Re: Biangularity?
- From: "The Crow" <Thecrow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:11:34 +0100
"T" <T@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:wRfRe.7735$Nx.5425@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> The Crow wrote:
>> This is probably the wrong place to ask, because I get the impression
>> that if you're not talking about squating with three hundred pounds of
>> dead buffalo on your back, then you're not talking serious exercise.
>
> Barbells are ideal, though 300 is a little light. ;-)
>
>> However, here goes all the same.
>>
>> What do you think of these Body Solid biangular machines that boast a
>> merger between the different advantages of free weights and machines
>> combined?
>
> What are the advantages of machines again?
If you're a sado billy no mates with no one to spot for you, like me, it's
more comforting to know that, at higher weights, you probably won't kill
yourself or snap your spine with poor form, (ill disciplined I know).
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Biangularity?
- From: T
- Re: Biangularity?
- References:
- Biangularity?
- From: The Crow
- Re: Biangularity?
- From: T
- Biangularity?
- Prev by Date: Re: Squats: All The Way OR Just Below Parallel ??
- Next by Date: Re: Calculating a 1RM???
- Previous by thread: Re: Biangularity?
- Next by thread: Re: Biangularity?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
