Talk:Weight training

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Weight training article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Weight training is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 3, 2005.
Article Milestones Date Process Result January 2, 2005 Peer review Reviewed January 27, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted March 4, 2007 Featured article review Demoted Current Status: Former featured article

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Everydaylife article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Merger discussion

Contents 1 Removal of X-reps 2 HIT 3 Common Concerns 4 Weight training after breast cancer 5 Intensity, Volume, Frequency Table 6 Pictures to compare using a different number of reps 7 What is the effect of different repetition speeds? 8 Featured Article Review 9 Merge between Strength Training, Weight Training and Resistance training

[edit] Removal of X-reps

I am removing X-reps from this article for the following reasons:

• X-reps seem to be an advertising gimmick for an e-book. The link from the Weight training article goes straight to their advertisment for the e-book. Wikipedia should not be used as an advertising vehicle for every e-book author who has a new bodybuilding method (even if it's a good one).
• The definition of what constitutes an X-rep seems to have changed over time. An older (1997) article by Steve Holman says "X-Rep training is simply placing a muscle in its completely contracted position, or close to it, against resistance and holding it there until the muscle can no longer contract."[1] This is very different from the definition given in the Weight training article. What assurance do we have that the definition won't change again later?
• X-reps do not seem to be a significant innovation over older methods. A posting on a discussion forum from 2004 says "I did read the e-book. It′s basically this 'go to failure, then do mid-range partials'."[2] This is closer to how an X-rep is defined in the Weight training article. However, this definition sounds a lot like "burns" as described in the book Mass! by Robert Kennedy and Dennis B. Weis. The only difference is that with burns you perform the partials at the top of the contraction.

Therefore, I'm going to replace the X-rep definition with a definition of "burns". - Gnbonney 18:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

After further reading[3], I am even more convinced that X-reps is just a variation of burns. - Gnbonney 21:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair call, although we should probably mention that X-Rep is another name for burns to clear up the misconception (which I must admit that I also had) that they are two different things. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 23:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, but then what's to stop the x-rep creators from changing their definition again so they can say that it's not the same? - Gnbonney 16:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the person who added that definition was me! There's nothing to stop someone new from coming along and rewriting the definition (which is always the case the case for a wiki), but you can rest assured that I won't be reverting this change. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 05:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'll put your definition back and add something that says it's a variation of burns. - Gnbonney 14:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HIT

Hello, I'm interested in attempting High Intensity Training. Is there a certain regimin I should follow to optain a good level of muscle mass and strengh? I am not to concerned about endourence. Thanks. -- AS Artimour 03:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I recommend you ask that question in a forum e.g. www.abcbodybuilding.com etc. etc. where people will be more than happy to help. please do not clog the discussion forum with such questions. TheGrandMaster1 03:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common Concerns

The information in this section is good, but should be set up in a different form from a FAQ to sound more encyclopedic Pnkrockr 15:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The information content can be presented in a slightly different format, more conducive to encyclopedic reading ----------> please see what is and what is not wikipedia for better guidelines. TheGrandMaster1 03:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weight training after breast cancer

I am looking (and looking and looking) for a reasoned discussion of upper body strength exercises for post-mastectomy subjects. There are several considerations: Simple mastectomy vs mastectomy plus removal of lymph nodes; Reconstructive surgery (implants vs TRAM vs other types of reconstruction). I have looked for help in the Komen and Armstrong web sites, various BC blogs, from my surgeons (oncologist and plastic), a physical therapist, and an exercise physiologist. No help anywhere.

All agree that cardio exercise is good: treadmill, ellipitical runner, stairs, bicycle. However, the two surgeons gave me these two extremes: don't lift more than 5 pounds (breast cancer specialist) and don't play competition tennis (plastic surgeon). There must be some middle ground that will allow me to regain strength in my arm, participate in some sports (softball, volleyball), carry in the groceries, and keep from becoming the frail old lady who can't lift a 10 pound sack of sugar and must therefore go into a nursing home. Am I forever banned from yoga because I shouldn't lift my arm over my head? LR Nell 01:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)LR Nell

Intuitive training may be your answer. If you can't objectively work out what kind of training you require, then base your training on how your body feels when you try various exercises. With some practice you can learn to distinguish normal soreness (from unaccustomed exercises) and pain (from overuse). Begin with very light weights, and build up slowly. You may be suprised at how much strength you can regain this way. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intensity, Volume, Frequency Table

It appears that there is a typo in the Intensity, volume, frequency table. The Low Intensity value lists a weight of 80-100% of 1RM. I would think this should be transposed with the value for High Intensity. Also, I'd recommend changing the term "Intensity" to "Load", or vice versa, in order to correspond with the Performance Goals table. Joseph bashe 19:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures to compare using a different number of reps

I think it would useful to show how doing different number of repetitions can effect how different parts of the body can look. In particular between 1 rep, 6 reps, 10 reps, 15 reps & 20.

That'd be pretty impossible. WLU

[edit] What is the effect of different repetition speeds?

The following question was asked at the ref desk (science) today: What are the pros and cons to different repetition speeds when doing weight exercises? I do not know the answer, but it may be something that a knowledgeable person could add to this already good article. --Seejyb 22:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's my understanding if other contributors want to add. These are assuming the weight moved is close to the maximal contraction at each speed. Anything significantly less than close to the max force and the muscle should be building pretty much straight endurance (not really, but the reality is much more complicated) A rapid contraction uses a strong activation of the muscle (an aspect of neurological strength, rather than purely muscular strength) at the start of the movement, to allow the muscle to overcome the inertia of the weight. This would be similar to a plyometric contraction, but without the stretch cycle. The part of the motor unit that is trained is the neurons, and probably the strength a little bit. A slower contraction would work the strength and endurance of the muscle, building contractile proteins and the energy systems, mostly the phosphagens I'd think. The muscle exerts much of the force initially to overcome inertia, the rest of the contraction is to maintain the movement of the weight. The amount of weight moved is less than during a fast contraction, but more than a super slow one. The muscle builds up mostly phosphagens and intramuscular glucose. An extremely slow contraction never overcomes inertia, it is constantly fighting the full mass of the weight. The muscle has to work very hard, burns through the phosphagens very quickly and starts to accumulate lactic acid. Lots of tearing and DOMS. The long-term effect is going to be neovascularization, probably not much change to the phosphagens, but high build-up of glucose as well. Lots of tearing on the eccentric as well. WLU 00:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• HAHA Nice answer. Kudos to you :) Wikipedia needs more of your editing.Cavell 05:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm never sure if people are serious or being e-sarcastic. Anyway, I don't think I could come up with any references, and it's pretty much original research based on my Kin degree.WLU 23:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• I was bieng serious. :) Cavell 01:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC) - In that case, thanks and yay for me! Much appreciated, I just wish I could provide the references.WLU

Repetition speed is an inmportant aspect of any athletes training program. There is an aspect of "time under tension" that is addressed at length online--however I have been having some difficulty pinning down any scientific literature on the matter. None of the websites I found sited any in particular. I ordered some journal articles recently on the matter so I may be able to give a more comprehensive answer later.

However, the main concern should be sport specificity. This should be the primary training concern of any strength or conditioning program (along with progressive overload and training variation). The body adapts itself to the stimuli it is subjected to and and adapts accordingly. One should attempt to mimic the movement type, speed, etc. of the sport the individual is most interested in to cause proper muscle fiber development, motor system consolidation, and other factors. Point being that if you are performing a sport that requires (or is preferential to) high power movements that require rapid muscular contractions, the athlete should train as such. --Reaper Man 17:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reaper Man

I disagree that the article should be sport specific, I think it should be based on the physiological changes and adaptations. Not everyone trains for a sport, but everyone experiences and can see the physiological changes that accompany exercise. BUT! within each speed, there should definitely be sport-based examples as that'll help people translate the theoretical knowledge into something more comprehensible to a non-specialist. I'd say if the references can be tracked down, the section should be added to the article starting with the physiology, then include within each speed a sport specific example, ideally from a single sport - football perhaps? Blockers for slow, kicker or QB for fast, I dunno what for medium I hate football. WLU 23:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I said sport specificity of training, but what I really meant was specificity of training (working too much with athletes). You want to mimic motions that you want the training to be for.

I think if you are training purely from an aesthetics perspective, training speed is irrelevant. All that needs to be remembered is to train at a slow enough speed that one can control his/her movements well and does not risk bouncing or using momentum/stretch-shortening to cheat in the lift. --Reaper Man 07:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sound's like you're talking about goal-based training, whether it's sport, aesthetics or health. Sport is the one where training speed would be the most germane though. But actually, I think this discussion should be taking place in strength training rather than weight training. And again, we're all still limited by references. WLU 13:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean, you want me to dig through my books and articles to find something dicussing repetition speed? I suppose I can do that. Admittedly, I am new to the editing process here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reaper Man (talk • contribs).

If you've got references that back up what I say, cool. I threw it together a priori, I'm not 100% that what I wrote is completely accurate - that's what prevents me from actually putting it into the article. If the references back me up, huzzah. WLU 00:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article Review

Bascially somebody got the the bright idea to "improve" this article by butchering it and drastically altering it to fit some new plan of theirs. Basically they tore up the new article and threw it away, ignoring the featured article warning that an FA is to be left alone as it is considered high quality. They had to come up with a way to merge or alter all the different systems of weight training: power lifting, bodybuilding, strength training, etc. Anyway if I sound upset it's because a couple if months it was still a fine article but somebody completely ignored the FA star and tore it down and decided to build it back up from scratch. Quadzilla99 07:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That was me, and my reasons were because weight training is one form of strength training, the others being resistance and isometric. All of the information that made it a FA is still on wikipedia, on the strength training page. The information that remains should be specific to weight training alone, and allows it to be differentiated from the other types of exercise. I've added a clearer link to the discussion below - in retrospect, doing a big change like that without putting in a clearer link to the discussion about such a big change was a bit foolish, so my apologies for not making it clearer. What issues did you have with the article as is? WLU 12:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A Discussion about the merger was listed for a couple weeks and everyone at that point was alloted time to comment. The consensus was to go ahead with the merger. Because an article is FA, doesn't mean it can't be improved upon. The fact that Strength training is evolving dictates that an article evolve with it, or it becomes obsolete. We're only striving to improve the article. Sure it can possibly be improved on further, but to revert doesn't allow the article to be truly representative of the industry. I think WLU did a good job on that very large project. I encourage you Quadzilla99 to further improve it. --Maniwar (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Improved upon? Surely you jest. Either way I commented there fairly early I believe, and it was a bad idea that should have been nuked. As for your definitions on Weight training/strength training, please don't try to explain exercise science to me. To be fair though, you made your decision and were within consensus so you did nothing wrong as far as Wikipedia goes. I also am doing nothing wrong in stating my belief that it wasn't broke and you fixed it till it was. Quadzilla99 06:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, all of the information that made weight training a featured article is still on wikipedia. All the stuff on general hypertrophy is there, it's in strength training. Nothing has been lost, but now the weight training article contains information that is specifically about 'training with weights', in a way that contrasts it with other types of strength training. Have a gander at the strength training article and see if there's anything you feel is missing, or should be moved back to the weight training page ('everything' doesn't count :). We can now work to bring weight training and strength training up to featured article status. WLU 12:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll just reprint what I said earlier as you must have missed it: "Improved upon? Surely you jest. Either way I commented there fairly early I believe, and it was a bad idea that should have been nuked. As for your definitions on Weight training/strength training, please don't try to explain exercise science to me. To be fair though, you made your decision and were within consensus so you did nothing wrong as far as Wikipedia goes. I also am doing nothing wrong in stating my belief that it wasn't broke and you fixed it till it was." Quadzilla99 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well go on then, WLU. Bring weight training back up to featured article status, please. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 05:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Or, since much of what earned FA for WT is now in ST, you/we can easily buff IT up to FA status. It's not like one is "their's" and the other "our's", as much as it may seem so. Sfahey 21:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge between Strength Training, Weight Training and Resistance training

This article underwent a discussion to merge with Resistance training and Strength training. The archived discussion can be found here