Talk:Range of motion (exercise machine)

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Health and fitness Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The comparison part seems like a straight commercial for the xlr8 machine. Actually, the whole page does. It forgets to mention WHO developed the ROM machine, and any other competitors (there is also ultrafast cross trainer, another quickgym copy-cat). The "comparison chart" is taken directly from xlr8's website and is designed to make the xlr8 look better in nearly every respect. I don't think this is an honest article - if it would be, it would mention the history of development of the ROM and wouldn't just be a commercial for the xlr8 machine. (I am not affiliated with either company, I just arrived here researching the different alternatives available, and find this page NOT informative at all either in the development or as an honest comparison between the available alternatives/brands/manufacturers). Very biased. Noting this on page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.102.103.217 (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Way too biased

The whole thing reads like an ad, and the absence of the fact that none of the manufacturer claims have stood up to any form of scientific scrutiny is rather telling. Major revisions needed.

Add topic