ROM - The 4-Minute CrossTrainer

clarabelle · 8th April 2005, 05:17 PM

http://www.fastexercise.com/

This machine costs $14,000 and is meant to be used 4 to 8 minutes per day.

The Website features research that shows the machine is more effective at increasing aerobic capacity than 30 minutes per day on a treadmill.

To me, this seems amazing enough to qualify for the million dollar challenge.

Anyone here familiar with this scam?

Floyt · 8th April 2005, 06:29 PM

Well, they DO present a lot of information on oxygen uptake, muscle groups etc, which looks generally acceptable to not-really-up-to-date-in-physiology me. There might be faulty extrapolations in there, I shouldn't wonder - just ramping up along an "oxygen uptake by exercise time" graph feels a deal to linear for biological processes.
The rant about "What do experts know?" on the front page is a bit of an alarming sign, too.

clarabelle · 8th April 2005, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Floyt
Well, they DO present a lot of information on oxygen uptake, muscle groups etc, which looks generally acceptable to not-really-up-to-date-in-physiology me.

Their website states "The same 180 pound person will burn 465 calories as a result of 4 minutes on the ROM machine." My understanding is that a person running a 4 minute mile burns only slighter more kcals than someone walking the same distance - about 100 kcals. Could their machine actually cause a person to burn more energy than a miler making a maximum effort?

Terry · 8th April 2005, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by clarabelle
Their website states "The same 180 pound person will burn 465 calories as a result of 4 minutes on the ROM machine."

465Kcal in 4 minutes is 8 kilowatts. Based on known power outputs of elite cyclists (Lance Armstrong can sustain 600w for around an hour, track sprinters can do well over a kilowatt for around one minute), I seriously doubt that the average joe is going to be able to do this. In fact I'd be amazed if this were possible for even the elite of explosive power athletes.

--Terry.

Terry · 8th April 2005, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Terry
465Kcal in 4 minutes is 8 kilowatts. Based on known power outputs of elite cyclists (Lance Armstrong can sustain 600w for around an hour, track sprinters can do well over a kilowatt for around one minute), I seriously doubt that the average joe is going to be able to do this.

Crud, I forgot to figure in metabolic efficiency. You'd be doing about 1.3 Kw of mechanical output to burn 8 Kw. That's still a heck of a lot, but within the bounds of possibility for an elite athlete.

--Terry.

El Greco · 8th April 2005, 11:27 PM

It's the new fashion of presenting some valid studies and then extrapolating to pure BS. So, they cite some valid studies about the better effectiveness of High Intensity Interval Training as opposed to traditional low intensity aerobic work as far as aerobic capacity and general fitness is concerned, and then they go on with this completely unjustified conclusion:

Quote:

During the 4 minutes on the ROM you use 55% of your muscles and you use them through an average of 80% of their range of motion (ROM stands for Range of Motion). The total percentage of muscle cells involved in the ROM exercise are 12 times as many as the 3.75% used on a treadmill because 80% of 55% of your muscles is 44% of all your muscle cells that are stimulated to an increased metabolism. During the 4 minute ROM workout the 180 pound person burns only 40 calories. But those 44% of the body's muscle cells that have been stimulated to increased metabolism will burn another 150 calories in the 2 hours after the 4 minute ROM exercise and they will burn another 275 calories in the remaining time of a 24 hour period.

This is ridiculous. Not only the percentages of muscle usage are completely arbitrary, but the estimation of post-exercise energy consumption is outrageous. If I had here the guy who wrote this I'd punch him really hard. Sometimes I think that I could live a very happy life just by destroying such crooks.

For a realistic view of what to expect as far as EPOC is concerned see this.

I wanted to read more of what that mofo has been writing, but unfortunately my blood pressure has skyrocketed since I read the above.

Dr. Imago · 9th April 2005, 09:40 AM

This seems like it would be fairly easy to test this device. This could be accomplished by doing physiologic testing directed specifically on this machine. None of the studies quoted on the page specifically tested the machine itself, but reference HIIT in other settings (although the way they referenced the studies on their website dubiously suggests and infers that they did).

I wouldn't worry too much, in the meantime, about this catching on. The pricetag is prohibitively expensive and the only people likely to get suckered into buying one are people who have nothing better to do with their money anyway.

-TT

8th April 2005, 05:17 PM	#1
clarabelle New Blood Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15	ROM - The 4-Minute CrossTrainer http://www.fastexercise.com/ This machine costs $14,000 and is meant to be used 4 to 8 minutes per day. The Website features research that shows the machine is more effective at increasing aerobic capacity than 30 minutes per day on a treadmill. To me, this seems amazing enough to qualify for the million dollar challenge. Anyone here familiar with this scam?
clarabelle New Blood Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15

8th April 2005, 06:29 PM	#2
Floyt Chordate Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Cape Town. Still not mugged. Plenty of chameleons though, and stepped on a cobra. Posts: 1,684	Well, they DO present a lot of information on oxygen uptake, muscle groups etc, which looks generally acceptable to not-really-up-to-date-in-physiology me. There might be faulty extrapolations in there, I shouldn't wonder - just ramping up along an "oxygen uptake by exercise time" graph feels a deal to linear for biological processes. The rant about "What do experts know?" on the front page is a bit of an alarming sign, too.
	__________________ They had no god; they had no gods; they had no faith. What they appear to have had is a working metaphor. - Ursula K. Le Guin, "Always Coming Home"

8th April 2005, 07:42 PM	#3
clarabelle New Blood Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15	Quote: Originally posted by Floyt Well, they DO present a lot of information on oxygen uptake, muscle groups etc, which looks generally acceptable to not-really-up-to-date-in-physiology me. Their website states "The same 180 pound person will burn 465 calories as a result of 4 minutes on the ROM machine." My understanding is that a person running a 4 minute mile burns only slighter more kcals than someone walking the same distance - about 100 kcals. Could their machine actually cause a person to burn more energy than a miler making a maximum effort?
clarabelle New Blood Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15

8th April 2005, 10:02 PM	#4
Terry Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 6,433	Quote: Originally posted by clarabelle Their website states "The same 180 pound person will burn 465 calories as a result of 4 minutes on the ROM machine." 465Kcal in 4 minutes is 8 kilowatts. Based on known power outputs of elite cyclists (Lance Armstrong can sustain 600w for around an hour, track sprinters can do well over a kilowatt for around one minute), I seriously doubt that the average joe is going to be able to do this. In fact I'd be amazed if this were possible for even the elite of explosive power athletes. --Terry.
Terry Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 6,433

8th April 2005, 10:36 PM	#5
Terry Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 6,433	Quote: Originally posted by Terry 465Kcal in 4 minutes is 8 kilowatts. Based on known power outputs of elite cyclists (Lance Armstrong can sustain 600w for around an hour, track sprinters can do well over a kilowatt for around one minute), I seriously doubt that the average joe is going to be able to do this. Crud, I forgot to figure in metabolic efficiency. You'd be doing about 1.3 Kw of mechanical output to burn 8 Kw. That's still a heck of a lot, but within the bounds of possibility for an elite athlete. --Terry.
Terry Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 6,433

8th April 2005, 11:27 PM	#6
El Greco Summer worshipper Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 16,532	It's the new fashion of presenting some valid studies and then extrapolating to pure BS. So, they cite some valid studies about the better effectiveness of High Intensity Interval Training as opposed to traditional low intensity aerobic work as far as aerobic capacity and general fitness is concerned, and then they go on with this completely unjustified conclusion: Quote: During the 4 minutes on the ROM you use 55% of your muscles and you use them through an average of 80% of their range of motion (ROM stands for Range of Motion). The total percentage of muscle cells involved in the ROM exercise are 12 times as many as the 3.75% used on a treadmill because 80% of 55% of your muscles is 44% of all your muscle cells that are stimulated to an increased metabolism. During the 4 minute ROM workout the 180 pound person burns only 40 calories. But those 44% of the body's muscle cells that have been stimulated to increased metabolism will burn another 150 calories in the 2 hours after the 4 minute ROM exercise and they will burn another 275 calories in the remaining time of a 24 hour period. This is ridiculous. Not only the percentages of muscle usage are completely arbitrary, but the estimation of post-exercise energy consumption is outrageous. If I had here the guy who wrote this I'd punch him really hard. Sometimes I think that I could live a very happy life just by destroying such crooks. For a realistic view of what to expect as far as EPOC is concerned see this. I wanted to read more of what that mofo has been writing, but unfortunately my blood pressure has skyrocketed since I read the above.
	__________________ "Robbing a bank is no crime compared to owning one" - Bertolt Brecht

9th April 2005, 09:40 AM	#7
Dr. Imago Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,620	This seems like it would be fairly easy to test this device. This could be accomplished by doing physiologic testing directed specifically on this machine. None of the studies quoted on the page specifically tested the machine itself, but reference HIIT in other settings (although the way they referenced the studies on their website dubiously suggests and infers that they did). I wouldn't worry too much, in the meantime, about this catching on. The pricetag is prohibitively expensive and the only people likely to get suckered into buying one are people who have nothing better to do with their money anyway. -TT
Dr. Imago Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,620	__________________ DISCLAIMER: The above post is for informational and/or educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for the professional judgment of, in direct consultation with, a health care professional in diagnosing, treating, and/or preventing any disease or disorder. It is not to be construed as individualized medical advice, diagnosis, or a treatment recommendation. Your reliance upon the information obtained or used by you at, through, or as a result of this post is solely at your own risk.