Talk:Weight training/archive2

Archive 1

Repetitions

The article discusses the varying effects of different numbers of repetitions per set on muscles, targeting, variously, muscle size, strength and endurance. 1) What is the evidence for these numbers? 2) What are the theories behind why different numbers of reps cause different effects on muscles? — Matt Crypto 09:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the evidence is pretty sketchy to be honest. I don't have access to many exercise physiology text books, and there doesn't seem to be many journal articles about the issue. I will try to look again now though, since you bring up a good point. I think the current thinking is based on experience of practitioners and trainers with a little conjecture added in. - Taxman 13:44, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Not true. There is plenty of information available in journals and text books. The information presently in the article is quite correct. Dan100 17:31, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Well if you've got some, great. But from what I looked, I saw very little peer reviewed journal material on the issue. I could have just chosen the wrong search terms I guess. The article currently cites very little on that, so please verify what you can with any sources you have, and cite them properly. - Taxman ^Talk 21:22, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that a lot of the research is quite old, ie isn't on Pubmed etc. Older research is no less valid though - Berger did his seminal work in the early '60s - and of course has had years of heavy review. This is a fairly good overview, but if you want to really get into it try looking at a copy of Physiology of Sport & Exercise (Wilmore & Costill, Human Kinetics) or The Physiological Basis for Exercise and Sport (Fox, Bowers & Foss, William C. Brown). I found both of value, so get hold of both if you can. If your local public library doesn't have them, a nearby university (if they have a sports department) will. Dan100 15:14, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true, some of it is considered pretty basic and they don't research it much anymore. The one exercise physiology textbook I have access to just doesn't go into much detail on this particular issue. Other recent textbooks may, but yes that article looks like a pretty good reference. I'll try to cite some facts in our article to it, please help if you get a chance. I'm not sure I'll have a way of getting a hold of those books, but I'll see. Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 14:50, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Supertraining, Mel C Siff, and the NCSA's Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning are both excellent textbooks, which cover vast amounts of published research in both "russian" and western methods.

Excess protein consumption

I think this point has been changed incorrectly twice now. Several sources (websites, not journal articles) I saw do note that extra protein, that is not processed and used for the needed amino acids are stored as extra energy in the form of body fat. So removing that seems wrong. But I also recall reading that protein consumed beyond what the body can process would be excreted, so changing that seems wrong too. I don't entirely understand the processes involved, so that limited my ability to find more definitive answers to the issue. Searching for protein metabolism gave me lots on that, but not much on what happens when more is consumed than needed. - Taxman ^Talk 14:50, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

T, the statement that i removed said that protein is denatured and then stored as fat, which is incorrect. protein is stripped of its nitrogenous components, which are then excreted if the kidneys are healthy, and the rest is burned like carbs. denaturation is something else entirely, and in neither way do proteins turn into fat. i would have no problem with saying that the energy released when protein is metabolized is stored in fat, although even this is beyond what an article on wgt. training needs to say. your stewardship, especially regarding the past rancor surrounding this page, has been admirable. Sfahey 15:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well in a section on excess protein consumption we need to say what happens to it. Yes, this article doesn't need a long explanation, but we should be accurate. Large protein consumption is a common recommendation to bodybuilders and amateurs often do it as a result. As I understand it, the steps after consuming protein are 1) some of the protein is processed to be used for the needed amino acids for various cell processes, 2) Some amount after what is needed for step 1 is burned for energy 3) some amount greater than what can be burned for near term energy needs is stored as extra calories as fat, just like any other excess of calories, and finally 4) some amount of protein that is greater than what can be processed to be used or even stored, must be excreted. Am I missing anything? I am reasonably sure about step 3, but like I said I haven't found good sources to back it all up yet. Help on that would be appreciated. - Taxman ^Talk 16:47, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, Taxman is correct. But yes, that really needs referencing. I will try... Dan100 13:56, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

This isn't something that will be in journals (at least recent, online-indexed ones) as it's too basic. It will be in the books I mentioned above (and others), as it's quite basic stuff. However reading those books means going to the uni library... which I don't want to do unless I have to. However, a quick google search returns quite a bit. Now, by and large I think a lot of stuff on the web is rubbish, but in my judgement what's returned by google in this case is correct. So unless Sfahey can find something to the contray, I'll restore that info. Dan100 15:34, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Again, my problem was that the sentence

the excess (protein) is merely burnt for energy or denatured and stored as fat.

was incorrect, because 1) "denaturization" is not what is happening here, and 2) protein is not "stored as fat". If it were, you could take it back out of storage as protein, which you can't. (Obviously, you can't turn fat into protein). Sfahey 03:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, how about something like "Protein that is not needed for cell growth and repair nor consumed for energy, is denatured by the liver and converted into fat, which is then stored in the body". Dan100 15:00, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well I certainly don't understand th protein metabolism process, but according to Sfahey, describing it as denaturing is incorrect. What about what I added to the article:

"...excess is merely burnt to provide energy, stored as extra energy in the form of body fat, or excreted."

- Taxman ^Talk 17:45, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

fine.Sfahey 00:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that any excess is ever 'excreted'. Dan100 15:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

What do you think the body does with that which can't be processed? There are limits to all human processing functions. - Taxman ^Talk 16:54, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean - excretion is a process. Are you saying that there's an upper limit to the amount that can be absorbed from the gut, and that the excess 'passes straight through'? Or are you saying the body absorbs all the protein ingested, then 'excretes' that which it cannot convert to fat/uses for cell growth and repair?Dan100 18:16, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Either or. They are both excretion. As I understand it a fair amount of the food you eat passes straight through without ever being absorbed. Digestion and Gastrointestinal tract explain some of the limiting factors. - Taxman ^Talk 20:28, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Concentrating on what is absorbed, do you think any of the surplus protein gets 'excreted' rather than turned into fat? How? Or perhaps the maximum the body can convert to fat is below the maximum that can actually be drawn from the gut. I have no idea :-) Dan100 22:46, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

No idea. Like I said, my research so far has turned up fruitless. Mostly because my search terms are not optimal I'm sure. So I was hoping you'd have some success. Maybe I'll ask at Fatty acid metabolism and see what the editors there have to say. - Taxman ^Talk 03:05, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Excretion refers to the kidneys removing and discharging unused substances from the blood, including drugs, salts, and the nitrogenous portion of excess absorbed proteins. Stuff that was not absorbed to begin with is "eliminated" in feces. No scientist would refer to this latter process as "excretion", though the term is often misused this way. The body absorbs from the gut as much protein as it can, but uses only the protein it needs, for replenishing muscle tissue and maintaining stocks of enzymes and antibodies. It breaks down the rest, into 1) energy, 2)unusable nitrogen, which is excreted, and 3) little leftover fragments which are incorporated into starches and fats. Sfahey 18:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could you provide some references? I'm guessing the body will draw quite a lot of protein in and convert it to fat if it can - seems to be the kind of thing the body likes to do, not waste what could be useful in future. I'd love to do some reading though. Dan100 (Talk) 18:27, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Some of this is covered at http://www.biology-online.org/9/5_protein_activity.htm. I believe the paragraph was closer to correct before the last edit, since much of the excess protein IS excreted, and the (non-nitrogenous) portion which can not be excreted is converted to both CHO's and fats), but I am tired of all this back and forth changing, and will move to other pages.Sfahey 20:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes. The relevant stuff on that site is in the 2nd half

OK. But I'd just like to say that reading that link, it seems the protein is converted to fat, and the nitrogen left over from that process is excreted, rather than the whole protein. Dan100 (Talk) 13:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Are light, high-repetition exercises effective for toning muscles?

so high rep, low weight will not improve ome's muscle tone, but that section fails to explain what will improve muscle tone. can someone write what will improve muscle tone? please --GregLoutsenko 13:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

"Muscle tone" is an elusive concept. It properly refers to the nerve supply to a muscle keeping it in a "ready" state, but I believe in a cosmetic sense is used to describe the "cut" appearance that muscles develop when body fat diminishes. I think an encyclopedia article should use this term in the former sense, and not describe any change in a[ppearance of muscles as "toning". Sfahey 18:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually since the advice from the section heading is usually given in the second sense, I think we should explain the difference between the two meanings in the answer. - Taxman ^Talk 19:41, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

The section titled "Are light, high-repetition exercises effective for toning muscles?" doesn't clearly answer the question. I'd recommend phrasing such as this: "No, this type of exercise will not improve muscle definition. This is acheived through a combination of building reasonable sized muscles and acheiving low to moderate levels of body fat. Weight training, aerobic exercise and good diet are the requirements of a 'toned' physique. Additionally, there is some confusion about the word 'tone'. Exercisers mean blah.. Scientists mean blah.." TomCerul 13:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

See, that's 'cut'. I think people using the 'tone' slang might refer to cut, but it may in fact also refer to something else. What about how tense the muscle stays when you don't focus on contracting it? Perhaps tone is how 'flexed' you are when relaxed? In that case, maybe we should reconsider what high-rep training might do, since the phenomenon does seem exceedingly popular, it may not be solely myth. Tyciol 05:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Basic Principles

At the beginning of the basic principles section is a list and a table. They don't really connect. I thought the table would be restating the list. Also, in the table, what's 'Power' mean? How is it different than strength? And what's 'Hypertrophy'? TomCerul 18:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Hyperthrophy. That's a complicated way to say 'bulk' but it works. Now I'm trying to figure out what the Gainesville study actually found about beginners. What's the 2% difference? 5% vs 7%(big difference) or 50% vs 51%(small difference)? 2% more total strength or 2% more new strength? Assuming it's a small difference, are they really saying one can build muscle size with 12 reps per machine per day? Sounds like cheating. :) TomCerul 13:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Power is strength plus speed, which is what most athletes need. Regarding "quick fixes", the notion that you need to do multiple sets to get results was decades of hearsay; recent studies have shown that single sets do almost as well, in much less time. Others show that most strength can be maintained, once achieved, with as little as one max lift per muscle per week. Sports teams apply this by having their athletes do such mini-workouts weekly during their active season.Sfahey 20:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Could you point me at some reading so I can learn more about the new set/rep theory? All the stuff I've found is parotting the 'common wisom' theory of low rep/high weight = bulk = men, high rep/low weight = slim and trim = women. It sounds like everyone should be doing 1 set low rep/high weight. TomCerul 17:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Google "single sets effective" and the first article describes several such studies. The "single max rep" thing I got from an ex-phys colleague but have no ref.. The low rep/hi rep stuff is explained in this article in sec. 2.1. Sfahey 22:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"For the average person exercising by resistance training, the number of repetitions -- the number of times a muscle or group of muscles is used to lift a weight -- may not matter. A single set of repetitions is almost as effective in maintaining fitness as three sets, according to researchers at the University of Florida in Gainesville. Their study suggests that a program of single set resistance training 3 times per week involving all the major muscle groups can provide almost as much benefit in muscle strength, endurance and body composition as a much more time-consuming regimen of three sets of repetitions. The results are published in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, a journal published by the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM)." Jeremy J. Shapiro 23:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I tried your suggested search and got no results. Seperately I've looked around on my own. I remain very interested in this method but am hesitant to recommend it to friends on the basis of what I've read in the wikipedia.

The article does clearly state in section 2 that 25 reps (for example) can build endurance and is considered aerobic exercise (depending on which table you read.) It also mentions in section 4.4 that high repittion exercises are not particularly good as aerobic exercises. The article contradicts itself and I'm looking for clarification. Essentially, I'm trying to answer this question for my lady friends: Is low weight/high rep exercise the tool for women who want to slim down? TomCerul 21:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Remove the quotes for the search. The aerobic v. anaerobic thing went all around the block this summer and got out of control. Weights are virtually always considered "anaerobic" exercise. If you exercise big muscles with weights for long periods, or if you move quickly from one exercise to another so you stay a bit winded (as the increasingly popular American gals' gym, "Curves", endorses), you can though adapt weight training into an aerobic exercise. I hope this does not trigger a repeat of last year's go 'round. Sfahey 03:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope that this explanation helps. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 02:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Multiple set training

A recent edit by Arvindn suggested that multiple set training is bogus, citing [1]. But this seems to be only half of the truth: Pollock (1997) agrees, saying that "the existing literature clearly indicates that for the first 3 to 4 months of strength training, single-set programs are equally effective as multiple-set programs... [but] longer-duration studies may show greater strength gains with multiple-set programs". This was confirmed by Kraemer (2003): "The preponderance of evidence indicates that multiple-set systems work best for the development of strength and local muscle endurance. No study has shown that single-set training is superior (my italics) to multiple-set training in either trained or untrained individuals. It appears that, while both programs may be similar for increasing strength in untrained subjects (my italics) during short-term training periods (6 to 12 weeks), multiple-set systems are required for optimal progress over longer training periods (my emphasis)." --203.173.14.87 12:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The article fails to address whether sets should be of invarying weight or of increasing weight as the exercise progresses. -Robert Cook 10:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean progresses in a single section, or in the long run? Weight should always increase in the long run, but if you can no longer lift a heavy weight, continuing exercising with lighter weights in that session can induce additional fatigue/hypertrophy. Tyciol 16:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok i'll give an example. currently when i do bench press i start with a 40 lb on each side for the first set of 8. then my spotter goes, then i do another set but with 45 on each side, then 50 then 55. is that the proper way or should each set have a constant weight?--Robert Cook 01:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Weight_training#Advanced_techniques describes a couple of variants, namely Pyramiding (where you first increase and then decrease the weights) and Drop Sets (where you keep going to failure with lighter and lighter weights). Otherwise it's whatever you feel you need as a warmup before your work sets. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Title

Why is the article titled "weight training" as opposed to "strength training"? (Yes I'm aware of the redirect.) I'd like to retitle the article (but won't do so without community blessing) because:

• strength training is a more general term
• strength training can be performed effectively with out weights at all, using bodyweight, resistance tubing, etc. Blowfish 20:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I prefer the term strength training too. -- 203.173.57.83 12:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Strength training is a different subject—the terms are not synonymous!—and it's a subject that probably should have its own article. But until someone writes it, the redirect is the best we can do. Yes, the weight training article could be converted to an article about strength training by adding a few topics and removing others—but what's the point? Weight training is a valuable topic in its own right, and this is a perfectly good article as it stands. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 22:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have started the strength training and resistance training articles. Feel free to expand them. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The three terms strength training, resistance training and weight training are often used synonymously. [2] [3] [4] [5] Having the three articles just creates redundancy. The redirects were fine. -- 203.173.49.4 12:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I totally disagree. Weight training is strength training, but strength training is not weight training (weight training is only a subset of strength training). That many people make this logical fallacy does not make it any less incorrect. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 09:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

While I concede that your descriptions may be more semantically accurate, accuracy is not the issue here. The issue is one of verifiability. If it can be verified that the separate definitions you have proposed are the definitions that are accepted by the wider weight/strength/resistance-training community, then the article(s) are fine. However, if verification is not possible, then despite their accuracy, these definitions do not belong in Wikipedia. Furthermore, given the sources I mentioned in my previous post as well as the synonymous use of the terms elsewhere (e.g. NSCA), I suggest that multiple independent reliable sources would be necessary to verify the assertion that the terms are not synonymous. -- 203.173.32.22 12:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that, for example, that training with strength shoes is not intended to increase strength, or that it is somehow considered to be a form of weight training? OK, here's 50,000 independent sources that discuss "strength shoes" but do not class them as "weight training". Can we please stop this pointless debate before it gets even sillier? Might I suggest we spend the time improving some very poor articles instead? GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not I think that training with "strength shoes" is intended to increase strength, or is a form of weight training is completely irrelevant to this discussion. In previous posts I have given multiple reputable sources which contradict your assertion that the three terms "strength training", "resistance training" and "weight training" are not synonymous. So the issue, which still needs to be addressed, is the verification of your assertion.

Since the goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia it is neither "pointless" nor "silly" to demand that editors cite reputable sources. -- 203.173.29.30 14:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

I removed the link tags on functional, since that leads to a disambiguation page, none of whose entries are helpful. I also think that the "may provide benefits" phrase should be strengthened to "provides benefits" or "has been shown to provide benefits". I don't know of any significant authourities that argue that strength training isn't beneficial to overall health and wellbeing. Blowfish 20:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Counter example: weight training with tiny weights. I have seen women doing it oh so diligently in the gym, and yet I really can't see that it provides any benefit at all. There has to be some caveat in that assertion, although I agree that perhaps it should be more specific than just saying "may do X". GeorgeStepanek\^talk 23:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back, George. This seemingly non-controversial article has continued to spawn debate since your sabbatical. Sfahey 23:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks like there has been a lot of progress in the meantime. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 07:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely right George -- weight training can be ineffective or injurious when done with weights which are too small, too big, or with poor form. I've put in the caveat "when properly performed", which hopefully conveys that meaning. I also removed the following sentence: "It is a common form of resistance training, which is one form of strength training." I don't see how strength training can be performed without resistance, in the form of weights, bodyweight, static objects or opposing muscle groups. Blowfish 04:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Weight training is certainly a subset of resistance training. Also, even though strength training is almost synonymous with resistence training, I'm still not convinced that it's exactly the same thing. One can also gain strength through movement alone e.g. by sprinting or by using strength shoes. I'm not going to revert, but I urge you to restore that sentence, please, because I feel that it does help to clarify the relationship between three often confused terms. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 07:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I would have called sprinting a resistance exercise where the resistance is made up bodyweight, air resistance, etc. But wading through pubmed, I see that at least some researchers use the term "resistance training" to the exclusion of plyometric exercises and sprinting. I'm not thrilled with it, but I put the sentence back -- sorry about the mixup. Blowfish 17:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! GeorgeStepanek\^talk 23:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes... it seems the key to this controversy is whether or not your own bodyweight and gravity alone are considered resistance. Indeed, these forces do require the muscles resist, but is it ADDED? Normally, we'd probably consider resistance training to be additional resistance above and beyond the resistance we normally encounter from basic laws of movement. So, a bodyweight squat wouldn't be resistance training, but doing so holding some weight or with stretch bands would be. Tyciol 05:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Protein requirements

I removed "However, many medical professionals believe that consuming more protein than the Recommended Dietary Allowance provides no benefits", as it goes against the medical literature which is pretty clear in stating that those weight training (and endurance albeit to a lesser extent) have a higher protein requirement than the RDA (ie sedentary individuals). See pubmed, particularly Lemon's, work over the last 10 years - and his recent paper "Beyond the Zone". StrengthCoach 11:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the sentence was getting at consuming higher amounts than the body can utilize (even at the higher rate due to trainig). A lot of supplements are promoted on the idea that more protein is always better. - Taxman ^Talk 20:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Taxman, although any misleading wording should definately be altered to reflect this. Has it been yet? (this talk was old) Anyway, I've encountered this too. It's generally accepted that taking in enough protein to repair muscles to their previous state is necessary. Still very accepted is taking in a slight excess to provide enough amino acids for the maximal growth of the muscles in their repairing is good. Now, you have certain segments of strength trainer theorists who believe other things...

• Taking in even more protein is good, because excess protein has a very slow release of energy, providing more energy throughout the day. Excess protein also stimulates hormonal changes which encourage more testosterone, causing more muscle growth indirectly.
• Taking in slightly less protein than you need is good, as it promotes greater amino acid recycling, which in the long term allows greater muscle conservation and less decline if one is forced to go without food, in the musculature.

Either way, I've never seen anyone who promotes excess protein consumption to the point of storing it as fat, which is in conflict with most bodybuilder goals. On the other hand... pure growth guys or powerlifters might like the idea... and there might be something to it if there is anything to the first point. Tyciol 06:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the "Florida Study"

There are some issues with the methodology. Firstly, the study used solely resistance machines, not freeweights - and the results are certainly not applicable to any freeweight programmes. Secondly those trainees that performed 3 sets of an exercise actually did them in a circuit fashion which largely is atypical of normal multi-set strength programmes. Lastly I think the inclusion of the study in the article is more misleading relative to the little information it provides. StrengthCoach 12:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I have summarised this section, but keeping the points that you added. The previous level of detail was confusing and unecessary. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Low Reps

Someone wrote at the start that reps of 1-6, will not greatly increase muscle size, but willl increase strenght. This is inncorrect. The fast-twitch muscle fibres used in heavy reps are capable of the most hypertrophy. I know and train many people who have made excellent gains with doing low-rep, heavy-weight sets. Strength and size are almost always synonymous, ie - when your strength goes up, you will invariably get bigger, and vice-versa. Some world-class strength trainers recommend training one-rep maxs frequently ([6]) to name just one. At any rate, this is something to be debated on, not just to be stated as "1-6 reps do not increase muscle size" Cavell 20:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Cavell

agreed with the premise in general. as you pointed out it certainly isnt clear cut - but it opens a whole can of worms :) just to clarify strength and muscle cross sectional area (CSA) are correlated; increases in CSA tend to bring about increases in strength, the reverse however is not necessarily true as strength increases can be achieved by CNS adaption, not necessarily increases in CSA (normally through low rep work, 1 to ~5reps).

to confuse the issue further there are two basic forms of hypertrophy; sarcoplasmic hypertrophy does not contribute much to force output whereas myofibrillar hypertrophy does. i guess ultimately these points could/should be worked into the article. as cavell has pointed out above its not so simple - and the truth is professional athletes rarely train at a given rep range/tempo full time - this is where periodisation (basically cycling rep ranges, load and intensity) to achieve peaks in performance, comes into play.

StrengthCoach 00:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with StrengthCoach. My knowledge of physiology does not equal his, but I do know that bodybuilders and powerlifters tend to have very different training strategies. Powerlifters use very low reps, whereas bodybuilders mostly use sets of six to twelve because their experience has shown them this develops their muscle size more effectively. I'm guessing that the difference lies in activating different types of muscle fibers: bodybuilders want to grow 'em all, whereas powerlifters are just interested in the fast-twich fibers. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 10:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

In regard to myofibrillar hypertrophy, I think I should point out that it's a rather controversial idea. Are you a reader of Pavel Tsatsouline's stuff by chance? That's where I first came across the concept. I think the idea has a lot of combatants, as to whether or not it actually occurs in athletes. Unlike sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, it's a lot harder to prove. It would require counting the fibres before and after the method of training. That certain champion athletes and strength trainers have more myofibrils may be largely genetic, thus ensuring their superiority in the sport, rather than due to training methods. Which one it is does need to be clarified, and the concepts of altering forms of hypertorophy better explored. Tyciol 06:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing hypertrophy with hyperplasia. myofibrillar hypertrophy is the growth of the contractile units of a muscle, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is growth of non-contractile muscle cells (ie muscle fluid/sarcoplasm), whereas hyperplasia is where new cells are formed - hyperplasia within the musculature does not occur for normal adults. Tsatsouline explains the difference between myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy in his book, Power to the People. hope that helps. StrengthCoach 22:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Can weight training help me slim down?

This section has an absolute answer to the question, but I think it needs to be rewritten so that it agrees better with the sources: "... an exercise program combined with diet modification may be key to losing weight and keeping it off... Aerobic exercise alone may not be enough to preserve lean muscle mass when weight is lost, but incorporating resistance exercise may (my italics) prevent reductions in resting metabolic rate and lean body mass... Based on the findings reported to date (2003), it appears that the role and effectiveness of resistance training in weight loss and body weight regulation of overweight individuals is not clear. Additional research is warranted". I also think diet modification needs to be mentioned.

Diet modification is more effective than strength training, but strength training alone (as long as there is adequate protein to build lean tissue) can definately control weight loss, although if you're eating junk you'll be unhealthy still, so it's best to combine the two. Tyciol 06:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Anaerobic again again

The recent edit changed the text to say in part "Even training with a lower intensity (training loads of 20-RM and lighter) anaerobic glycolysis is still the major source of power, although aerobic metabolism makes a small contribution." That statement does not appear to be supported by the source that was linked. [7] What the source does say is "..while exercise at lower power (750 to 1000 W) relies principally on anaerobic glycolysis. I cant see anywhere the source makes a clear connection with power (Watts) and RM to support the above quoted statement. Additionally the change remove a cited study by Cahill that does directly address the anaerobic energy continuum issue, which is bad form. I'm more than happy to improve the material as additional research is done, but I don't see how this edit is justified. - Taxman ^Talk 17:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The source sited was actually [8]. In the article the cycle ergometer exercise is performed at 60 rpm, so that the time to exhaustion (in seconds) corresponds to the RM: 1s = 1RM, 10s = 10RM (as mentioned just after Figure 2), 20s = 20RM, etc. So from Figure 2, with a 20RM training load (time to exhaustion is 20s) most of the energy comes from anaerobic glycolysis. And in [9] it says "Strength training exercise takes place somewhere between 50% and 100% of maximal power production", which is essentially anaerobic exercise, as the caption to Figure 1 says. The link to Cahill was removed, since it implies (by the use of the contextual term "high intensity") that anaerobic training only occurs with a 5~6RM training load or heavier (I suspect there is more detail in the article, but the abstract is ambiguous), which contradicts the other two sources.

Cahill's full paper is access limited, so I can't copy the whole thing. Go ahead and change the wording back if you really feel it is supported by the source because I don't think I'll have a chance to review the information for a while. Another editor in the past was trying to get across the point that low weights (I'm assuming 30-40RM and lower are substantially aerobic and that a significant number of people train that way. I'm not sure but the previous version was a compromise. Your edits to define lower intensity as 20RM may be part of the issue, so adjust it as you see fit since you do have good sources to back it up. I'm a little leary of applying a cycling RM result that doesn't specifically mention weight training, but I haven't had a chance to read the whole paper either. So again, do as you see fit, we can always adjust it. - Taxman ^Talk 16:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

I have removed the External links section because it has become a magnet for linkspam. It is very difficult to determine if a referenced page or site has been added because it genuinely adds to the article, or just because it boosts someone's ranking on Google. Instead, let's keep the links inline, so that it's easy to check that each link supports the information to which it is directly adjacent.

Frankly, I'd prefer not to have duplicate links—or multiple links for the same information—but I do realise that some references support more than one assertion, and that some particularly controversial assertions require several references. But one reference should be enough in most cases. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 09:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Adding the full citation to the References section conforms with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability:

"References (sources) can be provided by linking to the source if it's online... Then, whether the source is online or not, add a full citation in the References section at the end of the page... [so] that, if an online source is removed from the website at a later date, readers will still know how to track down the original article."

The problem of duplication of links can be easily resolved by using footnotes and only having external links in the References section, but it is important that individual assertions be verified (even if this requires citing a source multiple times throughout the article). -- 203.173.47.177 09:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Verifiability also notes "that Wikipedia:Cite sources is not policy: providing some information about your sources is more important than using a particular format." For weight training, a multitude of sources are available, so "if an online source is removed from the website at a later date" it would be far easier to simply find another reference than to track down the original. But again, because of the number of related websites online, the article is unusually vulnerable to linkspam. Inline references are clear, specific, tidy, unobtrusive and easy to verify. I don't see why they can't suffice. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 14:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not proposing an External Links section per se (I'm aware that Weight Training unfortunately attracts an unusually large amount of linkspam in comparison to many other articles), but I am proposing that the external links be listed in the References section.

While I appreciate that your proposal has merits, it actually does the reader a disservice, since only using inline references provides the reader with the absolute minimum information about the source—the link. So if the link goes dead overnight (say) then the reader can't verify the information, and we as the article editors have let the reader down. Furthermore, by providing the reader with the source information (date, author, title, journal etc.) we allow the reader to make an informed choice about whether or not to read the referenced article (either for verification purposes or just general interest).

Using inline references will inevitably lead to either duplicating links in the article—something you wanted to avoid—or undercitation. Furthermore, in the case when a reader wants to print the article the inline references clutter it with URLs. These problems can be overcome by using either footnotes or Harvard referencing, with the added benefit that the article is less susceptible to linkspam, since maintenance is easier if all the external links are kept in one place (References).

Adding full citations in the References section for all sources (on- and offline) is an important step in maintaining the already high standard of this article. -- 203.173.49.4 12:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to see your point. We could certainly replace the inline links with footnotes using the standard {{ref|linkname}} and {{note|linkname}} syntax. That removes the url clutter from the printed article (which is a great idea, by the way!), but without creating an undifferentiated block of external links in which people can easily hide linkspam. The current list of books is more of a "See also" section, so I'd prefer to keep that separate for the time being (perhaps renamed as the "Bibliography"), but we can still add footnotes for specific references to papers and parts of books. Hmmm. Are you willing to do the donkey work on this one? GeorgeStepanek\^talk 08:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm certainly willing to help out (time permitting), and I encourage other editors to help out too, especially when adding new references. For people who don't know how to use footnotes the help is here. By the way, thanks for getting it started! -- 203.173.32.22 12:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I've updated it to use the new style <ref> and <references> tags, which are better for multiple citations that use the same reference. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 23:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Technique on Bench Press

On the picture, the woman has her legs on the bench. According to Dr. Fred Hatfield (aka "Dr. Squat")...

"There are two particularly troublesome techniques I see all too often among bench pressers. One is the dangerous practice of using a thumbless grip. The notion that a thumbless grip will somehow alter the angle or quality of stress you're delivering to your pecs is outrageously dumb. Keep your thumbs around the bar!"

AND

"The second practice is just as outrageous. I've heard benchers say that by keeping your feet off the floor -- suspended over the bench or resting on the bench -- somehow improves the isolation of the pecs and therefore the adaptive overload being delivered to your pecs. The truth is that while your feet are off the floor, you're always slightly off balance on the narrow bench you're lying on, and various stabilizer muscles are attempting to keep you from falling off the bench. This superfluous muscular activity is detracting from the stress you can deliver to the pecs. It is certainly NOT improving it! Besides, being off balance while a heavy weight is hovering over your face and throat is downright asking for trouble!"

His credentials can be seen on his website at www.drsquat.com

May want to mention this in the write-up.

EETech 19:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This information is probably more useful in the bench press article itself, because the image is used here to illustrate the Smith machine rather than the exercise itself. Go on: be bold. Feel free to add the information yourself. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 21:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that you are incorrect about the thumb around the bar. You will find, as the wieght you put on the bar increases, this grip will become increasingly more uncomfortable. All the stronger wieghtlifters I know and myself included - do not put their thumbs around the bar. your grip on the bar is just as good without it, as you are pushing the bar up, not pulling it in any way. It allows the a more natural angle of your shoulders in relation to your body (try it and see). I can wrap my thumb around the bar with lighter wieght, but as I approach heavy wieghts of 300lbs and beyond, this is the only way to go, as far as I'm concerned. I would like the input of others on here whether they agree with me or not. Cavell 16:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Cavell

As a powerlifter who does use a thumbless/false grip when benching, I can safely say i'm in a minority. The vast majority of the worlds top benchers do so with a regular grip, and some federations have even outlawed the thumbless grip (or at least required special disclaimer forms in case of injury). As for the points you mentioned on why it is possibly better, its a very contentious issue. In terms of powerlifting, its argued that a regular grip allows for better activation of the triceps through the "bending the bar" technique and it is safer - both points i'd have a hard time disagreeing with. Fred Hatfield only seems to be arguing against a thumbless grip placing a greater stress on the pectorals, which I have to agree with as the difference in stress between the two grips will be negligible. StrengthCoach 12:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm incorrect about the thumbless grip (actually, it's Doc Hatfield's advice, but I tend to agree that it's dangerous -- I won't argue the physiology of it though). For a powerlifter, maybe you have a point. I think that beginners and the general population tend to mimic stupid crap they see "the big guy in the gym" doing. It may have it's place and reason, but when a beginner imitates something without knowing the logic behind it, that can lead to trouble. I personally think it's insane to lift without your thumb around the bar. I've seen guys nearly drop the bar on their head/throat because they were doing this. When I asked them why they were doing it, they replied that they'd seen it in a magazine and had no clue why. I think that leaning toward safety is better than looking cool in the gym by imitating the big guy. That's just my opinion though. EETech 17:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear; I wasnt making any points for the thumbless grip, in fact quite the opposite, despite using it myself. StrengthCoach 17:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I'm sure that it works for some (many) people, but once you're benching 300 lbs, you're in a different league and can't really be considered a "beginner". I was the guy years ago that listened to the big guys in the gym and ended up sore, discouraged, and fatigued simply because I wasn't doing things properly. I think that beginners must build a solid foundation and do it safely. Once they become more advanced, they can start using techniques that would otherwise be dangerous. EETech 22:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree. The bench press photographs are bad form and to be avoided. I removed the photographs. (Simonapro 10:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

Good call. If you could find a replacement image for the Smith Machine that would be even better! GeorgeStepanek\^talk 13:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Women and strength gain

"most women lack the testosterone to do this, but they can develop a firm, "toned" physique, and they can increase their strength by the same proportion as that achieved by men (but usually from a significantly lower starting point)."

im sceptical, any direct evidence? the citation does not support the proposition (or the article) IMHO. StrengthCoach 01:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It originally came from Jjshapiro, (comments here). I have asked him to find a reference for the claim, but he obviously hasn't gotten around to it. The citation that's there is mine, and it's intended to support the rest of the sentence. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ebben and Jensen (1998) write: "Based on a strength-to-lean-body-mass ratio, women are about equal in strength to men, and when strength is calculated per cross-sectional area of muscle, no significant gender difference exists… Measuring strength in this way suggests that… women benefit from strength training at least as much as men (my emphasis)." Does that help? — 203.173.13.32 11:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes somewhat, as long as its clear to the astute reader that what essentially is being said is that are no differences between the muscle fibres, or composition there of, between men and women. As noted in the article men have a hormonally mediated neuromuscular advantage, and thus measuring "strength" in terms of cross sectional area of a muscle can be very misleading - i have already mentioned above the differences in the types of muscle hypertrophy and the differeing fibre composition. as an example take the men and womens weightlifting records[10]:

• Men's 56Kg Class: 305Kg (Halil Mutlu, bodyweight 56Kg)
• Women's 75Kg+ Class: 305Kg (Tang Gonghong, bodyweight 125Kg!)

StrengthCoach 13:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Exercise videos

There are a few sites that show video clips/animations of different exercises with descriptions on what muscle groups they involve, should be useful for all regardless of ability...

• exrx, very comprehensive (form is questionable on some lifts) [11]
• univ. of idaho speed and strength clinic [12]
• univ. of wisconsin strength and conditioning centre [13]

StrengthCoach 02:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There's an inline link to exrx on the page, but the other two are new to me. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Is nutrition relevant for weight trainers?

• made point pre-workout meal should be balanced. (carbs/complete protein/some fat)
• changed specific time of eating a meal 1-2hrs before a workout. its a tradeoff between having adequate energy and peak amino levels and keeping the food down (many bodybuilders have a whey protein/carb shake directly before or even during training).
• optimal pre-workout nutrition is very important in minimising the catabolic effect caused by intense weight training. see work of tipton et al.
• probably not important to the casual weight trainer, but i dont think that should be a reason to exclude the info.

StrengthCoach 20:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all your points, except for the timing issue. While it's true that the specific times do vary, novices may well be tempted to eat immediately before training, which is not necessarily the best idea for them. Can we change it to say something like often or normally one to two hours prior to the workout? Experienced practitioners will know when to ignore this (and why), but it'll still give useful guidance to novices. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 23:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Often 1-2hrs prior seems a happy medium. (personally I still think 'indigestion' is a non-issue for healthy adults when we're talking about ~500cal meals even literally right before training) StrengthCoach 08:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that it takes a certain amount of time for the digestion process to get underway, so if you train right after eating then you won't get much benefit from your meal. And also that with specialized bodybuilding products that are composed of glucose and fast-acting whey proteins this limitation may not apply. (But please correct me if I am wrong!) GeorgeStepanek\^talk 09:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Your right, I was assuming that the weight trainee did not have an immediate _need_ for energy (ie is eating 5 smaller meals a day). StrengthCoach 08:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

History of strength training

There is currently redundancy between the main article History of strength training and a subsection of this article. If a separate article is used, then information regarding historical aspects should go to that article. Shawnc 14:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Nah. Someone lifted that (stub) article verbatim from the main article last year. It belongs in the main article, although anyone is welcome to add to the stub and justify its existence. Sfahey 23:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if originally lifted, it's not that bad an idea. After all, after a certain point, history can indeed be discussed separately. This article might be used just for the current information, practises, and general ideas about weight training, rather than the more archaic origins which are pretty shifty. Having a 'history of' may attract more historians to editing the article too, which I think is great. It could be given a tag as a history stub and so forth. Tyciol 06:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

That's why I copied it into a separate article. I originally wrote just enough for the history section of the Weight training article, but I also thought that this information could be expanded into a very worthwhile article of its own. So please don't delete this section, and please do help expand History of strength training. Thank you. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 10:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.sandowplus.co.uk/ I'm a bit intimidated by this one website, but it has a plethora of old-time strength books which have become public domain. They should give you information on the history of old-time methods and the names of old-time trainers. So far only Farmer Burns' stuff is in PDF. The webmaster said he might convert some others if I told him which he wanted, any requests? Tyciol 17:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Freeweights vs Machines

"Moreover, since users need not concentrate so much on maintaining good form, they can focus more on the effort they are putting into the exercise—which may lead to faster progress." -- Progress how? --StrengthCoach 10:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That's just been my experience. I don't have a reference—which is why I use the word "may"—but I find that I can increase my strength faster with machines than free weights because I can focus more on the effort than the direction of motion. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 07:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I can understand where you are coming from, but i find the statement misleading for the following reason; it implies that typical resistance machines can be more effective than freeweights for strength gains - this is certainly not the case. Quantifying increases in strength using the same resistance machine as a measuring tool is the problem....

...As an example, if we use a functional movement such as "vertical jump height" as a yard stick for leg development - then we would see that increases in squat (exercise) performance would have far better crossover than say an equivalent percentage increase in the hamstring curl and leg extension machines. I would estimate 99% of professional athletes who train for strength/power use freeweights over machines for the "core" of their training for this reason. StrengthCoach 00:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Fair call. I think you've made this explanation about as NPOV as it is possible to get. My training strategy is somewhat unusual, so I agree that my experience is not necessarily typical. However, I do find the phrasing a little bit awkward. Do you mind if I try to simplify the sentence structure to make it a bit more readable? GeorgeStepanek\^talk 08:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course not, definitely go ahead and reword it as you see fit. StrengthCoach 08:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think what he meant was that since you don't have to focus your mind on balancing/stabilizing the weight, further effort could go towards the prime movers of the movement. In regard to stressing the movers and strengthening those muscles, I think it would indeed make them stronger, especially in regard to hypertrophy and bodybuilding. I think I see your criticism though, you think that it implies that it makes the movement stronger, which it probably doesn't. It sacrifices stabilizer muscular exertion for prime mover exertion. You'd have the strength, but I'm guessing the body would neurologically hold you back from activating it in an unsecured state, so you'd be limited by your stabilizers anyway, and even if you weren't it would not be safe! Tyciol 06:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Its goes one stage further than a stabiliser muscle imbalance/weakness. intramuscular coordination of the CNS is better developed via functional movements (by definition), for instance things like "learning" correct activation patterns and minimising the effect of the (inhibitory) antagonist muscles for a given movement can only be achieved through repeating that movement over time. all this is somewhat superflous as strength is never measured in terms of hypertrophy or bodybuilding. StrengthCoach 23:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I agree. I just meant that it would lead to better progress in terms of hypertrophy for the muscles like quads, not functional strength that would definately be higher in squats due to neuromuscular coordination. Although, movements like leg press WOULD be functional if you were applying them to say... kicking some guy off of you if he tackled you onto your back, but that's rather unusual, stuff like running and jumping are more common. Tyciol 17:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I just meant that it would lead to better progress in terms of hypertrophy for the muscles like quads this is a highly contentious statement and I have seen no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise that for normal adults that this is the case. StrengthCoach 22:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I see it simply as a matter of weight. When the weight is stabilized like say, on a smith machine, you can simply lift more, which would stimulate more growth. It's not contested that more weight is more growth, right? the problem would be that it would be rather isolated to the prime movers and you'd have crap stability, making it easier to hurt yourself doing related movements in real life. Tyciol 07:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Theres a few problems with that logic. Firstly your measuring it in terms of weight instead of the more accurate fibre recruitment and force curves and force production (ie the relative load on the musculature) so no, more weight doesnt necessarilly mean more growth. Further to this weight is only one variable factor to considering when trying for near optimal growth stimulus: repitions, sets, reps, rest times, speed/tempo of reps, rest days per week, these and others can be manipulated. In fact linear progression in terms of weight leads to stagnation very quickly in intermediate lifters (hence periodized/conjugate training programs). Lastly it doesnt look at the long term picture think about how much further one can build upon a solid foundation which doesnt have neglected areas. Training around weaknesses with machines that allow it can only take someone so far. StrengthCoach 18:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Fibre recruitment and hypertrophy are mainly what I'm going at, force production sounds more for power than tearing. Also you're right, my focus on weight is wrong. What I mean is that since stabilizers are taken out of the equation, it is easier to increase the prime movers (eg quads) use, be it through greater weight or greater reps, without being limited by the supporting musculature's own respective strength or endurance, which could hold back one's progress in the movement if they were weaker. It definately wouldn't build a solid foundation, but I don't think that's very relevant to one's ability to induce hypertrophy in a muscle, just for actually using the muscle for real functional strength. For pure bodybuilding, machines do seem to be more useful, especially since it might focus on customizing select muscles. Some bodybuilders don't want to build obliques, for example, as they feel it makes their waist too wide, and this would probably help in meeting that task. Tyciol 05:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Also I will try and add in the important difference between the typical resistance machines (cable vs stations), also those machines which have been designed to develop more functional strength, (eg hammer strength mts range) designed to give variable resistance better matching the bodies natural strength curve). --StrengthCoach 10:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That would be excellent. At the moment there is very little information on the different types of exercise machines. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 07:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Dumbbell Excercise

"A complete weight training workout can be performed with a pair of adjustable dumbbells and a set of weight disks (plates)"

Can anybody provides any source for this assertion?

OK, this isn't an external source, but Weight training exercises lists at least one exercise for each body part that can be performed with dumbbells. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 22:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Problem with the "Concerns" section

I think the "Concerns" section needs to be changed. Wikipedia should not list FAQs. I don't think it would be too hard to rephrase the section, but I'm surprised this wasn't brought up on the article's way to becoming featured. --Berserk798 20:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that thought. — Matt Crypto 00:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This section was originally intended as a list of common misconceptions about weight training, but somewhere along the line this was changed to "concerns", which I do agree seems to be a bit of a weasely kind of word. But I don't see a huge problem with it. This information is relevant to the subject, but it would be hard to fit into the structure of the rest of the article. So however you'd like to phrase it, it should probably remain as a list of miscellaneous topics. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 10:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

~20-RM

Even while training at a lower intensity (training loads of ~20-RM), anaerobic glycolysis is still the major source of power,. I know what 1RM is, but what is ~20-RM? --Abdull 18:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it means 20-rep sets. Feel free to clarify the phrasing. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It stands for one rep maximum. — orioneight (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)