Introduction
Knowledge has been defined as the body of truths, facts, information, or principles accumulated in the course of time; the sum of what is known (23,24). To share knowledge effectively, strength and conditioning professionals must exchange information through the use of a common system of symbols such as language, writing, or signs, also known as communication (23,24). It remains the quest of strength and conditioning professionals to expand their knowledge and continues to be pioneering leaders in the field of human performance through communication. The use of standard nomenclature related to naming exercises in the strength and conditioning profession may enhance this communication.
Nomenclature has been defined as a system or set of names or designations used in a particular science, discipline, or art and formally adopted or sanctioned by the usage of its practitioners (23,24). As the strength and conditioning profession continues to grow, so does the number of names to describe particular exercises. Often times, these names are original and creative but ultimately blur communication between professionals. To remove this obstacle regarding terminology of resistance training exercises, it is important that strength and conditioning professionals avoid confusion by establishing and using common terminology. As the fields of applied physiology and exercise conditioning become more highly developed and scientifically based, it becomes increasingly important for the strength and conditioning specialist to be sensitive to terminology when describing and quantifying exercise (11).
Previous literature has addressed the use of inconsistent terminology and their associated discrepancies (1,5–12,16,19). This has been a recurring issue that has failed to receive appropriate attention over the years, resulting in confusion in the scientific literature (10). Previous literature has set out to clarify the discordant definitions related to muscle contraction and concentric and eccentric muscle actions (1,5–12,16,19). Much confusion has been resolved, although, inconsistency still surrounds muscle contraction nomenclature (5,7,10). Well-defined and explained terms for muscle shortening (miometric), muscle lengthening (pliometric), and no change in muscle length (isometric) have been suggested, dating as far back as 1938 (5,7,10). Previous literature has not only outlined the lack of continuity in the field, it has also displayed resistance to change over decades. However, previous literature has primarily only investigated physiological terminology (1,5–12,16,19). Despite suitable suggestions for change, the strength and conditioning field has struggled to accept them in present day.
In addition to the lack of continuity surrounding physiological terminology, there is discordance surrounding resistance training exercise nomenclature. Strength and conditioning professionals need to be consistent in terminology to establish clarity. An examination of terminology may lead to a consensus between professionals (6). Furthermore, establishing common nomenclature may facilitate oral and written communication and enhance the process of the professionalization of strength and conditioning personnel (11). To our knowledge, there has been little to no investigation of the commonality of the names of resistance training exercises used among strength and conditioning professionals. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to survey strength and conditioning professionals toward standardization of the nomenclature of resistance training exercises.
Methods
Experimental Approach to the Problem
Investigators selected an online survey for this study that utilized pictures of common resistance training exercises. This allowed investigators to collect responses from multiple participants and from multiple locations at once. It also ensured that investigators did not introduce any personal bias had they utilized face-to-face interviews.
Subjects
There were 205 volunteers of which 64.9 % were male. Participants self-identified with one of the profession categories; Certified athletic trainer (AT) made up 22.4%, academic 18.5%, strength and conditioning coach (SC) 25.9%, personal trainer (PT) 15.6%, and clinician 17.6%. Only participants who worked with resistance training exercises at the time of participation were included.
Procedures
The Institutional Review Board of California State University, Fullerton, California, approved this study. e-mail was sent to participants inviting them to participate in the study. Participants were recruited from our Institution and colleagues of the investigators and posted in various forms of social media. Those interested in the study were asked to share their e-mail address. A subsequent e-mail sent to all participants encouraged them to forward the e-mail to other people who worked with resistance training exercises. Volunteers were able to access the survey via a link provided in the e-mail. They agreed to terms of the informed consent electronically, which assured them anonymity. The survey consisted of 10 common multijoint free weight resistance training exercises. Images showed the start and end of each exercise. Each question was open ended, and participants were asked to enter the name they used for each exercise.
Statistical Analyses
Responses to each exercise picture were grouped based on participants’ answers. A χ2 for exercise name by current profession was used to analyze frequency differences. Data were evaluated with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 20.0. Alpha level was set a priori at ≤0.05.
Results
Three common themes emerged as follows: specification, equipment, and exercise. Responses for the “specification” theme typically addressed range of motion, unilateral exercises, and/or body position (i.e., 90-degree squat, parallel back squat, deep front squat, 1-arm row, bent-over row) although specifying in greater detail how the exercise was to be performed. Responses for the “equipment” theme typically outlined the required equipment for a particular exercise (i.e., barbell bench press, dumbbell bench press, dumbbell row). Responses for the “exercise” theme typically expressed the desired movement only (i.e., squat, bench press, deadlift).
Exercise 1
A greater percentage of PT used equipment than did Clinician. A greater percentage of academic and SC used depth than did AT. A greater percentage of AT and academic only used the word “squat” than did SC. A greater percentage of clinician responses fell under the miscellaneous category than did AT, academic, SC, and PT (Figure 1) (Table 1).
;)
Figure 1: Exercise 1.
Table 1: Naming response frequency patterns of exercise 1.
Exercise 2
A greater percentage of SC only used the words “back squat” when naming the exercise than did AT and PT. A greater percentage of clinician only used the word “squat” when naming the exercise than did AT. Also, a greater percentage of AT and clinician responses fell under the miscellaneous category when naming the exercise than did SC (Figure 2) (Table 2).
Figure 2: Exercise 2.
Table 2: Naming response frequency patterns of exercise 2.
Exercise 3
A greater percentage of SC used the words “front squat” when naming the exercise than did AT. A greater percentage of SC used equipment when naming the exercise than did AT. A greater percentage of AT used depth when naming the exercise than did clinician. A greater percentage of AT, academic, and clinician responses fell under the miscellaneous category when naming the exercise than did the SC. Likewise, a greater percentage of clinician responses fell under the miscellaneous than did the PT (Figure 3) (Table 3).
Figure 3: Exercise 3.
Table 3: Naming response frequency patterns of exercise 3.
Exercise 4
A greater percentage of AT and academic used only the words “bench press” when naming the exercise than did SC and clinician. A greater percentage of SC used equipment in the name when naming the exercise than did AT, academic, PT, and clinician. Also, a greater percentage of PT and clinician used the words “chest press” in the name when naming the exercise than did AT, academic, and SC (Figure 4) (Table 4).
Figure 4: Exercise 4.
Table 4: Naming response frequency patterns of exercise 4.
Exercise 5
A greater percentage of AT and academic simplified the name to using equipment or body part followed by the word “press” than did SC, PT, and clinician. A greater percentage of SC used equipment in the name followed by the words “bench press” when naming the exercise than did PT and clinician. Likewise a greater percentage of AT, academic, and SC used equipment in the name followed by the words “bench press” when naming the exercise than did clinician. A greater percentage of PT and clinician used equipment in the name followed by the words “chest press” when naming the exercise than did AT, academic, and SC (Figure 5) (Table 5).
Figure 5: Exercise 5.
Table 5: Naming response frequency patterns of exercise 5.
Exercise 6
A greater percentage of SC used equipment in the name when naming the exercise than did academic and clinician. A greater percentage of clinician responses fell under the miscellaneous category when naming the exercise than did SC and PT. Likewise, a greater percentage of AT responses fell under the miscellaneous category when naming the exercise than did SC (Figure 6) (Table 6).
Figure 6: Exercise 6.
Table 6: Naming response frequency patterns of exercise 6.
Exercise 7
A greater percentage of PT used the words “1-arm/unilateral” in the name when naming the exercise than did AT, academic, SC, and clinician. A greater percentage of clinician responses fell under the miscellaneous category when naming the exercise than did AT, SC, and PT (Figure 7) (Table 7).
Figure 7: Exercise 7.
Table 7: Naming response frequency patterns of exercise 7.
Exercise 8
A greater percentage of SC used the word “Bulgarian” in the name when naming the exercise than did AT and clinician. A greater percentage of SC used the words “rear foot elevated” in the name when naming the exercise than did AT, academic, and clinician. A greater percentage of clinician used the word “lunge” in the name when naming the exercise than did academic, PT, and SC. Likewise, a greater percentage of academic and PT used the word “lunge” in the name when naming the exercise than did SC. A greater percentage of AT, academic, SC, and PT used “squat” in the name when naming the exercise than did clinician. A greater percentage of clinician responses fell under the miscellaneous category when naming the exercise than did SC (Figure 8) (Table 8).
Figure 8: Exercise 8.
Table 8: Naming response frequency patterns of exercise 8.
Exercise 9
A greater percentage of SC and PT used the words “Roman(ian) deadlift” in the name when naming the exercise than did clinician. Likewise a greater percentage of SC used the words “Roman(ian) deadlift” in the name when naming the exercise than did PT. A greater percentage of SC used equipment in the name when naming the exercise than did academic. A greater percentage of clinician responses fell under the miscellaneous category when naming the exercise than did AT, academic, SC, and PT. Likewise, a greater percentage of AT, academic, and PT responses fell under the miscellaneous category when naming the exercise than did SC (Figure 9) (Table 9).
Figure 9: Exercise 9.
Table 9: Naming response frequency patterns of exercise 9.
Exercise 10
A greater percentage of SC used equipment in the name when naming the exercise than did academic, PT and Clinician. A greater percentage of Clinician responses fell under the miscellaneous category when naming the exercise than did AT, academic, SC and PT. Likewise a greater percentage of AT, academic and PT responses fell under the miscellaneous category when naming the exercise than did SC (Figure 10) (Table 10).
Figure 10: Exercise 10.
Table 10: Naming response frequency patterns of exercise 10.
Discussion
This study investigated the nomenclature of naming resistance training exercise used by professionals in academic, clinical, fitness, and strength fields. Our results demonstrated inconsistency, primarily related to the responders’ profession and naming patterns related to the 3 items of specification, equipment, and exercise. This inconsistency may create confusion for individuals being instructed by different professionals and confusion among professionals attempting to communicate with one another. As the strength and conditioning profession continues to mature, use of consistent nomenclature is paramount to establish consistent direction and clarity with resistance training exercises.
The battle with inconsistent terminology in the literature dates back to1938 in which Hubbard and Stetson (7) suggested the use of miometric and pliometric rather than concentric and eccentric. With the majority of the nomenclature literature having investigated physiological terminology (1,5–12,16,19), we believe this to be the first study to examine resistance training exercise nomenclature across different professions.
When analyzing our data, differences were seen among professions. This may be due to the different emphasis on education and certification(s) of these professionals. Certified ATs, academics, SCs, PTs, and clinicians have similar base knowledge of human movement and exercise. However, most courses covered in the academic setting focus on the science of human movement, but seldom do they examine the details of resistance training exercise names. Therefore, each individual is often left to name numerous exercises once they are in their chosen profession. Furthermore, these professions often require different certifications with each having their own way of naming resistance training exercises.
Moreover, if there is confusion when naming an exercise, educators and practitioners often resort to demonstrating the movement to provide clarity. Much of the literature on resistance training exercise has pictures designed to illustrate the exercise (2–4,13–15,17,18,20–22). This need for pictures may be due to the use of inconsistent terminology associated with resistance training exercises. A closer look at the literature on resistance training exercises revealed that some exercises have similar names but are different movements altogether. “Upright row” (2,4,13,14,17) has also been referred to as “standing barbell row” (18), whereas “Barbell row” (13,18) has also been used when referring to the “bent-over row” (2,3,15,17) exercise. Therefore, one may easily confuse “standing barbell row” with “barbell row” and/or “upright row.”
When trying to achieve consistency, it is important to establish guidelines related to nomenclature; therefore, we reviewed naming patterns that were currently in place. Some professionals named an exercise using a pattern of “specification, equipment, exercise” (i.e., 1-arm dumbbell row) (17), whereas others used a pattern of “equipment, specification, exercise” (i.e., dumbbell 1-arm row) (4). These naming patterns are clear and provide direction and clarity, leaving little room for confusion, but they lack consistency. Still others preferred the use of a “specification, exercise” naming pattern (i.e., forward lunge (2), back squat (3), or bent-over row (2)). This naming pattern provides direction, but lacks clarity. The confusion lies in the equipment that might be used for the exercise. Others used an “exercise” only naming pattern (i.e., squat (15), lunge (15), or bench (3)). This naming pattern may not provide enough direction or clarity to either the exerciser or professional.
Another inconsistency seen when naming resistance training exercises is that some exercises have a nationality associated with them (i.e., Bulgarian split squat or Roman[ian] dead lift). Using the “specification, equipment, exercise” naming pattern eliminates nationality so that Bulgarian split squat becomes “rear foot elevated dumbbell/body weight/barbell split squat.”
The “exercise” only naming pattern may not provide enough direction as it only tells the individual the movement but does not relay all the relevant details. The “specification, exercise” naming pattern provides more direction but is still incomplete. Finally, the “specification, equipment, exercise” and “equipment, specification, exercise” naming patterns provide the individual with the whole picture as they provide direction and clarity.
Resistance training exercises are unique in the sense that practitioners are only limited by their creativeness. Although the movements may be finite, there are endless ways to stress the individual executing the movement. The variables can be manipulated in countless ways to increase or decrease the difficulty of a particular resistance training exercise. Understanding of the terminology may not be the issue, most, if not all professionals understand the terminology. It is the way it is used and/or the omission of key directives that leave practitioners and individuals confused. It is because of this we would not recommend implementing a single term for each exercise to be used as the gold standard. Rather we suggest the use of a standardized naming pattern (specification, equipment, exercise).
Future Research should investigate resistance training exercises not covered in the present study such as machines and implement training and surveying other populations for their input. There is also a need to investigate the terminology related to resistance training exercise equipment.
Practical Applications
Strength and conditioning professionals should adopt and implement a consistent naming pattern guideline. Use of one clear and common naming pattern when discussing and prescribing exercises will benefit those involved in training and facilitate communication across the strength and conditioning profession. We suggest the use of a naming pattern that is consistent and clear. Therefore, we recommend using “specification, equipment, exercise” as the preferred naming pattern. This pattern allows professionals to be creative and individualize exercises although consistently providing direction and clarity (i.e., incline barbell bench press, standing cable row, unilateral dumbbell squat, 1-leg standing medicine ball chest pass, etc.). There may not always be a need for all 3 parts of the naming pattern. In these instances, the part not needed can be dropped although the rest of the pattern remains. It is understood that barbell bench press is performed bilaterally; therefore, there is no need to name it “bilateral barbell bench press.” Thus, the specification part (bilateral) can be dropped, but the naming pattern continues with equipment and exercise (barbell bench press). Furthermore, all exercises are expected to be performed through the available full range of motion. Anything other than the available full range of motion should be dictated in the specification part of the naming pattern (i.e., half front barbell squat, 90-degree back barbell squat, etc.). The use of this “specification, equipment, exercise” naming pattern should provide consistent direction and clarity to resistance training exercise nomenclature.
References
1. Abernethy P, Wilson G, Logan P. Strength and power assessment: Issues, controversies and challenges. Sports Med 19: 401–417, 1995.
2. Baechle TR, Earle RW, eds. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008. pp. 333–375.
3. Brown LE ed. Strength Training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2007. pp. 166–222.
4. Chandler JT, Brown LE. Conditioning for Strength and Human Performance. Baltimore, MD: Wolters Kluwer, 2008. pp. 196–223.
5. Faulkner JA. Terminology for contractions of muscles during shortening, while isometric, and during lengthening. J Appl Physiol 95: 455–459, 2003.
6. Harman E. Strength and power: A definition of terms. Natl Strength Cond Assoc J 15: 18–20, 1993.
7. Hubbard AW, Stetson RH. An experimental analysis of human locomotion. J Physiol 124: 300–313, 1938.
8. Jackson AS, Frankiewicz RJ. Factorial expressions of muscular strength. Res Quart 46: 164–172, 1975.
9. Knudson DV. Correcting the use of the term “power” in the strength and conditioning literature. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1902–1908, 2009.
10. Knuttgen HG. Force, work, power, and exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 10: 227–228, 1978.
11. Knuttgen HG, Kraemer WJ. Terminology and measurement in exercise performance. J Appl Sport Sci Res 1: 1–10, 1987.
12. Laird CE, Rozier CK. Toward understanding the terminology of exercise mechanics. Phys Ther 59: 287–292, 1979.
13. Manocchia P. Anatomy of Exercise. Buffalo, NY: Firefly Books, 2008. pp. 36–123.
14. Marangraphics Development Group. Maran Illustrated Weight Training. Independence, KY: Course Technology PTR 2010. pp. 30–142.
15. Mejia M, Murphy M. The Men’sHealth Gym Bible. New York, NY: Rodale Inc., 2006. pp. 47–195.
16. Moffroid M, Kusiak ET. The power struggle: definition and evaluation of power of muscular performance. Phys Ther 55: 1098–1104, 1975.
17. National Strength and Conditioning Association. Exercise Technique Manual for Resistance Training: (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008. pp. 22–121.
18. Ramsay C. Anatomy of Muscle Building. Buffalo, NY: Firefly Books, 2011. pp. 72–149.
19. Sapega AA, Drillings G. The definition and assessment of muscular power. J Orth Sports Phys Ther 5: 7–9, 1983.
20. Schuler L, Cosgrove A. The New Rules of Lifting. New York, NY: Penguin Group, 2006. pp. 14–159.
21. Schuler L, Forsythe C, Cosgrove A. The New Rules of Lifting for Women. New York, NY: Penguin Group, 2007. pp. 158–206.
22. Villepigue J, Rivera H. The Body Sculpting Bible for Men. Long Island City, NY: Hatherleigh Press, 2007. pp. 117–223.
23. Webster’s Dictionary. Random House Webster’s College Dictionary. New York, NY: Random House, Inc., 2001. pp. 248–834.
24. Dictionary Webster’s. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2002. pp. 460–1534.
