Re: CycleClimber?

December 28, 2008

You say you are not a marketing guy but your post is so much a

camouflaged marketing attempt, and a too long one for that matter.

The guy who N years ago told you that you don't need any fancy

machines was right. When there will be an Olympic event called

" cycleclimber " Ill recommend ppl to use your device to train for said

event.

Until such time, there are much better ways to train than using an

expensive machine. Try to sell it to some gyms who train regulars in

your area

Dan Partelly

Oradea, Romania

>

> I apologize in advance that this post will be inordinately long. If you

> are " anti-cardio, " I totally understand. I know that

> extreme-cardio is NOT for everyone. Boy, do I know this.

>

> Imagine you have, in your possession, what you deem to be the

> world's hottest salsa? You want to get your salsa in the

> supermarket. Or, at the very least, in a few select dining

> establishments. Even though you know it is not for " the masses. "

> So what? You know there is a percentage of the populace that loves hot,

> hot food, right? This is the plight I have been faced with for over 10

> years. I have the patent on a fitness machine that certain, " extreme

> fitness enthusiasts " love, but admittedly, it may not be for

> " the masses. "

>

> This why I joined this Super Training Group over five years ago. I knew

> I needed the feedback of qualified professionals such as the serious

> people on this group. I am blown away by the expertise and in-depth

> knowledge that has been bantered on here over the years.

>

> Initially, when Bowflex canceled their licensing agreement with me in

> 2002 to go with " TreadClimber " (they claimed the latter was

> " better suited for the masses " ) I was down. I thought,

> " that " was my last shot. Still, I made a rather generic,

> half-hearted post on here and one guy (engulfed with 100% negativity)

> lambasted me saying " Super Trainers have no need for fancy

> machines " and how I was " barking up the wrong tree. " Well, I

> used to run 35 miles every week. Even when I trained in amateur boxing,

> I never got below 171 pounds no matter how hard I tried. With

> CycleClimber, on a diet comprised mostly of tuna, eggs, spinach, fruit,

> oatmeal and ten beers (my main source of carbs) a day, I quickly got

> down to 159 pounds. This was my lowest weight since 1975, my junior year

> in high school. I was 41 years old and I had a 41 resting heart rate and

> a 108 cholesterol.

>

> A few of the sincere replies (from my 2003 posting) were from those who

> could not exactly picture the workout. Well, " seeing is

> believing. " Last week, I figured it was high time to finally post a

> " You Tube " video. As crude and amateur as my home video clips of

> various CycleClimber workouts (esp., on " the gorilla prototype " )

> may appear to be, " the actual workout does speak for itself. " I

> am confident that " professionals in the know " are adept at

> seeing the possibilities, by seeing exactly which muscles are being

> maxed out.

>

> A few years ago, I bought some high quality components (stainless steel

> flywheels, cranks, bottom brackets, etc…) but then, due to a lack of

> funds, I never was able to make that one, last FINAL PROTOTYPE. My

> posting on here is in hopes of finding one person who sees the potential

> here. I really am hopeful that some of you will be kind enough to share

> with me ANY FEEDBACK you have (after seeing the six-minute video) as to

> what type of athletes you feel would benefit most from this kind of

> workout and/or what muscle groups reap the most benefit. From my own

> years of firsthand experience, I know the " vastus medialis, " the

> lats, the calves and surprisingly, even the external obliques get some

> serious action. Any others?

>

> Secondly, maybe one of you know of someone with the means or authority

> to consider bringing CycleClimber to market or looking for a new

> venture? Let's do it? Why not? If cheaper, low-end machines like

> " HealthRider " and their numerous knockoffs geared to " Sally

> the Housewife " found their way onto the marketplace, why not a

> machine geared to " Tommy the Triathlete? " This is a " Super

> Training " group and I feel that by going, FULL-ON, all-out with two

> independent, bi-directional, flywheels, the workout can indeed be

> deemed, " Super Training. "

>

> Bear in mind, prototype #2 is bidirectional, prototype #1 is not. I have

> found that " reverse upper body " and " forward lower body "

> feels the best. " Sadly, I have no videos of the many variations. But

> the " core workout " still speaks loud. Loud enough to make my

> point and support my claim that a machine should NOT be denied a place

> in the marketplace because it is simply, " too intense for the

> masses. " Besides, one rather esteemed (and yes, " creative " )

> extreme, personal trainer flew out to Tucson at his expense and said he

> believes he could design a " specific program " that a group

> workout could be created as, " novice friendly. " He reaffirmed

> what I already knew. There is a way that beginners could gradually learn

> the proper technique. Isn't this what a personal trainer is at least

> partially for? To help others become the best they can be?

>

> In the video, you can see in the third clip (without the shirt) the

> angle of the machine, is tilted forward (via a 4 " x 4 " on the

> back frame) an extra 4 or 5 degrees. This seems to change the emphasis

> of the different muscle groups as does an extended " verticality

> factor, " I mean the higher the extension of the upper flywheel, the

> more intensity on the deltoids. Obviously a novice would not want to

> reach high (above the head) as the 2nd clip (towel around the neck)

> shows, at least not initially. Is it important to have this angle

> adjustable? Or find a " happy medium? " i.e., 71 degrees?

>

> The one machine that CycleClimber gets compared to is the most is

> VersaClimber. However, CycleClimber differs from VersaClimber in that

> there are two separate flywheels and the dual-rotary action is a

> completely different range-of-motion. The consensus I have received over

> the many years, is that there should be one to three CycleClimbers in

> every gym, but maybe, due to their extreme intensity, it might not be

> suited for large groups, although the aforementioned extreme personal

> trainer, thought otherwise as his classes are comprised mostly of

> " extreme fitness buffs. "

>

> The strangest and hardest to define facet of the workout is that with

> two, independent flywheels, it is easier using BOTH TOGETHER, as opposed

> to doing just the upper or just the lower because there really is a

> synergistic rhythm. I mean as you are pulling the handgrip towards you

> in a downward motion (some of ones bodyweight is " helping " ) you

> are also stepping down on the foot pedal, thius creating the

> dual-independent-flywheel, inertia. But for someone who has never tried

> it, imagine (using this imagery can actually change the emphasis) the

> foot pedal part that is threaded to the lower crankshaft is

> made-of-wood, easy to break, so you are trying to minimize the full

> load of your bodyweight (on-the-pedal) by pulling yourself up onto the

> machine with the handgrip on the same side. In short, I doubt, I could

> do one hour of just the upper or just the lower, but as I did many

> times, I can do BOTH together, for an hour.

>

> Of course, my claim that this machine burns more calories than any other

> machine, like any fitness claim, is debatable. In my defense, I can

> challenge even the most serious extremist with a " full body

> burn, " which means crank up the resistance on both flywheels, and

> ask the user to go " full on " with high RPMs (over one revolution

> per minute) for three minutes… this really does " BURN all

> over… " Of course, this serves little long-term purpose (it is good

> to showoff athletic prowess) other than to pump the muscles make the

> veins pop out. Hey, maybe this would be the one good thing a power

> lifter " might like? " A three-minute, full body burn, before

> stepping onto the stage in a competition indeed gives a person a

> " pumped up look, " although the shortness of breath, might take

> away the relaxed smile needed in a competition. Also, a boxer might

> find, " the three-minute burn, " rest a minute, go at it again as

> being beneficial as well.

>

> Finally, I feel that the guy who unloaded his ad-hominem attack at me

> five years ago when I solicited feedback was unjustified, as he called

> " fancy machines as being useless " for a " Super Trainer. "

> As you will see, especially, prototype #1, as crude and ugly as it was,

> is truly " the antithesis of trendy, useless and fancy. " Hey, I

> am not an engineer! In fact, this is exactly WHY it is NOT yet on the

> market! It may not be for the masses! It is far from trendy. Admittedly,

> as far as the " user-friendly-adjustability goes, " prototype #1

> gets an F! " I already know this.

>

> Any discussion on the " actual workout " (not criticizing the

> aesthetics of the frame or the lack of its bells and whistles) would be

> greatly, greatly appreciated. Thanks to all who have read this far.

> Maybe someone teaches extreme, indoor cycling, or who has had students

> who WANT MORE? Finally, the video is six minutes (not 7) so please

> disregard the last minute of blank video. Not only am I not an engineer

> or a marketing guy, neither am I adept at digital video editing. I am

> merely a guy who made an ugly machine for myself to train on many years

> ago and truly believes that the nature of the intense workout is indeed

> worthy of serving a legitimate purpose in " Super Training

> circles, " hence ANY words (esp., feedback on the workout and also

> ideas on how to get it on the market) any of you can give me you all

> will keep the dream going! Thanks for taking a look. It wasn't easy

> making this post, but I felt the " time was now. " The You Tube

> clip can be accessed from the website which also has my contact info at

> the bottom of the one home page. Thanks again.

>

> Mark Hansen

> Tucson, AZ, USA

> <http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ecycleclimber/>

> or

> http://home.earthlink.net/~cycleclimber/

> <http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ecycleclimber/>

>

December 28, 2008

I think the idea of the " cycleclimber " is great for committed sports people or

those who seriously attempt to get fit. I believe that Mark has a lot of

determination ( watching him cycle climb) and his invention deserves attention.

Many people in the group market their products on here in some ways or the

other.

It would be interesting to see such a cycling device to improve endurance. I

have used a vertical climber in the past, but they have disappeared from gyms,

because people can't sit on their lazy backside and read the papers during

exercising.

I wish Mark good luck, maybe a demonstration at the NEC Fitness show in

Birmingham or in Germany could be a breakthrough for that kind of product.

I wish him success.

Thorsten Burkard

London, UK