From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Alternative medicine (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Flexibility vs muscle tone[edit]

This is funny , Might get eded by the people who attend pilatis , but improoving your flexibility , and muscle tone is contredictionary , muscle tone is the absense of flexibility when the nerves controlling the muscle contract it via a reflex not to allow it to reach a certain length \ strech , as a protection mechanism for the body , Flexibility is diminishing this reflex via streching. I believe you meant muscle tone in some areas and flexibility in others , so whoever is oging to rewrite this make this clear , there are already enough excersise mythes promoting spot reduction or the like going on with pilates programs , and the fact that women who participate in pilates do abdominal work for a slimmer mid section , which is infact helping the oposite The onyl abdominal muscle that can be trained that helps tighten up the midsection is the transervus abdominis , the deep abdominal muscles , which are used in breathing partialy and via shortening bring the abdominal wal and obliques into the spine.

Roamana The Goddess[edit]

I am quite disappointed that some people are using this entry for self promotion. Can Pilates Teachers please aim for neutrality rather than glorify their school and educators! This entry says much about the state of teh Pilates world. Where possibly I tried to make things more neutral, but the entire article is heavily stained one way, especially in favour of the Romana schoo, with traces of others. Either this article says everything about Pilatesin its full glory listing all the names and players or we might just as well delete all!

While there are legions out there who do view Romana as a goddess, this misspelled point is off the mark. As anyone participating in this forum has likely noticed over the past year or more; the Pilates Method Alliance (and others) have been hijacking this forum over this time for self-promotion. As a result, it is a likely and safe assumption that many other organizations who are just as or perhaps more relevant have responded to assure the wiki user base does not get misled into thinking the PMA is the only group in existence who establishes and adheres to standards of training and instruction. With that said, the latest version of the article appears to be getting things back on the right track, although I did note that sections still exist identifying specific organizations. Suggestion --> Remove the existing references to these entities, going forward keep this article specific to facts or myths specific to the Pilates method devised by Joseph Pilates AND supported by reputable sources AND keep all references to trade associations, specific organizations, etc. out of the article.

Recent Changes[edit]

Some of the recent changes are not improvements. There has been an inexplicable cutting of the references to Stott Pilates and Romana Kryzanowska, Eve Gentry etc The whole section on "Pluralistic Concept of the Pilates Method" is eccentric and should not be in a general article which is seeking to explain pilates to a non specialist. I moved the Lateral breathing section to fit in the breathing section (though in fact, it reads like a how to manual, and the text is used in many other places and may well be copyrighted. Someone else can make the call on whether to delete it). I moved "power house" as it is not part of Friedman and Eisen´s principles. If we are changing that section then it needs to be done rigorously. Please do edit (it´s not my article), but in a way that is generally accepted. Sleeping Turtle

Publication Violates Wikipedia's COI Polices Regarding Advertising Services And Products[edit]

Attention and Warning! Individuals and organisation are not allowed to advertise their services or products within Wikipedia's publications.

A publication advertising services of The Pilates Method Alliance has violated the strict polices of not advertising. It has done so by altering the Pilates publication in Wikipedia on 28th June 2013, line 66 found here. Whomever did this, went even as far as linking The Pilates Method Alliance own webpages for information on their organisation and services. These entries have therefore been removed completely. Any further attempt by the Pilates Method Alliance or any other organisation/individual to persuade or manipulate readers into taking their commercial/educational offering (educational services, certifications, accreditation, or any product) by means of using Wikipedia's articles, will be reported directly to Wikipedia's board, so they can deal with the issue.

The Pilates Method Alliance is just one more organisation with the purpose of teaching and regulating the activities in the field of Pilates, like many more around the world, and Wikipedia is not to be confused with a means to promote business.

Please editors, stay focus on the purpose of this article which to define the Pilates method.

Thanks, CF


It is not the intention of pilates to cure anything - it is a FITNESS program - effectiveness as a general title should be concerned with that therefore. So have changed title of the "effectiveness" section and added greater context in intro.

I second the scepticism above. The effectiveness section is highly suspicious. One misquote is: governmental study concludes that there is insufficient evidence on Pilates, but this is due to the lack of good studies, not to do with pilates. Furthermore, here is an absurd statement which makes the entire section suspicious: "There is some evidence it can help with the conditioning of the abdominal muscles of healthy people." This is analogous to saying that doing bench presses *may* increase pectoral muscle size. The link is causally understood, working muscles definitely leads to conditioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The sources say Pilates is promoted for treating many things, from depression to incontinence to lower back pain. We go by what our sources say. Alexbrn (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
No. Your comment is beside the point of the edit which you undid. The section is an unfortunate example of negatively spinning of statistical evidence. 1) The statement "found to have insufficient evidence" is unclear as to whether a large data sample leads to a weak statistical inference, or if there simply isn't enough good data. The latter is clearly the case, as the Australian government meta study merely mentions a single weak study. 2) Subjective descriptions like "low quality" in reference to the data, are meaningless spin. 3) The allusion to weak evidence supporting the notion that Pilates improves abdominal conditioning is absurd, since it is well understood that exercising muscles in any way leads to conditioning. Hence, I'm fixing this yet again, please make a stronger argument next time you undo my work. While too anecdotal to induce in the article, Pilates is a life changing treatment for many sufferers of back pain, and this negative spin is doing potential beneficiaries a disservice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a vehicle for WP:ADVOCACY. We reflect what decent sources say, and the article as is is fine. Your edit is a WP:PROFRINGE POV-push which moves us away from the sources. Alexbrn (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
On the contrary, my edit corrects an unfortunate example of WP:ADVOCACY. Please respond to the edit description and explain what exactly you disagree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
On the contrary the onus is on you to get consensus for changes you want. But we don't (for example) want unsourced awkward editorializing like "However, the lack of studies means that there is insufficient data to make strong statements" in here. Alexbrn (talk) 06:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
This is progress. It does indeed look like editorialization because I failed to directly cite the relevant source in that sentence you quoted. Here is a direct quote from Baggoley C (2015). "Review of the Australian Government Rebate on Natural Therapies for Private Health Insurance": "As the available evidence for the effectiveness of Pilates consisted of a small number of methodologically limited RCTs, the effectiveness of Pilates for the improvement of health outcomes in people with any clinical condition is uncertain." Now, I'll be surprised if you will disagree with my original edit, other than that it lacked a citation directly on the one sentence which you quoted. This is extremely close to the sentence I wrote, which I'm even happy to replace with the direct quote. Please do respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Nothing there about "strong statements" - the source is plain on the lack of, and quality of, the evidence. We summarize the source well, as we should. Alexbrn (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem with the summary is that it is unclear as to whether the insufficient evidence comes from a lack of investigations, or a lack of effectiveness of the pilates method itself. The source clearly states that it is the former. Do you get my point here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, you want to imply "it might work, if only it were studied more we'd see the light!" - which is a familiar cry for every kind of dodgy altmed from homeopathy to reiki. We reflect the source, which make no such implication (quite the opposite; it recommends insurance companies do not pay out for Pilates). If no benefit has been found, and yet Pilates is promoted as effective, we're looking at quackery and Wikipedia needs to be plain. Alexbrn (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
This is an unfortunate and emotionally charged response which doesn't even attempt to address my point in a constructive way. I'll make an edit and let's see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Effectiveness: update the article overall?[edit]

In light of the newly referenced study by Kofotolis et al, the article appears pretty inaccurate as regards the evidence for Pilates as an effective treatment. For example "Pilates has not been shown to be an effective treatment for any medical condition" is just incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source; we need WP:MEDRS for claims about treatment efficacy. Alexbrn (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)