Talk:Weight training/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I saw nothing about endorphins. endorphins are the best part of working out. --Cyberman 22:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article was in a very poor state, so I have spent the last few days rewriting it, hopefully to a high standard. However, I'm still quite new to Wikepedia, and I'd like to ask for help achieving the preferred style.

My main concerns are regarding levels of generality and detail, and also regarding attribution for issues where there is a difference of opinion. Do I still have to say "Alice says X whereas Bob says Y" if both Alice and Bob are non-notable, or can I just say "some people believe X whereas others believe Y"?

Also, given that this is intended to be an entry-level article, is the writing at a low enough level, or should it be simplified further?

I realise that the article is short on images, and I will be adding photos of most—if not all—of the exercises just as soon as I can get a model, photographer and gym together at a mutually convenient time. Are there any other images that would be useful?

Please let me know what you think. Thanks! GeorgeStepanek\talk 02:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Good work, but maybe too good?

I like the work you've done on this, thankyou. However, I feel this article is shaping up to be too long. When an article gets this long it's often good to trim it down or split it up into several other articles and link to these in the article.

Furthermore, it should perhaps be mentioned that any prospective beginners should seek out advice from a doctor and fitness specialists before starting out on a regime? MasterDirk 04:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More clearly mentioned. I had only skimmed the article when I made my comment. It should be right there at the top, I think. Perhaps the article should also include some common misconceptions and criticisms about weight-lifting, as well as a clear distinction between this and body-building? For this reason the part about nutrition should probably be moved (at least) as it's part of a total lifestyle, and not directly pertaining to weight-lifting.

I stand by mo comment that the article could be split into several articles with more depth in each, and a more cursory coverage in the main weight-lifting article.

Again, great work! MasterDirk 05:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I think nutrition should be kept in the article as it is very difficult to find accurate information as to what foods to eat when bodybuilding. Excellent article!
  • I agree. The nutrition section is fine, as it focuses on what is relevant to weight training. All I see that would keep this article from being a "featured article" is that novices would be confused by the listing of specific exercises without pix or descriptions of just what they are.Sfahey 00:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't have found this if it wasn't a featured article, but - GREAT WORK! --PopUpPirate 00:13, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

this shouldnt be possible --66.230.103.153

No, it should be possible; the question is whether you're up to the responsibility. Blair P. Houghton 05:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Body building

My suggestion is to read the following article: weasel words. Also, it might not be such a good idea to have so many bullet points in the article. Otherwise, good on you for having a go at editing that article! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dumbbell squat vs. deadlift in Safety section

The introductory paragraph of the "Safety" section has a very good explanation of how beginners tend to round their backs during deadlifts, and why it is better to keep the back straight. However, the accompanying image is of a woman doing dumbbell squats; the caption incorrectly identifies the action as a deadlift.

I like the text and the image, but we either need to change the text to describe the importance of keeping the back straight during squats or we need an image of somebody doing deadlifts properly. - jredmond 15:45, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I changed the text to make it clear that this issue affects both the squat and the deadlift. I would have preferred to show the barbell deadlift in this image, but unfortunately the model was not familiar with that exercise. In various texts, I have seen the exercise shown described as both the dumbbell squat and the dumbbell deadlift. (I prefer the latter term, because for me the squat must have the weight on the shoulders, but I realise that both terms are used and I don't want to make an issue of it.) Hence the deliberate vagueness in the revised caption. I hope this is OK with you. GeorgeStepanek\talk 23:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Add for weightlifting

This article reads like an advert for the joys of weightlifting to me, rather then an NPOV enclycolopedia article. That said it is of high quality with nice pictures. Q: Are the benifits of weight training as univercialy agreed as the article seems to make out. Q: Even if they are should the article read like its trying to get the reader to do some? Constructive comment: I have heard weight training is bad for kids should this be in article (if true). --JK the unwise 08:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A: Weight training can be done in a way provides limited benefits (see this section), so the answer is: not always. However the potential benefits that are described are well supported by the references. A: Honey, that's your subconscious guilt talking. (But if you want to try weights, then this article can show you how to do it right.) Response to comments: I vaguely remember something like this. If you find a good reference, then please, by all means add this fact to the article. GeorgeStepanek\talk 09:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes I've heard that too. The reasoning I've heard is that it fuses the bone plates, stunting growth. I have also heard that that is a completely bogus reason though the overall answer is still that weightlifting for children is potentially harmful. I think this article should definitely cover that. Another thing that after reflection this article should have at least a section on is steroid use and abuse. Not only mega bodybuilders use them, but I have read it is fairly common at many levels of athletes, so this general weight training article should cover that. - Taxman 15:17, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Good ideas, both. I'm planning to add two questions to the Common concerns section: "Is weight training safe for children?" and "What are the consequences of steroid use?". But I might wait until the article is off the front page and becomes a little more stable, if that's OK. GeorgeStepanek\talk 20:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I would agree with that. Besides, you need some good sources for the data and facts anyway. For some reason I just never thought of the children and steroid issues before. I agree with your note on "can" below too, but still think noting "to some people" makes it clearer and more accurate. - Taxman 21:23, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
I'd prefer such clarifications to go in the main body of the article, and for the header to just summarise the main points (as it does now). GeorgeStepanek\talk 22:16, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have added the "Is weight training safe for children?" section, and also a link to the anabolic steroid article, which has a very good discussion of the subject. GeorgeStepanek\talk 02:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I found a very good authoritative resource to help improve that section. It is the policy paper form the American Academy of Pediatrics. The link is here and includes the pdf of the paper and the proper citation forms. I'll leave it to someone more knowledgeable to add that in properly. The bottom of that article lists articles that have cited it, but they don't offer free access to those. Perhaps my wife could get access to them. I see some pub med articles, one here but I also don't have access to that. Here is another that does contradict my preconceived notion that 1RM were dangerous. Though I suppose in this study they were supervised by medical professionals. - Taxman 21:09, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

POV

, this can result in a more attractive physique

POV, surely? -- Tarquin 10:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well I think it is fairly easily established fact that there are a lot of people that find a muscular physique attractive. So then what would you think would make that seem more NPOV? Perhaps saying "can result in a physique that is more attractive to many people". - Taxman 15:17, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
I think the important word is "can". As long as that word is there, the statement is OK. Yes, most people don't particularly like the bodybuilder look. Yes, most people don't think that weight training did much for the Bulgarian 1976 Olympic Female Weightlifting team's physical attrictiveness (for example). But many people in Western and modern Asian cultures can improve their physical attractiveness (according to the standards of their culture) by becoming a bit fitter, a bit leaner and a bit more "toned." GeorgeStepanek\talk 20:16, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Protein

I don't think telling people vague and quite frankly dangerous things about protein requirements is a great idea. From what the article says, you could have someone eating 500g of protein a day, ten times more than what they need. Excess protein intake can lead to calcium deficiency and kidney damage, and does not help build muscle faster, excess amino acids are excreted, not stored or used. You only need a comparatively small amount of additional protein to repair muscle damage from weight training. 5g extra over your normal 50g average is all it takes, unless you are somehow gaining several pounds of muscle mass per day, in which case you might want to see a doctor. The majority of the bulk of muscles is water, proteins are a very small proportion. 69.197.92.181 12:24, 4 Mar 2005

Nobody's advocating 500g intake. And the studies showing kidney problems found it only in people with previous kidney disease. Also, there is scientific evidence that higher protein intakes do improve anabolism, but there is a diminishing return over 1.5 g/lb/day. Blair P. Houghton 20:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the relevant phrase is "are commonly advised." The article itself does not take a position on the subject, but attempts to honestly report the recommendations given by other sources (as per the reference). Opinions vary widely, which is why the stated range is so broad. (I reverted one editor who wanted to change the minimum intake from 0.8 to 1.2 g/lb.) That said, there remain some who believe as 69.197.92.181 does, so this opinion should be briefly mentioned to maintain a NPOV. GeorgeStepanek\talk 21:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am the reverted 'one editor'. I included a reference this time (should've done last time, sorry!). Btw 500g a day: 120kg (not untypical for a large weight-trainer)x4.4g=538g/day Dan100 16:04, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, you guys should really read over the biochem stuff here on the wikipedia, and get an understanding of what protein is and what we use it for. The US RDA for protein for a male age 25-50 is 63g. That means 97.5% of males 25-50 need 63g or less. This is aiming high to make sure the vast majority of people are covered. Recommending that people eat 2g of protein per pound is insane, the average requirement is .6g per KG, 4.4 per KG is simply dangerous, and of no benefit. Taking that 2g per pound recommendation, I would be eating 420g of protein per day. However I only actually use about 70g per day in my current training (based on urine tests). That extra protein would be creating alot of acid in my blood, which has to be neutralized with calcium, which can cause weakening of my bones. All the extra amino acids floating around can be broken down further into sugar and used as fuel, or if I already get enough calories from sugars and fats, my kidneys will just filter them out, and you can guess where they go after that. There is simply nobody out there who needs ~450g of protein per day. Think about it, that's a pound. Muscle is only a small percentage by weight protein, so if you needed a pound of protein, you would have to be gaining several pounds of muscle mass every day.
Having more protein will not make your muscles grow faster. Your muscle growth is based on how much you damage them, and how much your body repairs them. If your body is only repairing your damaged muscle tissue (from weight training) at a rate consuming 15g of additional protein per day, then another 400g of protein will not do anything for you, its only having less than the needed 15g that will hold you back. This is not a POV issue, it is a factual error, and one that could lead to serious health problems if people follow it. 69.197.92.181 17:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Guess I should have looked at the article again before all posting this, somebody changed it to a much more sane 0.6g to 0.8g. Would it also be worth mentioning that if you are overweight, and say have 30 or 40 pounds of fat on you, that shouldn't really count towards your calculations for protein intake? 69.197.92.181 17:53, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your added reference, Dan100. Yes, 0.6 g/kg/day is recommended by some authors, so I have amended the range to show this. I have also adjusted the figures to better reflect the reference that I supplied, which discusses protein intake up to 1.4 or 1.5 g/kg/day. But gentlemen, please do not include original research. No matter what your arguments are, whether they are justified or not, the article should reflect only that which is supported by the provided references. There is no factual error in saying that "weight trainers are commonly advised to consume 0.6–1.5g of protein per pound of bodyweight per day." The supplied references show that this is true. GeorgeStepanek\talk 19:18, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but if you are doing to say weight trainers are commonly advised to do X, you should also mention they are commonly advised not to as well. There's dozens of rediculous myths about weight training, that doesn't mean we should put them all in the article with the presumption that they are true, even though we can certainly find websites that claim they are. Its definately a POV problem if you try to hide behind "some people recommend" without also mentioning that "some people recommend otherwise". I haven't done anything to the article yet, I just came here to discuss it and see what everyone thinks. Should I add in references for the "don't eat too much protein" side to balance it out? Are we going to have the same problem with every other thing that some people feel helps, and other people feel doesn't? Do you feel its going too far to point out that the people recommended over-consumption of protein tend to have little to no qualifications (some guy with muscles), and the people recommending not to tend to be doctors and nutritional scientists? 69.197.92.181 20:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a description of the opposing POV would be very helpful here. I have made a stab at this, but feel free to make it more accurate and to add a suitable reference. (But please don't make it too wordy!) Note that one might also say that doctors and nutritional scientists rarely have much practical experience of weight training, whereas the bodybuilding community has a wealth of experience! But seriously, there are a variety of scientific studies that show benefits from quite a wide range of levels of protein intake. It would be misleading to only show one side of this debate. I tried to address this by giving a very wide range of values, but I think that some pro and anti comments would be helpful also. GeorgeStepanek\talk 20:55, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reason I am only discussing right now, and not changing stuff, is that this section could get very long for something that's only marginally related to the main topic if we put in all sorts of pro and con stuff for the various issues. Like if I were to change things right now, I would add a bit about taking a calcium suppliment if you are dramatically increasing your protein intake, since more protein means more wasted calcium neutralizing acids in your blood, and less calicium being available for your bones. I would have to point out that the studies showing "no kidney damage" are seriously flawed, as its obvious that kidney damage results from working your kidneys harder, but that it takes years to cause problems. You could pretend alcoholism doesn't cause kidney damage too if you only do a short term study and ignore life-long effects. Then I'd have to throw in the studies that show massive protein intake does cause kidney damage, and then someone else would have to point out how those studies are also flawed because they assume animals and humans will have the same results. And I'd probably change the wording so it doesn't sound like the inflated protein recommendations are "adequate protein", and clarify that the recommendations are in fact to consume significantly more than what is "adequate". This makes for a pretty long section, which is chock full of POV, and low on facts. Is that worth having in the article? Leaving a long winded back and forth about protein in there also leaves the article wide open for long winded back and forth exchanges about all kinds of rituals, superstitions and such that various people who lift weights use or believe in. Do we need a big discussion about wether or not raw eggs give you magical muscle building powers too? How about tying your left shoe with a double knot? At what point do we draw the line? 69.197.92.181 22:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your very thoughtful and considerate attitute. Yes, this section could be greatly expanded—far beyond what is required for this article. But it is an extremely important issue. I have therefore created a new high protein diet article for an in-depth discussion of the issues around protein intake. At the moment it's just a copy of the relevant paragraph, but we could certainly merge all of your (very valid) points.

By the way, it would be nice if you created a login: an IP address doesn't really convey much in the way of personality or identity. Especially as we seem to be entering a bit of a conversation now. I really would like to work with you to create a good, balanced article on the pros and cons of a high protein diet. GeorgeStepanek\talk 22:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Odds and sods

There were a few short-comings in this article - repeated sections, incorrect/disputable figures, poor choice of adjectives (although that's playing with semantics really). Pylometrics became pylometrics. Dan100 16:08, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

May I remind you that this is a featured article. Many people have gone over this already, and the phrasing has become a compromise between a number of valid points of view. Please raise points first before making sweeping changes to the article. As you can see from the history over the last few days, I have been quite willing to merge in new facts and issues that people have mentioned. GeorgeStepanek\talk 19:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

George, a few pointers. First, "don't claim ownership". Second, FAC is effectively meaningless - carefully read the boilerplate text at the top - no article is ever perfect. Thirdly, I'm a PT and hold the highest professional qualification in the field recognized by the UK government (REPS L3) and have several years experience in this area! Dan100 22:15, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't mean you can write. I am an author whose book has recently been accepted by a well-known publisher. The reason why I reverted most of your changes was because they were stylistically poor, and made the article less effective at conveying information on the subject. Moreover, the article has already received a thorough going-over by Sfahey, a sports medicine physician.
FAC is not meaningless: "We believe [this] to be one of the best examples of the Wikipedia community's work. Even so, if you see a way this page can be improved still further, we invite you to contribute." does not mean that you can freely delete large sections of the text. GeorgeStepanek\talk 23:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
FAC doesn't mean the article is 100% factually correct, but GeorgeStepanek has a good point that "Many people have gone over this already, and the phrasing has become a compromise between a number of valid points of view". He is thus not claiming ownership. No offense, Dan100, but lots of PT's are horribly wrong about the science behind what they do. In any case yes this article can be improved, so please do, but I would have to say most of the changes GeorgeStepanek reverted are better after the revert. So discuss them here and cite reliable sources to back up your claims (you need to do that if you want changes to the current article too). The below section seems to be a start at that which is good, but why is it no longer signed? - Taxman 23:38, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
I am more than happy to see new issues (e.g. children and weight training), new facts (e.g. kidney damage risk) and new POV (e.g. protein RDA, body type preference) added to the article. However, the article has been deemed to be at a very high standard, and I do not think that any of the existing material should be deleted, rearranged or rewritten without a very good justification. GeorgeStepanek\talk 01:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Changes

  • Rep ranges - it's not cut and dried. Explaining the response continuum may be a better approach overall here.
    • I agree, but I believe that the current description means much more to someone who is coming to the subject for the first time.
      • I have merged in your changes, but trying also to keep the description simple and easily comprehensible.
  • 1RMs - as long as the lifter has had adequate training and a good spotter, 1RMs are perfectly safe. Machine 1RMs are invariably safe.
    • Given the number of reports of injury from 1RM attempts, I don't think this is true. Cite your sources!
      • Cite yours.
  • Physical attractiveness - this is purely a belief among certain individuals (me included). However not all members of either sex find trained individuals attractive - far from it, in fact.
    • "(Although not everyone prefers such body types.)" is already in the article!
      • And? The wording can still be improved.
  • The highlighting of potential exercise addiction as a result of neuro-chemical responses needs highlighting as a matter of npov. (I also de-linked side-effect as it linked to an article about adverse effects!)
    • The adverse effects article describes all levels of medical side effects. It is the right article to link to. If you don't like the name of the article, try to get it renamed instead of removing a valid link.
      • Fair enough.
  • AFAIK ROM in no way affects stress levels. Cite your sources!
    • Give me a chance to cite my sources! I have found this in several texts, and experienced it myself firsthand.
  • Bodybuilders don't remain cut year-round - the bulk over the off season (ie get pretty fat!)
    • That may have been true 10-20 years ago, but is not now. Bodybuilders today maintain a very low level of bodyfat (<10%) year-round, and then drop it further for competitions.
      • You're kidding me, right? Are you involved in the scene at all?
        • I train at the same gym as the Samoan bodybuilding team. But the sequence is irrelevant here, so I've changed it to just say that they "train to maximize their muscular size and develop extremely low levels of bodyfat"—which I think we can both agree with.
  • Protein - there is some debate over this! Therefore I've presented both PoV (ie npov)
    • Both POV are already presented in the article.
      • I present them in a clearer and more neutral manner.
        • The main distinction is between people who recommend a higher protein intake, and people who don't (see the long discussion above). Your suggested changes would remove that POV, which I don't believe is warranted. Yes, opinions vary as to the degree of increased protein intake, but I feel that the range and comment already reflects this. I have moved the whole kidney issue thing to high protein diet because that's a better place to discuss such issues at length.
          • I clearly seperate the two PoVs, certainly not removing one! Dan100 07:41, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Women and muscle size - at uni, I trained with the women's rugby team. They all had 'large' muscles by common standards. Very few, however, have the genetics for very large muscles. Hence my wording.
    • Female rugby players are a self-selected group. Very few women who train with weights will be able to obtain larger muscles than an average man who does not train with weights (i.e. achieve "large" muscles).
      • Disagree, although this is semantics.
        • The cited source states that " large increases in muscle size will not result because female testosterone levels are low; this hormone appears necessary to elicit increases in protein synthesis (large muscle increases)." They refer to "large" muscles rather than "very large" muscles.
  • It's worth pointing out that weight training alone will have no significant effect on bodyfat
    • "(Although weight-training alone will not reduce levels of bodyfat without the help of a suitable diet.)" is already in the article!
  • Muscle tone has nothing to do with posture, it's the constant low-frequency contractions that occur in all muscles all the time, even at 'rest'.
    • This may be true. I don't know enough to comment. But instead of deleting the assertion, why don't you rephrase it to make it more accurate?
      • OK
        • I have merged in your assertion without removing any of the existing (valid) content.
  • Hi-rep exercises can positively affect posture (eg through shortening muscles).
    • Feel free to add this fact to the article.
      • OK
  • Strength increases with isometric exercises only occurs at the angle the joint is held at. This is 101.
    • If this were true, then it would be useless for physiotherapy and rehabilitation. Please cite your source for this.
      • OK
        • OK, I have merged this in, and added a citation.
  • Isokinetic exercises deserve the same explanation as the other two techniques
    • Yes, but why do you keep trying to delete valid and helpful content in this section?
  • Pylometrics is distinctive enough for a seperate article, and only brief coverage here (much/most of pylometrics does not involve actual weights)
    • Enough people (e.g. Taxman) associate it with weight training to make a discussion here useful. But feel free to spawn off an article in the same way that Swiss ball has been created.
      • Already have. Who is Taxman?
  • The workout described is only one possible method, there are myriad others!
    • That's what "is one way to order the exercises" means!
      • So how can you object to the word 'possible'?
  • Dan100 22:15, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Dan100, some of your points are valid, but overall, your editing does considerable damage to the structure and readability of the text. Before making large changes (and particularly large deletions), please make an effort to co-ordinate your work with other editors who have put, and are continuing to put a lot of work into this article. Thank you. GeorgeStepanek\talk 23:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • your editing does considerable damage to the structure and readability of the text. I strongly disagree. Dan100 14:43, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
I can add nothing to GS's considered opinions during this edit war, except to commend him on his remarkable forbearance during these exchanges. Sfahey 23:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dan100, thank you for moderating your changes in view of our discussion. The last version was much better. I have merged in almost all of the new material that you added, and made comments above regarding the changes that I still disagree with. I hope that we can reach compromises on all of the remaining issues that leave us both happy with the final version of the article. GeorgeStepanek\talk 21:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

After that it appears Dan100 reverted wholesale. Dan100, you are acting against consensus. We are all willing to be reasonable, but unless you are willing to cite reliable sources, and work with others to reach a better article you are behaving innapropriately, and corrective action will be taken. It's great you think you know what you are talking about, but you have been asked to discuss changes first. If you continue to revert to your pet version I will consider it vandalism and block you. There is of course no need for that. Just cite good sources, be willing to admit others may be right (that goes for everyone of course), and stop being so childish. - Taxman 23:11, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Taxman, I made a seris of good-faith edits last week. George then 'wholesale' reverted me. Check the history. And if you look up, you'll see it was I who initiated discussion on this talk page. Further, please don't make personal attacks. Dan100 07:38, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
The difference is you are the one acting against consensus, and against polite requests to discuss before substantive changes. Then when people (plural) disagreed, you reverted. It's not the end of the world and we should just end it here, but going forward, if you have reason to believe a fact is incorrect simply provide an authoritative source and there won't be any issues with anyone accepting the change beyond style and writing concerns. The key is to collaborate, not ignore the wishes of others. - Taxman 13:59, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
"People (plural)" - who?! George was the only person rv'ing me. And I don't think anyone could ever view reverting as "collaborating". Dan100 22:51, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
If you are still asking that you are missing the point. There generally won't be conflicts at all if you note the point I wrote just above. Provide authoritative sources and there will only be minor issues beyond that. No worries, just help the article be better with good sources and talk it out. - Taxman 14:22, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Aerobic vs. anaerobic

I believe that, especially for the "lead" paragraph, the original description of weight training as an anaerobic activity worked best. It is true that individual muscle fibers employ a bit of oxygen-produced energy even with relatively short duration activity. It is also true that one can perform continuous weight exercises ... ie, going from machine to machine without pauses for an extended period of time ... and get some aerobic training benefit. However, "aerobic" activity generally refers, not to any activity that might consume SOME oxygen (like setting the table), but to continuous use of large skeletal muscles at an intensity that elevates the cardiorespiratory load sufficiently to produce a "training effect" on the heart and lungs. I actually put this question today to two PhD's in kinesiology, and while acknowledgeing the aforementioned finer points, they both agreed that "weight training is an anaerobic activity". Sfahey 03:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

wrong. low-intensity, high-rep resistance training is also known as "endurance training". it is exactly what you do to your muscles when you walk, run, swim, or ride a bike for 100 miles. resistance training to failure, depleting the anaerobic energy available, requires a higher intensity. therefore, it is a matter of intensity. which is exactly why i put that fact in the article. btw, a ph.d. is no guarantee of perfect understanding or avoidance of argumentum ad verecundiam, and a person with a ph.d. should know that better than anyone. Blair P. Houghton 06:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The article of course is about "weight training", which is not "running, swimming, or biking". Even when these are done to the extent of depletion of energy, this is a matter of "duration", not "intensity". You are wrong, and the article should be reverted to its previous form. Since George and Taxman have taken up the torch on this, I will leave it to them. BTW, George has been a model of teamwork and decorum on this project, responding to appropriate advice in an admirably "ego-less" fashion, as opposed, unfortunately, to many editors. sfahey
OK, when I first wrote this sentence, I wrote it in the naive understanding that everyone knows that weight training is anaerobic. But there is clearly more to it, and we should add a subsection to explain the issue further. Blair, while what you say is true, and should certainly be explained in the article, I don't think you quite recognise the point that Sfahey is trying to make. As I understand it, his point is that while all exercise is to some extent aerobic, and while weight training can certainly be done in a low-intensity, high-rep way ("circuit training"), the way that most people do weight training most of the time is mostly anaerobic. The summary probably isn't the best place to discuss these distinctions, but they should certainly be explained at some length. I don't feel I really know enough to do it myself, but I urge you both to collaborate in doing so.
By the way, may I just mention how pleased I am that this subject appears to be attracting a small community of interested individuals, who are actively contributing their knowledge, opinions and expertise. When I first looked at it a couple of months ago, this whole area seemed to an be entirely forgotten and neglected backwater. Who would have thought it? Wikipedians do pump iron. GeorgeStepanek\talk 07:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Isn't it entirely accurate without being overdetailed to say weight training is primarily anaerobic in nature? If you want to be even more accurate at the cost of additional complication you can say primarily anaerobic unless higher repetition sets and shorter rest periods etc. are used. Also, I now have access to some excellent medical reference material and in a couple days I plan to do some research and thoroughly cite this point and if I have time, the entire article. - Taxman 15:38, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Aha. That's it! I think George's most recent effort is a well-intentioned but overly detailed compromise that was not necessary. "Primarily anaerobic" (without "as usually practiced") certainly covers it, although most would simply say "anaerobic" and let it rest. Sfahey 17:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I believe that weight training can, and sometimes is, done in a primarily aerobic manner: sometimes unintentionally, viz. "toning". I have added some explanation in the article to this end. Whether this distinction needs to be reflected in the summary is another question entirely, and I defer to your judgement on this matter. GeorgeStepanek\talk 20:44, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
BTW, I have heard that anaerobic exercise builds aerobic muscle fibres as well as anaerobic fibres (in a fixed ration per individual per muscle). I would like to mention this fact if it is indeed true. Can anyone please confirm this? GeorgeStepanek\talk 20:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes it does (if we're talking about CSA). Maximum force is developed when all muscle fibres contract - everything from the slow twitching aerobic fibres through to the fast twitching anaerobic fibres. Therefore a training stimulus is applied to all fibres.

BTW I'd say weight-training is anaerobic purely because it deals with recruiting anaerobic muscle fibres by performing movements that involve producing a lot of force for not much time. Dan100 22:59, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Bodybuilding as a sport

In the opening paragraph it refers to bodybuilding as a sport. Is this really acurate? As far as i know when the competitors are up there on stage the judges aren't at all interested in who can lift the most or who put the most hours in at the gym, the only thing the judges concern themselves with is the visual / asthetic presentation of the competitors i.e. how they look. In that sense i think bodybuilding has more in common with beauty contests than sports. What do you all think? Incidently the bodybuilding article could do with a lot of expansion, especially in the area of proffesional competitions. - Dog Johnson

While I agree that to me bodybuilding competitions look more like beauty pageants than sporting events, bodybuilders themselves refer to the "sport of bodybuilding" [1]. I don't think that it makes a huge difference for this sentence: its aim is just to convey the fact that bodybuilding is not the same as weight training (which is a very common misconception). But if you can see where bodybuilding article can be improved, then please feel free to share your knowledge and help expand the article. Be bold. GeorgeStepanek\talk 20:24, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
bodybuilding is a sport; it's just a sport with a very high ratio of training before competition to athletic output in competition. and posing properly to meet form standards and show the muscles to their maximum effect is an athletic skill. Blair P. Houghton 08:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article summary

Blair, while I appreciate your enthusiasm to improve the article, I'm afraid I'll have to revert most of your changes to the header, at least. (My draft of the aerobic vs anaerobic section was very rough, so your new version is a definite improvement.) I like the way that you have divided up the paragraphs, but in your rephrasing, you have appear to have lost a few key elements:

1. Weight training is the most effective technique—not just one of them—but only if it's done right.
  • Q: then why does any other form of training exist? A: because they're more effective at things weight training is not.--Blair
  • I notice that in later edits you changed the phrase to say "Weight training is the most effective technique", which contradicts your comments above. However, this phrasing still removes an important caveat. GeorgeStepanek\talk 21:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2. Weight training itself doesn't provide functional benefits, physical attractiveness etc.—it's the resulting increased size and strength of muscles that does that.
  • It doesn't result in increased size and strength of muscles; anabolism does. So unless you're willing to break the process down into all of its component steps, you'll have to recognize that weight training is the cause of the functional benefits etc. --Blair
  • I'm sorry, but I still don't see why this valid information should be removed. GeorgeStepanek\talk 21:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
3. By removing the words "progressively lifting increasing amounts of weight," you have removed mention of the key progressive overload principle.
  • Progressive overload is one of many training patterns for weight training. It's not the only one and not the only effective one. --Blair
  • Again, please clarify what you mean by "many training patterns". All of the sources I have read indicate that progressive overload is the fundamental principle behind all forms of strength training. GeorgeStepanek\talk 21:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
4. Your phrasing "Weight training can be either an aerobic or anaerobic form of exercise, or both, depending on intensity." has not attracted the support of other editors. Rather than putting in the same text over and over again, why not work together with them to create a version that you can all agree on?
  • Because is being inserted in place of what is right is wrong. You're the only "other editor" complaining about the facts. --Blair
  • Sorry, but I do not think that your assertion is correct. Both User:Sfahey and User:Taxman have disagreed with you. My edit to this sentence was an attempt to find a compromise between your position and Sfahey's position even though, to be honest, I personally feel that Sfahey's wording is the best and most accurate wording yet proposed. GeorgeStepanek\talk 21:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Even more than the rest of the text, the summary has received a lot of thought and attention to date. We can argue endlessly about its exact phrasing, but I think it highly unlikely that at this stage it still contains any major flaws. May I urge you to devote your energies instead towards further expanding the remainder of the article by adding new issues, new facts and new POV? GeorgeStepanek\talk 10:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • The problem is the article is infested with POV, and I'm trying to eliminate it. You're promoting specific training patterns, making biased statements about the aerobic/anaerobic nature of weight training, and reverting from clearly written facts to restore POV half-truths. Maybe you should take a week off from this article and come back to see what it becomes. Blair P. Houghton 05:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have been attempting to find a compromise between you, and Sfahey and Taxman, who have indicated above that they disagree with your edits. Frankly given your unhelpful and unilateral response, I should not have bothered. I will not do so in future. GeorgeStepanek\talk 06:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BTW, may I propose a compromise version, which merges in all of the changes that do not remove information from the text?

Weight training can be the most effective technique for developing the strength and size of skeletal muscles. This provides functional benefits, often results in a more attractive physique, and may improve overall health and well-being.
The technique involves progressively lifting increasing amounts of weight, and uses a variety of exercises and types of equipment to target specific muscle groups. Weight training is usually an anaerobic form of exercise. It has become the best-known form of resistance training, which is in turn the best-known form of strength training.
Weight training is not bodybuilding, weightlifting or powerlifting. Though they involve the lifting of weights, they are sports rather than forms of exercise.

I was going to amend Taxman's version, but I won't apply the changes to Blair's last edit, because I don't think that one should try to circumvent the 3RR by paraphrasing a set of changes. GeorgeStepanek\talk 00:24, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have now applied these changes to one of Taxman's reverts. GeorgeStepanek\talk 02:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Phony Consensus

George, it's not a consensus when the consenters decide to publish bad information. It's a conspiracy. Please don't edit this article any more until you understand the difference. Blair P. Houghton 06:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, sfahey is incorrect that weight training is not used as aerobic exercise. Most of the women at my gym begin by lifting weights that are a small percentage of their 1RM (they'll thrown a 30-lb toddler around like a helium balloon, but grunt when doing flies with a 2-lb dumbbell). The exercise they are doing is not primarily anaerobic, it's almost purely aerobic; whether it's efficient enough to provide the cardio benefits usually set as the goal for aerobic exercise is irrelevant. The facts are the facts, and the facts are as I have written them in the summary; the words you are inserting are inadequate if not incorrect. As for consensus, as Jimbo Wales says, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project, not an exercise in democracy. Blair P. Houghton 06:23, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and the word "aerobic" is used in several places in the article. Indeed, I added a section to give you a place to make this exact point. But Sfahey is entirely correct in saying that weight training is primarily an anaerobic exercise. This is certainly true for most users, most of the time.
Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it is a community. One person cannot hold everyone else hostage. You have to work with others. Are you prepared to do that? GeorgeStepanek\talk 06:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The word aerobic shall remain in the summary as I have cast it. I am working with others, apparently in the way that a teacher works with a class of juvenile delinquents. Take your sophistry elsewhere and let the truth be. Blair P. Houghton 15:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I realise that as a newcomer you may not be entirely familiar with Wikipedia community standards. Can I ask you to have a quick read of these pages, please: Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thank you. GeorgeStepanek\talk 16:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Don't be cute, George. Everyone can see you're trying to own this page. Your refusal to allow reasonable edits that clarify, improve the language, and remove irrational or biased claims is proof of that. I'm being civil, and you're just pretending to be. Get over yourself, leave this article alone for a while, and stop trying to run Wikipedia. Blair P. Houghton 17:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I would second George's request to go read those pages. You are the one trying to make unilateral edits against what others think. If you want to do that you bear the burden of proof that they are reasonable edits. So provide reliable sources for your edits or don't bother. You are also behaving poorly and there is no need for that. You are the one that needs to step back and cool off. If you want to produce a better article work towards consensus and provide good sources to back up your edits. The sarcastic comments don't help anything. Talk about owning an article, nothing George has said comes anywhere close to as bad as "The word aerobic shall remain in the summary as I have cast it." - Taxman 21:06, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
Again, from the start GS has been anything BUT possessive on this page. I couldn't agree more with Taxman, who has no axe to grind here. And of course, I never said that weight training could not be "used as an aerobic exercise". FWIW, a frequent multitasker, I sometimes adapt gardening into an aerobic exercise, to the amusement of my neighbors, but I would scarcely put that in the lead paragraph of an encyclopedia article on the subject. Sfahey 00:07, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
False; everything George has done in the past two weeks points to attempting to own the page and deny the facts. I'm just making sure the facts remain. I'm the one who put a link in the references section the first time I amended the summary to reflect the facts. It's still there, but apparently nobody read it before writing the inaccurate, presumptive, POV-polluted version that you keep reverting to. Taxman's assessment of my behavior is likewise biased. He imagines that I'm speaking in vituperative tones when I am simply stating the facts. That he and you and George do not like the facts does not change them from being facts.
If the fact that much weight training is more aerobic than anaerobic should not be in the summary, then take the fact that it is sometimes anaerobic out of the summary. I do not have a problem with that as long as the difference is discussed later in the article. But if one is in the lead, the other must be also. You will notice that the recent version retains your assessment that it may more often be anaerobic (though as I noted, in the gym, it's often aerobic, and inefficient, and as I think more about it, I think that very few ordinary gym goers actually train properly enough to do anaerobic-performance improving sets, they just pump an easy weight an easy number of times, and get a low-grade aerobic workout).
Everyone here owes me an apology. Blair P. Houghton 00:19, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Aha. I understand what the misunderstanding is now. Blair, you are correct when you talk about aerobic and anaerobic muscle fibres, but Sfahey and Taxman have been talking about exercise duration rather than muscle composition. This reference contains a handy graph that explains it even to a non-expert like me. Aerobic exercise does occur, but only after the anaerobic energy stores have been depleted. Because weight training sets are most often completed within a minute or so, the aerobic metabolism never has a chance to kick in. It's not about intensity, it's about duration.
Blair, I'm sorry that I didn't check your reference earlier, and get a better idea then of where the misunderstanding really lay. GeorgeStepanek\talk 00:50, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm willing to accept that I don't understand, but that link jsut reinforces to me that weight training, the way it is most often done, is almost entirely anaerobic, not aerobic. If someone can point out how that is wrong I'm all ears, but I haven't seen it yet. - Taxman 02:17, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
The crux of all this lies in the intended connotation of "aerobic". Relative to exercise, this term virtually always (including in the wiki entry on the subject) refers to exercise which demands enough oxygen to produce the benefits called the "training effect" for the exerciser. On a cellular level, picking up a pencil can in some pedantic way be termed 'aerobic", but only in the same way that downing a bottle of Scotch might be termed "nutritious". Kudos to you and GS for hanging in there on this debate(?). 69.140.167.122 02:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is no connotation of anaerobic parallel to the popularized version of aerobic(s), which is a figure of speech. Anaerobic is parallel to the proper meaning of aerobic in regards to muscular activity. So wherever anaerobic is used, aerobic can be used for the complementary sense, but in some cases where aerobic is used, anaerobic may not be appropriate as a complement. This article is dependent on the former case, not the latter. You might also be interested in reading EPOC to find out that anaerobic exercise can have a greater aerobic training effect than aerobic exercise. Blair P. Houghton 05:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No Blair, your behavior here has been entirely innapropriate. Instead of pointing to reliable references (again if neccessary for anyone that missed it), you have reverted multiple times. I haven't had time to read the above link yet, but I will. As I have said all along, if you point to valid sources instead of being argumentative, it makes improving the article very easy. You could ahve resolved this issue days ago. - Taxman 02:10, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)


Everyone go read my rebuttal on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Blair P. Houghton. And Taxman, I did resolve this issue days ago, by posting the reference. You need to read the changes you're disputing. Blair P. Houghton 07:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well for one, if most people missed the reference, simply point to it again. Second, after reading it, I don't see how it supports your position. It really doesn't even discuss weight training at all, much less cover specifically whether weight training uses primarily anaerobic or aerobic capacity. Besides it's from Dynamic Chiropractic, not something I'm sure is highly regarded for quality. Specifically, it claims "Speeds above 8.5 mph are produced only by the anaerobic fast-twitch fibers". How does that fit with the fact that elite marathon runners run for just over two hours at over 12 mph? I was not aware anaerobic capacity could be maintained that long. - Taxman 21:02, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

New issues

I'm done with that one. I'll be working to improve the lead paragraph further, but after being blocked unjustly I'm not really interested right now. I'll just include the words of the admin who unblocked me, because I think everyone here should pay attention to them. Blair P. Houghton 07:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton so that he can 
defend himself in the appropriate forums on 
Wikipedia.

The 3RR blocking is being extremely abused, IMO. 
We sometimes give actual anon vandals who trash 
articles more slack than some logged-in users that 
have an honest difference of opinion. I am an 
amateur body builder for 20 years. I am no expert 
but, like many who enjoy the sport, I've studied a 
good bit about it. Either the prior version or 
Houghton's version are accurate, and I believe 
Houghton's is a bit better written and more 
reflects the state-of-the-art.

HOWEVER, I am not taking a position on which 
version should stand, just indicating that I know 
Houghton's version is, at least, not vandalism.

The 3RR, as I've stated elsewhere, is a loose 
cannon which tends to favor the status-quo. If the 
there is a content dispute, the better solution is 
to protect the article for a limited time to get 
the combatants to hash out the issue in article 
talk. In the instant case, I notice that 
GeorgeStepanek, for example, numbered his reverts 
("first, second, third") which telegraphs 
consciousness of the 3RR as a trap, then another 
editor who disagrees with Houghton picked up on 
the reverting.

The 3RR page says that you will not necessarily be 
blocked for 3RR, it is admin's discretion. 
CryptoDerk used his discretion to block; I 
ordinarily will not get in the way of another 
admin's judgment, but in this case I've used my 
discretion to unblock.

I caution Blair P. Houghton to take his arguments 
about the article to its talk page for now, and to 
argue about his being blocked in other forums.

I also must state that, as Houghton infers, 
neither truth nor accuracy is determined by 
consensus, and that is NOT a comment specifically 
on the Weight Training article.

-User:Cecropia

(Blair P. Houghton 07:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC))

Don't make any presumptions about my future refusal to discuss the way I've been treated here. Blair P. Houghton 17:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The lead

The technique involves progressively lifting increasing amounts of weight, and uses a variety of exercises and types of equipment to target specific muscle groups. Weight training is usually an anaerobic form of exercise. It has become the best-known form of resistance training, which is in turn the best-known form of strength training.

Several problems:

  1. progressively lifting increasing amounts of weight is only one training plan; women especially do not do this as it leads to hypertrophy. It would be correctly included in strength training or an article on HST.
  2. best-known has no foundation in fact. I know of no place to find out which forms of training are better known than others. If anyone here has taken the poll, then they've violated the edict against original research.
  3. Weight training is usually an anaerobic form of exercise. I don't think any mention of aerobic or anaerobic should fail to mention the other; I could go for adding aerobic here or leaving this sentence out entirely, but to have it cast this way distorts the facts and leads to the suggestion that it is rarely aerobic, when it is never entirely anaerobic.

Blair P. Houghton 17:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I don't intend to edit this page, but just came to take a look because of the discussion on the mailing list. I'm wondering about the statement above that women don't progressively lift increasing amounts of weight. I do resistance training (and I'm a woman), and I progressively increase the weight. I was just wondering what the essential difference would be (in kind rather than degree) between what men and women can or should do. SlimVirgin 17:43, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)


That's a good point; I was over-generalizing. Most women lift the same range of weights over time. Womens' goals are usually maintaining muscle and strength and losing fat, rather than gaining strength or causing hypertrophy. There actually should be no difference between the kinds of training men and women do, if their goals are the same. I'm not a woman, but I don't progressively increase the weights either, as I'm currently using weight training to generate EPOC and to spare muscle. When I reach my bodyfat goal, I'm doing HST. Progressing weights can be hypertrophic (if you start at low-weight/high rep and move to high-weight/low-rep over the course of several sessions) or strength-building (if you start at high-weight/low-rep and go to same-weight/higher-reps over several sessions before increasing the weight and starting again at low reps) or body-shaping (if you work one body part harder and let another atrophy). Not progressing weights is a muscle-maintenance regime. Mixing high and low weights is somewhat hypertrophic, as it ensures all of the muscle fiber types get the focus occasionally. Also, hypertrophy at a significant rate requires an excess-calorie diet (about 15% above a maintenance diet) though mild hypertrophy will occur for relatively untrained bodies even at a moderate calorie deficit. Weight training is also used as a therapeutic procedure.

It's that large range of possibilities that tells me that the flat statement of how weight-training is done is incorrect. Blair P. Houghton 18:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, which is very interesting. I do it primarily not to gain fat, so there's no need for me to massively increase the weights, and I tend to do low-weight/high-rep — and sometimes low-weight/low-rep ;-) — but inevitably there is progression, because as you get stronger, the weights become easier to lift/push, so to maintain the same degree of resistance, there has to be progression. Perhaps inserting the word "usually" would be a compromise, i.e. "The technique usually involves progressively lifting increasing amounts of weight ..." SlimVirgin 18:21, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Usually is what's loosely termed a weasel word, and since I'm contending that most of what happens in the gym is actually the sort of itinerant exercise you perform (n.b.: several of the female personal trainers at my gym don't increment their weights any more either), the progressive weight meme doesn't fit in the lead at all. We should put in a section outlining the several training methods and the goals they support. It doesn't have to start out elaborate. Blair P. Houghton 19:28, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was also going to mention that your increasing the weight based on how you feel will eventually result in hypertrophy, just at a much slower pace than if you followed a program. There's some discipline in not doing what your body feels it can tolerate. The first few weeks of HST are like that. As is the idea of working out only 1 hour a day, and waiting 48 hours or more before focussing on the same body part. If your goals don't require increasing the weight, you should stay at the programmed weight and work over time to perfect your form, tempo, and range of motion. Though as you age your body will change subtly, and your workout should change just as subtly to reflect that. Blair P. Houghton 19:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My trainer has me doing lower body one day, upper body the next, so I do have that 48-hour break. Not sure what you mean by "itinerant exercise." I don't think I agree that "usually" is a weasel word in this context, though I see what you mean, but if it solves the conflict, it's worth considering. SlimVirgin 20:29, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ok now were talking. Now we are discussing specific problems and rationally discussing their fixes. Using the above numbering: 1) Yes that sounds correct. Though progressive overload is certainly one of the prominent uses of weight training so maybe is should still be covered in the lead along with the other main methods. 2) I agree the phrase "best known" may not add any value there. What NPOV, but illustrative replacement do you have in mind? 3) Again, what is the problem with using "primarily anaerobic", or most often primarily anaerobic? I know you mention you see women using very low weights for extended time periods. However I don't think that is the most common case, and even if it is more common, one could make a case that that is simply a form of aerobic exercise, and should be discussed in an article on that topic, not here. Though I am also fine discussing that weight training can also be done in a way that is more aerobic, by using lower weights and extending the exercise time, as long as that can be written in smoothly. - Taxman 21:14, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • The problem with "primarily" is it's not observably true. Blair P. Houghton 02:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought it would be better to have a focused discussion on this topic so I created a section for it below. - Taxman 14:25, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
The intention behind the phrase "[Weight training] has become the best-known form of resistance training, which is in turn the best-known form of strength training." was to convey the following three facts:
  • Weight training, resistance training and strength training tend nowadays to be used interchangeably, and are therefore nearly synonymous in common use.
  • However, strictly speaking, weight training is a subset of resistance training, which in turn is a subset of strength training.
  • In the days of Charles Atlas, weight training was a rarely used form of strength training, but it is currently the default technique.
I have struggled to find a way to convey this information in a clear and succinct manner. I would be happy to support an alternative phrasing that conveys the same information more clearly and more precisely. GeorgeStepanek\talk 22:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Avoid spoon-feeding. Just say that weight training is a form of resistance training and resistance training is sometimes used for strength training. The reader will appreciate the information and won't be misled to the false inference that someone's done a poll on it. Also, it's a subset of strength training and rehabilitation and bodybuilding and etc, so maybe the association to strength training doesn't belong as a step in this taxonomy. And weight training was used as strength training long before Charles Atlas, as the History section of this very article says. Which brings up a problem: the History section is a verbatim copy of History of strength training... Blair P. Houghton 02:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Go ahead with the change there, it can be tweeked if needed. That the section and that article are the same as of now is not really a problem at all. The main article on that section should include more detailed information about the history, and the section should contain a summarized version suitable for its importance relative to this topic. If the full article currently has no more information, it just means it needs to be improved. The only issue would be if there was no more information to add at all to the subject, then we don't need a separate article on it. I don't believe that is the case, so we should keep the separate article to allow for future improvement. If you know more that should be covered there, outline it on the page or on its talk page as an aid to other editors. - Taxman 14:25, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Aerobic vs Anaerobic round 2

I thought it would be better to create a section to specifically hash out this issue. You said "The problem with "primarily" is it's not observably true." You'll have to expand on that because it does not appear correct in light of the recent medical literature, or in the discussion above. Do you dispute any of the facts in the last two sentence of the 'Aerobic exercise vs anaerobic exercise' section? Because that is taken almost directly from the cited journal article. Are you referring to 1) The cardiovascular training effect that can come from weight training or are you referring to 2) The very small proportion of aerobic activity that does occur during most weight lifting, or 3) Exercises using greater repetitions and lower weight that can have a substantial portion of aerobic activity. None of these three really contradict that weight training is primarily anaerobic, unless you want to claim high rep training is more common than low rep, higher weight training. Would you be satisfied by saying in the lead that weight training using low repetitions and relatively high weight is primarily anaerobic, while using lower weights and higher repetitions can be substantially aerobic? As noted above the article you linked to does not directly cover the issue at hand, so I would be curious for your response to that. - Taxman 14:25, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

In this case, a reliance on "the literature" is erroneous. We have two common definitions for aerobic/anaerobic (the intramuscular biochemistry and the overall exercise activity), and "the literature" uses them both depending on author and context (and I'm sure we'll find a paper or ten that confuse them). Our central problem is weight training is always some of both in either of these paradigms. I'm thinking of doing something about the aerobic and anaerobic articles on this basis. But it's just thinking at this point. I do claim that low weight, high rep training is the mode; it's clear to me that most people in the gym are working in an aerobic regime when lifting weights, no matter what their trainer told them the last time they talked to a trainer. I wouldn't even know where to go to find "the literature" to support the hermeneutics of the psychology of gym members, though... Blair P. Houghton 16:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well you've sidestepped some of the important parts of what I asked above. For one, do you dispute the facts in the relevant section, and another, is that proposed phrasing more acceptable? When you refer to the two common definitions, I disagree, the medical literature is most likely always going to use the biochemical definition. Though I guess there are going to be some that confuse them. Besides, as long as one checks what definition the paper in question uses, reliance on peer reviewed literature is certainly not erroneous. And what do you mean by the "overall exercise activity"? Are you referring to what I numbered as 1) above or something else? If that is what you are referring to I believe that can be handled by adding explanation. But if low rep high weight exercise is 99% (just throwing out a number for illustration, not claiming that is the #) by the anaerobic pathway, then for that type of exercise, your central problem goes away by using the word primarily. And your claim that low weight high rep is more common, is just that--one POV. I don't have any reliable numbers to refute that, but from personal experience in 6-7 different clubs and observation of quite a number of high school sports weight trainging programs its more like 10% time it is low weight high rep and 90% the other way around. Like I said that is not reliable, just from experience. In any case, if both are performed, we simply need to make the lead reflect that which I believe the above sentence handles just fine. - Taxman 18:43, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how helpful this will be to people but I thought I'd write a little explanation of aerobic and anaerobic exercise as I understand it.

Muscle fibres come in two distinct types: Type I (slow twitch) aerobic fibres and Type II (fast twitch) anaerobic fibres.

'Anaerobic' means 'respiring in the absence of oxygen', ie the ATP that fibres use to contract is produced by breaking down glucose without oxygen (as opposed to aerobic respiration, where oxygen is used). Anaerobic respiration produces lots of energy in a short period of time and has 'instant availability' - there is no need to wait for the heart/lungs system to start providing large amounts of oxygen before large amounts of energy can be realised. However it is grossly inefficient and has a high metabolic cost (the production of lactic acid).

Type I fibres are very good at aerobic respiration and Type IIs are good at anaerobic (there is a third type, Type IIa, which is quite good at both). Type Is can't generate much force but can function practically indefinitely assuming they're kept supplied with substrate and oxygen. Type IIs can generate much more force but can't sustain it for long (<30-45s) before they shut down (exactly why that happens is still being researched, it isn't just because of lactic acid).

Now imagine performing a range of tasks say from typing to doing a 1RM. Typing has a very low energy demand so your muscles can easily peform the task using just Type I muscles, utilising available energy substrate very efficiently with no metabolic cost, so typing is an aerobic activity. However doing a 1RM demands maximum force production, therefore all your fibre types from Type I through to Type II are used, but you can only perform the movement once - doing a 1RM is anerobic.

Weight-training therefore stretches from pure anaerobic respiration through to almost purely aerobic respiration (eg great long sets of 25+ reps). Of course, if there is a finite limit to the number of reps you can do and it's low (ie not thousands), there's clearly some anaerobic Type II fibres being recruited which eventually tire, and you can't perform any more reps with that weight. The only way you could continue would be to use less weight. Eventually, the weight you'd be using would be so low that you could repeat the movement almost indefinitely, at which point the exercise is entirely areobic and using only Type I muscle fibres (eg walking). It's worth pointing out that the rep ranges that produce the greatest training stimuli to encourage increased strength and greater muscle CSA are so low they are dependant on aerobic processes. Dan100 00:14, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

There is no limit to the number of reps you can do at certain weights; all "aerobic" exercise involves some sort of muscular activity that constitutes using the bodyweight as a weight, and can be carried on as long as fuel can be supplied and sleep can be abated (Ultramarathon, q.v.). The end of the exercise comes not from the exercise but from other needs. There's no reason to believe that an exercise of the same muscles that uses a weight equal to or less than bodyweight can't be done for the same number of repetitions. The only true statement is the one I originally wrote: "Weight training can be both aerobic and anaerobic exercise." Any attempt to qualify it leaves out other true circumstances, biasing the facts towards a POV. Blair P. Houghton 03:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, how does "weight training using low repetitions and relatively high weight is primarily anaerobic, while using lower weights and higher repetitions can be substantially aerobic" not cover all of that? In one sentence it gets across the continuum, and which direction is which. The only fact it leaves out is that very near the 1RM is actually entirely anaerobic, with no aerobic contribution whatsoever. It also has no POV, it simply states the facts, and gets across much more information than just saying weight training is both. You could follow that up with a sentence to the effect of "however, even training at weights that are substantially anaerobic for repeated sets can have an overall cardiovascular benefit like that of aerobic exercise." From what I understand of the papers I've read, that comes from the recovery and post processing by the body of the byproducts of the anaerobic activity. I'll have to look that up again to be sure. - Taxman 14:13, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's close to tiling the plane, but it's too long for the lead. We've got a whole section for covering the details beyond the existence of a dichotomy. Blair P. Houghton 03:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The lead is very short now and could stand to be longer, so that is not a problem. I don't know what "tiling the plane" means, but since you haven't come up with anything that shows my wording is innacurate, I'm going to add it. For now without the mention of the training effect until I do more research on that. Or if you want to write something accurate about it. The increased accuracy of the above phrasing over "it can be both" is much more valuable than the cost of making it harder to read. - Taxman 18:39, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have referenced material showing that your wording is inaccurate, I provided more accurate wording, and you have consistently ignored it in favor of POV. Blair P. Houghton 00:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And again, "aerobic" as it relates to exercise (see the wiki article, for example) AS OPPOSED TO THE BIOCHEMISTRY OF INDIVIDUAL MUSCLE FIBERS refers to exercise which demands enough cardiopulmonary work to produce the benefits called the "training effect". On a cellular level, picking up a pencil can in some pedantic way be termed 'aerobic", but only in the same way that downing a bottle of Scotch might be termed "nutritious". One unfortunate aspect of this debate(?) is that all parties appear quite knowledgeable on this subject, and the disagreements are being magnified by this bit of semantics. I know of no exercise expert who would disagree with "Weight training is primarily anaerobic exercise". Hats off to GS and Taxman for striving to keep this civil. Sfahey 17:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • How does anyone "strive to keep this civil?" and how does taking that political swipe not constitute incivility? Blair P. Houghton 03:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Very simple. He made a commendation for keeping a cool head. He didn't even make any statements nearly as provocotive as these:
  • please learn to write before editing articles; the weasel-words alone are making my quads hurt and the POV is ludicrous
  • all edits are "unilateral" and the ones I made are better than the ones being inserted by this small cabal of poor-writing-by-consensus
  • George, it's not a consensus when the consenters decide to publish bad information. It's a conspiracy. Please don't edit this article any more until you understand the difference.
  • I am working with others, apparently in the way that a teacher works with a class of juvenile delinquents. Take your sophistry elsewhere and let the truth be.
  • Which in fact you made and you felt those weren't incivil, so his are tame by comparison. One strives to keep things civil by not taking the bait and responding similarly to comments such as yours, even when you continued to misrepresent the issue on the mailing list. - Taxman 18:39, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't misrepresent anything. Your continued animosity towards me and the truth is the least civil part of this entire episode. Blair P. Houghton 21:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Well it would be fairly easy to pull examples bit by bit, compare it to the actual timeline of events to show where you have. Problem is, I would be surprised if you could do anything but claim you are 100% right in this issue, even after being presented with direct evidence. Besides, no animosity is continuing, I'm simply stating the facts. Can I admit I was partly wrong? Sure, my reverts obviously didn't help anything. I have reallized they rarely, if ever, help anything. So in the future I'll just press for sources to back up edits and only then revert if the sources are not provided or do not substantiate the claims made. In the case of this article all of the involved parties understand that requirement, so not much notice is needed I'd suppose. I've learned something, so I'm better off, but you have driven a talented editor off the project by a combination of actions including the comments above. If you are unable to see those comments of yours were innapropriate and that others tried much harder to maintain civility than you did, then that is sad and there is not much more anyone can do for you. - Taxman 22:56, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • If you had actually read the entire thread in the mailing list you'd realize how you're the one doing the misrepresenting here. Enjoy your crocodile tears over George's absence. I don't share your opinion of his talent, and I didn't drive him anywhere. And if you're going to insist on sources, then give us sources for your most recent edits; citing this discussion page is hardly probative. Blair P. Houghton 00:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I indeed read the whole depressing saga. The record is fairly clear, but presenting the evidence in an even clearer manner than it already is in support my point again doesn't seem like it would be terribly useful. Your above quoted comments say all that is needed. My most recent edits to the lead section are simply a summary of the article's anaerobic vs aerobic section, and are already fully supported by the Cahill paper. You didn't dispute any of it here so I added it, seeing how what I added is so well supported by the relevant literature. I can add the citation to the Cahill paper into the lead, but that seems redundant considering it is already in the section that is being summarized. The other edit about adding the 'common training method' was simply an attempt to NPOV by making allowances for the fact that progressive weight increases may not be the only training method. I don't know a whole lot about other training methods or their relative importance, so I stopped there. So which if any are you disputing and based on what sources? - Taxman 00:25, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • My comments were taken out of context and presented that way by a biased poster. They are not my only comments; they are not the whole story, and your implication that they are is further mendacity on your part. I did dispute your interpretation of anaerobic/aerobic, though I didn't dispute it every time you ignored me and repeated it, so you're telling another lie. Adding a footnote to the Cahill paper is easier and cleaner than adding a citation in situ; but that's not the point, the point is your hypocrisy and attempt to take ownership of the page in George's absence by insisting that everyone cite sources when making changes (recall, I did cite my sources when I first made changes, and you've admitted not bothering to read them). Also, as I discussed clearly and at length, scientific papers on the issue use the biochemical and gym-rat meanings of both aerobic and anaerobic interchangeably. So citing one is cherrypicking. The only right summary is to say that weight training can be either one, and leave the discussion to the section with the discussion in it. (There, I've disputed your interpretation again. Take offense if you please; I clearly can't make you happy, though the truth is the only verifiable victim here.) Blair P. Houghton 00:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Back to left. If you didn't say them they couldn't be taken out of context. But you did and they are pretty telling. And even entirely in context they speak for themselves and don't help your case here at all. I'm not taking ownership, reliance on good sources is simply the best way to minimize factual disputes. We are writing a reference work here after all, not an essay. I didn't ignore you, you still haven't brought up anything that disputes the fact as I have added it. You just say you want to say it your way. Your source you originally cited simply doesn't support your claim and isn't all that high quality after all. And in fact, the Cahill paper and every one I have read so far is very clear on using the biochemical senses of the words. In fact they entirely avoid using the colloquial sense and I have stuck to that sense entirely too. I'm not cherry picking, instead using accurate sources, and being consistent with them. It is not correct to only say it can be either one. Do you reallize it is possible to lift entirely anaerobically with no aerobic component whatsoever? If you're going to call post exercise oxygen use 'aerobic exercise' then that is where the confusion is, not in the sentence as I have added it. Here lets break it down into two facts to make it simpler: 1) Weight training using a low number of repetitions and relatively high weight is primarily anaerobic. Do you dispute that and on what basis? 2) while using lower weights and higher repetitions can be substantially aerobic. Again, do you dispute that and on what basis? If you want we can add wording to make it entirely clear that the sentence is talking about the biochemical working of the involved muscles. Is that what your dispute is about, that it doesn't say that? - Taxman 01:12, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Putting the word "primarily" in the summary is POV. That is the crux of the dispute. I prefer the lead paragraph to be more concise, not bloated with detail better left for the existing dicussion section. I do dispute that anything other than the maximally loaded portion of a single rep of a highly weighted motion is 100% anaerobic, and the papers you're reading will agree if they bother to mention it and you bother to read them better than you seem to read what I write. As for your statement, "if you didn't say them they couldn't be taken out of context," it forces me to retract my statement, "the truth is the only verifiable victim here," because your statement is a clear case of blaming the victim, who in this case has had his statements quoted out of context. Blair P. Houghton 02:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • You're wrong. It's not POV it is fact, well supported by the scientific literature. When did fact become POV? It doesn't say all weight training is primarily anaerobic, it says low rep high weight is. In fact the literature doesn't support that there is even a high proportion of glycolisis at all in low rep high weight situations, instead it is primarily ATP and CP. As the rep number increases the anaerobic glycolisis becomes a greater portion, but aerobic glycolisis doesn't become a substantial portion until a much greater number of reps/lower weight is involved. If you want to dispute this well supported fact, then come up with a comparable quality source to back up your claim. Come to think of it what makes you think you know more than the exercise physiologists that wrote the paper I have cited and Sfahey, a medical Dr who has consulted his colleagues in the field?! - Taxman 16:50, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • For one thing, Sfahey said, in public, "it's not a matter of 'intensity'". Look up "argument from authority" if you think he's infallible. The summary is about weight training; the rest of the article is about details of various aspects of weight training. There's plenty of room to post charts and guesses about what fibers are firing during various exercise regimes in the body of the article. Bloating the summary and biasing it beyond the fact that weight training can be aerobic, anaerobic, or both, is an attempt to enforce POV. I have posted a source to show that the fact is the fact and you seem to think that yours is of higher "quality", showing you don't understand the facts so much as you want to impose your bias on them. Finally, as your edits in EPOC have proved, you're acting like a troll and a vandal, and your interpretation of anything is utterly suspect, whereas I've done nothing but tell the truth. Blair P. Houghton 18:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't say he was infallible. I asked you what makes you think you know more than they (multiple people that disagree with you) do? And hmm, multiple peer reviewed journal articles vs a random website. I'll let that one go because it's too obvious. Besides the fact that I pointed out a simple glaring error in your source, it doesn't support your POV. In fact you haven't brought to bear a single source that does support your POV and I'll consider this closed until you do provide a reliable one. As for EPOC, I'd ask anyone to go and look at the sources you provided and tell me how they don't support the fact I added. Besides, that talk should occur there. - Taxman 19:42, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • What do you want me to do? Succumb to the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam (cf. 4th example) simply because my highest degree is a Masters in Electrical and Biomedical Engineering rather than an M.D. and I've only been in and out of weight rooms and reading fitness literature for 28 years? Or point out that you're using a fallacy as a personal attack knowing full well that it's a fallacy? Your behavior on EPOC shows that it's entirely possible that you have an advanced form of Dyslexia, and I direct anyone reading this (masochists, I expect) to go there to see the evidence. We actually agree on the basic facts here in Weight Training, though you seem to think we don't, and I do disagree with hasty generalizations in the summary section. Blair P. Houghton 20:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Further, weight training does train aerobic fibers directly when it is designed to do so; such exercise is a proper part of many effective strength programs and an essential part of any bodybuilding program. It's simply POV to tell readers that weight training is primarily anaerobic. Blair P. Houghton 04:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • As discussed, the continuum does involve aerobic muscle fibers even in primarily anaerobic activities. They simply don't contribute much to the overall effort. Again see the chart here. The aerobic component is well less than 5% for activities well past the low rep high weight range. Even if it were 20% aerobic component, that would still qualify as primarily anaerobic. Do you have some reliable sources for this idea of yours that low rep high weight trainging provides an important aerobic training component? EPOC doesn't count, that is simply the body recovering from the anaerobic work. It uses oxygen, but is not aerobic in the same sense. - Taxman 16:50, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Progressive

It's interesting that the reference [2] in the Weight Training#Progressive Overload section doesn't use the term "progressive", much less the term "progressive overload", never explains what it means by "overload", and actually seems to imply that "overload" leads to injury along with the possibility of improvement. What this section really needs is to be part of a larger section on training patterns vs. goals (as I mentioned above). Blair P. Houghton 00:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dispute

I've finally committed the edits that should have been made to these sections long ago in order to improve the structure, flow, and NPOV of this article. It's not perfect and we can work on that, but the changes needed should all be in the larger section on the distinction between anaerobic vs. aerobic, as it's become slightly redundant since I retained the details of the argument that had been in the summary section.

Those disputing the need for these edits do not appear to dispute any of the facts in them, though somehow one of them thinks that I do, so I've placed the accuracy-dispute tag at the top of the page so he can argue with himself and try, by pointing to his sources, to refute the facts that his own sources have placed in evidence. I hope he realizes that he actually agrees with the article as written and that it is now better-written than before.

I think the extra accuracy is very valuable in the intro. If you're not disagreeing with the point I wrote, why all of the above? It appears there is currently no need for the dispute tag. I didn't remove it because you added it, but for my part, I don't feel it needs to be there. If this is only an issue about what's in the lead section, why not make that clear earlier? You don't think it belongs in the intro, but now seem to agree with the fact, so why don't we let someone else settle it? - Taxman 19:42, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • The "extra accuracy" is not valuable in the intro; it's somewhat stilted and puts far too much detail there, and I'm not sure it's all that balanced as there are exceptions to exceptions and a continuum that is not heeded and any discussion of "reps" is entirely unnecessary and somewhat misleading (low-rep, low-weight, high-speed, jerking motions are a higher-intensity exercise). I was coming back just now because I think adding "depending on intensity" to the summary sentence would say what you think needs to be said without getting erroneously categorical about it.--Blair P. Houghton around 20:20 on March 23 (signature snafu)
Alright, there's some value to that. I'd be fine with adding that but only if the direction of the continuum was made clear, otherwise there is some major information loss there. In any case though we should work on the intro after the rest of the article has been refactored. Only once the article is neutral and covers all the important issues of the subject can the best summary of it be put in for the lead section. Otherwise there is a lot of wasted effort. This entire time you made it look like you disputed the facts as stated, which in light of their strong support by the literature seemed very odd. Could have made it a whole lot easier if you made it clear you agreed, just not for the intro. I still don't agree it's POV, but so as long as it is included in the relevant section and the above is added, I'm fine. Could you remove the dispute tag? - Taxman 20:27, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Somewhere in the early part of my participation in this page you took a nap, because you missed the cite I added, and you also missed that when I simplified the lead way back when I also added just about all of this info to the aerobic/anaerobic section. You've been arguing with me for nothing. Blair P. Houghton 20:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I recast the reference to Cahill as a footnote...I'm not sure numbering the bibliography is all that pretty, but it's long been known that Wikipedia's footnoting is a kludge, so the stumble is idiomatic. Blair P. Houghton 20:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thats fine, yes there is no standard for footnotes/references, so this is as good as any. Probably better in the long run as I plan to add some more. - Taxman 19:42, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

We still need to work on training patterns vs. goals, which touches on the anaerobic/aerobic contiunuum. Blair P. Houghton 18:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. - Taxman 19:42, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Regressing to Progressive

I've got the lead clean and the aerobic/anaerobic section flowing better (much less redundant, and with some new stuff, too). (Taxman, I actually liked your change from the POVish "Most often" to the less presumptive "commonly", it's a shame the whole paragraph got morphed, but the sense is still there.) I'm going to remove the dispute tag and take some time off this article, then come back and look into the training patterns/goals issue. There's some there already; and I think the "progressive" focus in the lead needs to be minimized and moved to the body. Blair P. Houghton 20:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected this article after a request by User:Taxman in response to my offer to do so in preference to seeking 3RR blocks against User:Blair P. Houghton. With other articles this has proved more successful if the varied views of the participants are worked out on this talk page or by other similar means. I stand ready to mediate if asked to do so, or other admins can be asked.

Wikipedia policy is that protection be for as short a period as possible. I will check back here to see if any progress is being made. The editors should present their views and differences and their justifications so mutually satisfactory changes can be made. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Remove protection since User:Tony Sidaway pointed out to me that there is no recent activity, therefore no current revert warring. Taxman, was this the article you were looking for protection for, or a similar article? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, wrong article, sorry. - Taxman 17:35, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Nobody is surprised in the slightest. Blair P. Houghton 19:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)