This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Strength training article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 360 days |
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 360 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Refer Talk:Weight training#Merging.
Searching for Isokinetic exercise is not listed in your information. Appx 52 years ago we developed a new type exerciser that we called the Mini Gym. A couple years later Dr James Perina at Univ of Iowa designed a much larger exerciser, he called Cybex and named the exercise ISOKINETIC. Both our exercisers controlled the speed of exercise,and accommodated to the user instead of the user accommodating to the resistance as with weights. Now there were 3 types of resistive exercise, Isometrics, isotonics and isokinetics. ISOKINETICS IS POSITIVE ONLY EXERCISE AND DEVELOPS ATHLETIC POWER. I tell my story on our Home page Powerspeed-training.com (formally called Mini Gym Co.) In 1972 our small isokinetic Mini Gym was used by Skylab Astronauts in Space flights. Our most famous exerciser, the Isokinetic Leaper changed athletic training in 1975 when we introduced Speed Training with Positive only exercise (concentric) and no (eccentric) lowering of weights. Athletes could do 50 repetitions in less than one one minute. The Fast Speed Training develops athletes white quick twitch muscle fibers for higher jumping, more speed and quicker reflexes. We have had 5 patents issued in our 50 years. Coaches for many years used weight training to get athletes stronger and bigger. Isokinetic adds another advantage of higher jumping, more speed and reflexes. There are hundreds of articles written about isokinetic exercise on web sites and thousands of training centers, big and small (even in homes or garages) improving young athletes. Also, there are hundreds of manufacturing companies making some type of isokinetic exerciser. Isokinetics used in measuring muscle injury and strength gains. Also, rehab leg limbs, and recently training young athletes to improve their game.
MEDRS only applies to biomedical information. Per WP:BMI this is: Attributes of a disease or condition, Attributes of a treatment or drug, Medical decisions, Health effects, Population data and epidemiology.
Which of these does muscle strength gain during weight training fall under? I guess either "attributes of a treatment" or "health effects". Considering health effects, my argument that a few percent difference in muscle mass does not significantly affect health. Certainly, long-term weight training improves health, so I guess MEDRS applies to those parts of the article, but pretty much any workout routine will have similar effects, the effect of reps here is barely measurable to begin with. Considering treatment, the argument is that strength training does not require any specialized skills or equipment (per history section it was done in prehistoric tribes with rocks), so is about as much of a "treatment" as drinking water (namely, not a medical treatment). Confirming this, resistance training is mainly discussed in sports journals, not medical journals (except for the population studies of health effects). So, I think there's pretty much no reason to apply medrs in this case.
Now as far as general reliable source guidelines, it is true that it's a preprint, but the last author Michael Zourdos has a pretty long CV, so I'd say it's acceptable as a subject-matter expert opinion per WP:SPS (and presumably, it's going to be published in the next few months anyway, so this is really about when to add the article) Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is becoming far too technical in terms of the language used. Also there are too many research articles being used. Whilst the old page may have needed a revamp, it was to its credit more inclusive.RickyBennison (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
There seems to be a high amount of external link spamming on this page. I count 3 such edits in the past week - there was a similar spree of edits around 15 June, also this edit 8 February, I'm sure the vandalism goes back further. Honestly it is not too bad and manual reverting is fine for now, but maybe some level of protection would be good, like pending changes protection? Mathnerd314159 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)