Talk:Strength training/Merger discussion

Merge of weight training, strength training and resistance training

DECEMBER 2006 - PLEASE NOTE THAT THE MERGER HAS ALREADY OCCURRED AND THE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE, there is no need to keep voting on the subject. The substantive content that made weight training a featured article has been moved wholesale to the strength training article, all that remains on the weight training page is the information that differentiates weight training from other forms of strength training. Information has not been lost, it has been moved. WLU 16:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Since weight training (Talk:weight training) and resistance training (Talk:resistance training) are both subsets of strength training, it makes sense that strength training be the most 'central', broadest and most comprehensive article on techniques to increase muscle strength. This page could discuss the history of strength training (mostly the history of weight training really since elastics, isometrics and plyometrics are techniques discovered only in the 20th century I believe), the adaptations of the body to strength training, benefits, risks, physiological changes, etc. Each technique used to increase strength (weights, elastic resistance, isometrics) could have a sub-heading, and main articles splitting off from strength training. This more central page could also have a brief section on the differences between each one, a short compare/contrast. Most of the information currently contained on the weight training page (history, basic principles, concerns, safety) would be moved over to strength training, but everything specific to weights (dumbells, barbells, stacks, machines, exercises, leverage, reps, sets) would stay on its own page, as would everything specific to resistance training (elastic tubing, bowflex, hydraulics/water training), plyometrics (stretch-rebound cycle) and isometrics (joint angles, range of motion). I think this is the best way to clear up confusion regarding the different types of strength training and to highlight the similarities and differences between them. WLU 18:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Don't Merge - There are differences in meaning as the terms are used by the general public. The fact that industry experts may have specific meanings simply means that disambiguation may be required. Resistance training is muscular effort against resistance. There is no need to work within parameters specifically designed to elicit strength increases to perform resistance training. Also, note, while bands and hydraulics are a form of resistance training, gravity also provides a great deal of resistance. Don't get caught in the pedantary involved in various terms... as there are frequent terminology holy wars in this area.
• Merge - Agree on all points. Brad T. Cordeiro
• Merge - So long as Weight Training doesn't take over and squash out the others. WLU's outline should be followed. Maniwar (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Don't merge - different things. Weight training is a kind of resistance training, and resistance training is one of the kinds of strengh training. All different. By all means you can expand each article, I agree that there is overlap. ObsidianOrder 21:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

semantics, semantics. Weight training is strength training and resistance training is strength training, but weight training is not resistance training. Resistance is when you use elastics, hydraulics, or anything similar to that. Both are strength training, but both are not resistance training and both are not weight training. --Maniwar (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is more, like myself initially, Obsidian doesn't realize what is meant by resistance training. You gotta admit, the first thing people think of when resistance training comes up is strength training. Hence the need for the merge and a big 'ol tag saying 'resistance in the sense of elastic'. WLU 01:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I was aware of both meanings, but what I mostly hear people use it as is the other kind (not elastic). Could be just local usage, I guess. OTOH I agree there is significant overlap between all of these, so perhaps something to be gained from a merge. Either way. Weight training looks like a massive article, so good luck ;) ObsidianOrder 06:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge , and make both things redirect here, while the article name has both names in it, showing an uncertainty. Logictheo 11:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - Agree with WLU. Jack Daw 10:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - you guys are butchering a featured article in Weight Training it's going to lose it's status as one in no time at this rate. Generally (as is stated in the one sentence featured article summary on every featured article page) featured articles don't need drastic overhaul and radical changes. This is clearly a case of it ain't broke (it's a featured article for crying out loud) yet people keep fixing it till it is. Quadzilla99 11:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Started merger

I started the merger of the three articles, I moved much of the weight training info over to strength training, and cleaned up a little bit of the weight training. The terminology should be harmonized to each article and the references to different types of strength training should be removed or modified. WLU 18:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I am entirely new to the edit process, and so can make only the humblest of assertions: Since all these various training labels are often called working out (and the goal thereof is muscular strength), if you look at it from a Physics perspective (Work = Force * Distance), the genesis of the Force (mass against gravity, hydraulic, elastic, etc) is subservient to the main goal of "work to achieve strength." It follows logically that in the articles under discussion Strength should be at the top of the hierarchy, followed by the particulars of Force sources. Devotion to the fine points and distinctions of hydraulics as THE definitive Resistance Training (though I have long considered Strength Training and Resistance Training to be synonymous) should not take precedence over simple presentation to the broadest audience. Occam's_razor applies. --Championdante 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't be humble, be bold. But part of wikipedia is editing so it's accessible to a lay reader, who doesn't read from a physics perspective, and be careful of WP:OR, which yours seems to be on the verge of. The article was merged 'cause it offers the most comprehensive perspective, but putting all types of strength training into this article would make it far too long. WLU 23:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Physics perspective -- point well taken; I was only seeking to support my assertion with common knowledge. And that brings up a question that will probably be answered when I get around to reading all the STYLE pages, but here goes anyway: You mentioned "verge" of OR (which I obviously don't want to plod into) but TO ME it was simply looking at everybody's Talk, especially the (to some) equivalence of ST and RT as terms/article-titles and offering a different logical underpinning for the Merge you had already commenced. So; where does Original Thought (and Individual Perspective) become Original Research? I am simply looking for clarity from your point of view. --- But be careful; I've heard your words can be lethal. :) --Championdante 13:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The line between OR and just pointing out the obvious is a twitchy one. I suppose pointing out the obvious would have references to back it up. I definitely think the differences between the types of strength training is basically just a matter of how the resistance to contraction (in your definition, force I believe) is generated, and that's why I thought ST should be the main article defining basic principles common to all, with WT, RT and other forms of ST having separate articles. I know I didn't think of things from a physics perspective until I was trying to understand the difference between ST/RT/RT(2)/WT, and I'm trained in kinesiology - for a lay-person it's probably even more obscure.

Probably the best way to test your idea is to post it - throw it up on one of the pages and see what's left after the dust settles. I could be wrong after all.

I think people's feelings regarding the term resistance training stems from the confusion over the broader and narrower definitions; that was my problem. For me, resistance training is essentially another word for strength training. For another user (I believe Maniwar but I could be wrong) resistance training refers only to the use of elastic or hydraulic resistance to contraction. Since there are multiple terms for my definition of resistance training, but only one for his definition, it makes sense that we'd use ST as the big article and RT solely for elastic/hydraulic, with disclaimers.

And I suppose I shall let you live this time, providing you agree with me natch. WLU 16:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Many things evolve and the fitness industry is vastly evolving. To use my analogy and make more sense. When you buy a vehicle you can buy a car, a truck, SUV, or an RV, etc. All of those are vehicles, however, only one type is a truck and only one type is a car. Both weight training and resistance training is Strength Training. We're not talking about Physics, we're talking about exercise. I realize it has some physics, but just like the Physical Fitness Industry does not define the Physics industry, the reversal also cannot happen. Look at the trend, Curves is the largest Fitness franchise in the country, the second or third in Canada, and is growing worldwide. Also, copycats Ladies Workout Express, Countours, etc are all changing the industry and making people take note. Some YMCA's and some Ballys Fitness' are inserting Circuit Training rooms and/or Resistance Training rooms. Many Physical Therapist are switching to hydraulic equipment (resistance training) which is more safe on joints and causing less injuries because it allows you to increase and control the intensity moreso than using free/stack weights (weight training). Hydraulic is a function of speed, the harder and faster you push the more resistance. Elastic is a function of resistance bands or force (something like that). And Weights, well you add more weights, you don't increase the resistance you increase the weights or lbs/kilos. This is more simple than the complexity that physics will lend to it. Both are strength training, but both are not resistance training. --Maniwar (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh. --Championdante 18:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Concerning a merger perhaps it would be helpful to create a Fitness Series, in which both aerobic and anerobic fitness is consolidated. This would address muliple issues involved.Reaper Man 09:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reaper Man