CACA Winner – Bowflex

REMEMBER: The CACA is all about what I/we don’t understand.  It does not suggest that the person, product or service is in any way dishonest, untruthful, scamming, etc.  It simply acknowledges that I/we do not understand how it is scientifically correct, honest, truthful, logical or legit.  By submitting someone or something for a CACA or awarding to someone or something a CACA, we are admitting our own shortcomings, not theirs. 

I cannot vouch for the current existence of any quotes or images I present in a CACA plea for help in understanding.  For example, websites change and people may remove things that are revealed to be wrong, mistaken, etc.  However, all images and quotes did exist at one time.

Bowflex confuses me. 

For the life of me, I cannot get their numbers to make sense.  Here is an example.

At, there are some before and after pictures of a couple supposed Bowflex users.  Here they are:


Interestingly, after six weeks, they seemed able to elevate their arms into what appear to be exactly the same positions.

That is astounding.

But my basic problem is not with the positioning.  It is with the numbers.  I do not understand them.  Perhaps someone out there can help me.  Here they are:

This graphic appears at

At, it explains this table as follows: "Women lost an average of 16.96 pounds of fat and men lost an average of 27.95 pounds of fat in only 6 weeks! These people didn't workout every day either. They worked out three times a week for only about 20-30 minutes. Hey – you can do that too! You can take 20 minutes out of your day for these kinds of results."

So in 6 weeks, on average, women lost 16.96 pounds of FAT.  Just about anywhere you will find that a pound of fat contains about 3500 calories.  That means that over 6 weeks, these women were in a negative caloric balance of 16.96 x 3500 calories or 59,360 calories.  This averages out to 9,893.3 calories per week or 1413.3 calories per day.  For men, the numbers are: a negative caloric balance of 97,825 calories over six weeks or 16,304.16 calories per week or 2,329.16 calories per day.

That is astounding.

But, you say, they actually did not lose that many calories since we are told that they were able to build muscle despite the negative intake numbers.  Okay.  Using weight loss of 24.25 pounds of pure fat for men (27.95 lb. fat - 3.70 lb. muscle = 24.25 lb. fat), they were in a negative caloric balance of 84,875 calories over six weeks, 14,145.83 per week and 2,020.83 per day.  For the women, using weight loss of 14.23 pounds of pure fat, they were in a negative caloric balance of 49,805 calories over six weeks, 8,300.83 calories per week and 1,185.83 per day.

That is astounding.

Oh yeah.  And they they only "worked out three times a week for only about 20-30 minutes."

That is astounding. 

One guy supposedly lost 60.75 pounds in 12 weeks.  That's a negative caloric balance of 212,625 calories over 12 weeks or 17,718.75 calories per week or 2,531.25 calories per day.  Here is his picture and caption from

Barry Ozer
Fat Loss: 60.75 lbs
Inches Lost: 12.625
Time Elapsed:
12 weeks

I cannot for the life of me figure out where all the calories went.  Even more, what did he eat to be in a daily negative caloric balance of 2500+ calories?  Is there an Atkins or South Beach Air Fern Diet?

What the heck, while we are there here are others from the same page.  You can do the math.


Tom Allen
Fat Loss: 23.48 lbs
Time Elapsed:
6 weeks 

Nancy Young
Fat Loss: 17.9 lbs
Inches Lost: 16
Time Elapsed:
6 weeks

Does Tom look like he has 24 pounds of fat to lose and if he did, does it look as if he lost 24 pounds of fat?

By the way, how do they do that thing with their arms?  I am still astounded.

To me, because of my limitations I am sure, these are unbelievable results.  Why every professional athletic team in the world hasn't snapped up these babies, discarded the weights and mothballed the bikes is a mystery to me.  If you extend these results out over a year, these women would add 23.66 pounds of pure muscle and the men would add a whopping 32.07 pounds of pure muscle.  If I were a bodybuilder, I'd save the money on steroids, avoid the possible health risks and own one of these.

Sadly, I am not a professional athlete and I am not a bodybuilder, so I have no incentive to buy a device whose results I cannot understand.

If someone out there can explain it to me, I'd be grateful.