Jump to content

Talk:Strength training

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 94.212.246.63 (talk) at 04:10, 26 January 2014 (→‎Sex Differences in Strength Training). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sex Differences in Strength Training

I deleted the lines saying that gains by female bodybuilders are extremely atypical due to genetic proclivity for muscle gains, time devoted to working out, and possible steroid use. All these factors apply to male bodybuilders as well so I don't see any reason why women in particular are being called out for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl38574383 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally the citations in 'Sex differences in mass gains' are nowhere to be found, and the 31rd is of dubious origin (not peer-reviewed). Something needs to be done here. Citations are needed here at the very least - proper ones. 94.212.246.63 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tips to Build Your Strength-Training Routine

Thoose tips are very misleading, I am earsing them Also this article Shouldn't be about "strength training and it's use for toning or bodybuilding" but strength training , in other words increacing strength , also the term toning is misleading since building muscule does not increace it's tonus relatively

I have reverted your deletion because it looks like perfectly valid material to me, certainly at the level of the general reader, for whom the article is intended. GeorgeStepanek\talk 21:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn VanDyke

Why does the 'Tips' section need permission from Lynn VanDyke? If they wrote this for some other work, it should be fully refrenced.

She added it herself, but it was a copy of her own work that had also been published elsewhere on the Internet. I added the tag to ensure that it wouldn't get clobbered as a copyvio. GeorgeStepanek\talk 05:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Middling re-work

I did a middling re-work, particularly of the new section added by Bigbossrom (nice section by the way, I'll add a definition of training cycle in a bit), took out some of the 'you's and moved the PMT into the 'other techniques at the bottom. Anyone have any comments? WLU 12:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Techniques

Nearly everything in this section are different approaches to bodybuilding not strength training. I think they should be taken out and moved to the bodybuilding page. I know some people may think that many of these techniques work for getting stronger, but they predominantly work for beginners only. Let me know what you think.--Bigbosstrom 21:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me, I'd be happiest if only scientifically verified (and referenced) info were included on this page. When I started the merger I'd kinda intended the ST page to be the core, with the other pages being spin-offs. Incidentally, if any of them require weights specifically, they should be on the weight training page. WLU 21:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Nearly everything in this section are different approaches to bodybuilding not strength training." Exactly. And even now, in 2012. I cringe everytime I see this article. Apart from USSR bibliography, scientific journals are really poor source of info too- when you always have "10 healthy, male students without prior exposure to resistance training" any rubbish will work. And it's not like this bbuilding things have solid scientific backing too.94.78.188.4 (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually

Resistance training would probably be the primary catagory. This is how the breakdown would go:

Resistance Training
Weight Training Isometric Training Band Resistance Hydraulic Resistance
Strength Training

Bodybuilding Circuit Training

Bodybuilding Bodybuilding

Fitness

Bodybuilding

Circuit Training

Strength Training --Bigbosstrom 20:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the whole purpose of the merger/move of ST/RT/WT was to differentiate resistance training (broad) from resistance training (narrow). The first is in the sense of 'any resistance to muscular contraction' and is actually under the heading of 'strength training', while the second is 'the use of elastic or hydraulic resistance to oppose muscular contraction'. Hopefully a bit more clearly, on wikipedia resistance training currently refers to working out with elastic bands and under water. It's still a form of strength training 'cause the goal is to increase muscular strength, but it's the method that differentiates it. This holds for all of the umbrella categories by the way, all are covered under the main topic of 'strength training', where the basic principles are kept. The other articles are an effort to deal with the specifics of different ways of generating that resistance - elastics or other tension-generators, weights or others that rely on gravity, and structures or intramuscular forces for isometrics. It might seem a bit confusing, but that's the way it's separated right now. If you say resistance training is the overall category, that means that elastic elements are the dominant organizing principle of all types of muscular training for strength, and I'm guessing that's not what you're trying to say. Also - corrected a typo in the table. WLU 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I mean: Everything in the fitness world relys on resistance. Walking, jumping, weight training, bodybuilding etc........

When a person trains for endurance, they are using a very, very small resistance over a long period of time to increase their cardio vascular system.

When a person trains for bodybuilding, they are using various ranges of resistance from light to heavy with muscular hypertrophy in mind(not strength).

When a person trains for strength, they are concerned with thier neuro-muscular efficiency, generally using heavier weight and lower reps. This is the only true strength training

--Bigbosstrom 23:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about endurance training, which is why the strength training article doesn't discuss endurance work - the purpose is to increase muscular endurance, not strength. Bodybuilding isn't really discussed in the strength training article - it actually contains sections that differentiate strength training from bodybuilding. And this article should focus specifically on strength training, the basic principles of improving muscular strength. Have a gander at the archive for the discussion that's already taken place. WLU 23:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of text

i replaced the text removed here - the edit summary said it was a copyvio, but its on the copying site, not us. WLU 22:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies; the tone of the section didn't seem very encyclopedic (it looked like a FAQ that had been harvested from some workout site) so I didn't double check. — Feezo (Talk) 04:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get to the section today to re-write at least part of it. WLU 11:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on Rest pause

There recently concluded an AfD on Rest pause in which the conclusion was to redirect or merge the information to this article. As the closer, I believe that whether to accept the material or not is up to the editors of this page. See the AfD here and the history of the Rest pause article here. Mangojuicetalk 12:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-working of sections

Here's some blocks of text I think need to be clarified, re-worked and/or referenced before being included in the page:

Elastic resistance provides the greatest resistance at the end of the motion, when the elastic element is stretched to the greatest extent. This makes it suitable for varying the force-curve of pressing movements, where due to better bone alignment, the pressing limb can usually support more weight. It is also suited well to exercises where more resistance is desired near maximal contraction of a targetted muscle, similar to a triceps kickback where the angle of gravity on a muscle is altered. - I find this section unclear. A force-curve is undefined and not wikilinked, exercises can involve press, fly, curl, extension, row, etc. Maximal contraction of a muscle is determined by the point at which the force output is maximal which varies depending on the specific exercise and position.

WLU 17:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of time, will try to do more later. WLU 17:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is too free weight and/or weight lifting centric. The article needs to be improved to cover and include all strength training forms. I've, little by little been trying to do that. --Maniwar (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging Section

I am challenging the following section: 

===Types of strength training===
There are different ways to increase strength, each with its own goals, equipment, methods and/or results.  
*Isometric exercise
*Plyometrics
*Pilates 
*Martial arts 

Apart from the obvious weights and resistance bands, there are a number of other items of exercise 
equipment that can be used while or to compliment strength training:

*Swiss balls or Wobble boards
*Levering weights like Indian clubs
*Punching bag

Pilates does not generally use strength training, and it does not elevate the heart rate enough to be considered strength training. Additionally, a punching bag is not working the muscle groups with resistance or free weights, therefore I challenge Pilates, Martial arts, Swiss balls, Wobble board, and Punching bag as being strength training. If someone can show, sourced, how they are strength training and not simply cardio, then we can leave them in. If not, I will remove them. The compliment section also does not make sense. How does it fit in? Did someone just throw it in to throw it in? --Maniwar (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the assumption that anything that has at least a minor goal of increasing muscular strength is strength training, I don't have a problem with the section, though I see the merit of re-writing to make it a little more explicit. I don't really see the link between elevated heart rate and strength training either - endurance training yes, but not strength. I think there's aspects of strength training and cardio in most of the ones you list, though obviously not as 'pure' strength training. Pilates is definitely not cardio, it might fit as a type of 'flexibility training' with strength training aspects. WLU 15:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Miss-spoke on the elevated heart rate. I was thinking one thing and didn't finish my thought, and now I can't remember the thought. I still say the proof is in the poster, and those mentioned are not strength training. With some sources to back up the statements, I see it having value. I would like to aspire that this article be nominated for GA, however, right now it doesn't stand a chance. Statements like that, are POV and need support. Pilates may require endurance, however, it does not provide true strength training nor does martial arts, or balls. --Maniwar (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I pretty much said my peace, but allow me to state that I see your points, and don't believe mine sufficiently meet RS or OR guidelines to think they must be included - they make sense to me as they were in the article (I re-wrote the section recently) but I don't think the effort of finding RS is worth it. I've no objection to them being removed. WLU 13:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Recovery Section

The section starts with "There are many theories as to why weight training creates muscle growth. The most common and incorrect one..." Then it goes on to describe this one common, and "incorrect", theory. No others are mentioned. Is this a mistake? If not, it should be referenced (who claims that this is incorrect) and a theory that may possibly be true should be described... Shimrah 19:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God knows, could have been put in by an apologist, could be vandalism. Feel free to correct it. New posts on talk pages should go at the bottom of the page. WLU 19:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Periodization

If you are going to delete my book from the bibliography, I expect you to delete the section regarding periodization. The exact %'s and structure of the training cycle is directly taken from my book. If my book is not added back, I will delete the periodization section myself.Bigbosstrom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbosstrom (talk • contribs) 03:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that your book can't go on the page, it's that you can't add it yourself (see WP:COI). If others find your book to be useful, they could add it. Try asking some of the regular contributors if they have read it and if they would be willing to 'sponsor' it. Alternatively, the book could be added as a footnote to that table. Also, if the information is not challenged, it doesn't really need a source - it's a way of saying the contributors to the page have de facto agreed that it's accurate or useful. WLU 11:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are light, high-repetition exercises effective for 'toning' muscles? section

Section is confusing, as it doesn't really answer the question, and seems poorly written. I would suggest forgetting about the tone vs definition and just answer the question in a straightforward manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.14.38.6 (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can strength training help with weight loss?

The part "Because most strength training builds lean muscle, it is natural for a person to gain weight, initially, since muscle is heavier than fat". I think the opposite, no muscle gain would be great enough to be noticed even after months by the bodyweight.

The Colgan Institute of Nutritional Sciences (located in San Diego, CA) run by Dr Michael Colgan PHD, a leading sport nutritionist explains that in his extensive experience, the most muscle gain he or any of his colleagues have recorded over a year was 18 1/4 lbs. Dr Colgan goes on to state that "because of the limiting rate of turnover in the muscle cells it is impossible to grow more than an ounce of new muscle each day." http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/maki2.htm 82.20.234.59 (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it , not sure I put the best advice across, muscle gain will increase Basal Metabolic Rate but will not account for weight gain as previously stated. 82.20.234.59 (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if anyone has done anymore research on this or maybe it's just the wording. I think muscle gain can cause weight gain (not speaking of the amount of weight gain), but I think it also depends on what an individual's goals are.MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental problem with this question is its premise and focus on weight loss. A better focus would be body composition, specifically the total lean mass (the variable portion is virtually all muscle and fluid retention), and body fat percentage. Hypertrophic strength training will result in additional muscle mass. If there's no corresponding loss of adipose (fat) tissue, then, yes, the trainee will gain weight. For bodybuilders, a typical annual training cycle will revolve around a bulking stage (usually through the winter taking advantage of natural hormonal cycles trending toward fat gains), followed by a cutting cycle (usually 12-18 weeks prior to competitions).

Absent hypertrophic stimulus, reduced calorie dieting will result in a net loss of body mass, roughly 20-25% of which is lean body mass (muscle) Very-Low-Calorie Diets and Sustained Weight Loss. Modifications to diet, usually some variety of a protein-sparing modified fast (PSMF), and strength training, can minimize or even reverse this loss. While difficult and requiring structured training and diet, it's possible to gain muscle mass while reducing body fat. Some good references in Alwyn Cosgrove's Hierarchy of Fat Loss article.

Cited there:

Bryner RW, Ullrich IH, Sauers J, Donley D, Hornsby G, Kolar M, Yeater R. Effects of resistance vs. aerobic training combined with an 800 calorie liquid diet on lean body mass and resting metabolic rate. J Am Coll Nutr. 1999 Apr;18(2):115-21.

Kramer, Volek et al. Influence of exercise training on physiological and performance changes with weight loss in men. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 31, No. 9, pp. 1320-1329, 1999.

Regards gains in muscle mass, there's the very controversial "Colorado Experiment" in which Casey Viator apparently gained 63 pounds of muscle in 28 days. Other trainers have claimed lower but still very high rates of muscle gains (Mark Rippetoe, The Novice Effect, 24# of muscle in 11 weeks) though not under controlled experimental conditions. 70.231.130.160 (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


About the 16th reference (in the 'Benefits' section)...
Isn't this a given (common knowledge; akin to if you have a bigger engine, then it will consume more fuel): either way. I mean; there should be really nothing to discuss here, except debunking the aerobic myth and extended health benefits...
[1] [2] [3] [4]
Although I must agree that both referring to "yo-yo" effect and the ref link itself were not the best encycloepedic description kind (lame). But then simply change it to one of the above! And BTW, I placed this as a thread reply, since it is the same paragraph. 190.148.195.17 (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better way of stating this is that weight gain will cause a decrease in body fat loss. [5]. This article says that aerobic exercise should be complemented with anaerobic exercise in order for weight loss to occur. I will look for better articles as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrNiceGuy1113 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

p/w?

What does "p/w" mean in the table here? All I can figure is "per week", but then I would expect the low intensity column to have the highest frequency, not the lowest. --Allen (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section 5. Common Concerns

This section has been flagged because it "contains instructions, advice, or how-to content."

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a FAQ. Encyclopedia entries should not be editorial in nature nor should they be written in an "Asked" and "Answered" format.

Section 5.1 The header from "Is strength training the same as bodybuilding?" has been changed to "Bodybuilding" in order to rephrase it as something other then a question.

Section 5.5 The header from "Is strength training safe for children?" has been changed to "Safety Concerns related Children Strength Training" The first sentence of the starting paragraph "This depends on what type of strength training is utilized" has also been eliminated. The sentence has nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the paragraph which goes on to address the safety concerns related to children strength training. If you are going to state "This depends on what type of strength training is utilized", then you need to discuss at least two types of strength training which may be utilized and how one is safer then the other for children. Shelshula (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Ugh, the page reads worse every time I look at it. Pubmed has apparently added the Journal of Stength Conditioning Research to its indexing, meaning a whole journal dedicated just to information on strength training. The popular sources should mostly be removed except for popular information, and the scholarly sources added instead. Since the page is about strength training, not bodybuilding, it should have the most reliable physiological and peer-reviewed journal information available. Bodybuilding being more pop phenomenon, powerlifting being more specific and weight training being mostly about machines and techniques, can use less reliable sources. I've found the following, using the searchable database on pubmed or google scholar and the on-line available resources, the page needs a re-build. WLU (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Calder AW, Chilibeck PD, Webber CE, Sale DG (1994). "Comparison of whole and split weight training routines in young women". Can J Appl Physiol. 19 (2): 185–99. PMID 8081322. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Rønnestad BR, Egeland W, Kvamme NH, Refsnes PE, Kadi F, Raastad T (2007). "Dissimilar effects of one- and three-set strength training on strength and muscle mass gains in upper and lower body in untrained subjects". J Strength Cond Res. 21 (1): 157–63. doi:10.1519/R-19895.1. PMID 17313291. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Paulsen G, Myklestad D, Raastad T (2003). "The influence of volume of exercise on early adaptations to strength training". J Strength Cond Res. 17 (1): 115–20. PMID 12580666. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK; et al. (2002). "Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones". Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 88 (1–2): 50–60. doi:10.1007/s00421-002-0681-6. PMID 12436270. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Please improve the article and dont be selfish... If you can integrate book standards then do so...

Please improve the article and dont be selfish... If you can integrate book standards then do so... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.113.39 (talk) 10:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the nature of 'strength' is not described well

strength can come very quickly from practice; so it seems to me that training is mostly just practice in aligning the already-existing muscle cells.

in other words, the material is already there, it is not a matter of getting bigger or even gaining more muscle fibers. training is like magnetizing the cells to get them aligned. you can certainly get much stronger without getting bigger, and without adding more muscle fibers.

so i think some basic biology is missing in this section as to how training leads to strength. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery

Recovery is poorly described, why needed, etc. No good description of what it means and no references except for a vague referral to a 1981 book, no science, etc. Is there additional information available to include? MartinezMD (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BBuilder bias

Article is full of bodybuilding lingo and mythos, and severely lacks Strength training info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.78.188.4 (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to remove the link to Fred Hatfield as it points to the wrong one. Perhaps someone is motivated to start an article on Fred "Doc Squat" Hatfield. Kurtdriver (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging weight training here

Refer Talk:Weight training#Merging.

Benefits

Section contains weasel-worded statement "Most men can develop substantial muscles; "

188.238.222.177 (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC) anonymous guest 21dec 2013[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strength_training&oldid=592426931"