SKU: 24090316065
cybex 525at for sale

cybex 525at for sale Cybex 525AT Arc Trainer

$26.13 $29.03
Save 10%
No.2 Bestseller on piotrzbierski.com >

Shipping Estimate
USA
  • USA
  • CAN

Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Jul 13 - Jul 18

Promo Codes Available:

For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15

Description

cybex 525at for sale Cybex 525AT Arc TrainerWhether at home or at the gym, the 525AT Arc Trainer from Cybex is a training force to be reckoned with. Built for durability and high quality, commercial level cross training, this machine helps produce fast results and burns more calories than is possible with traditional elliptical machines or even most other cross trainers. With a variety of strengthening and conditioning settings, this machine contains user friendly technology to fully customize

Whether at home or at the gym, the 525AT Arc Trainer from Cybex is a training force to be reckoned with. Built for durability and high-quality, commercial level cross training, this machine helps produce fast results and burns more calories than is possible with traditional elliptical machines or even most other cross trainers. With a variety of strengthening and conditioning settings, this machine contains user-friendly technology to fully customize any workout.

Key features of the Cybex 525AT:

The 525AT Arc Trainer is a high-end commercial cross training workout machine that can be used primarily for weight loss, cardio, and strength training.

  • Display: Easily view your time, strides per minute, calories burned, and heart rate on a graphic 8 by 5 LED screen. 
  • Glide, Stride, and Climb Zones: Choose from 21 different incline levels to workout in Glide, Stride, or Climb. Spending time in each will work on different muscles and help increase your endurance. 
  • Load Dependency: This machine is designed to scale its resistance according to your weight, making sure you get the best training no matter what size you are. 
  • Muscle Targeting: The 525AT’s unique range of incline and resistance settings make it possible for you to target different muscle groups for overall strengthening and conditioning.
  • Reverse Arc Motion: This advanced stride technology makes your legs and feet move in a natural, biomechanically correct pathway, thus preventing injury and stress to the joints.  

  • Workout Selections: Customize your training session by selecting one from Quick Start (Manual mode), three weight loss modes, three cardio, and two strength. Each workout program has 10 levels and controls both the incline and resistance during your session.

The 525AT Arc Trainer with E3 View Embedded Monitor is great for meeting a lot of different strengthening and conditioning standards. Now you can:

  • Burn more up to 16 percent calories than traditional elliptical training machines largely thanks to the Arc Motion technology.
  • Keep track of your heart rate using wireless grips.
  • Match the resistance and incline to your physical capabilities and training needs.
  • Build up your endurance and training in strength, endurance, cardio, power, and weight loss.
  • Work on different muscle groups by alternating between the Glide, Stride, and Climb positions.
  • Save yourself from unnecessary knee and hip joint strain with your legs kept in the proper biomechanical position during your session.

Tim Garbach, Retail Sales Director, recommends the Cybex 525AT Arc Trainer. "I’m getting old, and I’m getting rickety," says Tim. "That’s a dangerous combination for someone looking to burn fat. Think about it. Burning fat requires repetitive motion. The right repetitive motion will get you there safely and you can do it for the long-haul. The wrong repetitive motion gets you hurt, discouraged, and then fat! Getting a dripping sweat on is an absolute must but not at the expense of my joints!  And that is why the Cybex Arc Trainer is by far, one of the safest  pieces of cardio on the market!"

A commercial-quality cross trainer with the patented Arc design that gives fast fitness results. Train for weight loss, strength and power on one machine. The Cybex 525AT Arc Trainer® offers broad incline and resistance ranges to do the work of three fitness machines in one. At the lower incline levels, the “glide” is a cross country skier. In the mid-range levels, the motion is a “stride” (like an elliptical except with proper positioning). At the high levels, it’s the “climb” of a stepper or climber. Research shows that the Cybex Arc Trainer burns more calories than any other cross trainer or elliptical tested.

USER-FRIENDLY FITNESS TECHNOLOGY

Cybex 525 cardio machines make innovative use of QR codes to provide users with easy access to equipment information and workouts via a mobile device. Guests, employees, and residents can select cardio workouts that best meet their fitness goals. The optional high definition 3 Cardio View high definition monitor offers three viewing modes on a 15.6” embedded display.

SPECIFICATIONS

Product Number : 525AT

Incline Levels : 21

Stride Length : 24 (61 cm)

Resistance Range : up to 600 Watts

Drive type : Two-stage drive

Brake : Brushless Eddy current brake

Dimensions
(L x W x H) : 76" x 30" x 62.5" 
193cm x 76cm x 159cm

Machine Weight : 364 lbs (165 kg)

Maximum User Weight : 400 lbs (181 kg)

Power : AC Powered: 115V, 208-220V, 230V 

Display : Graphic display of workout profile via 8 × 5 LED; Numeric display of time, calories, strides per minute, calories per hour and heart rate including multi-color indication of heart rate range; Lower display shows incline and resistance level

Workouts : Quick Start (Manual mode), three weight loss, three cardio, two strength; Workouts have 10 levels and controls both incline and resistance.

Compliance : ETL listed to UL 1647, FCC Class B, ASTM, EN 957, CE Low Voltage Directive, EMC and RoHS

Convenience Features : Split level display with magazine rack. Centrally located water bottle holder and dual utility trays.

Heart Rate Monitoring : Contact Grips and Wireless

Color : Choice of seven standard frame colors (Black Chrome, Nightstorm Black, Cumulus White, Platinum Sparkle, Arctic White, Eclipse Black, Metaltone Gold), premium and exclusive colors, as well as over 180 custom colors.

Languages : English, French, German, Spanish, Swedish, Japanese, Russian, Danish, Dutch

AV/Ent. : Optional MYE wireless audio receiver
Optional E3 View embedded HD monitor 
Optional iPod/iPhone integration with 30-pin connector. Users can easily charge an iPod or iPhone, listen to music, switch tracks, and control volume.

Connectivity : Made for iPod® Works with iPhone® (optional)

AC Adaptor : N/A

Warranty : Warranty Details

Shipping Notes
  • Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
  • Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
  • Delivery to the USA:
  1. Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
  • If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
  • We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
  • Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
  • To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
  • Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
SKU: 24090316065

Discover Niche Categories That Outsell cybex 525at for sale

Top-Converting Item to Boost Your Average Order

4.9 ★★★★★
Based on 2167 reviews
Sort
Highest Rating
Newest First
Oldest First
Product Reviews
G
Verified Purchase
garynini
Phoenix, US
★★★★★ 5
Clear, cogent, and illuminating
Format: Kindle
Clear, cogent, and illuminating explanation of the difference between two approaches to interpreting the Constitution: originalism and the Living Constitution
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on September 18, 2015
C
Verified Purchase
Chris Morton
Louisville, US
★★★★★ 5
Excellent!!!
Format: Kindle
A wonderfully refreshing argument for "the living constitution". Most surprisingly is that much of the argument is based in the philosophy of Edmund Burke, father of modern conservatism.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on February 22, 2017
M
Verified Purchase
Matt Cockerill
Birmingham, US
★★★★★ 5
Five Stars
Format: Hardcover
Strauss demolishes originalism in a concise and accessible volume.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 11, 2014
S
Verified Purchase
Stephen J. Jaros
Grantham, US
★★★★★ 3
Ultimately disappointing .. but still a good read
Format: Hardcover
This book does have a few commendable features. It is written in laymen's language, you don't have to be a constitutional law scholar like David A. Strauss to comprehend the arguments. And it's short. Won't take more than a couple of hours to read. But as a critique of the "originalist" constitutional doctrine, it is hit and miss. For example, Strauss argues that originalism has three major flaws (p.18): 1) the impossibility of determining what the understanding of the founding fathers was on a particular issue. 2) the impossibility of translating an original understanding so that it addresses today's problems. 3) no answer for Thomas Jefferson's question about why we, the living, should be governed by the "dead hand" of past generations, including the founders. Of these three, the first is the most telling, because it is indeed sometimes the case that we do not know what the founders would have thought about a particular issue, because that issue simply did not exist at the time of the enactment of the constitution or a particular amendment, or because that original meaning could be lost to history. The patent-ability of new life forms as a result of genetic engineering being a good example (but, other technological examples, like cases related to airplanes and cars, are NOT good examples, since while the founders were unaware of these technological advances, it's safe to assume they would recognize them as transportation vehicles, so their understanding of ships and horse carriages would apply to them). That's why i am what Strauss might call a "sometimes originalist" - my view is that IF there is no reasonable doubt about what the enactors of a constitutional provision would have thought about a case, then that should control the decision a court arrives at. But obviously, if the issue was unknown to the enactors, or if their views are forever lost to us due to the passage of time, then there is no "original understanding" of that particular issue, and some other method of constitutional interpretation must be relied on. The second and third objections are far less compelling to me. The second objection is IMO a non-issue. To ask "well, we know that in 1880 the enactors of the 14th amendment did not believe its equal protection clause outlawed employment discrimination against women, but would they believe that if they were living in the year 2000, with all the economic/cultural/technological changes that have developed over those 120 years?" is an irrelevant question. It's like asking if the 1969 Congress that enacted the Clean Air Act would still enact it if that Congress were to debate the issue in 2010: it's purely speculative and ungermane, since neither statutes nor constitutional provisions have expiration dates on them. Likewise, the 3rd objection is both shallow and disingenuous. Shallow because Jefferson clearly understood that the constitution, like laws enacted by the legislature, are subject to change by later generations, who can amend the constitution or pass new legislation to supersede what previous generations have accomplished. Disingenuous, because the invocation of Jefferson seems to be a tactical decision by Strauss, a way to tweak originalists by citing one of the very greatest of our founding fathers. Yet Jefferson can also be quoted to support an originalist view. For example, in 1801 he said: "The Constitution on which our union rests, shall be administered by me according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States, at the time of its adoption....These explanations are preserved in the publications of the time, and are too recent in the memories of most men to admit of question." (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, quoted from a letter dated 3/27/1801). The first part of this quote clearly indicates that Jefferson believed that constitutional provisions should be interpreted according to original understanding, not "modern, evolved" standards of meaning as David Strauss would contend. The second part speaks to the need i identified before, that of knowing within the bounds of reasonable doubt what the enactors understood a provision to mean. Beyond all this, though, is David Strauss's contention that a "living constitution", as defined by a common-law like accretion of judicial precedent in constitutional matters that leave the original meaning of the text behind, is necessary because otherwise our constitution would become an archaic relic unable to meet the demands of a changing society, and that the formal amendment process is too slow and cumbersome. Professor Strauss correctly notes that Jefferson believed that our institutions must evolve with the development of society; however, he crucially fails to note that to Jefferson, the primary mechanism of such innovation was to be the actions of the legislature. Constitutional provisions are expounded in broad, general language not to enable future judges to interpret them in light of changing societal conditions, but to permit elected bodies, like legislatures and congress, wide latitude to address the problems of today. Legislative bodies, which directly reflect the ebbs and flows of societal change and are accountable to the people, were Jefferson's preferred vehicle of constitutional innovation, not the decisions of insulated, life-tenured court judges. On this point, unlike on many others, Jefferson was in agreement with John Marshall. As Jean Edward Smith (1996) writes "When (in McCulloch v. Maryland) Marshall spoke of the Constitution as "intended for ages to come" and of the need to adapt it "to the various crises of human affairs", he was alluding to the responsibility of Congress, not the Court. And the limits on Congress were defined by the political process, not the judiciary" (p. 445). Thus, for example, while the enactors of the 14th amendment did not intend for it to ban employment discrimination against women, it also was not intended to prevent Congress or the state legislatures, at the time of the enactment or in the future, from enacting legislation that does protect women from employment discrimination should that type of legislation be deemed necessary or advisable. Jefferson was far more wary of "innovative" actions by judges, exemplified by his belief that "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please". Yet it is exactly this type of judicial activism that Strauss means when advocates a "living constitution". Strauss's fundamental error is revealed on page 103 when he says that "We cannot say that the text of the constitution does not matter ... no (textual) provision of the constitution can be overruled in the way a precedent can, or disregarded the way original understandings often are". What Strauss is saying here (well, he wouldn't put it this way, but this is my view of the matter) is that when a judge wants to be activist, to impose his/her personal policy preferences on a case, it's very important that the judge somehow, through clever verbal gymnastics, no matter how convoluted, "ground" that ruling in some actual constitutional-textual language. This is very important for achieving the political purpose of maintaining respect for the court in the eyes of the public. But to me, Strauss creates a false dichotomy: The text of the constitution is ONE AND THE SAME with its "original understanding". The 'text', the actual words of the constitution, does not exist independent of the original understanding of those words, the text is merely the communicative vessel used to convey that original understanding. That's the way language works. It's a method to convey meaning. Thus, to invoke the Due Process Clause of the 5th amendment to outlaw Federal segregation laws (as the Court did in 1955) when the enactors of the 5th amendment clearly (as Strauss admits) did not intend for it to mean that, is the SAME THING as ignoring the "text" of the constitution, since the text and original understanding are one and the same. Overall, i recommend this book. One will learn alot about constitutional history, and Professor Strauss is surely correct in that the "living constitution" view is in fact the dominant way in which the Court has gone about its business in practice, regardless of what legal theoreticians have thought. But, don't expect to be convinced by much Professor Strauss has to say about why this is a good thing.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 18, 2010
R
Ross L. Meyer
Battle Creek, US
★★★★★ 5
Originalist v Living Document , 5 - 4
Format: Hardcover
I found the author's arguments to be logical and compelling. Those who embrace the so-called originalist view of the Constitution, for example Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, claim that they know - with great certainty - the absolute intent of the Constitution's authors. Further they claim that the Constitution provides specifics and principles which of course it does. It is simple to understand the specifics, but what about the principles? Principles, it seems to me, can and do have differing interpretations. One of the definitions of the word principle found in Merriam-Webster states, "a moral rule or belief that helps you know what is right and wrong and that influences your actions." As we all know, rules and beliefs frequently mean different things to different people. If it were not so, Supreme Court decisions would inevitably be decided 9 - 0. Many are familiar with the Supreme Court's case District of Columbia v. Heller in which Justice Scalia opined that the Second Amendment shouldn't stop the U.S. from barring certain weapons. While his opinion certainly seems reasonable to me, I cannot find that principle in the Constitution. Rather it seems to be a logical conclusion based on modern society, mores, and laws - perhaps, as Professor Strauss argues, Common Law. Whether one accepts the originalist view of the Constitution or, as I, believes a living interpretation of the great document is preferable, the one thing we can all agree on is that our nation is one of laws. To that end, it is incumbent on all citizens to accept and abide by the pronouncements of our judges, agree with them or not.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 18, 2014

recommand products

Baby Trend Snap-N-Go EX Universal Infant Car Seat Carrier
27.76
Bugaboo Donkey 6 Stroller
20.86
Bugaboo Donkey 6 2-in-1 Stroller – Dimples Baby Brooklyn
22.63
Bugaboo
22.89
Britax 2017 B-Ready Stroller
27.63