Talk:Weight training/Merger discussion

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.

Proposed merger with resistance training

DECEMBER 2006 - PLEASE NOTE THAT THE MERGER HAS ALREADY OCCURRED AND THE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE, there is no need to keep voting on the subject. The substantive content that made weight training a featured article has been moved wholesale to the strength training article, all that remains on the weight training page is the information that differentiates weight training from other forms of strength training. Information has not been lost, it has been moved. WLU 15:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a large amount of overlap between the two subjects of weight training and resistance training. With the small amount of information in the resistance training, they could be merged without losing any information. Brad T. Cordeiro 02:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I dissagree. Strength Training can be accomplished two very seperate ways 1) weight training and 2) resistence training. They are two totally different vehicles like a truck and a car; both are vehicles, but different. Weight Training uses free weights to accomplish streangth training and Resistance uses either hydraulic, rope, or rubber to accomplish strenght training (opposing force). I do not agree on merging the two documents. -Maniwar (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but if we had articles on cars and trucks, they could easily be one article on vehicles. Brad T. Cordeiro 18:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree. There's a lot more to resistance training than just weight training, although it may look like it at the moment. This was more obvious before the references to the Total Gym and Bowflex were removed... GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)–
Brad, you totally miss the analogy. The article would be on "strength training", not weight training. Like your analogy of vehicles, they are both "strength training" not "weight training." So I dissagree that this article should be removed. Maniwar (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

— 61.0.86.71 10:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)firstly, simple weight training also seems to me a form of resistance training, where one is working against the resistance provided by the earth's gravitational force (unlike the force of elastic, or rubber, or hydraulic, when working with those type of equipment). thus seen, weight training becomes a sub category of resistance training. however, the term "weight training" is far more popular and well - known as compared to "resistance training" 61.0.86.71 10:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)(surely in parts of the world where english is not the mother tongue, and which did not partake the fitness craze brought about by arnold schwarzennegar and sylvester stallone in USA). for this reason alone, i would recommend this article to remain as it is. The article on resistance training could be made a part of this article (and thus merged into it). -Pradyumna Gokhale61.0.86.71 10:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice try 61.0.86.71! ASMI and all other fitness professionals differenciate the two and point out that weight training is 'not' the same at resistance training. Again, both are strength training but they are two different vehicles. If anything, they both could be merged into strength training. I am in the fitness industry and I deal with this stuff everyday and I know for fact they are not the same. And gravity does not turn weights into resistance. Maniwar (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

actually that is partly incorrect the more mass a dumbbell has the more the force of gravity pushes on it. the mass doesnt change but the resistance does, and since we are on earth that pushing force eqauls more resistance. hence it becomes increasingly difficult to lift heavier weights --AF1987 18:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Cite some sources. I see where you are going with this and how you got there, but again, ASMI, The Cooper Institute, and various other sources consider weights are not resistance. They point out the fact that the two are separate and different. Besides using the gravity arguement, cite sources that support this thought. I've yet to find one. --Maniwar (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I dunno man, here's a couple links: ASMI, prevention magazine, fantasy fit, whatever that is. As far as I can see, the difference is how the resistance is generated - gravity for weights, tension for elastic, flexible bars for bowflex, but ultimately it comes down to the muscle producing force and something providing resistance, with an end result of increased strength. A quick google search using "resistance weight training" produced similar results, several articles within the first 30 using the two terms interchangeably. What are your references for distinguishing between them? WLU 20:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you look and read the very first link you gave, and I quote:
“ Resistance training, sometimes known as weight training or strength training, is a specialized method of conditioning designed to increase muscle strength, muscle endurance, and muscle power. Resistance training refers to the use of any one or a combination of training methods which may include resistance machines, dumbells, barbells, body weight, and rubber tubing. The aim of resistance training is to gradually and progressively overload the musculoskeletal system so it gets stronger. The term resistance training must be distinguished from the sports of weightlifting and powerlifting in which lift heavy weights in practice and attempt to lift maximal amounts of weight in competition.ASMI ”
and the second link, the lady is not a fitness professional. The third link, well I've never heard of Fantasy fit and I'll have to do some research on that, so no comment yet. When you take a cirtification or a degree, more and more cirtifiers/colleges point out that they are in fact different. And again, AMSI points out that sometimes resistance training is called weight training, but not visa versa and they point out the type of equipment to use for resistance and none of them are weights. --Maniwar (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Wait a sec, if you read the ASMI quote, it clearly lists "barbells" and "dumbells" along with "resistance machines" as examples of "resistance training". 24.252.113.75 21:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Ya, but if you look at the entries for WT, RT and ST, RT is used in the sense of hydraulic and elastic resistance, while the sense in the ASMI quote refers to the sense of 'resistance to contraction' which refers to the wikipedia entry for strength training. WLU 02:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I think I understand your point better now - you are using resistance training in the form of 'elastic' or 'tension' resistance, correct? As opposed to the broader form of 'anything that resists the contraction of the muscle'. I'm seeing it from the more biological/kinesiology sense (my own academic background) of resistance to contraction. So all could go under the heading of strength training, with weights and resistance (in the sense of tension from elastic, hydraulic or rope providing resistance to the muscle - tubing, bowflex, what have you) both providing the means to increase strength by opposing the force generated by contraction, causing muscle damage, rebound recovery, hypertrophy, etc. Is that how you are differentiating weight training from resistance training? I could see where the confusion comes from, and if I understand correctly, it might be worthwhile to put in a sentence clarifying the relationship between the two. Something like "Resistance training has two different, sometimes confused meanings - general resistance to the force of muscular contraction, and elastic resistance as one means of opposing this force." Your thoughts? WLU 13:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
WLU, I could not have said it better myself. That's how I see it. Since I like your wording better, go ahead and add it if-n-ya-don't-mind. Traditionally speaking, resistance training was looked at as invaluable, however more and more and seeing that's not so. Especially when combined with Circuit Training resistance training (RT) is the fastest way to accomplish conditioning, weight loss, and toning. Unfortunately, people don't differenciate and many times interchange the terms, but they are quite different. RT is sometimes referred to as wight training, as I mentioned above, but weight training is not called RT, generally and correctly speaking. AMSI and The Cooper Institute I think is trying to change that in their training courses. I'm not sure what ACE's take on it is, but I'm sure with the growth of circuit training and RT on the rise that they may also start differenciating. Oh, and lastly, as I keep trying to point out to everyone, they are both Strength Training! Just like cars and trucks are vehicles, but they are not both cars and they are not both trucks. --Maniwar (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sooo.... how about merging everything into strength training? Have a single article that refers to strength training, irrespective of method, then have sub-headings talking about weights, resistance (elastic), and any other methods (isometrics???). Basically I think it would involve changing the title of weight training to strength training, and either adding some sub-headings to types of exercise, or have the different types as their own sub-headings. That way there's one comprehensive article that covers almost everything. If people wanted to put in main articles branching off to discuss the different types of strength training, there could be one dealing more specifically with weights, more specifically with resistance (elastic), plyometrics, and whatever else is left (isometrics?). I still think that weight training is a mis-nomer. Oh, and now I totally get your car/truck metaphor. WLU 16:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with a merger of "Strength Training" over "Weight Training" however I have two concerns. The article may end up being too long and one may be sequested by the other. I do believe the resistance article can be added to and improved. I've done some, but don't have all the knowlege to improve it. I will eventually get to researching it more, but right now I'm a bit busy for that. I like what you said above and think you should contribute that to the article improving it a bit. Glad you get my car/truck example and I totally agree that on the mis-nomer. --Maniwar (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

How about a merger into strength training then? It could comprehensively cover strength, resistance, and other types of strength training, and would do the best job of showing the similarities and differences between different types. If it's all under one article it's a lot easier to see, versus having to click on a bunch of links and remember what each article said. How about strength training with subheadings for weights, resistance, etc. WLU 21:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the whole article, it's way more comprehensive than my first impression. What if the content was merged from the other articles, but re-named strength training? It's still the most all-encompassing category.

Oppose this is a former featured article and there are significant differences between the three fields. As a former personal trainer I feel bodybuilders, strength trainers, powerlifters, and general weight trainers are different enough to merit their own pages.Quadzilla99 00:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it be feasible to create a "Health and Fitness" series? It seems like this would address many of the concerns. There is a significant enough overlap and it would be helpful to the user to have a consolidation of pages. --Reaper Man 09:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reaper Man

Merge of weight training, strength training and resistance training

See Talk:Strength_training/Merger discussion#Merge of weight training, strength training and resistance training

Ideally I would prefer if all talk took place on Talk:Strength training if possible, for my own ease of reference. Natch, I'm only one person and therefore at the mercy of all other users. Please have pity on me. WLU 18:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Since weight training and resistance training are both subsets of strength training, it makes sense that strength training be the most 'central', broadest and most comprehensive article on techniques to increase muscle strength. This page could discuss the history of strength training (mostly the history of weight training really since elastics, isometrics and plyometrics are techniques discovered only in the 20th century I believe), the adaptations of the body to strength training, benefits, risks, physiological changes, etc. Each technique used to increase strength (weights, elastic resistance, isometrics) could have a sub-heading, and main articles splitting off from strength training. This more central page could also have a brief section on the differences between each one, a short compare/contrast. Most of the information currently contained on the weight training page (history, basic principles, concerns, safety) would be moved over to strength training, but everything specific to weights (dumbells, barbells, stacks, machines, exercises, leverage, reps, sets) would stay on its own page, as would everything specific to resistance training (elastic tubing, bowflex, hydraulics/water training), plyometrics (stretch-rebound cycle) and isometrics (joint angles, range of motion). I think this is the best way to clear up confusion regarding the different types of strength training and to highlight the similarities and differences between them. WLU 18:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

started merger

I started the merger of the three articles, I moved much of the weight training info over to strength training, and cleaned up a little bit of the weight training. WLU 18:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've almost finished the merger, mostly by taking a lot of info out that was duplicated on the strength training page. I'm trying to highlight how weight training is distinct from other types of strength training, while the basic principles are in strength training. I'm kinda going cross-eyed from re-reading the same info again and again, so comments are welcome. If anyone can think of anything else that makes weights distinct from elastic, hydraulic, isometric and plyometric, please add it in! WLU 01:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

When I have a breather, I'll take a gander at it. I want to applaud WLU for his hard work and effort in taking on this big task. --Maniwar (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well shucks, it really was mostly deleting but I will accept the compliment. Even preen a little. WLU