Talk:Step aerobics

Straddle Down?
There are so many versions of Straddle Down, which is why I didn't originally put it (good call on the V-Step, though). What version of Straddle Down were you referring to? --gujamin 02:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

originator of step aerobics
My name is Dawn Brown. I invented step aerobics in 1984 at my facility near Atlantic City, New Jersey, The Women's Gym. My club had an outdoor swimming pool, and we would cover the pool every winter. In the spring of 1984 my husband was putting concrete blocks on the edge of the cover while playing the radio. My 3-year-old daughter, Brianna, started jumping onto the blocks in time to the music. I saw what she was doing and realized this was a new way to exercise. Immediately I brought the blocks into my gym and started devising aerobic innovations. I filmed the first step aerobic video, Step It Out, which was distributed by Parade Video, and also wrote The Complete Guide to Step Aerobics, published by Jones and Bartlett around 1990. Gin Miller did much to popularize step, but I was ahead of her by a couple of years. Interestingly, I sold my idea (for peanuts) to a business in Atlanta with the promise that they would promote me and my invention. After I signed the papers, they refused to speak to me. They went on to sell MANY step benches. Then I started seeing big Reeboc magazine ads describing how Gin had invented the program. I am sure Ms. Miller had no part in stealing my invention. I doubt if she even knew I existed. All the same, I reaped very few of the monetary rewards of this valuable form of exercise. It saddens me to read about the so-called history of step, and not see my name mentioned. I am proud of my contribution to the health and fitness of people throughout the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.249.209 (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

MEDRS compliance
Alterted by, I have been looking for secondary and tertiary referencing to satisfy WP:MEDRS requirements. I keep finding primary studies.

The first thing we need to do is determine which statements require MEDRS treatment. I am guessing they would be: 1: Anything about calories burned. 2: Claims about greater or lesser chance of injury. 3: Definition of "low-impact".

Oftentimes a primary study starts with a generalized assessment of the literature, which is like a mini secondary comparison study. The authors make statements like "Research has shown..." Can we use such statements? For instance, Guerrero et al wrote about step and related exercise styles, "Collectively, these studies found that music-based group-exercise formats were associated with higher-than-average heart rate and caloric expenditure than jogging without music at 8.05 km/h," which would notionally support a statement in Wikipedia saying that a group class in step aerobics is one of the aerobic exercises that burns more calories than jogging at 8.05 km/h (5 mph).

One secondary review article is Paoli and Bianco's "What Is Fitness Training? Definitions and Implications: A Systematic Review Article" from 2015. I don't know whether it solves any of our problems here. Does it define low impact?

I'm also looking for position statements from fitness standards bodies but I'm striking out with that, too. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that ref #2 (url=https://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/aerobicsdef.htm |title=Aerobics: An In-Depth Look! |date=January 22, 2019 |website=Bodybuilding) does not meet MEDRS, as it is not a science journal and does not cite science literature for those statements about step aerobics being low impact and thus lower risk of joint injury compared to high impact. The concept may be true, but it is not verified. This means the health statements in the lead and first paragraph of Characteristics need to be edited accordingly. David notMD (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph in Characteristics should be deleted. Exercise uses calories is too general for this article. David notMD (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As to finding MEDRS literature, I tried a search at PubMed on "step aeriobics" (without the quote marks, too much completely unrelated). That yielded 41 articles. With the Clinical trials filter on = 17. Clinical trials are considered primary. With clinical trials filter off and Review on = 4. Of those, only PMID 2194403 might be worth adding to the article. From the abstract: "odd-impact loading (eg, soccer, basketball, racquet games, step-aerobics, and speed skating) are associated with higher bone mineral composition, bone mineral density (BMD), and enhanced bone geometry in anatomic regions specific to the loading patterns of each sport." Filtering for meta-analyses or systematic reviews did not yield any publications. David notMD (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious whether the Hyde book co-written by the American Association for Active Lifestyles and Fitness (AAALF) is good enough to establish that step aerobics is relatively low-impact exercise. It looks to me like a professional body has established their position. Along the same lines there are other books by standards bodies, for instance the following The latter book talks about "step tests" and "step testing" but the steps are higher than the step aerobics plastic step device, for instance the YMCA's classic 3-minute 12-inch step test. Can we use the AAALF book or the IDEA book to support the statement that step aerobics is relatively low impact? Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)