One more time won’t kill me

In 1997 I labelled the 1980s as the decade of aerobic training:

You could call the eighties the decade of researching aerobic training,
–King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing

And I challenged the dominant values of that decade, only to be figuratively speaking burnt at the stake as a heretic.

In 1997 I labelled the 1990s as the decade of strength training:

…and nineties the era of popularity in researching strength.
–King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing

And I challenged the dominant values of that decade, only to be figuratively speaking burnt at the stake as a heretic.

I have labelled the 2000s as the decade of deceit:

…the 2000s ‘The Decade of Bullshit’
–King, I., 2011, The Times May be A-changing, Strengthguild.com

And am challenging the dominant values of that decade – it won’t kill me to be burnt at the stake as a heretic one more time.

Heresy in endurance training

During the late 1980s and early 1990s I reached conclusions about the flaws in application of aerobic training approach that dominated the 1980s, and I spoke out against this.

I’ve probably lead the anti-aerobic movement. You go back ten years ago and everything was aerobic. I was one of the first to say, listen, I’ve tried it and I’ve tried other ways and I think I can give you a better way. Now what we’re seeing is an overreaction. We’re seeing people saying to not do any aerobics. It’s just gone too far.
–Shugart, C., 2000, Meet Ian King (interview), Fri 29 Dec 2000

During the 1980s I experienced the impact of concurrent aerobic training and strength training in both my personal sports training and in the sports training of the athletes I worked with. Ahead of any research on this topic, I knew something wasn’t right. I experienced and observed the interference that aerobic training had on the strength qualities. I questioned the ‘aerobic base’ approach.

…this excessive aerobic training is not only failing to address their weakness (lack of strength and power), but is often having a negative effect on strength and power.
— King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing

By the early 1990s I published comments that undermined the claim made by leading local academics, who at that time were promoting the aerobic base as a science, and using newspaper clippings of athlete’s quotes as their evidence. I suggested that the aerobic base was a myth, and that in fact there was no science behind it at all.

Instead of producing the evidence of the science behind the aerobic base (of which there was none), the academics whose opinions and reputations were threatened by my comments took action to silence me. I was terminated from my position as the sub-editor of the state branch of the Australian Sports Medicine Federation journal, of which both myself and the academics I apparently threatened by speaking out were contributors and sub-editors of. They had written a letter of complaint to the editor of the publication about me, needless to say it was directed at my position on aerobic training, rather they brought out a strategy that was to be used by others in the years to come – they claimed my writings lacked adequate scientific reference.

Burnt at the stake for such heresy!

After maintaining this position professionally for over twenty years, and bearing the brunt of ridicule and violent attacks, I noted that certain others began publishing similar positions. Two things were apparent –firstly, the writings looked, well, very familiar….

Like this one:

Aerobic training has been overemphasized in training literature and practice. It is essentially in many cases an ineffective and inefficient method for performance improvement
–King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing

….quite simply aerobic training is grossly over-rated. Over rated for health, over rated for performance….
–2005, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

And secondly, the concepts were reaching the stage of acceptance in the market place:

Let us use the aerobic base belief as an example. There has been a traditional bias towards gaining an ‘aerobic base’ at the commencement of the general preparation phase – in all sports, all the time, with all athletes. Is this based on fact? I suggest not. I suggest it is a myth.
–King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing

I’m not exactly sure why we feel so compelled to develop an aerobic base….I don’t believe we have ever really adequately explained this need for aerobic base. I think it is simply an assumption…
–2005, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

Heresy in speed training

During the late 1980s and early 1990s I reached conclusions about the flaws in application of speed training approach that dominated the 1980s, and I spoke out against this.

By the late 1900s I had also begun to implement my reverse periodization model in speed and endurance training for field team sport athletes. Unbeknown to me, the late great Charlie Francis had been implementing a similar model for many years. My suggestion that you didn’t need to and shouldn’t be training speed through the use of long to short distance progression was considered again a threat and heretical. I was banished from the ovals of the field sport team I was initially implementing my trials with, forced to run a renegade program on council parks around the town.

Burnt at the stake for such heresy!

I will never forget the way one particular athlete rubbed his hands together at how he was going to put myself and my small group of speed trained athletes in our place. The pre-season fitness training was build around repetitions of 400 metres, and he knew my boys had barely run further than 40 meters for months, and to make it worse, we rarely ran flat out. It was going to be easy.

My protégés burned this athlete and the rest. When the fruits of my methods became apparent the speed coach quit, and the athlete who led the charge against my boys was forced into retirement that same season. Too slow.

After maintaining this position professionally for nearly twenty years, and (along with Charlie Francis) bearing the brunt of ridicule and violent attacks, I noted that certain others began publishing similar positions. Two things were apparent –firstly, the writings looked, well, very familiar….
Like this one:

Detection of and reaction to stimulus:…the ability to detect and react to stimulus. This is usually the first action in a chain of speed responses.
— King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

Reaction time: The ability to detect and react to a stimulus. This usually the first action in a series of speed responses.
–2003, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

Agility and co-ordination: The first few movements following the reaction to the stimulus…include sports where the distances moved and time frames involved are short…
— King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

Agility and co-ordination: This is the first few movements following the reaction to the stimulus… for sports where the distances moved and the time frames involved are quite short
–2003, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

And secondly, because most of this publishing copying occurs in the fitness industry and they don’t see much need for real sports training information (despite the marketing claims) such as speed training, this area has not yet reached mass popularity and acceptance amongst the market masses to the level where the extensive copying in publishing has occurred.

Heresy in strength training

During the late 1980s I reached conclusions about the flaws in application of strength training approach that dominated the 1980s, and I spoke out against this in the early 1990s.

Strength training of the 1980s was based largely on the belief that heavy loads in strength training were neither specific or beneficial, and therefore higher rep, faster movements dominated training. I was the first ‘strength coach’ in the Australian national league sport of Australian Rules to introduce maximal strength training. I was the first person in perhaps the world of rugby union outside of South Africa to implement maximal free weight strength training in rugby. I was the first person at least in my country in rowing, swimming, squash, and diving, and the list goes on – to promote free weight maximal strength methods in these sports.

I will never forget the day the Australian rugby coach took some of the Australian rugby union players to see the New Zealand ‘All Blacks’ ‘strength and conditioning’ coach (not that was what he was called in the late 1980s). He derided my maximal strength methods to these athletes and the coach, with comments such “When do you get this loads on the field? You don’t! They are not relevant!” And proceeded to show the boys how to do high rep sets of leg presses, leg extensions and bench presses on the Universal machine.

I challenged this over-application of specificity in a presentation in New Zealand in 1993, , the ‘home’ of specificity in strength training:

Without discarding circuit training methods completely, one can question the acclaimed specificity of circuit training to the game of rugby if done for the strength benefits – the loading in inadequate; if done for joint angle specificity – this can only be achieved by playing the game; if done for limb velocity specificity – the angular velocity of the hip in sprinting is between 500-900 degrees per second – unachievable in the gymnasium (28); if done for energy system specificity – only playing the game or performing game like drills will provide the peripheral endurance (34) specificity required.

It is important for the coach to ask “which method will create the most effective transfer to the athletes ability to play rugby?”, not simply “what methods appear the most specific?
–King, I., 1993, Strength training for rugby, New Zealand Journal of Sports Medicine, v. 21(4):23-26

I was ‘burnt at the stake’ for such heresy!

Heresy in flexibility training

During the 1980s I reached conclusions about the flaws in application (or lack of) of flexibility training approach that dominated the 1980s, and I spoke out against this.

I maintained that static stretching can and should be done before training, and that static stretching should dominant the stretching program.

I find it is the most effective practical way to achieve changes or improvements in flexibility…. Generally speaking I recommend your total stretching program consist predominantly of static stretching.
— King, I., 2002, Get Buffed! II

No-one took much notice of this in the 1980s or early 1990s, but by the late 1990s the ‘scientific’ reasons why one should not stretch, static stretch, or do static stretching before training had begun to proliferate. I spend the fifteen years between 1995 and 2010 being pillared from post to post for my position. After all, all the ‘big names’ in the US strength coach and academic circles maintain the evils everything I stood for. Not one person in the world of ‘strength and conditioning’ had the originality or courage to speak up in support.

Burnt at the stake for such heresy!

After maintaining this position professionally for over twenty years, and bearing the brunt of ridicule and violent attacks, I noted that certain others began publishing similar positions. Two things were apparent –firstly, the writings looked, well, very familiar….

Like this one:

I believe that stretching is the only physical quality that in relation to it’s training, the saying ‘more is better’ applies.
— King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

In my opinion – stretching is perhaps the only training activity where more is better.
–2003, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

And secondly, the concepts were reaching the stage of acceptance in the market place:

I do two things that are still considered relatively unique. I recommend stretching, and I recommend stretching before the workout

–King, I., 2002, Get Buffed!™ II

The key may lie in performing static stretching near the beginning of the workout,… Yes, static stretch. Yes, before the workout.
–2011, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

Teaching in America

During the late 1990s, courtesy of the emergence of the internet and a few years of reduced team sports requirements, I took my message to America.

In 1999 I taught my seminars in the US city of New York, which resulted in a serious back lash. I suspect it was my teaching that chin ups do not equate rows, nor do they negate the bench press, that was the cause of most of the angst. At that time, the most influential strength coach who enjoyed control of the market promoted training methods totally devoid of rows, and heavily biased towards chin ups.

I experienced personal attacks and rumour-spreading, like the time I went to a national convention and one exhibition booth person nearly fainted when he saw me – he was adamant I was in jail, and wanted to know when I was released. The old chest-nuts came out – my seminars were bad and I didn’t use enough science. My seminar hosts were threatened with ramifications if they went on with my seminars, seminar participants were personally phoned, including by certain state police calling outside their geographical jurisdiction as well as their legal jurisdiction to threaten arrest of those who got involved with me. Just because I dared suggest that horizontal pulling needed to balance horizontal pushing.

Then on to Boston, where my content was so threatening the local gate-keeper of information gathered his flock a few hours into the seminar, and made a very public showing of walking out, taking his flock with him. Not content with this, this local ‘identity’ contacted my host, and left them in no doubt about how bad my seminar was, how bad a presenter was, and what the serious ramifications would be if they dared bring me back to the area.

I believe that my position about loading being over-rated, that one should use bodyweight before loading were the main killers, along with my suggestions of balance in strength training, and my unique concept of lines of movement. At that time any compliant trend-following person was using the power and Olympic lifts with focus on maximum loading, and the concept of lines of movement and balance in strength training were totally new. And I’d suggest so in contrast to what the gate-keeper of information was doing that I had to be eliminated.

Burnt at the stake for such heresy!

My position of bodyweight before external load. It was considered so extreme in the 1990s that the publisher of the internet magazine t-mag.com felt the need to pre-warm users about the absence of external load and conventional exercises, and encourage them to let go of convention and risk the ridicule of doing something different:

Of course, the most difficult part of the workout was shrugging off years of brainwashing. Doing exercises with little or no weight was a hard pill to swallow, but once I reminded myself that I didn’t care how different or weird the movements looked, I had a great workout. Remember, screw the pack mentality and give this workout a try!
–TC Louma, Editor T-mag.com, Sep 24 1999

By 2005 it was being taught in the absence of credit or reference by people who had attended my seminars where I taught this.

Or my position on balance in strength training:

To help you understand how to divide and balance out your training, Ian came up with a list of major muscle groups that reflects their function:

Horizontal pulling (row)
Horizontal pushing (bench press)
Vertical pulling (chin-up)
Vertical pushing (shoulder press)
Hip dominant (deadlifts)
Quad dominant (squats)
— Shugart, Chris, 2001, The Ian King Cheat Sheets, Part 1 – A quick and dirty look at all the cool stuff Ian King has taught us so far, Fri, Aug 24, 2001, T-mag.com

By 2005 it was being taught in the absence of credit or reference by people who had attended my seminars where I taught this

After maintaining these positions professionally for nearly twenty years, and bearing the brunt of ridicule and violent attacks, I noted that certain others began publishing similar positions. Two things were apparent –firstly, the writings looked, well, very familiar….

Like this one:

…all things being equal, and independent of any specificity demands, the selection of exercises should show balance throughout the body.
— King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs

…all things being equal, and independent of any specificity demands, the selection of exercises should show balance throughout the body.
–2005, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

I apply the following guideline to any athlete, not just young athlete – why use external loading before developing the ability to manage the load of bodyweight?
— King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!™

My theory has always been that the only reason an athlete should lift weights is when their bodyweight no longer provides any challenge to them.
–2003, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

…if your bodyweight for whatever reason is too much for your leg strength, you can always do a one-legged leg press or hack squat.
— King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!™

In fact in my experience I’d suggest that some athletes cannot even work with their bodyweight so we may need to modify certain exercises.
–2003, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

And secondly, the concepts were reaching the stage of acceptance in the market place:

The following article is Part I of a two-part leg training article that’s very different from anything you’ve ever done. How so? Well, for starters, some of the exercises don’t even require you to use any weight…
–Louma, TC., 1999, describing the single leg based lower body program known as ‘The Limping Program’

I occasionally flirt with the idea of not even performing conventional two-legged exercises….and simply concentrating on single leg strength….
–2005, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

The industry integrity heresy

Post 2010 I find myself again being labelled as a heretic. Even dishonest by some well-marketed industry commentators. Because as I have done during the past thirty years, I am calling it as I see it. Only this time it’s not training methods or paradigms about training. It’s about the standards of the physical preparation industry, specifically the US-led ‘fitness industry’.

I labelled the 1980s as the decade of aerobic training, the 1990s as the decade of strength training focus, and the 2000s as the decade of deceit.

During the decade immediately post 2000 I have observed what I describe as an unacceptable level of deceit in publishing and marketing permeate this industry. To the point where those who have positioned themselves, primarily through symbiotic relationships with information equipment distributors, now openly encourage their followers to lie, cheat and steal.

The situation has got so messed up that potentially good people coming through have unwittingly been caught up in this web of deceit. It will take years to unravel. It may take greater social and economic upheavals to bring to an end. Whatever it takes, it will be a great day when this behaviour is no longer endorsed and accepted.

Contrary to the beliefs of at least one ‘well-respected professional’, I suggest that a companies willingness to engage known individuals whose published words are not original, and who openly encourage people to lie, cheat and steal – is not, for me, an exoneration. Rather it is a sad reflection of the value system of the organizations involved, and the willingness of the masses to accept information from such organizations.

I liken it to the days prior to environmental protection from industrial waste and development. Companies would (and in some cases still do) release toxic waste products into the environment carte blanche. Did the absence of enforcement suggest this was acceptable and in the interests of the planet. No, and history has shown societies are not taking a belated stand against such behaviour. When enforcement is lax – where companies distribute their waste in an environmentally damaging way and no enforcement results – does this mean that the companies were right and acting in the good of greater society? I’d suggest not.

I propose we are in a similar period in the ‘physical preparation industry’. Where companies knowingly mislead or endorse those who mislead the masses through deceitful content, which is not in the interest of the masses. The only interests being served are the professional, personal and commercial interests of those providing the misleading content and benefiting from the subsequent sales.

For me, the absence of any regulation of this behaviour does not equate to the conclusion that the behaviour is right or in the interests of those who it is claimed they are serving. Rather, it is a sad reflection of the current state of integrity in this industry.

I might be amongst the first to have concerns. I might be amongst the first to publicly express those concerns. I might be one of the few who have walked away from consulting/writing opportunities as a personal stand against this situation. However I will not be the last. And I believe that one day, hopefully in my lifetime, we will see a shift towards an industry cultural standard where the interests of the end-user is prioritized, rather than the self-serving interests of select companies, organizations and individuals. (Who knows, it may be even sooner should the broader economy continue its tailspin)

Call me an eternal optimist if you want. That’s a lot nicer than what those who perceive I threaten their egos and income are calling me!

My message to those who perceive my stance threatens them is this – I’ve been around a while, and taken many stance. Throw as many stones as you want. You are not the first to attack, and you won’t be the last. I’m happy to go to battle for things I strongly believe in. It’s not going to change my position and direction. It never has in the past.  What has changed is the way of doing and thinking. Inevitably in the direction I have called. So get ready for the change! You can choose it, or it will be forced upon you. Your call.
Conclusion

From being a paradigm shifter I experienced ridicule and attack. Many times, in many decades over many different aspects of physical preparation. Did this stop me? No. Has history proven me to be off-track? No.

I labelled the 1980s as the decade of aerobic training and during the early 1990s I sought to put the 1980s aerobic training approach back into an appropriate context.

I labelled the 1990s as the decade of strength training and during the late 1990s and early 2000s I sought to put the 1990s strength training load-based focus and other paradigms back into context.

The same people who reacted violently to my teachings now typically teach my innovations. Of course, in the absence of any referencing, as I suspect this would be too embarrassing for them to reveal the hurt I caused with my honest non-compliant teaching.

I predicted the 2000s might be the decade of flexibility training focus and acceptance – but I got this wrong.

Now post 2010 I have labelled the 2000s as the decade of bullshit, a period dominated by lies and deceit, covered over eventually be the teaching of the information gate keepers that it okay to lie, cheat and steal.

And as I have done for the past three decades, I am speaking out without fear or favour, telling you that I believe you are being seriously misled and that the only purpose this serves is the personal and commercial interests of those decades’ information gate-keepers.

I seek to encourage a return to values of honesty and truth; values that the US led fitness market in particular have discarded in the extreme during the 2000s. It seems that anyone with a burning desire to be perceived as an ‘expert’, and a lack of integrity can market successfully the perception of their greatness, and in the absence of appropriate experience. The period of 2000 to 2010 has seen a rapid descent into marketing and publishing deceit, as if the industry and perhaps society is either sensing an end to the current was we life, or intending to induce an end, by such self-destructive and non-sustainable behaviour.

I believe the lies and exploitation of the masses through marketing of training equipment under the guise of ‘new trends in training methods in physical training’ has reached serious stages, and can no longer be ignored.

And just as I did in the decades before, the fire under the stake are being lit. One particular ‘respected author’ referred in writing to my ‘dishonesty’. After all, how dare I undermine the perception of greatness that these people have created through deception? There is no way the product sales of major US equipment and distribution companies are going to be threatened by some irritant from Australia.

And how can the average person, who has believed the marketing pieces and editorially sculptured bios of these ‘experts’, be expected to have their perception of these people shattered by suggesting they are not the honest experts you have been led to believe? And what about the damage that may be caused when the average consumer in this industry concludes ‘If they are lying about x and y, what else are they lying about?’ No, this would be intolerant and must be stopped!

History has shown that the initially controversial and personally-damaging positions I have taken during the last thirty years have eventually become accepted practice, in many cases taught by the very same people who sought to destroy the message initially. Based on this, I suspect that sometime in the next few years or decades, there will be return to integrity in marketing and sales in the physical preparation industry. And it wouldn’t surprise me to see those on the bandwagon include those who currently are the ones throwing stones at my position that the market is dominated by deceitful exploitation of the trust-worthiness of the masses.

Are these personal attacks going to stop me? No. Will history prove my position to be accurate? I believe so.

So take your pick – ridicule and attack my position that lies and deceit in marketing and publication have dominated the landscape during the last ten years like most people will, because this is what the majority do. And I can guarantee you some time in the future you will accept this position, albeit probably taught to you by some trend watcher. Or step back, let go of the conditioned belief you have about the credibility of your ‘gurus’ – and give it an objective reflection.

What do you stand to gain or loose? If you like to be average, you probably want to join the masses and ridicule and attack my position. If you want to gain what I consider to be your best interests – I strongly suggest you consider rejecting the average. Typically there is a decade gap I have noted between when I teach something unique and effective that threatens the status quo, and when these same individuals who were threatened and attacked me begin teaching the very same things. You stand to gain an average of decade head start on the masses if you take the lesson now.

One of the few differences between my ‘controversial’ position in the past and this current controversial position is this – I used to take stands about training methods. Now I am taking stands against human values and behaviours. I believe what’s at stake now and its potential benefits to society are even greater. I guess I can expect the initial back lash to be even greater, as much more is at stake. It’s not just the ego of those who have staked their reputations and credibility on a training method. I am now getting between desperate people and their money.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

–Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860)