Talk:Weight training/archive2

message: so high rep, low weight will not improve ome's muscle tone, but that section fails to explain what will improve muscle tone.  can someone write what will improve muscle tone?  please
--GregLoutsenko 13:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Muscle tone" is an elusive concept. It properly refers to the nerve supply to a muscle keeping it in a "ready" state, but I believe in a cosmetic sense is used to describe the "cut" appearance that muscles develop when body fat diminishes. I think an encyclopedia article should use this term in the former sense, and not describe any change in a[ppearance of muscles as "toning". Sfahey 18:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually since the advice from the section heading is usually given in the second sense, I think we should explain the difference between the two meanings in the answer. - Taxman Talk 19:41, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
The section titled "Are light, high-repetition exercises effective for toning muscles?" doesn't clearly answer the question. I'd recommend phrasing such as this: "No, this type of exercise will not improve muscle definition.  This is acheived through a combination of building reasonable sized muscles and acheiving low to moderate levels of body fat.  Weight training, aerobic exercise and good diet are the requirements of a 'toned' physique. Additionally, there is some confusion about the word 'tone'. Exercisers mean blah.. Scientists mean blah.." TomCerul 13:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: See, that's 'cut'. I think people using the 'tone' slang might refer to cut, but it may in fact also refer to something else. What about how tense the muscle stays when you don't focus on contracting it? Perhaps tone is how 'flexed' you are when relaxed? In that case, maybe we should reconsider what high-rep training might do, since the phenomenon does seem exceedingly popular, it may not be solely myth. Tyciol 05:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are light, high-repetition exercises effective for toning muscles? 

message: A recent edit by Arvindn suggested that multiple set training is bogus, citing . But this seems to be only half of the truth: Pollock (1997) agrees, saying that "the existing literature clearly indicates that for the first 3 to 4 months of strength training, single-set programs are equally effective as multiple-set programs... [but] longer-duration studies may show greater strength gains with multiple-set programs". This was confirmed by Kraemer (2003): "The preponderance of evidence indicates that multiple-set systems work best for the development of strength and local muscle endurance. No study has shown that single-set training is superior (my italics) to multiple-set training in either trained or untrained individuals. It appears that, while both programs may be similar for increasing strength in untrained subjects (my italics) during short-term training periods (6 to 12 weeks), multiple-set systems are required for optimal progress over longer training periods (my emphasis)." --203.173.14.87 12:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article fails to address whether sets should be of invarying weight or of increasing weight as the exercise progresses. -Robert Cook 10:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean progresses in a single section, or in the long run? Weight should always increase in the long run, but if you can no longer lift a heavy weight, continuing exercising with lighter weights in that session can induce additional fatigue/hypertrophy. Tyciol 16:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok i'll give an example. currently when i do bench press i start with a 40 lb on each side for the first set of 8. then my spotter goes, then i do another set but with 45 on each side, then 50 then 55.  is that the proper way or should each set have a constant weight?--Robert Cook 01:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weight_training#Advanced_techniques describes a couple of variants, namely Pyramiding (where you first increase and then decrease the weights) and Drop Sets (where you keep going to failure with lighter and lighter weights). Otherwise it's whatever you feel you need as a warmup before your work sets.  GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple set training

message: I removed the link tags on functional, since that leads to a disambiguation page, none of whose entries are helpful.  I also think that the "may provide benefits" phrase should be strengthened to "provides benefits" or "has been shown to provide benefits".  I don't know of any significant authourities that argue that strength training isn't beneficial to overall health and wellbeing.   Blowfish 20:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Counter example: weight training with tiny weights. I have seen women doing it oh so diligently in the gym, and yet I really can't see that it provides any benefit at all. There has to be some caveat in that assertion, although I agree that perhaps it should be more specific than just saying "may do X". GeorgeStepanek\talk 23:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back, George. This seemingly non-controversial article has continued to spawn debate since your sabbatical. Sfahey 23:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. It looks like there has been a lot of progress in the meantime. GeorgeStepanek\talk 07:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Weight training is certainly a subset of resistance training. Also, even though strength training is almost synonymous with resistence training, I'm still not convinced that it's exactly the same thing. One can also gain strength through movement alone e.g. by sprinting or by using strength shoes. I'm not going to revert, but I urge you to restore that sentence, please, because I feel that it does help to clarify the relationship between three often confused terms. GeorgeStepanek\talk 07:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have called sprinting a resistance exercise where the resistance is made up bodyweight, air resistance, etc.  But wading through pubmed, I see that at least some researchers use the term "resistance training" to the exclusion of plyometric exercises and sprinting.  I'm not thrilled with it, but I put the sentence back -- sorry about the mixup.  Blowfish 17:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! GeorgeStepanek\talk 23:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes... it seems the key to this controversy is whether or not your own bodyweight and gravity alone are considered resistance. Indeed, these forces do require the muscles resist, but is it ADDED? Normally, we'd probably consider resistance training to be additional resistance above and beyond the resistance we normally encounter from basic laws of movement. So, a bodyweight squat wouldn't be resistance training, but doing so holding some weight or with stretch bands would be. Tyciol 05:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: There are some issues with the methodology. Firstly, the study used solely resistance machines, not freeweights - and the results are certainly not applicable to any freeweight programmes. Secondly those trainees that performed 3 sets of an exercise actually did them in a circuit fashion which largely is atypical of normal multi-set strength programmes. Lastly I think the inclusion of the study in the article is more misleading relative to the little information it provides. StrengthCoach 12:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have summarised this section, but keeping the points that you added. The previous level of detail was confusing and unecessary. GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with the "Florida Study"

message: This section has an absolute answer to the question, but I think it needs to be rewritten so that it agrees better with the sources: "... an exercise program combined with diet modification may be key to losing weight and keeping it off... Aerobic exercise alone may not be enough to preserve lean muscle mass when weight is lost, but incorporating resistance exercise may (my italics) prevent reductions in resting metabolic rate and lean body mass... Based on the findings reported to date (2003), it appears that the role and effectiveness of resistance training in weight loss and body weight regulation of overweight individuals is not clear. Additional research is warranted". I also think diet modification needs to be mentioned.
:Diet modification is more effective than strength training, but strength training alone (as long as there is adequate protein to build lean tissue) can definately control weight loss, although if you're eating junk you'll be unhealthy still, so it's best to combine the two. Tyciol 06:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can weight training help me slim down?

message: On the picture, the woman has her legs on the bench.  According to Dr. Fred Hatfield (aka "Dr. Squat")...
"There are two particularly troublesome techniques I see all too often among bench pressers. One is the dangerous practice of using a thumbless grip. The notion that a thumbless grip will somehow alter the angle or quality of stress you're delivering to your pecs is outrageously dumb. Keep your thumbs around the bar!"
AND
"The second practice is just as outrageous. I've heard benchers say that by keeping your feet off the floor -- suspended over the bench or resting on the bench -- somehow improves the isolation of the pecs and therefore the adaptive overload being delivered to your pecs. The truth is that while your feet are off the floor, you're always slightly off balance on the narrow bench you're lying on, and various stabilizer muscles are attempting to keep you from falling off the bench. This superfluous muscular activity is detracting from the stress you can deliver to the pecs. It is certainly NOT improving it! Besides, being off balance while a heavy weight is hovering over your face and throat is downright asking for trouble!"
His credentials can be seen on his website at www.drsquat.com
May want to mention this in the write-up.
EETech 19:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This information is probably more useful in the bench press article itself, because the image is used here to illustrate the Smith machine rather than the exercise itself. Go on: be bold. Feel free to add the information yourself. GeorgeStepanek\talk 21:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As a powerlifter who does use a thumbless/false grip when benching, I can safely say i'm in a minority. The vast majority of the worlds top benchers do so with a regular grip, and some federations have even outlawed the thumbless grip (or at least required special disclaimer forms in case of injury). As for the points you mentioned on why it is possibly better, its a very contentious issue. In terms of powerlifting, its argued that a regular grip allows for better activation of the triceps through the "bending the bar" technique and it is safer - both points i'd have a hard time disagreeing with. Fred Hatfield only seems to be arguing against a thumbless grip placing a greater stress on the pectorals, which I have to agree with as the difference in stress between the two grips will be negligible. StrengthCoach 12:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe I'm incorrect about the thumbless grip (actually, it's Doc Hatfield's advice, but I tend to agree that it's dangerous -- I won't argue the physiology of it though).  For a powerlifter, maybe you have a point.  I think that beginners and the general population tend to mimic stupid crap they see "the big guy in the gym" doing.  It may have it's place and reason, but when a beginner imitates something without knowing the logic behind it, that can lead to trouble.  I personally think it's insane to lift without your thumb around the bar.  I've seen guys nearly drop the bar on their head/throat because they were doing this.  When I asked them why they were doing it, they replied that they'd seen it in a magazine and had no clue why.  I think that leaning toward safety is better than looking cool in the gym by imitating the big guy.  That's just my opinion though. EETech 17:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear; I wasnt making any points for the thumbless grip, in fact quite the opposite, despite using it myself. StrengthCoach 17:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood.  I'm sure that it works for some (many) people, but once you're benching 300 lbs, you're in a different league and can't really be considered a "beginner".  I was the guy years ago that listened to the big guys in the gym and ended up sore, discouraged, and fatigued simply because I wasn't doing things properly.  I think that beginners must build a solid foundation and do it safely.  Once they become more advanced, they can start using techniques that would otherwise be dangerous.  EETech 22:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Good call. If you could find a replacement image for the Smith Machine that would be even better! GeorgeStepanek\talk 13:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Technique on Bench Press

message: There are a few sites that show video clips/animations of different exercises with descriptions on what muscle groups they involve, should be useful for all regardless of ability...
*exrx, very comprehensive (form is questionable on some lifts) 
*univ. of idaho speed and strength clinic 
*univ. of wisconsin strength and conditioning centre  
StrengthCoach 02:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an inline link to exrx on the page, but the other two are new to me. GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exercise videos 

message: * made point pre-workout meal should be balanced. (carbs/complete protein/some fat)
* changed specific time of eating a meal 1-2hrs before a workout. its a tradeoff between having adequate energy and peak amino levels and keeping the food down (many bodybuilders have a whey protein/carb shake directly before or even during training).
* optimal pre-workout nutrition is very important in minimising the catabolic effect caused by intense weight training. see work of tipton et al.
* probably not important to the casual weight trainer, but i dont think that should be a reason to exclude the info.
StrengthCoach 20:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with all your points, except for the timing issue. While it's true that the specific times do vary, novices may well be tempted to eat immediately before training, which is not necessarily the best idea for them. Can we change it to say something like often or normally one to two hours prior to the workout? Experienced practitioners will know when to ignore this (and why), but it'll still give useful guidance to novices. GeorgeStepanek\talk 23:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Often 1-2hrs prior seems a happy medium. (personally I still think 'indigestion' is a non-issue for healthy adults when we're talking about ~500cal meals even literally right before training) StrengthCoach 08:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that it takes a certain amount of time for the digestion process to get underway, so if you train right after eating then you won't get much benefit from your meal. And also that with specialized bodybuilding products that are composed of glucose and fast-acting whey proteins this limitation may not apply. (But please correct me if I am wrong!) GeorgeStepanek\talk 09:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your right, I was assuming that the weight trainee did not have an immediate _need_ for energy (ie is eating 5 smaller meals a day). StrengthCoach 08:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is nutrition relevant for weight trainers? 

message: There is currently redundancy between the main article History of strength training and a subsection of this article.  If a separate article is used, then information regarding historical aspects should go to that article. Shawnc 14:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah. Someone lifted that (stub) article verbatim from the main article last year. It belongs in the main article, although anyone is welcome to add to the stub and justify its existence. Sfahey 23:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if originally lifted, it's not that bad an idea. After all, after a certain point, history can indeed be discussed separately. This article might be used just for the current information, practises, and general ideas about weight training, rather than the more archaic origins which are pretty shifty. Having a 'history of' may attract more historians to editing the article too, which I think is great. It could be given a tag as a history stub and so forth. Tyciol 06:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I copied it into a separate article. I originally wrote just enough for the history section of the Weight training article, but I also thought that this information could be expanded into a very worthwhile article of its own. So please don't delete this section, and please do help expand History of strength training. Thank you. GeorgeStepanek\talk 10:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.sandowplus.co.uk/ I'm a bit intimidated by this one website, but it has a plethora of old-time strength books which have become public domain. They should give you information on the history of old-time methods and the names of old-time trainers. So far only Farmer Burns' stuff is in PDF. The webmaster said he might convert some others if I told him which he wanted, any requests? Tyciol 17:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[History of strength training]]

message: "A complete weight training workout can be performed with a pair of adjustable dumbbells and a set of weight disks (plates)"
Can anybody provides any source for this assertion?
:OK, this isn't an external source, but Weight training exercises lists at least one exercise for each body part that can be performed with dumbbells. GeorgeStepanek\talk 22:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumbbell Excercise 

message: I think the "Concerns" section needs to be changed. Wikipedia should not list FAQs. I don't think it would be too hard to rephrase the section, but I'm surprised this wasn't brought up on the article's way to becoming featured. --Berserk798 20:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll second that thought. — Matt Crypto 00:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section was originally intended as a list of common misconceptions about weight training, but somewhere along the line this was changed to "concerns", which I do agree seems to be a bit of a weasely kind of word. But I don't see a huge problem with it. This information is relevant to the subject, but it would be hard to fit into the structure of the rest of the article. So however you'd like to phrase it, it should probably remain as a list of miscellaneous topics. GeorgeStepanek\talk 10:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the "Concerns" section 

message: Even while training at a lower intensity (training loads of ~20-RM), anaerobic glycolysis is still the major source of power,. I know what 1RM is, but what is ~20-RM? --Abdull 18:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it means 20-rep sets. Feel free to clarify the phrasing. GeorgeStepanek\talk 00:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It stands for one rep maximum. — orioneight (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ~20-RM