Talk:Exercise/Archive 2

• ^[1]

• PMID 27657503;^[2] - need to watch for a review of that paper.

• PMID 23395166;^[3] - add table 2  Done

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I propose deleting the section on Potential for noise-induced hearing loss during exercise per WP:COATRACK Comments? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The refs were primary sources. Already moved to the users talk page for more work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Even if it was properly referenced, what does it have to do with exercise? People play loud music while painting houses. People play loud music while driving cars. Or welding. Or doing data entry. Or washing dishes. Or lying in the sun trying to get a tan. Do we need a "noise-induced hearing loss during X" section in hundreds of articles? I say it's a WP:COATRACK. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The section below was removed for discussion per WP:BRD. This is low-quality primary research on animals, containing obscure speculations with little relevance to anything needed for the encyclopedia, WP:PRIMARY, WP:MEDANIMAL. --Zefr (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Physical exercise has been shown to benefit a wide range of other mammals, as well as salmon, juvenile crocodiles, and at least one species of bird.^[1] However, several studies have shown that lizards display no benefit from exercise, leading them to be termed "metabolically inflexible".^[2] Indeed, damage from overtraining may occur following weeks of forced treadmill exercise in lizards.^[2] A number of studies of both rodents and humans have demonstrated that individual differences in both ability and propensity for exercise (i.e., voluntary exercise) have some genetic basis.^[3][4] Several studies of rodents have demonstrated that maternal^[5] or juvenile access to wheels that allow voluntary exercise can increase the propensity to run as adults.^[6] These studies further suggest that physical activity may be more "programmable" (for discussion, see Thrifty phenotype) than food intake.^[7]

False. This research is high-quality and relevant, and any further removal of peer-reviewed research for reasons amounting to nothing more than anthropocentric bias will be considered vandalism and reported as such. This page is NOT titled "Human exercise", and the question of whether other animals benefit from it is one which can and does occur to laypeople and potential readers, as well as researchers, as the papers, all in high-quality journals, proves. Furthermore, the fact that the answer to this question is NOT "they're just like humans", but instead shows that the effect of various training regimes are variable across the phylogeny, with some species responding only minimally to conditioning, proves that this question is neither trivial nor uninteresting. Your deletion will be reverted, and unless you can come up with a justification other than "It's not humans and it's not in Nature or Science", then any further deletion will be reported to administrators. HCA (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:MEDANIMAL and WP:PRIMARY. The literature you cite is not a systematic review or meta-analysis, defining it as primary, preliminary, and non-definitive, and therefore is unencyclopedic, with low likelihood it could be replicated. Each of the statements and sources used leads only to speculation about why it's relevant; again, unencyclopedic. Talk about it here, obtain consensus from other editors, if possible, WP:CON, and then we can possibly re-enter a modified version. But as the section stands now, it's pure conjecture based on weak non-review sources. --Zefr (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Wrong again. Seriously, step out of your biomedical bias and realize that not everything is about humans. These are direct studies of animals for the purposes of understanding the animals themselves, not humans. Now, I realize this may the shocking, staggering, and beyond your possible understanding, but not every field has 50,000 active researchers and billions of dollars in funding, and that doesn't mean the research is "preliminary" or "non-definitive" or any such nonsense. In fact, the so-called replication crisis is mostly in your field, not mine - every time someone's followed up on anything I've written, I've been proven right, how about you? That your field is such a mess of terrible experimental design and tortured statistics, leading to studies that don't replicate, doesn't mean you should assume those of us who do higher-quality science need to use your convoluted workarounds.

More directly, do not apply the rules of one project to another. This is not, as I have said, "Human exercise", something you seem deliberately unaware of. Maybe you want to downplay the importance of animal research and in vitro studies for human topics, but this is also within the scope of numerous animal projects which are interested in animals for their own sake. Because we can actually do manipulative experiments, control things you never can in humans, and use terminal experiments, we get MUCH better results. You want to delete this section, then find any papers which contradict the ones cited (therefore indicating the necessity of a meta-study). Until then, you don't get to delete our sections. Or, if you do, I get to delete Homo sapiens because the type specimen was never preserved and deposited in a museum, making the entire species nominum nudum. Or perhaps I should apply the Feynman criterion, so widely used in physics ("What I cannot create, I do not understand"?) and insist your results are worthless until you can directly create the phenomenon in question, regardless of the ethics involved regarding human experimentation. See how ridiculous it gets? Now quit pretending that the conventions of your field are universal and restore the valid content which you deleted. HCA (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Warning editor HCA about personal attacks and insults per WP:TALKNO. Your argument is founded in primary research. Find reviews and your position may be acceptable and selectively edited. --Zefr (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Not every field publishes massive reviews every 6 months. Read WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. This means you have no basis. WP:MEDANIMAL is inapplicable because this is not about inferring human results, but rather about understanding the animals themselves, and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD clearly and unambiguously allows the use of primary sources such as these in exactly these circumstances. HCA (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a matter of WP:UNDUE and WP:SCICON, for which the content and literature of this proposed section do not pass muster. --Zefr (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. That you cannot or will not see beyond the conventions of your own field should not be our problem. Would you accept a physicist deleting this entire article for "failing to pass muster" because nothing it in has a formal mathematical proof?HCA (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Exercise HCA (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, let's summarize. So far, you have claimed that:

• The animal data violates WP:MEDANIMAL. This is unambiguously wrong, as that policy only applies to using animal and in vitro studies as citations for what happens in humans, not for studies about the animals themselves.
• The references violate WP:PRIMARY, except the policy itself states "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. " All of these articles conform to these criteria. This point is also explicitly refuted, by name, in WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD.
• The inclusion of animal research is somehow in violation of WP:UNDUE. This is flatly false, as this policy only applies to areas of uncertainty and disputed opinion (hence why it's a sub-page of WP:NPOV, not about content balance. The page is Exercise not Human exercise.
• That it somehow violates WP:NOTJOURNAL, which doesn't even talk about this topic - instead, it's about making sure articles are accessible to lay readers.
• That the content is WP:FRINGE. Again, this is flatly incorrect, as the policy refers to ideas within a field which have little or no empirical support or support from the scientific community, such as flat-earthers, moan-landing hoaxers, or people who think pineapple belongs on pizza. It does not refer to valid scientific fields which simply have fewer researchers or lower citation counts.
• That the content violates WP:SCICON (which is NOT an official policy page), yet there is no evidence that any of the citations removed are disputed, or that any controversy exits.
• That the content is ineligible because they are not review papers or meta-studies. There is absolutely no WP policy which states this, therefore this objection is invalid. Meta-studies are more common in some fields than others - in my experience, they're very common in both biomedical and ecological fields because both suffer the problems of being unable to control huge numbers of confounding variables (in the former due to ethical constraints of working with humans, in the later due to the pragmatic difficulties), while in fields where most variables can be controlled and effect sizes are often very large, they're rare or nonexistent.

Unless you can provide a valid reason for the removal of this material, and directly quote an applicable WP policy, the material will be restored. HCA (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Summarizing: The section is a minority fringe view on exercise: 1) it is based on preliminary lab research and assumptions/opinions with no weight of significance to the general encyclopedia user (WP:UNDUE: "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all"; Jimbo Wales: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it"), 2) there are no reviews on its importance for understanding exercise in general (WP:MEDANIMAL, WP:SCICON; if animal exercise and your speculations had significance for the general understanding of exercise, there would be a good review), and 3) it adds no relevant context for the general article. Rather, the section hangs like an odd addendum and conjecture in a journal discussion or textbook chapter, WP:NOTJOURNAL #6 ("present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks"), WP:NOTEVERYTHING: please apply the first 3 sentences. There appears to be little interest in supporting the section for inclusion in the article, i.e., no WP:CON: "Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change", which is the case here for my removing the section. I'll join the discussion if other editors do, but for now I have discussed this enough. --Zefr (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Once again, wrong on every count. Let's do a point by point refutation.

• WP:UNDUE does not apply. This policy is about sides on a debate, NOT the relative importance of certain fields or the balance of content of an article. The quoted sections are not "views", they are empirical research into specific animals, and, while it is a smaller field, it also a small fraction of the article. So your assertion is flatly incorrect.
• "there are no reviews on its importance for understanding exercise in general (WP:MEDANIMAL, WP:SCICON; if animal exercise and your speculations had significance for the general understanding of exercise, there would be a good review)". Once again, I refer you to my first comments: Not everything is about humans. I literally do not care about human responses to exercise, because I don't study humans. I do work on a wide range of species (spanning 7 classes and 3 phyla), and consequently, I need to know whether I can expect an animal to improve in performance over the course of an experiment. Hell, the simple fact that the entire lede incorrectly makes general statements as if mammalian exercise response were the only thing that matters means that I have more cause to edit this article and fix such flaws than you do to delete this material. If you want this article to just be about humans, propose a move to Human exercise; until then, this claim is also invalid.
• "it adds no relevant context for the general article." The fact that you think placing a physiological phenomenon in its evolutionary context is "not relevant" is just about the most damning thing I could imagine saying about your perspective, and you said it for me. "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution." - Theodosius Dobzhansky. The fact that exercise does not affect extant reptiles nor amphibians suggests that, rather than being "universal", everything in the entire page represents a specialist state which independently evolved in two extant endotherm lineages, suggesting all sorts of fascinating questions about the origins of exercise training, why it converges in birds and mammals, whether they clades are truly identical, etc. That you, personally, do not find it interesting does not mean that nobody else does, as clearly indicated by the fact that people are conducting active, funded research on the topic.
• Consensus is pretty obvious. There is none, and there never will be, because your view is based only on your own personal preferences, not genuine WP policy, given your inability to correctly read and cite said policies.

This content will be restored in one week unless you can correctly cite a valid reason. If you remove it again, I will bring this straight to WP:ANI. Your personal biases are not cause for removing valid, appropriately sourced and cited content. HCA (talk)

3O Response: Here is your third opinion. There are two issues at hand. 1) Any text that violates Wikipedia policy must be excluded. This is a clear line, either/or matter. 2) Just because text meets our policy doesn't mean we have to include it. This is a subjective, gray-area editorial issue of whether or not the text improves the article enough to earn the space it takes up.

1. WP:MEDANIMAL doesn't apply here and that WP:Primary appears to be being upheld. The only problem I see with these sources is that only the abstract is available for some of them. However, Wikipedia does not require all sources to be available online, so if HCA says "I read the whole article for source [1] and the claim about salmon, mammals and a bird is in the body, and I read the whole article of source [2] and the expression 'metabolically inflexible' is in there even though it's not in the publicly available abstract," then it would be normal for us to take his word for it (to the point where we usually don't even ask). HCA, please say "I read the whole article beyond the paywall and the information I cite is in there." Regarding Zefr's concerns about attribution, I suppose we could rewrite it as "One study by Smith et al. of the This University found that exercise had no effect on iguanas, but the studies by Jones et al. of the That University and Kim et al. of the Institution of the Other Thing found otherwise" to be extra conscientious.
2. I think the text improves the article. It could use some copy editing, but the idea of a having a section on non-human animals seems appropriate to me. A single, small section is not WP:UNDUE in this article. If HCA did indeed source it properly, I call it a clear net plus.

If this non-binding opinion is not enough for you two, then I recommend an RfC. My view is that the RfC should be worded to deal exclusively with the editorial issue of whether this article should have an "In non-human animals" section at all (#2) and not the sourcing (#1). If I am wrong and they really are as glaring as Zefr thinks, then at least some RfC respondents will spontaneously comment on them without being prompted. Consider the text, "RFC: Should the article 'Exercise' include the section 'Non-human animals'?" Anything else ...speaking as someone who just got here, HCA, it looks like you're being kind of heavy-handed with Zefr. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I've read these papers, and all say what is claimed. In fact, this area of research is close to my own, and I'm also familiar with several other papers on this topic, including taxa beyond these (amphibians and fish, more data on birds and lizards), which I'll add once the semester is over and I'm done with grading. HCA (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed from the article again, as there has been no Talk discussion consensus on what to include. Offering a revision below. --Zefr (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Within mammals, exercise training produces similar effects to humans, including in dogs ^[1] and rodents ^[2]. A number of studies of both rodents and humans have demonstrated that individual differences in both ability and propensity for exercise (i.e., voluntary exercise) have some genetic basis.^[3][4] Several studies of rodents have demonstrated that maternal^[5] or juvenile access to wheels that allow voluntary exercise can increase the propensity to run as adults.^[6] These studies further suggest that physical activity may be more "programmable" (for discussion, see Thrifty phenotype) than food intake.^[7] When rodent running wheels are placed outside, wild mice will voluntarily use them for comparable durations to laboratory mice, despite lack of any prior experience with these devices.^[8]. Artificial selection experiments on mice has shown significant heritability in voluntary exercise levels^[9], and "high-runner" lines show differences in VO2max^[10], hippocampal neurogenesis^[11], and muscle morphology^[12]. The effects of sprint-speed training are less well-studied, though there is a negative correlation between artificial selection for endurance and sprint speed^[13].

The effects of various exercise training types are heterogeneous across non-mammals, and sometimes inconsistent. No effect of endurance training has been found in most studies of lizards^[14] (but see ^[15]), leading them to be termed "metabolically inflexible".^[16] Indeed, damage from overtraining may occur following weeks of forced treadmill exercise in lizards.^[16] Sprint training has never been found to have an effect in lizards.^[17]

While studied less often, frogs show modest improvements with exercise.^[18][19] Exercise training in fish shows some minor improvements on endurance, but far less than seen under comparable training regimes in mammals.^[20][21]

Among archosaurs, both crocodiles and birds show improvements in aerobic capacity following exercise.^[22][14] Eared grebes present an extreme version of this effect in wild populations, with prolonged periods of low exercise leading to large losses in flight muscle mass and consequent loss of flight ability; subsequent voluntary exercise bouts lead to full recovery of both muscle mass and sufficient flight ability for migration.^[23]

Most of the new section is unusable primary research. This is not a journal discussion, but encyclopedic information is needed. If to be included at all, the section might state:

Within mammals, exercise training produces similar effects to humans, including in dogs and rodents{ref: such as what?} The effects of various exercise training types are heterogeneous across non-mammals.{ref: how?} No effect of endurance training has been found in most studies of lizards.{ref: why does this need to be stated?} Crocodiles and birds show improvements in aerobic capacity following exercise.{ref: what is the context for this, and why is it related to general understanding of exercise?}

That is all I see as potentially useful, but only if the discussion can be improved. Overall, the references are too preliminary and too weak to support the information as encyclopedic. --Zefr (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Read the references listed. And not just the abstracts.HCA (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)