CycleClimber?

[Guest guest]

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

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

or

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

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