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
  #11  
Old December 14th 04, 03:44 AM
David Cohen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

I realize this is a weights group and hope this post may not be too
inappropriate. (I have seen posted on this group numerous references
to inversion tables.) This is not technically a cross-post, as I've
waited over the weekend for responses from the
alt.support.chronic-pain
group I originally posted to.

I'd like to buy an inversion table but am having difficulty finding
enough reviews to be able to make any sort
of informed decision about which one to get.

I did find a handful of reviews at epinions.com, and they were
helpful,
but 5
opinions on two different tables is hardly enough for me. Has anyone
seen any
other site online that has more user reviews?

There are two basic systems of inversion that you can do at home on a

piece
of equipment.
Ones where you clamp by your ankles - these are basically crap and are

not
effective.


No, David. We have been through this before. You just don't like
standard inversion tables. I challenged you to come up with something
in the literature which supported your claim, and you couldn't. All
you could say is that you talked to a PT who liked 90/90 inversion
better, and you thought it was better for feeble elderly people.

A couple of studies have shown 90/90 inversion to be effective. Many
more studies support the effectiveness and safe use of standard
inversion tables amongst normotensive people with spinal issues. So
your claim that they are "basically crap and are not effective" is, at
best, uninformed.

It seems that your personal prejudices in medical matters are really
shining through these days.


For effective traction there has to be enough downward force - the
standard
inversion table only allows inversion at a 45 deg angle - that is stated
in
the users manuals for these machines - the reason you are limited to 45
degrees is because of the how the clamp works around your ankles. If the
angle is greater then constriction of circulation occurs and the whole
process becomes dangerous and counter productive. The sort of machine that
we like here is called Bioflex
http://www.onlyfitness.com.au/fixmyback.htm

Actually the old and feeble would find this difficult - (I don;t know
where
you got that from that I made a reference to 'old and feeble')

The benefit of the Bioflex is that you hang by your upper legs - you can
get max traction and it basically only hits your spine - plus you can
exercise in a safe way with legs bent - for doing ab crunches and back
extensions which the other machines don;t allow.


Inverted crunches are completely safe. You are confusion the anatomy of
supine sit-ups with straight legs with free-hanging inversion.

Without exercise you are
generally wasting your time doing inversion therapy.


Everyone with lumbar-sacral or sacro-iliac compressions would disagree with
you.

d
i
v
a
D


  #12  
Old December 14th 04, 03:48 AM
Lee Michaels
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"David Cohen" wrote

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

I realize this is a weights group and hope this post may not be too
inappropriate. (I have seen posted on this group numerous

references
to inversion tables.) This is not technically a cross-post, as I've
waited over the weekend for responses from the
alt.support.chronic-pain
group I originally posted to.

I'd like to buy an inversion table but am having difficulty finding
enough reviews to be able to make any sort
of informed decision about which one to get.

I did find a handful of reviews at epinions.com, and they were
helpful,
but 5
opinions on two different tables is hardly enough for me. Has anyone
seen any
other site online that has more user reviews?

There are two basic systems of inversion that you can do at home on a

piece
of equipment.
Ones where you clamp by your ankles - these are basically crap and are

not
effective.

No, David. We have been through this before. You just don't like
standard inversion tables. I challenged you to come up with something
in the literature which supported your claim, and you couldn't. All
you could say is that you talked to a PT who liked 90/90 inversion
better, and you thought it was better for feeble elderly people.

A couple of studies have shown 90/90 inversion to be effective. Many
more studies support the effectiveness and safe use of standard
inversion tables amongst normotensive people with spinal issues. So
your claim that they are "basically crap and are not effective" is, at
best, uninformed.

It seems that your personal prejudices in medical matters are really
shining through these days.


For effective traction there has to be enough downward force - the
standard
inversion table only allows inversion at a 45 deg angle - that is stated
in
the users manuals for these machines - the reason you are limited to 45
degrees is because of the how the clamp works around your ankles. If the
angle is greater then constriction of circulation occurs and the whole
process becomes dangerous and counter productive. The sort of machine

that
we like here is called Bioflex
http://www.onlyfitness.com.au/fixmyback.htm

Actually the old and feeble would find this difficult - (I don;t know
where
you got that from that I made a reference to 'old and feeble')

The benefit of the Bioflex is that you hang by your upper legs - you

can
get max traction and it basically only hits your spine - plus you can
exercise in a safe way with legs bent - for doing ab crunches and back
extensions which the other machines don;t allow.


Inverted crunches are completely safe. You are confusion the anatomy of
supine sit-ups with straight legs with free-hanging inversion.

Without exercise you are
generally wasting your time doing inversion therapy.


Everyone with lumbar-sacral or sacro-iliac compressions would disagree

with
you.

d
i
v
a
D


It must be hard for Mr Cohen to do inverted therapy.

Being so well hung and all.

e
e
L





  #13  
Old December 14th 04, 05:08 AM
David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"David Cohen" wrote in message
ink.net...

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

I realize this is a weights group and hope this post may not be too
inappropriate. (I have seen posted on this group numerous

references
to inversion tables.) This is not technically a cross-post, as I've
waited over the weekend for responses from the
alt.support.chronic-pain
group I originally posted to.

I'd like to buy an inversion table but am having difficulty finding
enough reviews to be able to make any sort
of informed decision about which one to get.

I did find a handful of reviews at epinions.com, and they were
helpful,
but 5
opinions on two different tables is hardly enough for me. Has anyone
seen any
other site online that has more user reviews?

There are two basic systems of inversion that you can do at home on a

piece
of equipment.
Ones where you clamp by your ankles - these are basically crap and are

not
effective.

No, David. We have been through this before. You just don't like
standard inversion tables. I challenged you to come up with something
in the literature which supported your claim, and you couldn't. All
you could say is that you talked to a PT who liked 90/90 inversion
better, and you thought it was better for feeble elderly people.

A couple of studies have shown 90/90 inversion to be effective. Many
more studies support the effectiveness and safe use of standard
inversion tables amongst normotensive people with spinal issues. So
your claim that they are "basically crap and are not effective" is, at
best, uninformed.

It seems that your personal prejudices in medical matters are really
shining through these days.


For effective traction there has to be enough downward force - the
standard
inversion table only allows inversion at a 45 deg angle - that is stated
in
the users manuals for these machines - the reason you are limited to 45
degrees is because of the how the clamp works around your ankles. If the
angle is greater then constriction of circulation occurs and the whole
process becomes dangerous and counter productive. The sort of machine

that
we like here is called Bioflex
http://www.onlyfitness.com.au/fixmyback.htm

Actually the old and feeble would find this difficult - (I don;t know
where
you got that from that I made a reference to 'old and feeble')

The benefit of the Bioflex is that you hang by your upper legs - you

can
get max traction and it basically only hits your spine - plus you can
exercise in a safe way with legs bent - for doing ab crunches and back
extensions which the other machines don;t allow.


Inverted crunches are completely safe. You are confusion the anatomy of
supine sit-ups with straight legs with free-hanging inversion.

Without exercise you are
generally wasting your time doing inversion therapy.


Everyone with lumbar-sacral or sacro-iliac compressions would disagree

with
you.

d
i
v
a
D


I know inverted crunches are safe - I'm saying you can't do them with the
standard bed where you are clamped by your ankles. With the Bioflex type
machine you can do them and also bent legged back extensions. MUCH more
versatile.

Plus in my opinion, to sign your name this way indicates full inversion -
because you seem to prefer the non effectual beds, suggest sign this way


D
a
v
i
d



  #14  
Old December 14th 04, 05:20 AM
David Cohen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

I realize this is a weights group and hope this post may not be too
inappropriate. (I have seen posted on this group numerous

references
to inversion tables.) This is not technically a cross-post, as
I've
waited over the weekend for responses from the
alt.support.chronic-pain
group I originally posted to.

I'd like to buy an inversion table but am having difficulty finding
enough reviews to be able to make any sort
of informed decision about which one to get.

I did find a handful of reviews at epinions.com, and they were
helpful,
but 5
opinions on two different tables is hardly enough for me. Has
anyone
seen any
other site online that has more user reviews?

There are two basic systems of inversion that you can do at home on a
piece
of equipment.
Ones where you clamp by your ankles - these are basically crap and
are
not
effective.

No, David. We have been through this before. You just don't like
standard inversion tables. I challenged you to come up with something
in the literature which supported your claim, and you couldn't. All
you could say is that you talked to a PT who liked 90/90 inversion
better, and you thought it was better for feeble elderly people.

A couple of studies have shown 90/90 inversion to be effective. Many
more studies support the effectiveness and safe use of standard
inversion tables amongst normotensive people with spinal issues. So
your claim that they are "basically crap and are not effective" is, at
best, uninformed.

It seems that your personal prejudices in medical matters are really
shining through these days.

For effective traction there has to be enough downward force - the
standard
inversion table only allows inversion at a 45 deg angle - that is
stated
in
the users manuals for these machines - the reason you are limited to 45
degrees is because of the how the clamp works around your ankles. If
the
angle is greater then constriction of circulation occurs and the whole
process becomes dangerous and counter productive. The sort of machine

that
we like here is called Bioflex
http://www.onlyfitness.com.au/fixmyback.htm

Actually the old and feeble would find this difficult - (I don;t know
where
you got that from that I made a reference to 'old and feeble')

The benefit of the Bioflex is that you hang by your upper legs - you

can
get max traction and it basically only hits your spine - plus you can
exercise in a safe way with legs bent - for doing ab crunches and back
extensions which the other machines don;t allow.


Inverted crunches are completely safe. You are confusion the anatomy of
supine sit-ups with straight legs with free-hanging inversion.

Without exercise you are
generally wasting your time doing inversion therapy.


Everyone with lumbar-sacral or sacro-iliac compressions would disagree

with
you.

d
i
v
a
D


I know inverted crunches are safe - I'm saying you can't do them with the
standard bed where you are clamped by your ankles.


No, you said "plus you can exercise in a safe way with legs bent". And you
can...I do...clamped by the ankles.

With the Bioflex type
machine you can do them and also bent legged back extensions. MUCH more
versatile.

Plus in my opinion, to sign your name this way indicates full inversion -
because you seem to prefer the non effectual beds, suggest sign this way


I never said anything of the sort. This may be an miscommunication between
Unitedstatesofamericanish and Australianish. I have, as does John, I
believe, a non-motorized tilt table that allows any degree of inversion:

d i v a D d d
i i
v v
a a
D D

And I do the crunches totally inverted, free hanging by my ankles.

David


  #15  
Old December 14th 04, 05:31 AM
Dally
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

David Cohen wrote:

I have, as does John, I
believe, a non-motorized tilt table that allows any degree of inversion:

d i v a D d d
i i
v v
a a
D D

And I do the crunches totally inverted, free hanging by my ankles.


Jpegs, please.

Dally
  #16  
Old December 14th 04, 05:32 AM
David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"David Cohen" wrote in message
. net...

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

I realize this is a weights group and hope this post may not be

too

[......]


d
i
v
a
D


I know inverted crunches are safe - I'm saying you can't do them with

the
standard bed where you are clamped by your ankles.


No, you said "plus you can exercise in a safe way with legs bent". And

you
can...I do...clamped by the ankles.

With the Bioflex type
machine you can do them and also bent legged back extensions. MUCH more
versatile.

Plus in my opinion, to sign your name this way indicates full

nversion -
because you seem to prefer the non effectual beds, suggest sign this way


I never said anything of the sort. This may be an miscommunication between
Unitedstatesofamericanish and Australianish. I have, as does John, I
believe, a non-motorized tilt table that allows any degree of inversion:

d i v a D d d
i i
v v
a a
D D

And I do the crunches totally inverted, free hanging by my ankles.

David

(Not having had the benefit of 47 years experience as a paramedic, I would
be at a disadvantage here) - I assume that you are speaking of the inversion
table/bed that has been around for 25 years - (the ankle clamp type) - I
know it would be technically possible to do crunches or even to hang in the
fully inverted position - however this is not considered safe because of
the constriction of circulation because all your body weight is on that one
joint. The ones sold here have a 'caution' in the instructions not to tilt
over 45 deg

d
a
v
i
d


  #17  
Old December 14th 04, 05:35 AM
Pat Styles
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Lee Michaels" wrote in message
...

"David Cohen" wrote

"David" wrote
Without exercise you are
generally wasting your time doing inversion therapy.


Everyone with lumbar-sacral or sacro-iliac compressions would disagree

with
you.

d
i
v
a
D


It must be hard for Mr Cohen to do inverted therapy.

Being so well hung and all.

e
e
L


I've heard he tucks.
ps


  #18  
Old December 14th 04, 05:54 AM
David Cohen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dally" wrote
David Cohen wrote:
I have, as does John, I believe, a non-motorized tilt table that allows
any degree of inversion:

d i v a D d d
i i
v v
a a
D D

And I do the crunches totally inverted, free hanging by my ankles.


Jpegs, please.


Because you support our troops, despite your opinion of the war, NAKED jpeg!

www.geocities.com/sammiesdad/inversion.jpg

David


  #19  
Old December 14th 04, 05:56 AM
Dally
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

David Cohen wrote:

"Dally" wrote

David Cohen wrote:

I have, as does John, I believe, a non-motorized tilt table that allows
any degree of inversion:

d i v a D d d
i i
v v
a a
D D

And I do the crunches totally inverted, free hanging by my ankles.


Jpegs, please.



Because you support our troops, despite your opinion of the war, NAKED jpeg!

www.geocities.com/sammiesdad/inversion.jpg


Thanks. I appreciate the thrill. But I pictured you as less hairy.
And better hung. But I see why you get along with Lyle so well.

Dally
  #20  
Old December 14th 04, 05:57 AM
David Cohen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

I realize this is a weights group and hope this post may not be

too

[......]


d
i
v
a
D


I know inverted crunches are safe - I'm saying you can't do them with

the
standard bed where you are clamped by your ankles.


No, you said "plus you can exercise in a safe way with legs bent". And

you
can...I do...clamped by the ankles.

With the Bioflex type
machine you can do them and also bent legged back extensions. MUCH more
versatile.

Plus in my opinion, to sign your name this way indicates full

nversion -
because you seem to prefer the non effectual beds, suggest sign this
way


I never said anything of the sort. This may be an miscommunication
between
Unitedstatesofamericanish and Australianish. I have, as does John, I
believe, a non-motorized tilt table that allows any degree of inversion:

d i v a D d d
i i
v v
a a
D D

And I do the crunches totally inverted, free hanging by my ankles.

(Not having had the benefit of 47 years experience as a paramedic, I would
be at a disadvantage here) - I assume that you are speaking of the
inversion
table/bed that has been around for 25 years - (the ankle clamp type) - I
know it would be technically possible to do crunches or even to hang in
the
fully inverted position - however this is not considered safe because of
the constriction of circulation because all your body weight is on that
one
joint.


No such thang! Perfectly safe, relatively comfortable.

The ones sold here have a 'caution' in the instructions not to tilt
over 45 deg


Wuss Aussies. No wonder Steve Irwin wants to move to Las Vegas.

http://www.geocities.com/sammiesdad/inversion.jpg

David


 




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 07:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.