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 COMPARISONS / EVALUATIONS?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old December 14th 04, 07:10 PM
John HUDSON
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:03:02 GMT, "David"
wrote:


"John HUDSON" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:59:35 GMT, "David"
wrote:


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

Your comments about back machines are valid. My company actually

designed
the Bioflex unit and we began manufacturing it in Australia 12 years
ago.

Hooboy! There's the hook. So, in reality, you're a spammer, correct?

No in reality this would never have come up were it not for someone's
particular inquiry and wishing to have one - I never mentioned it last

time
we had this 'debate' - I had plenty of opportunities to promote this if I
had wanted to - the website I gave is not even my own. - so that charge

is
totally wrong and unfair - every post that Will makes promotes his

products.


First you blast Brink for criticizing physicians, only to later reveal
your prejudice: you son is a physician.

Now you blast inversion tables, without any scientific evidence to
back up your claims that they are "crap and are not effective," as
well as your claims that they are "dangerous and counter productive"
at full inversion. Only at the end of this thread do you reveal that
YOUR COMPANY produces the alternative 90/90 unit that you favor.

I feel really bad - I will have to go out and shoot myself. I gave you

the
reasons for my statements - backed them up with logic. the logic is
irrefutable as I noticed that you have not attempted to argue the points.
Not much more I can do. If you're not happy with that then **** the hell

off


You see what I mean David?

I think he just likes to do battle - whatever issue, right or wrong -


Problem is that he is a pompous old ******* that thinks he is always
right - which he's not!!

  #42  
Old December 14th 04, 07:24 PM
David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John HUDSON" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:03:02 GMT, "David"
wrote:


"John HUDSON" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:59:35 GMT, "David"
wrote:


"John M. Williams" wrote in

message
.. .
"David" wrote:

Your comments about back machines are valid. My company actually

designed
the Bioflex unit and we began manufacturing it in Australia 12

years
ago.

Hooboy! There's the hook. So, in reality, you're a spammer,

correct?

No in reality this would never have come up were it not for someone's
particular inquiry and wishing to have one - I never mentioned it last

time
we had this 'debate' - I had plenty of opportunities to promote this

if I
had wanted to - the website I gave is not even my own. - so that

charge
is
totally wrong and unfair - every post that Will makes promotes his

products.


First you blast Brink for criticizing physicians, only to later

reveal
your prejudice: you son is a physician.

Now you blast inversion tables, without any scientific evidence to
back up your claims that they are "crap and are not effective," as
well as your claims that they are "dangerous and counter productive"
at full inversion. Only at the end of this thread do you reveal

that
YOUR COMPANY produces the alternative 90/90 unit that you favor.

I feel really bad - I will have to go out and shoot myself. I gave you

the
reasons for my statements - backed them up with logic. the logic is
irrefutable as I noticed that you have not attempted to argue the

points.
Not much more I can do. If you're not happy with that then **** the

hell
off


You see what I mean David?

I think he just likes to do battle - whatever issue, right or wrong -


Problem is that he is a pompous old ******* that thinks he is always
right - which he's not!!


It is his training as a lawyer - you need to be combative. In this case it
is amusing that he defends the old ideas. It is like the old codger who
swears by his manual treadmill that he has had for 40 years - won;t hear of
these fancy new ideas about motorized treadmills.


  #43  
Old December 14th 04, 09:10 PM
Will Brink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
John M. Williams wrote:

"David" wrote:

Your comments about back machines are valid. My company actually designed
the Bioflex unit and we began manufacturing it in Australia 12 years ago.


Hooboy! There's the hook. So, in reality, you're a spammer, correct?

First you blast Brink for criticizing physicians, only to later reveal
your prejudice: you son is a physician.

Now you blast inversion tables, without any scientific evidence to
back up your claims that they are "crap and are not effective," as
well as your claims that they are "dangerous and counter productive"
at full inversion. Only at the end of this thread do you reveal that
YOUR COMPANY produces the alternative 90/90 unit that you favor.

You're just full of surprises!


He's full of more then that John!

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/


  #44  
Old December 14th 04, 11:52 PM
John M. Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"David" wrote:
"John M. Williams" wrote:
"David" wrote:
"John M. Williams" wrote:

I wouldn't mind David (him, not you) recommending HIS COMPANY'S unit
if he wasn't such an asshole about making unsupported claims that
inversion tables are "crap ... ineffective ... dangerous." One can
promote one's own product with telling lies about the products of
others.

You need to understand that in the USA it is more trouble than it is
worth for me to get involved to sell a back machine. It is not
something I care to do - we don;t even have a distributor in the
USA - Please don;t anyone else ask for a machine as I am basically
doing a favour for someone who seemed sincerely to want the Bioflex.
All the points I made above are the opinions of those here that know
anything about inversion machines.


BTW, that sounds like something Neal Fabian would say.

You are so full of **** - involved with a piece of crap that you
forked out money for that you have no idea what works and what
doesn't - stick to benches and such and
leave inversion to people who know something about it - if you know
squat about something, have the grace to admit it and take advice
from the experts -


Oh, you mean your associates, who YOU claim are experts, as opposed to
those who have published studies on inversion tables since the 1970s,
finding them to be both effective and safe, with most of those studies
applying to the full length tables which YOU CRITICIZE, and only a
couple applying to the 90/90 inversion chair, which YOU PRODUCE.

Your personal prejudice is palpable. And FWIW, my parents bought the
inversion table I have, and I've been using it since the early 1980s.
It uses the original gravity boots.


Show me a study that claims that hanging by your ankles at full inversion
is safe. You can't.


In fact, I will post a link to a clinical study regarding full
inversion, by the ankles, and comparing it to a device like the one in
which you have a commercial interest. This study indicates that there
are ADVANTAGES and DISADVANTAGES to both units. One interesting point
he raises: if a woman is eight months pregnant and suffering mightily
from chronic lower back pain due to the added strain, just how do you
plan to put her on your device?

I might add that the inversion table used in this clinical study, the
Gravity Guider™, is the exact same unit I own.

Here's the study from the American Journal of Clinical Chiropractic:
http://www.idealspine.com/pages/AJCC...est%20Text.htm
(http://tinyurl.com/5oq52)

Plus I would like to see a study that shows that inversion
on a table at 45 degrees (which is the maximum inversion recommended in the
current users manuals) will give any decompression benefit.


You would? Well, how about a twelve-month study of 92 Volvo Aero
employees with chronic lower back pain disorders who received relief
from just such a device at inversions of only 15° and 30°, resulting
in 33% less absenteeism due to back pain amongst that group? Here's
that study, David:

http://www.mastercare.se/Studie-1.txt

Sure I believe in a particular system - I have seen the benefits on
countless people - plus I bag the other system as it does not work - and is
dangerous at certain positions


I didn't say that your unit doesn't have some value. My problem is
your blind self interest and your inability to support your claims.
You have yet to produce a single study which establishes that your
unit is universally better than an inversion table, much less any
evidence that inversion tables are "crap ... ineffective ...
dangerous" as you have previously stated. It was the same kind of
self-interested, commercial backbiting related to prohormones that was
the beginning of the end for some very well-informed people who
formerly posted in this group. I realize that you and your pal Hudson
weren't around then, but maybe you should Google it.
  #45  
Old December 15th 04, 12:08 AM
John M. Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John HUDSON wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:30:53 -0500, John M. Williams
wrote:

"David" wrote:

"John M. Williams" wrote:

I wouldn't mind David (him, not you) recommending HIS COMPANY'S unit
if he wasn't such an asshole about making unsupported claims that
inversion tables are "crap ... ineffective ... dangerous." One can
promote one's own product with telling lies about the products of
others.

You need to understand that in the USA it is more trouble than it is worth
for me to get involved to sell a back machine. It is not something I care to
do - we don;t even have a distributor in the USA - Please don;t anyone else
ask for a machine as I am basically doing a favour for someone who seemed
sincerely to want the Bioflex. All the points I made above are the opinions
of those here that know anything about inversion machines. You are so full
of **** - involved with a piece of crap that you forked out money for that
you have no idea what works and what doesn't - stick to benches and such and
leave inversion to people who know something about it - if you know squat
about something, have the grace to admit it and take advice from the
experts -


Oh, you mean your associates, who YOU claim are experts, as opposed to
those who have published studies on inversion tables since the 1970s,
finding them to be both effective and safe, with most of those studies
applying to the full length tables which YOU CRITICIZE, and only a
couple applying to the 90/90 inversion chair, which YOU PRODUCE.

Your personal prejudice is palpable. And FWIW, my parents bought the
inversion table I have, and I've been using it since the early 1980s.
It uses the original gravity boots.


With disrespect JW, that's 25 years ago and you are way out of date on
inversion therapy and technique!!


Whenever you and David are finished engaging in mutual anilingus,
perhaps you could read my most recent reply to him, which includes a
link to a study, published in 2001, that compares inversion tables to
units like his. I apologize for the fact that the study contains many
of those big scientific and medical words that you hate so much.
  #46  
Old December 15th 04, 12:27 AM
John HUDSON
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:52:42 -0500, John M. Williams
wrote:

"David" wrote:
"John M. Williams" wrote:
"David" wrote:
"John M. Williams" wrote:

I wouldn't mind David (him, not you) recommending HIS COMPANY'S unit
if he wasn't such an asshole about making unsupported claims that
inversion tables are "crap ... ineffective ... dangerous." One can
promote one's own product with telling lies about the products of
others.

You need to understand that in the USA it is more trouble than it is
worth for me to get involved to sell a back machine. It is not
something I care to do - we don;t even have a distributor in the
USA - Please don;t anyone else ask for a machine as I am basically
doing a favour for someone who seemed sincerely to want the Bioflex.
All the points I made above are the opinions of those here that know
anything about inversion machines.


BTW, that sounds like something Neal Fabian would say.

You are so full of **** - involved with a piece of crap that you
forked out money for that you have no idea what works and what
doesn't - stick to benches and such and
leave inversion to people who know something about it - if you know
squat about something, have the grace to admit it and take advice
from the experts -

Oh, you mean your associates, who YOU claim are experts, as opposed to
those who have published studies on inversion tables since the 1970s,
finding them to be both effective and safe, with most of those studies
applying to the full length tables which YOU CRITICIZE, and only a
couple applying to the 90/90 inversion chair, which YOU PRODUCE.

Your personal prejudice is palpable. And FWIW, my parents bought the
inversion table I have, and I've been using it since the early 1980s.
It uses the original gravity boots.


Show me a study that claims that hanging by your ankles at full inversion
is safe. You can't.


In fact, I will post a link to a clinical study regarding full
inversion, by the ankles, and comparing it to a device like the one in
which you have a commercial interest. This study indicates that there
are ADVANTAGES and DISADVANTAGES to both units. One interesting point
he raises: if a woman is eight months pregnant and suffering mightily
from chronic lower back pain due to the added strain, just how do you
plan to put her on your device?


Well JW, in the UK we now use water inversion to lighten the load in
just the scenario you present; we have come a long way!!

[...]
  #47  
Old December 15th 04, 12:40 AM
John HUDSON
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:08:20 -0500, John M. Williams
wrote:

John HUDSON wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:30:53 -0500, John M. Williams
wrote:

"David" wrote:

"John M. Williams" wrote:

I wouldn't mind David (him, not you) recommending HIS COMPANY'S unit
if he wasn't such an asshole about making unsupported claims that
inversion tables are "crap ... ineffective ... dangerous." One can
promote one's own product with telling lies about the products of
others.

You need to understand that in the USA it is more trouble than it is worth
for me to get involved to sell a back machine. It is not something I care to
do - we don;t even have a distributor in the USA - Please don;t anyone else
ask for a machine as I am basically doing a favour for someone who seemed
sincerely to want the Bioflex. All the points I made above are the opinions
of those here that know anything about inversion machines. You are so full
of **** - involved with a piece of crap that you forked out money for that
you have no idea what works and what doesn't - stick to benches and such and
leave inversion to people who know something about it - if you know squat
about something, have the grace to admit it and take advice from the
experts -

Oh, you mean your associates, who YOU claim are experts, as opposed to
those who have published studies on inversion tables since the 1970s,
finding them to be both effective and safe, with most of those studies
applying to the full length tables which YOU CRITICIZE, and only a
couple applying to the 90/90 inversion chair, which YOU PRODUCE.

Your personal prejudice is palpable. And FWIW, my parents bought the
inversion table I have, and I've been using it since the early 1980s.
It uses the original gravity boots.


With disrespect JW, that's 25 years ago and you are way out of date on
inversion therapy and technique!!


Whenever you and David are finished engaging in mutual anilingus,
perhaps you could read my most recent reply to him, which includes a
link to a study, published in 2001, that compares inversion tables to
units like his. I apologize for the fact that the study contains many
of those big scientific and medical words that you hate so much.


If you had a big enough member you could practice the art of munching
yourself. However, with the long evil tongue you have, self
'analingii' is of course your preferred method of arse wiping, which
accounts for the constant brown fuzz on your chin!! ;o)

Please Google 'hydro inversion therapy UK' for up to date journeys
into this exciting science!!
  #48  
Old December 15th 04, 01:18 AM
David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

I wouldn't mind David (him, not you) recommending HIS COMPANY'S unit
if he wasn't such an asshole about making unsupported claims that
inversion tables are "crap ... ineffective ... dangerous." One can
promote one's own product with telling lies about the products of
others.

You need to understand that in the USA it is more trouble than it is
worth for me to get involved to sell a back machine. It is not
something I care to do - we don;t even have a distributor in the
USA - Please don;t anyone else ask for a machine as I am basically
doing a favour for someone who seemed sincerely to want the Bioflex.
All the points I made above are the opinions of those here that know
anything about inversion machines.


BTW, that sounds like something Neal Fabian would say.

You are so full of **** - involved with a piece of crap that you
forked out money for that you have no idea what works and what
doesn't - stick to benches and such and
leave inversion to people who know something about it - if you know
squat about something, have the grace to admit it and take advice
from the experts -

Oh, you mean your associates, who YOU claim are experts, as opposed to
those who have published studies on inversion tables since the 1970s,
finding them to be both effective and safe, with most of those studies
applying to the full length tables which YOU CRITICIZE, and only a
couple applying to the 90/90 inversion chair, which YOU PRODUCE.

Your personal prejudice is palpable. And FWIW, my parents bought the
inversion table I have, and I've been using it since the early 1980s.
It uses the original gravity boots.


Show me a study that claims that hanging by your ankles at full inversion
is safe. You can't.


In fact, I will post a link to a clinical study regarding full
inversion, by the ankles, and comparing it to a device like the one in
which you have a commercial interest. This study indicates that there
are ADVANTAGES and DISADVANTAGES to both units. One interesting point
he raises: if a woman is eight months pregnant and suffering mightily
from chronic lower back pain due to the added strain, just how do you
plan to put her on your device?

I might add that the inversion table used in this clinical study, the
Gravity GuiderT, is the exact same unit I own.

Here's the study from the American Journal of Clinical Chiropractic:

http://www.idealspine.com/pages/AJCC...est%20Text.htm
(http://tinyurl.com/5oq52)

Plus I would like to see a study that shows that inversion
on a table at 45 degrees (which is the maximum inversion recommended in

the
current users manuals) will give any decompression benefit.


You would? Well, how about a twelve-month study of 92 Volvo Aero
employees with chronic lower back pain disorders who received relief
from just such a device at inversions of only 15° and 30°, resulting
in 33% less absenteeism due to back pain amongst that group? Here's
that study, David:

http://www.mastercare.se/Studie-1.txt

Sure I believe in a particular system - I have seen the benefits on
countless people - plus I bag the other system as it does not work - and

is
dangerous at certain positions


I didn't say that your unit doesn't have some value. My problem is
your blind self interest and your inability to support your claims.
You have yet to produce a single study which establishes that your
unit is universally better than an inversion table, much less any
evidence that inversion tables are "crap ... ineffective ...
dangerous" as you have previously stated. It was the same kind of
self-interested, commercial backbiting related to prohormones that was
the beginning of the end for some very well-informed people who
formerly posted in this group. I realize that you and your pal Hudson
weren't around then, but maybe you should Google it.


A clinical study from a source without a conflict of interest would be
useful. No where on this report did I see any reference to hanging fully
vertical with the ankle clamp machine and any claims to 'safety'. If it is
possible to get any traction from 45 deg it follows that benefits would be
quicker and far more effective at 90 deg.


I agree the old, feeble and women who are in advanced pregnancy would have a
problem with the 90/90 machines.

I will list the advantages of each type of machine for you - - -

Advantages of 90/90 machine
*no ankle clamp to restrict blood circulation at extreme angles
*ability to hang at extreme angles in safety
*allows back extension exercise
*allows bent legged ab crunches in safety (without circulation
constraint)
*traction is focused on the spine - not ankles, knees, hips etc which
can cause complications
*traction benefits is much faster as you are hanging at 90 deg which is
not safe to do on the ankle clamp beds

Advantages of Ankle Clamp Inversion
*You can incline at various positions - up to a maxiumum of 45 degrees.
(It is questionable whether there is a significant benefit at below 45
degrees. However ladies in advanced pregnancy and old and feeble can get on
it easier and possibly have the illusion that they are doing themselves any
good at low degrees of incline)


So John, as an astute consumer, really ., . which machine would you choose
(assuming you are not pregnant, old or feeble) one machine gives you faster
results, allows exercise (how would you do back extensions for instance
without a dedicated bench?) and is certainly safer at extreme positions





  #49  
Old December 15th 04, 01:25 AM
David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John HUDSON" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:08:20 -0500, John M. Williams
wrote:

John HUDSON wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:30:53 -0500, John M. Williams
wrote:

"David" wrote:

"John M. Williams" wrote:

I wouldn't mind David (him, not you) recommending HIS COMPANY'S unit
if he wasn't such an asshole about making unsupported claims that
inversion tables are "crap ... ineffective ... dangerous." One can
promote one's own product with telling lies about the products of
others.

You need to understand that in the USA it is more trouble than it is

worth
for me to get involved to sell a back machine. It is not something I

care to
do - we don;t even have a distributor in the USA - Please don;t anyone

else
ask for a machine as I am basically doing a favour for someone who

seemed
sincerely to want the Bioflex. All the points I made above are the

opinions
of those here that know anything about inversion machines. You are so

full
of **** - involved with a piece of crap that you forked out money for

that
you have no idea what works and what doesn't - stick to benches and

such and
leave inversion to people who know something about it - if you know

squat
about something, have the grace to admit it and take advice from the
experts -

Oh, you mean your associates, who YOU claim are experts, as opposed to
those who have published studies on inversion tables since the 1970s,
finding them to be both effective and safe, with most of those studies
applying to the full length tables which YOU CRITICIZE, and only a
couple applying to the 90/90 inversion chair, which YOU PRODUCE.

Your personal prejudice is palpable. And FWIW, my parents bought the
inversion table I have, and I've been using it since the early 1980s.
It uses the original gravity boots.

With disrespect JW, that's 25 years ago and you are way out of date on
inversion therapy and technique!!


Whenever you and David are finished engaging in mutual anilingus,
perhaps you could read my most recent reply to him, which includes a
link to a study, published in 2001, that compares inversion tables to
units like his. I apologize for the fact that the study contains many
of those big scientific and medical words that you hate so much.


If you had a big enough member you could practice the art of munching
yourself. However, with the long evil tongue you have, self
'analingii' is of course your preferred method of arse wiping, which
accounts for the constant brown fuzz on your chin!! ;o)


Please Google 'hydro inversion therapy UK' for up to date journeys
into this exciting science!!


John, when you get a chance can you send a link for 'hydro inversion
therapy' as googling didn;t help - thanks!



  #50  
Old December 15th 04, 01:51 AM
David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

I wouldn't mind David (him, not you) recommending HIS COMPANY'S unit
if he wasn't such an asshole about making unsupported claims that
inversion tables are "crap ... ineffective ... dangerous." One can
promote one's own product with telling lies about the products of
others.

You need to understand that in the USA it is more trouble than it is
worth for me to get involved to sell a back machine. It is not
something I care to do - we don;t even have a distributor in the
USA - Please don;t anyone else ask for a machine as I am basically
doing a favour for someone who seemed sincerely to want the Bioflex.
All the points I made above are the opinions of those here that know
anything about inversion machines.


BTW, that sounds like something Neal Fabian would say.

You are so full of **** - involved with a piece of crap that you
forked out money for that you have no idea what works and what
doesn't - stick to benches and such and
leave inversion to people who know something about it - if you know
squat about something, have the grace to admit it and take advice
from the experts -

Oh, you mean your associates, who YOU claim are experts, as opposed to
those who have published studies on inversion tables since the 1970s,
finding them to be both effective and safe, with most of those studies
applying to the full length tables which YOU CRITICIZE, and only a
couple applying to the 90/90 inversion chair, which YOU PRODUCE.

Your personal prejudice is palpable. And FWIW, my parents bought the
inversion table I have, and I've been using it since the early 1980s.
It uses the original gravity boots.


Show me a study that claims that hanging by your ankles at full inversion
is safe. You can't.


In fact, I will post a link to a clinical study regarding full
inversion, by the ankles, and comparing it to a device like the one in
which you have a commercial interest. This study indicates that there
are ADVANTAGES and DISADVANTAGES to both units. One interesting point
he raises: if a woman is eight months pregnant and suffering mightily
from chronic lower back pain due to the added strain, just how do you
plan to put her on your device?

I might add that the inversion table used in this clinical study, the
Gravity GuiderT, is the exact same unit I own.

Here's the study from the American Journal of Clinical Chiropractic:

http://www.idealspine.com/pages/AJCC...est%20Text.htm
(http://tinyurl.com/5oq52)

Plus I would like to see a study that shows that inversion
on a table at 45 degrees (which is the maximum inversion recommended in

the
current users manuals) will give any decompression benefit.


You would? Well, how about a twelve-month study of 92 Volvo Aero
employees with chronic lower back pain disorders who received relief
from just such a device at inversions of only 15° and 30°, resulting
in 33% less absenteeism due to back pain amongst that group? Here's
that study, David:

http://www.mastercare.se/Studie-1.txt

Sure I believe in a particular system - I have seen the benefits on
countless people - plus I bag the other system as it does not work - and

is
dangerous at certain positions


I didn't say that your unit doesn't have some value. My problem is
your blind self interest and your inability to support your claims.
You have yet to produce a single study which establishes that your
unit is universally better than an inversion table, much less any
evidence that inversion tables are "crap ... ineffective ...
dangerous" as you have previously stated. It was the same kind of
self-interested, commercial backbiting related to prohormones that was
the beginning of the end for some very well-informed people who
formerly posted in this group. I realize that you and your pal Hudson
weren't around then, but maybe you should Google it.


Out of interest, have you tried the 90/90 type yet? Your opinions would of
real value if you personally tested the two products - (last time we debated
this you had not even tried the type of machine that you are being so
adamantly critical of. It strikes me as odd that you should have such a bias
toward a concept that is 30 years old when there have been major advances in
this technology.


 




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
Inversion Tables - anyone used them? Geezer From Freezer Weights 33 December 7th 03 08:52 PM
Early Bird catches the Inversion ! Graham Ingram Walking in the UK 0 October 18th 03 04:49 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 07:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.