Talk:Strength training/Archive 1

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. GeorgeStepan e k\talk 21:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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. GeorgeStepan e k\talk 05:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Actually
Resistance training would probably be the primary catagory. This is how the breakdown would go: Strength Training --Bigbosstrom 20:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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. &mdash; Feezo (Talk) 04:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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. Mango juice talk 12:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Out of time, will try to do more later. WLU 17:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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. --User: (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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? --User: (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. --User: (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)
 * agree: Asa scientific term, "tone" refers to the continuous nerve input muscles receive to deep them on alert. It has nothing to do with this cosmetic application. Sfahey (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
 * I believe the way this works is called motor learning? AweCo (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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...
 * 
 * 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)

I think a better way of stating this is that weight gain will cause a decrease in body fat loss. . 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)

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)

Removing Hatfield link
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)

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

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)


 * 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)

Realization of training goals table
I have given up editing wikipedia as all my edits get reverted by bots or people, even simple grammar fixes... so I'm just going to put this here so someone else can make the appropriate fix. The table seems to have an error. Under the "Speed" column, it says the durations per set are 20 - 40 seconds, doing 1-5 reps at 100% speed and 30% of 1rm. Yet "Strength" sets are apparently 5 - 10 seconds, doing 1-5 reps at 60-100% speed and 80-90% of 1rm

It doesn't make sense that the latter would be so much faster. Looking at the other columns I see similar inconsistencies across a few of the values if you sit down and think about it. It just makes me doubt how accurate this table is (118.209.226.34 (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC))

Exactly my point I will just add that an explanation of "power versus speed" and proper definition of all the training goals listed are sorely needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.82.67.116 (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, and would add that the entire speed column of the chart would seem not be from the reference cited. See: Siff MC (2003). Supertraining. Supertraining Institute. ISBN 1-874856-65-6 on page 11, Table 1.1. If it is elsewhere, I can't find it. GoShmoe (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Strength training. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://us.commercial.lifefitness.com/content.cfm/strengthtrainingforwomen_1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/Youth%20Hot%20Topics.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nsca-lift.org/Publications/YouthforWeb.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

This article has a "terminology" that needs to include more of terms the article itself uses. p/w and RM for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.202.183.124 (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)


 * "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)

Hello -- I am the author of reference #39 and to put this gently, the citation is wholly unrelated to "shocking" skeletal muscle (whatever the contributor may think it means). If I was a bit more involved in Wiki, I'd figure out how to edit this article. Other than that, can someone fix the citation, i.e., delete it. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.6.129 (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Importance of Rest Period?
Should rest period be included in the article' section about volume, frequency, and intensity? Rest period seems to be an important training variable that is often not mentioned despite a plethora of articles in the literature. ex. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19691365 Best Bostonian49 (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Yoga
What is yoga really for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:346:C100:60B0:6D:BEF3:9FFD:D04D (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Restructuring of page
Hi, the page is almost exclusively dominated by a focus on weight training. I appreciate there is a strong association with weight training but other forms of strength training such as calisthenics and plyometrics are barely mentioned. What I suggest is creating a new section underneath the 'Uses' section, called 'Principles and training methods'. This section will cover the basics as it applies to most forms of strength training i.e. reps & sets, breathing, training environments etc. The 'Specific forms of strength training' section can go underneath this. I think this should have several sub-sections which summarise the different types. There could be another section under this which perhaps goes into related activities such as swimming, running, yoga etc. The current 'Principles and training methods' section is nearly entirely focused on weight training and I think this should be moved to be a sub-section under the 'Practice of weight training' section. These changes should give people a much more comprehensive overview of what strength training is and can include. It should also open up the article a bit more to future editors.

On a related question, there has been talk of a merger between this page and the 'Weight training' page. With the above changes made it becomes easier to port over the large body of text devoted to weight training (which would also help that article) without overly reducing the article length. We could perhaps have more of a general summary of weight training here. RickyBennison (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ismail.hajisaid.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Possible sources to cite
general: https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/fulltext/2010/10000/The_Mechanisms_of_Muscle_Hypertrophy_and_Their.40.aspx https://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/11531380-000000000-00000 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02640414.2016.1210197 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01258-z https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Fulltext/2017/12000/Strength_and_Hypertrophy_Adaptations_Between_Low_.31.aspx https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/20/1466.abstract health effects: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4086449/ https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/full/10.1139/apnm-2020-0245 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-013-0110-5 (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Change to order of sections
Hello, I just changed the order of the sections. This is a fairly radical comment so I thought I should ask for comments here. I usually edit health articles, and I ordered this article as if "strength training" were a medical procedure or therapy by the medical style guideline. I know strength training is is more than just a health procedure.

My main reason for doing this is to emphasize why anyone would do strength training, to then say what it is and how it is done, then to cover safety issues associated with strength training. Previously, the first section in this article is the history of the topic, but for health articles most readers come to the article to learn how the topic applies to their lives, not to learn about the history of a practice. I am imagining an audience coming here because they are thinking of starting weight training, and I want to emphasize the information here which would help people make decisions about whether this practice is right for them.

Please check the article before and after the changes I made. I was trying to be helpful but I might be a bit out of my scope. If anyone has other ideas for ordering then please make other changes, and if this needs to be reverted back to the way it was then that is possible too.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  19:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've partially reverted these changes. I think that the basic structure of most articles should start with "what is it"? and cover the effects (positive and/or negative) at a later stage. We're not an advocacy organization, so it is not our concern whether the article is effective in convincing readers to start lifting. In fact, the language of the article needs tweaking in places to avoid value judgements that have no place in an encyclopedia. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Mass changes to page
Hi @user:Buidhe. You have made some very large changes to the page, removing a lot of content. Could you please explain? It seems excessive. RickyBennison (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Buidhe


 * Please be more specific about what you object to. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of what you removed. I do not agree with unilaterally removing huge swathes from a page. There are tags and other methods available to collaborate with other users. Also, you may object to the section title 'Advanced techniques' but such a term is relative. The content referred to pretty standard weight training knowledge. It was in no way excessive for the article. The article could have done with a clean up but such deletions seem excessive.RickyBennison (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

If you have sources for the material that demonstrate wp:due on the page, then I could not object to restoration. But keep in mind that this is an overview article and not a how to guide. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Weight training merger proposal
Previous discussions (9+ years old):

The outcome of those discussions seems to be that Resistance training was merged into Weight training, but I would like to restart the discussion some 14 years later to suggest it all be merged into this article. There is a large amount of overlap between the two. Almost all of the information in Weight training generalizes to strength training, and the parts that don't would not be out of place in this article as it is such a large subset.

Keeping the articles separate is affecting their quality. For example, the History section here does not mention the things mentioned in Weight training, presumably to avoid copying the content. But as it is a subset, the history of weight training is part of the history of strength training, so it should be in this article as well. See also Weight training, which is full of safety precautions that apply to any form of strength training (arguably any form of training at all), and again should be included here. The overlap is so great that spreading the content between two articles is detrimental.

This article claims to be about "basic principles", which is odd. If it were instead about strength training in general (as one would expect it to be), it would include much of the information in the Weight training article, which is why I believe they should be merged. WP scatter t/c 07:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I would support a partial merge of weight training -> weightlifting (then add a hatnote to this article) excluding any content that applies to resistance training in general. I do not see much well sourced content that would benefit adding to this article. Re basic principles, the article is not exclusively about basic principles but most advanced techniques would be UNDUE for a general overview like this article, and better covered somewhere like advanced strength training techniques. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - So I asked ChatGPT about the different terms (IMO it should be a go-to source now in naming/merging discussions since it's a pretty neutral source). Here are the definitions it proposed.
 * Strength training: any type of exercise that focuses on building strength and increasing muscle mass. Includes resistance training, isometric exercises, pylometric exercises, yoga
 * Resistance training: strength training that uses resistance to challenge the muscles and improve strength. Includes weight training, bodyweight exercises, resistance bands.
 * Weight training: resistance training that involves lifting weights, such as barbells, dumbbells, or weight machines
 * Weightlifting: any exercise that lifts weights, which includes Olympic weightlifting, weight training, and using weights for aerobic exercise. It seems like per WP:BROADCONCEPT it is preferred to have an article rather than a disambiguation page or redirect.
 * Comparing with the old merger discussions, it seems WLU was correct in moving much of the content to the strength training article. Several editors believed weight training was not resistance training, but ChatGPT emphatically disagrees: "all weight training exercises involve some form of resistance", as did various editors in the discussion. Because of the disagreement, resistance training ended up with this weird definition of "training with elastic bands" which nobody seemed to like.
 * Reviewing the current articles:
 * Strength training (13kb): Mentions isometrics and plyometrics in the lead, but these exercises aren't discussed in the article at all. It seems weight training gets special treatment, so instead of being a link in the list of strength training exercises it has a separate sentence and a hatnote at the top. The article is primarily about resistance training, with some small digressions on circuit training.
 * Resistance training: redirect to strength training (2.5kb before merge), where it is defined as synonymous with strength training. There are non-resistance strength training exercises so this isn't right. I could see moving the RT content into a section on ST.
 * Weight training (30kb): seems to have expanded again. I do agree with Wpscatter that History, Safety, variable resistance workout, health benefits, and "Weight training and other types of strength training" all have content that should be moved to strength training.
 * Weightlifting (8kb): I guess it's OK? It doesn't really get across that Olympic weightlifting is the most common meaning. Has some interesting stuff in the sections that might be worth moving to the relevant articles.
 * Summing all the articles together we get 51kb, which according to WP:SIZERULE is just on the threshold for "may need to be divided". So based on size alone, there's no benefit to merging the articles - it's a decent split, and the smaller sizes encourage adding content to the articles.
 * My proposal is to just move the content I outlined - expand the strength training article, shrink the weight training article. It doesn't require a full move. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I stopped reading at chatgpt. It is not a reliable source. Can you give any examples in RS coverage of things that are "weightlifting" but not "weight training" or vice versa? Is there enough difference to justify separate articles? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So you read 5 words? Great. If you had bothered to read the list you would have seen the answer: weightlifting includes Olympic weightlifting but weight training does not. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as an RS I guess you could look at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9213388/ which distinguishes weightlifting the sport vs weightlifting movements/exercises vs traditional resistance training with weights. The use of the word "traditional" implies that they consider the weightlifting exercises to also be a form of resistance training. Googling "olympic weightlifting is a sport and not weight training" there are many websites which draw similar distinctions. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ?? Olympic weightlifting is a form of weight training, as defined in RS: "Weight training is a type of strength training that generally refers to the muscles moving against some type of opposing force provided by equipment or body weight." (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That source doesn't even mention Olympic weightlifting, so your source is useless - you're doing wp:synth. Also it is not peer reviewed so it's not as reliable. Imo we should try to follow wp:medrs which would exclude that source as not being a position statement from a recognized expert organization. Its only source is from 2005. (!) You'll note the source I posted is a recent systematic review, the second-highest evidence quality according to the pyramid on medrs. (I guess there are clinical reviews like but I don't have access)
 * Getting back to the content, at least your source agrees with Chatgpt that weight training is defined as a form of strength training. This isn't really surprising since chatgpt's definitions are based on random websites like that. Continuing with chatgpt's definitions, strength training is defined as exercise solely for the purpose of building muscles, so lifting weights for other purposes (showing off, aerobic exercise) is not strength training and hence not weight training either. In particular, Olympic weightlifting as a sport is done to show off, so it doesn't count as strength training. Any strength gains as a result of the performance are immaterial. Now, doing Olympic weightlifting movements as part of the preparation for an Olympic weightlifting event would count as strength training/weight training. But the movements being similar to a sport does not make the sport a strength training program - even people who have never strength trained could theoretically compete in an Olympic-style weightlifting competition. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't need medrs for something like defining weight training, since it's not biomedical information. It may be that some sources give a narrower definition than the one I cited and the Wikipedia article currently uses, however, that would still be covered under weightlifting. I still don't see why there is an advantage to having a separate article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. – Treetoes023 (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Appreciate this is late in the day but I oppose the merger. Weight training is a big enough subject to have its own article. The strength training article should be an overview with brief sections on the various forms (including weight training) and appropriate links.RickyBennison (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The merge was already carried out. I would be fairly agnostic about the existence of a separate article for weight training, if, unlike the previous one, it cited reliable sources to support the content in it and clearly mapped out a scope that was significantly distinct from this article and weightlifting. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The merge was already carried out. I would be fairly agnostic about the existence of a separate article for weight training, if, unlike the previous one, it cited reliable sources to support the content in it and clearly mapped out a scope that was significantly distinct from this article and weightlifting. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)