'Bents and Lower Abs???

"Werehatrack" wrote
"Jon Meinecke" wrote:
[www.rowbike.com]
- Burns approximately 50% more calories than ordinary biking
- Provides nearly twice the cardiovascular benefits as ordinary biking


The other one cited has a much less upright position, and more closely
mimics the rowing position and technique used in a racing shell. As
is almost always the case with advertising claims, they're probably
puffing up the description quite a bit with glittering generalities
and misleading or invented "statistics", but my impression is that of
the two, the Rowbike would be much slower.

Yes certainly slower, by design! %^)

The claim of burning 50% more calories than ordinary biking
is an interesting marketing claim. Easy to accomplish the same
thing with an ordinary bike and intentionally dragging brakes! %^P
Full body workout, is the better claim for RowBike.

One presumes, a bike design that could efficiently recruit more
muscles for propulsion could be faster than a bike that employs
fewer muscles. It's the efficiency issue that's challenging, but
the laid-back Thyes rowing bike tends more in that direction
than the RowBike, almost certainly.

I wonder, is there's anything in the periodic use/rest cycle of
rowing motion that might also improve rider power or endurance?

Jon Meinecke

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:04:39 -0600, "Jon Meinecke"
wrote:

"Werehatrack" wrote
"Jon Meinecke" wrote:
[www.rowbike.com]
- Burns approximately 50% more calories than ordinary biking
- Provides nearly twice the cardiovascular benefits as ordinary biking


The other one cited has a much less upright position, and more closely
mimics the rowing position and technique used in a racing shell. As
is almost always the case with advertising claims, they're probably
puffing up the description quite a bit with glittering generalities
and misleading or invented "statistics", but my impression is that of
the two, the Rowbike would be much slower.

Yes certainly slower, by design! %^)

The claim of burning 50% more calories than ordinary biking
is an interesting marketing claim.

Yeah, 50% more relative to what? By comparison to the number burned
over the same speed and distance? That would certainly be an
admission that would send people off to the other products in a hurry
if they thought about it. Besides, it's been pretty well esytablished
that the limiting and determining factor in how many calories get
burned is the engine, not the device; if the rider wants to achieve a
higher output, *any* bike will facilitate that.

Easy to accomplish the same
thing with an ordinary bike and intentionally dragging brakes!

Or just go faster!

%^P
Full body workout, is the better claim for RowBike.

Even that doesn't really look valid; the legs flex very little, and
the motion doesn't look like it would do much with the abdominals
either. To me, it's a back-and-arms beast, and doesn't even get to
all of the muscles in the arms. It it used a push-pull resistance,
they'd have more of a basis for the claims.

One presumes, a bike design that could efficiently recruit more
muscles for propulsion could be faster than a bike that employs
fewer muscles. It's the efficiency issue that's challenging, but
the laid-back Thyes rowing bike tends more in that direction
than the RowBike, almost certainly.

That's my impression; the Thyes uses more than just the arms and back
for motion generation, and the laid-back position seems likely to
present less drag as well. Of course, the cardio limit will still
determine the maximum absolute output that can be achieved, and
bringing more muscles into the mix will only allow a brief burst of
higher power before anaerobic operation begins, with all its
penalties.

I wonder, is there's anything in the periodic use/rest cycle of
rowing motion that might also improve rider power or endurance?

I have never encountered anything to suggest that this is the case.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

On 14 Mar 2006 09:16:15 -0800, "NYC XYZ"
wrote:


LOL! I live in NYC -- chutzpah is required!

Well, then, here's an alternative that requires lots of it:

http://www.bikeforest.com/hulabike.php
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Werehatrack wrote:

That's my impression; the Thyes uses more than just the arms and back
for motion generation, and the laid-back position seems likely to
present less drag as well. Of course, the cardio limit will still
determine the maximum absolute output that can be achieved, and
bringing more muscles into the mix will only allow a brief burst of
higher power before anaerobic operation begins, with all its
penalties.

It may be the case that by using more muscles you can extend the
total endurance. Staying aerobic you will, as you note, not get
above the level you could do with your legs alone, but ultimately,
even staying as aerobic as possible, one's legs just get very, very
tired, so it could be worth spreading it around a bit in order to
sustain the peak aerobic output longer. But I imagine you'd need
to have arms used to that sort of workout, or needing them along to
some degree for every stroke could end up being a limit rather than
an asset.

I wonder, is there's anything in the periodic use/rest cycle of
rowing motion that might also improve rider power or endurance?

I have never encountered anything to suggest that this is the case.

I'm inclined to agree: I can't think of any system that doesn't
work better with a sustained and constant input (a slight tangent
into rowing on water, kayaks can be made to rise onto a hydrofoil
thanks to their more regular stroke pattern compared to traditional
rowing (see http://www.foilkayak.com/), even though an individual
rowing stroke is probably much more powerful than a pair of kayak
strokes (though maybe hydrodynamic wing effects possible with
modern kayaking equipment and technique offsets this).

One place the Thys might score is a little less aerodynamic
turbulence around the crank area with no whirling pedals, but (a)
that's a complete guess and (b) you can ignore it anyway if you've
got a front fairing on.

Must see if I can find one to play on next time I'm over in the NL...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Werehatrack" wrote
"Jon Meinecke" wrote:
I wonder, is there's anything in the periodic use/rest cycle of
rowing motion that might also improve rider power or endurance?

I have never encountered anything to suggest that this is the case.

Nor have I. Likely nothing to it.

But there are techniques used for hiking (the resting step) that some
assert permit a periodic muscle resting phase to enhance endurance...
http://www.ideagardens.com/html/resting_step.html These possible
benefits seem to be related to fatigue at low/aerobic exertion and I
don't know how effective they are...

Thanks for the link to the Hula Bike! Some place, I've seen another
similar design.

Jon Meinecke

"Peter Clinch"
I'm inclined to agree: I can't think of any system that doesn't work
better with a sustained and constant input

Skating? %^) [artifact or process limitation, of course]

But, think of speed skaters, alternating pushes and varying
glides, particularly in the long endurance races... Couldn't
that be physiologically different in demand to cycling? And
couldn't we be better adapted or worse adapted to certain
types of exertion? Aerobic limits ultimately limiting, of
course.

One of Canada's speed skating medalists also has a summer
Olympic medal for cycling, doesn't she?

Jon Meinecke