Talk:Exercise physiology

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MStearns21. Peer reviewers: Tamrynjade.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
Exercise Physiology is NOT sports medicine, sports science, or exercise science. Exercise physiology is also much more than endurance exercise. Unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary, resistance training is also exercise. Therefore the claim or emphasis that exercise physiology is ONLY endurance exercise is simply untrue and misleading.

One thing to remember: Exercise Physiology is not sports medicine. Look up the definition of sports medicine and it becomes obvious. ASEP has the best and most complete definition of exercise physiology. Exercise Physiology is not exercise science. Exercise science is a general term that includes multiple fields of study including athletic training, physical therapy, and exercise physiology.

Exercise Physiologists will have to decide if they want to be grouped in with multi-disciplinary organizations or have their own professional organization. Other professions such as athletic training have their own organization, as do physical therapists. They can also choose to be a part of other umbrella organizations such as ACSM if they wish. The same logic should hold true for exercise physiology.


 * Homepage of the ASEP - the professional organization (founded 1997) offering board certification for exercise physiologists in the United States. http://www.asep.org/


 * Homepage of the AAESS - the professional organisation (founded 1991) offering accreditation for Exercise Physiologists in Australia. http://www.aaess.com.au/


 * What is Exercise Physiology? - from The British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences (founded 1984). http://www.bases.org.uk/newsite/physiology.asp


 * The Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs reports "no accredited programs" in the area of Exercise Physiology as of 2004-2005. More research in this area is probably needed. http://www.caahep.org/documents/Archives/2004-05%20Annual%20Report.pdf

As the above comment notes, exercise physiology is not the same as sport science, nor is it about organizations and url links to them. Separate pages should be created for them.

I am preparing three more sections to follow to be added to this rewrite:
 * the long term effects of exercise upon the body (muscle development; heart, bone),
 * the physiology effects of the lack of exercise (plasma lipids, BDNF; risk to health)
 * the special issues that apply to exercise in children (metabolic differences; relationship with brain development).

I am slightly dyslexic—I usually elsewhere get my work checked over-- so there may need for some copy editing and rewriting. LittleHow (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Need to defend the content integrity of this article
Exercise physiology is an important Wikipedia article. Many articles link to it. Many people want to read clear, comprehendible information about the biological processes involved when they engage in exercise. That puts a responsibility upon Wikipedians to make sure that this page is informative and interesting to read as a proper encyclopedia article.

That has not been the case in the past—look back at this page’s history and talk history before 14 December 2008 and it has been edited with a view largely to promote an organization “American Society of Exercise Physiologists” and its practice-orientated definition of “exercise physiology”. None of these edits had provided much useful information suitable for an encyclopedia article.

Encyclopedia content was put on--but now much of it has been removed. The reasons given are inappropriate. For example, “removed sentence including lactic acid because, at physiologic pH, there is no lactic acid”. However, the passage removed summarized directly from recent research by Thomas H. Pedersen in Science. To quote from them (Pedersen TH, Nielsen OB, Lamb GD, Stephenson DG. 2004 Intracellular acidosis enhances the excitability of working muscle. Science. 305(5687):1144-7.): “intracellular acidosis increases the excitability of the T system in depolarized muscle fibers, thus counteracting fatigue at a critical step in ECC. In this model of working muscle, acidic pH reduced Cl– permeability, thereby reducing the size of the Na+ current needed to generate a propagating AP. Thus, down-regulation of T system Cl– permeability by intracellular acidosis is important for preserving a fully operational T system in working muscle.”

There are many ways the content can be improved but this editing is not constructive. If the physiology of resistance training should be added, then it should be added with appropriate references. None of the deletions made have been discussed on this talk page. Grammar can be improved rather than whole sentences removed. Changes can also be made without leaving inappropriate comments upon an editor's talk page. I have reinstated the page before this changes.--LittleHow (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are many ways the content can be improved, however, little how removed everything before his updated version. Adding and/or improving the article is in the spirit of Wikipedia. So, it's o.k. for little how to remove entire pages but it is not appropriate for others to add/delete or improve upon the article? What makes little how the ultimate expert in exercise physiology? As you can see from the edits, I did not remove the entire page like little how did. My degree is in exercise physiology and I am currently completing my Ph.D. If I were to go on to neuroscience, physics, etc., erase everything that was written, and re-insert what I believe, would that be right? C'mon little how to be real! As for lactic acid/lactate, many, many scientists still incorrectly use the term lactic acid when at physiologic muscle pH (6.1-7.05)the proportion of the unbound or proton dissociated form (i.e. lactate) is 99.06 to 99.08 meaning there are trivial amounts of lactic acid inside the body. This is basic chemistry...perhaps look this up in a Lehninger text or other biochem books. I made no mention of organizations although ASAP does indeed have the best definition put forth by any organization. I'm not sure if other organizations have a definition of exercise physiology. I did not use their definition but was hoping others would add/edit what was there, not erase the entire page and insert their definition of exercise physiology. The opening sentence/paragraph as it is written by little how is terrible, plain and simple. Now, let's try to work together and improve the page, not hijack it by a non-exercise physiologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realep1 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

After reading the last few conversations concerning exercise physiology and what was recently posted by "little how", I do have to agree with "RealEP1". As an exercise physiologist and also completing my Ph.D. in exercise physiology, I am quite puzzled by the fact that someone would go through all the trouble and relay information and proceed with various sections on this site that do not in any way form the basis and foundation of exercise physiology. Specifically, the former definition wrote with a "biology" emphasis, etc is simply incorrect. Also, much of the information in the 'content section' (brain, glucose, fatigue, etc)simply does not flow very smoothly and sounds like it was taken straight from multiple sections of a textbook, or perhaps copied and pasted from somewhere. What is most striking is that much of the content information by "little how" is written by an individual in Neuroscience or Physics. Does this make sense? It does not to me. I am very passionate about exercise physiology and it's core values, and would prefer and appreciate that persons who are not trained and/or uneducated in exercise physiology and it's related content just stay within their intended "scope of practice". - RockSD1

Here is the problem: People who are uneducated and not trained in exercise physiology need to stay away from their content. Only exercise physiologists should strive to increase the standards and professionalism of the field, and not by QUACKS, especially those from Neuroscience or Physics. Do you see other people from other fields change information on Neuroscience? Wouldn't that piss you off? Why do you think (whoever you may be "little how")you have the right to alter information from other areas of study to which you HAVE NO PREVIOUS EXPOSURE OR KNOWLEDGE OF? Did you ever think more than one person is changing the information on this site that understands exercise physiology? - RockSD1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksd1 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Little How,

I thought I might join in the discussion. After several views the last few days, I have noticed a battle of exchanges of information. It is from my understanding that you have a background in Neuroscience or Physics? With that said, and I'm sure that is true from some of the information you have posted. I am curious as to how that qualifies you to add, and especially remove other information that is rather informative and that encompasses more to exercise physiology than your 'introductory' paragraphs. As a person working on their Ph.D. in exercise physiology, I would like to add some things:

1). Why do you feel the need to constantly override other people within their field of study? Shouldn't they be the ones to decide that? You are not an exercise physiologist, so why waste your time.

2). Exercise Physiology is NOT biology and how it is affected by skeletal muscle contraction!! Muscle Contraction is a whole area of study. When you state that, it is obvious that your understanding of exercise physiology and its related components is extremely limited in scope.

3). Nobody is promoting anything. However, the ASAP organization is the only one that has defined what is exercise physiology. The ACSM has never done so. And to my knowledge over the last 10 years, I have never seen any other organization besides ASAP give an overall detailed definition. Definitions such as " exercise physiology are the study of exercise and it's acute and chronic effects". That vague statement displays ignorance and unwillingness to adapt to 21st-century thinking.

4). Since it is obvious that have nothing else to do besides annoy others who are trained in exercise physiology and who have a degree in the subject. I think your time would be better spent doing other tasks that would promote your own self interest- NOT exercise physiology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:1bestall|1bestall]] ([[User talk:1bestall|talk]] • contribs) 02:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I was informed by a colleague that there was a heated discussion on this website. I joined this site yesterday in hopes of clarifying and adding information to this page. I have agreements with both sides of the discussion. I believe that exercise physiology organizations can create their page and that only links should be left here. I also believe (if I understand Wikipedia correctly) that others are allowed to edit this page. No one person or organization should be the sole voice for the definition of exercise physiology. I have no problem with most of the information provided by little how and agree that some edits are necessary. I made minor edits yesterday and added and deleted a sentence from the opening paragraph. The deleted sentence referring to Watts could be reinserted in the new section "exercise physiology measurements" or quantification of workload section...or something like that. The biological and evolutionary approach to this article is unique, at least from the way exercise physiology is taught in the U.S. I would like to add a "history of exercise physiology section," "resistance training", and improve upon environmental physiology by inserting more on exercise hypoxia, effects of microgravity, and heat/cold stress. I am insanely busy and will strive to make any edits respectful. I hope to have 'my talk' section up along with some background info on myself. Please feel free to contact me with any constructive criticisms or comments. Thanks. [[User:1bestall|1bestall]] (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

First sentence sees a bit off
The first sentence reads: "Exercise physiology is the study of the acute responses and chronic adaptations to a wide range of physical exercise conditions."

Why "acute" and why "chronic"? Does someone have a quote from a good source that defines "Exercise physiology" in that manner?

A more reasonable version might be: "Exercise physiology is the study of the responses and adaptations to a wide range of physical exercise conditions," after all, the vast majority of the time we are concerned with a description of the response of the body to ordinary exercise regimes not the extremes to which atheltes take it.Zedshort (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Exercise physiology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150416185146/http://www.procalcdiet.com/storage/Predictionofenergy.pdf to http://www.procalcdiet.com/storage/Predictionofenergy.pdf
 * Added tag to http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/k51611345m783727/fulltext.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Does exercise burn fat?
The section doesn't mention  "fat burning", even using more technical terms. Yet for years we've been told that "exercise burns fat". Does it, or not? I had hoped this article might offer at least basic information on how body fat is affected by exercise. yoyo (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
This article from the beginning seemed very well thought out and like a promising article. The lead section of this article gives a good introduction to the article and the different sections in it. The lead is pretty simple and doesn't overcomplicate things or go into too many details.

The content of the article is good but I think it could use some improvement. I think the article contains most of the important information that is needed when discussing this topic. I think too much information was included in the section about education in exercise physiology. It was the second largest section of the article, but I feel like it is not as important as the other sections so it didn't need that much information. I think most of the content is up-to-date, but this may be untrue after looking at the talk page. There really is no conversation about equality or any specific ethnic group in this article.

This article seems mostly neutral or unbiased. A couple of sentences seem to be coming from a biased source, but most of the content was informational and unbiased. The sources are thorough, there were many from many different sources that varied from different countries also. Not all of the information/sources are current, only one of them seems to have been written within the past 10 years, and when it comes to some health topics, these could be information that is out of date. I think there are sources that are more accurate or current compared to some of the ones that were used in this article. I did click on a few of the links and they did work.

The organization of the article was good, the similar things were grouped together one section after another and the flow of the article was good. The article didn't have any grammatical or spelling errors. The article was fairly easy to read, it might be harder to read for a beginning or someone not in that field because of some of the medical terminology and medical knowledge but it was for the most part good.

There was very few images used in this article and I feel like the ones used weren't necessarily needed or there could have been better images selected. The images were briefly captioned but I feel like better images could've been used and captioned.

The talk page discussion was very interesting to read. There were a lot of comments about how some of the information as not the most current or accurate and some comments of some great things that were added to the article. This article is part of some WikiProjects and was part of Wikipedia Education Foundation Article.

My overall impressions of this article were that it is good but I think it could be more updated to use current information and more current articles. The article was well written and the format was good, I think it could just use some more images that are more related to the topic and I think the article is well-developed.Sleepychicken4938 (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Sleepchicken4938

I am happy to see an article on exercise physiology. The second paragraph of the section entitled "Energy expenditure" refers to "≈24 W of mechanical energy". I thought watts were a unit of measurement for power, not energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirca palustris (talk • contribs) 13:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)