Talk:Strength training

Merging weight training here

Refer Talk:Weight training#Merging.

Isokinetic Exercise

Searching for Isokinetic exercise is not listed in your information. Appx 52 years ago we developed a new type exerciser that we called the Mini Gym. A couple years later Dr James Perina at Univ of Iowa designed a much larger exerciser, he called Cybex and named the exercise ISOKINETIC. Both our exercisers controlled the speed of exercise,and accommodated to the user instead of the user accommodating to the resistance as with weights. Now there were 3 types of resistive exercise, Isometrics, isotonics and isokinetics. ISOKINETICS IS POSITIVE ONLY EXERCISE AND DEVELOPS ATHLETIC POWER. I tell my story on our Home page Powerspeed-training.com (formally called Mini Gym Co.) In 1972 our small isokinetic Mini Gym was used by Skylab Astronauts in Space flights. Our most famous exerciser, the Isokinetic Leaper changed athletic training in 1975 when we introduced Speed Training with Positive only exercise (concentric) and no (eccentric) lowering of weights. Athletes could do 50 repetitions in less than one one minute. The Fast Speed Training develops athletes white quick twitch muscle fibers for higher jumping, more speed and quicker reflexes. We have had 5 patents issued in our 50 years. Coaches for many years used weight training to get athletes stronger and bigger. Isokinetic adds another advantage of higher jumping, more speed and reflexes. There are hundreds of articles written about isokinetic exercise on web sites and thousands of training centers, big and small (even in homes or garages) improving young athletes. Also, there are hundreds of manufacturing companies making some type of isokinetic exerciser. Isokinetics used in measuring muscle injury and strength gains. Also, rehab leg limbs, and recently training young athletes to improve their game.

Weight training merger proposal

Previous discussions (9+ years old): [1] [2] [3] [4]

The outcome of those discussions seems to be that Resistance training was merged into Weight training, but I would like to restart the discussion some 14 years later to suggest it all be merged into this article. There is a large amount of overlap between the two. Almost all of the information in Weight training generalizes to strength training, and the parts that don't would not be out of place in this article as it is such a large subset.

Keeping the articles separate is affecting their quality. For example, the History section here does not mention the things mentioned in Weight training#History, presumably to avoid copying the content. But as it is a subset, the history of weight training is part of the history of strength training, so it should be in this article as well. See also Weight training#Safety, which is full of safety precautions that apply to any form of strength training (arguably any form of training at all), and again should be included here. The overlap is so great that spreading the content between two articles is detrimental.

This article claims to be about "basic principles", which is odd. If it were instead about strength training in general (as one would expect it to be), it would include much of the information in the Weight training article, which is why I believe they should be merged. WPscatter ^t/_c 07:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I would support a partial merge of weight training -> weightlifting (then add a hatnote to this article) excluding any content that applies to resistance training in general. I do not see much well sourced content that would benefit adding to this article. Re basic principles, the article is not exclusively about basic principles but most advanced techniques would be UNDUE for a general overview like this article, and better covered somewhere like advanced strength training techniques. (t · c) buidhe 08:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - So I asked ChatGPT about the different terms (IMO it should be a go-to source now in naming/merging discussions since it's a pretty neutral source). Here are the definitions it proposed.

• Strength training: any type of exercise that focuses on building strength and increasing muscle mass. Includes resistance training, isometric exercises, pylometric exercises, yoga
• Resistance training: strength training that uses resistance to challenge the muscles and improve strength. Includes weight training, bodyweight exercises, resistance bands.
• Weight training: resistance training that involves lifting weights, such as barbells, dumbbells, or weight machines
• Weightlifting: any exercise that lifts weights, which includes Olympic weightlifting, weight training, and using weights for aerobic exercise. It seems like per WP:BROADCONCEPT it is preferred to have an article rather than a disambiguation page or redirect.

Comparing with the old merger discussions, it seems WLU was correct in moving much of the content to the strength training article. Several editors believed weight training was not resistance training, but ChatGPT emphatically disagrees: "all weight training exercises involve some form of resistance", as did various editors in the discussion. Because of the disagreement, resistance training ended up with this weird definition of "training with elastic bands" which nobody seemed to like.

Reviewing the current articles:

• Strength training (13kb): Mentions isometrics and plyometrics in the lead, but these exercises aren't discussed in the article at all. It seems weight training gets special treatment, so instead of being a link in the list of strength training exercises it has a separate sentence and a hatnote at the top. The article is primarily about resistance training, with some small digressions on circuit training.
• Resistance training: redirect to strength training (2.5kb before merge), where it is defined as synonymous with strength training. There are non-resistance strength training exercises so this isn't right. I could see moving the RT content into a section on ST.
• Weight training (30kb): seems to have expanded again. I do agree with Wpscatter that History, Safety, variable resistance workout, health benefits, and "Weight training and other types of strength training" all have content that should be moved to strength training.
• Weightlifting (8kb): I guess it's OK? It doesn't really get across that Olympic weightlifting is the most common meaning. Has some interesting stuff in the sections that might be worth moving to the relevant articles.

Summing all the articles together we get 51kb, which according to WP:SIZERULE is just on the threshold for "may need to be divided". So based on size alone, there's no benefit to merging the articles - it's a decent split, and the smaller sizes encourage adding content to the articles.

My proposal is to just move the content I outlined - expand the strength training article, shrink the weight training article. It doesn't require a full move. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I stopped reading at chatgpt. It is not a reliable source. Can you give any examples in RS coverage of things that are "weightlifting" but not "weight training" or vice versa? Is there enough difference to justify separate articles? (t · c) buidhe 22:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

So you read 5 words? Great. If you had bothered to read the list you would have seen the answer: weightlifting includes Olympic weightlifting but weight training does not. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

As far as an RS I guess you could look at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9213388/ which distinguishes weightlifting the sport vs weightlifting movements/exercises vs traditional resistance training with weights. The use of the word "traditional" implies that they consider the weightlifting exercises to also be a form of resistance training. Googling "olympic weightlifting is a sport and not weight training" there are many websites which draw similar distinctions. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

?? Olympic weightlifting is a form of weight training, as defined in RS: "Weight training is a type of strength training that generally refers to the muscles moving against some type of opposing force provided by equipment or body weight." (t · c) buidhe 04:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

That source doesn't even mention Olympic weightlifting, so your source is useless - you're doing wp:synth. Also it is not peer reviewed so it's not as reliable. Imo we should try to follow wp:medrs which would exclude that source as not being a position statement from a recognized expert organization. Its only source is from 2005. (!) You'll note the source I posted is a recent systematic review, the second-highest evidence quality according to the pyramid on medrs. (I guess there are clinical reviews like [5] but I don't have access)

Getting back to the content, at least your source agrees with Chatgpt that weight training is defined as a form of strength training. This isn't really surprising since chatgpt's definitions are based on random websites like that. Continuing with chatgpt's definitions, strength training is defined as exercise solely for the purpose of building muscles, so lifting weights for other purposes (showing off, aerobic exercise) is not strength training and hence not weight training either. In particular, Olympic weightlifting as a sport is done to show off, so it doesn't count as strength training. Any strength gains as a result of the performance are immaterial. Now, doing Olympic weightlifting movements as part of the preparation for an Olympic weightlifting event would count as strength training/weight training. But the movements being similar to a sport does not make the sport a strength training program - even people who have never strength trained could theoretically compete in an Olympic-style weightlifting competition. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

We don't need medrs for something like defining weight training, since it's not biomedical information. It may be that some sources give a narrower definition than the one I cited and the Wikipedia article currently uses, however, that would still be covered under weightlifting. I still don't see why there is an advantage to having a separate article. (t · c) buidhe 19:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom. – Treetoes023 (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate this is late in the day but I oppose the merger. Weight training is a big enough subject to have its own article. The strength training article should be an overview with brief sections on the various forms (including weight training) and appropriate links.RickyBennison (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The merge was already carried out. I would be fairly agnostic about the existence of a separate article for weight training, if, unlike the previous one, it cited reliable sources to support the content in it and clearly mapped out a scope that was significantly distinct from this article and weightlifting. (t · c) buidhe 21:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

MEDRS scope

MEDRS only applies to biomedical information. Per WP:BMI this is: Attributes of a disease or condition, Attributes of a treatment or drug, Medical decisions, Health effects, Population data and epidemiology.

Which of these does muscle strength gain during weight training fall under? I guess either "attributes of a treatment" or "health effects". Considering health effects, my argument that a few percent difference in muscle mass does not significantly affect health. Certainly, long-term weight training improves health, so I guess MEDRS applies to those parts of the article, but pretty much any workout routine will have similar effects, the effect of reps here is barely measurable to begin with. Considering treatment, the argument is that strength training does not require any specialized skills or equipment (per history section it was done in prehistoric tribes with rocks), so is about as much of a "treatment" as drinking water (namely, not a medical treatment). Confirming this, resistance training is mainly discussed in sports journals, not medical journals (except for the population studies of health effects). So, I think there's pretty much no reason to apply medrs in this case.

Now as far as general reliable source guidelines, it is true that it's a preprint, but the last author Michael Zourdos has a pretty long CV, so I'd say it's acceptable as a subject-matter expert opinion per WP:SPS (and presumably, it's going to be published in the next few months anyway, so this is really about when to add the article) Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say that muscle mass is a "health effect". Furthermore, I don't see why this 2023 preprint is superior to the 2022 source. (t · c) buidhe 18:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It's in the 2023 source: "No meta-analysis to date [besides ours] has examined proximity to failure as a continuous variable on muscle hypertrophy and strength gain." So where the 2022 source said there was inconclusive stats, the 2023 source did the statistics differently and got statistically significant results. The 2023 source also has a lot more studies (55 vs 15 for the 2022 source). Mathnerd314159 (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Too technical

This article is becoming far too technical in terms of the language used. Also there are too many research articles being used. Whilst the old page may have needed a revamp, it was to its credit more inclusive.RickyBennison (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the prose should be kept accurate yet understandable to a broad audience (WP:MED guidance is helpful here). As for sources, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "research articles". Ideally, we would not be citing an individual study to say "study found that..." instead review articles should be cited. (t · c) buidhe 01:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The terms concentric/eccentric in the tempo discussion are just terrible (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3899915/), but I don't know what the proper terminology is so I just left them. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there a better source for them being "terrible" than a letter to the editor, which is generally not reliable except for the opinions of the authors? I'm genuinely interested as I've seen this terminology in a lot of sports research. Additionally, if a source uses one term it can be challenging to substitute it for another with a different meaning yet ensure we are correctly representing the finding. (t · c) buidhe 01:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, I was looking for a guide for which exercise movements correspond to concentric/eccentric movements, so I could get the codes right, and that letter complaining about the lack of consistent usage was the first result. I still don't really know what's right; this random site [6] says concentric is muscle contraction and eccentric is muscle release, and they use bicep curls as the example, but in one of the cited studies [7] that's basically bicep curls, it seems elbow flexion is eccentric and elbow extension is concentric, which is the reverse. That's basically the ambiguity the letter complains about. Looking at the source [8] it seems the order of the numbers varies significantly and they just picked the one order for purposes of their review. I'm pretty sure they just chose the order to match the order of the exercise phases during a repetition, so if there is some clear, popular terminology for the breakdown of a repetition into phases then I'd say that terminology is probably better. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmm.... I am hardly an expert on this terminology but I thought that curling your elbow during a bicep curl is concentric because you are moving your muscle against weight. If you were suspended upside down holding a weight in your arm doing the same movement, it would be eccentric (and straightening your arm—concentric) because resistance is pulling in the opposite direction. (t · c) buidhe 02:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Protection?

There seems to be a high amount of external link spamming on this page. I count 3 such edits in the past week - there was a similar spree of edits around 15 June, also this edit 8 February, I'm sure the vandalism goes back further. Honestly it is not too bad and manual reverting is fine for now, but maybe some level of protection would be good, like pending changes protection? Mathnerd314159 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I have PC reviewer permissions but I don't think the level of spam is enough to make protection necessary. (t · c) buidhe 23:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)