Bowflex

[jvd]

What is your routine jvd. If it is something like HST then it might be working all right for you. However, if you are blasting your arms and chest each of those days and not getting the proper nutrition then you will not be seeing the gains you should. Also, you may be overtraining.

Huh ?


Anyway I do light weights because of my back . I do inverted benching , flat benching , I do reqular curls and then i do some rowing and some where I kneel over the bench and in one arm go with the weight past the bench and back up to my chest .

I've been doing it for like 3 weeks been seeing some gains . My back doensn't hurt as much

 

[SGX-1]

It also depends on the muscle group you're working. If I'm doing presses then I will wait a good 90 - 120 seconds before I have another go at it. The same goes for squats and deadlifts.

That's true. The bigger the muscle group, the more cellular respiration, the more cellular respiration means more lactic acid buildup which means more oxygen required to get rid of it which means more time required.

 

[sytaylor]

Do body builders use free weights. Yes. But they also spend 2 or more hours per day in the gym. I want to get in better shape not adopt a new lifestyle.

Not the ones who know what they are doing, they are likley to visit the gym a lot more than you or I, but going beyond 45 mins flat out is doing more harm than good. If you're routine is less intense and focussed then going over 45 mins isn't as bad, but bodybuilders will focus on one muscle group per session.

Edit: Does anybody else struggle to work their tri's to failure? I'm currently doing skull crushers/full over head extension/kickbacks, followed by cable pulldown and kickbacks. Any ideas how I can really get them burning? For some reason with the bar I feel like either my form is off, or the weight just wont "burn" the spot it should do (like doing the opposing movements for biceps do).

 

[PC-Engine]

Try doing dips before you work them out with dumbells.

 

[sytaylor]

*tear* I'm useless at dips, genetically freakish LONG arms, lol...

 

[nelg]

Not the ones who know what they are doing, they are likley to visit the gym a lot more than you or I, but going beyond 45 mins flat out is doing more harm than good. If you're routine is less intense and focussed then going over 45 mins isn't as bad, but bodybuilders will focus on one muscle group per session.

I did not say that they were lifting for 2 hours. They just go to the gym for 2 hours.

On a serious note can anyone recommend any good scroll wheel finger exercises. It seem demalion is back at B3D.

 

[nelg]

UPDATE
Now that I go my Bowflex and have used it a number of times I can say that I really like it. First off the machine is built very well. The fit and finish along with the strength of materials seems very high. As far as the actual performance of the machine goes, again color me impressed. I don't want to get into this whole machine vs. free weight argument but as Russ mentioned, the Bowflex does require the use of stabilizing muscles. So far I have used the machine five times for about 50 minutes each time. The only weakness that I think it has is the biceps exercises. If done seated there is two little resistance during the initial curl. If done standing, being 6'4", there is not enough cable to get a full curl. To over come this I do seated curls with very high resistance then move to the edge of the seat (with arms remaining curled), lean forward and do a slow negative. For regular biceps curls I use one cable at a time and move away from the machine and do preacher curls. They are slightly awkward but I am getting used to them. My routine consist pretty much of single sets all done using a level of resistance that produces failure at about 8`12 reps. Even with doing single sets I have been very impressed by the early results. Also I have been doing the pre exhaustion routines that are in the book from Dr. Ellington Darden. All in all I think that for a single machine you can get a very good workout in a small space.

 

[Sonic]

I apologize if I ever said you were going to get a bad workout. What kind of exercises are you using on the machine for your back? May I make just a small suggestion? You can get a pull up/chin up bar for cheap that takes up a very small space. That way that can complement the Bowflex if your back doesn't see much action. The other reason I suggest this is because you aren't completely satisfied with the bicep workout. Pull ups/chin ups are a great way to work out both the back and biceps at the same time. It really is quite an amazing cobination. Not exactly free weights right there since you're only lifting your bodyweight.

 

[nelg]

I apologize if I ever said you were going to get a bad workout. What kind of exercises are you using on the machine for your back? May I make just a small suggestion? You can get a pull up/chin up bar for cheap that takes up a very small space. That way that can complement the Bowflex if your back doesn't see much action. The other reason I suggest this is because you aren't completely satisfied with the bicep workout. Pull ups/chin ups are a great way to work out both the back and biceps at the same time. It really is quite an amazing cobination. Not exactly free weights right there since you're only lifting your bodyweight.

The machine has a pull down lat bar which basically allows me to do chin up movements. With all the power rods (the standard 210lbs of resistance) I get close to being weightless when the bar goes below my chin. For my back I do those plus some reverse butterflies.

 

[Mintmaster]

Hi nelg,

I never saw this thread earlier, so it looks like its too late to influence your buying decision. There are some things you should know about bowflex that make it far less than ideal for strength training. However, for mixed cardio/strength or ballistic training, or for improving control of your muscles.


Here are the weaknesses of the bowflex:

Stabilization: I know it looks like it works out your stabilizer muscles, but it doesn't. Why? There is zero resistance against movement perpendicular to the load. The only weight you have to move to stabilize is the lightweight handle. With free weights, you have the inertia of the dumbells to work against - they must be accelerated and decelerated using appreciable forces. Without resistance, stabilizers are doing nothing.

Lack of inertial stability: When using a bowflex, your arms shake a lot. Not only does it not strengthen your stabilizers, as explained above, but it also prevents you from using your muscles to their full ability. The same inertia that makes it harder to stabilize free weights also makes it harder to destabilize free weights. You don't have to focus so heavily on stabilization. I do dumbell press (60% of my weight per hand) far more than bench press with a straight bar or a machine, which is considered tougher than the latter two due to stabilization. Yet even with my experience in stabilization, I was shaking a lot when using the bowflex. Hence could not get anywhere near a resistance suitable for really working out my chest. I felt nothing in there.

Inconsistent resistance: Springs (e.g. the "power rods"), by their very nature, increase their applied force as the deformation increases. This means that the resistance increases throughout your motion. This is a big deficiency for strength training. I dunno about you, but it takes only 10-20% more weight for me to go from an easy set to a very hard one. The load applied by the bowflex can easily change by a factor of two throughout the range of motion. This means I will only be really working out my muscles over a fraction of the range of motion, and I noticed this immediately when trying out the bowflex.

Now, for some exercises this is good, like dumbell flyes. At the end of the motion, the direction of travel is perpendicular to the gravity acting on the dumbells, which is useless. Bowflex increases resistance here, so it balances out a bit. For most exercises, though, I'd really want a consistent load.

Using strength in practice: I know for most guys no more than 10% of the reason for working out is for practical application in the real world, but when you do use your new strength, free weights are much more realistic than springs for lifting boxes, moving desks, etc. Lugging around free weights also makes your grip stronger, which is quite useful for many situations in life.


This is not to say that the bowflex is useless. Ballistic motions, like kicking, punching, or plyometrics, need additional resistance to be spring based so that they are inertia-less. It's great for helping with adding control to strength, like a gymnyst doing the rings needs. It's ability to change exercises quickly is great for circuit training and cardio. But for strength training and mass building, I'd stick with free weights.

 

[Mintmaster]

It really is quite an amazing cobination. Not exactly free weights right there since you're only lifting your bodyweight.

...unless you use a weight belt. Quite enjoyable, actually, especially when doing dips. You should try it out.

 

[nelg]

Hi Mintmaster,

Hi nelg,

I never saw this thread earlier, so it looks like its too late to influence your buying decision. There are some things you should know about bowflex that make it far less than ideal for strength training. However, for mixed cardio/strength or ballistic training, or for improving control of your muscles.


Here are the weaknesses of the bowflex:

Stabilization: I know it looks like it works out your stabilizer muscles, but it doesn't. Why? There is zero resistance against movement perpendicular to the load. The only weight you have to move to stabilize is the lightweight handle. With free weights, you have the inertia of the dumbells to work against - they must be accelerated and decelerated using appreciable forces. Without resistance, stabilizers are doing nothing.

Lack of inertial stability: When using a bowflex, your arms shake a lot. Not only does it not strengthen your stabilizers, as explained above, but it also prevents you from using your muscles to their full ability. The same inertia that makes it harder to stabilize free weights also makes it harder to destabilize free weights. You don't have to focus so heavily on stabilization. I do dumbell press (60% of my weight per hand) far more than bench press with a straight bar or a machine, which is considered tougher than the latter two due to stabilization. Yet even with my experience in stabilization, I was shaking a lot when using the bowflex. Hence could not get anywhere near a resistance suitable for really working out my chest. I felt nothing in there.

To a degree I agree with you. When I am performing my routine I use a deliberately slow cadence. If (when) there is any shaking I deliberately focus on tensing the muscles to stop the shaking as best I can.

Inconsistent resistance: Springs (e.g. the "power rods"), by their very nature, increase their applied force as the deformation increases. This means that the resistance increases throughout your motion. This is a big deficiency for strength training. I dunno about you, but it takes only 10-20% more weight for me to go from an easy set to a very hard one. The load applied by the bowflex can easily change by a factor of two throughout the range of motion. This means I will only be really working out my muscles over a fraction of the range of motion, and I noticed this immediately when trying out the bowflex.

Now, for some exercises this is good, like dumbell flyes. At the end of the motion, the direction of travel is perpendicular to the gravity acting on the dumbells, which is useless. Bowflex increases resistance here, so it balances out a bit. For most exercises, though, I'd really want a consistent load.

This is where the main difference lies between a bowflex and free weights. I would argue that it is merely different not necessarily better or worse. In the example you gave, dumbbell flies, the resistance curve of the bowflex is better. Similarity for biceps curls, leg curls, seated tricep extensions, etc.

In all honesty I was not expecting this machine to be the best at everything. I have taken to modifying some exercises. For example I ly down flat and use the lower squat pulleys to do biceps curl. Overall though I am still impressed. I can do a lot of different exercise with one machine and have seen some impressive gains in the last tow weeks.

If you have the time read this review

http://www.exercisecertification.com/articles/products/bowflex.pdf

It was reading this that clinched it for me and as of yet I have no regrets.

Thanks for your input though. :smile:

 

[Mintmaster]

Hi nelg,

I read it, and found it a bit too much of an advertisement-like cop out for the Bowflex's weaknesses. As I mentioned, there are many reasons for owning a Bowflex or one of its clones, but effective strength training isn't one of them.

EVERY muscle building article I've read emphasizes the importance of using a full range of motion. I even do lateral raises to the top of my head (which, incidentally, you can't do with the Bowflex due to range limitations). As for your examples of biceps curls, leg curls, seated tricep extensions, I simply have to disagree. I don't see the point in moving through half of those motions with low resistance, and it even lowers the actual work (W = F dot d) that is being done. For squats, what's the point in only having a significant load when you're already almost standing?

In any case, free weights exercises can often adjust the resistance curve. Rather than tricep extensions, ever tried kickbacks? The full load is at the very end of the motion. With Bowflex, through, you can't go the other way around. For bicep curls, you can do them like you do dumbell rows, except lift the weight to the middle of your chest rather than to your side. Again, you get a high load at the end of your motion - try it for yourself. But guess why you never see such an exercise in any magazine? Because it's not as effective as using the full range of motion.

If anything, you want to slightly decrease the load at the end of a movement, as it allows you to choose a higher weight yet not run out of steam half way through. Bowflex does the opposite. Ever done preacher curls with your upper arms at around 45 degrees? You feel the strain the whole way through. How about wide grip pull ups or lat pull downs? It's the very last bit of the motion that makes it tough to increase the load. Bowflex will only exacerbate the problem.

Anyway, you seem to be satisfied with it, so good for you. Judging by your posts, optimal strength training is not as important to you as the other benefits of Bowflex, which I do acknowledge.

I still think it's a huge rip off, though. I thought that the plastic rods (which my dad used to manufacture, BTW) would decrease cost since you don't need a 300 lb weight stack. You're paying for marketing, that's it. Even the quality is suspect, as there was a recall a while ago. Google turned up this from Bowflex's own official statement:

Nautilus has received reports of injuries occurring on the Bowflex Power Pro® home gym WITHOUT a Lat Tower when the incline support bracket on the underside of the bench has broken, causing the bench or seat to move suddenly and unexpectedly. Nautilus has also received reports of injuries, including two reports of lacerations requiring stitches, which occurred on the Bowflex Power Pro® home gym WITH a Lat Tower and Bowflex Ultimate™ home gym when the seat or incline bench moved suddenly and unexpectedly.

That's pretty friggin scary.

 

[RussSchultz]

Actually, my experience is that the lifting gets easier at the end of the motion due to the geometry of the pulleys changing.

 

[nelg]

Hi nelg,

I read it, and found it a bit too much of an advertisement-like cop out for the Bowflex's weaknesses.

I thought it was an unbiased review by someone who has no apparent self interest. To the contrary, as the president of the International Association of Resistance Trainers I would like to think that would be especially careful to be honest.

As for your examples of biceps curls, leg curls, seated tricep extensions, I simply have to disagree. I don't see the point in moving through half of those motions with low resistance, and it even lowers the actual work (W = F dot d) that is being done.

Both the bowflex and free weights have varying resistance in the range of movement. Which was my point. Generally speaking with the bowflex resistance will always be greatest at the end of the movement. With free weights resistance will always be greatest when the movement is parallel to the force of the weight. Which one is better is up for debate.

If anything, you want to slightly decrease the load at the end of a movement, as it allows you to choose a higher weight yet not run out of steam half way through. Bowflex does the opposite.

Is there any research to this or is this opinion? Conversely that same line of thought is at odds with certain exercises. For example the chest butterflys where half way through is the toughest part of the exercise.

Ever done preacher curls with your upper arms at around 45 degrees? You feel the strain the whole way through. How about wide grip pull ups or lat pull downs? It's the very last bit of the motion that makes it tough to increase the load. Bowflex will only exacerbate the problem.

I do standing preacher curls with the bowflex and they are killer. As far as the pull ups and lat pull downs go I have not seen this as a problem in progressing.

Anyway, you seem to be satisfied with it, so good for you. Judging by your posts, optimal strength training is not as important to you as the other benefits of Bowflex, which I do acknowledge.

I still think it's a huge rip off, though. I thought that the plastic rods (which my dad used to manufacture, BTW) would decrease cost since you don't need a 300 lb weight stack. You're paying for marketing, that's it.

I am satisfied. I do think it is expensive but i did not find any better alternatives that meet my criteria. I agree with you though that my perspective is confined to the reasons which for which I bought it. I was just looking for a machine that would perform well and offer a lot of exercises and not occupy to much space. I did not expect it to be superior in every way.

BTW if your dad has any 50lbs rods lying aroung let me know

 

[Mintmaster]

I thought it was an unbiased review by someone who has no apparent self interest. To the contrary, as the president of the International Association of Resistance Trainers I would like to think that would be especially careful to be honest.

You'd think so, wouldn't you. Here are some of the things he said:

And with over 100 exercises from which to choose, the Bowflex Ultimate certainly delivers.

That looks like it was straight out of a PR statement, and he repeats this point over and over again. There are hundreds of exercises you can do with free weights, too. Add a bench and a lat tower and there's really no more diversity with a Bowflex from a strength training perspective.

Now, it is true that a handful of exercises on the Bowflex do produce some super intense contractions relative to the remainder of the range of motion; the leg extension comes to mind, and the contraction is so intense that my quadriceps went into spasm a few times! This really is not a negative since such intensity makes one train harder
and the muscles experience greater fatigue/inroading per set or unit of time.

This is BS. Your muscles are only so strong. If you feel a more intense contraction with the Bowflex than with free weights, you're simply not lifting enough with the free weight! What this means is that you aren't loading your muscles very much before that contraction, not that the contraction is more intense. Hence you are less efficient, not more. It's a creative marketing spin on the Bowflex's weakness. It's not a superior contraction - it's only the contraction. My suspicion is that he came to this conclusion because the rated weights of the power rods overestimate the force at the cable.

However, the issue still remains that the quality of tension and feel of the Bowflex is very unique and of high quality.

Again, just BS marketing speak.
1. You have the redundant use of 'quality'. Reeks of PR BS.
2. What does 'quality of tension' mean? A spring is a spring. If anything, the use of plastic for the rods leaves it open to plastic deformation, reducing the tension over time.
3. There's hardly anything quality about it. Have you seen the Weider Crossbow commercials? They really elucidate the cheapness and limited range of the Bowflex.
4. How can the incline bench collapse, as described in the recall? You have to make a serious design mistake for that.

Then there's his lengthy explanation of how people are doing the lat motion wrong. He's basically saying to use a smaller ROM (again, contrary to the advice of all expertise I've seen), and it also only applies to chin-up style motion (i.e. close grip). If you use the wide grip of the lat bar, you only work out the muscle at the end of the motion, even though you have plenty of strength to spare for the other 80%.

Both the bowflex and free weights have varying resistance in the range of movement. Which was my point. Generally speaking with the bowflex resistance will always be greatest at the end of the movement. With free weights resistance will always be greatest when the movement is parallel to the force of the weight. Which one is better is up for debate.

I never said anything to the contrary. However, with free weights you can tailor the curve however you want. Take triceps for example. A 45 degree french press (headbangers) will have a relatively consistent force. Seated tricep extensions will place more load at the beginning. Kickbacks will place more load at the end. With the Bowflex, though, pretty much all exercises have a high load at the end.

Look at the preacher curl set up this guy suggests in that PDF you linked to. If he did that with a constant force cable at a gym, it would already put a small load at the beginning of the motion and a large one at the end. As you mentioned, the end is when the cable is perpendicular to the arm. Now add the non-constant force of the Bowflex cables into the equation, and you looking at an exercise where the force rapidly increases at the end of the motion.

Regarding research for a load that decreases at the very end, it's really just personal preference, but there is a very logical basis for this. If you want me to explain more, just ask.

I do standing preacher curls with the bowflex and they are killer. As far as the pull ups and lat pull downs go I have not seen this as a problem in progressing.

Standing preachers? What are your upper arms supported by? I'm not sure you know what I mean with pull ups, as they can't be done with a Bowflex.


Look, I'm not a Bowflex hater. When I first saw the commercials, I was very impressed. When I looked at the spring mechanism, I thought the geometry would help keep the force constant even though it was spring based. I also though it was a great way to reduce the cost of a home gym, especially since it would be mass marketed. However, I was severly disappointed when I tried it at Fitness Depot. First, the cost was astronomical. Second, the force increase was very substantial as you pulled the cables and did exercises (not sure WTH you're talking about, Russ).

Anyway, it seems pointless to keep discussing this. My view is that it is sub-par for strength/mass building, but only when compared to the standard of free weights. However, it is great for cardio, circuit training, ballistic motion, and control, as well as for factors like portability, safety (so long as it doesn't collapse...), and compactness.

 

[Geo]

Well, I'm thinking of getting one (Ultimate). I've been very interested in the above discussion, and I don't doubt there are some limitations for the really serious lifter. But I'm not. So what it comes down to, is will I use it where I don't (and haven't) been doing other things, like going to a gym. Because at the end of the day, using something that is good but not great beats the heck out of not using the "great" at all.

But I'm open to alternatives in a home gym of comparable size, cost and versatility, and that does not require (for safety) a spotter, if anyone can suggest one.

 

[nelg]

You'd think so, wouldn't you.

I did not perceive it as being to PRish. Enthusiastic, yes but who knows this just may be his writing style.

There are hundreds of exercises you can do with free weights, too. Add a bench and a lat tower and there's really no more diversity with a Bowflex from a strength training perspective.

The article never said otherwise. On its side though the bowflex does have a number of lower body exercises that would be difficult or impossible to do with free weights.

This is BS. Your muscles are only so strong. If you feel a more intense contraction with the Bowflex than with free weights, you're simply not lifting enough with the free weight!

I've have found this also with some moves. Perhaps it is merely that maximum resistance coincides with maximum muscle contraction.

Then there's his lengthy explanation of how people are doing the lat motion wrong. He's basically saying to use a smaller ROM (again, contrary to the advice of all expertise I've seen), and it also only applies to chin-up style motion (i.e. close grip).

I understood that part of the article as saying that since the intent of the pull down is to work the back/lats, pulling down farther than the point to when your upper arms are parallel to your torso (he mistakenly says perpendicular - thought the photo clearly shows the upper arms being in-line) employs to much of the muscles in your arms. Seeing that your arm muscles are smaller than your lats, exhausting them due to improper form would limit the number of reps their effectiveness.

To clarify, as the weight is pulled down, and as it is noticed that a majority of tension shifts from the lat muscles to the arm muscles, it then is best to terminate the movement to avoid excess and undesirable arm fatigue. This means that at the bottom position of the pulldown, the upper arms are slightly less than perpendicular with the torso (see left photo on next page). Conversely, most people try to draw the elbows back even further (as far as possible), believing that it contracts the back muscles harder, whereas this position merely overloads the biceps (see right photo on next page). And once a trainee attempts to move into this exaggerated position, the Bowflex? PowerRods bend even more and this makes the biceps work against an incredible strain that is too challenging for those small muscles.

Change perpendicular to parallel as shown in photo

Look at the preacher curl set up this guy suggests in that PDF you linked to. If he did that with a constant force cable at a gym, it would already put a small load at the beginning of the motion and a large one at the end. As you mentioned, the end is when the cable is perpendicular to the arm. Now add the non-constant force of the Bowflex cables into the equation, and you looking at an exercise where the force rapidly increases at the end of the motion.

True. What I do to adjust for this is that, due to the short range of movement on the biceps curl, I position myself so that at the start point the rod is bent about 30% of its range. The rest of the movement far more consistent. Of course it gets harder at the end.

I think one of the points that may be giving us far different perspectives on the power rod idea is that in your opinion it is far to linear. The way i would describe it is that the first 30% of the movement is easy, the next 50-60% is reasonably consistant (my perception anyways) with the remaining getting progressivly more difficult. It is not perfect but like I said before there seems to be pros and cons.

Regarding research for a load that decreases at the very end, it's really just personal preference, but there is a very logical basis for this. If you want me to explain more, just ask.

I have really been interested in all you have had to say and do appreciate it. So yes, I would like you to further explain.