Talk:Pilates/Archive 1

Archive 1

pilates was NOT used originaly for dancers rehab

this keeps coming up, but it is wrong.Hilikp 21:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

link to major pilates organization

the link to the PMA is actually the one the public needs. there are too many people out there who claim to teach Pilates but don't, and they injure the public. if you know Pilates, you know you want the real thing, just like you want a real (pure) doctor. this organization has thousands of members world wide, as I discovered, so it serves a huge community, not one individual.�

Do you have any evidence that your loyalty to the "real (pure)" Pilates is justified? It certainly sounds as if you've decided that "the public" needs a link that points them to a site supporting your ideology. I have edited the text to make it less obviously NPOV while still maintaining the link. I have also removed several links from the External Links section that simply redirected to private studios or referral services but offered no further insight (from an encyclopedic view) on the technique.Britomart 17:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I do. I have been doing Pilates for 22 years and have been teaching it since 1988. I have seen many many versions of Pilates. What is your background in this field? No! NO1 NO! you are confusing some organizations here!!! The PMA is an inclusive organization that embraces the many disciples of Pilates who have taken the “masters” work and spread it with their own take on it. Take a moment to visit the website. It is an International organization. This includes traditional Pilates; rehab Pilates, contemporary Pilates, etc. Do not confuse the PMA with the Pilates Guild, which does not recognize Pilates’ other disciples. What the PMA is concerned with is standards! If you don’t adhere to the Pilates principals, and your knowledge is not deep (as in weekend certification)- don’t teach it. The public needs to know the difference. With the upcoming national certification exam- anybody can take it- and get up to standards. Standards of safety and integrity of the method. Will you visit a doctor who took only a weekend class and calls himself a doctor? I'll be happy to eleborate if you want, Britomart. Hilikp 21:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hilikp--Thanks for the update. I really like the current edit, which I think really shows what you mean without resulting in any possible misunderstanding. I believe the article as it now reads reflects what you say here, whereas before it was a bit difficult to understand. Britomart 15:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The PMA is not the only organisation that does full Teacher Training, basically any organisation that allows a weekend course should be excluded but there are other organisations including the Pilates Foundation UK who have fully developed teacher training courses. the current edit is fine as it points out the need for full teacher training courses, not just weekend ones. To enforce what Britomart has said, badly trained people practicing pilates as teachers are dangerous!

Is this NPOV?

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, so I don't want to change things that shouldn't be touched. I have to say, though, that the last couple of paragraphs of this article reads (to me) more like an in "insiders" guide to pilates than an encyclopedia entry on the topic. Those paragraphs refer readers to a reasonable (but insider) article on choose a studio and, more troubling, the "best source for information" on Pilates, a site specifically dedicated to a "purist" view of pilates. (This last is was triggered my suspicion that the article is not free of bias.)

Missing entirely from the article are discussions of the actual benefit of pilates, any dangers or shortcomings, commentary on pilates as a fad, false or extravagant claims made by some practitioners, and the like.

I agree completely and totally, and while we are at it, the reference to "gravity Pilates" is totally uncalled for, if it is called for, then we shoulod probably be listing Poolates, Cardiolates, and Yogilates as well...

The last three paragraphs of the history section in particular sound like advice and advocacy. I don't have the expertise to edit them effectively but I hope someone else will. --Poludamas 18:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Poludamas: The whole article, but especially the last few paragraphs, has problems of style and tone, and desperately needs to be edited. As it stands, it sounds both amateurish and promotional. The idiosyncratic use of capitalization doesn't help. Tireisias 11:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

disputed tag

From the last few edits there seem to be some dispute as seen from the following comment copied from the article Agathoclea 14:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. It is especially tainted by rifts between Pilates Methods, various representatives of wach school attempting to receive capital out of this entry.--Dz.research 00:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I have no knowledge of the subject matter at hand. Agathoclea 14:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

PMA backstory?

Currently, the first (and only) mention of the PMA in the article is "Many Pilates teachers do not recognise the PMA's attempt for universal authority.". I believe PMA stands for "Pilates Method Alliance" and have expanded it accordingly. However, that sentence should be preceded with some (brief) explanation of who the PMA are, and what claim they have on universal authority. -- irrevenant [ talk ] 08:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I've heard from many Pilates instructors, the PMA came in to existence after the lawsuit over the name "Pilates" as a effort to provide some sort of standards and practices in Pilates education and instruction. It is correct that many Pilates teachers don't recognize the PMA because they say it is flawed. For example, the PMA exam is only a written (computer-based) exam. This is key to the problem in that there is no method of testing the teacher in the process of instructing a client and correcting him/her into the correct position, breathing, etc. In addition, one of the many reasons the PMA is not recognized is because Romana's Pilates and STOTT Pilates refuse to recognize the PMA exam. From an instructor standpoint, it is more important on how you were trained and the program you trained through versus taking the PMA exam. I know none of this first-hand but have heard it from instructors trained by Romana, STOTT, Rael Isacowitz and Winsor. 64.151.41.209 23:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

toning

I see some still insist of using psuedo terms in this article , you can't logicalyl lengthen a muscle and increace it's tonus , but it seems the words tone (used to sell pilatis out to the masses) are used over and over in here ,

I demand a vote that will make it clear —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.81.153.70 (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Pilates offers no aerobic value.

This is scientifically false, however everybody understands what is meant. Most exercise lasting longer than about 30 seconds is in a sense aerobic as well as anaerobic, except extremely short bouts. However at about 30-45 minutes of repetive movement the aerobic phosphate based replacement of APT increases to the deminishing of internal unaerobic phosphate exchanges. What the writer of course meant is that Pilates may not be the best exercise regime to induce a marked difference between calories burned and calories ingested because its intensity is lower.

NPOV

The first two paragraphs in the Disputes section of the article read as a personal opinion and seem to attempt to indicate that certain branches of Pilates are inferior. Whilst I am in agreement with the sentiments expressed, (I am married to a Pilates instructor who also shares the same opinions) I feel compelled to ask the original contributor of the section to please either find an alternative way to express this unfortunate state of affairs, or have the paragraphs removed. The paragraphs are also advisory and not encyclopedic.

Radiotrib 16:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Addendum - I tried to NPOVize the Drawbacks section without removing any of the information content. I hope it reads a little more factually now.

Radiotrib 15:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy Dispute

Does someone not think it is time to review the accuracy dispute on this article. I see little to warrant a dispute tag, since most of the content is not inaccurate. It could be expanded in several places, but in my opinion, the only corrections needed to the current text are minor, and stylistic rather than factually incorrect.

Would someone like to make further contributions to the debate, or can the tag be removed? Radiotrib 16:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

---

I think one approach to making the article more useful is to look at the first generation teachers and how they differ. Tracing the influences on Eve Gentry's work and comparing it to Romana for example gives you two very different approaches to Pilates work and would be interesting for the general reader.

I do agree that some of the criticism do seem to lack rigor. sorry, I don't mean to be offensive, but the sources seem to be articles and not research papers. I am not aware of any systmatic research that contraindicates pilates in any medical conditions, so unless we can quote a study, then we are reporting speculation (whether well informed or not). I may well be wrong in this and am happy to stand corrected.

I think it is important not to do that, both in favour of the technique, and in criticising it's limitations.

---

You are certainly right about the need to review alternative approaches to the teachings of Pilates, but I think that what you suggest is a matter for future expansion rather than something which needs to be taken into consideration when reviewing the accuracy of what exists at present.

As for the citations etc. It is difficult for even the experts to find definitive sources for the information since so little was initially written down. At least previous editors have made attempts to gather together a fair sample of the currently accessible information.

Your point about the "weight" of the citations is well taken, but again, I would suggest erring on the side of those people who have obviously tried to sort out this page, and give them the benefit of the doubt, in the hope that removing the dispute tag would encourage renewed interest in expanding the article.

Radiotrib 21:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

---

If nobody is in violent disagreement I propose removing the disputed tag on Monday, 16th April. Radiotrib 05:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a neutral point of view

I consider myself a fairly neutral observer (I don't practice Pilates but a friend of a friend was just telling me about it, so I thought I'd do some research on wikipedia).

I don't know if there is cause for an accuracy dispute or not. But the language does not appear to speak from a neutral point of view (NPOV). Even if the accuracy dispute is removed (and I'm not sure it should be), I would strongly suggest that an NPOV dispute is added. I believe this is evident in the first paragraph:

"The program focuses on the core postural muscles that help keep the body balanced and are essential to providing support for the spine. In particular, Pilates exercises teach awareness of breath and alignment of the spine, and strengthen the deep torso muscles, which are important to help alleviate and prevent back pain."

This sentence is a mixture of claims and statements, with no supporting evidence for either. I would rather see something such as:

"The Pilates method is based on the idea that there is a core set of postural muscles that help to keep the body balanced and are essential to providing good support to the spine. [reference to text on Pilates]. Pilates texts advocate a set of exercises which are claimed to give the practitioners awareness of breathing, awareness and the alignment of their spine, and strengthening of the deep torso muscles [references where these claims are made]. A central thesis of Pilates is that a program of such exercises is important to help alleviate and prevent back pain [another Pilates reference]"

Of course it would be great if there are some peer-review research papers relating to these topics. I would like to see a mixture of the following, and the article should clearly distinguish between them: 1. claims made solely by inventors/advocates of Pilates 2. supporting evidence for Pilates techniques from other peer-reviewed physiology studies (independent of Pilates) 3. evidence against Pilates techniques from other peer-reviewed physiology studies (independent of Pilates) 4. peer-reviewed studies relating specifically to Pilates

Please understand I'm neither for nor against the method - I just like to see balanced articles on wikipedia. Thanks.

Bob42 16:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thickens the waist through extension

As great as pilates may be there is little doubt that those who practice it regularly have waists and hips that square off. Mari Winsor, Madonna, Jennifer Aniston, Joan Breibart of Physical Mind and Pilates himself have virtually no discernible waist to hip ratios. As a certified instructor I believe this is because most of pilates is taught from moving in a linear forward fashion. Out of the basic 27 classic exercises, only The Saw tones the obliques without building them. Sideplank does use the obliques mainly to stabilize such a powerful movement. It's my belief that even if this squared off look is on a toned body, it's not healthy in the long run because if the client gains weight or gets pregnant all the weight will center around the waist creating an "apple body."

this makes no sense

No it doesn't, and would the pair of you cite your sources, and sign your comments.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 23:27, 11 March 2007

(UTC)

Sense is in the eyes of anyone who can see. Read what I wrote and than looks at most of the women who over do pilates (it was originally only supposed to done TWICE weekly only) and tell me you don't see it. A waist to hip ratio denotes health a square flat torso is not only unattractive but potentially unhealthy. Catherine Huebscher

Yes, but not 'everyone that can see' can add their personal thoughts to wikipedia. You have to have a source, ie, you have to have not come up with it yourself. An attribution/citation/source. It's all the same, and it's got to be from a reliable, stable, scientifically valid source. Not you, your Mother, her Mother. Just those with PhD's who have written articles/copy in published, peer reviewed form. Now, have you got that? No? Conversation over.--88.105.67.54 23:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Conversation isn't over you fool. Women who practice this regularly like Madonna or Mari Winsor are VERY square torsed. "Just those with PhD's who have written articles/copy in published, peer reviewed form" Oh please you are o full of it! There is such little clear data on pilates that is not coming from marketing hype as it is. I'm a certified instructor, are you? Catherine Huebscher

Might I remind both the above contributors that personal insults and the arguments which derive from them, add nothing to the content of the article and discussion, and leave people open to complaints under Wikipedia guidelines. Please keep it impersonal if you can. As for sources, yes, if a statement of fact cannot be supported by a citation, it is nothing more than an opinion. However, citations do not have to be as restrictive as suggested above. Peer-reviewed, learned papers may be one of the best sources, but not the only ones by a long way. Radiotrib 13:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy and NPOV

Thanks for that insight. I am in much the same position as you re. knowledge, but, being married to a qualified instructor, I am aware of the difficulty faced by anyone who tries to research the original teachings. JP himself only produced 2 books, neither of which are in openly accessible electronic form (AFAIK), so citations would need to be of the old, bibliographic style. He was also quite prone to changing his techniques on the fly to suit the needs of a client,.

This leads up to the fact that supportive citations are difficult to find, and equally difficult to follow up, for anyone who doesn't have an extensive library of Pilates information. I guess that's why I stirred the pot. I would like to see someone with the information at hand, making either contributions in support of, or corrections to the inaccuracies in, the content of the article. It is thin at present, and certainly could do with more work, given the popularity which is being enjoyed by the various forms, interpretations and modernisations of Pilates' original teachings right now.

I think that removing the tag might help to re-enliven the discussion. It seems to have started at least. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Radiotrib (talk • contribs) 07:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Removing the tag won't help discussion. Removing the tag will make everyone ignore the state of the article and make it much worse. "so citations would need to be of the old, bibliographic style." Yep. That's the only option. Welcome to the world of university. Even if you aren't at university. It's this, all day long. You don't just write an article, you actually cite it with the books you got the information from. Now I know what you're thinking - Encarta doesn't do it. Well, Encarta can't be edited by complete strangers.--88.105.67.54 23:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel that some of your comments smack of unnecessary sarcasm. I don't know if that was the intention, but there does appear to be a little hostility in your tone. If not, then I feel it necessary to explain myself. I'm a little too old to still be at university. I do, however, work with people who routinely publish learned articles so I do know what you are talking about, and that was why I posted the above. It was to try to encourage those people who do know the subject to get out their books and cite ... I hope I make myself a little clearer this time. I don't really have an interest in promoting or protecting this article Radiotrib 16:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I just saw this article today for the first time, and I hate "jumping into the fray" in the middle of a debate, but in this case, I think I have a positive suggestion to make. Perhaps the accuracy dispute tag should be replaced with an "improve this article" tag or something like that. I'm not sure that, from the discussion, a large accuracy dispute exists... the real problem with this article is that it is not NPOV, and it is written in a non-encyclopedic, highly self-promotional way. Really, more than anything else, this article just needs a good, encyclopedic re-write by someone (or a group of someones) who knows what they're talking about. (Unfortunately, I do not know what I'm talking about as it relates to pilates.) --Jhortman 14:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Similar Exercise Programs?

Would someone mind adding links to similar programs? Or perhaps provide some kind of categorization, or maybe some kind of comparison page? I cant believe its not wikiality 14:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow.

This page is really dirty. I suggest taking out the "you's"...this is an encyclopedia, not a narrative, and first person is not preferable. Also, maybe a more up to date picture? If I had the patience, I would tackle this myself, but maybe someone with a bit more knowledge on the subject could write an article worthy of the practice? 64.246.144.52 19:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Maytrixink

No longer "disputed"

I've switched the template from {{disputed}} to {{ad}}, as that seems far more accurate, and I've tagged several especially-egregious sections for cleanup. I also removed the ridiculous Talk page header while I was at it, and "header'ified" an old, unsigned comment. Jouster  (whisper) 23:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Famous Practitioners

I have removed this section. Quite apart from the appropriateness and value of a "celebrity endorsement" section in an encyclopaedia, none of it is cited. I had a look at the articles on some of those mentioned in the list, not one mentioned pilates. It perhaps has a place if the names on it can be cited, and the significant relevance of pilates to them established. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for pictures

I think the current photograph is too small and low resolution to be of much illustrative value. Does anyone know of any clearer photos or even drawing/illustrations we could use?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

SHOULDN'T THERE BE A TRAINING section?

How does someone become a Pilates instructor???? This was once covered here in the wiki entry and now it is gone for some reason?????

Wiki isn't a training manual. Somebody should probably look to the wikibooks site for that.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 23:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A brief description of what, if anything, is required to become an instructor would be fine, though. MrVibrating (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

External Links

A user by the name of Melinda80 removed a link I added, referring me to WP:NOT. But I see nothing wrong with the suggested link, which is among the better online sources for how to get started with Pilates, [How to get started with Pilates]. The content quality there is certainly no worse than the current two external links, which I'm underwhelmed by. So perhaps those two links should also be removed, or there needs to be a clear policy. Nonlinear149 (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Nonlinear149 has a point. The three links seem to be roughly equal in informational content. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN. It gets better. :-)

Someone - or a group of people - is/are really antsy about this Pilates page. Instead of discussing here why the suggested link is not to be included, or justifying why the current External Links are worthy of inclusion, they're removing the suggested link with the mistake (or maybe not mistakes at all...) of confusing the rules of wikipedia with the intention of wikipedia - the latter being to provide useful information above all.

Malicious Sock_puppetry: To deepen the bad faith and the childishness of being unwilling to discuss openly, someone also created an account called "Thinkpilates" (matching the domain name of the link I suggested, http://thinkpilates.com) and then proceeded to spam a bunch of pages with the suggested link. See the Feb 4 2008 actions of [actions] of the editor :Ohnoitsjamie, who had to clean it all up, unfortunately. Whoever did that is seemingly very determined to police this Pilates page by not only removing "competing" links, but also trying to "punish" others. But it's not even my domain name, so whoever you are - as the apparently rabid dog that you're showing yourself to be - you're barking up the wrong tree.

Given the above - lack of open discussion on the current quality of links, AND, malicious impersonation of others (even if the wrong others), I think the neutrality of this article, or the External Links section, should be disputed. Nonlinear149 (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggest you place a note on OhNoitsJamie's talk page directing him to this discussion. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the tip. Nonlinear149 (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up - the current two external links are spam, spam-like, and/or non-authoritative, and merit removal per Wikipedia (video) spam guidelines. The first link http://pilates.hairdownfeetup.com/ has no clear owning author or organization; its information is without references or attribution; and its videos advertise a site called pilatescenterofbend.com, which is a pilates studio in OR. The second link http://1000words.net/pilatesexercises/ is a site with pages of video spam - most if not all of the videos have an advertisement at the end for two sites, pilatesbarre.com and www.dancercentral.tv; this site also no clear owning author or organization. Given the current page content mentioning the potential for injury and need for certified/credentialed instruction, it's inappropriate that both of these sites lack attribution (authorship or organization ownership) and reader/viewer disclaimers. Nonlinear149 (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding suspected attempts to have thinkpilates blacklisted; don't sweat it. Just keep an eye on the blacklist board, and if it comes up there, provide the evidence suggesting a "Joe job". Regarding the external links section; there's no policy stating that a topic has to have external links, especially a topic like Pilates where a Google search yields thousands of hits. To avoid controversey, I'd lean toward a mainstream source, maybe an About.com topic page, or maybe a "resource" site without advertising. I didn't see any advertising (other than "donate") on the thinkpilates page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand the controversy as, with respect, it appears that much of the attacks are misdirected and claims overstated. To borrow the phrase by my fellow poster above - 'don't sweat it'; my understanding is that Wikipedia is everyone's and nobody's. The only hopeful solution I offer is that the resources are reinserted in order of appearance. Should my attempt fail, please note that I refuse to be drawn further into any disputes initiated by an unknown, which I submit has already taken much of our valuable time. For the record, the comments referring directly or indirectly to my resource is of no concern to me as everyone is entitled to declare their opinion. I should also be grateful if I do not receive any more emails on this issue as one brief scan through today's newspaper should raise several more important issues to consider. Regards, 1000words (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC).

The controversy is/was four-fold: 1) There was no clear standard for what external links should be included in said section of the article page; 2) Several parties were aggressively removing a suggested link of comparable quality to the two links then extant, and resorting to malicious Sock_puppetry and Joe_job to get that link banned and the domain blacklisted, while leaving alone the two links then extant; 3) The previously extant two links violated quality guidelines for external links; 4) There is now a clear conflict of interest, as your (1000words) message above demonstrates. Additionally, while offering a "solution" may be laudable, it's certainly curious that 1000words mentions he/she has spent time on this issue and gotten emails (from whom?), when said user had not taken any actions on the page or left any messages here - until after I removed the two extant, spammy links mentioned above, one of which, seemingly, belongs to 1000words, http://1000words.net/pilatesexercises/. Regardless, I agree with removing all external links is the best course of action to take, as others have suggested and done. Nonlinear149 (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL and WP:NOT does not imply that some external links are necessary for appearances or completeness. Having an external links section is unnecessary, since (non-reference) links don't really have anything to do with having a quality encyclopedia. Wikipedia is also not a Google replacement: we are not obligated to send readers on to sources of expanded understanding.--Paleorthid (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect figures?

The figure at the beginning of the article, regarding the number of instructors in the US can't possibly be true - 8 million? That would mean that 1 in every 38 people in the country is a Pilates instructor. I know its popular, but still... R0bd (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Self-contradictory

In an early paragraph, the article says it was developed for injured soldiers. Later, the article says it was first developed for injured dancers. Am I missing some-thing here? Kdammers 02:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Pilates was not developed for injured people only. it was used with injured soldiers and for injured dancers, but many of Joe's clients were not injured. he made up exercises as he went along, as well as developed his equipment, over many years. you can say the method was always a work in progress.

Joseph Pilates developed his method for physical conditioning and when he was interned during the first world war in England he started to develop some equipment ideas that eventually turned into the Reformer and Cadillac apparatus. He was first brought to the US in 1926 by a boxing promoter. His original studio on 8th ave. in the 50's was close to the old Madison Square Garden. It was not until the late 1930's that the dance world discovered Joe Pilates and his method. The bulk of Joe's clients were average people that wanted a good workout. Just as today most pilates students are not injured dancers or athletes but regular people looking for a great workout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.164.117 (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

I've only done a small about of work on this, Pilates was invented by Joseph Pilates in 1917. He opened the first pilates studio in New York right after WW1. He published the first book on it in or around 1945. I quick Google search for Maria Pilates shows that she is an instructor who has been teaching the pilates method since 1989 - not the inventor of Pilates... But i'm willing to be proven wrong! ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyakugei (talk • contribs) 11:24, 28 February 2004

There is no one date when Pilates was invented. Pilates developed his system over many years and certainly started before 1917. He moved to the USA in the mid 1920s and opened a studio well before WW2. Sleeping Turtle

OK what's with the Yoga picture that says it's a Pilates Class at the GYM?????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.164.117 (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What Was Going On Here?

I'm a fully certified Pilates instructor and I was shocked at how limited and promotional the article was. There were no references and no citations!! I just did a major clean up and took out the expressions like "..because our bodies should move." Physical Mind and other methods have made so many additions to Joesph Pilates' original ideals that it's advisable that said institutions start their own page where their own refinements of the method (eg: fundamentals, head floats, pelvic floor, standing pilates, ball rolling) can be covered. To the Wiki talk please install anti-vandal html! Thanks Catherine Huebscher 23 January 2007

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Catherine Huebscher (talk • contribs) 07:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

There is no "Maria Pilates". There's Maria Winsor and Maria Leone, both (famous) teachers of pilates, but neither one has ever claimed to invent pilates.

If this cheers you up, I too was amazed at the fact that there were no links. I took the time to add four (links). I hope they do not get deleted.

My teacher takes pilates and explained to us some things about pilates. I understand that some things in this article isn't too "correct", shall we say.Chimchar monferno (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Should this page say something about the pronunciation of the name, Pilates? It looks so much like "pirates" that someone encountering the term for the first time is likely to say it wrong.

Most people give it a lazy pronunciation, "puh-lah-teez" .. these are the same people that say karaoke as kerry-oki. Being that it's Greek, I'm sure Pilates is phonetic and sounds more like pee lattés... which is probably not a good beverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Reads like a promotional article

Scanning this briefly it reads like ad copy from a brochure for a pilates studio. Surely there must be some criticism or at least a counter-point view of the exercise system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.93.133 (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this article just doesnt make sense, its full of extraordinary claims, without any criticism, without good sources, and those claims are presented as facts. i edited some parts of the article to expose this. i know that by doing this im putting my own views into the article, but so far the article only consists of the biased views of some pilate-followers, and if they dont give sources and/or evidence to back up their claims then i can add my own claims that are unsourced and not backed up by evidence. this way, the article at least contains both sides of the discussion. Kurtilein (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms section

I've added a "criticisms" section to this article. I am not actually in sympathy with many of the criticisms nor do I find most of those that I find on point to be of great importance; but this article has been very one-sided in the past. Hopefully this will balance the article better, but I'd really like to see a different result come of it. This article could be greatly improved if someone with a good knowledge of Pilates as it is currently practiced would write a detailed explanation of what Pilates actually is. The basics are here, but they seem awfully brief for such a significant social topic. --Jeff Medkeff | Talk 18:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Your "criticisms" paragraph has no place here. It’s amazing to me that so many people who have no idea what Pilates is have so much "criticisms" to add. No other form of exercise gets "criticisms" on its page. It is completely out of place and in many parts completely false! "Critics allege that Pilates deliberately associated his New York studio with dancers for marketing reasons" You have no clue what Pilates is, or what kind of person he was. Talk about biases! Pilates was a man of a certain generation. He and his contemporaries exchanged ideas and helped each other develop. He based many of his exercise on yoga. This is not a secret. He did not care if you think he was original or not. He wanted you (the world) to move! your whole paragraph is concerned with the MARKETING of Pilates today not to be confused with the Pilates Method!!

First off: I wholeheartedly believe that too much attention is paid by Wikipedia to patently nonsensical opinions on a variety of topics for fear of being POV. I am therefore sure that the criticism section of this article can be weeded out somewhat (although i do not have the information neccessary to do so). However, even with my limited knowledge of the system I do recall many reputable sources/personas criticising the system on several points. Therefore it is most justifiable to have a criticism section in the article. If you have solid knowledge of the matter....why not expande on the cirticisms (which are a fact, however true they are or are not) and possibly debunk them with FACTS in the main article body. Chelman 21:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Jeff or anyone is welcome to create a page offering critics of different exercises. It has no room as a paragraph on the page of this method. Jeff’s problem with the MARKETIN of Pilates is his problem, and he can create a separate page talking about how marketers hype stuff up ( remember TyBo?) . Find articles and link to them, great. We have one already, find more if you must, but first, know what you are talking about!! this paragraph has NO room here.

WHY? Just answer the following question: Have there been occurences of Pilates criticism in the respectabole media and the sports community? If the answer is YES (which it is), then the section most definately has a place in this article. It is up to you (being knowledgable in the matter) to state that: 'Criticism X states A, B and C. The facts, however would imply that this is not correct because of D, E and F.' Just removing the information because you THINK it's wrong simply won't fly. Chelman 22:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Just posting this nonsense without a shred of evidence or relevance is what should not fly! All this has to do with your problem with the MARKETING. By the way, Pilates himself NEVER "profited enormously " he died in 1967, and his method was known to only a few people. Many of these accretions are just tall tales that are Ridiculous! hilikp

You obviously are a devoted follower of the method. I have pasted the criticism section below so as we can discuss all of the points separately without resorting to a laughable revert war. Please provide your comments on any or all of the points below as they were previously introduced by Jeff. Chelman 22:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms

Critics have advanced a number of criticisms of Pilates and his methods:

• Pilates largely avoids movements that result in high impact, high power output, and heavy muscular and skeletal loading. Critics allege, citing principles of exercise physiology, that this could result in significantly suppressed skeletal and muscular strength compared to other strength training techniques. Critics say this could be dangerous to certain persons, and less beneficial than alternative exercise routines to others. Critics cite persons who have, or who have risk factors for, conditions such as osteogenesis imperfecta, Osteomalacia, osteoporosis, Paget's disease, and others.
• Despite the origin of Pilates' methods in rehabilitation, they do not conform well to current physical therapeutic knowledge and doctrine. Nevertheless, Pilates is often marketed as a rehabilitation technique. Critics say this marketing is deceptive.
• Critics say research purporting to show the superiority of Pilates has been procedurally flawed. For example:
  • Critics say a study purporting to show the superiority of Pilates methods using the "reformer" machine compared to non-Pilates methods using the same equipment was flawed by the study using different strength springs in the "reformer" when the subjects practicing Pilates were using it.
  • Critics note that research purporting to show the superiority of springs over weights, due to the variable resistance of springs, is flawed because Newton's laws of motion show that accelerating a weight through its course of motion results in variable resistance, even though the mass doesn't change.
  • A Pilates research paper notes that the force-distance curve for weights is rectangular (with vertical sides, and a flat plateau), while the force-distance curve for the "reformer" springs is triangular (gradually increasing force to a peak, followed by gradually decreasing force). Critics note that if this were true an infinite amount of energy would be required to move free weights; this force, if successfully applied, would immediately kill all users of weights and destroy the earth, which has not been observed.
• Critics note that no evidence has been found to support the assertion of some Pilates advocates that Pilates results in longer, leaner muscle distinctive to Pilates.
• Some Pilates advocates allege that strength training results in hypertrophic muscles, which Pilates avoids. Critics point out that hypertrophy is not the end result of most strength training.
• Critics say that Joseph Pilates' emphasis on a smaller number of repetitions of precisely controlled movements requiring strength and coordination reflects principles previously advanced by Eugene Sandow and Vladislav Krayevsky, among others, and therefore is not as original as claimed.
• Critics point out that claims that Pilates can make a person taller are refuted by measurements of Pilates practitioners.
• While acknowledging that Pilates' claims to make people leaner are true, critics point out that Pilates is an average performer in this respect compared to other forms of strength and balance training.
• Several pieces of equipment said to be distinctive to the Pilates Method appear to consist of slightly modified versions of common exercise equipment, especially gymnastics equipment:
  • The "high chair" is similar to the pommel;
  • The "reformer" appears to be a modified rowing trainer;
  • The "pedipull" appears to be a modified pulley machine;
  • The "Cadillac" appears to be derived from gymnasts' parallel and horizontal bars;
  • The "low chair" is a staking pommel;
  • The "spine corrector barrel" is a low level pommel horse.
• Critics allege that Pilates deliberately associated his New York studio with dancers for marketing reasons, and profited enormously from the association of Martha Graham and George Balanchine with his methods, rather than the reverse.
• Modern Pilates instructors include exercises that Joseph Pilates abhorred into their Pilates routines. Critics charge that this decreases the authenticity of Pilates and suggest that the term Pilates is being used deceptively for marketing advantage. Meanwhile, critics also acknowledge that a more diverse routine than what Joseph Pilates promoted is likely to be better for health.

you have been critiquing the Marketing. Just because a person in LA or Florida or NY claims this or that, does not alter the method itself. Everything has a criticism. Yoga, knitting, bread making fashion, cars, politics, art etc etc etc. this page is a description of the method, not how to market it, this is why there are no commercial links. Yoga , baseball etc don't get this need for criticism. What is your problem with Pilates??? As I said, you want to critique exercise methods? Start a page titled "criticism of exercise methods" Find supporting material. Rumors have no room here. I wish you read what i had to say, and read a bit about Pilates the man, and try it.

The biggest problem I see with the criticisms section is that the criticisms aren't sourced to a specific critic or group of critics. If we can get citations of who said what, when they said it and where they said it (magazine, book, interview, etc.), then we should list it in the article without passing judgment, rather we can say they are "notable criticisms" or something like that. As mentioned above, every method has its critics, but we should also be able to say who they are... --Fire Star 20:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

" the criticisms" here is with the marketing of the method. It has very little to do with the method itself. the criticisms reads almost like a personal vendetta. Rumors and completely and utterly wrong info is dished out, as if it was fact. Opinions are NOT facts. Studies with proven results are. If Jeff has a personal problem with Pilates (??) it should not be allowed here. --hilikp

I've tagged the article NPOV due to the wholesale deletion of the criticisms section. As I said above, I am not actually in sympathy with most critics of the Pilates method. However, the criticisms I posted are matters of fact - people actually do criticise the Pilates Method in the ways I summarized. Hilikp's attempts to brand me an extremist Pilates-hater who criticises only the marketing of the method aside, several of the criticisms involve possible adverse affects of Pilates on certain persons' health, and some of the criticisms involve certain physical impossibilities attributed to the Pilates method.

The question of how much controversy to discuss in an article about a discipline that has been widely criticised is a separate matter than whether to discuss controversy at all. If the Pilates Method had been criticised by people in the world at large - and it has, extensively enough to make Pilates very controversial in some communities - then an encyclopedia article needs to document that fact. Vandalism motivated by a desire to keep the article entirely free of Pilates criticism ("Your criticisms paragraph has no place here," sayds hilikp) is not legitimate; paring down or altering the criticisms would be. I'm willing to work with the people who are historically associated with this article, but NPOV is going to dog you until the controversy is discussed. --User:Jeffmedkeff | Talk 18:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Firestar says: the criticisms aren't sourced to a specific critic or group of critics. Thanks for pointing this out; failing to source my material was an oversight. My two main sources of immediate information on Pilates controversy are: this article by Dr. Mel Siff, another article by Dr. Mel Siff, and The Pilates Method Alliance. Siff is (was) what I would call a "leading" Pilates critic and who advocates specific types of strength training as a way to make Pilates more healthy or less futile; he's all over Google with this message. The Pilates Method Alliance documents numerous criticisms of the Pilates method on their pages, and provides responses to many. Some of the responses are along the lines of "this problem is the sort of thing the PMA is meant to address," while others are not; it is important to note that the PMA itself was founded for the purpose of responding to some of the criticisms of the method and its practitioners that I included. Finally, if you put "Pilates" through a media search, like at Google News, you will see many articles criticising Pilates for one thing or another. One of the first-page hits on Google News right now is an Akron Beacon Journal article that criticises Pilates for not being effective cardiovascular exercise, for example; though I didn't include that because it isn't really to the point. The point is, there's plenty of Pilates controversy in the media and it is easily sourced. I'm sorry for neglecting to source the material I added. --User:Jeffmedkeff | Talk 18:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that one of the pages I cited by Mel Siff is linked to in the "External Links" section of the article, and was there before I added my criticisms section. I'm surprised the link hasn't been removed along with the criticisms. In any case, it is obvious that the people who have been working on this article for some time have been aware of the controversy surrounding the article's subject. --User:Jeffmedkeff | Talk 19:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Pilates, like ANY OTHER EXERCISE METHOD, is not necessarily for everybody. One should always check with one's doctor before staring ANY exercise method. People can spasm their back while sneezing. " a discipline that has been widely criticised " " Critics allege, " Who, where, how often, what are their credentials? " people actually do criticise the Pilates Method in the ways I summarized." Who, where, how often, what are their credentials? You have not provided one single reference.

The fact that Pilates was influenced by yoga and his contemporaries is already mentioned and does not take away from his method. Does the fact that Picasso and George Georges Braque influenced each others work at a certain time makes the paintings less amazing? The Pilates equipment is unique and not "slightly modified versions" of gymnastics' equipment, check out some websites [1] [ http://www.peakpilates.com/store/cat_equipment.cfm] the original Cadillac had only one side of poles and no top. It was a bed with poles. Some of Pilates equipment came before the stuff you compare it to (the reformer.)

" Despite the origin of Pilates' methods in rehabilitation, they do not conform well to current physical therapeutic knowledge and doctrine." Who, where, when, how often, etc. Pilates and the rehabilitation process

And the list goes on and on. As far as I know, the proof should be with the person criticizing. We already have the "skeptical view" link! as you have just noticed.

and Pilates is not ment to be cardiovascular, like yoga is not.

Sure, some Pilates practitioners market their studios with wild claims, but that is the case with ANY industry. You want to put a note in Preserving Pilates Principles saying that " some Pilates practitioners market their studios with wild claims etc.............. and that it does not help the rest of us- (the public OR the other Pilates practitioners)- if you feel you must. User:hilikp |

This non-existent user (hilikp), who says of me "You have not provided one single reference," needs to re-read my response to Firestar where I provided references. Those references indicate the qualifications of the critics cited, and a Google news search will give some idea of the extent of controversy amongst the general public. The controversy over Piliates in the exercise and medical industries is apparently somewhat more widespread (note that I cite a physician, a biomechanic, and a Pilates instructors' professional organization).

As to Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso, the fact that they influenced each other is notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia articles on Braque and Picasso. So it would seem entirely appropriate to mention the influence of gymnastics and other training on the origin of the Pilates methods, whether as a criticism or otherwise. Maybe that information could be taken out of a section devoted to "criticisms" and folded into the main article as an indication that Joseph Pilates was "influenced by" or "apparently influenced by" gymnastics and rowing trainers, given the close similarities between the equipment he advocated and the equipment used in these disciplines. Nothing wrong with assimilating that information in a way differently than I presented it. But reverting it out of an article as though it is entirely spurious is just vandalism.

As to the "resarch" paper that hilikp cites, it reads: "Today ... there is still a lack of supportive literature examining the phenomena associated with Pilates-based techniques within the field of rehabilitation." A lack of supportive literature indicates the absence of supportive literature for Pilates in rehab, which would seem to support one of the criticisms that I introduced. The reference to Pilates-based techniques seems to indicate that rehabilitators are not using the Pilates method, but something different that was derived in part from the Pilates method (further reading of the paper bears that out). That would seem to support the notion that the Pilates Method does not conform well to current physical therapy doctrine and methods; otherwise, why did they have to change the Pilates method for use in rehab? And this is just from the first page of the paper. Of the 21 citations the paper makes, 20 are to descriptions of non-Pilates physical therapy techniques, and one is to a self-identified "extensive" modification of Pilates methods. None are citations to publications of Joseph Pilates or of Pilates method instructors.

hilikp claims that the reformer predates the rowing trainer, but cites no sources. My sources cite patents in mid 19th century Germany that refute this assertion.

Regardless of whether Pilates equipment constitutes slightly modified or unmodified versions of preexisting gear or not, I have shown that critics say that they do. That said, I've looked at the web page hilikp provides, and I don't consider the Pilates gear shown to be all that unique-looking from either a contemporary or historical perspective.

The fact that the first page of a Google News search returns at least one article critical of Pilates was the point of my bringing up the Akron Beacon Journal article. I did not include this frequently-heard criticism in the article, because I did not find the criticism to be relevant from the point of view of the intent of the Pilates method. hilikp is just taking a cheap shot here.

Finally, hilikp also says: "You want to put a note in Preserving Pilates Principles saying that some Pilates practitioners market their studios with wild claims etc." This is incorrect; that is not what I want to do. I want the article to acknowledge the fact that Pilates is controversial and has been subject to criticism. I'm not concerned how the article goes about noting this; I don't care if my section is pared down to 200 words, I don't care if the material included is integrated into the rest of the article, and I don't care if people edit it into an unrecognisable state. However, its wholesale deletion is inappropriate, because these criticisms are a matter of fact - by which I mean people do in fact criticise Pilates in the ways described - and such criticisms are widespread enough that Pilates as a controversial practice is fairly well known of in certain communities. Until the article aknowledges this in some substantive way, it is NPOV as far as I am concerned. --User:Jeffmedkeff | Talk 21:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

There is room in the article for sourced criticisms. We aren't reporting that they are irrefutably true, we would only be reporting that so-and-so said this or that, and let the readers research the sources further if they want to. In the qigong-related articles we even have sections for criticism of qigong and controversies within qigong, since it is as contentious as anything else. It isn't a recommendation or condemnation of a practise to have a section devoted to the notable opinions, pro and con, of others regarding the method. I think the criticisms section should stay in the article since they have been sourced by User:Jeffmedkeff. --Fire Star 18:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

This non-existent user (hilikp) me, (what is this about, "non-existent"?) finds Jeff's remarks and desperate need to criticize curious since he writes: "I am not actually in sympathy with many of the criticisms nor do I find those that I find compelling to be terribly important" what is your problem with Pilates?? why do you keep this up? You reference 3 articles, 2 of them already listed, no need to repeat, and one that is not to the point. (will you criticize an apple for not being an orange? ) For you it is war, (your own words) and you seam to want to win so badly, you go fishing. Desperately seeking something. We'll all lose if you keep this up. I looked a the qigong article, and there is a small section mentioning it, but your section reads like a personal vendetta, and is at best referencing old news and at worst simply wrong and misleading.

You reference 3 articles, 2 of them already listed, no need to repeat, and one that is not to the point. - Two things here:

1) "Listed" and "reference" mean different things. Please note that there are currently no sources cited or references listed in the entire Pilates article. I've provided a few citations for the criticisms of Pilates that I've compiled (let's also cite the paper hilipj brought up in the talk above); previous authors have provided no citations of any kind whatsoever. Someone is seeking to impose a double standard here - I provide citations, others do not, but the uncited material belongs while cited material "has no place" in the article. (See my talk page for that quote.)

2) Of the external links, the fact that two of them are among my sources seems to indicate that the links were mined for only that information felt to be acceptable by some previous author of the article. If the external links constitute sources, let's be sure the article provides a balanced view of what those sources actually say.

what is your problem with Pilates?? why do you keep this up? - I am a practitioner of Pilates, as is my wife. Far from having a problem with Pilates, I enjoy Pilates and have benefited from it. And I'm not keeping anything up in the way you suggest - I'm just discussing the need for the Pilates article to be more balanced. Others are trying to win through revert wars and the tactics of abusing and disparaging Pilates critics, and attributing motives to them that they don't have. The latter are not behaving honorably.

The Pilates article has had the reputation of being one-sided for some time now. Just read the previous talk, which asked whether the article was NPOV, well prior to my involvement with the article.

The reason that I am insistent about including a broader spectrum of information on Pilates is that this article does not reflect well upon Wikipedia at this time. Although I use Pilates, I recognise that there are contraindications - some people shouldn't be doing it for health reasons, and that Pilates is not well-designed for achieving certain fitness goals. I recognise that Pilates has a historical derivation, that Joseph Pilates didn't invent his equipment uninfluenced by what came before. I recognise that if maximum strength is the goal, other forms of training are more effective than Pilates at achieving it. And I recognise that Pilates claims of lengthening muscles and so forth is antiscientific hype. I recognise all these things despite knowing and enjoying Pilates for what it is. But by not acknowleding these things - or at least not acknowleding that these things are widely believed and the source of controversy - the Pilates article advances a strongly biased viewpoint. That is not what Wikipedia is about. As a Pilates practitioner, who knows that Pilates is beneficial but is perfectly well aware that Pilates has accumulated a cruft of mythology and faddish factoids over the years, I'm ashamed that Wikipedia can't do better than this.

That is why this article needs to incorporate material critical of Pilates. --User:Jeffmedkeff | Talk 23:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

As there has been no rebut to the above for 12 days or so, I have extensively rewritten and shortened the criticisms section, included the new version as a new section in the article, and provided sources. This satisfies my NPOV concerns. If the article is not reverted or significant information from the new section removed, I'll remove the POV template. If others working this article believe that reversion or removal hasn't happened or won't happen, I won't object to their removing it. --Jeff Medkeff | Talk 20:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the POV template. --Jeff Medkeff | Talk 17:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I just wanted to put a note in. There are a few things in criticisms that don't seem right. While Pilates won't increase your actual size, stretching your spine (yoga does this too) does make you stand taller. Also, I'm fairly into working out, and I get really good core results with Pilates exercises. I'm in no way completely satisfied with the system, but it works. I think the only thing better than an intense Pilates routine for core is squats and deadlifts, and unfortunately, so many people are obese these days that its better not to do squats and deadlifts until they reach a point in their workouts that they often never reach.

This is not to say that Pilates is perfect, and Gymnastics and Yoga are an obvious influence. However, the advantage of a Pilates workout over a ya-ya yoga class (and this isn't true with a far above average yoga instructor) is that you learn to isolate and control your muscles, and that increases its safety as well as its effectiveness. I think the criticisms section is short-sighted. I'm not from New York Pilates Studio and I don't pay $75 an hour to do Pilates, but when that little dancer with the musculature better than a model comes into my class at the Y 45 minutes late, everybody sit up and pays attention. And then the ladies laugh when I fall over because my core has been worked to exhaustion. Try it at home where your basketball buddies can't see you.

Tim.

69.223.51.253

I note that the criticism section seems to have been removed mid-August, seemingly without explanation. Can the explanation be provided here? Britomart 18:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am with Jeffmedkeff. I want criticism to be added/left to the article. --87.8.48.73 20:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a big debate about the criticisms section a few years ago, but nothing seems to have been resolved. The article is of fairly low quality and one-sided. If pilates advocates make claims (and it seems like they do) then sourced criticisms of those claims should be included. I am not interested enough to do this myself, I just came onto this page to find some more information about it and found a quite poor article. Stanlavisbad (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Pilates and Rehab

removed the pilates and rehab links because the page they referred to was taken down and now they simply link to Polestar's main page...

New entry?

I'm a newbie here, wondering what the wikipedia community thinks of an entry for Stott Pilates. (Disclosure: I am employed by Stott Pilates.) I see there has already been lots of debate for the topic of Pilates in general so not sure about an entry for a specific player - though there is lots of information in the public domain about the company, probably enough to make it notable. Thoughts? Given my ties to the company I didn't want to post an article myself but have drafted/attempted to start one and posted it on my user page, if someone wanted to run with it. How can I help? --Kalliope1 (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI all, article is at Stott Pilates -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's list the certifying organizations

I think it is generally recognized that the process of teacher certification includes at least 100 hours of observation (of a certified instructor) and 100 hours of practice teaching under the supervision of a certified instructor. (This automatically excludes the weekend quickies) So let's include those organizations and the name of the student of Joe P. associated with that organization. In some cases, the "Pilates Elder" might not have been affiliated with a certifying organization but with an academic program, so use of "certified" is actually a bit hazy, and a good reason for the PMA approach. Nevertheless, there are many practitioners with a wealth of experience who realistically should have been grandfathered into the PMA on the basis of a previously existing credential or teaching lineage. Mccainre (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oops, without having read the talk page, I dropped in pointers to PMA and Pilates Foundation UK. Hope that's OK. Tim Bray (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The word "equipment" is incorrect

Joseph Pilates rarely ever used the word “equipment” and preferred the word “apparatus”. In every major publication, from Joseph’s own Pilates' Return to Life Through Contrology to the contemporary pilates authorities like Peter Fiasca and his book Discovering Pure Classical Pilates and Brooke Siler's The Pilates Body, all refer to it as "apparatus". To say “equipment” in the pilates world shows that you either don’t know what you are talking about or are trying to sell knock-off Pilates stuff. I would suggest that the word "equipment" be replaced with the word "appratus" throughout the entry. Edgartirado (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change.Edgartirado (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

USE THIS PICTURE INSTEAD

This is a much better picture illustrating what pilates actually is. Put this in the article with the caption "An example of a pilates exercise called the The Crab".

its on this page

http://www.easyvigour.net.nz/pilates/h_pilates31.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.153.120 (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy. Basically, you have to upload the image to Wikipedia in order for it to be used here. However, you also have to own the rights to the image. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

pilates principles

proper alignment, centering, concentration, control, precision, breathing, and flowing movement are the pilates principles. they are key to the method.they are not just a style ot spech.Hilikp 21:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a few neutral lines explaining how each one of them fit Pilates' context? That would be interesting. Cheers,Fire Star 21:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

how does one start a new page? lets say- we make the Pilates Principles a link, make a page titeld the Pilates Principles and we have a bit on each one? Hilikp 22:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

To start a new article page, type the title you'd like in the search box on the left. If the page doesn't already exists, you will get a page telling you that, and asking if you would like to start a new article with that title. Click on that link and there you go. Sometimes the new titling creates problems with capitalisation, so you have to be especially careful to get the caps in the title right first time. Also, these links should help:

• • The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
  • How to edit a page
  • Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
  • Picture tutorial
  • How to write a great article
  • Naming conventions
  • Manual of Style

Regards, Fire Star 22:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

These principles first appear in print in The Pilates Method of Physical and Mental Conditioning, originally published in 1980 by P Friedman and G Eisen. They have been generally accepted in the community as they are correct, but they were not dicated by Pilates himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleeping Turtle (talk • contribs) 11:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This article does need more information, some pics - and possibly to be rewritten

- The NPOV seems to be disputed, I am not sure for which of all versions this holds.

- My main concern though is that the article simply does not contain enough information to explain what this method is. I am just a computer geek, and curiosity led me here. After reading this article, I am not sure what pilates is. Is it just some alternative philosophy that some people use when they go to gym? If I go to a stadium and start running "focusing on the core postural muscles which help keep the body balanced and which are essential to providing support for the spine", would that constitute pilates? The talk page seems to be a bit more informative, but what it generally would lead me to believe is I still don't know what constitutes this method.

-As pointed out, there is no serious criticism or precautions section. There is no section highlighting the advantages of the method or in any case pointing to studies about its effectiveness. Nowadays one can find precaution for almost everything, so it would be strange if there were no advocates and no critics for the method. It is possible that this confusion is generated by the lack of a clear definition of the method.

-The quality of this article seems to be lacking.

-This seems to be heavily edited with material added or removed, however the process does not seem to be constructive as the end result is poor. Possibly intervention to protect the content and alter the article after some form of consensus is needed.

(ntg sf), 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have started slowly redrafting the entry. I will do it little by little and conservatively, but the article as of the start of Sept 2010 was not strong. I propose to make the history section more historical, discuss more about the apparatus, clean up the "principles" section and possibly include some basic, neutral discussion of the "traditional"/"contemporary" divide. I am doing it on my user page first. We should also get rid of some of the "myths": the "pilates was greek" thing is not true. he was a HUGE fan of the Greeks, but he was not greek, despite the fact you will read it all over the web- Sleeping TurtleSleeping Turtle (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleeping Turtle (talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 

Pilates was founded by Joseph Pilates

Joseph pilates was a great guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.7.15 (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

German-American

Some-one deleted "German-American." Why? Pilates was born in Germany and emigrated to the U.S. according to a number of sources, so it seems correct. It is also mildly relevant (this sort of info is regularly included in Wik articles).Kdammers 02:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make him "German" and not "German-American"?74.130.8.62 14:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)KR

He moved to the US, possibly making him a US citizen. In turn that would make him a German-American. Indeed living in NYC from 1933 to 1967 (34years) would imply that he would have been a permanent resident, if not a full citizen of the US. He also married an American woman (according to his wiki page), again implying one of the two and enforcing German-American. 208.102.200.250 (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

All I read in your post is "possibly", "implying this", "implying that", but not a single fact. --78.54.120.153 (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms needed and what the hell is 'tone'?

Ok, Pilates is definitely NOT the all time great exercise program it is made out to be. This article needs a criticism section, especially since Joseph Pilates made his exercises when medical knowledge was still not as fleshed out as it is today.

Also, I dislike using the word 'tone' in an encyclopedic article. Tone just refers to the visual appearance of the muscles when there is no fat on them. And people's fear of not 'bulking up' is also unfounded as I doubt most people could really bulk up even if they tried. So tone needs to be removed from the article. You cannot claim that pilates tones or strengthens muscles until you have some scientific backing for the claim, which you don't. This is not the case for bodybuilding, which has scientific and visual evidence that it increases muscle mass and causes hypertrophy. The best you could say in this article is that it is a range of exercises that are done 'with the hope/intent' of increasing flexibility and muscle mass.

Toning means to build up muscle mass (which can only be done through more rigorous exercises like sprinting or weight training) and then reducing the layer of subcutaneous fat that covers the muscles. When the fat layer is very thin, the body appears more 'toned'. Thats all it is. But it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia as it isn't a term that is clearly defined or that people really understand. And I doubt that pilates really reduces fat or causes hypertrophy of the muscles as it only uses body weight and doesn't even work the limb muscles.

" This article needs a criticism section, especially since Joseph Pilates made his exercises when medical knowledge was still not as fleshed out as it is today." So, should we go ahead and delete all articles relating weight lifting, running, swimming etc.? Because those things are waaaaay older, when medicine was equal to magic. --78.54.120.153 (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Precautions

"...Pilates in pregnancy should only be undertaken under [the] guidance of a fully trained expert."

The article contains no information to assist in identifying a 'fully trained' Pilates expert. This difficulty is highlighted in the very next section. Considering this point, wouldn't it be prudent to recommend the guidance of a doctor instead?

Also, the referenced material is no longer available at the link provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.240.51 (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The referenced material is definitely no longer available via the method it was posted, but is still available (I reckon it is the same article) here: http://www.rcm.org.uk/midwives/features/pilates-and-pregnancy Reading the content of this link, I found that a) This is not formal advice from the Royal College of Midwives, but merely an article that appeared in their magazine; b) the article says: "I am unaware of any published studies looking at the effects of Pilates on pregnancy". The spin the article puts on that is (paraphrasing) "scientific work on this is SOOO important", however the spin I'd put on it is that article just discredited itself as a source.

What's the point of this section anyway? You need to be careful with any exercise regime when pregnant, and that's pretty much common knowledge - it's not a precaution specific to Pilates. To me this smacks of marketing, trying to suggest that Pilates is a powerful technique, so you do need to be careful and take 'precautions'. Rubbish. I agree with the other comments on the talk page that this article resembles a promotional 'infomercial'. The tone is not right for a Wikipedia article and the whole thing needs re-writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.121.97 (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Scientific research

I've worked the Google on the Internet machine for scientific research into pilates. I found one article in the Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, published by Elsevier, Inc. in April 2007. The article is "An appraisal of the research literature" as stated in the title. As of 13 July 2006 when the article was submitted, the author found:

"Thirty-nine articles and abstracts were published in refereed, professional journals, of which there were only three clinical trials in healthy adults. The strengths of these three clinical trials were the (1) use of established measurements for stated outcomes and (2) documented need for research in this area. The weaknesses were (1) lack of true experimental designs, (2) small sample sizes, and (3) lack of a defined method of Pilates. There is cautious support for the effectiveness of Pilates in improving flexibility, abdominal and lumbo-pelvic stability and muscular activity, primarily due to a lack of sound research methodology surrounding each study. Utilizing a true experimental design and stating the Pilates method utilized can strengthen and improve future Pilates research in healthy adults."

I found no other verifiable sources; for example, there are no entries in the JAMA regarding research into pilates. To me this indicates original, unverifiable research on the part of the pilates industry. Shouldn't the same standards for creating Wiki entries be used to judge the veracity of the claims made by the pilates industry? Does the possibility of improved "flexibility, abdominal and lumbo-pelvic stability and muscular activity" warrant an entry especially when juxtaposed with "cautious support" due to "a lack of sound research methodology" and a "documented need for research in this area"? Emanonguy (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Do a pubmed search -- see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed. 63 results came up for "pilates". 7640 results came up for "plague". --S. Rich (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

People need to think carefully about artificially applying standards that may be helpful in other areas to something like pilates which is primarily a discipline of physical transmission. For example, demanding documentation that pilates increases flexibility before it can be included is rather stunning. ANY regular stretching will increase flexibility. Pilates includes stretching. This, and other similar articles, will NEVER get better if people pedantically edit in this way. Most high level knowledge of pilates is not written down. Verifiability is great, but this needs to be taken very seriously. Sleeping Turtle

File:Pilates at a Gym.JPG Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Pilates at a Gym.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

On the Intrinsic Problems of Providing References for an Oral-tactile Tradition

Perhaps people don’t understand the difference between the sort of standards of referencing that are possible for a topic such as history, science or philosophy and those which are appropriate for a body of knowledge which is largely transmitted through the spoken word and physical touch/practice. There has been to date (Sept 2010) little academic research on the history and "philosophy" of Pilates. Most research that exists is done within the paradigm of physiotherapy or rehab. This has a number of implications which must be taken seriously if articles like this are to reach an acceptable standard: (1) There are normally not written sources for information. Pilates was a nobody in his lifetime and much of the documentation needed is hard to find or non-existent. Therefore, for this article and others like it I propose that it is not only entirely appropriate, but essential that we be allowed to cite oral tradition (giving very clear details of the person it came from) otherwise nothing of any substance will be produced: most of our knowledge of Pilates is still in oral form, (2) Sadly, the second point is in direct tension with this: there are a lot of “myths” which are endlessly repeated with little basis in reality (eg. Pilates was Greek, Pilates was influenced by what we understand by “yoga”). These myths are often printed in popular sources and are therefore the easiest to reference. They have an endless afterlife. For example, Joe Pilates WOULD NOT have been influenced by yoga asana until very late in the process of the development of his method, if ever, as yoga asana did not become part of international yoga until the second half of the C20 (see the discussions in Elizabeth de Michelis A History of Modern Yoga: Patanjali and Western Esotericism, Continuum 2005 and Mark Singleton Yoga Body, OUP, 2010). The reference that Pilates makes to “yoga” in the short appendix Return to Life Historical Review- Historical Sketch is to the breathing practices (pranayama) rather than the body practices (asana). (3) This article needs to border on “original research” if it is to be of a high standard. This is a corollary of the previous two points. There is little decent research on Pilates, most of the knowledge is oral or archival (ie found by comparing the writings of other early C20 physical culturalists) and much of the printed and therefore "verifiable" information is wrong. I do not propose that the “original research” rule be broken for this, but if it is applied pedantically then the article cannot improve. Sleeping Turtle (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this proposed modification of Wik's rigid stance (I've had common-knowledge statements deleted and "slammed" rather than even a "cit. needed" being added in another area where there is little to no written material. This idea should be broached in a general forum.Kdammers (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Reads like a lame infomercial

This article reads like it was written by someone selling Pilates. It should be more neutrally worded and avoid "taking sides" in the framing of sentences.

I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.133.45 (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"Neutral Spine" section not neutral?

The last half of the Neutral Spine paragraph needs references, and reads more like an instructional text than reporting what pilates teaches from a neutral point of view. Notably there are several "should" statements. I removed a "we" do it this way statement, and recast an imperative mood statement with the implied "you." But this section needs more work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltezell (talk • contribs) 20:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This section does read like a "how to", and the new section at the start "the benefits of pilates" sounds like a sales pitch. I´m not sure either need appear in an encyclopaedia article. The "neutral" language would be perhaps better in a section about classical and contemporary pilates as it´s "contemporary" language. Sleeping Turtle —Preceding undated comment added 10:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

Weird intro

Honestly why didn't anyone remove that weird crackpot sentence in the intro before? "His method uses the mind to control the muscles"????? What is this?? As opposed to what? Dark magic? This "method" is called being alive, human beings use their minds and brains to move their muscles, and if someone has proof to the contrary, like instances of people moving their arms and legs using alien implants or magic, they should bring the sources..

What is astounding however is the fact that readers of this article let that utter nonsense remain there for so long... Maybe those probes didn't let them use their fingers to proceed with that removal, but I somehow did it!! Oh so much can happen when you walk in the footsteps of the great art of Pilates - I can use my brain to move my muscles now!! 89.89.92.100 (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

General Revision and Clean-Up

A first general revision has been done with the purpose of removing any content that is not directly related to the definition of Pilates as a discipline, its origins and history. Any content that has been placed to promote public or private businesses/interests, and services derived from Pilates or using the word Pilates, as well as personal polarised definitions or points of view that are not coming from renown published sourced, have been removed. Any content that breaches the purpose of this article or misleads the public will be removed and if abuses continue, Wikipedia Organisation will be contacted in order to settle the contents of this article for good, in line with verifiable historical truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.199 (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Defining the Pieces of Apparatus

This article lists a few pieces of Pilates apparatus, but not a single one of them is described or defined in any way. After reading the section titled "Method and Apparatus" I know absolutely nothing more about the apparatus than what they are named. This needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.53.110 (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

SFwebeditor vandalising Pilates page

Please editors around the world, be aware that there is someone whose web name is SFwebeditor, doing multiple and radical editing to our Pilates page. This individual is loading frequently the article with all sorts of medical terms, conditions and procedures that is totally distorting the nature of Pilates for someone who first read this article. As we all know, Pilates is a workout, NOT physiotherapy. SFwebeditor is also erasing certain historical facts regarding the knowledge of Pilates. This is unacceptable.

SFwebeditor has also modified and reverted valuable contribution from other colleagues in the field of Pilates to inflict his/her own points of view on Pilates. SFwebeditor has also included, in more than one occasion, commercial links to an organisation involved in Pilates education advertising their services (please read earlier post), a way to explicitly trying to influence and mislead the readers. This is strictly prohibited in Wikipedia by COI policies.

If you happen to see the name of this person as responsible for any further alterations to the Pilates article, please review it and if necessary, revert it and contact Wikipedia moderators immediately so they can keep track and do a follow-up.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.166.93 (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

1 Benefits of Pilates

"1 Benefits of Pilates" - So early. I don't know if there are any standards in here, but it seems unusual to me that it even comes before "History". It looks like advertisement to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.78.70 (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yoga ripoff

From whatever I heard and read and saw, this seems to be a strip-down copy of yoga with more emphasis on physical strength and less spiritual/mindbending hoopla .... I would like a sentence included there commenting on the influence of yoga on pilates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.48.118 (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a great deal of misinformation about Joseph Pilates on the internet. However, I've spent a bit of time looking into this, and my understanding is that Joseph Pilates never practiced Yoga. The people who knew him do not recall that he talked about yoga, or went to Yoga classes. His students, some of whom are still living, don't say that he mentioned yoga. It is widely known that Pilates had a great deal of contact with dancers, but no record of him meeting yoga gurus. Also, remember that Pilates grew up in Germany around the time of World War I. Historians say that there was a popular movement in Germany at the time which idolized Greek culture, and admired the physical fitness of Greeks, but yoga was essentially unknown in Germany at that time. Even when Pilates went to New York around the time of World War II, there was not a lot of Yoga going on in New York City at that time. So it is difficult to know how he would have come in contact with Yoga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.7.94 (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Yoga was "essentially unknown" in Germany at the time (not completely unknown) and "there was not a lot of Yoga going on in New York City" when Pilates went there (so some Yoga) means that it's entirely possible he could have been exposed to Yoga. Is it more likely that he was exposed to Yoga, which was in fact known in the region he was in--but simply not popular--or that he came up with his own system that's remarkably similar to Yoga all on his own, while avoiding any exposure? Unless I've been misinformed, Wikipedia takes a dim view of speculation and fuzzy logic. 98.235.202.85 (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Still completely lacking in criticism

This isn't my article--nor do I wish to adopt it--but there's not a word of criticism to be found here. Am I to believe there are no critics of Pilates? After doing a simple Google search I'm convinced that there's some definite pseudoscience in the basis of Pilates. The closest the article comes to criticism or even skepticism is near the bottom: "...if the type of Pilates used, and the Pilates professionals responsible for them, aren't mentioned and clearly identified, caution is recommended before relating them in any way to the quality or results of Mr Pilates' works and that of those continuing his work." So it's just warning people against associating new, modern ideas of Pilates with the original method. There's not even the slightest hint of skepticism about that original method in this article, and that is not befitting an encyclopedia entry. 98.235.202.85 (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A lot of the criticism of Pilates actually comes from some of the people in the contemporary pilates movement who often only "base" their work on his method. In the UK at least there is a very large acceptance of Pilates by the NHS. Sleeping Turtle (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

General Maintenance and Formatting of Article

• Usual cleansing of terms never defined or used by Joseph Pilates in his discipline.
• Usual vandalism reverted and original information input by previous editors rescued and re-instated.
• New section added for those who would like to list referenced research in Pilates.
• General improvement of formatting and lay-out of paragraphs.
• Re-arrangement of certain phrases in order to be more synthetic (full explanation in referenced links) and definitions to appear less confusing and more straightforward.
• Eradication of topics, sections and information that have no relation to Pilates whatsoever. Usually editors responsible for this additions, add linked topics to the main article (Pilates in this case) in order for them to appear listed as "important" links under the a common Google search result for the term 'Pilates', thus getting higher chances for their links to be clicked by the searcher. This malpractices have no place in Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.165.219 (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

thank you - and others - for general maintenance of the article. I did quite a lot of work 5 years ago putting in a lot of referencing, improving the structure and rigor of the article, removing the "internet myths" and partisan positioning. A little has crept back in - I tried to make a distinction between the "modern scene" (ie everyone doing pilates now as the truth is that no-one is doing it the way he did when he was alive) and the two main styles: "contemporary" and "classical". This has gone. Some of the myths have crept back in - Pilates was not Greek... (sigh), and he did not study yoga in the way that is implied. The only references that I can find in his work to yoga and "cong fu" are talking about how breathing practices are central to eastern types of physical training as well as his system. There is a little bit of a "classical fundie" flavour to some of the additions too ("which should look and feel like a workout (not a therapy)" is a c21 issue. Pilates saw his exercise as corrective to illness and weakness in the body and so would not have made this rigid distinction. It comes from "classical" partisans who want to discredit the path taken by "contemporary" teachers. There is something of a truth in it - Pilates is not physiotherapy, but it´s anachronistic) Also, what sort of clarification is needed that he was a physical culturist? To anyone who has read people like Macfadden it is quite obvious that Pilates was part of the same general cultural movement. Is now a good time to make some edits? Sleeping Turtle (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Not just a fitness programme

As is evidenced by the literature, please remember Pilates is not just claimed to be a general fitness regime, but has also been claimed to effect more specific health outcomes including: aerobic capacity in breast cancer survivors, reduction in falls in the elderly, and improvements in urinary continence. Our article reflects this, carefully. Alexbrn (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Which Content should not be posted int the Pilates Wiki Page

Please be aware that active fully qualified teachers and practitioners of the Pilates Method who regularly review the contents of the Wikipedia's Pilates page should consider the following guidelines before posting any content in order to avoid vandalisation and distortion of the purpose of the article. Please remember the Pilates article is NOT a manual for breathing, bibasal expansion, medical treatment, certifications, medical investigations, etc. Please editors, stay within the topic and stay clean over all.

The Pilates Wikipedia page exists with the purpose of providing a pluralistic view on what Pilates is. This includes its definition, its history and its creator, its principles and precautions. Non-Pilates facts should be left out such as criteria, studies, information belonging to other fields or disciplines that have nothing to do with Pilates.

As such, please refrain from adding any of the following, otherwise it may be considered vandalism and may be taken down linking this post as the reason:

01. Endorsement of any particular organisation in Pilates or the credentials they provide.

02. Medical or therapeutic expressions such as core stability or pelvic floor, since Joseph Pilates never used those scientific words to explain his method of conditioning. Please refer to his books and stay within the topic.

03. Medical references and procedures to "treat" people with Sciatica or Osteopenia, or other conditions, since Pilates is neither a medical science nor physiotherapy.

04. Medical investigations or regulations of specific countries regarding Pilates. Likewise any post that claims there is no scientific proof or very little research showing that Pilates is benefitial, since this is contentious and misleading to the reader. There are several types of Pilates in practice nowadays, and very different to one another, so it is not right to inflict certain results obtained through practicing a particular type of Pilates, onto the discipline as a whole. Further to this, it is not right to try to harness and explain Pilates using studies in medical fields nor comparing the two.

05. Anything intending to make Pilates appear as a medical science or therapy, or trying to pass medical feedback, guidance or protocols as Pilates protocols. Pilates has its own protocols which developed within the discipline itself, and claims resulted from decades of observation and practitioners own verbal and photographic testimonies, and do not look up to other disciplines or medical sciences. Pilates was born as a workout and therefore its purpose is to give a good workout to people. If this has positive impact in the health of the practitioners, it is no more than a logical consequence of staying fit in a safe way.

06. Publications regarding an organisation's certifications and services. They violate Wikipedia's COI polices regarding advertising services and products.

07. Examples of apparatuses or changes to apparatuses are not proper since would favour embedded promotion of a particular brand or business over others.

08. Removal or unjustified alteration of undeniable referenced historical material

09. Shameless advertising

10. Anything attempting to pit Pilates with other disciplines or compare them nonsensically.

11. Dubious un-sourced content — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.164.29 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 5 April 2016‎

I've reverted your removal of sourced content from this page. While I wholeheartedly agree with some of the above, I'd like to address a few of your points.

• You do not own this article, so it is inappropriate for you to declare special qualifications and right to determine what should appear on it.
• Content that you disagree with is not vandalism and cannot be treated or defined as such.
• The content you removed addresses what is commonly known as Pilates. Your argument for removing it because it is unrelated to real Pilates is akin to a a logical fallacy.
• Could you please explain here what you believe is specifically wrong with the content you removed, rather than the above sweeping set of "rules" that may or may not apply to it.

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Could the IP editor changing content please stop re-removing and inserting content and discuss the change first? Constant reversions is edit warring and only likely to end in the article being locked from all edits. Could they also please confine discussion about changes to the article to this page? So that all can easily read them?

I ask again; could you please give specific reasons exactly where you see the problems, as I find it hard to follow your wide-ranging just justifications.

To clarify a few points myself;

• Much of what is wrong about your "Precautions" section is it is rather vague and doesn't say much beyond "Do pilates safely with a proper instructor". That's not a very helpful addition and tends towards instructional content which doesn't belong on an encyclopedia.
• Whether you agree or not, there are practitioners of what they call "Pilates" who do advocate medical/therapeutic benefits and Wikipedia should document this, including balanced criticism of it.
• There may be some dispute/discussion over what constitutes "proper" Pilates, in which case please provide sourced content on this dispute so that the article can reflect that accurately. What we do not do is censor the article to pretend the dispute/discussion doesn't exist or has been settled.
• I understand what you are saying about the Pilate organisations. However, if not given in a promotional tone, or overly detailed, there is no reason to not mention notable major organisations involved with Pilates. Care is needed though to get it right and balanced, particularly if there are competing organisations.
• We don't usually give honorifics to people in the body of the text. i.e. Pilates, not Mr Pilates. If there may be confusion between the system and the person, use his first name as well.
• Lastly, "fair" is not spelt that way in the context you are using it. And you may be misunderstood if you use "duplicity" in edit summaries like that. :)

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Escape_Orbit:

1. The "Precaution" sections is not mine. It was there back in 2013 and remained there for 2 years; Someone named François Robere took it off a few month ago, on 30 July 2015 and I am contesting his edit and trying to get this section back. Check the Diff please: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilates&diff=673803605&oldid=673803458 I am sorry but there is no solid reason as to why this section should not be here. It is not vague at all. Its presence is much more benefiting than its absence and people were OK with it for over 2 years. If you trace back why it was there you will understand it has nothing to do with instructional content, but rather with the purpose of telling that there are safety protocols in Pilates, and these protocols have been developed by the Pilates community for teaching, manufacturing and set-up of the apparatus used and, in brief, that is all to know, otherwise the article could become a place for people posting the whole Pilates teaching manual with regards to safety, from their own organisations involved in Pilates or therapists posting their own non-Pilates safety protocols in the Pilates article. I remember there was someone back in 2013 who started posting medical safety protocols for several different medical conditions and belonging to medical disciplines when "treating" people which, besides truly being a sort of instructional protocol, was totally misleading and made the reader think that Pilates was a therapy and that Pilates teachers needed to follow medical guidelines. Check for yourself why and when it was removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilates&diff=566072382&oldid=565247290 and replaced with the more generic and appropriate contents of the "Precautions" section that you and Alexbn are the only ones pushing to not see again. You may be an editor with certain powers but you should not abuse your position. It was plainly encouraging readers not to workout with a Pilates instructor unless it had a medical background or adhered to medical safety regulations. This is not possible because Pilates professionals are not regulated by nor linked to medical regulations! Someone fortunately put a stop to that abuse in the Wikipedia article by giving some insights of how safety represents an important permanent duty in Pilates. The opening definition of the Pilates article in Wikipedia says that Pilates is a method of physical conditioning, NOT a therapy, so I would like to believe we all start from this axiom when intervening in this page.

2. There are many Pilates teachers who advocate the endless list of benefits, just as seen in Joseph Pilates's life works. There are videos, photographs and testimonies that prove how people would get stronger, recover from certain conditions, even change posture and certain deformities. Some practitioners were even able to walk again after being in their wheelchairs. The records are many and overwhelming. Nevertheless lets not confuse advocating or promoting therapeutic benefits of practicing Pilates with redefining what Pilates is. Dance, ballet, gymnastics could advocate similar benefits but not because of the benefits they produce will they become therapies and stop being the great workouts/performing arts they are. If someone claims to be teaching Pilates whilst actually providing patients with a physio-therapeutic program inspired in Pilates, that is the total responsibility of who does it and it is not something Joseph Pilates's method catered for or promoted and the Wikipedia page for Pilates should reflect this. You should give the space to individuals in the Pilates community to be able to clarify these facts without passing judgement, proper Pilates or not, as they contribute to this Wikipedia article. This section in the article was present under "History" for years until JesseRafe took it off on 11 September 2015, claiming it had only a single citation for the whole paragraph and it was nonsense. Check it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilates&diff=680546578&oldid=679242179

Well, if one goes back to those edits one can understand that what actually happened was quite a different story. The person who contributed to the article with these wonderful historical insights, did not do a good work at linking the online source. There was a citation but the link was broken. Anyway, one cannot just delete historical facts because of that, since someone may provide the correct sources to heal and complete the article. I reestablished the correct link to the lawsuits in 2000 and also added 2 more links to publications supporting the historical statements, at which point the contents were ready to be posted back again. I did so, only for you and Alexbn to revert the edit. Again, a loss and a contradiction to your statements "we do not censor the article to pretend the dispute/discussion doesn't exist or has been settled." The content that was censored actually promotes that discussion and gives solid grounds for it.

3. I took out the references to PMA under the "Legal Status" section based on what I have constantly being reminded of in Wikipedia regarding not mixing information with companies taking business advantage of it. As such, the "Legal Status" should only refer to what took place regarding the lawsuit and not what happened in the aftermath. Since then many organisations/associations have been created for the promotion and protection of Pilates, not just PMA. I can see they first tried to inject the PMA in the Pilates article back in 2013 by creating a section called "Programs of Study & Certification", which fortunately was quickly removed due to Wikipedia's COI polices, check it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilates&diff=563266969&oldid=563264924

Not happy with that, they then tried to do it in an underhand manner in the "Legal Status" section, which at the time was called "Pilates in Recent Years". Again, it was not allowed by the community due to violation of COI policies and changes were reverted as expected. Check the Diffs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilates&diff=563273026&oldid=563266969

You can see that the "Pilates in Recent Years" section (currently "Legal Status" section) contained at the time a bit more information pointing to the generic consequences from the 2000 Lawsuit: "As a result, anyone in the United States, trained or untrained, can offer “Pilates” as a service to the public. Consequently, people may face extensive and conflicting information about what Pilates is, how it works, and what credentials they should seek in an instructor."

If any consequences are to be shown in this section, right after the lawsuit, logically they should be these generic consequences mentioned above and not facts about organisations that were created by people afterwards (such as PMA) due to the consequences. The correct thing to do would be to reinstate the generic consequences along with the statement that a Lawsuit took place, without mentioning any organisation later involved in Pilates formation, because they are not related to the Lawsuit.

On 30 July 2015, again François Robere modified this section completely! He added the lines about the non-regulated nature of Pilates which actually is not appropriate since being a non-regulated discipline, which means there aren't standardised regulated qualifications, has nothing to do with a legal status. In fact calling this section "Legal Status" is misleading and wrong because Pilates is a legal discipline! We should revert the title of this section to what it was before Robere took possession of this section, and re-name it "Pilates in Recent Years". Robere also added the info about PMA and this sectioned has remained hijacked since then. He justified his edits and dismissed the section as it was by saying "This is not a commerical", but actually what he did by adding PMA was totally commerical! Please check his edits here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilates&diff=673802983&oldid=673800720 As you can see no edits adding organisation linking to their pages has ever been allowed in this section, for obvious reasons. They have been immediately taken down. On these grounds I ask this section to be reverted to the revision before Robere edits took place on 30 July 2015.

4. The section "Research" was also stripped from 1 of the 2 sourced studies (Pilates and Parkinson, by the University of Oregon). Rabere is again responsible for this, and quoted the reasons with a simple "Removed non-research". Nobody cared to check what he was actually removing: "The following are references to some research claiming to have used the Pilates method in their studies, however if the type of Pilates used, and the Pilates professionals responsible for them, aren't mentioned and clearly identified, caution is recommended before relating them in any way to the quality or results of Joseph Pilates's works and that of those continuing his work" and replaced it with "Little research is available on the safety and efficacy of Pilates" Please check here the Diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilates&diff=673803458&oldid=673802983 This is an unjustified truncation and alteration of valuable information.

And, then on 3 September 2015 we have someone removing the fully documented clinical research stating the goodness of Pilates for back pain and replacing it with the new statement "there is limited evidence that pilates may provide greater benefits than other types of exercise" and a source saying so. Please check Diff here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilates&diff=679242179&oldid=678166927

Then we have Alexbn completing the cookie: on 12 December 2015 he transformed the "Research" section, adding the document a "Review of the Australian Government Rebate on Natural Therapies for Private Health Insurance" and stating that "no clear evidence of effectiveness was found" Please see Diff here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilates&diff=694926660&oldid=694745459 I object to presenting this document in the Pilates Wikipedia page as a valid source of proof of no effectiveness in Pilates, on two grounds: firstly, it is unacceptable to call a discipline effective or not based on whether it fulfills the criteria through which a Private Health Insurance body from a particular country will reimburse its costs or not! Secondly, because the studies conducted, in this case, did not fulfill their purpose because they did not determine there was no sign of effectiveness, but actually that the effects of Pilates as an alternative treatment for clinical conditions was uncertain because they could not conduct a thorough research. The author is saying that they did not have enough quality data provided to them so they could conduct the appropriate research! The study also says that "The evidence overall was compromised by the small sample sizes, short follow-up periods and inconsistent outcome reporting across RCTs in included SRs" page 115. The report finally concludes: "the body of evidence was typically compromised by deficiencies in study design and poor reporting, both in SRs and in the primary studies themselves. If undertaken, future research in this area should focus on larger sample sizes, improved reporting of data, and adequate follow-up periods, to enable more robust conclusions to be drawn.", page 117. For God's sake, you have to read an article before quoting content from it!

So in a few words, in a matter of 6 months, we went from having a "Research" section with sourced studies backing the great improvements and benefits of Pilates for Parkinson and back-pain, to a renamed "Effectiveness" section, which states there is no effectiveness! I am not sure if anyone can have arguments to support this abuse, but on inspection of the section its is clear that this documents's reliability is worst than primary research, therefore it does not fulfill Wikipedia's criteria for keeping it and should be removed. I ask you to please revert to the last known revision before 30 July 2015 for the section "Research". If anyone wants to then add any further research/study that's fine if properly justified, but they should not delete the sourced studies previously there.

5. The replacement of the expression Powerhouse was done on 5 August 2015 by someone who, I guess, tried to reference the term using the term "core". Check the diff here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilates&diff=next&oldid=674413673 Whilst his intention was good, he did so carelessly losing the presence of the term Powerhouse, which is the way the core is known in Pilates, as passed on and taught by Joseph Pilate himself. My recent edit tried to correct this small oversight, to bring back the term Powerhouse as it was but keeping the new reference to core. You also reverted this, so still no joy.

6. Input regarding honorifics (i.e. Pilates, not Mr Pilates): noted, thanks.

7. Input regarding contextual use of "fair": noted, thanks.

I would like to add that Alexbn has previous recorded beligerant and biased interventions in Wikipedia's health articles. Check for yourself what he has been doing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alexbrn#Pilates_health_benefits.3F He has several questionable edits in the Pilates pages dating back to 2014, modifying vital information and structure of the page. This attitude is undesirable and I am not going to seat much longer just to see this continues. We have a collective and global responsibility and we cannot have editors inflicting their own views in the pages they moderate, otherwise we will end up in few years time with a Wikipedia that exists because its contents represented the minds of the editors, administrators and moderators who interfered with it along the way.

I hope this clarifies my position and our collective responsibility. I am a firm believer that people can overcome misunderstandings if there is will to understand what is going on, and of course, the will to explain it. I have taken the time to do so, and hope that you could revert the article to the last good revisions as per details given above, or allow me to do the necessary edits, for you to then review them and approve them.

CF

References

Please see WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. In general, primary research cannot be cited on Wikipedia for health information as it is not reliable. Alexbrn (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to try and keep this short and to the point. By your numbering;

1 - if you want a precautions section then please cite a suitable authority with an example (the article doesn't need them all) of their guidelines. A section effectively just saying "you should get a professional instructor" is very much instructional, and not encyclopaedic.

2 - The content here was properly removed because it wasn't cited (you cannot use Wikipedia as a source for cites). And it did read as pushing one particular view of what Pilates was, without telling the reader whose view this was.

3 - You have the advantage here of a better understanding of the politics of Pilates. I understand what you are saying, but it is not unreasonable to mention notable and major organisations involved in Pilates. Identifying these, however, can be very difficult when there are competeing authorities. I have seen articles in cases like this go through years of tit-for-tat edits as supporters of both vie for control. It would be far better for everyone if you managed to reach a compromise that all parties can live with (even if they don't like it much).

4 - Most of the problem with this section was the editorialising that headed it. It is not acceptable to list research, then precede it with opinions how the research is not to be trusted. That's an opinion and whose opinion is it? If a notable authority (be it medical or within pilates) disagrees with the research, then cite their response and attribute it to them. I would be happy for this Research section be restored if it can be left to stand on its own merits, and if it needs balance then balance it for reliable sources with attributed authorities. The cite from the Australian Dept of Health seems like exactly the sort of reliable source this article needs. However, the conclusion summarised could be tone down a little. My reading suggests that it makes no positive conclusion about Pilates' health benefits, but nor does it conclude there are none.

5 - The problem with the term 'powerhouse' is the average reader won't understand it. And linking it to core (anatomy) is equally puzzling. Could it be introduced something like; " "powerhouse", the term used by Joseph Pilates for the anatomical core"?

Hope this helps steer edits on the article in a more positive and collaborative direction. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Effectiveness?!

It is not the intention of pilates to cure anything - it is a FITNESS program - effectiveness as a general title should be concerned with that therefore. So have changed title of the "effectiveness" section and added greater context in intro.

I second the scepticism above. The effectiveness section is highly suspicious. One misquote is: governmental study concludes that there is insufficient evidence on Pilates, but this is due to the lack of good studies, not to do with pilates. Furthermore, here is an absurd statement which makes the entire section suspicious: "There is some evidence it can help with the conditioning of the abdominal muscles of healthy people." This is analogous to saying that doing bench presses *may* increase pectoral muscle size. The link is causally understood, working muscles definitely leads to conditioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.83.148.60 (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The sources say Pilates is promoted for treating many things, from depression to incontinence to lower back pain. We go by what our sources say. Alexbrn (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

No. Your comment is beside the point of the edit which you undid. The section is an unfortunate example of negatively spinning of statistical evidence. 1) The statement "found to have insufficient evidence" is unclear as to whether a large data sample leads to a weak statistical inference, or if there simply isn't enough good data. The latter is clearly the case, as the Australian government meta study merely mentions a single weak study. 2) Subjective descriptions like "low quality" in reference to the data, are meaningless spin. 3) The allusion to weak evidence supporting the notion that Pilates improves abdominal conditioning is absurd, since it is well understood that exercising muscles in any way leads to conditioning. Hence, I'm fixing this yet again, please make a stronger argument next time you undo my work. While too anecdotal to induce in the article, Pilates is a life changing treatment for many sufferers of back pain, and this negative spin is doing potential beneficiaries a disservice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.216.107 (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for WP:ADVOCACY. We reflect what decent sources say, and the article as is is fine. Your edit is a WP:PROFRINGE POV-push which moves us away from the sources. Alexbrn (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, my edit corrects an unfortunate example of WP:ADVOCACY. Please respond to the edit description and explain what exactly you disagree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.216.107 (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary the onus is on you to get consensus for changes you want. But we don't (for example) want unsourced awkward editorializing like "However, the lack of studies means that there is insufficient data to make strong statements" in here. Alexbrn (talk) 06:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

This is progress. It does indeed look like editorialization because I failed to directly cite the relevant source in that sentence you quoted. Here is a direct quote from Baggoley C (2015). "Review of the Australian Government Rebate on Natural Therapies for Private Health Insurance": "As the available evidence for the effectiveness of Pilates consisted of a small number of methodologically limited RCTs, the effectiveness of Pilates for the improvement of health outcomes in people with any clinical condition is uncertain." Now, I'll be surprised if you will disagree with my original edit, other than that it lacked a citation directly on the one sentence which you quoted. This is extremely close to the sentence I wrote, which I'm even happy to replace with the direct quote. Please do respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.83.148.60 (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Nothing there about "strong statements" - the source is plain on the lack of, and quality of, the evidence. We summarize the source well, as we should. Alexbrn (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the summary is that it is unclear as to whether the insufficient evidence comes from a lack of investigations, or a lack of effectiveness of the pilates method itself. The source clearly states that it is the former. Do you get my point here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.216.107 (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, you want to imply "it might work, if only it were studied more we'd see the light!" - which is a familiar cry for every kind of dodgy altmed from homeopathy to reiki. We reflect the source, which make no such implication (quite the opposite; it recommends insurance companies do not pay out for Pilates). If no benefit has been found, and yet Pilates is promoted as effective, we're looking at quackery and Wikipedia needs to be plain. Alexbrn (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

This is an unfortunate and emotionally charged response which doesn't even attempt to address my point in a constructive way. I'll make an edit and let's see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.83.148.60 (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Effectiveness: update the article overall?

In light of the newly referenced study by Kofotolis et al, the article appears pretty inaccurate as regards the evidence for Pilates as an effective treatment. For example "Pilates has not been shown to be an effective treatment for any medical condition" is just incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.83.148.60 (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source; we need WP:MEDRS for claims about treatment efficacy. Alexbrn (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This article has been semi-protected. Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to this article by proposing them on this talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Conclusions on Pilates effectiveness

The cited document in the second paragraph of the introduction is biased, saying that "There is only limited evidence to support the use of Pilates to alleviate low back pain" - however, once the cited source is read, in the conclusions of the study it clearly states that "However, there is low to moderate quality evidence that Pilates is more effective than minimal intervention for pain and disability" and that "while there is some evidence for the effectiveness of Pilates for low back pain, there is no conclusive evidence that it is superior to other forms of exercises. The decision to use Pilates for low back pain may be based on the patient's or care provider's preferences, and costs."

I suggest first deleting the whole paragraph, which has nothing to do with an introduction to a non-specialist about what pilates is. It can be a whole new section, which needs to take out the bias that the activity does not have evidence to support low back pain, since in the conclusion it shows that the investigators could not arrive to probable conclusions about its effectiveness but that somehow, the quality of the evidence they have shows that it is effective. So, instead of discouraging people from doing pilates just from the outset of the article (something nasty and with bad intention, clearly), it provides a much more complete idea of what it is and its benefits (or not) in comparison to other forms of exercise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franambro (talk • contribs) 11:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

So, "limited evidence" sums it up pretty well. Alexbrn (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2018

Joe and Clara pronounced Pilates as ending with "S", not "ize". So did my great aunt who was a friend, vacationed with them, and also worked for them. My family saw them every thanksgiving during my childhood. My great aunt became Clara's roommate sometime after Joe died. I also have some photos of Joe and Clara from some Christmas postcards. No idea why this mispronunciation spread. Marilyn11953 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC) Marilyn11953 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Izno (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Flexibility vs muscle tone

This is funny , Might get eded by the people who attend pilatis , but improoving your flexibility , and muscle tone is contredictionary , muscle tone is the absense of flexibility when the nerves controlling the muscle contract it via a reflex not to allow it to reach a certain length \ strech , as a protection mechanism for the body , Flexibility is diminishing this reflex via streching. I believe you meant muscle tone in some areas and flexibility in others , so whoever is oging to rewrite this make this clear , there are already enough excersise mythes promoting spot reduction or the like going on with pilates programs , and the fact that women who participate in pilates do abdominal work for a slimmer mid section , which is infact helping the oposite The onyl abdominal muscle that can be trained that helps tighten up the midsection is the transervus abdominis , the deep abdominal muscles , which are used in breathing partialy and via shortening bring the abdominal wal and obliques into the spine.

-- The purpose of this page is not to be a soapbox (especially not for illiterate tripe). -- Jibal (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Intro wording

I don’t have permissions to edit this page, but I think the following sentence could be clarified:

Evidence from studies show that while Pilates improves balance, it has not been shown to be an effective treatment for any medical condition[5] other than evidence that regular Pilates sessions can help muscle conditioning in healthy adults, when compared to doing no exercise.[6]

This should be rephrased to say something like “Evidence has shown that pilates is effective in improving balance and muscle conditioning, but has not been shown to be effective in other medical conditions.”

Киан (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Update

The references on this page to a review undertaken by the Australian Federal Government are out of date. A new review commenced in 2019. I would like to update the page with this information but it is protected. Can I please get editing permission? Rubbery123 (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any indication you need permission; the article is only semi-protected, and you've been around long enough to be able to edit it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Publication Violates Wikipedia's COI Polices Regarding Advertising Services And Products

Attention and Warning! Individuals and organisation are not allowed to advertise their services or products within Wikipedia's publications.

A publication advertising services of The Pilates Method Alliance has violated the strict polices of not advertising. It has done so by altering the Pilates publication in Wikipedia on 28th June 2013, line 66 found here. Whomever did this, went even as far as linking The Pilates Method Alliance own webpages for information on their organisation and services. These entries have therefore been removed completely. Any further attempt by the Pilates Method Alliance or any other organisation/individual to persuade or manipulate readers into taking their commercial/educational offering (educational services, certifications, accreditation, or any product) by means of using Wikipedia's articles, will be reported directly to Wikipedia's board, so they can deal with the issue.

The Pilates Method Alliance is just one more organisation with the purpose of teaching and regulating the activities in the field of Pilates, like many more around the world, and Wikipedia is not to be confused with a means to promote business.

Please editors, stay focus on the purpose of this article which to define the Pilates method.

Thanks, CF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.251.216 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent Changes

Some of the recent changes are not improvements. There has been an inexplicable cutting of the references to Stott Pilates and Romana Kryzanowska, Eve Gentry etc The whole section on "Pluralistic Concept of the Pilates Method" is eccentric and should not be in a general article which is seeking to explain pilates to a non specialist. I moved the Lateral breathing section to fit in the breathing section (though in fact, it reads like a how to manual, and the text is used in many other places and may well be copyrighted. Someone else can make the call on whether to delete it). I moved "power house" as it is not part of Friedman and Eisen´s principles. If we are changing that section then it needs to be done rigorously. Please do edit (it´s not my article), but in a way that is generally accepted. Sleeping Turtle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleeping Turtle (talk • contribs) 10:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Roamana The Goddess

I am quite disappointed that some people are using this entry for self promotion. Can Pilates Teachers please aim for neutrality rather than glorify their school and educators! This entry says much about the state of teh Pilates world. Where possibly I tried to make things more neutral, but the entire article is heavily stained one way, especially in favour of the Romana schoo, with traces of others. Either this article says everything about Pilatesin its full glory listing all the names and players or we might just as well delete all!

While there are legions out there who do view Romana as a goddess, this misspelled point is off the mark. As anyone participating in this forum has likely noticed over the past year or more; the Pilates Method Alliance (and others) have been hijacking this forum over this time for self-promotion. As a result, it is a likely and safe assumption that many other organizations who are just as or perhaps more relevant have responded to assure the wiki user base does not get misled into thinking the PMA is the only group in existence who establishes and adheres to standards of training and instruction. With that said, the latest version of the article appears to be getting things back on the right track, although I did note that sections still exist identifying specific organizations. Suggestion --> Remove the existing references to these entities, going forward keep this article specific to facts or myths specific to the Pilates method devised by Joseph Pilates AND supported by reputable sources AND keep all references to trade associations, specific organizations, etc. out of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariapace (talk • contribs) 04:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring over lede

Finell has now three times tried to force a new lede, including the summary "Studies show that the Pilates method improves balance and muscle conditioning in healthy adults ...". The article body says "There is no good evidence it helps improve balance in elderly people", and in general emphasizes the uncertain nature of any evidence. The behaviour and content here is poor. I have warned the editor and am raising a query at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)