Talk:Exercise physiology

message: Exercise Physiology is NOT sports medicine, sports science, or exercise science.  Exercise physiology is also much more than endurance exercise.  Unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary, resistance training is also exercise. Therefore the claim or emphasis that exercise physiology is ONLY endurance exercise is simply untrue and misleading.
One thing to remember: Exercise Physiology is not sports medicine. Look up the definition of sports medicine and it becomes obvious. ASEP has the best and most complete definition of exercise physiology. Exercise Physiology is not exercise science. Exercise science is a general term that includes multiple fields of study including athletic training, physical therapy, and exercise physiology.
Exercise Physiologists will have to decide if they want to be grouped in with multi-disciplinary organizations or have their own professional organization.  Other professions such as athletic training have their own organization, as do physical therapists. They can also choose to be a part of other umbrella organizations such as ACSM if they wish. The same logic should hold true for exercise physiology.
*Homepage of the ASEP - the professional organization (founded 1997) offering board certification for exercise physiologists in the United States. http://www.asep.org/
*Homepage of the AAESS - the professional organisation (founded 1991) offering accreditation for Exercise Physiologists in Australia. http://www.aaess.com.au/
*What is Exercise Physiology? - from The British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences (founded 1984). http://www.bases.org.uk/newsite/physiology.asp
*The Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs reports "no accredited programs" in the area of Exercise Physiology as of 2004-2005. More research in this area is probably needed. http://www.caahep.org/documents/Archives/2004-05%20Annual%20Report.pdf
----
As the above comment notes, exercise physiology is not the same as sport science, nor is it about organizations and url links to them. Separate pages should be created for them. 
I am preparing three more sections to follow to be added to this rewrite: 
* the long term effects of exercise upon the body (muscle development; heart, bone), 
* the physiology effects of the lack of exercise (plasma lipids, BDNF; risk to health) 
* the special issues that apply to exercise in children (metabolic differences; relationship with brain development).  
I am slightly dyslexic—I usually elsewhere get my work checked over-- so there may need for some copy editing and rewriting.  
LittleHow (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Exercise physiology is an important Wikipedia article. Many articles link to it. Many people want to read clear, comprehendible information about the biological processes involved when they engage in exercise. That puts a responsibility upon Wikipedians to make sure that this page is informative and interesting to read as a proper encyclopedia article.  
That has not been the case in the past—look back at this page’s history and talk history before 14 December 2008 and it has been edited with a view largely to promote an organization “American Society of Exercise Physiologists”  and its practice-orientated definition of “exercise physiology”. None of these edits had provided much useful information suitable for an encyclopedia article. 
Encyclopedia content was put on--but now much of it has been removed. The reasons given are inappropriate. For example, “removed sentence including lactic acid because, at physiologic pH, there is no lactic acid”. However, the passage removed summarized directly from recent research by Thomas H. Pedersen in Science. To quote from them (Pedersen TH, Nielsen OB, Lamb GD, Stephenson DG. 2004 Intracellular acidosis enhances the excitability of working muscle. Science. 305(5687):1144-7.): “intracellular acidosis increases the excitability of the T system in depolarized muscle fibers, thus counteracting fatigue at a critical step in ECC. In this model of working muscle, acidic pH reduced Cl– permeability, thereby reducing the size of the Na+ current needed to generate a propagating AP. Thus, down-regulation of T system Cl– permeability by intracellular acidosis is important for preserving a fully operational T system in working muscle.” 
There are many ways the content can be improved but this editing is not constructive. If the physiology of resistance training should be added, then it should be added with appropriate references. None of the deletions made have been discussed on this talk page. Grammar can be improved rather than whole sentences removed. Changes can also be made without leaving inappropriate comments upon an editor's talk page. I have reinstated the page before this changes.--LittleHow (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Need to defend the content integrity of this article

message: The first sentence reads: "Exercise physiology is the study of the acute responses and chronic adaptations to a wide range of physical exercise conditions."
Why "acute" and why "chronic"?  Does someone have a quote from a good source that defines "Exercise physiology" in that manner?
A more reasonable version might be: "Exercise physiology is the study of the responses and adaptations to a wide range of physical exercise conditions," after all, the vast majority of the time we are concerned with a description of the response of the body to ordinary exercise regimes not the extremes to which atheltes take it.Zedshort (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence sees a bit off 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Exercise physiology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150416185146/http://www.procalcdiet.com/storage/Predictionofenergy.pdf to http://www.procalcdiet.com/storage/Predictionofenergy.pdf
*Added  tag to http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/k51611345m783727/fulltext.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The  section doesn't mention  "fat burning", even using more technical terms.   Yet for years we've been told that "exercise burns fat".  Does it, or not?  I had hoped this article might offer at least basic information on how body fat is affected by exercise.  yoyo (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does exercise burn fat? 

message: This article from the beginning seemed very well thought out and like a promising article. The lead section of this article gives a good introduction to the article and the different sections in it. The lead is pretty simple and doesn't overcomplicate things or go into too many details.
The content of the article is good but I think it could use some improvement. I think the article contains most of the important information that is needed when discussing this topic. I think too much information was included in the section about education in exercise physiology. It was the second largest section of the article, but I feel like it is not as important as the other sections so it didn't need that much information. I think most of the content is up-to-date, but this may be untrue after looking at the talk page. There really is no conversation about equality or any specific ethnic group in this article.
This article seems mostly neutral or unbiased. A couple of sentences seem to be coming from a biased source, but most of the content was informational and unbiased. The sources are thorough, there were many from many different sources that varied from different countries also. Not all of the information/sources are current, only one of them seems to have been written within the past 10 years, and when it comes to some health topics, these could be information that is out of date. I think there are sources that are more accurate or current compared to some of the ones that were used in this article. I did click on a few of the links and they did work.
The organization of the article was good, the similar things were grouped together one section after another and the flow of the article was good. The article didn't have any grammatical or spelling errors. The article was fairly easy to read, it might be harder to read for a beginning or someone not in that field because of some of the medical terminology and medical knowledge but it was for the most part good.
There was very few images used in this article and I feel like the ones used weren't necessarily needed or there could have been better images selected. The images were briefly captioned but I feel like better images could've been used and captioned.
The talk page discussion was very interesting to read. There were a lot of comments about how some of the information as not the most current or accurate and some comments of some great things that were added to the article. This article is part of some WikiProjects and was part of Wikipedia Education Foundation Article.
My overall impressions of this article were that it is good but I think it could be more updated to use current information and more current articles. The article was well written and the format was good, I think it could just use some more images that are more related to the topic and I think the article is well-developed.Sleepychicken4938 (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Evaluation