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
  #31  
Old December 14th 04, 06:38 PM
John M. Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"David Cohen" wrote:


"David" wrote

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.


In fact, my description of weighted, inverted crunches on an inversion
table, can be found in the original MFW FAQ. IIRC, I recommended that
knees be slightly bent.

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.
  #32  
Old December 14th 04, 06:59 PM
David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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





  #33  
Old December 14th 04, 07:12 PM
David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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


"David" wrote

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.


In fact, my description of weighted, inverted crunches on an inversion
table, can be found in the original MFW FAQ. IIRC, I recommended that
knees be slightly bent.

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 -


  #34  
Old December 14th 04, 07:30 PM
John M. Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.
  #35  
Old December 14th 04, 07:44 PM
David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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


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


  #36  
Old December 14th 04, 07:52 PM
John HUDSON
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?


  #37  
Old December 14th 04, 07:56 PM
John HUDSON
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:12:08 GMT, "David"
wrote:


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


"David" wrote

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.


In fact, my description of weighted, inverted crunches on an inversion
table, can be found in the original MFW FAQ. IIRC, I recommended that
knees be slightly bent.

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 -


Sounds like good advice to me, but then you know the egos bristle
here, and they don't like to be wrong!! ;o)



  #38  
Old December 14th 04, 07:59 PM
John HUDSON
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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!!

  #39  
Old December 14th 04, 08:03 PM
David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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 -


  #40  
Old December 14th 04, 08:08 PM
David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John HUDSON" wrote in message
...
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!!


That's exactly right John - inversion is a great idea but the original
device has a lot of problems in todays world - JW would know that but his
prejudice lies in the fact that he owns the piece of crap he is valiantly
trying to defend!



 




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 09:52 PM
Early Bird catches the Inversion ! Graham Ingram Walking in the UK 0 October 18th 03 05:49 PM
related to MFW FAQ: what does a really good inversion table look like ? ice Weights 0 October 1st 03 09:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:31 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.