Talk:P90X

A note
I think this page should be put back up. I had no idea what P90X was, but a lot of my Facebook friends kept mentioning it in their status. I found the article in the history to be very useful and informative. I'm extremely disappointed to see that it has been deleted. Crowclarice (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree I often see "P90X" as a term used by others, I knew it was some sort of fitness thing but that it is. Wikipedia could surely have a neutral page about specifically what the program is, without unduly endorsing it. --MTHarden (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Another note
I would do it myself, but i dont want to bother to create an account, so.... could someone add in the "cultural references" section Tony's presence in the parody about "all about that bass" on youtube? Since it is a video with over 28 million views, i think it is relevant enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.55.92.127 (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Huge impact
1.) P90X is well-known, and worth discussing. It is the #1 best selling infomercial of all time. Mighty Putty, OxiClean, and JupiterJack, all have wikipedia entries. Tae Bo, created by Billy Blanks, also has a Wikipedia page and comparitively has not been as successful as P90X 2.) Considering how widely popular this is, and the fact that the world is becoming more and more obese (YES the world...not just Americans) it is not only interesting to include, but irresponsible to exclude. Wikipedia is a resource for knowledge, and while no, it is not a marketing outlet, the information about P90X transcends marketing. While Wikipedia prides itself on being neutral, it may be beneficial to not exclude articles that may have a positive impact in tackling an issue. This practice is done by the Motion Picture Academy by regularly giving the best picture award to a film that attempts to shed some light on an underappreciated issue. 3.) The article in its former, predeletion state admittedly did read like a verbal advertisement. No controversy was discussed (i.e. the fact that a morbidly obese person might kill themselves trying P90X), and negative comments seemed to be avoided. Wikipedia can flag sections and express the need for opposing viewpoints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody2000 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As for 2 -- it's not the purpose of wikipedia to put up articles/content for the sake of furthering any particular cause, in fact you might argue just the opposite, it's here to be a neutral source of information. And as per 3 -- I've seen many articles before that read like a copy/pasted "About Us" section on some promotional website, and it's really the fault of the company people for not putting any effort at all into making an objectively written page about the product.  209.198.142.98 (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the problems I ran into while trying to edit it to make it read less like an advertisement was that I couldn't find ANY sources through google that didn't read like an advertisement themselves. I wanted to add criticism to give it a more NPOV, but I couldn't without any sources to back it up.  I spent a good amount of time trimming the article to make it read less like an advertisement and more like an informational article, and it still sounded like an advertisement...None of the referenced sources seemed to have a NPOV and seemed as if they were written by the company who made the product.
 * rzrscm (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to mention that what you're saying in your second point completely goes against NPOV. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that this product alone is beneficial in tackling the obesity issue.
 * rzrscm (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Morbidly obese person might kill themselves trying..." anything at all, or might kill themselves quicker by not exercising and losing their morbidly obese weight. A NPOV might be better served by investigating claims and evidence regarding what happens to people who are A) somewhat in shape, B) in good shape, C) out of shape and D) somewhat overweight. Morbidly obese persons are generally considered statistical outliers, so if you wanted to discuss what could conceivably happen to them if they just picked up the DVDs and gave it a go - then you'd have to talk about the same action from the perspective of an elite athlete. Imho, put up a section labeled "Criticism" down on the page and let people cite sources with quotes and not worry about it. It's very commercially spread program rooted in infomercials, which doesn't mean it's not good or effective at doing what they claim to do. Parl2001 (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

rzrscm... Seriously? Are you for real? There is no set of work out DVDs that will tackle obesity just by sitting them on your desk as a paperweight. The idea that it's not NPOV because you don't mention "You have to actually work out." I mean, because basically doing ANY kind of exercise 6 days a week for 90 days is going to tackle obesity issues. Also if you tackle the diet problem that is why people are obese, because genetics is just an excuse. It's bullshit. There was no obesity epidemic hundreds of years ago. Find me ONE article in a history book that talks about obesity epidemics in history. Obesity = Mainstream food companies putting straight up crap in our foods. Restaurants like McDonald's marketing to children so children go eat McDonald's everyday and their parents think it's ok because McD markets this "we're healthy" BS. Please. The mainstream food industry is one of the main causes of cancer and pretty much every other disease that didn't exist 200 years ago. Also fads that change every six years and tell you now how you should eat when human dietary needs don't change every hundred years, much less every six. Supposedly companies are taking High Fructose Corn Syrup out of their stuff now when it should have been done ages ago, ONLY because people are wise to it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.153.77.3 (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not very familiar with the editing procedures of Wikipedia but I stopped by this talk page out of curiosity and the above, unsigned comment is in pretty clear violation of WP:TPG. I figure it should simply be deleted, but given my inexperience here, I'll leave it for someone else. Cheers.Derekc06 (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You didn't read what I said very well...I mean that it's not the only product "tackling obesity"...Anybody can tackle obesity by eating right and going out for a jog every day. I don't know why you're telling me any of this, anyway...It has nothing to do with the article...I workout and know how to eat right without following any "fad diets" or "fad workout programs" (like P90X), anyway, so you're not telling me anything new. You must be new to Wikipedia and a P90X sales person.  rzrscm (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted acai berry link
Obvious advertising link placed on this page. Deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.185.75.79 (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Autarch (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Claims
Claims probably should be made in here and not the article itself. Im not sure how well claims fit into the wiki page of an unknown product. There are so many products like this if they all had wiki pages like this (with nothing but PR) they wouldn't need their own websites.

I was going to delete it but welcome any comments since this is the first wiki page i've seen with "claims".Woods01 (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If I had it my way, this article wouldn't exist...But we've gone through that already, and the consensus was to keep it. I don't know what you mean by claims, but they wouldn't belong here because this is a talk page about the article, not a discussion board for the product.  Please elaborate on what you mean. rzrscm (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm immersed in what's generally seen as a competing or even directly hostile philosophy/program/movement/training camp, but would argue that this page needs to stay as P90X is very well known and comes up in conversation quite often in military/gym/athletic circles. Someone in the general public who hears about it will likely google it, and would be well served by finding a wikipedia article that at least TRIES for a NPOV, rather than just finding paid commercials. Thus, it's in the general public's best interest that the article stay and can be improved on over time as more neutral POVs and criticism can be added to it. Parl2001 (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been watching the article to make sure it maintains a NPOV. rzrscm (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a terribly written article, but clearly something needs to be here. P90X is getting a lot of cultural buzz, and people are going to come to Wikipedia to read about it. Let's work to trim all the marketing fat that we can until there are more reference articles to support it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstohler (talk • contribs) 15:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Independent studies?

I am a user of P90X and like the original writer, before purchasing, I tried to find negative reviews. I didn't find any. I've seen smack talk from people who haven't done it - but no actual studies or debunking of the program. The closest thing I've found are reviews about the diet plan. And those are incredibly weak. Sounds like a good study for grad student. Chronofish (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not really a fan of Wiki pages that like to put "claims" in front of everything the product or person has done, depending on the opinion of who wrote the article if certain sources are viable enough. I am okay with the statement "P90X claims to blablabla" if there is also content written about the hundreds of videos on Youtube by actual people using P90X. Before/after pictures. Honestly to me, this is unprecedented in an infomercial product. Most infomercial products show an actor who's like super ripped with extreme low body fat. A process that requires years of training to get that way. Yet they imply that by using their exercise product (typically one that only targets the abs usually) you will get those results. With P90X the community speaks for itself. I think that should be in the article. I mean just do a search on youtube for P90X you will find thousands of results videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.153.77.3 (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Source Removed
Hello, I noticed someone removed the link to fitnesstrainingreview.com from the P90x article. First, let me explain that I know Chelsea from that article, as she was in a class of mine. She was always talking to me about p90x whenever I was complaining about my shape. She gave me a link to a website she was starting (fitnesstrainingreview) as well some other info on P90x. About a week later I was doing more research on P90x and came across the wiki article which had the phrase "The program has three “rotations”—classic, lean, and doubles" said citation needed. Fast forward a few months, I ended up buying P90x and doing more p90x searches on google when I considered creating my own blog to hold myself accountable. I saw that the p90x wiki was still saying citation needed for that quite and remembered reading that exactly on Chelsea's blog on her new post. I then decided to link her site in the middle of the summer.

Now the reasoning was that it was not a reputable source. First I want to begin by asking what exactly is a reputable source as far as the p90x topic goes? I personally know that Chelsea is as filled with p90x knowledge as anyone possibly could be. She has been able to answer any question I throw at her immediately about p90x. She even leads p90x workouts on our campus. Recently she was talking to me about people who had emailed her questions and mentioned finding her site via wikipedia and thanked her so much for all of her help,. Lastly I wanted to say that this link has been on the wiki page for about 6 months and has been through just shy of 200 revisions.

I honestly think that taking this link and source away from the wiki article is just hurting potential visitors of the wiki. As you can probably tell I am very inexperienced with wikipedia. Let me know what you think about all of this, and have a nice day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.74.245 (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Anybody can ctart web site or blog and make any kind of cliams they want to...And blogs aren't considered reliable sources. rzrscm (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with rzrscm, you ask "what is a reputable source?" A reputable source is a source with verifiable information. Not a blog started by a woman you (an anonymous user on the internet) happen to know. Look at WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.136.123 (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Facebook updates?
The article says that frequent Facebook updates are required. This is false. The claim sounds like a joke placed by someone sick of reading P90x status updates. I am following the program so I know it's not a requirement. I'm removing it unless someone cites a reference. Jamesfett (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted non-encyclopedic (advertising) link
Deleted the "Get Fit, Become a Coach" link. Led to reseller of P90X. Kkbay (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

P90X Classic Workout Plan
Does this section look like it breaches WP:TRIVIA or WP:NOTGUIDE? Autarch (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleted advertising links
Just deleted two advertising links (put in the references section no less) - anyone editing articles should be familiar with WP:EL, specifically WP:ADV.Autarch (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"History" tone and content
In addition to lacking citations, the tone of the "History" section as a whole is not unbiased, and sounds a lot like an advertisement for how awesome P90X is. The first two paragraphs, and the last one, are fine, but the third (and, marginally, the fourth) need some work. Also, I don't know that it's relevant to discuss the "Making Of" documentary in the "History" section. Perhaps it could have its own section - "Related Followups," or something like that. Zminer (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. That third para really doesn't have a suitable tone for an encyclopedia. Note that Tony Horton is referred to as "Tony" -- I find it's a fairly reliable guide that, when people like that are being referred to by their first names, the surrounding text is likely to be excessively promotional and/or friendly in tone. Also, "tasked" is a tremendously ugly word, but that's less important! Loganberry (Talk) 02:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Exercises overview
I deleted this section as it breached WP:HOWTO.Autarch (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Effectiveness
Is there any discussion on the effectiveness of this program? I agree with the above individuals that this is a popular enough product to deserve its own page; however, I feel that we do need more comprehensive information and fewer plugs. I am recommending this article for semi-protected status and would love to have some expert contributors (read: not myself) find some reputable sites and either send them my way or update the article itself to reflect effectiveness, controversy, etc.--Jackson Peebles (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Risks?
This article talks about somebody who suffered from rhabdomyolysis after starting this workout. Is the risk of rhabdomyolysis greater if somebody on cholesterol-lowering medications engages in P90X? 74.96.73.59 (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * YES! When a person is taking a statin, you need to be careful when training him/her. And despite its many biases, even wikipedia contains information about it in the article on statins. --78.50.175.45 (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

RSN discussion
Sorry that I didn't see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_232 when it was posted. I have trimmed the article, agreeing with the concerns at RSN. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

...
This article is really short, it has no contents! I think the creator should make some more of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.102.190 (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)