Talk:Weight training

message: The citations 9 through 24 do not seem to exist. Sooo.... Shenkerism (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

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

message: I am removing X-reps from this article for the following reasons:
* X-reps seem to be an advertising gimmick for an e-book.  The link from the Weight training article goes straight to their advertisment for the e-book.  Wikipedia should not be used as an advertising vehicle for every e-book author who has a new bodybuilding method (even if it's a good one). 
* The definition of what constitutes an X-rep seems to have changed over time.  An older (1997) article by Steve Holman says "X-Rep training is simply placing a muscle in its completely contracted position, or close to it, against resistance and holding it there until the muscle can no longer contract."  This is very different from the definition given in the Weight training article.  What assurance do we have that the definition won't change again later?
* X-reps do not seem to be a significant innovation over older methods.  A posting on a discussion forum from 2004 says "I did read the e-book. It′s basically this 'go to failure, then do mid-range partials'."  This is closer to how an X-rep is defined in the Weight training article.  However, this definition sounds a lot like "burns" as described in the book Mass! by Robert Kennedy and Dennis B. Weis.  The only difference is that with burns you perform the partials at the top of the contraction. 
Therefore, I'm going to replace the X-rep definition with a definition of "burns".  
- Gnbonney 18:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After further reading, I am even more convinced that X-reps is just a variation of burns. - Gnbonney 21:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair call, although we should probably mention that X-Rep is another name for burns to clear up the misconception (which I must admit that I also had) that they are two different things. GeorgeStepanek\talk 23:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point, but then what's to stop the x-rep creators from changing their definition again so they can say that it's not the same?  - Gnbonney 16:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the person who added that definition was me! There's nothing to stop someone new from coming along and rewriting the definition (which is always the case the case for a wiki), but you can rest assured that I won't be reverting this change. GeorgeStepanek\talk 05:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  I'll put your definition back and add something that says it's a variation of burns.  - Gnbonney 14:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of X-reps 

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

message: I am looking (and looking and looking) for a reasoned discussion of upper body strength exercises for post-mastectomy subjects.  There are several considerations:
Simple mastectomy vs mastectomy plus removal of lymph nodes;
Reconstructive surgery (implants vs TRAM vs other types of reconstruction).
I have looked for help in the Komen and Armstrong web sites, various BC blogs, from my surgeons (oncologist and plastic), a physical therapist, and an exercise physiologist.  No help anywhere.
All agree that cardio exercise is good: treadmill, ellipitical runner, stairs, bicycle. However, the two surgeons gave me these two extremes: don't lift more than 5 pounds (breast cancer specialist) and don't play competition tennis (plastic surgeon). There must be some middle ground that will allow me to regain strength in my arm, participate in some sports (softball, volleyball), carry in the groceries, and keep from becoming the frail old lady who can't lift a 10 pound sack of sugar and must therefore go into a nursing home.  Am I forever banned from yoga because I shouldn't lift my arm over my head?
LR Nell 01:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Intuitive training may be your answer. If you can't objectively work out what kind of training you require, then base your training on how your body feels when you try various exercises. With some practice you can learn to distinguish normal soreness (from unaccustomed exercises) and pain (from overuse). Begin with very light weights, and build up slowly. You may be suprised at how much strength you can regain this way. GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight training after breast cancer 

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

message: The following question was asked at the ref desk (science) today: What are the pros and cons to different repetition speeds when doing weight exercises? I do not know the answer, but it may be something that a knowledgeable person could add to this already good article. --Seejyb 22:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm never sure if people are serious or being e-sarcastic.  Anyway, I don't think I could come up with any references, and it's pretty much original research based on my Kin degree.WLU 23:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the effect of different repetition speeds? 

message: Bascially somebody got the the bright idea to "improve" this article by butchering it and drastically altering it to fit some new plan of theirs. Basically they tore up the new article and threw it away, ignoring the featured article warning that an FA is to be left alone as it is considered high quality. They had to come up with a way to merge or alter all the different systems of weight training: power lifting, bodybuilding, strength training, etc. Anyway if I sound upset it's because a couple if months it was still a fine article but somebody completely ignored the FA star and tore it down and decided to build it back up from scratch. Quadzilla99 07:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was me, and my reasons were because weight training is one form of strength training, the others being resistance and isometric.  All of the information that made it a FA is still on wikipedia, on the strength training page.  The information that remains should be specific to weight training alone, and allows it to be differentiated from the other types of exercise.  I've added a clearer link to the discussion below - in retrospect, doing a big change like that without putting in a clearer link to the discussion about such a big change was a bit foolish, so my apologies for not making it clearer.  What issues did you have with the article as is?  WLU 12:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A Discussion about the merger was listed for a couple weeks and everyone at that point was alloted time to comment. The consensus was to go ahead with the merger. Because an article is FA, doesn't mean it can't be improved upon. The fact that Strength training is evolving dictates that an article evolve with it, or it becomes obsolete. We're only striving to improve the article. Sure it can possibly be improved on further, but to revert doesn't allow the article to be truly representative of the industry. I think WLU did a good job on that very large project. I encourage you Quadzilla99 to further improve it. --Maniwar (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Improved upon? Surely you jest. Either way I commented there fairly early I believe, and it was a bad idea that should have been nuked. As for your definitions on Weight training/strength training, please don't try to explain exercise science to me. To be fair though, you made your decision and were within consensus so you did nothing wrong as far as Wikipedia goes. I also am doing nothing wrong in stating my belief that it wasn't broke and you fixed it till it was. Quadzilla99 06:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, all of the information that made weight training a featured article is still on wikipedia.  All the stuff on general hypertrophy is there, it's in strength training.  Nothing has been lost, but now the weight training article contains information that is specifically about 'training with weights', in a way that contrasts it with other types of strength training.  Have a gander at the strength training article and see if there's anything you feel is missing, or should be moved back to the weight training page ('everything' doesn't count :).  We can now work to bring weight training and strength training up to featured article status.  WLU 12:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just reprint what I said earlier as you must have missed it: "Improved upon? Surely you jest. Either way I commented there fairly early I believe, and it was a bad idea that should have been nuked. As for your definitions on Weight training/strength training, please don't try to explain exercise science to me. To be fair though, you made your decision and were within consensus so you did nothing wrong as far as Wikipedia goes. I also am doing nothing wrong in stating my belief that it wasn't broke and you fixed it till it was." Quadzilla99 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well go on then, WLU. Bring weight training back up to featured article status, please. GeorgeStepanek\talk 05:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, since much of what earned FA for WT is now in ST, you/we can easily buff IT up to FA status. It's not like one is "their's" and the other "our's", as much as it may seem so. Sfahey 21:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article Review

message: Hey guys!
How about adding MIT OCW's PE.720 Weight Training, Spring 2006 to external links? I know that this section always ends up cluttered with weight training websites, but I think the MIT course carries enough information to be a good way to read on (as external links are exactly about this, aren't they?).
So think about it.
--phil 11:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say they are appropriate for external links on other wiki pages, notably directly linking the notes and movies to for weight training exercises to the equivalent wiki pages.  The link itself isn't quite direct enough for my tastes to link to the weight training page itself, but I'm open to arguments.  WLU 16:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about adding MIT Open Course Ware: Weight Training to external links... 

message: I changed the safety section to hopefully help people not end up like my best friend. Please read the link, it gives a better explanation than I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.199.30 (talk • contribs) 
:Wikipedia is not a memorial and not a how-to guide.  I've reverted to a more appropriate tone.  WLU 00:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in the safety section.  I've reworded to be a bit clearer.  But it's in the safety section.  And wikipedia has a disclaimer at the bottom of each page, it doesn't need another one.  WLU 01:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety Section 

message: *http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/77/1/197
*Joint Angles
Isometric exercises strengthen the muscle at or near to the joint angle at which the exercise is performed. For example a static bicep exercise held with the joint at 25 degrees only increases the athlete's strength at that specific angle (1) and there is no gain in strength when the elbow is held at other angles. However, at particular joint angles (and it varies from muscle group to muscle group) there is some cross-transference of strength to other joint angles. An isometric bicep curl performed at 80 degrees for example also increases strength at other angles to a lesser extent (1). The same phenomenon is true for the knee (2) and plantar flexors (3).
(1)Thepaut-Mathieu C, Van Hoecke J, Maton B. Myoelectrical and mechanical changes linked to length specificity during isometric training. J Appl Physiol. 1988 Apr;64(4):1500-5
(2)Weir JP, Housh TJ, Weir LL, Johnson GO. Effects of unilateral isometric strength training on joint angle specificity and cross-training. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1995;70(4):337-43
(3)Kitai TA, Sale DG. Specificity of joint angle in isometric training. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1989;58(7):744-8
PhilGM 19:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross-transference of strength to other joint angles 

message: ====Weight training and Strength training====
I recently read through these two articles and many of the paragraphs were identical between the two. Considering how many people who read one article are likely to go on and read the other, this makes for a painfully tiresome read, as well as being unprofessional.
For example, under the History section of both there's three or four sentences starting with "Progressive resistance training dates back at least to Ancient Greece..." And under the Safety section of both, "There have been mixed reviews regarding the use of weightlifting belts..."
IMHO more links and less copypasta would improve the articles.
Daarklord (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weight training is a sub-set of strength training, so the page should have less info on general principles, but more info on the specifics of using gravity to generate resistance.  They're overlapping because they do cover the same domain.  A large amount was indeed copied from one to the other, in part because the history of strength training was, for a long time, the history of weight training.  Doesn't mean it can't be improved though.  WLU (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the "pioneers" of the Weight Training article, I agree w/ WLU. This was a difficult, but effective compromise when the two were merged, and wholesale changes shouldn't be made now. sfahey/1-20-08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfahey (talk • contribs) 16:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's re-merge then. It's been 5 years. ··gracefool☺ 08:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlap between Weight training and Strength training 

message: I recently read through these two articles and many of the paragraphs were identical between the two. Considering how many people who read one article are likely to go on and read the other, this makes for a painfully tiresome read, as well as being unprofessional.
For example, under the History section of both there's three or four sentences starting with "Progressive resistance training dates back at least to Ancient Greece..." And under the Safety section of both, "There have been mixed reviews regarding the use of weightlifting belts..."
IMHO more links and less copypasta would improve the articles.
Daarklord (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weight training is a sub-set of strength training, so the page should have less info on general principles, but more info on the specifics of using gravity to generate resistance.  They're overlapping because they do cover the same domain.  A large amount was indeed copied from one to the other, in part because the history of strength training was, for a long time, the history of weight training.  Doesn't mean it can't be improved though.  WLU (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the "pioneers" of the Weight Training article, I agree w/ WLU. This was a difficult, but effective compromise when the two were merged, and wholesale changes shouldn't be made now. sfahey/1-20-08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfahey (talk • contribs) 16:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's re-merge then. It's been 5 years. ··gracefool☺ 08:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Weight training]] and [[Strength training]]

message: I feel that http://www.mogulnethealth.com/exercises/index.html would be a good link to add to this article.  It illustrates exercises for most major muscle groups.  Tell me what you think.  Rmogul (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As discussed on my talk page, I believe the EXRX pages are better primarily due to their animation, but I think the're far from ideal and would rather a more scholarly source if possible.  Also, you souldn't be adding them to the page because you appear to be related in some way to the website, and in many cases your sole addition to the page is to repeatedly add the same link.  Solicit regular contributors (or any contributors) to the pages and ask them if they think the links are appropriate.  I'm inclined to say no, but there is not a clearly superior set of links that makes it unequivocally obvious no further 'demonstration links' are necessary.  WLU (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Link - http://www.mogulnethealth.com/exercises/index.html 

message: I suggest you add the instructional videos page from GymJunkies.com at [spam removed].  The exercise videos, text and pictures go into good depth and are better for understanding how to do the exercise than a site like ExRX.  Complicated lifts like deadlifts and squats can't be explained with a GIF image.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JumboPickles (talk • contribs) 17:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Links

message: I would like to suggest http://www.fitness-central.co.uk/exercise/weight-training/free-weights/index.php as a link for the Weight Training page. It gives instructions and information on weight training for strength and endurance. If this is approved who adds the link.... me or an administrator? --BenHitchens (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Link - http://www.fitness-central.co.uk/exercise/weight-training/free-weights/index.php 

message: * XL Athlete Strength and Conditioning
* National Strength and Conditioning Association
* USA Weightlifting
Already added.  The demonstration lifts on XL Athlete vastly expand upon UW-La Crosse'.
:I've removed the links.  XL would be the best candidate, but it's a maze of links and contains little real attribution to the expertise of the site.  It's also got a fair amount of advertising and is redundant to the U Wisconsin site, which is clearer, easier to navigate, contains the same type of information, lacks ads and is from a university.  So removed per WP:ELNO #2, 4 and 5.  The organization websites I removed per countering systemic bias - these are US-specific sites and are not in keeping with wikipedia's world-wide focus.  They also aren't in keeping with WP:ELNO#1 - they add no information about weight training, they're just governing bodies.  WLU (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: It would good if someone incorporated the known science as stated in the official Bible of weight training: http://faculty.pepperdine.edu/mfeltner/Classes/SPME330/ps1.pdf Ywaz (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Bible on the Science of Resistance Training

message: "People who have actually lifted a weight in their life, as opposed to those who just cite reference material let the lift take as long as it naturally takes to do. Consider your sources. ... This editor has found that the people who advise to try to keep a ramrod-straight back are usually people who have never done a deadlift or Olympic lift in their entire life."
This has got to be one of the most hilariously unencyclopedic passages I've ever seen on Wikipedia.  I would fix but am not an expert on the subject.  Anyone want to give it a shot?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.14.194 (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper Technique

message: In the hydration section there is reference to "drink about 7 imperial fluid ounces (2.0 dL) every 15 minutes while exercising" Is this referring to deci-litre, as surely this  is a rarely used quantity?. Wouldn't 200mL (as 7x30=210) be clearer to most readers? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unit Usage: Deci-litre? 

message: There's too much overlap between this article and Strength training. Weight training should be a section of the strength training article, since apart from the "Weight training versus other types of exercise" paragraph, not a single statement is specific to weights. ··gracefool☺ 08:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: I agree with the above user.  There is too much overlap and this is not surprising because the distinction between weight training and strength training is not natural;  the former arguably leads to the latter.
TAF  13.43 GMT  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.167.176 (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: I would like to suggest http://elitemensguide.com/videos/ as a link for the Weight Training page. It provides fully, narrated instructional weight training videos that are easily filterable by type of muscle trained. All videos are tablet and mobile compatible. Kevin P. McGowan Kevinpmcgowan (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Link - http://elitemensguide.com/videos/ 

message: Is there an article here about unusual lifts like lifting weights via a strap clenched between teeth, or tie to hair?
In Clash of the Titans 1981 for example there is an old man using his beard tied to a hammock to deadlift a woman off the ground. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: weird lifts

message: Lifting Is not a good thing for young children can effect your body when young. It makes the bones weaker. The bones will be stunted. 2600:4040:F021:E000:143:2BFD:7EF8:AAC3 (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifting at a young age 

message: — Assignment last updated by Tonylorenzo14 (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Composition I - Writing Wikipedia, section 2

message: I took the time to review the article and add examples and citations to certain articles. I am working on this article as a project for a class i take in college. I added a few details into the “Free weights” and “Weight machines” to help differentiate the two. I also added to “Health benefits” to improve upon the many benefits that come with weight training. Finally, I added a new article “Full body workouts” to elaborate on what goes into it and if it’s right for you.Tonylorenzo14 (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Medical claims have special sourcing requirements, which you can read about at WP:MEDRS. Overall even your non-medical sources did not meet minimum standards (please read WP:RS). - MrOllie (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added to article 

message: — Assignment last updated by YasmaniGrandahl (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Advanced Writing Science

message: — Assignment last updated by Ci2003 (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Composition I - Writing Wikipedia, section 2