Pros:No weights to smash little fingers; Gym sizzle at home; Very adequate resistance; Price; features.
Cons:No lat bar, just lat hand grips; no leg curl feature on leg attachment
The Bottom Line: Better overall workout value with gym-like sizzle in a lightweight, portable unit not to be found anywhere through all the land for $599.
I agonized for weeks on which direction to go in a home gym. As most of you probably found out there are dozens of quality home gym alternatives. All have their pluses.
Recommend this product?
In the end, we decided our key factors were *no* real weights to smash little household fingers; *portability, just don't want a monster 300lb weight device (already have a 270 lb elliptical).
I seriously considered the glide board type devices ala Total Gym/Total Trainer but in the end decided a more gym-like feel from a Bowflex would hold our interest better.
Nautilus owns Schwinn AND Bowflex. Hence, Schwinn offers a couple home gyms that use Bowfex Technology.
The Schwinn Comp is for the most part a Bowflex Power Pro with lat and leg features. Uses identical power rods, ball bearing pulleys, hand grips, cables, etc. It has several advantages over it's Bowflex cousin:
*Price-$599 vs $1,200+
*Built in lat tower and leg extension
*Base plate is metal, not plastic
*Improved bench cushion
*Low pulley hand grips are in a MUCH EASIER position to reach from the incline bench position
Does have a couple disadvantages
*Leg bar is 2 way, not 3 way means no leg curl feature
*Lat tower uses hand grips, not a lat bar
*Guide books and materials not as fancy
However, with overall better features for the half the price, it took me very little time to decide on the Schwinn Comp vs. the Power Pro.
Although the Schwinn has a 2 year, not 7 or 10 year warranty. Some might be concerned about that. Power Rod warranty is the same, lifetime.
Finally, I understand some new Bowflex and Schwinn Bowflex models may be out soon; waiting a couple months could pay off. However I doubt if better features for $599 will come along.
Read all comments (1)