A Fitness & exercise forum. FitnessBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FitnessBanter.com forum » Fitness & Exercise » Weights
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Inversion Tables - anyone used them?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 3rd 03, 10:41 AM
Geezer From Freezer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Inversion Tables - anyone used them?

Has anyone here tried an Inversion Table for helping with bad backs? If so
are they any good or a pile of crap?
  #2  
Old December 3rd 03, 02:06 PM
John M. Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Inversion Tables - anyone used them?


"Geezer From Freezer" wrote:
Has anyone here tried an Inversion Table for helping with bad backs? If so
are they any good or a pile of crap?


I have one. It's great for doing inverted crunches.

It's also good for relieving pressure on vertebral
discs, but only if you can adjust and limit the
inversion.


  #3  
Old December 3rd 03, 02:23 PM
Lee Michaels
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Inversion Tables - anyone used them?


"John M. Williams" wrote in message
...

"Geezer From Freezer" wrote:
Has anyone here tried an Inversion Table for helping with bad backs? If

so
are they any good or a pile of crap?


I have one. It's great for doing inverted crunches.

It's also good for relieving pressure on vertebral
discs, but only if you can adjust and limit the
inversion.



The best units come with variable gravity.



  #4  
Old December 3rd 03, 02:34 PM
Geezer From Freezer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Inversion Tables - anyone used them?



"John M. Williams" wrote:

"Geezer From Freezer" wrote:
Has anyone here tried an Inversion Table for helping with bad backs? If so
are they any good or a pile of crap?


I have one. It's great for doing inverted crunches.

It's also good for relieving pressure on vertebral
discs, but only if you can adjust and limit the
inversion.


I was thinking about inverted crunches too - after my back is 100% again.
John - do you recommend them then?
  #5  
Old December 3rd 03, 02:39 PM
David Cohen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Inversion Tables - anyone used them?


"John M. Williams" wrote

"Geezer From Freezer" wrote:
Has anyone here tried an Inversion Table for helping with bad

backs? If so
are they any good or a pile of crap?


I have one. It's great for doing inverted crunches.

It's also good for relieving pressure on vertebral
discs, but only if you can adjust and limit the
inversion.


Ditto. Ditto.

Ditto, ditto.

David


  #6  
Old December 3rd 03, 07:24 PM
David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Inversion Tables - anyone used them?


"Geezer From Freezer" wrote in message
...


"John M. Williams" wrote:

"Geezer From Freezer" wrote:
Has anyone here tried an Inversion Table for helping with bad backs?

If so
are they any good or a pile of crap?


I have one. It's great for doing inverted crunches.

It's also good for relieving pressure on vertebral
discs, but only if you can adjust and limit the
inversion.


I was thinking about inverted crunches too - after my back is 100% again.
John - do you recommend them then?


there are two types of inversion machines - ones that hang from the ankles
and are like a narrow table and ones here you hang from your quadraceps -
the ones where you hang from your ankle are not worth much because you get
the decompression effect distributed all through your body and not
concentrated in your spine - also because your ankle is a small joint, once
your angle of incline is extreme enough that it would make a difference,
you;ll experience constriction to your blood flow (clamp becomes fairly
tight around your ankles) - a much better way is a back machine where you
hang from your quads (no constriction of blood flow) and your legs are in a
'bent' position so that you can do crunches safely and don;t put pressure on
your knees. I strongly advise against the flat bed tables - that is an old
idea and there are much better ways to invert these days.
the type of inversion I am talking about is below (the middle two machines
at the top)
The machine to buy is the one that allows you to do ab crunches as well as
back extensions
http://www.proinversion.net/about.html


  #7  
Old December 3rd 03, 10:02 PM
John M. Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Inversion Tables - anyone used them?


"David" wrote:
"Geezer From Freezer" wrote:
"John M. Williams" wrote:

"Geezer From Freezer" wrote:
Has anyone here tried an Inversion Table for helping with bad backs?
If so are they any good or a pile of crap?

I have one. It's great for doing inverted crunches.

It's also good for relieving pressure on vertebral
discs, but only if you can adjust and limit the
inversion.


I was thinking about inverted crunches too - after my back is 100%

again.
John - do you recommend them then?


there are two types of inversion machines - ones that hang from the ankles
and are like a narrow table and ones here you hang from your quadraceps -
the ones where you hang from your ankle are not worth much because you get
the decompression effect distributed all through your body and not
concentrated in your spine -


The same amount of weight is suspended below any given point
on your body beneath the clamping point, regardless of whether
you are clamped at the ankles or the thighs. Your
redistribution-of-decompression theory doesn't hold water.

also because your ankle is a small joint, once
your angle of incline is extreme enough that it would make a difference,
you;ll experience constriction to your blood flow (clamp becomes fairly
tight around your ankles) - a much better way is a back machine where you
hang from your quads (no constriction of blood flow) and your legs are in

a
'bent' position so that you can do crunches safely and don;t put pressure

on
your knees. I strongly advise against the flat bed tables - that is an old
idea and there are much better ways to invert these days.


References, please. I have an original Gravity Guidance unit with
the gravity boots, not the cheesy ankle clamp unit. Hanging from
your ankles takes some getting used to, but it's nothing like you are
implying, and with proper padding, it's not a problem.

Furthermore, if you're worried about vascular occlusion,
I would be more concerned about restricted blood flow
at the thighs than at the ankles.

the type of inversion I am talking about is below (the middle two machines
at the top)
The machine to buy is the one that allows you to do ab crunches as well as
back extensions
http://www.proinversion.net/about.html


Please note that they advertise the original style inversion table
for positioning the body supinated on the table.

On the other unit, I see only photos of it being used in a
pronated position. And even if you could adjust yourself
to a supinated position, it really wouldn't be any different
from using a Roman chair.



  #8  
Old December 3rd 03, 10:12 PM
John M. Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Inversion Tables - anyone used them?


"Geezer From Freezer" wrote:
"John M. Williams" wrote:
"Geezer From Freezer" wrote:
Has anyone here tried an Inversion Table for helping with bad backs?

If so
are they any good or a pile of crap?


I have one. It's great for doing inverted crunches.

It's also good for relieving pressure on vertebral
discs, but only if you can adjust and limit the
inversion.


I was thinking about inverted crunches too - after my back is 100% again.
John - do you recommend them then?


First, you need to talk to your therapist about whether an
inversion table is acceptable for your particular problem.
If you have stretched spinal ligaments that allow your
vertebrae to shift easily, or if you have a rather
severely displaced vertebral disc, it may not
be a good idea.

If your therapist approves inversion, and if your back
is sufficiently healed, then you can probably try some
crunches ... slowly, gently, and with no added weight.
I have added as much as 25 pounds, but extra weight
counts for a lot more with full inversion than it does
on a decline bench or a Roman chair.


  #9  
Old December 4th 03, 04:32 AM
David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Inversion Tables - anyone used them?


"John M. Williams" wrote in message
...

"David" wrote:
"Geezer From Freezer" wrote:
"John M. Williams" wrote:


there are two types of inversion machines - ones that hang from the

ankles
and are like a narrow table and ones here you hang from your

quadraceps -
the ones where you hang from your ankle are not worth much because you

get
the decompression effect distributed all through your body and not
concentrated in your spine -


The same amount of weight is suspended below any given point
on your body beneath the clamping point, regardless of whether
you are clamped at the ankles or the thighs. Your
redistribution-of-decompression theory doesn't hold water.


Yes that is correct -However I am talking about the distribution of the
traction to other joints as knees and ankles. So if you hang by your ankles
fully vertical all your body weight is taken by your ankles - maybe 85% of
your weight taken by your knees and maybe 50% by your lumbar region. After a
period of time this produces trauma on those small joints although your back
would be getting decent traction. It is generally not recommended (for the
average person)to invert at greater than 45 deg on the 'table' type of
machine i.e. for that reason that you would be introducing trauma to those
small joints for zero benefit. So at 45 deg inversion the effective traction
on your back is around 30% of your body weight which will not be enough to
cause effective decompression. By comparison the 'A frame' type of inverter
only has one position which would give you around 50% of your body weight
of traction but no impact on the small joints.


also because your ankle is a small joint, once
your angle of incline is extreme enough that it would make a difference,
you;ll experience constriction to your blood flow (clamp becomes fairly
tight around your ankles) - a much better way is a back machine where

you
hang from your quads (no constriction of blood flow) and your legs are

in
a
'bent' position so that you can do crunches safely and don;t put

pressure
on
your knees. I strongly advise against the flat bed tables - that is an

old
idea and there are much better ways to invert these days.


References, please. I have an original Gravity Guidance unit with
the gravity boots, not the cheesy ankle clamp unit. Hanging from
your ankles takes some getting used to, but it's nothing like you are
implying, and with proper padding, it's not a problem.


I covered this point above.

Furthermore, if you're worried about vascular occlusion,
I would be more concerned about restricted blood flow
at the thighs than at the ankles.


There is very little pressure against any veins or arteries when inverting
using your thighs - in fact if you have tried this type of inversion you
will see that your knees and thighs mainly serve to hold you up in that
position as opposed to being harshly clamped as you would be when hanging
by your ankles. You are right in the sense that when you invert at 45 deg on
the table you are not getting much blood constriction but at fully vertical
you will get plenty of constriction as your total body weight is on that
point as that is why fully inverted on the table is not recommended.



the type of inversion I am talking about is below (the middle two

machines
at the top)
The machine to buy is the one that allows you to do ab crunches as well

as
back extensions
http://www.proinversion.net/about.html


Please note that they advertise the original style inversion table
for positioning the body supinated on the table.

yes seems they sell both types


On the other unit, I see only photos of it being used in a
pronated position. And even if you could adjust yourself
to a supinated position, it really wouldn't be any different
from using a Roman chair.

yes that is correct - you are in the pronated position when doing crunches
and also back extensions. (the better machines have two positions - one for
hanging and doing crunches and another which is horiz to the floor for doing
back exensions.
The Roman chair idea would not be relevant to this as you would not be doing
crunches in the supinated position. Do you get what I'm talking about?

Big plus with the A frame is when you do crunches you are doing them safely
in a bent legged position with no trauma on small joints. If you do crunches
on the 'table' it is far more difficult and in the end the abs are worked
just the same but you are increasing stress on the body for no reason.

The other big advantage to the A frame is that you can do back extensions -
so you are working the antagonist muscles and preventing back problems if
you are working your abs hard i.e. you need to work the antagonist muscle.

I suggest that you try the A frame type - I tried them both so have the
benefit of real experience.


  #10  
Old December 4th 03, 04:49 AM
David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Inversion Tables - anyone used them?


"David" wrote in message
...

"John M. Williams" wrote in message
...

"David" wrote:
"Geezer From Freezer" wrote:
"John M. Williams" wrote:

there are two types of inversion machines - ones that hang from the

ankles
and are like a narrow table and ones here you hang from your

quadraceps -
the ones where you hang from your ankle are not worth much because you

get
the decompression effect distributed all through your body and not
concentrated in your spine -


The same amount of weight is suspended below any given point
on your body beneath the clamping point, regardless of whether
you are clamped at the ankles or the thighs. Your
redistribution-of-decompression theory doesn't hold water.


Yes that is correct -However I am talking about the distribution of the
traction to other joints as knees and ankles. So if you hang by your

ankles
fully vertical all your body weight is taken by your ankles - maybe 85% of
your weight taken by your knees and maybe 50% by your lumbar region. After

a
period of time this produces trauma on those small joints although your

back
would be getting decent traction. It is generally not recommended (for

the
average person)to invert at greater than 45 deg on the 'table' type of
machine i.e. for that reason that you would be introducing trauma to those
small joints for zero benefit. So at 45 deg inversion the effective

traction
on your back is around 30% of your body weight which will not be enough to
cause effective decompression. By comparison the 'A frame' type of

inverter
only has one position which would give you around 50% of your body weight
of traction but no impact on the small joints.


also because your ankle is a small joint, once
your angle of incline is extreme enough that it would make a

difference,
you;ll experience constriction to your blood flow (clamp becomes

fairly
tight around your ankles) - a much better way is a back machine where

you
hang from your quads (no constriction of blood flow) and your legs

are
in
a
'bent' position so that you can do crunches safely and don;t put

pressure
on
your knees. I strongly advise against the flat bed tables - that is an

old
idea and there are much better ways to invert these days.


References, please. I have an original Gravity Guidance unit with
the gravity boots, not the cheesy ankle clamp unit. Hanging from
your ankles takes some getting used to, but it's nothing like you are
implying, and with proper padding, it's not a problem.


I covered this point above.

Furthermore, if you're worried about vascular occlusion,
I would be more concerned about restricted blood flow
at the thighs than at the ankles.


There is very little pressure against any veins or arteries when inverting
using your thighs - in fact if you have tried this type of inversion you
will see that your knees and thighs mainly serve to hold you up in that
position as opposed to being harshly clamped as you would be when hanging
by your ankles. You are right in the sense that when you invert at 45 deg

on
the table you are not getting much blood constriction but at fully

vertical
you will get plenty of constriction as your total body weight is on that
point as that is why fully inverted on the table is not recommended.



the type of inversion I am talking about is below (the middle two

machines
at the top)
The machine to buy is the one that allows you to do ab crunches as

well
as
back extensions
http://www.proinversion.net/about.html


Please note that they advertise the original style inversion table
for positioning the body supinated on the table.

yes seems they sell both types


On the other unit, I see only photos of it being used in a
pronated position. And even if you could adjust yourself
to a supinated position, it really wouldn't be any different
from using a Roman chair.

yes that is correct - you are in the pronated position when doing crunches
and also back extensions. (the better machines have two positions - one

for
hanging and doing crunches and another which is horiz to the floor for

doing
back exensions.
The Roman chair idea would not be relevant to this as you would not be

doing
crunches in the supinated position. Do you get what I'm talking about?

Big plus with the A frame is when you do crunches you are doing them

safely
in a bent legged position with no trauma on small joints. If you do

crunches
on the 'table' it is far more difficult and in the end the abs are worked
just the same but you are increasing stress on the body for no reason.

The other big advantage to the A frame is that you can do back

extensions -
so you are working the antagonist muscles and preventing back problems if
you are working your abs hard i.e. you need to work the antagonist muscle.

I suggest that you try the A frame type - I tried them both so have the
benefit of real experience.

I forgot to say that in the circles where it matters i.e. physios etc - the
analogy is - the table method of decompression is like the Bowflex as
compared to free weights - in other words the A frame is light years ahead
if you want something that is effective. Tables were the first type and we
have progressed since then


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No Aerobic, but fitness related Geezer From Freezer Aerobic 3 December 14th 03 09:57 PM
related to MFW FAQ: what does a really good inversion table look like ? ice Weights 0 October 1st 03 08:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.