Post by cas9 on Oct 4, 2021 9:09:50 GMT
Oct 3, 2021 21:16:25 GMT cas9 said:
nobody would argue that an exergenie/gruntergenie is isometric right?And all jokes aside everybody might have their opinion but I would really like an explanation. Let's look at swimming for example. Why can't we swim a distance as fast, as we can run the same distance? Because the water is much denser then air is. So the friction between our skin and the surrounding liquid is the decisive factor for the resistance effecting the exercising person. But swimmnig is still an isotonic and not an isometric workload.
Another example would be classic cardio bikes. The resistance that those offer are mostly generated with little felt pads that press against a fly wheel. So the crucial factor that is generating the resistance is friction again, since the flywheel only ensures a certain eccentric component to replicate an ordinary bicycle as good as possible but the main resistance is due to the friction of the little brake pad. But spinning/riding a bicycle is also an isotonic training with a very dominant focus on the concentric aspect of training.
Summing up moving my arm from point A to point B in normal conditions is pretty easy. Doing the same movement under water becomes much harder because my skin collides with H20 molecules and creates friction. That friction replaced with with an exergenie doing the same movement is suddenly isometric!?
Just my thoughts to that topic it's not a trolling comment I really would enjoy to exchange with someone that has the opinion that using an 'exergenie fixed to a pole is isometric'. I'm trying to see this a little bit from an engineering point of view and it's just not adding up right in my head.
Thanks alot for your input!!