Talk:Pilates

Wiki Education assignment: Writing for the Web

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2025 and 21 March 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yunker1030 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Yunker1030 (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Clarity regarding efficacy

The introductory section says that Pilates "has not been shown to be an effective treatment for any medical condition".

However the section on Effectiveness says: "From the limited data available, it would seem from the statistically and clinically significant findings that Pilates has demonstrated efficacy as a tool for the rehabilitation of a wide range of conditions," citing as a source the paper "Is pilates an effective rehabilitation tool? A systematic review" by Byrnes, Wu and Whillier, from the Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies.

Is this a contradiction? Or is there a distinction between different types of "condition"? I.e. are some of the conditions for which Pilates is an effective rehabilitation not "medical conditions"? Or is the Byrnes/Wu/Whillier paper working with a different definition of "effectiveness", e.g. that pilates is better than no exercise (but perhaps no better than other kinds of exercise)?

I think it would help to clarify these points, as right now it seems like a confusing summary of the effectiveness of Pilates. Thank you! 152.115.215.118 (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Caption on hero image

The model in the image is not demonstrating 'all fours' - all fours has all four limbs on the floor. She's performing a variation, sometimes called 'bird dog'. 203.158.41.232 (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I've made the change.--Gadget142 (talk) 13:29, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Bird dog is a yoga exercise it is not a Pilates exercise ~2026-37714-98 (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposal to update "Effectiveness" section with 2024 review

The current "Effectiveness" section cites the 2015 Australian Government Natural Therapies Review, which concluded the evidence for Pilates was uncertain and led to the withdrawal of insurance rebates.

A more recent, more comprehensive review was published in 2024 by the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care.

According to the 2024 review:

• Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that Pilates improves incontinence-related quality of life in men after radical prostatectomy, and reduces disability while improving overall quality of life in people with chronic low back pain.
• Low-certainty evidence suggests benefits for chronic neck-related disability, pain reduction in low back pain, menopause symptoms (sleep quality, vasomotor and physical symptoms), osteoporosis quality of life, knee rehabilitation stability, physical function in those at risk of age-related decline, activities of daily living in women with type 2 diabetes, mental wellbeing in people with multiple sclerosis, and anxiety in high-risk individuals.
• Moderate- to low-certainty evidence shows little to no benefit for functional capacity in low back pain.
• Low-certainty evidence shows limited or no effects on physical and mental wellbeing, BMI, fatigue in type 2 diabetes; functional mobility in multiple sclerosis; stroke recovery; quality of life and spinal mobility in spondyloarthropathies; analgesic use in low back pain; static balance in osteoporosis; general health perception in age-related mental decline.
• For certain conditions—breast cancer treatment, hypertensive heart disease, chronic widespread pain, shoulder pain—no evidence was identified.

Suggestion: Retain the 2015 review for historical context, but add a summary of the 2024 review to reflect the updated evidence base. This would enhance neutrality and ensure the article represents current scientific understanding.

BitingRabbit (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

References

In light of the change to the lede, I've asked for help at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Pilates (which should be able to address the proposed source and article content) as well as Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Pilates (given how the topic of this article parallels fringe mind-body interventions). --Hipal (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I saw the note at WT:MEDRS. My first question is why we should focus on this review? Consider some other reviews I found:

• Pilates provides short-term relief to chronic non-specific lower back pain. For that matter, any kind of physical activity, including Pilates, is good for chronic pain.
• Pilates is better than standard care at reducing musculoskeletal pain during pregnancy.
• Pilates plus Pulmonary rehabilitation is good for COPD.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

In fact, the Australian meta-study did indicate that there were benefits in some circumstances, for some kinds of problems. It is far from fringe; it is a mainstream technique these days. Bob Gollum (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, WhatamIdoing. Obviously, expansion based upon more recent sources is needed. It appears MEDRS isn't as strict on replacing old sources as it used to be, but I'll leave it to experts on MEDRS on what to add and emphasize. --Hipal (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd be happy to toss out the 2015 source per WP:MEDDATE, but the key is what to put in. Most of the reviews are on fairly narrow subjects. I'm curious whether it comes up (i.e., by name) in physical therapy textbooks. That might give us a more well-rounded source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

The point made in earlier versions of the article, which is correct, is that there are not enough good quality studies of Pilates to come to scientifically valid conclusions about its effectiveness. This is explicitly stated in the 2015 source, and the years since have not changed that. It is a problematic question, since effectiveness in the medical context would depend on the instructor and whether they are using traditional Pilates or a variant. It is not like a drug where one can do double blind trials.

The article now seems more focused on the scientific merits of Pilates as a medical cure-all, a valid but tangential question that requires some degree of original research to address. It should be focused more on the basics - what Pilates is, how it originated, how it relates to and differs from other physical regimens, what it does for its practitioners apart from helping with medical conditions, the industry that manufactures apparatus, the extent to which medical clinics actually do make use of it and for what. There is nothing in the article about its relation to the dance world, where Martha Graham was an early adopter and where it has played a significant role.

The article has been better in the past than it is now. It does seem to have now a non-neutral anti-Pilates POV. For example, mentioning that it is not funded in Australia but not mentioning where it is funded, and citing scientific studies inaccurately. Bob Gollum (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Since writing the above, I see that Pilates is now again covered by insurance in Australia, and have amended the article accordingly. The paragraph should be further amended to delete excessive discussion of the obsolete study, but I have left it for the moment. Bob Gollum (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

You are edit warring for no valid reason. It may be that the out of date scientific articles mentioned here should be replaced with newer material. If they remain, however, they should be summarized in a way that is consistent with their contents. You are substituting your own, or a previous editor's, opinions for what the articles in the footnote actually says. This is an article about medical treatment, one where misleading people has serious consequences. Bob Gollum (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

--Hipal (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

All to the good. In the meantime, though, why not read the medical articles that you are using to support the statements that you restored? If you do not feel qualified to interpret them yourself, you should not be reverting so as to restore dubious interpretations of them. Bob Gollum (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:FOC. --Hipal (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that you know about that policy!

Point is, there are two issues here. One is using the best sources, in accordance with Wikipedia policy about medical matters.

The issue here, though, is that the wikipedia article is relying on specific sources, and misrepresenting their contents in an NPOV violation. That is apparent from a reading of the sources. Until they are replaced with better sources, the article needs to be truthful about what they say, rather then compounding the problem by putting out inaccurate info about obsolete sources.

Changes were made to make the content of the article better reflect the source. Before reverting those changes, it is appropriate to read the sources. I am asking you again to actually read the papers cited in the footnotes to the section that you reverted. Bob Gollum (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Again, FOC.

Please make a case to change the content per ONUS.

Note that the edit summary suggests serious POV violations that fall under WP:AE. --Hipal (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Please clarify- what POV violations do you see in the summary? My edits corrected blatant POV violations.

I have pointed out why edits are necessary. Please cooperate in reaching consensus. That requires you to make your points for the aggressive edits you have made. Bob Gollum (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

If it is of help -

The reference article concludes:

"However, there is low to moderate quality evidence that Pilates is more effective than minimal intervention in the short and intermediate term as the benefits were consistent for pain intensity and disability, with most of the effect sizes being considered medium. It was less clear whether Pilates was more effective than other exercises for pain intensity, disability and function as the results across outcomes were contradictory."

How does that translate into “Pilates is better than doing nothing”, as the wiki article now reads? If the study says it is not clear whether it is more effective than other forms of exercise, why should that become a conclusive statement in wikivoice that it is no more effective? Bob Gollum (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Please FOC and follow ONUS. --Hipal (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I was pointing out how the scientific article being cited does not support the proposition in the article that it is being cited for, and also how the article as it is now used non-neutral language to make a false assertion.

Do you disagree? Bob Gollum (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Let us take these articles one at a time.

Barker et al say in the conclusions to their article: "The evidence suggests Pilates can improve balance, an important risk factor for falls in older adults. However, there is limited data on the impact of Pilates on falls. Effects may have been overestimated because of the low methodological quality of studies. Best-practice recommendations were rarely applied in prior studies, indicating greater effects may have been achieved if recommendations were incorporated."

Your version of the article says "There is no good evidence it helps improve balance in elderly people." And it gives as a footnote reference the Barker et al article.

That to me is POV and original research; and a distortion of the article it is citing. The scientific article says the weight of the evidence suggests that Pilates improves balance; the wikipedia article as it is now suggests that there is no reason to believe that it does. It is at best misleading, if we want to be generous. Please explain how this can be justified under wikipedia policy. Bob Gollum (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could simply remove all references to medical utility from the article. The article is about Pilates, not an in-depth evaluation of its medical utility, a topic that may simply be beyond the scope and competence of a wikipedia article. Bob Gollum (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Let us take these articles one at a time. That's a very helpful approach. Thank you.

• Barker AL, Bird ML, Talevski J (2015). "Effect of pilates exercise for improving balance in older adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis". Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 96 (4): 715–23. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2014.11.021. PMID 25511371.

It's an old reference. Can it be replaced by something more recent? Are there other references that cover the same or similar material that would help us address this?

If we agree to retain the reference, what changes are you proposing? --Hipal (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

If you have something more recent, please feel free to add it. Alternatively, if there is consensus that it is out of date, I would have no problem deleting the sentence entirely.

If the sentence and reference are being kept, a better and less misleading text would be "Medical evidence suggests Pilates can improve balance for older adults, an important risk factor for falls." Bob Gollum (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

If we're not going to qualify it as the reference does, "Medical evidence suggests Pilates can improve balance for older adults. might be better until editors can look for more recent or other references on the topic. --Hipal (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Next up: Yamato et al find that "there is low to moderate quality evidence that Pilates is more effective than minimal intervention for pain and disability. When Pilates was compared with other exercises we found a small effect for function at intermediate‐term follow‐up. Thus, 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."

The article cites Yamato, however, for the propositions that "There is however only limited evidence to support the use of Pilates to alleviate problems such as lower back pain." and that "low quality evidence suggests that while Pilates is better than doing nothing, it is no more effective than other forms of physical exercise."

The Yamato article is guardedly positive and suggests Pilates is a form of exercise that should be used for treatment; the wikipedia article is dismissive, and uses words such as "only" and the colloquial "better than doing nothing", a phrase not found in Yamato, in a way that introduces subjective judgment and suggests POV. The wikipedia use of the study is not a fair representation of its contents and reccomendations. Bob Gollum (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

What changes do you suggest to the article content? --Hipal (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, what is "Yamato et al" ? Bon courage (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Yamato TP, Maher CG, Saragiotto BT, Hancock MJ, Ostelo RW, Cabral CM, Menezes Costa LC, Costa LO (2015). "Pilates for low back pain". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 7 (7) CD010265. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010265.pub2. PMC 8078578. PMID 26133923. --Hipal (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  Ah yes. We already cite and summarise that pretty well. I don't think the source can be tortured into yielding a more positive summary than we have at present. Bon courage (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think we have tortured the source into yielding a negative summary. A more accurate and appropriate description of Yamato's article would be "Peer-reviewed scientific studies have provided limited evidence to support the use of Pilates to alleviate problems such as lower back pain." The article as is is now is more negative and POV than Yamato. Bob Gollum (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  Disagree; that would leave out the comparison with other forms of exercise. Bon courage (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  The problem with the comparison with other forms of exercise is that we have to really get into the weeds. Yamato found some low quality studies indicating that it was better than other forms of exercise in some respects but not others, and that the medium quality studies indicated that it was about the same as other forms of exercise. They looked at short term and intermediate term results, with no studied of long term results, and the conclusions about effectiveness relative to other forms of exercise were somewhat different at the two stages.

  How much space do we actually want to devote to that 12 year old study?

  We could say

  "A meta-analysis of peer-reviewed scientific studies, published in 2015, found that the studies provided limited evidence to support the use of Pilates to alleviate problems such as lower back pain. The meta-analysis concluded that Pilates was better for back pain than minimal intervention, but that there was no strong evidence suggesting it was better than other forms of exercise." Bob Gollum (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  Cochrane SRs are considered evergreen and high-quality, and we WP:MEDSAY a summary of the conclusion here carefully. If you have a beef with the source's conclusions, this is not really the venue for it. Bon courage (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  Cochrane reviews are supposed to be evergreen because they're supposed to get updated regularly. When that's not happening, they do not magically become exempt from WP:MEDDATE just because they're from Cochrane. This particular one reports no evidence published since March 2014.

  Compare these two sentences:

  • "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."
  • "While Pilates is better than doing nothing, it is no more effective than other forms of physical exercise."

  The second sounds a bit more extreme than the first. The first says it works, but they can't prove that it's better than other options. The second is dismissive ("better than doing nothing") and claims that it definitely isn't better than other options.

  I think the solution here is really to look for newer sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  "While there is some evidence for" is rather weaker than "it works". Bon courage (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Here are a couple of sources that I think meet WP:MEDRS standards.

• Cifu, David X. (2020-08-01). Braddom's Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Elsevier Health Sciences. ISBN 978-0-323-62540-1.
• George, Steven Z.; Fritz, Julie M.; Silfies, Sheri P.; Schneider, Michael J.; Beneciuk, Jason M.; Lentz, Trevor A.; Gilliam, John R.; Hendren, Stephanie; Norman, Katherine S. (November 2021). "Interventions for the Management of Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain: Revision 2021: Clinical Practice Guidelines Linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health From the Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy of the American Physical Therapy Association". Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (Practice guideline). 51 (11): CPG1–CPG60. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.0304. ISSN 0190-6011. PMC 10508241. PMID 34719942.
• Dutton, Mark (2025). Dutton's Orthopaedic Examination, Evaluation, and Intervention (Seventh ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. ISBN 978-1-266-15055-5.
• Hunter, David J.; Eyles, Jillian (2022-10-27). Osteoarthritis Health Professional Training Manual. Elsevier's Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-323-99270-1.
• Pangarkar, Sanjog S.; Pham, Quynh G.; Eapen, Blessen C. (2020-06-30). Pain Care Essentials and Innovations. Elsevier Health Sciences. ISBN 978-0-323-72217-9.
• Deer, Timothy R.; Azeem, Nomen (2024-11-30). How to Treat Low Back Pain: A Guide for Treating causes of Low Back Pain for Physicians and APPs. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-443-15963-3.

Note that I have not pre-screened any of these to determine which POV they hold. I ask you to look at them against the ordinary ways that we determine whether a source is reliable (e.g., the list at WP:NOTGOODSOURCE) and tell me if any of them seem unacceptable to you. Objections should sound like "I don't trust this publisher because of that scandal" and not like "It promotes the wrong POV, so that means it's unreliable, even if it is an actual medical school textbook written by experts and published by an academic press". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Cochrane reviews generally do update if the evidence base changes (admittedly often with a lag) and them not doing so is an indication the evidence base has not changed. A newer source would be good and I'd prefer something both strong and recent (2025/2026) to ensure it is up-to-date and keep it within MEDDATE for the longest as the article matures. There appears to be plenty in PUBMED which is MEDRS (not examined in detail) too. Bon courage (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that used to be true, but it does not appear to be true any longer. Cochrane has started formally withdrawing dozens of reviews because they're not getting updated (examples: ). It doesn't appear to happen on a fixed schedule, but this 12-year-old paper is approximately in the range of what I'd expect to see either get an update or get kicked out the next time they notice it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't know what criteria they use exactly for selecting and deciding a publication's fate, but looking at say PMID:36912214 I think it's unlikely that the conclusions are "out-of-date" here – roughly that doing some exercise is probably better than being inactive for LBP, and it's unlikely that any named form of "some exercise" will have a marked advantage over other forms. Bon courage (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Since, however, we have MEDRS-ideal sources that aren't more than a decade out of date, it would be better to use them anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that we should use more recent sources, and if have a proposal, please write it out. I am just trying to make sure the text of the wikipedia article does not distort the sources it is now using. As WhatamIdoing points out, the current language of the article is value-laden and POV, and not accurate. Bob Gollum (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Bob, do you have any objections to any of the sources listed above? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't have access to most of them. George et al has very little to say about Pilates, and from their titles none of the others focus on Pilates as such.

Should the article be going into the weeds to make conclusive statements about the effectiveness of Pilates? That seems beyond the competence of an encyclopedia article. We can take notice of conflicting claims, and the fact that Pilates is used for back treatment. Bob Gollum (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Apart from anything else, the use of Pilates for medical treatment is dependent on the skills and expertise of the trainer, some of whom will have therapeutic experience, some of whom are licensed, and others who have no training and no licensing. Ethical ones will be working in a medical context with or under the supervision of a medical professional; but in other cases the patient might just be taking your local Pilates class. The review articles don't do a good job of evaluating these factors; an encylopedia article doesn't have room for all the necessary nuances if the medical articles don't. It is not a one-size-fits-all set of exercises and its effectiveness will depend on how it is tailored to the patient, something that will vary from practitioner to practitioner. Bob Gollum (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

This has come up over the years. The issue is that Pilates (a market worth hundreds of billions of dollars) is promoted by its trade bodies as being evidence-backed for myriad health conditions including mental illness, asthma, fall reduction, cancer recovery, etc. This is why there are high-quality MEDRS sources on such topics. Wikipedia reflects the published reality. We could/should make the point that anybody can appoint themselves a Pilates provider and sell lessons, if sources say that. Bon courage (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that there does not seem to be any high quality studies on this at all. There are a few low and medium quality studies, which are in addition problematic because they don't really have a common definition of Pilates.

It does seem basic that exercises which promote core strength will help prevent falls, and that mental discipline and focus will help mental health; the studies cited in the wikipedia article now bear out the first. Asthma and cancer recovery is probably a bridge too far.

If people really do make those claims, though, the article should cite that the assertions exist and that studies either refute, support or are uncertain about the claims. Bob Gollum (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It would be kind of exceptional to claim exercise treats clinical depression. And it is also exceptional to claim the Pilates has some secret sauce that elevates it above exercise in general (we have similar issues with Yoga, Alexander technique, Qigong, etc. etc.). This seems to be the gist of the most reliable sources: in many ways some exercise is more beneficial than no exercise, but Pilates isn't special. I'm not sure why that is the locus of so much angst. Bon courage (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It would be exceptional to claim that physical exercise alone is a wholly sufficient treatment for all clinical depression. It's however bog-standard to say that physical exercise is one of many ways to treat clinical depression, and even that it's on average as good as antidepressants. See also Major depressive disorder#Lifestyle and https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004366.pub7 (a Cochrane paper). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Fitness studios are also a hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars industry, and they also claim to be evidence-backed for myriad conditions including mental illness, fall reduction, cancer recovery, etc. (I don't know offhand if asthma's in the list).

I agree that we shouldn't say that Pilates is special, but we also shouldn't let any irritation over their marketing approach cause us to overreact and inaccurately downplay the benefits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Bob Gollum wrote: "I don't have access to most of them. George et al has very little to say about Pilates, and from their titles none of the others focus on Pilates as such."

Yes, that's why I picked them. Editors should be able to make a case for or against a source without knowing what the source's POV is. For example, an editor might say "In my opinion, we should/shouldn't follow Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Summarize scientific consensus by using the George et al. practice guideline" or "WP:MEDBOOK says 'Medical textbooks published by academic publishers are often excellent secondary sources' so I think we should/shouldn't follow that advice by using Braddom's graduate-level textbook for physical therapy in this article" or "MEDRS repeatedly recommends med school textbooks, and Dutton's Orthopaedic is not only published by one of the biggest textbook publishers in the world, but is also on Doody's Core Titles, so I think we should/shouldn't use it".

This is a bit like buying a pig in a poke, but the underlying question is: Are you all committed to have this article reflect whatever the MEDRS-ideal sources say – even if they say something different from what you expect, and even if you don't think the evidence justifies what the MEDRS-ideal sources say about it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if it can be considered a reliable source if I can't read it. It is not about whether it has a POV, but whether it cites proper sources, whether it has any credibility, whether it adheres to scientific and medical standards.

I haven't added any sources here, other than to update the Australia government investigation; my role in this article has just been to try and ensure that the wikipedia article accurately states the substance and conclusions of the sources it cites. Right now, it doesn't. Bob Gollum (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

As a general rule, it would probably best to focus on recent studies of Pilates, or meta-studies of Pilates research. General textbooks on back pain or osteoarthritis are probably less useful, unless they devote significant space to research on Pilates. A passing mention in a medical textbook is not much use or particularly reliable, even if it comes from a publisher you trust. Bob Gollum (talk) 03:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Your ability to access a source has zero bearing on its reliability. Often, the best sources are quite hard to access. Bon courage (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

To quote the summary in WP:NOTGOODSOURCE:

"According to our content guideline on identifying reliable sources, reliable sources have most, if not all, of the following characteristics:

• It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
• It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s).
• It is "appropriate for the material in question". An appropriate source should be directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing (e.g., not a book about Shakespeare's sonnets that happens to mention a modern cancer prevalence statistic). If the claim in question is scholarly, then scholarly sources from a relevant or related field are appropriate; if the claim is about business news, then a business news source is appropriate; if the claim is about people, then biographies of them are appropriate. A variety of source types will be appropriate for most articles, and the type of source appropriate in one part of an article may be different from the type of source that is appropriate for a different part of the article.
• It is a third-party or independent source, with no significant financial or other conflict of interest.
• It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes."

I agree that a passing mention isn't normally useful, but useful ≠ reliable. I think all of these are reliable and (without having checked to see what they say, other than to glance through and make sure they say something), I think all of them will reflect the mainstream medical POV about Pilates. Is that what you expect? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The proposed sources are suspect on the third count; judging by their titles, they are not about Pilates, and mention it only in passing. Bob Gollum (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The first book is about 1,200 pages long. Less than 1% of just that one book would be more than enough to write a summary for this article.

Do I have your objections right? I see:

1. You can't figure out if a recent medical school textbook from a reputable academic publisher is reliable unless you can read the contents, because without reading it, you can't:
   • see whether it cites sources (see the question "Are reliable sources required to provide a list of references?" in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/FAQ),
   • determine whether it has any credibility (perhaps because there theoretically might exist some recent medical school textbooks published by Elsevier that aren't credible, and you could figure this out by reading them?), and
   • figure out whether it adheres to scientific and medical standards (maybe because you are a reliable source and you want to do your own peer review of the source, in direct violation of the WP:MEDRS prohibition?)
2. You think it would be best to deal directly with "recent studies" instead of the MEDRS ideal of a medical school textbook.
3. You think that it would be better to use sources that are focused on Pilates (and thus, in practice, are more likely to be biased in favor of Pilates) instead of sources that address mainstream medicine more generally.

Have I missed anything significant? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Only that you are now being sarcastic rather than substantive. It is not that the sources have to be devoted exclusively to Pilates, but they should have some significant discussion of Pilates, not just a glancing reference, and if they are general med sources they should be balanced, looking at a broad range of studies and articles.

Picking sources at random without reading them is not a good way to write an article. It is more like flipping a coin.

My objection to the article as it is now is that the article is out of sync with the sources it cites, injecting excessive POV that contradicts the articles. Bob Gollum (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that if there's no more than a glancing reference, then we wouldn't be able to write very much. However, that's not the case with these sources. The index of the first one, for example, says there is information about Pilates in three different chapters. The second, as you know, discusses multiple studies about Pilates.

Picking high-quality MEDRS-ideal sources at semi-random is generally an excellent way to find out what mainstream medicine has to say about a subject. Picking sources without reading them is also a reliable way to make sure that an editor's own personal bias isn't resulting in sources with the "wrong" POV aren't "accidentally" being discarded. This is a problem we've encountered in other articles: Yes, yes, it's perfectly obvious that it's a reliable source – Wait, it said what?! I take it back! It's not reliable because it doesn't agree with me! WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The reliability of a wikipedia article comes from different people with different POVs all contributing to the article.

Picking sources at random as a way of determining what Medicine has to say about the subject? When the subject is an under-studied one about which there is no firm consensus? I dunno - do you have any studies that actually compare random selection of references to doing a literature review? It just seems a lazy way out, not anything we can rely on.

The second article's "multiple studies" of Pilates amounted to two, by the way, as far as I could tell, and it had only glancing discussion of either of them. Bob Gollum (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

If the subject is under-studied, I'd expect MEDRS sources to say that. If there's no consensus about the subject, I'd expect MEDRS source to disagree with each other, or to indicate that there's no consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The sources currently cited in the article say it is under-studied; that was a few years ago, true.

I would not expect most MEDRS sources to identify a lack of consensus; experts aren't like that. If they disagree with each other, you won't learn that from random rather than comprehensive selection. Bob Gollum (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

PubMed has 290 review articles in the last 10 years, and Google Books says there are a million Ghits on pilates research, and in practice shows about 20 books in the last decade. A search for Pilates in Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library gave me 13,000 full-text, peer-reviewed articles.

All of which to say: I'm not trying to read everything ever written about Pilates. I'm actually trying to find a way to read a couple of sources that likely represent the overall picture. Thus, e.g., my recommendation to focus on a few textbooks instead of the thousands of primary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

You could try focusing on the meta-studies, or just accept that other people will add more references to what you put on the page. Bob Gollum (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

We always hope that someone will try to improve every article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree; but I was asked my opinion of the proposed sources. Bob Gollum (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Hipal, do you have any objection to these sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

No objection. I don't see any good reason for excluding them. --Hipal (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

It looks above like you were objecting to positive content about PIlates. If all these MEDRS-ideal sources agree that Pilates is scientifically proven to cure everything from acne to Zika, are you going to be able to accept that, or are you going to suddenly discover that the sources aren't actually reliable after all?

Bob, I've got the same question for you, in reverse: If all these MEDRS-ideal sources agree that Pilates is an expensive scam, are you going to be able to live with that?

I've got access to these sources, and I'm willing to do the work to write a fair summary of what they say, but I don't want any POV pushing afterwards. Either they're good sources and we agree in advance to follow what they say, or they're not good sources, and we talk about revising MEDRS to say that practice guidelines and medical school textbooks are only acceptable if they hold the One True™ POV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I think I've been clear that we need more recent sources of MEDRS quality . --Hipal (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Generally this is a good approach, but saying that Pilates is "scientifically proven to cure everything from acne to Zika" would be an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim requiring the utmost level of sourcing, beyond that from any offered above. Otherwise, just summarise the most recent MEDRS sources and all should be well. It's impossible to assess a source without regard to the boldness of the claim it makes. Remember the spinning plates pictured in MEDRS. And in general claims of no effect are more mundane than claims of effect. Bon courage (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

If half a dozen MEDRS-ideal sources, chosen for their compliance with MEDRS and without regard to (or even knowledge of) what they say about Pilates, agreed on something, we already have in practice already achieved "the utmost level of sourcing". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

If they "all agree" on that, sure. Bon courage (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

If you are looking to write the definitive guide to Pilates, you are probably in the wrong place. Someone is always going to come along with additional valid sources to supplement or modify what you write. It likely won't be me, but if you want something lasting, wikipedia is not the desert whose sands you want to write in.

For my money, the whole idea of trying to present a definitive medical conclusion is highly suspect. We would be better off summarizing competing points of view. Bob Gollum (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Dates

The History section is surprisingly lacking in dates. The only clue as to when Pilates began is sometime between WWI (when he was working out in an internment camp) and 1934 (when he published his first book). FreddieRainbow (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Important improvement

As I did with the Spanish version, I am going to modify almost the entire article for the following reasons. 1- The "History" section is full of false myths. 2- The "Mat and Reformer Pilates" section offers a very inaccurate classification of Pilates types. 3- The "Comparison with yoga" section does not provide fundamental information about Pilates; the comparison with yoga would be relevant in a much broader article. Ronchitin (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Your sources are? Acroterion (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

You can see them in the Spanish version; most are either in English or have an English version. Ronchitin (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Australian study

Hipal has reverted an edit to restore a factually inaccurate and misleading description of the Australian meta-study. The claim is that this was "wikistalking", because he had earlier edited an entirely different and unrelated section of the wikipedia article, and therefore that I should not edit any article that he has touched. This is inappropriate, and moreover introduces a maligning of the Pilates method into the lead of the article, contradicting information in the body of the article, and seems to be done for reasons unrelated to the factual issue at hand. Bob Gollum (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to remove the line about the Australian study from the lead for the article entirely. The topic is covered in the body of the article, and the inconclusive nature of the meta-study, combined with the fact that the de-insuring of Pilates treatment is specific to Australia, make it unsuitable for the lead. Bob Gollum (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

POV problems

The comments from Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Pilates pointed out changes to the lede since this version. I dug through the article history a bit and see rather blatant POV/SOAP/COI problems since, especially after this version. I've reverted much of the lede, and I see that MrOllie did considerable cleanup. I'm concerned other problems still exist, but I won't be able to dig further at this time. --Hipal (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

The reversions done are problematic. I agree that better sources may eventually be found. However, to revert to poor and biased sources while waiting for perfection perpetuates false statements in the article.

As it stands now, after the recent reversions, the article misrepresents the citations it references. The misrepresentations are not random; they all go in one direction, to degrade Pilates, and as such suggest a COI. Bob Gollum (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Interestingly, the version of the article you cite as having blatant POV/SOAP/COI problems is actually more accurate in its summaries of the literature than is the current version. That older version is problematic in some ways - it has excessive detail about the exercises, for example - but it is far more NPOV than the present version. Bob Gollum (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I've requested further help at the existing FTN and MEDRS requests. --Hipal (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Reminder that physical exercise is a good thing

In glancing over this talk page, I feel like we've lost sight of the big picture. Sure, there's limited evidence about whether Pilates, or some forms of it, are effective treatments for medical conditions. But it's not supposed to be, first and foremost, a medical treatment. It is a form of physical exercise.

Imagine if someone re-wrote Jogging or Swimming or other exercise articles to focus primarily on whether it was scientifically proven to be effective as a medical treatment for specific medical conditions. There's only low-certainty evidence that jogging is an effective medical treatment for insomnia, and there's only low-certainty evidence that jogging reduces self-reported pain in people with rheumatoid arthritis. Ignore all that stuff about any form of physical exercise that someone will actually do is better for their health than being sedentary: the claim that jogging has health benefits is probably a scam, or at least a fringe idea! You probably shouldn't go jogging after all. Also, swimming doesn't improve balance, so everyone should stop swimming (unless they have fibromyalgia, since swimming works for that). It's like we're trying to warn everybody against exercise, because there isn't high-quality research proving that it's an effective monotherapy for a wide variety of specific, individual medical conditions.

We need to start with the big picture. The first thing to say in this article is that Pilates is a kind of physical exercise, and then explain what kind it is. There shouldn't be anything about science or medicine until we've explained that some of this is done in a mat and looks a lot like yoga, and some of it's done with an expensive machine that looks a bit like a indoor rower, or a medieval torture device, or however the reliable sources describe it. The stuff about whether it's proven to work significantly better for a specific patient population compared to specific alternatives is not as important as the fact that physical exercise is good for the body in general, and that includes Pilates – even for older people with chronic lower back pain, even though that's essentially an incurable condition. The big picture is "exercise is good". We need to focus on that, rather than on whether there's enough evidence to claim it as an evidence-based medical treatment for a particular medical condition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Up to a point. Drinking enough water is good for you, but we don't fill fill Badoit article with stuff on the benefits of hydration. Bon courage (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

That's fine. I'd like to see this article filled with "what Pilates is" instead of "the benefits of exercise" – or, in this case, "the current state of scientific evidence about whether Pilates is an evidence-based medical treatment", which is what all the fussing above appears to be about. I've demoted the ==Effectiveness== section to the end of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Bon courage (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)