Talk:Isometric exercise

can isometrics be done with weight? if so what would that do? what about sets and reps?.....

Well, I guess holding a weight stationary would count as isometric exercise... SCHZMO ✍ 23:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I turned the two references to heart conditions into links. It seemed silly to expect people to know what those two things were. I also wanted to connect heart murmur to Heart_murmur#Abnormal_sounds but I didn't know how to send it down the page to the relevent text. Or if that was even acceptable by wikipedia standards. 68.95.249.103 15:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs a lot of work and needs the citations linked. For now I removed a claim that was very suspect. It claimed isometrics "increases the strength of the participant faster than any other natural method". This is very dubious and sounds like something the "super-slow" and "static training" zealots spout. Isometrics certainly play a role in strength training, but they are certainly not the be all end all. --Rob Sanheim 16:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eccentric and concentric contraction

I replaced muscle contracting with muscle shortening - a muscle contracts during an eccentric contraction, it just lengthens at the same time, so to call one muscle lengthening and the other muscle contraction is incorrect. WLU 21:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that your change is better than what I had originally written when I wrote the section on NASA and Isometrics. The reason I worded it the way I had is because, in the study cited, they used the word "contraction" instead of "muscle shortening". The sentence in the study reads as follows: "They tested three types of exercise: muscle contraction, muscle lengthening, and isometric, where the muscle exerts a force while remaining the same length."[1] In order to further wikify the section, I added the internal links to Eccentric and Concentric muscle contraction. I had actually considered using "muscle shortening" but opted not to due to the fact that they didn't word it that way in the article cited. I therefore decided I could kill 2 birds with 1 stone; by internally linking to "Eccentric" and "Concentric" contraction I thought I could further wikify the article while, at the same time, clarify the fact that "contraction" as used in the cited article was synonymous with "muscle shortening". Nevertheless, your change indicates that there was a potential for confusion, regardless of how it was worded in the article cited, and that the rewording was necessary. Thanks for your input.68.71.226.70 23:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the above guy is still adding to the page, you should totally get a user id, it's really handy for tracking changes on multiple articles, plus I don't have to worry if it's the same person making changes on the documents - comments to anon users are generally a waste of time, and a userid makes it a lot easier to engage in an actual dialogue. But it's up to you. That being said...

I added brief summaries to the references 'cause otherwise it just lists them as numbers and I find the brief summaries helpful in distinguishing between them and whether I actually want to see the source.

I also removed the "In one study, published by John Little, one subject gained nine pounds of muscle from one workout, while simultaneously losing nine and a half pounds of fat" section because that violates absolutely everything I know about the biology of strength training and without the original source I can't verify. I'm more comfortable taking it right out than leaving it with a fact tag. Also, a single-subject study is tremendously suspect right off the get-go. If anyone can find the original source, I'd be happy to put it back in. WLU 17:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bully extreme

Anyone else suspicious of the bully extreme links? The actual content is unreferenced but looks accurate, but the overall website is designed to sell a machine. WLU 23:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. Definitely SPAM attempting to sell the Bully Extreme. I removed the links. The same links have appeared repeatedly in other Wikipedia articles and have repeatedly been removed from those articles as well. For example, see Bullworker Talk Page, as well as the article's History page. 69.68.191.34 18:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]