A fact from Step aerobics appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 October 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that step aerobics attracted 11.4 million people in 1995?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles
There are so many versions of Straddle Down, which is why I didn't originally put it (good call on the V-Step, though). What version of Straddle Down were you referring to? --gujamin02:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Dawn Brown. I invented step aerobics in 1984 at my facility near Atlantic City, New Jersey, The Women's Gym. My club had an outdoor swimming pool, and we would cover the pool every winter. In the spring of 1984 my husband was putting concrete blocks on the edge of the cover while playing the radio. My 3-year-old daughter, Brianna, started jumping onto the blocks in time to the music. I saw what she was doing and realized this was a new way to exercise. Immediately I brought the blocks into my gym and started devising aerobic innovations. I filmed the first step aerobic video, Step It Out, which was distributed by Parade Video, and also wrote The Complete Guide to Step Aerobics, published by Jones and Bartlett around 1990. Gin Miller did much to popularize step, but I was ahead of her by a couple of years. Interestingly, I sold my idea (for peanuts) to a business in Atlanta with the promise that they would promote me and my invention. After I signed the papers, they refused to speak to me. They went on to sell MANY step benches. Then I started seeing big Reeboc magazine ads describing how Gin had invented the program. I am sure Ms. Miller had no part in stealing my invention. I doubt if she even knew I existed. All the same, I reaped very few of the monetary rewards of this valuable form of exercise. It saddens me to read about the so-called history of step, and not see my name mentioned. I am proud of my contribution to the health and fitness of people throughout the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.249.209 (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk pageorWikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that step aerobics attracted 11.4 million people in 1995? Hartford Courant wrote in 1999: "Begun in 1989, step aerobics peaked at 11.4 million participants in 1995 before declining, according to the National Sporting Goods Association in Mount Prospect, Ill."
ALT1:... that step aerobics started with Gin Miller stepping on a milk crate?The book Applying Music in Exercise and Sport says, "American Gin Miller... was advised by an orthopedic doctor to step up and down on a milk crate to strengthen the muscles supporting the knee."
ALT2:... that fitness instructor Kathy Smith's first encounter with step aerobics made her think it was "the most cutting-edge workout"? Kathy Smith webpage says "I left the class with a rush of endorphins, and thought to myself, 'This is the most cutting-edge workout I’ve ever seen.'”
ALT3:... that step aerobics was first sold as Bench Blast by Gin Miller and Connie Collins Williams in 1988? Laura Fisher wrote in American Health, "Miller quickly founded a step company, Bench Blast, with Connie Williams, another Atlanta-based fitness instructor."
@Binksternet: As this is a health topic, it falls under WP:MEDRS, and the sourcing requirements are much stricter than most other articles. Most of the article is purely historical in nature and the sourcing is fine for those topics, but health-related statements especially in the "Characteristics" section need to be sourced to review articles in peer-reviewed journals, or guidance from public health agencies and professional organizations. This section will need substantial work to comply with core policies and guidelines. I think this is a worthy topic, and if you don't feel comfortable trying to improve the article I can try to recruit someone from WP:MED to help. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John, I'm not adept at MEDRS, so I'll start a discussion at Talk:Step aerobics to see what we can do. I welcome any adepts who can find suitable sources – I keep finding primary studies. I'm sure we could work this out immediately by pruning the challenged parts, but it will be better to incur some delay and get adequate referencing. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John, I trimmed the article's problematic parts to get it through DYK. I agree that it's a "worthy topic" for MEDRS but it will be sufficient to discuss such additions first on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's new and long enough, within policy (now that the text avoids health effects), Earwig finds no copyvios, QPQ done, hook facts check out, images properly licensed. Good to go! John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alterted by John Sadowski, I have been looking for secondary and tertiary referencing to satisfy WP:MEDRS requirements. I keep finding primary studies.
The first thing we need to do is determine which statements require MEDRS treatment. I am guessing they would be:
1: Anything about calories burned.
2: Claims about greater or lesser chance of injury.
3: Definition of "low-impact".
I agree that ref #2 (url=https://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/aerobicsdef.htm |title=Aerobics: An In-Depth Look! |date=January 22, 2019 |website=Bodybuilding) does not meet MEDRS, as it is not a science journal and does not cite science literature for those statements about step aerobics being low impact and thus lower risk of joint injury compared to high impact. The concept may be true, but it is not verified. This means the health statements in the lead and first paragraph of Characteristics need to be edited accordingly. David notMD (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As to finding MEDRS literature, I tried a search at PubMed on "step aeriobics" (without the quote marks, too much completely unrelated). That yielded 41 articles. With the Clinical trials filter on = 17. Clinical trials are considered primary. With clinical trials filter off and Review on = 4. Of those, only PMID 2194403 might be worth adding to the article. From the abstract: "odd-impact loading (eg, soccer, basketball, racquet games, step-aerobics, and speed skating) are associated with higher bone mineral composition, bone mineral density (BMD), and enhanced bone geometry in anatomic regions specific to the loading patterns of each sport." Filtering for meta-analyses or systematic reviews did not yield any publications. David notMD (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious whether the Hyde book co-written by the American Association for Active Lifestyles and Fitness (AAALF) is good enough to establish that step aerobics is relatively low-impact exercise. It looks to me like a professional body has established their position. Along the same lines there are other books by standards bodies, for instance the following
American College of Sports Medicine (2018). ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription (10 ed.). Wolters Kluwer. ISBN9781496339065.
The latter book talks about "step tests" and "step testing" but the steps are higher than the step aerobics plastic step device, for instance the YMCA's classic 3-minute 12-inch step test. Can we use the AAALF book or the IDEA book to support the statement that step aerobics is relatively low impact? Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet: As this is a health topic, it falls under WP:MEDRS, and the sourcing requirements are much stricter than most other articles. Most of the article is purely historical in nature and the sourcing is fine for those topics, but health-related statements especially in the "Characteristics" section need to be sourced to review articles in peer-reviewed journals, or guidance from public health agencies and professional organizations. This section will need substantial work to comply with core policies and guidelines. I think this is a worthy topic, and if you don't feel comfortable trying to improve the article I can try to recruit someone from WP:MED to help. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's new and long enough, within policy (now that the text avoids health effects), Earwig finds no copyvios, QPQ done, hook facts check out, images properly licensed. Good to go! John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
