Talk:Weight training

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bozaid jr. Peer reviewers: Gma78.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2021 and 11 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Katiegoethals.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Redirection from Isokinetic exercise
I was looking the topic of isokinetic exercise up for my class and I was redirected to weight training. I believe this is a mistake but i am not 100% sure. My textbook "Health Psychology, an introduction to behavior and health" (2007) classes weightlifting as Isotonic exercise and says that Isokinetic exercise is mainly used in rehabilitation. (Harris77) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.112.16 (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of X-reps
I am removing X-reps from this article for the following reasons: Therefore, I'm going to replace the X-rep definition with a definition of "burns". - Gnbonney 18:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * X-reps seem to be an advertising gimmick for an e-book. The link from the Weight training article goes straight to their advertisment for the e-book.  Wikipedia should not be used as an advertising vehicle for every e-book author who has a new bodybuilding method (even if it's a good one).
 * The definition of what constitutes an X-rep seems to have changed over time. An older (1997) article by Steve Holman says "X-Rep training is simply placing a muscle in its completely contracted position, or close to it, against resistance and holding it there until the muscle can no longer contract."  This is very different from the definition given in the Weight training article.  What assurance do we have that the definition won't change again later?
 * X-reps do not seem to be a significant innovation over older methods. A posting on a discussion forum from 2004 says "I did read the e-book. It′s basically this 'go to failure, then do mid-range partials'."  This is closer to how an X-rep is defined in the Weight training article.  However, this definition sounds a lot like "burns" as described in the book Mass! by Robert Kennedy and Dennis B. Weis.  The only difference is that with burns you perform the partials at the top of the contraction.
 * After further reading, I am even more convinced that X-reps is just a variation of burns. - Gnbonney 21:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair call, although we should probably mention that X-Rep is another name for burns to clear up the misconception (which I must admit that I also had) that they are two different things. GeorgeStepan e  k\talk  23:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, but then what's to stop the x-rep creators from changing their definition again so they can say that it's not the same? - Gnbonney 16:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the person who added that definition was me! There's nothing to stop someone new from coming along and rewriting the definition (which is always the case the case for a wiki), but you can rest assured that I won't be reverting this change. GeorgeStepan e  k\talk  05:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll put your definition back and add something that says it's a variation of burns.  - Gnbonney 14:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Common Concerns
The information in this section is good, but should be set up in a different form from a FAQ to sound more encyclopedic Pnkrockr 15:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The information content can be presented in a slightly different format, more conducive to encyclopedic reading --> please see what is and what is not wikipedia for better guidelines. TheGrandMaster1 03:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Weight training after breast cancer
I am looking (and looking and looking) for a reasoned discussion of upper body strength exercises for post-mastectomy subjects. There are several considerations: Simple mastectomy vs mastectomy plus removal of lymph nodes; Reconstructive surgery (implants vs TRAM vs other types of reconstruction). I have looked for help in the Komen and Armstrong web sites, various BC blogs, from my surgeons (oncologist and plastic), a physical therapist, and an exercise physiologist. No help anywhere.

All agree that cardio exercise is good: treadmill, ellipitical runner, stairs, bicycle. However, the two surgeons gave me these two extremes: don't lift more than 5 pounds (breast cancer specialist) and don't play competition tennis (plastic surgeon). There must be some middle ground that will allow me to regain strength in my arm, participate in some sports (softball, volleyball), carry in the groceries, and keep from becoming the frail old lady who can't lift a 10 pound sack of sugar and must therefore go into a nursing home. Am I forever banned from yoga because I shouldn't lift my arm over my head? LR Nell 01:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)LR Nell


 * Intuitive training may be your answer. If you can't objectively work out what kind of training you require, then base your training on how your body feels when you try various exercises. With some practice you can learn to distinguish normal soreness (from unaccustomed exercises) and pain (from overuse). Begin with very light weights, and build up slowly. You may be suprised at how much strength you can regain this way. GeorgeStepan e  k\talk  04:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Intensity, Volume, Frequency Table
It appears that there is a typo in the Intensity, volume, frequency table. The Low Intensity value lists a weight of 80-100% of 1RM. I would think this should be transposed with the value for High Intensity. Also, I'd recommend changing the term "Intensity" to "Load", or vice versa, in order to correspond with the Performance Goals table. Joseph bashe 19:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the effect of different repetition speeds?
The following question was asked at the ref desk (science) today: What are the pros and cons to different repetition speeds when doing weight exercises? I do not know the answer, but it may be something that a knowledgeable person could add to this already good article. --Seejyb 22:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's my understanding if other contributors want to add. These are assuming the weight moved is close to the maximal contraction at each speed. Anything significantly less than close to the max force and the muscle should be building pretty much straight endurance (not really, but the reality is much more complicated) A rapid contraction uses a strong activation of the muscle (an aspect of neurological strength, rather than purely muscular strength) at the start of the movement, to allow the muscle to overcome the inertia of the weight. This would be similar to a plyometric contraction, but without the stretch cycle. The part of the motor unit that is trained is the neurons, and probably the strength a little bit. A slower contraction would work the strength and endurance of the muscle, building contractile proteins and the energy systems, mostly the phosphagens I'd think. The muscle exerts much of the force initially to overcome inertia, the rest of the contraction is to maintain the movement of the weight. The amount of weight moved is less than during a fast contraction, but more than a super slow one. The muscle builds up mostly phosphagens and intramuscular glucose. An extremely slow contraction never overcomes inertia, it is constantly fighting the full mass of the weight. The muscle has to work very hard, burns through the phosphagens very quickly and starts to accumulate lactic acid. Lots of tearing and DOMS. The long-term effect is going to be neovascularization, probably not much change to the phosphagens, but high build-up of glucose as well. Lots of tearing on the eccentric as well. WLU 00:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * HAHA Nice answer. Kudos to you :) Wikipedia needs more of your editing.Cavell 05:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm never sure if people are serious or being e-sarcastic. Anyway, I don't think I could come up with any references, and it's pretty much original research based on my Kin degree.WLU 23:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was bieng serious. :) Cavell 01:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC) - In that case, thanks and yay for me! Much appreciated, I just wish I could provide the references.WLU

Repetition speed is an inmportant aspect of any athletes training program. There is an aspect of "time under tension" that is addressed at length online--however I have been having some difficulty pinning down any scientific literature on the matter. None of the websites I found sited any in particular. I ordered some journal articles recently on the matter so I may be able to give a more comprehensive answer later.

However, the main concern should be sport specificity. This should be the primary training concern of any strength or conditioning program (along with progressive overload and training variation). The body adapts itself to the stimuli it is subjected to and and adapts accordingly. One should attempt to mimic the movement type, speed, etc. of the sport the individual is most interested in to cause proper muscle fiber development, motor system consolidation, and other factors. Point being that if you are performing a sport that requires (or is preferential to) high power movements that require rapid muscular contractions, the athlete should train as such. --Reaper Man 17:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reaper Man

I disagree that the article should be sport specific, I think it should be based on the physiological changes and adaptations. Not everyone trains for a sport, but everyone experiences and can see the physiological changes that accompany exercise. BUT! within each speed, there should definitely be sport-based examples as that'll help people translate the theoretical knowledge into something more comprehensible to a non-specialist. I'd say if the references can be tracked down, the section should be added to the article starting with the physiology, then include within each speed a sport specific example, ideally from a single sport - football perhaps? Blockers for slow, kicker or QB for fast, I dunno what for medium I hate football. WLU 23:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I said sport specificity of training, but what I really meant was specificity of training (working too much with athletes). You want to mimic motions that you want the training to be for.

I think if you are training purely from an aesthetics perspective, training speed is irrelevant. All that needs to be remembered is to train at a slow enough speed that one can control his/her movements well and does not risk bouncing or using momentum/stretch-shortening to cheat in the lift. --Reaper Man 07:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sound's like you're talking about goal-based training, whether it's sport, aesthetics or health. Sport is the one where training speed would be the most germane though. But actually, I think this discussion should be taking place in strength training rather than weight training. And again, we're all still limited by references. WLU 13:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean, you want me to dig through my books and articles to find something dicussing repetition speed? I suppose I can do that. Admittedly, I am new to the editing process here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaper Man (talk • contribs)

If you've got references that back up what I say, cool. I threw it together a priori, I'm not 100% that what I wrote is completely accurate - that's what prevents me from actually putting it into the article. If the references back me up, huzzah. WLU 00:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Review
Bascially somebody got the the bright idea to "improve" this article by butchering it and drastically altering it to fit some new plan of theirs. Basically they tore up the new article and threw it away, ignoring the featured article warning that an FA is to be left alone as it is considered high quality. They had to come up with a way to merge or alter all the different systems of weight training: power lifting, bodybuilding, strength training, etc. Anyway if I sound upset it's because a couple if months it was still a fine article but somebody completely ignored the FA star and tore it down and decided to build it back up from scratch. Quadzilla99 07:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That was me, and my reasons were because weight training is one form of strength training, the others being resistance and isometric. All of the information that made it a FA is still on wikipedia, on the strength training page.  The information that remains should be specific to weight training alone, and allows it to be differentiated from the other types of exercise.  I've added a clearer link to the discussion below - in retrospect, doing a big change like that without putting in a clearer link to the discussion about such a big change was a bit foolish, so my apologies for not making it clearer.  What issues did you have with the article as is?  WLU 12:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A Discussion about the merger was listed for a couple weeks and everyone at that point was alloted time to comment. The consensus was to go ahead with the merger. Because an article is FA, doesn't mean it can't be improved upon. The fact that Strength training is evolving dictates that an article evolve with it, or it becomes obsolete. We're only striving to improve the article. Sure it can possibly be improved on further, but to revert doesn't allow the article to be truly representative of the industry. I think WLU did a good job on that very large project. I encourage you Quadzilla99 to further improve it. --Maniwar (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Improved upon? Surely you jest. Either way I commented there fairly early I believe, and it was a bad idea that should have been nuked. As for your definitions on Weight training/strength training, please don't try to explain exercise science to me. To be fair though, you made your decision and were within consensus so you did nothing wrong as far as Wikipedia goes. I also am doing nothing wrong in stating my belief that it wasn't broke and you fixed it till it was. Quadzilla99 06:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, all of the information that made weight training a featured article is still on wikipedia. All the stuff on general hypertrophy is there, it's in strength training.  Nothing has been lost, but now the weight training article contains information that is specifically about 'training with weights', in a way that contrasts it with other types of strength training.  Have a gander at the strength training article and see if there's anything you feel is missing, or should be moved back to the weight training page ('everything' doesn't count :).  We can now work to bring weight training and strength training up to featured article status.  WLU 12:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll just reprint what I said earlier as you must have missed it: "Improved upon? Surely you jest. Either way I commented there fairly early I believe, and it was a bad idea that should have been nuked. As for your definitions on Weight training/strength training, please don't try to explain exercise science to me. To be fair though, you made your decision and were within consensus so you did nothing wrong as far as Wikipedia goes. I also am doing nothing wrong in stating my belief that it wasn't broke and you fixed it till it was." Quadzilla99 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well go on then, WLU. Bring weight training back up to featured article status, please. GeorgeStepanek\talk 05:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Or, since much of what earned FA for WT is now in ST, you/we can easily buff IT up to FA status. It's not like one is "their's" and the other "our's", as much as it may seem so. Sfahey 21:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge between Strength Training, Weight Training and Resistance training
This article underwent a discussion to merge with Resistance training and Strength training. The archived discussion can be found here

How about adding MIT Open Course Ware: Weight Training to external links...
Hey guys!

How about adding MIT OCW's PE.720 Weight Training, Spring 2006 to external links? I know that this section always ends up cluttered with weight training websites, but I think the MIT course carries enough information to be a good way to read on (as external links are exactly about this, aren't they?). So think about it.

--phil 11:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say they are appropriate for external links on other wiki pages, notably directly linking the notes and movies to for weight training exercises to the equivalent wiki pages. The link itself isn't quite direct enough for my tastes to link to the weight training page itself, but I'm open to arguments.  WLU 16:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

that woman
why are they several pictures of that women with blue tanktop? this article isnt about here someone should get new pics.--Rekatj2 23:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Untill you can find different pictures that demonstrate the movements, the pictures should stay up. They're GFDL-licensed and show the movements discussed, so they're appropriate to the page.  WLU 00:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They are not appropriate because the woman is performing the lifts incorrectly. For example, on the dumbbell deadlift, she has the weights floating around her side, where they shouldn't be.


 * Not really an issue since wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Again, if you've better fair use images, feel free to substitute. WLU (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That rule exists so pages don't turn into glorified instruction manuals, which is absolutely not the case here. Having images of people performing lifts incorrectly and with bad form and placing a caption beneath them indicating that the image correctly displays the lift is really no different than inserting false statements into the article. Not only that, but it is dangerous, given that a new trainee might emulate the poorly performed lifts displayed in the pictures on this particular page. Given the non-availability of fair use images, it would be prudent to remove the pictures until the appropriate fair use images are available. This having been said, I am going to remove the pictures for the time being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.226.54 (talk • contribs)
 * I think the pictures greatly enhance the page and add something to what would otherwise be a very dry, text-heavy article. Obviously your opinion is in the minority judging by Matt Crypto's revert.  Also, I don't see anything egregiously wrong with the form.  If you've further problems with this, please bring it up at a request for comment ; to date it looks like consensus is against you, and unless you've got a policy-based reason to remove them, then there's no need to remove them.  WLU (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the picture of the "dumbbell deadlift" is NOT a picture of a dumbbell deadlift at all, it's a picture of a poorly executed dumbbell squat! A dumbbell deadlift looks more like this. I agree with the guy who said that this is a false statement. Remove it. Wikipedia is not a place that is supposed to look nice, with pictures as decoration. The pictures must be accurate. Noxteryn (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. WLU (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's still not enough. It's a bad squat. Her feet are looking outwards (which is ok), but her knees appear to be parallel, not aligned with her toes (which is very bad). This squat is wrong, which means this image shows incorrect information. It must be removed. 77.49.67.189 (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * weights do not need to be in front of legs to be a deadlift. See trapnbar deadlift for example. All that is needed is you lift a weight up from rest, a dead stop, completely reloading between reps. Even a "hack Squat" (barbell behind legs) can be a deadlift. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Mr. or Mrs. 77.49.67.189 had a point though. If the feet and knees don't fit, you must hack it. In other words, that particular picture indeed demonstrates poor and dangerous form and the article certainly wouldn't lose anything worthwhile without it. That thing with the ball to the wall (sorry) also seems quite hazardous; someone very unlucky could end up with a posthumous Darwin Award trying to emulate this. The fact that Wikipedia is not meant as an instruction guide doesn't imply that it has a license to put forth misguided statements OR illustrations — a picture is worth a thousand words, so if a picture says bullshit it says it a thousand times, which is more than most politicians will say "mistakes were made" in their entire lifetime, which is already way too much. The leg extension illustration with that same woman is fine, the other two should definitely go, and if really someone thinks that the article is too "dry, text heavy", then put a picture of a monkey drinking his own pee, at least noone will get hurt trying to copy.--Abolibibelot (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Safety Section
I changed the safety section to hopefully help people not end up like my best friend. Please read the link, it gives a better explanation than I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.199.30 (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia is not a memorial and not a how-to guide. I've reverted to a more appropriate tone.  WLU 00:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can say that having a squat rack or spotter shouldn't be under the safety section. It wasn't meant as a memorial or as a how-to, but as a disclaimer and safety precaution.
 * It is in the safety section. I've reworded to be a bit clearer.  But it's in the safety section.  And wikipedia has a disclaimer at the bottom of each page, it doesn't need another one.  WLU 01:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm fine with that.

OK - acknowledged: Wikipedia isn't a "How To" guide. However, Wikipedia is "out there" in the public domain. Many people look to Wikipedia as their initial point of enquiry regarding a particular topic. Weight Training can, potentially, be a dangerous activity for the inexperienced. I think it is therefore irresponsible to not, at least, "propound" elementary safety procedures, whilst not necessarily "endorsing" them. 82.5.68.95 (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Weight training versus isometric training
I have respectfully asked the author(s) of the article to provide at least one citation for the statement "only strengthens the muscle at the specific joint angle" as it appears to misrepresent isometric training results.

''Weight training versus isometric training

Isometric exercise provides a fixed amount of resistance based on the force output of the muscle. This only strengthens the muscle at the specific joint angle at which the isometric exercise occurs. In comparison, weight training strengthens the muscle throughout the entire range of motion of the joint.'' (citation please) PhilGM 10:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The reference could be found in the isometric main, though this page is better for having it.  WLU 16:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

-The above citation does not seem to support the statement "This only strengthens the muscle at the specific joint angle at which the isometric exercise occurs." The citation says 'Training increased voluntary strength at the training angle and the two adjacent angles only.' In reading the text, that means three angles, five degrees apart giving a range of ten degrees. i.e. When isometric exercises are done at 'beneficial' joint angles, they do have a positive training effect at 'multiple' joint angles.

Please consider the merits of making a comparitive statement in the weight training article which seems to suggest that weight training (meaning full or partial range training) is somehow better than isometric training, because it trains the muscle through the full range of the movement. Please also provide a citation to back up the statement that full range training has a positive effect on muscle strength at all joint angles. PhilGM 21:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've modified the section to demonstrate that there are improvements to nearby joint angles also. I don't think it needs further adjustment, the section states 'In comparison, weight training strengthens the muscle throughout the range of motion the joint is trained in', which basically says the muscle is trained in for the range it moves through.  It could be worded a bit better I suppose, but the basic idea seems to be there.  Weight training is superior in the sense that it trains the muscle for strength throughout the full joint angle from initating to terminating angle.  Though really, weight training can be isometric training if the weight is held rather than lifted.  Since during isometrics the joint does not move through an angle, it only trains one angle. In any case, 'better' is always a relative measure - if you're aiming to train a sticking point, isometrics are better.  If you wish to train a full range of motion, weights are better in the sense that it more efficient to train full-range reps.  As for a reference, it's pretty much taken as fact that strength training increases strength throughout the range.  But here's some references -,  , , though here is one that seems to contradict this.  Perhaps this is something that may be better resolved outside wikipedia first.  Though from what I know it's considered a done deal.  I'll see if I can turn up a reference in my textbooks. WLU 01:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

WLU thanks for your work in finding references and supplying them here. thanks for rewording the section in question to reflect the research that isometric methods show improvements in strength in addition to the training angle.

May I suggest that you remove the word 'only' from this statement: 'This only strengthens the muscle at the specific joint angle at which the isometric exercise occurs and to a lesser extent, proximal joint angles.' as this is contradictory to the rest of the sentence, because if you only have one leg press machine available, you don't have other leg press machines available to a lesser extent in proximal locations. Also full range training may not be the most effective way to train for strength in a full range. Recent research shows that partial range training can give effectively the same results as full range training: Possibly the article would benefit from some clarity about range of motion, in the 'Basic Principles' section for example. I find the text confusing because it doesn't specify what range of motion we are talking about when we say 'weight training.' 82.41.162.203 00:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC) PhilGM 01:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the only and re-worded a bit to try to clarify more. You could do this as well, there's no reason to wait for me to do it (see WP:BE BOLD).
 * As I read the abstract, it's saying that both partial and full ROM exercise increase strength. It does not specify if it increases strength throughout the full ROM.  From my understanding, training the last four inches of a movement and training the full ROM of a movement will both produce gains in strength, but only the full ROM exercises increases strength at all joint angles.  The partial ROM would only increase in strength at the angles/ROM trained.  The article does not specify if you can do a bench press only at the last part of the movement (elbows past the shoulder, from 100-180°) and gain strength at the initiating point as well, when the elbows are below the shoulder and at ~25°.  I'd need to see the full article to figure out if they're talking about strength gains throughout the  full ROM when training only occurs at a specific, limited ranges.  Gotta go, I don't know if I addressed all your points.  WLU 03:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the KTAI reference about isometric training, closer to the sentence it refers to. In reference to whether partial ROM training has a training effect at/near the initiating joint angle of a full ROM exercise, I couldn't find it in the article. I'm sure some trainees will require strength more at ~25° than at 100-180°, certainly everyone who uses full ROM training will. However, as you suggested earlier, when you mentioned "sticking point" training, isometrics may be a better training choice if for example, strength at the ~25° joint angle is really important to the trainee. My concern is when the article suggests, either explicitly or implicitly, that one training method is better than another, when in fact, different training methods have different pros and cons. Lets preserve a NPOV please. PhilGM 15:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Cross-transference of strength to other joint angles

 * http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/77/1/197

Isometric exercises strengthen the muscle at or near to the joint angle at which the exercise is performed. For example a static bicep exercise held with the joint at 25 degrees only increases the athlete's strength at that specific angle (1) and there is no gain in strength when the elbow is held at other angles. However, at particular joint angles (and it varies from muscle group to muscle group) there is some cross-transference of strength to other joint angles. An isometric bicep curl performed at 80 degrees for example also increases strength at other angles to a lesser extent (1). The same phenomenon is true for the knee (2) and plantar flexors (3).
 * Joint Angles

(1)Thepaut-Mathieu C, Van Hoecke J, Maton B. Myoelectrical and mechanical changes linked to length specificity during isometric training. J Appl Physiol. 1988 Apr;64(4):1500-5

(2)Weir JP, Housh TJ, Weir LL, Johnson GO. Effects of unilateral isometric strength training on joint angle specificity and cross-training. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1995;70(4):337-43

(3)Kitai TA, Sale DG. Specificity of joint angle in isometric training. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1989;58(7):744-8

PhilGM 19:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Weight training and Strength training
I recently read through these two articles and many of the paragraphs were identical between the two. Considering how many people who read one article are likely to go on and read the other, this makes for a painfully tiresome read, as well as being unprofessional.

For example, under the History section of both there's three or four sentences starting with "Progressive resistance training dates back at least to Ancient Greece..." And under the Safety section of both, "There have been mixed reviews regarding the use of weightlifting belts..."

IMHO more links and less copypasta would improve the articles.

Daarklord (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Weight training is a sub-set of strength training, so the page should have less info on general principles, but more info on the specifics of using gravity to generate resistance. They're overlapping because they do cover the same domain.  A large amount was indeed copied from one to the other, in part because the history of strength training was, for a long time, the history of weight training.  Doesn't mean it can't be improved though.  WLU (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the "pioneers" of the Weight Training article, I agree w/ WLU. This was a difficult, but effective compromise when the two were merged, and wholesale changes shouldn't be made now. sfahey/1-20-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfahey (talk • contribs) 16:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's re-merge then. It's been 5 years. ··gracefool&#9786; 08:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggested Link - http://www.mogulnethealth.com/exercises/index.html
I feel that http://www.mogulnethealth.com/exercises/index.html would be a good link to add to this article. It illustrates exercises for most major muscle groups. Tell me what you think. Rmogul (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As discussed on my talk page, I believe the EXRX pages are better primarily due to their animation, but I think the're far from ideal and would rather a more scholarly source if possible. Also, you souldn't be adding them to the page because you appear to be related in some way to the website, and in many cases your sole addition to the page is to repeatedly add the same link.  Solicit regular contributors (or any contributors) to the pages and ask them if they think the links are appropriate.  I'm inclined to say no, but there is not a clearly superior set of links that makes it unequivocally obvious no further 'demonstration links' are necessary.  WLU (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Links
I suggest you add the instructional videos page from GymJunkies.com at [spam removed]. The exercise videos, text and pictures go into good depth and are better for understanding how to do the exercise than a site like ExRX. Complicated lifts like deadlifts and squats can't be explained with a GIF image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JumboPickles (talk • contribs) 17:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting link to policy statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics on weight training for children and adolescents: http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;107/6/1470

"In addition to the obvious goal of getting stronger, strength training programs may be undertaken to improve sports performance, rehabilitate injuries, prevent injuries, and/or enhance long-term health. Studies have shown that strength training, when properly structured with regard to frequency, mode (type of lifting), intensity, and duration of program, can increase strength in preadolescents and adolescents.1-4 Gains in strength, muscle size, or power are lost after 6 weeks if resistance training is discontinued.5  Maintenance exercises may offset these losses, but specific recommendations for maintaining strength gains have not been defined for preadolescents and adolescents.

In preadolescents, proper resistance training can enhance strength without concomitant muscle hypertrophy. Such gains in strength can be attributed to neuromuscular "learning," in which training increases the number of motor neurons that will fire with each muscle contraction.2,6,7 This mechanism helps explain strength gains from resistance training in populations with low androgen levels, including females and preadolescent males. Strength training can also augment the muscle enlargement that normally occurs with pubertal growth in males and females.3,6,8,9

Strength training can improve an adolescent athlete's performance in weight lifting and power lifting. Strength training is a common practice in sports like football in which size and strength are desirable. Despite theoretical benefits, scientific studies have failed to consistently show that improved strength enhances running speed, jumping ability, or overall sports performance.6,10

Evidence that strength training programs help prevent sports-related musculoskeletal injuries in preadolescents and adolescents is inconclusive.11 Furthermore, there is no evidence that strength training will reduce the incidence of catastrophic sports-related injuries." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.102.91 (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Link - http://www.fitness-central.co.uk/exercise/weight-training/free-weights/index.php
I would like to suggest http://www.fitness-central.co.uk/exercise/weight-training/free-weights/index.php as a link for the Weight Training page. It gives instructions and information on weight training for strength and endurance. If this is approved who adds the link.... me or an administrator? --BenHitchens (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Bible on the Science of Resistance Training
It would good if someone incorporated the known science as stated in the official Bible of weight training: http://faculty.pepperdine.edu/mfeltner/Classes/SPME330/ps1.pdf Ywaz (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Proper Technique
"People who have actually lifted a weight in their life, as opposed to those who just cite reference material let the lift take as long as it naturally takes to do. Consider your sources. ... This editor has found that the people who advise to try to keep a ramrod-straight back are usually people who have never done a deadlift or Olympic lift in their entire life."

This has got to be one of the most hilariously unencyclopedic passages I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I would fix but am not an expert on the subject. Anyone want to give it a shot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.14.194 (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Unit Usage: Deci-litre?
In the hydration section there is reference to "drink about 7 imperial fluid ounces (2.0 dL) every 15 minutes while exercising" Is this referring to deci-litre, as surely this is a rarely used quantity?. Wouldn't 200mL (as 7x30=210) be clearer to most readers? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Jargon
I've tried a couple of times to add definitions for terms like "rep", "set", "super set", "negatives", etc, but have been shot down for "not providing reliable sources". But there are two problems here, firstly I am a reliable source (I have been training weights for most of my life - I know what I'm talking about), and secondly, the fact is that there are no "reliable sources". There are plenty of sites that mention these terms, but none of them are authoritative. I can't use a dictionary cite, because some legitimate terms are not found there.

Despite having my content removed, these terms are not found anywhere in wiki, so there's an obvious knowledge gap and I believe it reasonable to fill that gap - they are terms that you hear often in every gym.

What is it going to take to have these terms accepted in the article? I can't cite myself as the authority, because I am not famous, and there are no sites to cite. So, what to do?

p.s. I could remove all "opinion" style from them - would everyone be happy if I did that? Cuneas (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of "reliable sources" and one of them is even a website. Some of these terms are expressively defined in articles in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research and can be found in many articles in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, both of which are peer reviewed academic journals, the exact kind of reliable source we need. If you prefer websites, I’m sure that they could be found on the American College of Sports Medicine or the National Strength and Conditioning Association website. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on [|my talk page], your content is full of material that is likely to be challenged and therefore would require a reliable source to reference that material, so that it's not "anonymous guy on the internet using the name Cuneas" who is saying that everyone does 3 or 4 sets to failure, but in fact from a respected authority or authorities. As I noted on my talk page, the content is quite simply inaccurate and over generalized to be of use here in it's current form. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide, which probably explains why you won't find your proposed definitions anywhere else in the encyclopedia. See WP:NOTDIC. --Yankees 76 Talk 18:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I forgot, I'm a "reliable source" too. I read a FLEX magazine last night and have been hitting the weights pretty hard for like, ever, and I'm all huge now. And I disagree with your definition of a "set", which reads A set is typically around 10 reps. Sets of 15+ reps will tend to build more stamina, while sets of 6-10 reps will tend to build more strength. There is a longer pause between sets - perhaps a minute or two - to recover enough to attempt another set. You're wrong. I think it's 7 reps on average, and sets of 3-5 are for strength, not 6-10 because after 5 reps too many slow twitch muscle fibers become engaged for it to truly be a strength building set. So I'm going to change your edit, because like I said, I'm a reliable source too.
 * Now do you see why we need references from reliable sources? --Yankees 76 Talk 21:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

i was thinking about adding to the equipment section. weight training gloves are just as important as strap. any thoughts? Nabeel.asif786 (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)nabeel.asif786 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabeel.asif786 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

surely some of these arent jargon at all, merely abbreviations or commonly used words, reps is just short for repetitions, and is obviously the number of times you perform a given excersise, a set is just a set of excercises 80.2.124.160 (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Merging
There's too much overlap between this article and Strength training. Weight training should be a section of the strength training article, since apart from the "Weight training versus other types of exercise" paragraph, not a single statement is specific to weights. ··gracefool&#9786; 08:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Merging
I agree with the above user. There is too much overlap and this is not surprising because the distinction between weight training and strength training is not natural; the former arguably leads to the latter. TAF 13.43 GMT  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.167.176 (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggested Link - http://elitemensguide.com/videos/
I would like to suggest http://elitemensguide.com/videos/ as a link for the Weight Training page. It provides fully, narrated instructional weight training videos that are easily filterable by type of muscle trained. All videos are tablet and mobile compatible. Kevin P. McGowan Kevinpmcgowan (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

weird lifts
Is there an article here about unusual lifts like lifting weights via a strap clenched between teeth, or tie to hair?

In Clash of the Titans 1981 for example there is an old man using his beard tied to a hammock to deadlift a woman off the ground. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Mental Health Benefits of Weight Training
I think that it would be beneficial to include more about the mental health benefits of weight training, and not just physical health benefits. A lot of people find strength training an amazing stress outlet, and there are also studies showing improvements in depression and anxiety symptoms, to name a few. This is so important because a lot of time, physical benefits of weight training can be toxic or even repelling- it can cause people to fixate on physical appearances, and also cause direct associations of weight training with just "looking strong, bulking, etc". It's important to widen the perspective of weight training so that people can consider it as a solution to mental problems, and not just physical.

Lifting at a young age
Lifting Is not a good thing for young children can effect your body when young. It makes the bones weaker. The bones will be stunted. 2600:4040:F021:E000:143:2BFD:7EF8:AAC3 (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Composition I - Writing Wikipedia, section 2
— Assignment last updated by Tonylorenzo14 (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Added to article
I took the time to review the article and add examples and citations to certain articles. I am working on this article as a project for a class i take in college. I added a few details into the “Free weights” and “Weight machines” to help differentiate the two. I also added to “Health benefits” to improve upon the many benefits that come with weight training. Finally, I added a new article “Full body workouts” to elaborate on what goes into it and if it’s right for you.Tonylorenzo14 (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Tonylorenzo14 (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Medical claims have special sourcing requirements, which you can read about at WP:MEDRS. Overall even your non-medical sources did not meet minimum standards (please read WP:RS). - MrOllie (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Advanced Writing Science
— Assignment last updated by YasmaniGrandahl (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Composition I - Writing Wikipedia, section 2
— Assignment last updated by Ci2003 (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)