Bowflex Vs. Free weights

[Orlando1234977]

There are lots of studies using properly performed back squats. As I said before, I am not going to chase your tail for you. Look it up yourself, that isn't what is being discussed in this thread.

No there aren't.

There's never been a study where participants performed barbell back squats?
For clarification, is this what you are saying?

[Kirra]

There's never been a study where participants performed barbell back squats?
For clarification, is this what you are saying?

properly performed back squats

Read the posts pls.

[SumDumGoi]

Find a study where a bodybuilder has built a competition ready physique using rubber only....

I don't have to as this was addressed earlier. I wouldn't expect there to be. My argument is that resistance is resistance. However, at some point as I previously mentioned, using resistance bands would not provide enough overload. You could always try to add more an more bands but at some point this would be cumbersome and impractical as it would interfere with form.

This is a point which I previously addressed with the bowflex as it only comes with 300 lbs of resistance. This would most likely be enough for many exercises. However, many other exercises, especially those involving the legs, would be severely limited. If you look back at my previous argument you would easily find that I said something along the lines of "as long as the resistance is capable of producing overload" it doesn't matter where the resistance is coming from. Your smart-ass approach not only doesn't add anything to the discussion, but it also lacks a very fundamental understanding of what has been said. I would suggest you read before you comment from now on.

However, here is a direct claim that has been made.

Fast explosive reps are more effective than slow controlled reps. As an addendum tot his claim it was also suggested that this was backed up from "Bulgarian research".

First, I would like to say that when someone breaks out the "Bulgarian" or "Russian" or whatever research slogan, their argument begins to lose credibility. This is like similar to saying "newly discovered plant extracts that have been found in the Brazilian rainforest are the secret to increasing your metabolism". It is simply mindless jargon that people mindlessly buy into. What is this research and where is it located? Can we post some of the research on here? This is rather peculiar because most bodybuilders train with slower more controlled rep speeds the majority of the time.

Instead of hounding me on these boards why don't you ask this dip**** to show the hand of cards he is playing with. Don't you find it strange that all the evidence he has is enshrouded in mystery? At the moment he seems to be a bit of a snake oil salesman. He may have a good sales pitch, just don't ask him for the evidence for his claims.

[N@tural1]

I don't have to as this was addressed earlier. I wouldn't expect there to be. My argument is that resistance is resistance. However, at some point as I previously mentioned, using resistance bands would not provide enough overload. You could always try to add more an more bands but at some point this would be cumbersome and impractical as it would interfere with form.

This is a point which I previously addressed with the bowflex as it only comes with 300 lbs of resistance. This would most likely be enough for many exercises. However, many other exercises, especially those involving the legs, would be severely limited. If you look back at my previous argument you would easily find that I said something along the lines of "as long as the resistance is capable of producing overload" it doesn't matter where the resistance is coming from. Your smart-ass approach not only doesn't add anything to the discussion, but it also lacks a very fundamental understanding of what has been said. I would suggest you read before you comment from now on.

But without a STUDY this is speculative on your part and nothing more than opinion..

Isn't that an argument you often use towards others?

[Orlando1234977]

Read the posts pls.

So the key word is properly? You feel there hasn't been any study done on properly performed back squats?

Again, for clarification..

[Kirra]

So the key word is properly? You feel there hasn't been any study done on properly performed back squats?

Again, for clarification..

I've seen studies where they have "scientifically" discovered that back squats cause minimal hamstring activity.

Please find me a study or two where they have used proper back squats with relatively low reps and high weight.

[N@tural1]

What about Bowflex?

On some exercises, machines like the Bowflex somewhat solve the problem of recruiting stabilizer muscles by using cable-systems to simulate free weight exercises. This is an improvement but there is still a problem with such machines that rely on rods and bands for resistance...

The resistance provided varies depending on the position of the exercise. The greater a rod is bent or the greater a band is stretched, the greater the resistance. So, as you progress through an exercise the resistance increases - near the bottom you are handling less resistance whereas near the top (and only near the top) you are handling maximum resistance.

Gravity-based resistance is simply superior to all other types of resistance. It provides even resistance throughout the entire exercise motion and, again, effectively stimulates more muscle fiber.

http://www.gain-weight-muscle-fast.c...-machines.html



^^ Not a study, nope, but, I agree with the above, that's my opinion which apparently sumdum by his own actions allows us all to have.. even without a study!! (-;

[Orlando1234977]

So the key word is properly? You feel there hasn't been any study done on properly performed back squats?

Again, for clarification..

I've seen studies where they have "scientifically" discovered that back squats cause minimal hamstring activity.

Please find me a study or two where they have used proper back squats with relatively low reps and high weight.

That doesn't answer my question

[Kirra]

If those studies has been done, I haven't seen them. But what I have seen is pretty sick results in various SS journals on this site.

[Orlando1234977]

If those studies has been done, I haven't seen them. But what I have seen is pretty sick results in various SS journals on this site.

Ok I understand. Just keep in mind, there's a big world out there outside of SS.

Majority bodybuilders have not heard of SS. (If anecdotal evidence matters to you)

[Kirra]

I am aware.

But the majority of people who can be called bodybuilders will be too advanced for SS anyway.

[SumDumGoi]

But without a STUDY this is speculative on your part and nothing more than opinion..

Isn't that an argument you often use towards others?

I wasn't aware that I was now supposed to provide evidence on statements upon which we agree.

[SumDumGoi]

I've seen studies where they have "scientifically" discovered that back squats cause minimal hamstring activity.

Please find me a study or two where they have used proper back squats with relatively low reps and high weight.

Find me the study which states that there is minimal hamstring activity. Then within that study I would like you to provide the methods section for which they discussed how the squats were performed. Once you have provided that information please discuss exactly how the squats were not done properly.

[SumDumGoi]

What about Bowflex?

On some exercises, machines like the Bowflex somewhat solve the problem of recruiting stabilizer muscles by using cable-systems to simulate free weight exercises. This is an improvement but there is still a problem with such machines that rely on rods and bands for resistance...

The resistance provided varies depending on the position of the exercise. The greater a rod is bent or the greater a band is stretched, the greater the resistance. So, as you progress through an exercise the resistance increases - near the bottom you are handling less resistance whereas near the top (and only near the top) you are handling maximum resistance.

Gravity-based resistance is simply superior to all other types of resistance. It provides even resistance throughout the entire exercise motion and, again, effectively stimulates more muscle fiber.

http://www.gain-weight-muscle-fast.c...-machines.html



^^ Not a study, nope, but, I agree with the above, that's my opinion which apparently sumdum by his own actions allows us all to have.. even without a study!! (-;

I am glad to see that you have researched the area well. Now where's the sarcasm button?

[N@tural1]

I wasn't aware that I was now supposed to provide evidence on statements upon which we agree.

So you agree then, it is purely speculative as to whether rubber bands provide sufficient stimuli to a muscle to equal that of weights in advanced lifters... So what's the point in providing studies in middle aged women etc.. to prove (apparently) the equality of Bowflex?

It's nothing but pure speculation (self admitted on your part) whether rubber resistance could achieve the same quality of stimulation required to get a bodybuilder up on stage..

So you're entire point regarding bowflex is....?

[Kirra]

Find me the study which states that there is minimal hamstring activity. Then within that study I would like you to provide the methods section for which they discussed how the squats were performed. Once you have provided that information please discuss exactly how the squats were not done properly.

Didn't you discuss that with Rip already?

[SumDumGoi]

So you agree then, it is purely speculative as to whether rubber bands provide sufficient stimuli to a muscle to equal that of weights in advanced lifters... So what's the point in providing studies in middle aged women etc.. to prove (apparently) the equality of Bowflex?

It's nothing but pure speculation (self admitted on your part) whether rubber resistance could achieve the same quality of stimulation required to get a bodybuilder up on stage..

So you're entire point regarding bowflex is....?

No, it is not speculative. The problem is not the type of resistance, the problem would be the lack of resistance. I have previously stated that given the limited amount of weight offered from the bowflex I wouldn't expect it to offer progressive overload which is needed for more advanced trainees. The problem is not with the type of resistance, merely the amount of resistance. I had a specifica set of criteria that I discussed previously which needed to be met

1) offers progressive overload
2) works the muscle through the entire range of motion
3) can be performed safely

If these criteria are met it doesn't matter where the resistance is coming from as evidenced by the studies I posted. As I mentioned before, you are more interested in trying to gain a foothold in the argument so that you can validate your opinions as opposed to caring about the truth.

EDIT: Just to be clear, what we were agreeing on was that advanced trainees would most likely not be able to exclusively use resistance bands for their workouts. However, (and this is where we differ) that is because the would not be able to achieve the 3 criteria above, not because the type of resistance required changes.

[SumDumGoi]

Didn't you discuss that with Rip already?

Yes, Rippetoe and I have had this discussion previously and I know precisely which study you are referring to. It is actually a review study that was being misquoted. When I asked Rippetoe to provide this same information before he declined. Therefore you will be unable to parrot this information directly from him.

Now, being that I hope you are capable of critical reasoning and independent thought, I ask you to provide this same information. Look up the studies that were being referenced in the review and provide the details from the methods section regarding how the squat was performed. If you haven't done so previously you would be unable to make the comment that you have regarding how the squats were not performed properly now would you?

[totty0115]

Ne comments would be great..thanks all.

I think Free Weights, That is all.

[gomez26]

This is rather peculiar because most bodybuilders train with slower more controlled rep speeds the majority of the time.
.

most advice u read in mags advise slow(er) movements. this is quite the issue because there are often many questions in training sections & ifbb section of this site with ppl asking why dont bodybuilders train the way articles suggest? initially ppl view training videos of bodybuilders & are perplexed at the discrepancy & the answer that is given is magazines always advise slow(er) moves because they dont want legal problems from kids & other noobs straining their muscles if they start doing speeds like 1/1 before they are ready for it. this is correct

here is an example of bodybuilders using around 1/1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fls8Uegb07Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuTPWeUxqwQ
here is even faster, more suited to this type of exercise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kEnU7hIjHk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC287...eature=related

its perplexing that most magazines always suggest using 2/2 or even 2/4 in many cases isnt it? but they do so just to be safer, they just make the assumption that when someone becomes advanced enough they will instinctively know it works better. u are dead wrong in saying bodybuilders train slow most of the time. they only train slow for warmups. & its not an issue of just weightlifters going for max weights, cutler even when using lights weights for high reps will use what he calls sloppy form. that vid of ronnie doing the db presses is about 1/1 it may not look 'explosive' but there are big differences from doing 2/2 thats for sure & u feel them. ppl are always complaining that bodybuilders dont use the textbook perfect form. its no coincidence its to get extra loading from inertia.

Don't you find it strange that all the evidence he has is enshrouded in mystery? At the moment he seems to be a bit of a snake oil salesman. He may have a good sales pitch, just don't ask him for the evidence for his claims.

lollll !! wtf is he selling? this revolutionary new high tech equipment called dead weights? u have just lost what little credibility u had left. damn u get desperate when u lose arguments. lmfao sales pitch.

anyway those u tube vids i call evidence >>> research results from a bunch of middle aged women over a few weeks

[SumDumGoi]

most advice u read in mags advise slow(er) movements. this is quite the issue because there are often many questions in training sections & ifbb section of this site with ppl asking why dont bodybuilders train the way articles suggest? initially ppl view training videos of bodybuilders & are perplexed at the discrepancy & the answer that is given is magazines always advise slow(er) moves because they dont want legal problems from kids & other noobs straining their muscles if they start doing speeds like 1/1 before they are ready for it. this is correct

here is an example of bodybuilders using around 1/1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fls8Uegb07Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuTPWeUxqwQ
here is even faster, more suited to this type of exercise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kEnU7hIjHk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC287...eature=related

its perplexing that most magazines always suggest using 2/2 or even 2/4 in many cases isnt it? but they do so just to be safer, they just make the assumption that when someone becomes advanced enough they will instinctively know it works better. u are dead wrong in saying bodybuilders train slow most of the time. they only train slow for warmups. & its not an issue of just weightlifters going for max weights, cutler even when using lights weights for high reps will use what he calls sloppy form. that vid of ronnie doing the db presses is about 1/1 it may not look 'explosive' but there are big differences from doing 2/2 thats for sure & u feel them. ppl are always complaining that bodybuilders dont use the textbook perfect form. its no coincidence its to get extra loading from inertia.




lollll !! wtf is he selling? this revolutionary new high tech equipment called dead weights? u have just lost what little credibility u had left. damn u get desperate when u lose arguments. lmfao sales pitch.

anyway those u tube vids i call evidence >>> research results from a bunch of middle aged women over a few weeks

Certainly no videos exist of BBers using slow and controlled reps. Your evidence is quite compelling. Also, you don't quite understand how analogies work do you? The guy said that I was "acting like a politician". Does that mean that I am actively campaigning for political office?

The point was that the guy has repeatedly made some pretty bold claims. In addition he has stated that his claims were backed up by research of the Bulgarian variety. Is that all it takes to convince you; simply toss out the word "Bulgarian research" and all is believable? If anyone wants to base their claims on opinion, that's fine. Just don't be surprised if the research does not support your opinion. However, if someone wants to claim that their opinion is based on pre-existing research, why can't he post it? Perhaps because he is too busy trekking through those Brazilian rain forests as I mentioned previously.

[ptwa9]

I've seen studies where they have "scientifically" discovered that back squats cause minimal hamstring activity.

Please find me a study or two where they have used proper back squats with relatively low reps and high weight.

you left out 'on a trained population'. Otherwise results don't translate to bbers.

[Kirra]

you left out 'on a trained population'. Otherwise results don't translate to bbers.

That will not happen. How many intermediate lifters you know would join a study to **** around with something that *may* work.

I sure as hell wouldn't risk losing multiple weeks (if not months) of progress for a study.

[Farley1324]

So the key word is properly? You feel there hasn't been any study done on properly performed back squats?

Again, for clarification..

Apparently not.

Nobody has posted any yet. So...yeah.

[Orlando1234977]

That will not happen. How many intermediate lifters you know would join a study to **** around with something that *may* work.

I sure as hell wouldn't risk losing multiple weeks (if not months) of progress for a study.

You've never seen a study done using intermediate lifters? Doesn't have to be a university or lab-type study, any study..

In the strength training world (not exactly bodybuilding, it's been done 10s to 100s of thousands of times)

Apparently not.

Nobody has posted any yet. So...yeah.

Oh, when a study has been done, does it get directly linked to bb.com and simualtaneously posted/linked to this thread? If so then yeah, haven't seen any either. Must not exist.

[Farley1324]

Oh, when a study has been done, does it get directly linked to bb.com and simualtaneously posted/linked to this thread? If so then yeah, haven't seen any either. Must not exist.

You are much less intelligent than I gave you credit for. That sucks.


Alternative response: thank you for proving my point

[Orlando1234977]

Apparently not.

Nobody has posted any yet. So...yeah.

You are much less intelligent than I gave you credit for. That sucks.


Alternative response: thank you for proving my point

Why? I was agreeing with you. Nobody has posted a study to this thread, therefore none in the world must exist.

And you are much more intelligent than I thought. What a joy

[Farley1324]

why? I was agreeing with you. Nobody has posted a study to this thread, therefore none in the world must exist.

And you are much more intelligent than i thought. What a joy :d

Asdf

x



.

[N@tural1]

No, it is not speculative. The problem is not the type of resistance, the problem would be the lack of resistance. I have previously stated that given the limited amount of weight offered from the bowflex I wouldn't expect it to offer progressive overload which is needed for more advanced trainees. The problem is not with the type of resistance, merely the amount of resistance. I had a specifica set of criteria that I discussed previously which needed to be met

1) offers progressive overload
2) works the muscle through the entire range of motion
3) can be performed safely

If these criteria are met it doesn't matter where the resistance is coming from as evidenced by the studies I posted. As I mentioned before, you are more interested in trying to gain a foothold in the argument so that you can validate your opinions as opposed to caring about the truth.

EDIT: Just to be clear, what we were agreeing on was that advanced trainees would most likely not be able to exclusively use resistance bands for their workouts. However, (and this is where we differ) that is because the would not be able to achieve the 3 criteria above, not because the type of resistance required changes.

The above is purely speculative. Until you have produced a bodybuilder able to compete along side weight trained lifters using purely bow/soloflex, then you do nothing but speculate.

You assume the type of resistance is unimportant, I would disagree strongly to that. Gomez has touched on that and I agree.

Until you can PROVE that the same degree of strength/physique can be achieved by purely using bow/soloflex then your assertion is pure speculation.

[SumDumGoi]

The above is purely speculative. Until you have produced a bodybuilder able to compete along side weight trained lifters using purely bow/soloflex, then you do nothing but speculate.

You assume the type of resistance is unimportant, I would disagree strongly to that. Gomez has touched on that and I agree.

Until you can PROVE that the same degree of strength/physique can be achieved by purely using bow/soloflex then your assertion is pure speculation.

Why do I need to produce a bodybuilder who has, when both you and I agree that advanced lifters (competing bodybuilders would be advanced) would not be able to rely solely on the solo/bowflex? We may disagree on the mechanism (I am saying that it is simply an issue of not having enough resistance while you are saying that it is the "type" of resistance), but the end result is going to be exactly the same. Therefore, regardless of who is right and who is wrong neither of us would expect to find this mythical beast.

However, there is a more pertinent question that needs to be asked. Why did you decide to dig up this thread after it was buried a few pages deep. Was this question so stupid that it needed to be asked?