Ian King

Where’s the evidence?! Part 4 – Choices in ‘evidence’

/by

Through out this article series I have sought to provide a respectful review of ‘evidence’, in answering the common thread of responses to the concepts and innovations in training I have shared during the last four decades.

In Part 1 of this article series I shared my experiences in the field of paradigm shifting and some of the experiences I had. In Part 2 of this article series I discussed the meaning of the words ‘Where’s the evidence?’  In Part 3 of the series I sought to provide support to my suggestion that the main reason those who lash out in response to my innovations demand to see the evidence is that they fear the challenge to change.

In this article, Part 4 of the series, I intend to discuss two primary options or choices in evidence. From the outset I stress there is no suggestion that you have to choice one or the other. You can work with both.

The first is the sort of evidence most are conditioned (at least in the academic influenced fitness and sports training industry) to seek and believe in – randomized double blind placebo controlled study. The second or other option is personal experience. Now I know it’s hard for some of you to even understand the audacity of proposing personal experience as an alternative to the ivory tower of ‘science’, however you could relax and let me finish.

After all, I am not ‘attacking’ the theory of science. I am simply challenging blind compliance.

Let’s imagine that if it’s in print, and published in a reputable journey – it must be so. I certainly believed that at one stage.  So much so that I even referenced a research conclusion in one of my books.

I included a supplement (water) marketed under the trademark ‘Might Atom’ in my 1998 Australian Sports Supplement Review,[1]on the basis of a research[2]supporting it.

The only study that we have seen on this supplement, by Wilson, concluded that ‘Mighty Atom’ resulted in a modest short term increase in maximum (arm) strength during the one week study conducted.  The strength increases were measured at 4%, which the researcher suggested to be similar to the results achieved with the acute use of creatine monohydrate.

One theory for how it may work was presented by Wilson (95).  He suggests that possibly the ‘cleansing effect’ associated with the use of ‘Mighty Atom’ may occur via the removing of accumulated toxins, such as heavy metals, from the body.  He cited a 1990 study which maintained that significant amounts of mercury in the body can produce fatigue and weakness.

Questions were raised at a later date – did the research even occur?

Now that may be a relatively harmless example, however let’s consider something more significant. Such as the circumstances leading to the recent lawsuit against Monsanto in the glyphoshpate (round-up) case in the US where damages in excess of $250 million USD were awarded for the plaintiff, Dwayne “Lee” Johnson.

After all, there is ‘strong evidence that it does not cause cancer in humans’.

The EPA considers glyphosate to have low toxicity when used at the recommended doses. “Risk estimates for glyphosate were well below the level of concern,” said EPA spokesman Dale Kemery. The EPA classifies glyphosate as a Group E chemical, which means there is strong evidence that it does not cause cancer in humans.[3]

Well, that was until just recently.

Johnson’s jury heard evidence that for four decades Monsanto maneuvered to conceal Roundup’s carcinogenicity by capturing regulatory agencies, corrupting public officials, bribing scientists and engaging in scientific fraud to delay its day of reckoning. The jury found that these activities constituted “malice, fraud and oppression” warranting $250 million in punitive damages.

Does this mean all published science should be disregarded? Not at all. The point, should it need to be clarified, is that it may not be prudent to accept science all on face value simply because it has been published. Just as with your foods, ideally trace it back to its origin to understand it fully.

So what’s an alternative?  A man called Richard Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983) who is considered one of the most intelligent Americans in modern history. His patents, ideas and innovations are claimed by many industries.  Here is one of Buckminster’s conclusions, made at the age of 53 years:

…I jettisoned all that I had ever been taught to believe and proceeded thereafter to reason and act only on the basis of direct personal experience…Exploring, experiencing, feeling, and – to the best of my ability – acting strictly and only on my individual intuition…[4]

I know – it may be difficult for many to accept that intuition and personal experience could ever be given such credibility.

Let’s say for example you had read something somewhere that a certain type of form was the best way to deliver a certain micronutrient. Then you came up on say a multi-vitamin where the formulation used a certain form of a micronutrient that you had read was not as good at another.  So without trying the product, you reject it outright. This is an example of action in the basis only of what you have been led to believe.

Alternatively you acknowledge the information you were exposed to, however tested the multi-vitamin over a reasonable time period with an objective mind, to develop your own conclusions. This is an example of what Buckminster Fuller was referring to, using your own faculties and experience to collect ‘evidence’.

These are your choices.  If you see value in using the latter (personal experience) as in addition to the former (evidence presented by others), then I encourage you to remain strong under the pressure to conform.

Almost anybody can learn to think or believe or know, but not a single human being can be taught to feel. Why?  Because whenever you think or you believe or you know, you’re a lot of other people, but the moment you feel, you’re nobody but yourself.

To be nobody-but-yourself – in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else – means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight and never stop fighting…[5]

Resist the temptation in program design to conform to mainstream paradigms simply for the sake of conforming, no matter how dogmatically they are presented, or how much you may be ridiculed or ostracized for trusting your intuition over conformity. Make our own minds up based on a combination of respect for your intuition, the athlete/client’s intuition, the results, and in respect of the body of knowledge available.[6]

 

References

[1]King, I., 1998, Australia Supplement Review, King Sports International, Bris Aust.

[2]Wilson, G.J., 1997, The effect of Mighty Atom on arm strength, Strength and Conditioning Coach, 5(2):2-4.

 

[3]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

[4]Buckminster-Fuller, referring to his book ‘Critical Path’, 1981.

 

[5]E.E. Cummings

[6]King, I.., 2005, The way of the physical preparation coach (book), p. 17

Ian King

Huddle #39 – Reflections and Questions Boot Camp 2018 – Part 3 of 3

/by

During our peak annual event, the only time all our top level coaches come together each year, we are involved in some phenomenal professional development experiences.One of these are our round-circle discussions that we call our ‘Huddles’. This Part 1 of  a 3 part audio series gives you insights into the minds of our coaches from all levels as they absorb heir experiences doing the week of the 2018 camp!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS | More

Ian King

Where’s the evidence?! Part 3 – Here’s the evidence

/by

In Part 1 of this article series I shared my experiences in the field of paradigm shifting and some of the experiences I had. Not quite as fatal as the experience that the 19thCentury Hungarian doctor Ignaz Semmelweis paid. However still an eventful experience.

In Part 2 of this article series I discussed the meaning of the words ‘Where’s the evidence’, again making suggestions that may lead to further evoking of emotions!

In this article, Part 3 of the series, I want to provide some ‘evidence’ of why I said what I said in Part 2 – that the main reason those who lash out in response to my innovations demand to see the evidence is that they are confident there is no randomized double blind placebo controlled study that I can offer, and therefore are looking for the comfort of being ‘right’ enough to keep doing what they are currently doing.

My first point about this call for evidence is this – what percentage of their life actions that they make on a daily basis is based on randomized double blind placebo controlled studies? I suggest very little.

Do they select the mattress they sleep on based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study? Maybe, but I doubt it.  Is the way they lay oh the bed during the night based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Is the way the get out of bed in the morning based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study? Maybe, but I doubt it.  Is the hand they use (right or left) for personal hygiene in the morning based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Is the hand they use (right or left) to move food from their breakfast plate to their mouth based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study? Maybe, but I doubt it.  Is the hand they use to comb their hair or the type of comb they use based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study? Maybe, but I doubt it.

I could go on, all day long…

Bottom line – how much of what you do all day is based on a based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study?

Now let’s talk about training.

Is the way they warm up based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study that shows that compared to all available options, that is the best way? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Are the exercises they choose based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study that shows that compared to all available options, that is the best way? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Are the loading parameters – reps, speed of movement, number of sets, rest periods – based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study that shows that compared to all available options, that is the best way? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Are the exercise technical models they employ – including width of grip and or stance, angle of grip or foot placement, line of movement etc. – based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study that shows that compared to all available options, that is the best way? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Now you can tell me anything you want about how your program is 100% science based – but please, don’t assume me for a fool. I’ve been around the block a few times.  And even in the last few days I’ve been privy to informal discussion between some of the leading US researchers who quite simply had two things in common – firstly, they could not reach a consensus as to the definitiveness of loading parameter for generic optimal muscle hypertrophy. And secondly, they all deferred to their own personal experiences to willingly over-ride the conclusions of one of their own groups recent research conclusions.

So let’s be straight – if a leading group of scientists cannot find consensus in the ‘science’ regarding one single training variable – your training decisions and program design is going to be more art than science.

Now, of course, if you want to abdicate the uniqueness of you as an individual to the average response of the short duration, small group sample in any given study conclusion – be my guest.

In summary, stop kidding yourself that all your training decisions are based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled studies! And stop cherry picking when you are ‘right’ or someone else is ‘wrong’ because of the absence or presence of a randomized double blind placebo controlled study.

Does this mean I am anti-science? Not at all. Does this mean that science in our field is useless? Not at all.  It is however challenged. Challenged by the amount and complexity of physically training an individual, as opposed to the average of a specific sample group.

When I’m making a training decision for a 15 year veteran in a sport, attempting to make their third Olympics Games, where is the randomized double blind placebo controlled study that I will make my decisions based on with absolute certainty? For that matter, where is the randomized double blind placebo controlled study that involved a sample size of clones of your client, irrespective of what their demographic is?

Does that mean I am right about the innovations I share with the world? Not at all. Are the the honest reflections based on about as much empirical evidence I can apply? Are they the best way I have found to date based on my experience? Absolutely.

Now before I scuttle back into the woods to cover from the rounds fired by those inflamed by my audacity to suggest that science has yet definitively navigate program design for each and every person, allow me to share some food for thought about ‘science’.

Marcia Angell, who spent two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, wrote in 2009:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine”[1]

In 2015 Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, wrote that

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness”[2]

Here’s a case study that I have watched with interest. I have worked with a number of Vietnam Veterans over the years. They complained about a thing they called ‘Agent Orange’. Heard of it? It was a chemical herbicide and defoliant was used to clear out tropical jungles in Vietnam during that conflict to expose the hiding places and food supplies of Viet Cong guerrilla fighters. According to an article in Natural News:

“In the years from 1961 to 1971, the American military sprayed roughly 12 million gallons of it across 30,000 miles in the southern part of Vietnam.  Agent Orange contains the toxin dioxin, which has been linked to cancer, birth defects, and other fatal illnesses. Millions of the Vietnamese people are still suffering from the effects of exposure to the chemical.”[3]

Up until 11 August 2018, apparently “it was claimed at the time that there wasn’t enough evidence to link Agent Orange to health problems.” On 11 August 2018 a US High Court was convinced enough to award damages against the firm that makes this drug, Monsanto, of $289 million – for one victim in the US.

Now my question to those who hold or portray to hold the belief that they discard all unless a randomized double blind placebo controlled study supports – would you have backed your belief and be willing to be exposed to being sprayed by Round Up prior to 11 August 2018?

Yes, these statements and case study refer to medical research, not sports science research. However, I know of at least one study that didn’t even happen yet was published as if it did in a peer-reviewed journal…

Okay, maybe there’s been more than one, but I don’t want to burst your bubble all at once. After all, too many are still angry at me for my habit of presenting my evidence, based on at least a decade of observation and experimentation, and backed by four decades of observation and experimentation – that challenges most of what you have been led to believe, or had reached your own conclusion, was the best thing for you….

 

References

[1] Angell M. Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption. The New York Review of Books magazine. [Last accessed August 5, 2015]. Available from: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/ [Ref list]

[2]Horton R. Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? [Last accessed August 5, 2015].  www.thelancet.com. Available from: http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf

[3] Z. Isabelle, 2018, Vietnam demands Monsanto pay hundreds of millions in damages to victims of Agent Orange, Natural news Tuesday, September 04, 2018. https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-09-04-vietnam-demands-monsanto-pay-hundreds-of-millions-in-damages-to-victims-of-roundup-glyphosate-weedkiller.html

Ian King

Huddle #38 – Reflections and Questions Boot Camp 2018 – Part 2 of 3

/by

During our peak annual event, the only time all our top level coaches come together each year, we are involved in some phenomenal professional development experiences.One of these are our round-circle discussions that we call our ‘Huddles’. This Part 1 of  a 3 part audio series gives you insights into the minds of our coaches from all levels as they absorb heir experiences doing the week of the 2018 camp!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS | More

Ian King

Where’s the evidence?! Part 2

/by

In Part 1 I spoke about the price some paradigm shifters such as Ignaz Semmelweis, the Hungarian doctor who dared to suggest that doctors were killing their patients by failing to wash their hands, paid.  Without suggesting I was in his league, I gave numerous examples of how people had responded to my paradigm challenging innovations over the last four decades.

Perhaps against better judgement, I continue to share my training conclusions for positive impact by those who embrace them. I say perhaps against better judgements because I receive the same personal attacks and questioning of my sanity as I did four decades ago when I release these ideas, especially the ones that relate to training methods or equipment embraced by the majority.

I naively hope that those threatened by exposure to these suggestions would take some time to check out my track record, however I appreciate I am being unrealistically optimistic.

After all, if Linus Pauling could be subject to such vitriol for his teachings and position in relation to supplemental Vitamin C after he had won two unshared and in two different subject areas Nobel Peace prizes (something no one else has achieved), then who am I to expect a leave pass?

So what do those who make the comment ‘Where’s the evidence?’ (in relation to my audacious suggestions challenging popular training methods and equipment) mean? After all, it shocks me, as I have just shared the rationale in the multiple page article – so what are they referring to when they say ‘Where is the evidence?’

Let’s talk about possible meanings of the word ‘evidence’.

According to dictionary’s: 

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.[1]

one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true:[2]

Now that cannot be what they are referring to, as surely they would not have asked had they been operating on these versions. I mean, I had just explained to them why based on my four decades of experience I reached that conclusion, yet they still asked ‘Where’s the evidence?’

So I believe they are referring to another type of evidence. Here are two possibilities.

The first one is industry specific. Our industry is one where the need to quote a scientific reference is paramount.  Despite being in a field that will always be challenged by the ability to provide ‘scientific’ answers to human adaptations, our industry seems committed on over-compensating.

So one possibility is that they are referring to a randomized double blind placebo controlled study.

Studies follow a hierarchy in terms of the quality of evidence that they can provide. Randomized double blind placebo control (RDBPC) studies are considered the “gold standard” of epidemiologic studies. [3]

There is another form of evidence that I doubt these typically challengers are referring to consciously, however I suggest subconsciously they are looking for – the evidence that ‘the majority’ (or at least a substantial number of people) are doing it also.

I call that conformity evidence.

So I get the rationale of what they are saying – show me the evidence, meaning the randomized double blind placebo controlled study – however there is one more point I will make about this request.

Is this question really driven by a desire to learn, or is it driven by the expectation that the standard cannot be met, and therefore they are safe to keep doing what they are currently doing?

In other words, I suggest that the default ‘where’s the evidence?’; ‘there is no evidence to support that’; is a safe-haven to avoid change, to avoid learning that one may have been off-track or sub-optimal in past beliefs and practices.

I know what you’re thinking…

So where’s the evidence for you saying that Ian?! (Oh I forgot to add the prelude of sentences containing nasty adjectives!)

[Read Part 3….]

 

 

 

[1]https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/evidence

[2]https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/evidence

[3]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3505292/

Ian King

Huddle #37 – Reflections and Questions Boot Camp 2018 – Part 1 of 3

/by

During our peak annual event, the only time all our top level coaches come together each year, we are involved in some phenomenal professional development experiences.One of these are our round-circle discussions that we call our ‘Huddles’. This Part 1 of  a 3 part audio series gives you insights into the minds of our coaches from all levels as they absorb heir experiences doing the week of the 2018 camp!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS | More

Ian King

Where’s the evidence?! Part 1 – Ridiculed, opposed, and then self-evident

/by

In the 1840s a Hungarian doctor by the name of Ignaz Semmelweis made the audacious suggestion that doctors were causing the death of their patients because they were not washing their hands before coming into contact with the patient. The doctors didn’t like this suggestion. After all, they were ‘gentleman’, and ‘gentleman’s hands were always clean’. Semmelweis reward was he lost his job, was committed to a mental asylum and was ultimately bashed to death there.

Now we’ve come a long way since then – we don’t necessarily assassinate the bearer of unpalatable ideas, but character assassination is still on the table.

A great quote that I use often, credited to a German philosopher from about Semmelweis’s era, states:

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

Now I don’t profess to hold the truth, nor do I profess to have impacted the world in the way that Semmelweis has, however I do know first hand the way those who propose unpopular and challenging ideas get treated.

In the early1980s science had ‘proven’ that squats were bad (stretched the knee ligaments irreparably) and leg extensions were a much safer exercise. Based on my experience I reached the conclusion that this may have been back the front, and despite the criticisms of my colleagues and the weight of the ‘science’, continued to promote the double knee bend (squat).

In the early 1980s there was no science to support that the use of knee sleeves during strength training would benefit the joint. Based on my experience I reached the conclusion it may, and despite the criticisms of my colleagues and the absence of ‘science’, continued to promote the use of knees sleeves in the gym for all who were loading their lower body.

In the early 1980s there was no science to support that anyone needed anymore protein or other supplementation than the average person did – in the case of protein, that was about 0.7 grams of protein per kilogram per day. No one. It was, I was told, simply creating ‘expensive urine’. Based on my experience I reached the conclusion that this may off-track, and despite the criticisms of my colleagues and the weight of the ‘science’, continued to promote the use of nutritional supplementation including protein powder.

In the mid 1980s there was no science to support that altering the speed of movement in strength training, or recognizing the pause between eccentric and concentric contraction, was of any value.  Based on my experience I reached the conclusion that there was merit in controlling and manipulating these variables. Despite the ridicule of my colleagues and the absence of the ‘science’ I developed and applied strategies for communicating the concept I called ‘Speed of Movement’ to my clients, using a three digit timing system.

In the mid 1980s there was no science to support that you could or should use a categorization of exercise. In fact even the best bodybuilding books written by great and experienced men called the legs the legs, and the (upper) back the back.  Based on my experience I reached the conclusion that there was merit in categorizing the movements. Despite the ridicule of my colleagues and the absence of the ‘science’ I developed a concept I called ‘Lines of Movement’ where I separated what I called ‘hip dominant movements’ from ‘quad dominant movements’.  And created the simple category of horizontal push and pull and vertical push and pull.

When I taught this and other of my ‘really crazy’ ideas in a seminar in New York NY USA in about 2000, the local ‘guru’ commenced a long running ‘discouragement of attending my seminars’. That’s code for they weren’t allowed to attend – anywhere in the US! And if they did, they needed to know they risked being arrested! And by way, you would also be arrested if you received a package from me (in other words don’t order any of my educational material!) I get it – this guru has zero horizontal pulling in his programs. He needed to crush that idea really fast, or at least long enough to regroup![1]

I’ll never forget walking into a trade-show in Florida in about 2001 and the person behind the desk went all white and his jaw dropped. I said ‘What’s wrong?’ When he could speak he said ‘I thought you were in jail.’  I said ‘Let me guess who told you that one….’

In the late 1980s and early 1990s there was no science to suggest the need or benefit from performing particular exercises at the start of a strength workout to activate the muscles you planned to use.  Based on my experience I reached the conclusion that there was merit in doing so. Despite the ridicule of my colleagues and the absence of the ‘science’ I developed and applied a series of ‘control drills’ to be performed prior to a strength workout.

When I taught this and other of my ‘really crazy’ ideas in seminars in the USA in about 2000, the reaction by the ‘local guru’ was to introduce one exercise (the external DB Rotation) at the end of the workout – loaded. Not what I had in mind but to the masses a suitable counter.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the role of loading and strength training was just becoming accepted in science, I concluded that loading was over-rated and set about creating and integrating a range of single leg (uni-lateral) exercises that could and should be used in conventional strength training.  No one was taking me too seriously. Really Ian, lay on the your back and using one leg push your hips up into the air? Where did you spend summer? Hanging out with Richard Simmons?!

I went even further, suggesting that the strength sub-qualities promoted by the experts of the day was lacking a vital step and sub-quality. I called it ‘Stability and control’, and published a continuum explaining where it sat in the sequence. And talked about the need to develop functional strength.

When I taught this and other of my ‘really crazy’ ideas in a seminar in Boston MA USA in about 2000, the local ‘guru’ (who I had not heard of before) staged a protest walk out taking most of the seminar audience with him. Why? Because my content was ‘really bad’. I suggest it was more of a case of ‘Holy Shit’, I am not doing anything like this, I’d better crush this like the electric cars in the Nevada desert in the 1970s, before anyone realises what’s going on’.[2]

In the 1980s the science of strength training was based on much earlier work that dictated that strength training should be done in multiple sets of 10 reps. Based on my experience I reached the conclusion that there were other and perhaps more efficient ways to apply loading in strength training. Despite the ridicule of my colleagues and the absence of the ‘science’ I developed and applied alternative loading parameters.

When I taught this and other of my ‘really crazy’ ideas in the US internet and hard copy magazine in the USA before and after 2000, the reaction by the ‘local guru’ was to let the owner and editor know that I didn’t quote enough science.

In the late 1980s the science of endurance training and periodization was that if you didn’t first establish an ‘aerobic base’ you would injure yourself. In other words, if you dared engage in sprinting early in the year, you would tear muscles. Based on my experience I reached the conclusion that were other and perhaps more efficient ways to develop endurance, and that you could engage in speed training without first doing the ‘aerobic base’. Despite the ridicule of my colleagues and the absence of the ‘science’ I developed and applied these methods, parallel with colleagues such as the late Charlie Francis, and called it ‘reverse periodization’.

When I published my challenge to the pseudo science of the ‘aerobic base’ in the early 1990s, the local academics had me fired from my position as associate editor of the state-branch of the sports-medicine association. Because apparently my published articles for that magazine lacked adequate referencing of science. I think it might have been because I challenged their beliefs publically….

I could go on…

So unlike Ignaz Semmelweis, I’m still here, despite the efforts of my ‘colleagues’.

I have to tell you the life of a pioneer is not an easy one, but I would not do it any way. I simply want to know what’s the best way to train, and want to ensure that athletes who want that guidance are given this information to fulfil their potential, to avoid injuries.

Now rest assured I have a system of checks and balances in place. I typically develop an idea for about 10 years before releasing it through publications. I like to test it and refine it.

So recently, when I had the audacity to suggest that I see challenges with the way walking lunges are being used (especially walking lunges), with the way kettle bells are being used,with the way bands are being used….

It starts all over again.

Where’s the evidence for that Ian?

Of course, that’s typically after the very unscientific derogatory comments and unsavoury personality profile that they so readily give…..

“…do you live in a cave or what?…

“…this guy is a muppet….”

“Uninformed.  Incompetent.  Ridiculous.  Coach King doesn’t know how to perform the movement to begin with….”

“Have you have lost your mind dude…”

“…I’m embarrassed for this man. Very much so. He has absolutely no clue how to perform any of these exercises…”

:…it’s the exercise equivalent of the flat earth society in 2018…”

“…Mr. King should seek professional instruction, before he makes further comments about a subject that he knows so little about…”

So, where’s the evidence?

(Go to Part 2….!)

“All genuinely creative ideas are initially met with rejection, since they necessarily threaten the status quo. An enthusiastic reception for a new idea is a sure sign that it is not original.”
― Eric Weiner

References

[1] [2] Personal Communication from a KSI Client who attended this seminar, Nov 2017,  “As someone who was actually at those seminars in NY and Boston in the late 90’s, I can attest to what happened. Ian made the “local gurus” realize that they really had no idea what they were doing, they got pissed off, then some of them returned to the “dark side” and some copied Ian’s material and marketed it as their own.”