Talk:Weight training

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Weight training article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Former featured article 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.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 3, 2005.
Peer review This Everydaylife article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Archive
Archives
Archive 1
Archive 2
Merger discussion


Contents

[edit] Redirection from Isokinetic exercise

I was looking the topic of isokinetic exercise up for my class and I was redirected to weight training. I believe this is a mistake but i am not 100% sure. My textbook "Health Psychology, an introduction to behavior and health" (2007) classes weightlifting as Isotonic exercise and says that Isokinetic exercise is mainly used in rehabilitation. (Harris77) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.112.16 (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


[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] 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] 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.—Preceding unsigned comment 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

[edit] How about adding MIT Open Course Ware: Weight Training to external links...

Hey guys!

How about adding MIT OCW's PE.720 Weight Training, Spring 2006 to external links? I know that this section always ends up cluttered with weight training websites, but I think the MIT course carries enough information to be a good way to read on (as external links are exactly about this, aren't they?). So think about it.

--phil 11:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say they are appropriate for external links on other wiki pages, notably directly linking the notes and movies to for weight training exercises to the equivalent wiki pages. The link itself isn't quite direct enough for my tastes to link to the weight training page itself, but I'm open to arguments. WLU 16:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] that women

why are they several pictures of that women with blue tanktop? this article isnt about here someone should get new pics.--Rekatj2 23:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Untill you can find different pictures that demonstrate the movements, the pictures should stay up. They're GFDL-licensed and show the movements discussed, so they're appropriate to the page. WLU 00:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
They are not appropriate because the woman is performing the lifts incorrectly. For example, on the dumbbell deadlift, she has the weights floating around her side, where they shouldn't be.
Not really an issue since wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Again, if you've better fair use images, feel free to substitute. WLU (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
That rule exists so pages don't turn into glorified instruction manuals, which is absolutely not the case here. Having images of people performing lifts incorrectly and with bad form and placing a caption beneath them indicating that the image correctly displays the lift is really no different than inserting false statements into the article. Not only that, but it is dangerous, given that a new trainee might emulate the poorly performed lifts displayed in the pictures on this particular page. Given the non-availability of fair use images, it would be prudent to remove the pictures until the appropriate fair use images are available. This having been said, I am going to remove the pictures for the time being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.226.54 (talk • contribs)
I think the pictures greatly enhance the page and add something to what would otherwise be a very dry, text-heavy article. Obviously your opinion is in the minority judging by Matt Crypto's revert. Also, I don't see anything egregiously wrong with the form. If you've further problems with this, please bring it up at a request for comment ; to date it looks like consensus is against you, and unless you've got a policy-based reason to remove them, then there's no need to remove them. WLU (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the picture of the "dumbbell deadlift" is NOT a picture of a dumbbell deadlift at all, it's a picture of a poorly executed dumbbell squat! A dumbbell deadlift looks more like this. I agree with the guy who said that this is a false statement. Remove it. Wikipedia is not a place that is supposed to look nice, with pictures as decoration. The pictures must be accurate. Noxteryn (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Fixed. WLU (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Safety Section

I changed the safety section to hopefully help people not end up like my best friend. Please read the link, it gives a better explanation than I can.[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.199.30 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a memorial and not a how-to guide. I've reverted to a more appropriate tone. WLU 00:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can say that having a squat rack or spotter shouldn't be under the safety section. It wasn't meant as a memorial or as a how-to, but as a disclaimer and safety precaution.

It is in the safety section. I've reworded to be a bit clearer. But it's in the safety section. And wikipedia has a disclaimer at the bottom of each page, it doesn't need another one. WLU 01:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm fine with that.


[edit] Weight training versus isometric training

I have respectfully asked the author(s) of the article to provide at least one citation for the statement "only strengthens the muscle at the specific joint angle" as it appears to misrepresent isometric training results.

Weight training versus isometric training

Isometric exercise provides a fixed amount of resistance based on the force output of the muscle. This only strengthens the muscle at the specific joint angle at which the isometric exercise occurs. In comparison, weight training strengthens the muscle throughout the entire range of motion of the joint. (citation please) PhilGM 10:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Kitai TA, Sale DG (1989). "Specificity of joint angle in isometric training". European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology 58 (7): 744-8. PMID 2737195.  The reference could be found in the isometric main, though this page is better for having it. WLU 16:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

-The above citation does not seem to support the statement "This only strengthens the muscle at the specific joint angle at which the isometric exercise occurs." The citation says 'Training increased voluntary strength at the training angle and the two adjacent angles only.' In reading the text, that means three angles, five degrees apart giving a range of ten degrees. i.e. When isometric exercises are done at 'beneficial' joint angles, they do have a positive training effect at 'multiple' joint angles.

Please consider the merits of making a comparitive statement in the weight training article which seems to suggest that weight training (meaning full or partial range training) is somehow better than isometric training, because it trains the muscle through the full range of the movement. Please also provide a citation [citation needed]to back up the statement that full range training has a positive effect on muscle strength at all joint angles. PhilGM 21:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've modified the section to demonstrate that there are improvements to nearby joint angles also. I don't think it needs further adjustment, the section states 'In comparison, weight training strengthens the muscle throughout the range of motion the joint is trained in', which basically says the muscle is trained in for the range it moves through. It could be worded a bit better I suppose, but the basic idea seems to be there. Weight training is superior in the sense that it trains the muscle for strength throughout the full joint angle from initating to terminating angle. Though really, weight training can be isometric training if the weight is held rather than lifted. Since during isometrics the joint does not move through an angle, it only trains one angle. In any case, 'better' is always a relative measure - if you're aiming to train a sticking point, isometrics are better. If you wish to train a full range of motion, weights are better in the sense that it more efficient to train full-range reps. As for a reference, it's pretty much taken as fact that strength training increases strength throughout the range. But here's some references - [5], [6], [7], though here is one that seems to contradict this. Perhaps this is something that may be better resolved outside wikipedia first. Though from what I know it's considered a done deal. I'll see if I can turn up a reference in my textbooks. WLU 01:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

WLU thanks for your work in finding references and supplying them here. thanks for rewording the section in question to reflect the research that isometric methods show improvements in strength in addition to the training angle.

May I suggest that you remove the word 'only' from this statement: 'This only strengthens the muscle at the specific joint angle at which the isometric exercise occurs and to a lesser extent, proximal joint angles.' as this is contradictory to the rest of the sentence, because if you only have one leg press machine available, you don't have other leg press machines available to a lesser extent in proximal locations. Also full range training may not be the most effective way to train for strength in a full range. Recent research shows that partial range training can give effectively the same results as full range training: [8] Possibly the article would benefit from some clarity about range of motion, in the 'Basic Principles' section for example. I find the text confusing because it doesn't specify what range of motion we are talking about when we say 'weight training.' 82.41.162.203 00:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC) PhilGM 01:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the only and re-worded a bit to try to clarify more. You could do this as well, there's no reason to wait for me to do it (see WP:BE BOLD).
As I read the abstract, it's saying that both partial and full ROM exercise increase strength. It does not specify if it increases strength throughout the full ROM. From my understanding, training the last four inches of a movement and training the full ROM of a movement will both produce gains in strength, but only the full ROM exercises increases strength at all joint angles. The partial ROM would only increase in strength at the angles/ROM trained. The article does not specify if you can do a bench press only at the last part of the movement (elbows past the shoulder, from 100-180°) and gain strength at the initiating point as well, when the elbows are below the shoulder and at ~25°. I'd need to see the full article to figure out if they're talking about strength gains throughout the full ROM when training only occurs at a specific, limited ranges. Gotta go, I don't know if I addressed all your points. WLU 03:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the KTAI reference about isometric training, closer to the sentence it refers to. In reference to whether partial ROM training has a training effect at/near the initiating joint angle of a full ROM exercise, I couldn't find it in the article. I'm sure some trainees will require strength more at ~25° than at 100-180°, certainly everyone who uses full ROM training will. However, as you suggested earlier, when you mentioned "sticking point" training, isometrics may be a better training choice if for example, strength at the ~25° joint angle is really important to the trainee. My concern is when the article suggests, either explicitly or implicitly, that one training method is better than another, when in fact, different training methods have different pros and cons. Lets preserve a NPOV please. PhilGM 15:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-transference of strength to other joint angles

  • Joint Angles

Isometric exercises strengthen the muscle at or near to the joint angle at which the exercise is performed. For example a static bicep exercise held with the joint at 25 degrees only increases the athlete's strength at that specific angle (1) and there is no gain in strength when the elbow is held at other angles. However, at particular joint angles (and it varies from muscle group to muscle group) there is some cross-transference of strength to other joint angles. An isometric bicep curl performed at 80 degrees for example also increases strength at other angles to a lesser extent (1). The same phenomenon is true for the knee (2) and plantar flexors (3).

(1)Thepaut-Mathieu C, Van Hoecke J, Maton B. Myoelectrical and mechanical changes linked to length specificity during isometric training. J Appl Physiol. 1988 Apr;64(4):1500-5

(2)Weir JP, Housh TJ, Weir LL, Johnson GO. Effects of unilateral isometric strength training on joint angle specificity and cross-training. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1995;70(4):337-43

(3)Kitai TA, Sale DG. Specificity of joint angle in isometric training. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1989;58(7):744-8

PhilGM 19:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overlap between Weight training and Strength training

[edit] Weight training and Strength training

I recently read through these two articles and many of the paragraphs were identical between the two. Considering how many people who read one article are likely to go on and read the other, this makes for a painfully tiresome read, as well as being unprofessional.

For example, under the History section of both there's three or four sentences starting with "Progressive resistance training dates back at least to Ancient Greece..." And under the Safety section of both, "There have been mixed reviews regarding the use of weightlifting belts..."

IMHO more links and less copypasta would improve the articles.

Daarklord (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Weight training is a sub-set of strength training, so the page should have less info on general principles, but more info on the specifics of using gravity to generate resistance. They're overlapping because they do cover the same domain. A large amount was indeed copied from one to the other, in part because the history of strength training was, for a long time, the history of weight training. Doesn't mean it can't be improved though. WLU (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
One of the "pioneers" of the Weight Training article, I agree w/ WLU. This was a difficult, but effective compromise when the two were merged, and wholesale changes shouldn't be made now. sfahey/1-20-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfahey (talk • contribs) 16:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)