I think a lot of the hate for chiropractors comes from the fact that there are 2 'kinds' - those that operate within the mainstream medical community (i.e. believe in science) and those that reject the scientific method and seem to believe that all illness stems from misalignment of the spine (don't quote me on that, I don't know all of what they believe, just that its kind of the opposite of scientific).

Maybe your friend doesn't db bench very often and isn't used to the exercise. I wouldn't look too deeply into it tbh. Also fu and your friend for having higher benches than me, BEGINNER FORUM MOTHER****ER

Yes, pretty much. Anyone that thinks illness can be cured based on spinal alignment (subluxations) is full of ****.

Go into your chiro. If you see a variant of this horse**** posted:



Walk out.

probably both on top of form issues like how much arch you guys
use in each set up and the ROM of the dumbbell bench vs. barbell bench. your db bench is high for that bench assuming you bench more often than db bench.

Here are the views from a chiropracter himself about some of the quackery in chiropractic.

Just so you guys don't think I'm a total idiot, I wasn't looking to cure any illnesses or get into any new age crap, just spinal misalignment. I'm not even sure spinal misalignment is possible without loss of motion or debilitating pain, so that's why I asked. The answer seems to be no.

In kinda related news...

The other day my chiro mentioned that she had been treating a local pro rugby player (name dropping lol).

And I'm like: "So why does he tear his hamstring everytime he plays?" and joked that I had read in the paper that one of the australian team doctors/physio/chorio or something suggested that he have his wisdom teeth removed as there has been evidence of this having big impacts on running style which can contribute to thing like hamstring injuries... and she's like "yeah actually. there have even been studies where something as minor as a cavity filling that can totally mess up your running"...

...and i'm like "uh, ok" but then she's like "but his problem is probably his pelvis" and i'm like "cool story sis"

Why aren't rowing machines a more popular cardio exercise? Seems way better than stationary bikes, but they are rare and rarely used.

My gym globogym has at least 4 in all of their branches. They get decently used...

How is it "way better"? Its more technically demanding and far less likely to have a sport specific carryover. Seems "way worse" to me.

hard work

Burns more calories per hour, much wider range of muscle involvement. No clue how it is far less likely to have a sport specific carryover. Rowing machine = rowing; stationary bike = cycling. Seems pretty evenly matched. It is more technically demanding, but not nearly as much as, say, swimming.

That's what I thought too, bikes/running are the default cardio but they don't hit upper body at all. I tried using one at my uni rec center, but I couldn't figure out how to set it up. The onscreen instructions said something about adjusting damping, but I had no idea how to do it, there was nothing like "level up/down" every other machine has. I think it wanted you to physically tweak the gears or something. Plus it makes a weird wooshing noise. I think my form was pretty good and I was going pretty fast by the end, but I hardly broke a sweat and felt no soreness whatsoever the next day, despite never having done any upper body cardio in the past.

The 24 hour gym by my house doesn't have any (they also don't have bumper plates)

http://www.dietandfitnesstoday.com/c...Info.php?id=24
http://www.dietandfitnesstoday.com/c...dInfo.php?id=5

This says less actually. So if anything, cycling would be superior. How often do people cycle v row? Almost everyone has been cycling, even people who routinely participate in water sports rarely row.

If you're looking for simply caloric expenditure, the lowest impact, least technically demanding use of your time is likely best.

Regardless, I fail to see how your contention is anything but a projection of ignorance.

Is this a joke?

I've only ever used the concept2 rowing machines, but all versions of them i have used have a lever on the wheel that you can set up and down for more resistance.

afaik, changing dampening settings and all that is pretty unneccessary if you just want to get on, bash out some calories and get sweaty and puffed...

...and what Thremp said.

Love the attacking tone of all your posts. So you contend that rowing is 1) less popular 2) burns fewer calories and 3) more technically demanding - therefore worse.

Already conceded 3, but it doesn't seem to be so technically challenging that a gym noob (me) is unable to use the machine after about 1 minute of trial and error.

More popular is obv a joke, right? You know better than to use that as an argument for quality.

According to Anne I. Zeni; et al, "Energy Expenditure With Indoor Exercise Machines" JAMA. 1996;275(18):1424-1427 exercise on rowing machines produces higher heart rate, more calories burned and greater oxygen uptake across all levels of perceived exertion.

If you want to hang your hat on the technical difficulties of rowing machines, then go for it, but there are definite aerobic advantages to the exercise when compared to stationary bikes. Actually you probably answered my question since I'll just guess that "technically more difficult" is the reason most people avoid rowers.

lol at a c2 being "upper body cardio"

If you think someone is going to row for 60 minutes and walk/run for 60 minutes at their respective caloric expenditure rates, you clearly have never rowed with any intensity whatsoever for 60 minutes.

Also yes upper body cardio lol what does that even mean

Obviously you don't realize that perceived exertion isn't a useful metric for measuring cardiovascular intensity. Normal people use heart rate. But whatever. Clearly you have a thesis and you're looking to fit that thesis rather than trying to understand the effect people aren't trying to achieve.

Rowing, stationary bike, does it really matter that much?

Or I'm using the exact same metric you used to argue for a stationary bike's superiority - only I used a real study instead of a random webpage. So if you use it, good evidence; if i use it, I misunderstand all of exercise. Of course I shouldn't expect any actual objectivity from someone like you when discussing a view you hold for apparently no reason.

No. Perceived exertion is **** because its not actual exertion. People can't sustain a level of work they think they're doing. You can quickly recognize this by the methodology of the study which lasts 5 minutes. What aerobic fitness training do you know that lasts 5 minutes?

Or maybe you didn't read the ****ing conclusion:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content...ct/275/18/1424

You're completely misrepresenting the study and being a tool about it.


ETA: Oops... What if we include critiques... Such as this one: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/summary/276/8/605 Where its mentioned that actual energy expenditure and heart rate are correlated and perceived exertion isn't reliable.

Aerobic exercise that utilizes the upper body... I meant that in a sense that I did not expect very good muscular endurance in my upper body, in contrast with lower body which I use every day for walking.

And you haters can hate about me not being able to adjust the rowing machine. I read up on the proper form beforehand, but had no idea it wouldn't be adjusted just as any other cardio machine I've seen. Not sure what lever you speak of, but I didn't notice it at the time, and I never did the exercise again and so didn't bother to look it up.

PS, it wasn't Concept2, I wouldn't have missed one of these:

Rowing is probably not for everyone when 99% of gym-goers have a ****ty form and have to use the toughest setting on the concept 2 to "compensate" that.