Talk:BodyPump

Article name?

The correct name is BODYPUMP (all caps), and Les Mills usually includes the ® symbol. Don't know if BODYPUMP® with the ® is outside the naming convention ... but I think the article should be renamed either BODYPUMP or BODYPUMP®, since BodyPump is not actually correct.

BODYPUMP is definitely NOT a 'more general freely distributed form of exercise'; it's a brand.Nikitin 01:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have encoutnered the term before, but as far as I knew it was BodyPump, a copywritten exercise program. Should I vote a move to BodyPump, or is it also the name for a more general freely distributed form of exercise? Tyciol 21:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Just go ahead, it is indeed BodyPump. Move it! JKW 17:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Name change

I went ahead and moved the article from Body pump to BodyPump, per the request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Since there was a non-trivial history at the target location, I swapped the histories in order to preserve the contributor information for the content that was merged from BodyPump to Body pump in June. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It sounds more natural to call it by what it really is or rather by how it is known by people.

It is is more likely that a friend of yours will write you an e-mail saying "hey, you know, I started the gym, I do Body Pump and I find it really cool" than "hey, you know, I started the gym, I do BODYPUMP® and I find it really cool".

We can just say at some point that the registered mark is actually BODYPUMP®.

I'm a little naive about the legal technicalities concerning a registered/copyrighted fitness program. Are we oblidged to refer to it as it's registered? --LQST (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Tracklists

Tracklists for the current Bodypump 60 have been removed. 21st November 2006. Les Mills requires that all tracklists for the current releases are not made public till December 2006. Pipera

Again, I'm a little naive about the legal technicalities concerning a registered/copyrighted fitness program. Don't we have the right to spell out a copyrighted list? --LQST (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Still needs fixing

Re: the "advertising" complaint ... The page has been updated with substantial external references, and the tone of the text is fairly neutral (if a bit wordy!). Would it be less like advertising if the track lists came out? There's a link to them anyway down below. [User:Nikitin|Nikitin]] 01:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The article still reads a bit like advertising. Too me, the issue is that there is too much information on the specifics of the exercise routine. This might be OK if this were a full length article with history and critiques of the program. However, when it's just about the entire content of the article, it reads like promotion of the product.--Kubigula (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

For me it's clear that the article should be at Wikipedia. It is relevant and people come searching for it, they should find it. Enough reason. I agree it still sounds advertising, and we should try to fix a little. Even more, if there are other very similar programs that are known by other names, in principle I think they should be merged and each registered trademark should just redirect to a more comprehensive neutral article. --LQST (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the advertising problems are two-fold. First, currently six of the article's sixteen references are links to the Les Mills website, and a seventh is a press release written by Les Mills. Third-party sources would be better. Second is the wording -- "BodyPump has grown to be considered one of the world’s most popular group exercise classes." sounds like an advertisement; why not just say "BodyPump is a popular group exercise class"? David@sickmiller.com (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Alternative names

I see this exact program being marketed as Pump & Tone in the UK. Worth adding an alternative name? I'm not exactly sure about the legal status of it, but surely that's none of Wikipedia's concern... EditorInTheRye (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Dead link on safety principles

The second reference link does not work anymore. It now redirects to search.com. I couldn't find another link that contains the full article.146.52.52.199 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Group vs individual

This article said "Research shows that lifting weights in a group setting, such as a BodyPump class, is more effective than an independent weight training.", and sure enough, the cited source (http://www.lesmills.com/knowledge/fitness-research/raise-the-bar-together/) says "The results prove that when you work out with others you achieve more than you would alone". However, the actual study (file.scirp.org/pdf/OJPM_2013022711103090.pdf) which analyzes the results of BodyPump doesn't compare the BodyPump participants to individual weight training, or anything. Thus I've removed the sentence from this article. David@sickmiller.com (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Article does appear to be promotional but no where are any health claims made. References include independent coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:2CA0:251:91AB:E842:A356:D810 (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)