Bowflex Vs. Free weights

[gomez26]

Let me point out how idiotic this statement is. You are saying that if there was no difference between the two modalities, why wouldn't commercial gyms just be filled with bowflex equipment. I a assuming you are saying this because you feel the commercial gyms would be saving money. Regardless for your reasoning behind this statement, you seem to be agreeing with others on here that free weights are superior over machines. Since free weights, in your opinion, are superior then why wouldn't the gym simply purchase free weight equipment as it is a much cheaper option to begin with? Why waste the money buying all those expensive machines in the first place if the only factor that matters is effectiveness of the equipment?

Commercial gyms simply buy the equipment that people like to use. If they didn't have this equipment then they would be out of business. As a gym owner you are not going to stock your gym full of home-exercise equipment because if you do your clients will all just go out and buy the home-exercise equipment.

u completely distorted the point i was making, when i responded to u i was referring to the type of resistance not the general free weights vs machines argument. in responding to the other guy i was pointing out that past attempts to change resistance distributions of free weights, while creating something that was usefully different, did not result in the revolution the maker thought it would.

as far as ur argument goes, all free weights & machines used in commercial gyms use weight mass as the form of resistance, this is very fundamental because there is an inertial component to the motion which seems to work best for building size & strength - something that does not exist with elastic systems like rubber bands or bows. even if u had an entire gym with no barbells & dumbbells i guarantee it will have machines with weight stacks not rubbers bands, u will never find any serious athletes that does not use inertial systems of some sort for resistance training. it is ur suggestion that the only reason for this is that ppl have some psychological reluctance to avoid inertial systems that is idiotic. if there was no difference of course gyms would use elastic systems from cost & safety point of view. rubber bands have only been used successfully together with weights to tweak the resistance a bit for a very specific purpose, but to remove the inertial part of the load completely has never been shown to be even remotely close to being as effective, regardless if science is unable at this stage to explain exactly why.

[SumDumGoi]

u completely distorted the point i was making, when i responded to u i was referring to the type of resistance not the general free weights vs machines argument. in responding to the other guy i was pointing out that past attempts to change resistance distributions of free weights, while creating something that was usefully different, did not result in the revolution the maker thought it would.

as far as ur argument goes, all free weights & machines used in commercial gyms use weight mass as the form of resistance, this is very fundamental because there is an inertial component to the motion which seems to work best for building size & strength - something that does not exist with elastic systems like rubber bands or bows. even if u had an entire gym with no barbells & dumbbells i guarantee it will have machines with weight stacks not rubbers bands, u will never find any serious athletes that does not use inertial systems of some sort for resistance training. it is ur suggestion that the only reason for this is that ppl have some psychological reluctance to avoid inertial systems that is idiotic. if there was no difference of course gyms would use elastic systems from cost & safety point of view. rubber bands have only been used successfully together with weights to tweak the resistance a bit for a very specific purpose, but to remove the inertial part of the load completely has never been shown to be even remotely close to being as effective, regardless if science is unable at this stage to explain exactly why.

You are correct, they didn't fundamentally change anything with the cams in the old nautilus equipment. The results turned out to be the same. As long as you can create overload it doesn't matter where the resistance is coming from. Also, please quit using words you clearly don't know the definition of. Inertia is defined as the the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest. The stretching of a elastic band does in fact resist this change and would therefore have inertia.


Also, you clearly didn't grasp the fundamental point of what I said. People like free weights. This is not a question of which modality is more effective and therefore the gym will only stock that piece of equipment. It is a matter of complying with the demands of the public so that you stay in business. If all you are going to offer are a bunch of pieces of home-equipment, why would anyone come to your gym as they can buy that same stuff less than the cost of their gym memberships.

Also, I would argue that over time, from a cost perspective, the elastic bands (or in bow flexes case, resistance rods) would be more likely to wear out compared to traditional free weights. You need to keep in mind that in commercial gyms the equipment gets used a lot more and therefore is more likely to wear out over time. Free weights don't wear out and therefore would be the cheaper option.

Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of the free weights. However, having this argument is largely ridiculous. My advice would be to try out the piece of equipment that you are using. As long as the piece of equipment 1) creates overload & 2) the exercises can be performed safely and correctly it doesn't matter one iota what it is you are doing. Creating overload is the key.

[gomez26]

Also, please quit using words you clearly don't know the definition of. Inertia is defined as the the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest. The stretching of a elastic band does in fact resist this change and would therefore have inertia.

go back to school & quit using wikipedia definitions out of context. the inertial component is dependent upon the mass that is moving. when using elastic systems like the bowflex the only inertial component will be from the mass of your limbs & the moving parts of the machine which are negligible compared to the elastic force which resists the motion. this totally changes the dynamic of the motion & the stimulus on the muscle. it is inferior to all free weights & machines using a weight stack.

[Engineer_Guy]

You are correct, they didn't fundamentally change anything with the cams in the old nautilus equipment. The results turned out to be the same. As long as you can create overload it doesn't matter where the resistance is coming from. Also, please quit using words you clearly don't know the definition of. Inertia is defined as the the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest. The stretching of a elastic band does in fact resist this change and would therefore have inertia.

The resistance of elastic stretching isn't inertial resistance, it's a material resistance known as elasticity. You aren't moving the object you are changing it's shape. Inertia really has more to do a change in velocity (acceleration) and an object resistance to accelerating based on its overall mass. The resistance due to stretching a piece of material isn't due to its mass, its due to the type of material and that material's elasticity.

[perpendicularis]

The stimulus from elastic stuff like the Bowfelx can probably be compared to the stimulus from super slow reps with weights, another idea to come out of the Arthur Jones camp. We all know how that ended . Explosive but controlled reps with free weights do actually have effects from inertia this can never be replicated with rubber bands.

[gomez26]

The resistance of elastic stretching isn't inertial resistance, it's a material resistance known as elasticity. You aren't moving the object you are changing it's shape. Inertia really has more to do a change in velocity (acceleration) and an object resistance to accelerating based on its overall mass. The resistance due to stretching a piece of material isn't due to its mass, its due to the type of material and that material's elasticity.

that my whole fukkin point jeezus.

free weight u work against gravity & fluctuations in inertia.
elastic systems u only work against elastic force.
totally different dynamic.


oops sorry, i thought u were sdg , at least someone is on the ball.

[STEELCITYMUSCLE]

Save your money and get a gym membership and learn to train properly with free weights.

[feltmann]

Also, please quit using words you clearly don't know the definition of. Inertia is defined as the the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest. The stretching of a elastic band does in fact resist this change and would therefore have inertia..

The resistance of elastic stretching isn't inertial resistance, it's a material resistance known as elasticity. You aren't moving the object you are changing it's shape. Inertia really has more to do a change in velocity (acceleration) and an object resistance to accelerating based on its overall mass. The resistance due to stretching a piece of material isn't due to its mass, its due to the type of material and that material's elasticity.

Bwahahahahaha!!! A classic. SDG the academic genius beaten at his own game by a bunch of us idiot, moron meatheads.

Anyway what are you still doing here SDG? I thought I told you to leave and never come back.
Back for more humiliation?

[delineator]

The resistance of elastic stretching isn't inertial resistance, it's a material resistance known as elasticity. You aren't moving the object you are changing it's shape. Inertia really has more to do a change in velocity (acceleration) and an object resistance to accelerating based on its overall mass. The resistance due to stretching a piece of material isn't due to its mass, its due to the type of material and that material's elasticity.

Yes, elasticity is a property of the material as is mass. Inertia refers specifically to the influence of the mass property during changes in motion, nothing to do with elasticity.

This is not a question of which modality is more effective and therefore the gym will only stock that piece of equipment. It is a matter of complying with the demands of the public so that you stay in business.

You are making a grave mistake if you believe there is no correlation between the 2. Countless people doing weight training over many decades have a knack for figuring out what works best, don't think a qualification will over ride this type of experience.

Also, I would argue that over time, from a cost perspective, the elastic bands (or in bow flexes case, resistance rods) would be more likely to wear out compared to traditional free weights. You need to keep in mind that in commercial gyms the equipment gets used a lot more and therefore is more likely to wear out over time. Free weights don't wear out and therefore would be the cheaper option.

Machines with weight stacks or plate loading also must be maintained regularly meaning pulleys, hinges, rods, guides, cables etc.

[SumDumGoi]

Inertia or no inertia, those rubber bands that you have all been discrediting certainly seem to result in similiar changes in body comp when compared to free weights

A Comparison of the Effects of Three Strength Training Programs on Women
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the strength and body composition changes produced by three different strength training programs: isotonic, involving free weights; compound variable resistance, involving Nautilus (P.O. Drawer 809014, Dallas Texas); and linear variable resistance, utilizing the Soloflex (570 NE 53rd, Hillsboro, Oregon) device. Thirty-two female subjects performed pre- and posttests for strength utilizing the one repetition maximum (1 RM) test on three exercises from each of the training programs. Subjects were pre- and posttested on four skinfold thicknesses, percent body fat and body girths. The subjects utilized one of three training programs three times a week for 12 weeks. All three modes of training were found to significantly increase strength levels (p < 0.05). Subjects who trained with free weights or Nautilus performed at significantly higher levels when tested for 1 RM on exercises included in their training program. Strength gains of the nautilus training group were significantly higher levels (p < 0.05) than those of soloflex training group on the free weight leg press 1 RM test. there were no other significant different strength gains as a result of the training programs. The training programs to produce significant decreases in the arm, thigh and suprailiac skinfolds, as well as decreases in percent body fat. No significant changes were found in the girth measurements or abdominal skin fold. No significant differences were found among the training groups for effect on body composition variables. It was concluded that the three training programs produced comparable changes in body composition and strength, with training specificity in strength gains.

http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/ab...trength.5.aspx

Isn't that what counts the most?

[feltmann]

A Comparison of the Effects of Three Strength Training Programs on Women
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the strength and body composition changes produced by three different strength training programs: isotonic, involving free weights; compound variable resistance, involving Nautilus (P.O. Drawer 809014, Dallas Texas); and linear variable resistance, utilizing the Soloflex (570 NE 53rd, Hillsboro, Oregon) device. Thirty-two female subjects performed pre- and posttests for strength utilizing the one repetition maximum (1 RM) test on three exercises from each of the training programs. Subjects were pre- and posttested on four skinfold thicknesses, percent body fat and body girths. The subjects utilized one of three training programs three times a week for 12 weeks. All three modes of training were found to significantly increase strength levels (p < 0.05). Subjects who trained with free weights or Nautilus performed at significantly higher levels when tested for 1 RM on exercises included in their training program. Strength gains of the nautilus training group were significantly higher levels (p < 0.05) than those of soloflex training group on the free weight leg press 1 RM test. there were no other significant different strength gains as a result of the training programs. The training programs to produce significant decreases in the arm, thigh and suprailiac skinfolds, as well as decreases in percent body fat. No significant changes were found in the girth measurements or abdominal skin fold. No significant differences were found among the training groups for effect on body composition variables. It was concluded that the three training programs produced comparable changes in body composition and strength, with training specificity in strength gains.

http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/ab...trength.5.aspx

Isn't that what counts the most?

No, its not.

32 women aiming for fat loss means jack shit to the posters of this section.

The results actually found against what you were arguing & for those who argued against rubber bands. The results found the group who used weights or weight stack machines gained significantly more strength than those who used the Soloflex rubber bands. Looks like the inertial factor is important after all .

Everybody knows that for a beginner strength gains and muscle gains are very closely correlated. Its not until a serious lifter becomes more advanced that gains in muscle can be had from doing more volume with little increases in strength (within limits), but even that is irrelevant here. The women were after fat loss and the results included skin fold tests FFS!!!. Clearly they were not interested in building size & strength while on a calorie surplus (or even a serious re-comp with muscularity in mind), yet this is the shit an e-expert as yourself would use in order to decide what is suitable for the average poster in this section interested in size & strength gains? As I stated in our previous encounter, stop insulting the intelligence of the good people here & as a sign of respect leave this section and never return. Maybe they may find you useful in the women's fat loss section.

[TR0LLF4CE]

It's really quite simple: where is the list of respected trainers and coaches who advocate the use of bowflex over free weights?

[N@tural1]

Exactly feltmann

"Subjects who trained with free weights or Nautilus performed at significantly higher levels when tested for 1 RM on exercises included in their training program. Strength gains of the nautilus training group were significantly higher levels (p < 0.05) than those of soloflex training group on the free weight leg press 1 RM test"


SDG is study obsessed beyond reason.

[douglis]

The resistance of elastic stretching isn't inertial resistance, it's a material resistance known as elasticity. You aren't moving the object you are changing it's shape. Inertia really has more to do a change in velocity (acceleration) and an object resistance to accelerating based on its overall mass. The resistance due to stretching a piece of material isn't due to its mass, its due to the type of material and that material's elasticity.

That's right.
The resistance in isotonic(or isoinertial) training is defined by Newton's laws F=m(g+a) while in bands training the resistance is defined by Hook's law F=K*X.
The "K" depends on the material and "X" is the length that the band is stretched.It's easy to see that the more you stretch the band the greater the resistance.

I'm also skeptical about this form of training but I'll have to be open minded since I know a lot of people that swear for its effectiveness.

[SumDumGoi]

No, its not.

32 women aiming for fat loss means jack shit to the posters of this section.

The results actually found against what you were arguing & for those who argued against rubber bands. The results found the group who used weights or weight stack machines gained significantly more strength than those who used the Soloflex rubber bands. Looks like the inertial factor is important after all .

Everybody knows that for a beginner strength gains and muscle gains are very closely correlated. Its not until a serious lifter becomes more advanced that gains in muscle can be had from doing more volume with little increases in strength (within limits), but even that is irrelevant here. The women were after fat loss and the results included skin fold tests FFS!!!. Clearly they were not interested in building size & strength while on a calorie surplus (or even a serious re-comp with muscularity in mind), yet this is the shit an e-expert as yourself would use in order to decide what is suitable for the average poster in this section interested in size & strength gains? As I stated in our previous encounter, stop insulting the intelligence of the good people here & as a sign of respect leave this section and never return. Maybe they may find you useful in the women's fat loss section.

First, the women weren't AFTER fat loss. The researchers were looking at differences in body composition (LBM and fat loss) that existed between the 3 groups. In other words, variables that change following resistance training.

Second, the "strength" gain was specific to the exercise modality being performed. When comparing changes in LBM and fat loss the results between the groups were exactly the same.

Also, could you stop mentioning "our previous encounter". I can assure you that I have no idea who you are or why it is you think you matter so much.

[SumDumGoi]

Another study comparing free weights and machines.

A Comparison of Two Methods of raining on the Development of Muscular Strength and Endurance.
Sanders MT.

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the relative effectiveness of using traditional barbell equipment and Nautilus dynamic equipment on the development of muscular strength and endurance. The subjects, 22 college students, were pre and posttested on two 3-minute bouts of rhythmic isometric exercise. After pretesting, the subjects were assigned to two groups. For the next 5 weeks, all groups trained three times weekly, but one group trained using traditional barbell equipment and the second group used Nautilus dynamic equipment. Results indicated significant improvement as a result of training in both groups, but no significant differences were found between the two training methods or the groups by training interaction for any of the variables evaluated.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18810173

I realize it is not the question being asked, however there are still others who claim the superiority of one modality (free weights) over another (machines).

[SumDumGoi]

Exactly feltmann

"Subjects who trained with free weights or Nautilus performed at significantly higher levels when tested for 1 RM on exercises included in their training program. Strength gains of the nautilus training group were significantly higher levels (p < 0.05) than those of soloflex training group on the free weight leg press 1 RM test"


SDG is study obsessed beyond reason.

Perhaps because they allow for differences to be objectively measured. My apologies for letting facts get in the way of others fiction.

I thought I would add in my final stance on this issue. Arguing over which modality is best is a largely useless debate. What really is of importance is the amount of work and effort which you place into your program. If you are able to produce the desired overload, your body will adapt. It doesn't matter how you do it. Instead of touting the superiority of one piece of equipment over another (which largely don't make a difference), perhaps we should focus on the things that do actually matter, such as putting forth the desired time and effort into your training schedule.

[perpendicularis]

I'm also skeptical about this form of training but I'll have to be open minded since I know a lot of people that swear for its effectiveness.

A lot of people also used to swear for the superiority of Nautilus machines over free weights, in fact it reached cult level at one stage. Don't forget Arthur Jones was much more effective as a businessman & marketer than as a scientist or inventor, I'm sure Bowflex benefited much from their methods & company culture when they merged with Nautilus.

[Athasling]

There is way too much detail in most of these posts as to why free weights or bowflex is better. This guy is a beginner. Free weights are best. There shouldn't even be an argument. Buy a gym membership if you can afford it. If you can't afford a membership and can get a bowflex at a decent price then buy it. It is a good piece of equipment and will no doubt give you results. But free weights are best. Period.

[SumDumGoi]

A lot of people also used to swear for the superiority of Nautilus machines over free weights, in fact it reached cult level at one stage. Don't forget Arthur Jones was much more effective as a businessman & marketer than as a scientist or inventor, I'm sure Bowflex benefited much from their methods & company culture when they merged with Nautilus.

The thing is you are turning the argument into something that its not. No one is claiming that the bowflex is better. All that has been said is that it is simply an alternative. One modality doesn't have any advantage over the other.

The debate here is analogous to what is a better form of exercise, running on a treadmill or running outside. Running purists would argue that running outside is better. However, others would claim that treadmill running is a equal and viable alternative. Who's right? If you are looking to train for a marathon then a lot of your running should be done outside and not on a treadmill. However if you are looking to simply gain cardiovascular fitness, then treadmill running can work equally well.

The same thing is observed in this situation. If you are looking to increase your strength on free weight lifts because you are training to become a powerrlifter, you should include predominantly free weight exercises in your routine. However, if you are simply looking to gain muscle mass, then any exercise which is 1) capable of producing overload, 2) works the muscle through the entire range of motion and 3) can be performed safely will be a viable alternative regardless of where the resistance is coming from (free weights, power rods, resistance bands, manual resistance, etc). The key to progression is not what equipment that you have, but rather how hard you work with the equipment you got. Somewhere the strength "purists" in here have lost focus of that.

[perpendicularis]

3) can be performed safely will be a viable alternative regardless of where the resistance is coming from (free weights, power rods, resistance bands, manual resistance, etc).

Somewhere the strength "purists" in here have lost focus of that.

Not true, you are trying to create an argument which was never there to begin with. Even the hypertrophy focused guys will tell you that weights & weight-stacked machines are way better than rubber band machines. What strength purists & hypertrophy guys here argue about the most is rep ranges, importance of doing many isolation exercises, and free weights vs weight-loaded machines, NOT rubber band machines vs weight loaded machines. Hell, even other sports guys (football, rugby, martial arts) will tell you that weights & weight stacks are better. Your fabricated notion that strength purists are the only ones who say bowflex resistance is less effective is just a desperate attempt to throw up a smokescreen & get people to turn against each other to suit your needs, we are not as stupid as you think.

[gomez26]

The debate here is analogous to what is a better form of exercise, running on a treadmill or running outside. Running purists would argue that running outside is better. However, others would claim that treadmill running is a equal and viable alternative. Who's right? If you are looking to train for a marathon then a lot of your running should be done outside and not on a treadmill. However if you are looking to simply gain cardiovascular fitness, then treadmill running can work equally well.
.

running on the ground vs running on a treadmill is a very good analogy for free weights vs machines that use weight stacks or weight plate loading. the loading dynamic is almost identical but the path is fixed - running at constant speed means zero horizontal acceleration so as long as the treadmill path moves backwards at the same speed it gives very similar demands to the body as moving forwards on the ground does.

however using weights or weight based machines vs the bowflex or other elastic band type equipment is like comparing sprinting on the ground vs sprinting on a treadmill. even if the treadmill base was programmed to match a sprinter's displacement vs time, the dynamic is completely different because it neglects the inertial aspect of accelerating the runner's body mass. this is how i can tell u are still struggling to understand the inertial aspect of resistance training we discussed before & how it changes the dynamic of the exercise.

[SumDumGoi]

running on the ground vs running on a treadmill is a very good analogy for free weights vs machines that use weight stacks or weight plate loading. the loading dynamic is almost identical but the path is fixed - running at constant speed means zero horizontal acceleration so as long as the treadmill path moves backwards at the same speed it gives very similar demands to the body as moving forwards on the ground does.

however using weights or weight based machines vs the bowflex or other elastic band type equipment is like comparing sprinting on the ground vs sprinting on a treadmill. even if the treadmill base was programmed to match a sprinter's displacement vs time, the dynamic is completely different because it neglects the inertial aspect of accelerating the runner's body mass. this is how i can tell u are still struggling to understand the inertial aspect of resistance training we discussed before & how it changes the dynamic of the exercise.

There is no struggle. In practical terms what you have stated is that if you are participating in an event which requires sprinting, then you should perform your sprints on the ground. However, if you are simply looking at improving anaerobic ability in general, then sprinting on a treadmill is an equally viable option. This is much like the useless debate we are having. If you are required to perform free weight exercises (e.g. power/olympic lifters), then free weights are clearly superior for reaching your goals. If you are merely interested in increasing muscle mass, then any exercise that is capable of producing overload is an equally viable option.

The thing you seem to be struggling with is that between me and everyone else in this thread I am the only one who has actually supplied any form of evidence to support my contentions. Increases in strength are specific to the modality being used, however all different forms of resistance training machines produce similar changes in lean body mass and body composition. This was what was observed in the above studies. If you want to disprove that statement, please do so by providing evidence to support your claims. You are bringing up terms like "inertial" vs. "elastic" resistance. In order to make the claims that you have made you first must prove that the body does indeed respond differently between these forms of resistance. Otherwise, everything that you are saying sounds like a late night infomercial where the voice-over attempts to use technical terms to make their exaggerated claims sound impressive.

[SumDumGoi]

Not true, you are trying to create an argument which was never there to begin with. Even the hypertrophy focused guys will tell you that weights & weight-stacked machines are way better than rubber band machines. What strength purists & hypertrophy guys here argue about the most is rep ranges, importance of doing many isolation exercises, and free weights vs weight-loaded machines, NOT rubber band machines vs weight loaded machines. Hell, even other sports guys (football, rugby, martial arts) will tell you that weights & weight stacks are better. Your fabricated notion that strength purists are the only ones who say bowflex resistance is less effective is just a desperate attempt to throw up a smokescreen & get people to turn against each other to suit your needs, we are not as stupid as you think.

Please explain the results of the above studies.

[gomez26]

If you are merely interested in increasing muscle mass, then any exercise that is capable of producing overload is an equally viable option.

The thing you seem to be struggling with is that between me and everyone else in this thread I am the only one who has actually supplied any form of evidence to support my contentions.

u are right that we have no studies to support why weights & weight stacks are better than springs or rubber bands. however this does not change the fact we are right. spring loaded chest expanders have been around as long as dumbells have, u can put on or take off springs to vary the load.


i had a set as a kid & so did many others, we used to stick one end under the foot & do curls with them, or hang it on a fence post or some hook for various tricep extensions, high curls etc. And as many others, when comparing with a simple dumbell set the difference was immediately obvious just in the kind of deep fiber stimulation u feel straight away. the fact that better gains came were no surprise. it wasnt due to the overload issue - with all the springs on in certain exercises u couldnt get many reps anyway, yet everyone preferred to use the dumbells even if it meant using lighter loads doing more reps.

& its not due to less popularity either as u like to claim, these things were much preferred by powerful mainstream advertisers due to their light weight & relative cost. there were mr.t kits, hulk hogan kits, rambo kits etc etc that were pushed to teenagers with a lot of financial backing - yet when compared by the ppl that actually used them the springs were always 2nd best even to a simple dumbell set by kids doing only a handful of exercises.

[N@tural1]

Perhaps because they allow for differences to be objectively measured. My apologies for letting facts get in the way of others fiction..

While studies are useful, you need to factor in years of observed reality to get the full picture.

[Kirra]

Let me point out how idiotic this statement is. You are saying that if there was no difference between the two modalities, why wouldn't commercial gyms just be filled with bowflex equipment. I a assuming you are saying this because you feel the commercial gyms would be saving money. Regardless for your reasoning behind this statement, you seem to be agreeing with others on here that free weights are superior over machines. Since free weights, in your opinion, are superior then why wouldn't the gym simply purchase free weight equipment as it is a much cheaper option to begin with? Why waste the money buying all those expensive machines in the first place if the only factor that matters is effectiveness of the equipment?

Commercial gyms simply buy the equipment that people like to use. If they didn't have this equipment then they would be out of business. As a gym owner you are not going to stock your gym full of home-exercise equipment because if you do your clients will all just go out and buy the home-exercise equipment.

Cos squats are hard, but cable curls are easy. Remember that gyms are a business, they care about making money, they don't care about your results.

Most people that go to commersial gyms will not put in the hard work it takes to transform your body.

[SumDumGoi]

u are right that we have no studies to support why weights & weight stacks are better than springs or rubber bands. however this does not change the fact we are right. spring loaded chest expanders have been around as long as dumbells have, u can put on or take off springs to vary the load.


i had a set as a kid & so did many others, we used to stick one end under the foot & do curls with them, or hang it on a fence post or some hook for various tricep extensions, high curls etc. And as many others, when comparing with a simple dumbell set the difference was immediately obvious just in the kind of deep fiber stimulation u feel straight away. the fact that better gains came were no surprise. it wasnt due to the overload issue - with all the springs on in certain exercises u couldnt get many reps anyway, yet everyone preferred to use the dumbells even if it meant using lighter loads doing more reps.

& its not due to less popularity either as u like to claim, these things were much preferred by powerful mainstream advertisers due to their light weight & relative cost. there were mr.t kits, hulk hogan kits, rambo kits etc etc that were pushed to teenagers with a lot of financial backing - yet when compared by the ppl that actually used them the springs were always 2nd best even to a simple dumbell set by kids doing only a handful of exercises.

Since when do these spring loaded chest expanders offer progressive overload? Even when taking off and putting on springs it is very hard to vary the load to any precise amount. Are they also capable of working the muscle through the same range of motion compared to other multijoint exercises? They also wear out over time. How would you perform multijoint exercises with these contraptions? This is a rather poor comparison as these devices do not meet the criteria that I put in place in my posts above regarding what is an effective piece of equipment.

Also, dumbbells are more versatile in regards to what you can do with them. Also, they never wear out over time. That is the reason for their continued popularity. I would easily recommend getting a simple dumbell kit and an adjustable bench for someone who is just starting out. However, that doesn't mean that other modes of exercise are less effective.

While studies are useful, you need to factor in years of observed reality to get the full picture.

Blah blah blah, I would appreciate it if you would stop using this tired excuse for why you can not back up your views with any real evidence. Although the bowflex is not my preferred piece of equipment, I did have a friend when I was doing my undergrad who used it quite a bit, especially when he came home for winter and summer breaks as his primary form of resistance training. He didn't appear to lose much (or anything at all) during this time. I had a couple workouts on it and thought the bench press and shoulder press were good, however I didn't feel as though the leg press offered much resistance. If I was able to increase the resistance a little more I might have been fine with it, but I had my gym membership so I didn't bother with it much after that.

Those would be my experiences with this piece of equipment and the research agrees with what I have observed. Do you have any first-hand experience with this piece of equipment? If not then you don't exactly get to claim your experience to be greater in this scenario. You could be standing on the stage at the next Mr. Olympia contest but if you haven't specifically worked with this piece of equipment your experience in this area would be zilch.

Cos squats are hard, but cable curls are easy. Remember that gyms are a business, they care about making money, they don't care about your results.

Most people that go to commersial gyms will not put in the hard work it takes to transform your body.

That was my point. Earlier it was pointed out that if bowflexes were able to produce similar results as free wieghts then gyms would be full of bowflex equipment because it is cheaper. (Note: I disagree with the issue of cost and feel that it would actually be more expensive compared to free weights, but I digress). The point I was making is that the gyms are there to make money and in order to continue making money they must offer equipment that their members want. In other words, they have to offer machines because there is a demand for them, not because they are any more effective than free weights. Anyone can achieve the same results working out at a much smaller hole in the wall, dungeon style gym as they could by working out at a corporate fitness center with ll the fancy machines.

Therefore one of the reasons why you would not see a gym stocked full of bowflexes is simply because there is not much of a demand for it by the public. The bowflex is nothing more than a piece of home-exercise equipment. If a gym were to offer nothing more thn home-exercise equipment, why would the members continue going to the gym. It would be more cost effective to simply go out and buy the same piece of equipment that your gym has.

[GuyJin]

One other thing to consider is that many trainees often get used to the Bowflex's weight "stack" and rather quickly outgrow it, even with upgrades. Not everyone of course, but from what I have read on various sites, that seems to be the rule rather than the exception. This is just my opinion, and I'm sure there are conflicting opinions out there.

I'm not going to say it's a totally bad piece of equipment; prior to this year, I hadn't used one but a friend of mine has one and I've tried it a few times and I will admit that the "feel" is somewhat different from using barbells/dumbbells/machines. However, with certain movements, I didn't feel it all that much. Had I used it longer, perhaps I would have been able to say more about it, but my experience with it IS limited so that's all there is to that. My friend stopped using it due to getting all that he could get from the various weight rods attached and he's not an especially big man and now he does the gym thing.

I will agree that resistance is resistance and progression is progression. However, if anyone out that has built a prize-winning physique using JUST a Bowflex, then I'd be interested in knowing how he did it.

The thing is, with barbells, dumbbells, and various machines, you can increase the resistance to pretty much any level you desire (and can do, of course). With barbells/dumbbells, you can change the grip or the ROM or the arc of the movement to a great degree (some of which you can't do on certain machines) so that one point, while not necessarily "proving" the superiority of b'bells and d'bells, does give them a slight advantage.

As for the studies provided, again, take them with a bit of salt added. I have no doubt about the results given, but then again, look at the subjects and the length of the trial and factor in diet (or lack of attention to it thereof) and the fact that many of the subjects were beginners. If someone advanced were to train EXCLUSIVELY on a Bowflex for a year with no other equipment offered and diet and cardio (if any) were the same, would he achieve the same or better results? It would be an interesting study

JMO on all this...

[Farley1324]

I will never waste money or floorspace on a bowflex.

**** that.