Establishing a standard exercise naming convention is a worthwhile pursuit, especially for a software platform like FYTT that maintains a database of exercises. The records in our database have important metadata associated with them that help with automation and individualization. So if we can establish a standard convention, at least within our platform, we can provide a much better experience for our users.

The problem is that the strength & conditioning profession does not have official standards for naming exercises. Professionals in the industry have varying preferences, which results in a lack of consistency, and can sometimes lead to confusion. And forcing people to adopt a certain convention could cause friction for those who are passionate about their own methodology.

So for now, we do not enforce a naming convention (and we never). In fact, we have not yet implemented a consistent strategy for our database. Rather, our current approach has been to go with the most commonly recognizable names. Our official stance on a naming convention is currently a work in progress.

Below is a summary of our current thinking on the matter (or rather the questions we're trying to answer). We invite your input, and once we firmly establish our stance, we will decide how to apply it within the software.

NAMING CONSIDERATIONS

The ultimate goal of a naming convention is to convey instructions about what athletes need to do as clearly and concisely as possible. Any part of a convention that fails to accomplish this goal should be critically evaluated.

A secondary goal of a naming convention is to enable professionals to communicate using a standard nomenclature. This provides clarity when discussing exercise-related topics, and allows individuals to move from one organization to another without having to learn new terms and vocabulary.

Our starting point is an article titled, Towards Standardization of the Nomenclature of Resistance Training Exercises, by Matthew C. Jackson, Lee E. Brown, Jared W. Coburn, Daniel A. Judelson, and Nick Cullen-Carroll. This article provides a good overview of why naming is important and some of the different strategies already out there.

The article concludes with the following recommended pattern: [specification][equipment][exercise]. We generally like this format, but there are nuances that need to be considered.

SPECIFICATION

This includes things like bilateral/unilateral designation, bar placement, grip, stance, rack position, etc. This category is somewhat broad, so it potentially makes sense to break it down into separate pieces to ensure consistency.

EQUIPMENT

The equipment is important because the nature of how equipment is moved by the body can affect exercise mechanics and muscle activation. There is a question about whether to use full equipment names or abbreviations ("barbell" as opposed to "BB"). The full name leaves the least room for confusion and misunderstanding, but requires more space on the page. The abbreviation is more concise, but assumes that the athlete knows what it means.

EXERCISE (MOVEMENT)

In most cases, the exercise (or movement) component is pretty straight forward. We assume that our athletes will acquire some basic knowledge, so there is no need to re-invent the wheel and be overly descriptive. However, there may be cases when a movement needs to be laid out in more detail.

PROPER NOUNS AND SLANG

Our view is that we should generally shy away from using proper nouns or slang in favor of explicit descriptions. i.e., "Straight Leg Deadlift" instead of "Romanian Deadlift" or "Semi-Supinated Dumbbell Curl" instead of "Hammer Curl," etc.

ASSUMPTIONS

We need to think about what we assume our athletes know, or what we expect them to learn in order to understand our instructions. In other words, we probably expect them to learn common terms and what they mean, like press, curl, row, etc. But how much should we rely on "assumed" knowledge versus being descriptive?

For example, if we were to exactly follow the [specification][equipment][exercise] pattern, the full specification for the traditional "Back Squat" would actually be "High-Bar Back-Rack Barbell Squat." But generally the high-bar is assumed and the back-rack is shortened, and people quickly learn what it means to do a back squat. So do we drop the high-bar and only add low-bar to specify a variation from the default, or just be fully descriptive in every case?

CONCLUSION

Like mentioned above, our philosophy on naming conventions is still in the works. In the end, we may never get practitioners to agree, so we might just have to accommodate many different styles. Our primary goal is to make it easy for you as a professional to do your job, so our strategy will ultimately revolve around providing a smooth, intuitive user experience.

Did this answer your question?