From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Does anybody know how many bowflexes in total were sold? -Unknown

No. -Unknown
That would depend on which models you mean. Tyciol 12:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


There are so many models going back to the inception of the machine. Recalls have been made on several models and those recalls indicate something about the models sold: This indicates the following: The Associated Press Nov. 16, 2004 - ...The latest recall affects 680,000 Bowflex Power Pro systems and 102,000 Bowflex Ultimate Fitness Machines, manufactured by The Nautilus Group, of Vancouver, Wash....

How about a marketing fad category?[edit]

is there some category relating to marketing fads or manias that this could be added to? the bowflex seems like more a triumph of marketing pandering to fantasy than anything else. I would also like to know who got rich off it? And what other infomercial fads are they now flogging to the hypnotized millions?

The company that manufactures the Bowflex was a pioneer in the so-called "infomercial revolution" of the 1990s. In fact, it is no accident that many companies have followed this model. If immitation is, indeed, the highest form of flatery, then Bowflex should feel flattered by the naked immitation of their promotional methods. And why? Because they work! "Millions sold" as McDonalds used to say in the 50s. Now its "Billions served"

POV issues[edit]

The current version of the article is ridiculously one-sided. Could've been writen by the marketing staff att Bowflex. Kanaman 12:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing about POV, it does sound like it was written by the Boflex (or whoever) marketing department. -Unknown
For sure, someone who dosen't suffer from the L-A-Z-Y virus should do something. Bennyboyz3000 11:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
While I do think it could use some expansion (like sections for each model released, instead of sporadically mentioning them), I don't really see how this is biased. What's wrong with it? Much of the information draws on the website, sure, but it is plenty critical, mentioning accidents, recalls, and reasons for creating the new Revolution version. I wrote much of that as the differences between the traditional and new bowflex model are very large and notable. Tyciol 12:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you the marketing staff at Nautilus (Bowflex) has not written this article. I would know. I work for Bowflex. I would be happy to update the page with the correct info.Sir ian of krypton 1:00 13 Febuary 2007 (UTC)

IMO this article just needs more details on things like the mechanics of the machine and the price. Type whatever data you can find since you claim to be in the company and all. If it is not written from a neutral point of view, other Wikipedians will edit it so the raw data remains but the bias does not. --Ihmhi 12:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and cleaned up the article with new information like prices and details. Also added refrences. Someone who knows the proper formatting might want to go in and put where the references go, I know where, but dont know how to do it.--Sir ian 21:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

how about someone writing about their credit offer to sell you the 2k item for $20 a month for lord knows how long? i've seen the ads and have always been curious as to how much one would end up paying and, from that, wondered if they were ripping people off royally.

If you check their site, they make you sign up for their credit card to do it - already questionable. 19:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


Wouldn't it make sense to point out something like this:

The use of material deformation for resistance makes the machine lighter than a comparable machine using weight as a source of resistance. Additionally, the machine is safer for an single individual to use than, say, free weights.

ThreeE 00:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Model list - really needed?[edit]

While I respect the conclusion of the deletion discussion from 2004, that the Bowflex itself qualifies as notable, I question the need for the extensive list of models which currently comprises most of the article. After all, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If people wanted that information, I'm sure they could easily find it on the website.

Thoughts? Robin S (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I liked the info. (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I liked it too, but the formatting could be handled in an a more streamlined manor, I work on it latter but am currently too sleepy to fix it now (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


Why does NordicTrack redirect to this article? Is NordicTrack associated with BowFlex? Right now it is only mentioned in the See Also section. —Ost (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Pearl Izumi[edit]

Why in the world would Pearl Izumi redirect here? The two don't seem related at all. --BennyD (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


It would be very nice to see some objective analysis as to whether or not these things actually work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Statements about the products' effectiveness are probably best left to consumer review sites. There are too many possible opinions that could be equally valid, and very few that could be classified as "settled" knowledge for an encyclopedia. (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"Bowflex death" section?[edit]

Do you think this section is relevant or necessary? Bowflex goes to great lengths to explain how to use their products safely and that it's crucial to do so. Nonetheless, it's not difficult to kill or seriously injure one's self by deliberately misusing any product of this type. Documenting such irresponsibility here seems unfairly negative.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyFielding (talkcontribs) 03:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

@AndyFielding: I removed the section which had two citations. One did not mention that a Bowflex was involved at all and instead says "Justin decided to choke himself by leaning his neck into a strap anchored on a piece of exercise equipment."[1] and the other made it very clear that the Bowflex was not the cause of the death.[2] A summary by the Nevada County Sheriff’s Office includes "Though there was exercise equipment inside the room where the incident occurred, it was determined it did not cause the death."[3] It looks like he died on September 20, 2010 meaning it's been nearly six years. RIP. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Marc. – AndyFielding (talk) 08:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Remove Flags?[edit]

I noticed that there were flags for marketing language, so I went ahead and removed such jargon. Also, I made sure to remove all references that cited the company website and replaced them with 3rd party additional citations.DeskSitter (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your edits to remove the marketing language as well as replacing the first party citations. I also noticed that the lead section needed to be beefed up and went ahead and elaborated on this section. I will go ahead and remove all three flags. CafeNoName (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bowflex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)