.
ur strongest defense seems to be that bowflex only goes up to 410lbs maximum. i will assure u that there are many bodybuilders that will find this sufficient, who train with relatively lighter weights for higher reps with shorter rest periods between sets to focus on high workload with a high workload rate as their main stress form. they dont do 5x5 fyi. guys like cutler (current champ) rarely use more than 350 on the bench & 400 for squatting. old champs like serge nubret used around 250 for bench high volume high paced sets of 15 reps. guys like toney freeman, flex wheeler, paul dillet all chose to focus on forms of stress other than max weight for a certain low rep set. guys like ronnie are the exception, most dont do this.
u mentioned a few times the leg press as ur main point of concern. i wonder why? maybe u have seen pictures of pros leg pressing with a large number of plates stacked on? has it ever occured to you that a leg press on a 45 degree angle means the full weight of plates isnt actually transferred into the line of force? u do understand normal reaction forces, right? do u think a similar issue would occur using non gravity resistance like elastics? i suppose u have demonstrated ur incredible lack of simple physics knowledge in this thread already so i guess im just ranting rhetorical questions. the bowlfex does have a squat attachment btw."Though the concept is not scientifically validated in detail (it should be considered as a hypothesis rather than a scientific theory), it is useful from a practical standpoint. When training athletes, it is impossible to wait until scientific research provides all of the necessary knowledge." Vladmir M. Zatsiorsky, Ph.D.
-
12-28-2010, 04:41 AM #159
- Join Date: Apr 2007
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 4,824
- Rep Power: 4692
Not much substance here old boy so I'll simply say.. You know you've won an argument when your opponent needs to resort to personal attacks and insults (-;
Let me know when you find the studies that PROVE that resistance offered by bowflex is equal in stimulus provided by gravity/weight then get back to me, ok chum!? Till then, speculate away!Last edited by N@tural1; 12-28-2010 at 04:51 AM.
-
12-28-2010, 04:43 AM #160
-
-
12-28-2010, 06:07 AM #161
-
12-28-2010, 06:14 AM #162
Apparently you are so convinced that I am wrong that you have no problem blatantly contradicting yourself.
Sorry, but you don't get to make both claims simultaneously. But before you go on and make up some BS story, please keep in mind that previously the claim was that the bowflex is equivalent to performing reps slow and controlled. It was then argued that "Bulgarian research|" proved that faster reps are more effective than slower reps. This had something to do with the force velocity curve being different based on "inertial resistance". That is when you chimed in posting many youtube videos of bodybuilders performing fast reps.
No matter which way you try to wiggle you have essentially negated the entire reasoning for "inertial resistance" being greater and more effective. You just lost the mechanism within the argument for why free weights are superior that yourself and others had worked so hard to fabricate!Last edited by SumDumGoi; 12-28-2010 at 06:21 AM.
-
12-28-2010, 06:53 AM #163
Yeah there were no claims made, only an explanation of why non-mass resistance systems would not take advantage of NMA triggering regardless of rep speed. This is correct - if there is no additional loading from the extra speed then there is no reason for extra NMA, this is common sense. Weight (& stacks) load from mg+ma where 'mg' is the baseline and 'ma' is the inertial part. Controlled thrusts use the 'ma' factor to get their extra 10-15% this is what triggers extra NMA . Elastics on the other hand have loading kx, so regardless of what speed you use you will only ever get kx which is the stiffness constant multiplied by displacement. Neither speed nor acceleration affects elastic loading.
The sort of stuff that was applied to bodybuilding from Bulgarian research into weightlifting by guys like Leo Costa has been around since the early 90s this is nothing new whatsoever. Costa I think took it to extremes trying to sell new training systems (stuff like different periodization) which does have some merit but has not been proven out in the field to get better results than other normal approaches. Platz even jumped on board with this as well but it was more marketing hype than anything else (see attachment).
The only thing universally useful to come out of this in my opinion is they proved why deliberately slowing down of reps was inferior (due to inhibited NMA) and also formed a hierarchy of exercises which had most NMA (also in attachment). But both these points were already 'discovered' intuitively by bodybuilders in the field over the years so they were in no way new discoveries, they just reinforced what serious trainees already knew. So Costa et al just focused on different periodization approaches with limited success.Last edited by delineator; 12-28-2010 at 07:05 AM.
-
12-28-2010, 07:45 AM #164
- Join Date: Apr 2007
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 4,824
- Rep Power: 4692
As I said.. only a loser needs to resort to insults. How many others in this thread do you see desperate enough to have to lower themselves to such tatics?
Allow me to explain yet again because you're simply not getting this:
YOUR assertion is that the ONLY limiting factor with bowflex which makes them inferior to weights is the lack of raw tension.
MY suggestion is that there is more to it than that and the TYPE of resistance needs to be considers also, and no, bowflex/soloflex etc do not stimulate the tension through the entire ROM in the same way as gravity based tension aka free load.
For you to say the only limiting factor is lack of resistance is purely speculative and until proper research has been done on this using advanced bodybuilders then all you have to back your argument is pure and utter speculation.
So due to the lack of studies we have to look to what the big guys (yes I know you HATE using observation) are actually doing, and what is time tested and PROVEN. Even with the existence of machines.. free weight is by far the meat and potatoes of most maybe ALL bodybuilders programs. Not beginners, not women, not those in rehab as per studies but compitition ready bodybuilders
Now instead of being a bitter forum poster who simply cannot resit the urge to insult others simply as their opinion differs to yours, why not go do something productive like conduct some valid research yourself on ADVANCED BODYBUILDERS, and while you're at it, go pick up a dumbbell.
-
-
12-28-2010, 07:52 AM #165
-
12-28-2010, 08:01 AM #166
-
12-28-2010, 08:07 AM #167
Natty, please give a reason why the hypertrophic response to overload would differ between a beginner and a "bodybuilder". My assertion is that the response is exactly the same, only that more resistance is needed to produce overload of the muscle. Your response seems to be that there is a difference, however, the physiological response is through some mysterious mechanism that cannot be quantified.
-
12-28-2010, 08:12 AM #168
The claim that he made before is that most bodybuilders used faster reps. Then he made the claim that bodybuilders slow down the reps and use more control. This is a direct contradiction and his arguments depend on what he finds to be the convenient.
My claim in this and other threads s that there is no one way that is inherently better than the other (e.g. fast or slow reps). Both styles will produce similar results. If this is what you are saying, then you seem to be more in agreement with what I have been saying as opposed to the line of argument gomez is making.
Also, keep in mind that it was previously stated by someone else that the slow reps on the bowflex were "equal" to performing slow reps with free weights. It was suggested that faster reps with "inertial resistance" could not be duplicated by the bowflex and because "Bulgarian research" has proved these rep[s to be superior then freeweights are superior to the bowflex.Last edited by SumDumGoi; 12-28-2010 at 08:20 AM.
-
-
12-28-2010, 09:01 AM #169
-
12-28-2010, 10:34 AM #170
Orlando, you are better than this. Copy and pasting a reference page does not make an argument. Here is the article that you copy and pasted from.
http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/physi...uebuilding.pdf
First, it isn't exactly the highest quality of source. Second, please point me towards the par that is relevant for the discussion.
-
12-28-2010, 10:42 AM #171
-
12-28-2010, 10:44 AM #172
-
-
12-28-2010, 10:56 AM #173
-
12-28-2010, 11:07 AM #174
Each supportive reference cited provides clear and credible evidence to thoroughly support the highly controversial, debatable and sometimes considered insensitive claim made that 'the bowflex is for losers'.
Or, the post including 60+ references was made for entertainment purposes..
I'll let you decide
-
12-28-2010, 02:18 PM #175
Are you serious? Where did he say that? He said many use lighter weights focusing on workload (& rate) but the cadence is still around 1/1 meaning the inertial part is still there?? They could use TUT with slower reps equating the set times, the point is they still choose the quicker reps.
-
12-28-2010, 04:57 PM #176
Honestly I am not sure what you are doing. Judging from your previous posts Ibeleive you are someone who can make a rational argument, so I am thinking that you just did that to poke fun at some of the ridiculous ways people go about making their claims on here. On the other hand, that is exactly the level stupidity others on here, and even within this very thread, choose to support their claims.
I am going to go with my original statement and say you are above this and are simply fanning the flames of stupidity. Because let's be honest, this thread has literally become a farce.
-
-
12-28-2010, 06:35 PM #177
lol thats exactly what he thinks because he does not understand simple physics & has shown us on more than 1 occasion in this thread.
yes thanks for putting it in a more eloquent fashion. in other words a very heavy weight (say for a single double or triple) the weight will move slowly because (mg) term is dominant even tho u are 'trying' to move it fast. with lighter loads that bb'ers use, the (ma) term becomes important to trigger extra nma in every rep, otherwise doing slow continuous tension (altho good for some isos) is inferior for compound moves. jay cutler explains this very well in his first training vid from '99 - fast rhythmic movements for high reps.
with bowflex it doesnt matter how fast u move it the load will not change u may as well hold it in one place.
thanks for the attach, i just had a bunch of links from old threads where defiant1 explains the nma issue very well (http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...77#post4031777 whole thread is actually quite informative) , i do remember reading about costa in the past but i agree his periodization methods are a bit extreme & most likely unnecessary. but since the nma stuff was already obvious to anyone who actually trains seriously, i guess costa had to come up with something different to sell new systems. i'm pretty sure he even associated himself with nutrition ideas like post workout window of opportunity, which i guess would have give his reputation a fair shake (no pun )"Though the concept is not scientifically validated in detail (it should be considered as a hypothesis rather than a scientific theory), it is useful from a practical standpoint. When training athletes, it is impossible to wait until scientific research provides all of the necessary knowledge." Vladmir M. Zatsiorsky, Ph.D.
-
12-29-2010, 03:59 PM #178
When I go up into space and spend 12 months on a satellite station then I will happily use the Derpflex, otherwise gravity FTW.[quote]
I am the parasite, you are host. Deal with it.
-
12-30-2010, 12:27 AM #179
-
12-30-2010, 04:47 AM #180
Even Mike Mentzer says free weights are better than machines. And that dude's bat crazy.
Bookmarks