Talk:Weight training

Archive 1 Archive 2

Removal of X-reps

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."[1] 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'."[2] 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)

After further reading[3], I am even more convinced that X-reps is just a variation of burns. - Gnbonney 21:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

HIT

Hello, I'm interested in attempting High Intensity Training. Is there a certain regimin I should follow to optain a good level of muscle mass and strengh? I am not to concerned about endourence. Thanks. -- AS Artimour 03:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Common Concerns

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)

I absolutely agree. The information content can be presented in a slightly different format, more conducive to encyclopedic reading ----------> please see what is and what is not wikipedia for better guidelines. 220.239.110.134 03:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Weight training after breast cancer

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)LR Nell

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)

Proposed merger with resistance training

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)

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.

Intensity, Volume, Frequency Table

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)