Ian King

There is a better way – Part 6: For whose benefit

/by

The coach said to the team –

‘Now I want you to win. Because it makes me look better.’

A few weeks later, in a different sport but with the same athlete, a coach said to the team –

‘Now if some of you are wondering why you didn’t get any game time, I want to remind you – we are playing to win.’

The sample group in reference was 15-17 year olds, playing in late specialization sports. They were a decade away from the potential career peak.

Was this coincidental or reflective of the extent of this value set? I have my thoughts on this.

The concept of ‘long term athlete development’ is now widely known. Few know about the people behind the concept, due to the low level of ethical referencing in this industry, but most will be able to share with you their understanding of ‘LTAD’, in a hip kind of trendy term way.

That’s great, but something is missing, because the talk of long term athlete development is nothing more than lip service.

Either the masses of coaches who claim they are familiar with the concept are not, or they simply don’t respect it.

Because when the coach is ‘playing to win’ with 16 year olds in a late specialization sport, or when the coach is calling upon the athletes to win to boost their coaching credentials, it raises the question – whose benefit is this for?

There was a time when the concept of long term athlete development was known by few. That was not that long ago, as the popularity of this concept has been a post 2000 phenomenon. Yet during this period of ‘ignorance’ I believe coaches and coaching was more enlightening, with a greater chance of the athletes needs coming first.

So how did we get to a point when everyone knows the words, but few demonstrate a true knowledge or respect of the concept?

In the late 1980s and early 1990s one the groups I was working with was the Canadian ski team. The locations we would go into camp were varied, but one thing remained constant – the team Sports Science Director would visit with me multiple times a day, excitedly showing me his latest conceptual development or research discovery, including a concept he was working on at that time – a model for long term athletic development.

His name was Istvan Balyi, a former Hungarian Olympian turned Canadian sports scientist. The work he developed went on to be the most influential model of long-term periodization in the western world during the last two decades.

In essence, and in the simpler earlier version, the model suggested a number of stages in the career of the athlete, and only in the final or latter stage was ‘playing to win’ the priority!

  1. FUNdamentals – where fun based activities developed the fundamentals of athleticism
  2. Training to train – where the athlete trained for the primary purpose of developing the qualities that are derived from training and getting used to training.
  3. Training to Compete – where the athletes training and competition focus was on getting used to competing.
  4. Training to Win – the final stage, at the peak of their career, where the athletes training and games were focused primarily on what needs to be done to win – in the now.

The first three phases of this simplistic interpretation reinforce that all is being done for the delayed gratification of winning at the peak of the athletes career. Despite most coaches of age groups ‘knowing’ this concept, most are implementing the final stage where the primary focus is to win, at the three earlier stages! Even educational institutions who provide a long term athlete development plan in writing fail to do what they say they are doing.

You can learn more about Istvan’s works in his book ‘Long Term Athlete Development’ available on various online websites.   Istvan deserves to have his work learnt from the source, and the publisher, Human Kinetics, deserves credit for being the only North American publisher to my knowledge who has made an effort to reference and credit my material in their publication

I say to the coach who told his players to win for his benefit (to enhance his coaching resume), and to the coach who told his mid-teens that some of them would not step off the reserve bench because they were ‘playing to win’, and all coaches who recognize they may share similar values or habits – to reflect upon and review their coaching strategy.

And if they cannot embrace alternatives where the needs of the athlete come first, consider another pursuit other than sports coaching.

Because there is a better way, and athletes deserve to be given every opportunity to fulfill their athletic potential.

 

Note:

For those athletes and coaches who are concerned about the direction of training and want to believe there is a better way – congratulations. There is a better way. We have spend the last four decades discovering better ways to train, and we teach these better ways when we work with athletes or coaches. The KSI Coaching Program aims to provide you with the tools to train athletes and others in their highest and best interests, with no interest in what the dominant trend is or will be in the future. Learn more about KSI Coach Education here https://kingsports.net/courses/

Ian King

There is a better way – Part 5: There’s more to athlete preparation than ‘strength & conditioning’

/by

Physical preparation in athlete preparation is over-rated.

Its obvious that few share my belief, considering the amount of focus and effort going into physical development globally. I learnt from my professional experience in North America in the late 1980’s and early 1990s that their culture placed a (potentially excessive) premium on physical development. That cultural value is now global, courtesy of the internet.

The model I ascribe to – and teach – for athlete development states there are four (4) components – technical (skill), tactical (tactics), psychological and physical. After based on my four decades of professional experience, I have concluded that (generally speaking) physical development is the least important of them all.

Only in junior sport will a physical advantage at the expense of the development of the other three athlete preparation qualities provide a superior, temporary sport performance advantage. And the athlete in their long-term success, which will be reduced for doing so, pays the price for this.

Now saying ‘physical development is over-rated’ is a tough thing for me to say, especially as doing just that – physical development – has put food on my table for the bulk of my adult life. However I came into this profession to help athletes be successful in sport, not to help them become physical successful per se.

Put simply athletes are spending too much time in the gym and not enough time in skill (technical) and tactical (tactics) development.

Now to make things worse…

The model I ascribe to (and teach) for physical development states there are four (4) components – flexibility, strength, speed and endurance. After based on my four decades of professional experience, I have concluded that (generally speaking) strength is NOT the most important of them all.

But you would not know that, because an increasing percent of physical training time globally in sport is being dedicated to strength development.

So how did we get to this point? In the 1960s strength training in sports was virtually non-existent. In the 1970s it began to raise its head in sport, especially in strength sports such as US college (American) football (gridiron).

One of the leading western world physical preparation professional bodies, the National Strength Coaches Association (NSCA), grew out of this growing movement – football strength coaches at US colleges.

A study of history shows the limits of this association. Strength training was missing, and that is what the NSCA provided. By the time they realized they have overlooked other physical qualities, all they could do was substitute the word ‘conditioning’ for the word ‘coach’, and have to change the acronym NSCA. To this day, their content is reflective of the origin – a heavy bias towards strength training with very little focus on the other physical qualities .

By the 1980s, whilst not as popular as fitness training in the broader society, strength training was being sought out by a growing number of sports (which I where I got my start in sport).

During the 1990s strength training gained acceptance globally – both in sport and the general population.

By now the void had been filled. Strength training was no longer deficient. However in true human ‘over-reaction’ style, we just kept going. In the post 2000 period too much emphasis is being placed on strength.

Now, to drill deeper, not only are we seeing an over-emphasis on strength training, the strength training being conduced is significantly flawed. More on this another day….

So what gave way to allow the extra time for strength training? Playing the sport (skill development), and flexibility training – which ironically (for myself and the values I teach) are THE MOST important athletic and physical qualities respectively….

I was introduced to stretching in high school sport. Half a century later, at the same school, I would be now exposed to less stretching.

Half a century ago I engaged in a sporadic self-driven participation in the strength training gym. It wasn’t organized, and few attended.

Now, at the same school, the strength program is compulsory for all athletes in all sports. If a student athlete does not attend the strength training program for that team, the young athlete is denied selection.

At high school half a century ago my spare time was used up playing kids-organized pick up games. Now, I would not have time to engage in this unstructured, skill-based training. I would instead be at the gym meeting and exceeding the new expectations that athleticism is more effectively developed in the weight room.

So I am not speaking hypothetically. I am speaking as I see it, including a very personal case study using the same high school half a century apart.

So we have potentially given up the two most important qualities of athletic and physical preparation for one quality that is not the most important….

How is that serving us athletically or health wise?

Is this situation likely to reverse? Not in the foreseeable future. Not whilst the trend is towards every high school in the western world having their own full-time ‘strength & conditioning’ coach. Not while the dominant belief is that all there is to athlete preparation is ‘strength & conditioning’.

Hopefully, one day….the world will realize again – that this is more to athlete preparation than ‘strength & conditioning’….

 

Note:

For those athletes and coaches who are concerned about the direction of training and want to believe there is a better way – congratulations. There is a better way. We have spend the last four decades discovering better ways to train, and we teach these better ways when we work with athletes or coaches. The KSI Coaching Program aims to provide you with the tools to train athletes and others in their highest and best interests, with no interest in what the dominant trend is or will be in the future. Learn more about KSI Coach Education here https://kingsports.net/courses/

Ian King

There is a better way – Part 4:The simple things that can change the way athlete’s view themselves (and perform)

/by

Little Johnny (or Julia) goes to mid-week training. The coach raises the ‘mistakes that cost them’ the last game. During training, the coach says:

‘Let’s go through the whole training session without dropping the ball. I don’t want to see any dropped ball!’

Little Johnny’s (or Julia’s) sub-conscious mind repeats the key words:

‘….dropped ball.’

Little Johnny’s (or Julia’s) body complies – the ball is dropped. More than once.

Little Johnny (or Julia) feels bad. One of their team-mates comes up and gives them a verbal ‘spray’:

‘Stop dropping the ball, you clumsy idiot!’

Little Johnny (or Julia) drops his/her head, feeling ashamed. Should a clumsy idiot like himself or herself even be out there, they wonder?

The coach hears this negative reinforcement and sees the exchange, but chooses to pretend they didn’t. After all, perhaps this will help them achieve their agenda?

The drill continues. More dropped ball. The coach tries screams and threats. No success – the ball is still being dropped.

So the coach introduces his ‘ace in the pack’ to solve the problem. Push-ups.

‘…you drop the ball during training, you do 10 pushups.’

Little Jonny (or Julia) drops the ball. The coach yells. Little Jonny (or Julia) does their push-ups.

The coach then raises the level of difficulty of the drill. Little Jonny (or Julia) feels there is no way they could do this! After all, they couldn’t do the simple version. They drop the ball again.

Frustrated by their ‘ace in the pack’ coaching strategy, the coach pulls out the ‘Joker in the pack’ strategy. Elimination. If you drop the ball, you are out of the drill. Little Jonny (or Julia) drops the ball soon after and is one of the first eliminated. They get the least time in technical rehearsal and the longest time on the sidelines reflecting on their failings.

At the end of training the coach says:

‘Its no wonder we lose games when we train like this!’

Little Johnny (or Julia) feels more of a loser now. Should they even bother with the next game?

It’s game day. Little Johnny (or Julia) is not feeling very confident. One of their team-mates comes up and gives them a verbal ‘spray’:

‘Stop dropping the f****** ball, you f****** useless idiot!’

[Yes, language like this occurs in teenage sports…at least in Australia…]

Little Johnny (or Julia) drop their head, feeling so small. Should a ‘f****** useless idiot’ like themself even be on the field?

The coach hears and sees this negative reinforcement – profanity included- but chooses to pretend they didn’t. After all, perhaps this will help them achieve their agenda?

[Yes, turning the blind eye by coaches to internal negative abuse is common in teenage sports, including, as I have seen, in ‘church schools’…]

Little Johnny (or Julia) drops the ball…again. The crowd groans in disappointment. The coach screams in anguish. The parents put it on the top of their ‘to be talked about list’ for after the game.

Little Johnny (or Julia) is feeling really bad about themself. They are looking for a rock to crawl under and hide.

In the team de-brief following the game the coach brings attention to it saying words to the effect ‘We’ve got to learn to hang onto that ball!’, and raves on for a few minutes about the mistakes that cost them the game. The coach concludes the huddle with:

‘Its no wonder we lose games when we play like this!’

Could Little Jonny (or Julia) is feel worse? Surely they will be safe in the refuge of family.

Little Johnny (or Julia) gets into the car for the drive home with the parents, and very quickly the conversation is brought to a discussion of the importance of catching the ball, of not letting the team down.

This is only making Little Johnny (or Julia) feel worse…

Little Johnny (or Julia) goes to mid-week training. The coach raises the ‘mistakes that cost them’ the last game. During training, the coach says:

…and the cycle is played over again….

Soon after Little Jonny (or Julia) wants to quit that sport.

Soon after that Little Jonny (or Julia) want to stop all sports.

Why would they want to play on? They only feel worse about themselves as a result of playing…..

Sound familiar? If you are not sure, ask a young athlete if they can relate to this story…

No, nothing above is embellished or fantasy. It’s real, and its happening just like this – and worse….(including the reference to ‘church schools’….)

In addition to social and physical rational for sports involvement there is the emotional and or psychological justifications. However these are only relevant if they are producing the key outcomes for the athlete.

So ask your self as a coach – by engaging in sports with me as the coach/with their coach, do the athletes:

  1. …Feel better about themselves? (Self-esteem)

  2. …Believe they are capable of even greater things? (Self-confidence)

Changing the way an athlete feels about himself or herself and achieving the purported benefits of sport relating to how an individual feels about themselves can be a simple looking out for and changing the way that athletes, coaches and parents speak to the athlete.

Note:

For those athletes and coaches who are concerned about the direction of training and want to believe there is a better way – congratulations. There is a better way. We have spend the last four decades discovering better ways to train, and we teach these better ways when we work with athletes or coaches. The KSI Coaching Program aims to provide you with the tools to train athletes and others in their highest and best interests, with no interest in what the dominant trend is or will be in the future. Learn more about KSI Coach Education here https://kingsports.net/courses/

 

Ian King

Technology and training

/by

On Dec 3 2017 it was 25 years to the day since the first text message (SMS) was successfully sent. [1] [2] The message required a computer. They could be received on a hand set mobile phone, but could not be responded to.

Twenty five years ago athletes – pro and amateur – were trained on programs that were not individualized, using crude assumptions that what they were doing would make them better, and because they for the most part typically didn’t start the strength training seriously until they were in their late teens or early twenties, the injuries that occurred towards the end of the first decade of strength training were masked by ‘retirement age’.

Twenty-five years later, post 2017, technology is moving to messaging apps such as Facebook, whatsApp, etc. Texting continues, with 800 million a month in Australia on the Vodafone network alone. [3]

Twenty-five years later, post 2017, athletes – pro and amateur – are trained on programs that….are not individualized, using crude assumptions that what they were doing would make them better.

Nothings changed? Yes, there is a change! The starting age for athletes commencing serious strength training has dropped by a decade, which means that the typical injuries caused by strength training that appear within the first decade are appearing a decade before ‘retirement’ age – and are therefore no longer masked.

And this is a problem. Not so much for the coaches with a big talent pool, because there will be someone to take the place. But for the individual athletes, whose hopes and dreams are crushed – when this situation was both predictable and preventable….

Oh, I forgot to mention – if you are really lucky, your coach might change the name on top of your program sheet!

Does this absence of masking of injuries by retirement cause any changes in the way humans act or respond? Apparently not.

There are a few additional technological impacts on physical training.

Firstly, the surgery techniques to repair damaged connective tissue has really advanced, in that the surgeries are less invasive, and the healing time is shorter. Does this mean that surgery no longer comes with further collateral damage? I suggest not.

Secondly, technological advances in measuring training. GPS units to track movement patterns, forces platforms to measure power output, timing gates for displacement speeds etc.

And thirdly advancements in equipment, positively impacting performance.

But what about program design? Is that important? Obviously not important enough for the masses to expect advancement in the ability of ‘professionals’ to provide individualization in program design, because in this regard nothings changed.

Oh, and there is one more change worth noting – the increase in incidence and severity of injuries appears to be constantly rising…..

——-

[1] https://news.sky.com/story/first-text-message-sender-neil-papworth-celebrates-25th-sms-anniversary-11154491

[2] http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/03/worlds-first-text-message-sent-25-years-ago-today-7127957/

[3] https://www.vodafone.com.au/red-wire/text-message-25-years

Ian King

If only they knew….

/by

….what has been in print for over 20 years…

The sport specific technique session was coming to a close when I heard my fellow coach refer to a prior knee injury in one of the athlete.   Let’s call that athlete Billy.

Intrigued, at the conclusion of the session I asked the young athlete:

IK: What was the knee injury?

Billy: I had meniscus surgery on my left knee.

IK: Let me ask, were you doing off-field training at that time? Strength and conditioning?

Billy: Yes.

IK: Mmmm…And what age were you when this happened?

Billy: 15.

IK: Mmmm….

So I decided to provide some general guidance in the hope of helping to reduce the damage that was already done.

IK: So you need to keep away from strength training.

Now I know what you are thinking – Ian, does that mean you have changed your mind, that strength training is no longer important and relevant to sport. No, that’s not the case. But what I have got to realize from four decades of professional observation is that what most athletes are doing is damaging and most would be better off doing nothing. Especially those whose positions really don’t require high levels of size and strength, and especially those with prior joint injuries where (in my opinion) the injuries were caused or contributed to be the flawed off-field training).

Billy: Oh. I am doing a fair bit of strength training now.

IK: How much?

Billy: 4 days a week.

IK: Mmmm…Okay the next step would be to minimize your exposure to quad dominant exercises.

In the 1980s I saw first hand the phenomenon that physical therapists were calling ‘quad dominance’, and spend the next decade creating and refining a systems to categorize exercise, to help myself and any others who wanted to use the concept to avoid the damage caused by quad dominance. I called this concept ‘Lines of Movement’. [1]

So we’ve got many ‘professionals’ who can talk the talk – can word drop terms like ‘quad dominant’ and ‘posterior chain’ [2] – but have got no clue how, why or where it should be applied.

IK: You know, squats, lunges etc.

The look on Billy’s face told me all I needed to know.

IK: Okay, where did you get your program from.

The answer confirmed my fears.

IK: Let me see if I can help you. Show me the program and I will tell you the changes to make.

Billy showed me the program. Two days out of four were leg days. Nothing unusual there. And five out of the seven (5/7) exercises in each of those days were…..quad dominant exercises. The usual suspects – squats, lunges, step ups etc.

The boy was dead man walking. He had a challenged future in sport by virtue of what he was led to believe was ‘the right thing’ in his off-field training.

The only exception to this rule is those athletes with genetically gifted with load tolerant connective tissue.The kind that rise to the top in say US pro sport, from a base of millions. The eastern European philosophy – throw a lot of eggs at the wall, the ones that don’t crack – they will be the champions.

IK: Billy, there is possibly that for now you should do NO quad dominant exercise, at least for a few months.   The goal is to ideally reverse the imbalance the quad dominance you have created from years of imbalanced strength programs. Now you can move to a ratio of say 3:1 hip dominant to quad, etc. etc.7

Billy: What are some hip dominant exercises?

IK: Deadlifts, deadlift variations, Olympic lifts, Olympic lift variations etc etc. Single leg exercises where the trunk stays over (not that windmill bastardization of my single leg stiff legged deadlift though!

And then I left Billy to ponder the gap between what he had been led to believe was going to make him a better sports person, and those challenging thoughts provided by Coach King!

It’s always tough to walk away from an athlete left possibly to drown from incompetent advice. However I do my best to provide athlete and coach education. The challenge is the swell or rubbish education, at both professional, academic, and lay person level rises faster…..

Ah, the pro’s and con’s of the information age….

If only they athletes knew what damage they were doing to themselves in the way they trust those so-called experts and those in positions of authority.

——

[1] Now despite (or because) this concept has been published more times by others in the absence of any connection to the source than by myself, one would have expected the message would have sunk in. But it hasn’t. Probably because those who published it didn’t really appreciate, value and understand the concept in the first place.

[2] Not the original title ‘Lines of movement’, because this was about the only thing the plagiarist’s changed!

Ian King

Ode to Alice

/by

And a wake up call to the parents of all the Alice’s and Allan’s of the world

I just met Alice. And as a result of that meeting I felt inspired to immediately write on behalf of the ‘Alice’s’ of the world.

Alice will never read this article. Our meeting was brief and coincidental. My hope is that others may read and benefit from Alice’s story.

I walked into a sports store to conduct a product exchange and was served at the front counter by a tall athletic looking young girl, in her late teens I would say.

During our product discussions, which at best we were at the same eye level, perhaps she was slightly taller, I asked:

IK: ‘So tell me, did you use your height to play sport?’

This is a question I ask all tall young people!

Alice: Yes, I played netball, water polo and triathlons. Until I was forced to quit.

IK: Oh, why did you stop playing them?

Alice: Due to my injuries. I was not able to play any more.

IK: What injuries did you suffer?

Alice: I had one shoulder reconstruction and one knee reconstruction and I need a shoulder reconstruction now on my other shoulder.

IK: Oh…..what ages were you when this occurred?

Alice: I was in Grade 9 [about 13-14 years of age) when I had my shoulder reconstruction and Grade 11 [about 15-16 yrs of age] when I had my knee reconstruction.

IK: Oh….Tell me – what level of sport did you play at that made such a sacrifice for?

Alice: District representative level only. My school did take sport very seriously, especially water polo.

IK: Oh….what school was that?

Alice: xxxxxx [School name withheld for the publication]

IK: Oh…yes, they do take their sport especially water polo seriously.

IK: One final question if I may Alice. During high school did you engage in any training that was off the court or out of the pool?

Alice: Yes, I did gym. [strength training]

IK: Mmm…..that’s interesting.

Alice: Now gym is all that I can do.

Prior to the post 2000 period, I could count on one hand the number of elite female athletes I have worked on who had undergone shoulder or knee reconstruction.

My first shoulder reconstruction rehabilitation case with an elite female was with a 1984 Olympian. Prior to 2000 I cannot recall meeting a single elite (and I mean Olympian or similar) female who had shoulder and knee surgeries. And I am talking about elite athletes, with a decade or more of high level training.

Now the list of high school girls having one or both or similarly significant surgery is extensive. It’s the new norm. But why? Does it need to be?

There is a perception that surgery is ‘free’ i.e. there will be no consequences. This is not accurate. Take knee reconstructions. 100% of all reconstruction cases will suffer premature arthritis and 50% will have further knee surgery. Their lives will never be the same.

These injuries are unnecessary and avoidable. If anyone, parents included, cared enough to understand why in a few short decades, the world has changed so much.

Last week I went into another retail outlet and was served by a young male, about the same age as Alice, who I had coached in a a one-off field session in rugby. Let’s call him ‘Alan’. [Yes, Alice was her real name, but that doesn’t matter because Alice will never read this article, few if any teenagers will read this article, and those few parents that do will find a way to dismiss my perspective and go on their merry way endorsing the values and habits that are degrading their children’s lives forever.)

I engaged in conversation with ‘Alan’ about his rugby.

IK: ‘Are you still playing rugby?’

Alan: ‘No. I got hit in a game in my first season out of school and tore my biceps femoris [lateral hamstring] off the bone.’

He turned sideways and showed me his right lateral hamstring, bunched at about halfway up his thigh, with the obvious missing muscle leaving a visual gap at the upper end of his thigh where it would have otherwise attached to the hip.

IK: Wow! [shocked and saddened]

Alan: Yeah, it’s because of the way the game’s played, the way we are expected to take a wide stance and bend over and pilfer the ball.

IK: Really? I’m not sure its so simple. I believe there may be more to it and it didn’t need to have happened. As a matter of interest, what school did you go to?

Alan: xxxxxx [School name withheld for the publication].

IK: Say no more! (I didn’t need to ask my usual next question of ‘Tell me, during high school did you engage in any training that was off the court or out of the pool? Because I knew the answer….]

Alan: [Not buying into my inference that the injury was within his control and he was responsible for it] Yeah, but player [name withheld for the publication] did the same injury? [As if this made it okay, which I guess in a way is exactly what many now believe – it’s normal.]

IK: [Knowing the player involved from watching his career from a distance….] And what school did that player go to?

Alan: Oh….yeah…. [lost his argument there!]

I was in sport for over twenty years professionally before I heard of a rugby player pulling his hamstring off the bone. It took nearly another decade before a similar case, to which I was moved to joke about.

Now it is so common it doesn’t even raise eyebrows.

I could tell you exactly what is going on, and where it is going pear-shaped. But that information is mute and redundant unless you, as a parent, are willing to be different. This level of injury appears to be accepted as the new ‘normal’. So I would be wasting my energy giving the keys to injury prevention to a cohort of parents who believe what is happening and will happen to their children is normal, acceptable, inevitable, and unavoidable.

However in summary let me dismiss the claims the ‘game’ has changed. Yes, there may be some minor rule changes. Yes, more players look like they took the wrong door when they were really heading for the local bodybuilding competition.

However the game has not changed to such an extent to explain or justify the shift in injuries. Injuries that were rare at the elite level thirty years ago, are now common place at the teenage level. This is not right. And anyone who believes it is I assume also supports child abuse. Not meaning to make politically correct inaccurate assupmtions – rather what I am saying is what is being done to the young athlete –whilst still legally a minor – is akin to child abuse.

The fact that the incidence and severity of injures are currently perceived as normal and acceptable is not good enough. The reality is only a parent would care enough to advocate for the child, and then only the parent willing to swim against the tide.

I understand what is going on first hand. My children are being denied selection in the top teams at high school if they do not submit to participating in the ‘strength and conditioning’ programs. Which now constitute approximately 50% of total training. It is a choice of conformity or be ostracized. I understand it.

I estimate that 20% of the upper high school students playing in the ‘A’ teams will have surgery in the next 12 months, 40% of them will not be able to play sport past the age of 20 due to injuries, 60% will not be able to play sport past the age of 24 years, and 80% of them will suffer injuries that will significantly and negatively impact their quality of life in their so-called ‘golden years’ or earlier. Just estimates….And yes, you, as a parent, are throwing the dice for them in this lottery called ‘talent identified youth sport’.

My question to you, parent is this – what price are you willing to pay (and I mean what price are you willing to have your child pay) in your child’s future quality of life, on their behalf, to be seen to be conforming, for something that is clearly and eventually not right, not in the best long-term interests of your child?

The case studies I have shared are not fictitious, nor are they rare. They are the new norm. You just need to decide if you want them to be your child’s new norm?

—-

Footnote. If and when Alice realises that the pain she will experience for the rest of her life from the injuries and surgeries obtained in the name of ‘sport’ and ‘strength and conditioning’ could have been prevented, I hope she can find it in herself to forgive her parents, teachers, sports coaches, and the so-called ‘strength and conditioning coaches’ that were responsible. I could say forgive them for they knew what what they were doing, however I believe it more accurate to say ‘forgive them for they didn’t bother to dig deep enough to obtain the information that was available but not mainstream, that could have prevented the conditions that the ‘Alice’s’ and ‘Alan’s’ of the world will suffer.

Ian King

Considerations before you pick up a Kettlebell again

/by

Seven factors to reflect upon before picking up another Kettlebell

Over time new ways to train are continually introduced, and in many cases these ‘new ways’ include new training devices. In some cases the ‘new device is intended to replace the conventional external loading options, and in some cases they are intended to supplement them. In most cases the basis for the ‘new’ training devices is that they provide a training benefit that the more conventional external loading does not.

You might never have heard anyone challenge the relevance and appropriateness of Kettlebell training for athletes. That’s okay, nor have I. After many years of reflection and reluctance to do so, I have decided to share my thoughts.

My hesitation to date to speak out is for a number of reasons. Firstly, when one challenges dominant paradigms, you need to put on your Kevlar vests, and this gets boring. Sometimes I would rather retire quietly than deal with the BS that comes from upsetting some well-marketed US ‘guru’…[i]

Secondly, when they attack the messenger, the message can get lost. [ii]

Thirdly there are some good people involved in Kettlebells and it is not my intention to offend them. [iii]

Fourthly, there are some big players whose commercial reliance on the dominant trend is strong, and they will kick back like a mule. I am less concerned about them however, and those who put profit before principle should not be feared.[iv]

So as always, take it or leave it. I have no intention to prevent the power of commercially and ego driven trends from rolling. They have been doing so since the first machine for strength training was invented, and they are not about to stop. I simply intend to give those who care about transfer to sport (and their health) to reconsider their application of this dominant trend in training equipment and associated exercises.

To begin with I go back to my first exposure to a concept that we called ‘Soviet Scam’. Back in the days of the Iron Curtain (and I suggest it continues today) a ‘Soviet Coach’ in the USA realized the commercial value of the word ‘Russian’ or similar. So anything that can have a ‘Russian’ connection has a automatic leg-up in marketing! Back in the 1980s the NSCA of America, under the then Executive Director Ken Kontor, would arrange an annual trip to various Soviet states. I would love to hear their stories about the presence or otherwise of this training device….

So lets get into it with some key, simple yet significant ‘considerations regarding the use of Kettlebells.

Consideration #1 – Load placement relative to the center of gravity of the body

The shape of the upper body posture is potentially compromised when the loading is placed in the front of the body. Put simply there is a risk that the lifter will or chooses to lean backwards. This can compromise the center of gravity backwards and or result in trunk extension, and rising condition contaminating many lifts as they are executed globally that I have described as ‘thoracic extension’.

This problem existed (and continues to do so) in selected conventional exercises such as the military press (shoulder press with bar to front of the head); the Lat Pull-down to the front o the body; the front squat; and the front DB raise, to name a few.

In the image below you can see the impact of the bar placement to the front of the body on the extension of the trunk.

In the below image you can see the increased extension at the middle point of the movement.

In the below image you can see the extension of the spine at the top of the movement, courtesy of the bar travelling to the front of the body during the majority of the lift.

In theory with the bar potentially returning to a position in line with the body, the trunk could be returned to neutral. This would require coaching on this point, and a shape in the body (including flexibility around the neck, shoulders and intervertebral joints) that would allow this.

This movement resulted in so much lean back that it was removed from the Olympic lifting competition schedule. You can see the changes in trunk extension that have occurred from the start to the finish position in the military press pictures provided.

However, if we took a snapshot of say the decade half a century (50 years) ago, what percentage of the exercises being performed by the average lifter placed the load in front of the center of gravity? I suggest the minority. Lets say 10%.

Fast-forward to the last ten years and pose the same question – what percentage of lifts being performed by the masses place load to the front of the center of gravity? I suggest, at least in the case of the Kettlebell, the majority are with the load in front of the body.

The majority of exercises involving Kettlebells occur with the Kettlebell held in front of your body. How does this impact your center of gravity? It shifts it forward. What do you do to compensate? You lean back.

What’s the problem with this? There may be none, if you believe that optimal posture and shape for performance and health is either attained through more weight on the heels than the ball of the feet and shoulder placement behind hip placement.

On the other hand, if you believe that optimal performance and posture is achieve with load distribution through the feet more forward than backwards, and that the shoulders should be above or slightly in front of the hips, then you have a problem.

Specifically what problem you ask?

  • From a sporting perspective, unless you are in those hard to find sports where weight on the heels is optimal, you are creating a non-specific adaption in load distribution through the feet.
  • From a health perspective, under what conditions are you better off with a lean-back torso posture? You are placing the lower back and hip joints under unnecessary pressure, highly correlated with conditions of pain.

Now I can go on, however at this level of discussions most readers are probably having their values challenged, and more information will not change their determination to kill the concept. For example, I have yet do discuss never transmission impact, use of levers between lower and upper and so on.

What is the impact of this shift in percentage of exercises performed where the loading is in front of the body? I suggest massive. I suggest we are seeing an increase in postural deviations whereby the shoulders are placed behind the hips in the postural plane, resulting in an increase activation or recruitment pattern of engaging the thoracic extensors out of context and inappropriately in all or at least too many exercises

[I just need to pause to adjust the anti-intercontinental missile device around my house before I go any further….]

Consideration #2 – Load placement to the front of the center of gravity exacerbated by the length of the resistance lever

Basic biomechanics suggest that when you extend the length of the resistance lever, you increase the load.

Are any Kettlebell exercises performed with straight arms out to the front of the body? If so how many or what percent of all Kettlebell exercises involve this situation? And does this constitute a greater number of exercises with long resistance levers to the front of the body (in the sagittal plane) compared to the number of similar exercises used fifty (50) years ago? In the absence of accurate statistical date, I am going to speculate or hypothesize that this is the case – that there are more long resistance lever in the sagittal plane exercises in the last 10 years than in the decade 50 years prior.

Exercises with these long levers out in front of the body in the sagittal plan typically result in or are associated with increased use of the thoracic extensors, potentially providing a negative contribution to the ‘thoracic extension’ condition I have drawn attention to.

Building on the first consideration, the impact on the center of gravity is exaggerated by the distance of the load from the body. As many Kettlebell exercises engage in a straight-arm action to the front of the body, the resulting leaning back of the body to accommodate the change in the combined center of gravity magnifies this condition.

The simple act of shifting the bar from the back of the body in say a standing shoulder press to the front of the body in what some call the military press, is an example of what I refer to. If you are not sure about what I am talking about, try these two positions when you are in a calm, empty cup, reflective mood.

Then consider the further impact of taking that barbell and holding it at full arm’s length in front of the body. For every unit of distance from the unloaded center of gravity of the body, the body leans back a unit.

[I have not been bombed yet, however I appreciate many of you may be still building your counter-attack strategy…..]

Consideration #3 – The shape of the spine in long lever to the front of the body exercise

This third consideration builds on the predominance of standing and swinging the load to the front of the body in an arc movement. Leg drive will create vertical displacement and overcome initial inertia. However to complete an arc movement with load, gravity requires that the trunk must be extended, including extending past vertical.

So what’s wrong with this?

Check out the posture and muscle development of a person who has extensive involvement in these movements. Firstly you might note what I refer to as ‘thoracic extension dominance’, where the muscles that extend the middle back are over-developed. Secondly you may note the postural deviation, where the adaption to the rotational movement and thoracic extension results in a permanent leaning back posture.

Now I know there will be some who will say you can complete the rotational arc of a Kettlebell swing without engaging the thoracic extensors beyond the vertical. Sure, and you can also go out an only have one alcoholic drink, but really, how often does that occur…

The conditions I describe in this third ‘challenge’ are exacerbated by fatigue, excessive load, and or the acceptance (in many cases the encouragement) of a cheat movement.

Consideration #4 – The shape of the shoulders in long lever to the front of the body exercise

I begin with again asking the question – are there more ‘to the front of the body with a long resistance arm’ exercises being performed now than a decade later? The second question I pose is what is the typical upper body share in the horizontal plane in these exercise conditions? Are the shoulders ‘square’ or rounded?

When I refer to ‘square shoulders’ I am referring to a condition where the scapula are retracted and depressed and the shoulder musculature block vision of the upper back when viewed from the side. A rounded position the the complete opposite.

I suggest that irrespective of intention, most Kettlebell exercises performed with a long straight arm in front of the body are executed with a rounded upper back shape.

For those who appreciate the importance of the shape of the body under load and the way the body adapts to shape from load, this is critical. My ‘Shape Theory’ (which I had explained in the unpublished article rejected by the high profile internet magazine) which simply put says ‘The shape under which you load is the shape you adopt’, referring to the risk of sub-optimal musculoskeletal adaptations that negatively impact what we call your posture.

Consideration #5 – The downside of unilateral loading affecting the spine

Unilateral exercises, along with a number of other theoretically sound but mis-used concepts such as close chain exercises (feet on the ground), multi-planar movements, combined exercises etc. are a dominant trend in the current landscape.

The rise of rotation through the spine to the extent to which it is evident is a whole new challenge facing the strength training community. There was a time when you had to participate in unilateral sports such as golf or baseball or tennis to develop the musculo-skeletal challenges associated with rotation of the spine. This is no longer the case. You can simply engage in strength training with your local personal trainer, one who has bought blindingly into every ‘cutting edge’ training principle espoused by their leading professional organization, and you can develop and advanced level of dysfunction through rotation of the spine.

Spinal rotations are amongst the toughest musculo-skeletal challenges to solve, and their side effect varied and extensive. They are developed by a high volume of unilateral life or sport exercises (such as those listed above), or exercise conducted in a unilateral fashion – irrespective of the fact that ultimately both sides are trained.

When untrained people under the supervision of those not competent enough to ensure the side effects (and I suggest that is the majority of service providers in the fitness and sport industries) engage in high volume unilateral exercises they typically perform the movement asymmetrically, influenced by existing strengths and weakness. The end result is the exacerbation of their imbalances.

Variables such as dynamic (cheating) movements, excessive load, fatigue, technical breakdown etc. (all of which are in some way associated) accelerate the degradation.

Kettlebell exercises are a ripe platform for this outcome.

Consideration #6 – The impact of rotation on the wrists

Despite dogma teaching to the contrary, I suggest the rotational forces on the wrists from many Kettlebell exercises is both unnecessary and inappropriate. When compared to other devices, it could be argued they provide an advantage.

In this case, the question remains – are unilateral (load in each hand) dynamic movements necessary? For hypertrophy? No. For sports performance? No. For health? No. Of course, that’s just my opinion, so many would say – where is the science? Perhaps you have not been exposed to my belief that ‘research’ is a lagging indicator and by the time (if at all) that ‘research’ provides the answers that anyone with effective intuition can work out in a couple of weeks, there’s been a lot of collateral damage. Are you going to be amongst that collateral damage?

Why not try this simple method – conduct an anonymous, no penalties survey of a group of personal trainers and others doing a Kettlebell training day or weekend course – how do your wrists feel? You won’t need to wait for the ‘research’…Hold, that is research! Just not a paper published in the peer-reviewed journal of your dogma….

Consideration #7 – The impact of the entire musculo-skeletal system

Let’s take a global view of the musculo-skeletal system and its impact on related systems such as the nervous system – an approach well-supported since so many have now been exposed to Tom Myer’s book on Anatomy Trains.

And let’s flip the question. Rather than giving examples of exercises that damage the posture and degrade transfer to sport and health, help me understand which of the more popular and more commonly performed Kettlebell exercises are positive for posture and transfer?

Now I appreciate this question and the answer will be influenced by your definition and understanding of how strength training exercises transfer to life and sport and impact posture. From my perspective this reflection is rarely done, and the real-world, applicable dialogue is rare.

The fact that you can create hypertrophy from Kettlebell exercise meets only those who act on short-term outcomes. I can hit myself on the head repetitively with a sledge hammer and argue for the hypertrophy benefits in the biceps and forearms. But what of the long term impacts?

I suggest that the images used above provide examples of hypertrophy that are heading toward significant, career threatening, quality of life threatening injuries. I know, that’s just my opinion, where’s the ‘research’, blah blah blah. For the economic benefits to the injury rehabilitation, this is cause for celebration – humans willingness to cause self-inflicted damage in the blatant denial of consideration of long term damage.

For an insight in a typical posture model used in and adapted to by the body from the way many Kettlebell exercises are being taught, check out this video! Yes, it is satire. In this instances, study the posture being adopted by the ‘client’. There is a message here.

Conclusion

So there are the first three reasons why you may want to reconsider your Kettlebell involvement. I know, many of you are either going to reject this information outright or find a way to ‘compromise’ so that you can keep doing it, due an range of emotional attachments.

So I put it this way – would you suffer any loss of training outcomes for sport, health or hypertrophy if you let go of your Kettlebell exercises and reverted to less trending, more old school (God forbid, I am just going to say those heretical words…) barbells and dumbbells?

No. At least not in my opinion.

Would it be tough to let go from a ‘what will others think of me’? Absolutely.

Would it be tough to let go because it may mean acknowledging I was sucked in by a non-beneficial trend? Absolutely.

Would it be tough to do if you are teaching your clients Kettlebells one day and the next you are not? Absolutely.

So what’s going to happen?

The majority are going to do just as Schopenhauer[i] suggested many years ago – ridicule and reject what I have said. And that will work, because the majority of your associates will do the same.

And then, when EVERYONE one knows it, and the trend dies off, you can simply pretend that you were aware of what I am teaching and it’s old news now, who cares. And really, everyone else will be so embarrassed and looking to hide their prior association with the Kettelbell that no-one will be looking in your back yard so it will be all good.

Except for the price you pay in your body continuing to do Kettlebells, waiting for EVERYONE to wake up…..Oh, and if you are a personal trainer or coach, the price in the body of your clients and athletes…..

WATCH VIDEO

Watch a short video discussing some of the considerations covered in this blog article here.

SIDE BAR NOTES

[i] “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

[i] …Like the time I had the audacity in a New York seminar in the late 1990s to suggest that a chin up does not balance out the bench press (this was in the days when the only publications of the ‘Lines of Movement’ concept were my own). Wow, did that upset the local guru! What happened to me in the next few years may be of little interest to you, but what happened to you may – because instead of embracing the flaws in teaching, this guru gave you the ‘scapula chin up’….and the problem remained….

[ii] …Like the time in a Boston seminar that I laid out concepts such as loading is over-rated and why use external loading when most athletes struggle with their own bodyweight, and here are some unique original unilateral lower body exercises. The local ‘guru’ held a union meeting at the break, and took the majority of the attendees out of the seminar as a protest against the ‘utter rubbish’ I was teaching, before publishing a series of books on the content. What happened to me following that event is of little interest to you. What happened to you should be, as you all now lift your back leg up when you do my single leg stiff, legged deadlift….

[iii] …Like the time a prominent US internet magazine owner tried to entice me with money and when I said no, he said ‘Damn it, there are only two of you that have ever said no to me!’ […the other person was involved in Kettelbells!…] What happened to me is of no interest to you, but what happened to you should be. One of the ‘replacement’ writer had a massive Pinocchio nose-growing challenge and you went off and followed the training guidance….

[iv] ….Like the unsolicited article I wrote and submitted asking no payment, to a particular high profile internet website. I am not sure if it killed the deal, but I left my notes at the bottom of the article, and they were summarizing the ‘interesting’ things I had seen of their writers performing a series of exercises with Kettlebells….I never heard back. What happened to me is of no interest to you, but what happened to you should be because you were denied the opportunity to review and reflect on what you are doing with those Kettlebells…

 

Copyright 2017 Ian King & King Sports International Inc. All rights reserved.  

Ian King

A message to parents of young athletes – would you sign up for this?

/by

Imagine this. You are turning up to training 45 minutes earlier than the previous generation did. You are doing ‘dryland’ – alleged performance enhancing and injury reducing physical training. And it is degrading your body shape, increasing the severity and frequency of your injuries, and putting you out of sport, play and movement earlier than if you didn’t do it. And the performance enhancing impacts are unclear at best.

Would you sign up for this?

I would expect not. Then why are you signing your kid up for this?

I know, you don’t know any better. You trust your sports coaches, your school. You don’t know me. What I am saying it a ‘bit left field’. You don’t like what I say etc. etc.

Ignore me at your child’s peril……

I watched 10-14 year olds perform 45 minutes of dry land training before their multi-week swimming training session.

What physical risks does swimming present? Rounded and injuries shoulders, arched and sore backs. Both resulting in performance reduction.

So what will this 45 minute dry land session do to them?

I outline my thoughts below – not holding back, but at the same time not sensationalizing the matter. This is serious, and your kids are in the cross hairs.

I write this for parents of young athletes, or athletes of any age who seek to improve their understanding of optimal athlete performance programs.

I rely on concepts and analytical techniques I published from 1998 onwards in publications such as ‘How to Write Strength Training Programs’ (1998, book), ‘How to Teach Strength Training Programs’ (2000, book) – both of which are available to anyone; and DVD programs such as ‘Strength Specialization Series’ (1998, DVD) and ‘Injury Prevention & Rehabilitation Series’ (2000, DVD) – which are only available to coaches in our coach education program.

If I reduce one injury in one athlete, prevent one athlete from having surgery, extend the career of one athlete, give better quality of later life to one former athlete – my efforts are worthwhile.

Yes part of all of this message will upset, anger, offend etc. some coach or coaches somewhere – but your child is worth more than the feelings of a coach or coaches that should have made a greater effort to be better.

So let’s dive deeper into the dry land program we are using in this real world case study.

STRENGTH VS FLEXIBILITY

Let’s start with simple breakdown of time. It was 40 minutes of strength exercises, followed by 5 minutes of stretching.

If your aim was to accelerate the shortening that swimming causes to the muscle, you would be advised to do just this. 40 minutes of tissue tensioning and shortening work, and 5 minutes of tissue lengthening.

If your goal was to reduce injury and enhance performance and length their careers – you would reverse this. 40 minutes of stretching, and 5 minutes of strengthening.

Now lets talk about sequence. Strength first, flex second. If you flex first apparently, according to rumor and sketchy science, it will make you weak. So the current trend in a world that refuses to think for itself is to do it last.

Now in the real world, if you had the courage to defy conformity, and did stretching first, you would find the stretching open up your joints, free the nerves to fire, reduce the joint wear and tear. The only way to do it! But that’s just my opinion, based on near 40 years of coaching and the experience of training more athletes in one lifetime than you could imagine.

However unless you control the program, don’t hold your breath waiting for this change. Your child will be having shoulder surgery before that happens, as the dominant world trends – the reason why humans do anything including their sports training – are going the other way at them moment. Stretching is bad. Just about the only time you are going to hear your child needs to stretch is after the injury has occurred, from your physical therapist. A little too late….

UPPER BODY VS LOWER BODY VS TRUNK (Core)

If you divide the body simplistically into three sections – upper body, lower body and middle of the body (core) where should the dry land focus go?

Based on how I saw the exercises being conducted, and taking into account my interpretation of the prime mover, I observed that…

…about 12.5% of the exercises go to trunk (abdominal or core as some like to say), and these were done as the last few exercises. The trunk/core/abdominal was given by far the least focus.

….about 25% of the exercises go to upper body and these were for the most part down in the latter half of the strength session.

….about 50% of the exercises go to lower body, and these were done for the mo part in the first half of the strength session. So the lower body was given the most priority.

Now I don’t expect to dwell on the discussion of relative importance of each of these three sections of the body to swimming performance – that would take a bit more time and space, and we can get into that another time.

However I will speak without hesitation to injury prevention (or in this case, as in most cases injury creation). I suggest the neglect of the middle of the body completely unacceptable.

ABDOMINAL BALANCE

Based on the ‘Lines of Movement’ concept I first published in 1998 and now universally adopted (although rarely referenced) I identify four (4) basic lines of movement in the abdominals that generally speaking provide balance in training along with two additional, more advanced ones.

Now there were more exercises in the w0rkout that included abdominal involvement (e.g. med ball throw downs), however when they are not the primary focus, they are listed as abdominal exercises. And when they involve other muscles such as ‘planks’, they get categorized as integrated.

Essentially not only is the abdominal program under prioritizing this muscle group, what is done potentially lacks balance.

Opportunities I found Reality of this program
BASIC
1. Hip flexion

Ö
2. Trunk flexion

Ö

Ö
3. Rotation

Ö
4. Lateral Flexion

Ö
ADVANCED
5. Co-contraction glut/ab

Ö
6.   Integrated

Ö

Ö

UPPER BODY BALANCE

Based again on my ‘Lines of Movement’ concept I divided the eight (8) upper body exercises into the following lines.

Horizontal pull – 4.5

Vertical Pull – 2.5

Horizonal Pull – 1

Vertical push – 0

The part numbers came from giving a movement that shared dominance in lines of movement 0.5 points to each of the two dominant lines of movement/muscle groups.

This translates into the following table.

Percentage of lines of movement based on number of exercsies.

My recommended exercise distribution of using 8 exercises Reality of this program
Horizontal pull

50 %

15%
Vertical push

25 %

0%
Vertical pull

12.5%

30%
Horizontal push

12.5%

55%

What is the main form of upper body imbalance from most swimming strokes? Rounded and drooped shoulders. What causes this? The reliance of the majority of swimming strokes on the chest (horizontal push) and lats (vertical pull) to pull the body through the water.

What does this program do? Makes the imbalances even worse, faster. You can expect a hastened decline in posture, more injuries, more severe injuries, more surgery and a shorter career, followed by a life time of rounded shoulder…

But it doesn’t have to be this way….

And this is without getting into a discussion of relative sequence of exercises, and relative loading potential of exercises selected, the results of which would only painter a gloomier picture.

LOWER BODY BALANCE

The potentially least important muscle group (yes, it is important, and it will be dependent on stroke, style, individual swimmer) that got the most attention in this dry land training program example has it’s own imbalances.

There were a total of thirteen (13) lower body exercises, however leg swings were three of them and I have taken them out of the equation for the moment.

Based again on my ‘Lines of Movement’ concept I divided the remaining ten (10) lower body exercises into the following lines.

Hip dominant – 2

Quad dominate – 8

This translates into the following table.

Percentage of lines of movement based on number of exercises.

My generalized recommended exercise distribution using 10 exercises Reality of this program
Hip dominant

60 % (6)

20 % (2)
Quad dominant

40 % (4)

80 % (8)

What is the main form of lower body imbalance from most swimming strokes? The muscle imbalances of the lower body in a swimmer are less than the upper body challenges they face. However sore lower backs are, in my professional opinion, caused by over-used quad muscles pulling on the hips and causing the nerves of the spine to be pinched.

Now swimming in itself does not cause a large number of lower back injuries compared to upper body injury potential. However, if you were to do this kind of dry land program chronically, you would quickly find yourself facing a higher incidence of back pain and lower extremity soft tissue aggravations than you would from normal swimming alone.

Quad dominance caused physical ailments are common in many land based running sports. Now swimming is neither land based or impact, so why would you want to reproduce a potential side effect in a sport that otherwise sees relatively little of it?

And this is without getting into a discussion of relative sequence of exercises, and relative loading potential of exercises selected, the results of which would only painter a gloomier picture.

For example I teach that prioritization of the training effect is caused by three main factors – which exercise/s are done most (relative volume), which exercise are done first or in what order (sequence), and what are the relative loading potential of each exercises (if an exercise can do load, it has the potential to create greater change in the muscle. If not matched by the opposite muscle group exercise, imbalances can result).

Take relative loading potential. All the quad dominant exercises involve the squat or squat variations – the load potential and real load lifted (even if only bodyweight) is far in excess of the load potential of the two hip dominant exercises – which only involved part of the bodyweight, and by nature of the less number of joints involved, could never match the load potential of the squat exercise.

In other words if I painted the full picture, it would get even uglier….

But it doesn’t have to be this way….

SUMMARY

Sport has the potential to create many positive outcomes. What is often overlooked is the potential for sport to also create shape in the body for better or worse, long term. Mostly for the worse. The longer you play, the higher level you play, the greater the chance you take the physical downsides into the rest of your life. It doesn’t take too long or too many training sessions to commence the shaping.

We accept that about sports. It comes with it’s good and bad. However what if what we are doing in our ‘dry land’ or ‘physical preparation’ was making the physical downside worse?

In the 1990s I suggested that most physical training in sport was doing more damage than good.

In fact I believe that most injuries are actually caused by the way athletes train. The only injury acceptable is an unavoidable impact injury.   Virtually all soft tissue injuries are avoidable. But imagine that – training, during which focus is geared towards performance enhancement, may induce most injuries. Isn’t this ridiculous! [1]

In fact from my experiences and observation, the greatest effect that I have seen from most physical preparation is to detract from these five factors, not enhance it. Imagine that – training and being worse off for it. Well how do you think the athlete would feel if he/she found out! Yeah, they’re real fit – to sit in the stands in their team uniform and watch![2]

If it was introduced at about 20 years of age, and most athletes retire from competitive sport in their late twenties, the physical damage and the aging factor combined and were hidden.

But what if the training methods now, some two decades later, are just as damaging to the body as they were in the 1990s? What if they were done to kids? The kid would potentially be damaged to the point where a decade later, n their teams, they were too damaged physically to continue to play, or to continue to improve.

And in my observation, that is exactly what is happening.

When assessing the injury potential of your decisions in training today, one must look forward many years. Because few physical preparation coaches train individuals for many years continuously, they do not have the opportunity to understand the long-term implications of the training program they are implementing with the individual athlete. As a result, from my observations, most physical preparation programs do more harm than good. They may give short term results or confidence to the athlete, but result in significant performance restrictions and or injuries long term.

The more an athlete participates in physical preparation, including the younger they start in physical preparation, the greater the incidence and severity of injury. Unfortunately these injuries are being blamed away by many involved in sport as being a function of the increased demands and impact forces in ‘modern day’ sport. This to me is little more than an excuse, an exercise in putting one’s head in the proverbial sand. Quite simply, the majority of training programs are flawed from a physical preparation perspective and are causing the increased injuries. [3]

In my opinion, I repeat my comment of 20 years ago – most training does more harm than good. The only thing that has changed is now we are doing the damage to younger and younger athletes.

The below summarizes in table format how far apart my approach to what is being done by the majority.

A comparison of my generalized recommendations vs. the observed training session.

My recommendations Reality of this program
Sequence of dry land Flex then strength Strength then flex
Time allocation Flex–30m/Strength–15m Strength–40m/Flex–5m
Prioritisation of body part Middle-upper-lower Lower-upper-middle
Number of abdominal lines of movement

4-6

2
Prioritization of upper body lines of movement 1.     Horizontal pull

2.     Vertical push

3.     Vertical pull

4.     Horizontal push

 1.     Horizontal push

2.     Vertical pull

3.     Horizontal pull

4.     Vertical push
Prioritization of upper body lines of movement 1.     Hip dominant

2.     Quad dominant

 1.     Quad dominant

2.     Hip dominant

In summary, what I observed being done these young athletes and what I believe should be done is almost diametrically opposed. It would be difficult to reach more opposite conclusions. Interpretation aside, one of us is really off-track.

Question I have include – who writes these programs? What is their experience? Will they ever be held accountable for the long term impacts? Why are we doing this to our children?  Will you keep throwing your child into the ‘lion’s den’?

I was of the understanding we were to care and nurture our children, not accelerate and amplify the damage of sport….

[1] King, I., 1997, Winning & Losing, Ch 5, p. 25

[2] King, I., 1999, So you want to become a physical preparation coach, p. 30-31

[3] King, I., 2005, The way of the physical preparation coach, p. 66-67

Ian King

Stop lifting your leg!

/by

The former US NCAA Division 1 athlete started performing the exercise in their program, the single leg stiff leg deadlift, for the first time under my supervision.

As they bent forward their non-support leg began to lift backwards. I asked:

‘Why are you lifting your leg?’

They replied:

‘Because that is how I was taught to do it.’

I found this really ironic, as the exercise I originated the exercise from Australia, and now I had to correct it from American influence. I published this exercise in the from the late 1990s onwards [i] [ii] [iii] [iv] [v] [vi] [vii] [viii] [ix] [x] after a decade or so of testing.

I found it ironic but not surprising, as for nearly two decades now I have watched the bastardization of my innovation. I spend the most of the first decade post 2000 wondering how this ‘variation’ came about. How did my exercise end up being messed up so badly? Then I stumbled on the answer.

It was published in Men’s Health in 2000[xi], unreferenced and un-credited, by another ‘author’.

At the photo shoot I suspect the male model made up his own interpretation.

I understand how most photos shoots happen. The ‘author’ is rarely if ever on site. An unknown organizes the photo shoot, and the result in this case was an exercise where the subject lifted their back leg.

So the reason why the world now does this exercise with the back leg moving backwards is – because they are copying a misinterpretation done by a Men’s Health male model in a photo shoot!

A good enough reason? I don’t believe so….

Reminds me of the story about a trend in marathon runner. The story goes that Australia’s lead marathon runner in the 1982 Commonwealth Games was suffering from diarrhea as they ran. The solution they chose to reduce the embarrassment was to wipe their legs down with the face wipe cloths offered at regular intervals in the break. From watching this act, a new trend was developed – wipe your legs down with the wet face clothes.

Is this a good reason to wipe your legs down in a marathon? I don’t think so….(unless you find yourself with brown colored liquid bodily fluids running down your leg…)

So apart from the fact that the masses of coaches and trainers of the world are imitating a mistake, what is the problem with the exercise. Any movement is good movement, surely? Well, yes and no.

It’s great to be moving. However the general intent of an exercise is to fix one end of the muscle and move or stretch the other end. This makes the muscle work. When you lift your leg backwards, this stretch or strain intended for the hamstring is reduced because of the movement of the back leg. So you are doing an exercise with movement, but a significant reduction in the intended target muscle.

When you lift your back leg up it counterbalances the movement to the front, reducing the stretch and effort. When you go to stand up again, the lower of the leg back down does most of the work. It becomes more of a ballet like balance exercise than a strength exercise. For some that may be all they need, but please, stop masquerading it as a strength exercise!

Put simply you are doing less work.

Now I appreciate that not all can do this exercise full range due to lack of strength or flexibility or balance. However avoiding this challenge is not going to fix the limitations! Start with limited range, and place a premium on increasing the range progressively over time, rather than looking to increase load straightway. Just about every Google image of this exercise has a DB or similar in hand – don’t follow this! Most people cannot get range with their own bodyweight, so don’t add load until you have full range!!!

Just about every gym I go anywhere in the world I see this exercise being done, and it always reminds me of the oil well devices you see littered in the desert, where the lever is long and heavy to assist the oil to be pumped with less energy.

Now for the purists who remember the difference between a single joint and multi-joint movement, they know the single joint movement offers more isolation, and the multi-joint less. By moving the back leg you change the exercise from a (almost) single joint exercise to a double joint exercise.

Now I don’t expect to reverse this mistaken exercise option. It has gone too far. It’s been published without thought by too many well-marketed US ‘gurus’, especially as a key ‘functional’ exercise.

However, for those who would prefer to exercise for a reason better than copying the confusion of a male model at a US photo shoot….here is how I originally intended for you to do this exercise:

Single Leg standing Stiff Legged Deadlift: Let the fun begin! Stand on one leg – have the other foot off the ground, but kept roughly parallel with the leg doing the supporting. Bend the knee slightly, but that knee angle should not change during the exercise (get a partner to watch for this, as it will be tempting to do so!). Now bend at the waist, allowing the back to round and reach slowly towards the floor. If your range allows, touch the floor with the fingertips and return to the starting position. Use a speed of 3 seconds down, 1 sec pause at the ends, and 3 seconds up.

 You may struggle with balance, but persist – you will be developing the muscles in the sole of the foot! The first time you do this you may find you are touching down with the non-supporting foot regularly to avoid falling over. This is ok, but in later workouts, try to minimize this. When you have mastered this exercise, and touching of the ground by the non-supporting leg means terminate the set – this is your challenge.

Don’t be surprised if you can only do 5 reps on day 1! Look to increase the reps from workout to workout. Hold light DB’s in your hand ONLY when you get to 10 reps at the speed indicated. No warm up set necessary.   Remember the weak side rule.

Here’s what it should look like, performed by dual Olympian and Gold medalist (2000)!

The top position

The bottom position

Need more clarity?

Unfortunately a few select individuals in the US thought it was okay to publish this exercise innovation without reference or credit. And created a highly marketed mis-interpretation of my exercise.

So what makes me think the ‘author’ of this Men’s Health article was ‘copying’? Maybe it was their email…

From: name withheld  Sent: Saturday, 4 December 1999 5:18 AM To:kingsports@b022.aone.net.au Subject: Re: Between Sets Newsletter #6

Ian, …It’s funny ‐ I have bben doing your t‐mag leg workouts ( the first two). It seems such as hort workout a.. this is done in a half an hour. But ‐ the pain !!!!!!!!!!!! You weren’t kidding ‐ it is a deep muscle soreness ‐ real intense. Interstingly it is a great workout to introduce females to weigth lifting and training. (A lot of them are scared to lift heavy) Keep them coming…
‐name withheld

Maybe it was the way they re-publishing my content verbatim in multiple ‘publications’….[xii]

Single leg standing stiff leg deadlift: Stand on one leg – have the other foot off the ground, but kept roughly parallel with the leg doing the supporting. Bend the knee slightly, but that knee angle should not change during the exercise (get a partner to watch for this, as it will be tempting to do so!). Now bend at the waist, allowing the back to round and reach slowly towards the floor. If your range allows, touch the floor with the fingertips and return to the starting position.

The first time you do this you may find you are touching done with the non-supporting foot regularly to avoid falling over. This is ok, but in later workouts, try to minimise this. When you have mastered this exercise, touching of the ground by the non-supporting leg means terminate the set – this is your challenge.

Not even a conversion from Australian spelling to US spelling, or editing of the grammar or layout! Just a straight (one of thousands) cut and paste. So yes, the Men’s Health submission was an un-credited, unreferenced submission.

A ‘breakthrough’ in later years – same description, but a name change for the exercise![xiii] [xiv]

Single Leg Romanian Deadlift: Stand on one leg – have the other foot off the ground, but kept roughly parallel with the leg doing the supporting. Bend the knee slightly, but that knee angle should not change during the exercise (get a partner to watch for this, as it will be tempting to do so!). Now bend at the waist, allowing the back to round and reach slowly towards the floor. If your range allows, touch the floor with the fingertips and return to the starting position.

It’s tough to watch an otherwise potentially intelligent species of animal blindly follow a misinterpretation. And its tough to watch the potential of this exercise I developed over years be diluted to look like and exercise when it’s not really doing much.

So unless you think it a worthy use of your training to copy a misinterpreted Men’s Health snippet, STOP LIFTING YOUR LEG!

Returning to the NCAA athlete who received a much-needed correction in exercise interpretation, I asked:

‘So how did you feel about the exercise when you were throwing your leg back?’

To which they replied:

‘Well actually, I could feel the exercise doing anything, and I didn’t understand why I was doing it. I did ask the strength coach, but their answer just didn’t add up’.

Mmm. not surprising. At least some human beings are in touch with their intuition…

The key is this – if you have read this you have been given a chance to stop lifting your leg, hold it parallel to the other, foot just off the ground, and get a real workout – the way it was intended!

[i] King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series King Sports International, Brisbane, Aust. (DVD)

[ii] King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series, King Sports International, Brisbane. (Audio)

[iii] King, I., 1998, How To Write Strength Training Programs: A Practical Guide, King Sports Publishing, Brisbane, Aust. (Book)

[iv] King, I., 1999, Ian King’s Killer Leg Exercises, t-mag.com (DVD)

[v] King, I., 1999, 12 Weeks of Pain – Limping into October – Pt 1, t-mag.com, 17 Sep 1999. (Article)

[vi] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!™, 1st Ed., King Sports Publishing, Bris. Aust. (Book)

[vii] King, I., 2000, How To Teach Strength Training Exercises, King Sports Publishing, Brisbane, Aust. (Book)

[viii] King, I., 2000, How To Teach Strength Training Exercises, King Sports International, Brisbane, Aust. (DVD)

[ix] King, I., 2000, Make your legs soar, Men’s Health, November, p. 28-29. (Article)

[x] King, 2001, Advanced Leg Training: Stage 1, Fri, Jan 19, 2001

[xi] Single leg deadlift, Men’s Health, June 2000

[xii] ‘Authors’ name withheld to reduce drawing attention to plagiarists, 2003, Marcocycle, CA USA

[xiii] ‘Authors’ name withheld to reduce drawing attention to plagiarists, 2005, Program Design Bible, CA USA.

[xiv] ‘Authors’ name withheld to reduce drawing attention to plagiarists, The Female Breakthrough, xxx.

Ian King

There is a better way – Part 3: I don’t notice you

/by

In the second phase of the game, only a minute or so in, one of the players successfully bumped off the attempted tackle of an opponent. The attacking player whooped so loudly you could hear him a mile away. The celebration continued for another minute. This is a real live, 2017 example, in a state level talent identified player, playing club sport.

This player’s team lost that game by about 40 points.

This was not, and is not an isolated incident. In the team this young athlete plays in, more celebration is given to individual achievement that team success, although in fairness they have no team success. Or perhaps because of the allowed behavior they have no team success.

There was a time, and still is in the winners in the world of team sports, when the scoreboard did all the talking. However this changed with the focus on individual achievement as a form of performance measurement. The collation and distribution of individual’s player game statistics in team sports may have been the turning point.

In Australian team sports, this change towards a greater focus on individual player game stats became apparent in the late 1990s. In American it would have been a decade or so earlier.

What has been the impact of this increased focus on individual player game statistics on team performance? Suffice to say, any team that fails to control and keep in context this aspect of the game will not be a championship team.

The aim of this article is to provide an introductory insight for coaches into developing the most fundamental key to success in team sports.

The first step

The fundamental first step in determining tactics in team sports is the decision to commit to playing as a team. Now I understand this sounds so obvious you may wonder why I bother mentioning it. I wish I didn’t have to. However the reality of my observations is that tragically this fundamental concept has become lost in coaching practice.

The first step is to decide, as a coach or player, where your commitment to this concept. Do you plan to embrace and execute team first tactics, or individual first tactics?

Now it’s one thing for a player to choose to prioritize their individual game statistics over the team outcome. You could expect that in a world where selfishness and instant gratification are growing trends. However players should not be dictating team culture. Yes, many would like to, and many do attempt to. In the ideal world the team culture is the responsibility of the coach. So what happens to a team where the coach fails to negatively reinforce selfish behavior, or worse, promotes selfish behavior by act or omission? Lack of team success, epidemic in team sport globally.

To clarify the values of the coach in the example where the team prioritizes the individual ‘big hits’, a few weeks after the incident described in the opening paragraph, the coach was heard to say in the half-time speech – at time the team was down about 33-5:

“Now its time to do well as individuals.”

That was this coach’s solution to success in team sport, after giving up on their best efforts team tactics (which were really an extremely sub-standard team approach, more an individual approach pretending to be team). So whilst the concept of team-based tactic as the first step sounds obvious, it apparently is not to what I suggest is the majority of coaches.

The fact that the team in this case study was a losing outfit (finishing in the bottom half of the ladder) is a coaching failure, not a player failure. Yes, we could blame the player/s, however the athletes relying on the wisdom of their elders, their coaches.

The second step

The second step in team-first tactics is to have the ability to identify characteristics of team play, and to positively reinforce them.

Let’s assume a coach at least in theory embraces team-based values. Do they have the skill-set to identify the desired characteristics? We actually need to take it back even one step further – do they even know from a left-brain recall perspective the top five to ten characteristics of team based values tactically speaking? Without at first a theoretical understanding, there is no chance of developing unconscious competence!

The young male athlete came off the basketball court hoping for some encouraging words from his coach in the post game debrief. What he got was the comment

“I don’t notice you out there on the court.”

Wow! Without going into the power of words as it relates to coaching and empowering athletes, this comment revealed a lot about the coach.

So the basketball coach that told the young player that they didn’t notice them out there was, I suggest, another coach doomed for the scrap heap of non-fulfillment, because they were looking at the individual stats, not the scoreboard,

Absolutely, the player’s individual game statistics were not setting the world on fire. But what if the player was one of the dying breed of players whose primary focus was on put team before individual, to do things to to enhance team success as measured on the scoreboard at the expense of looking good individually?

Let me help the coach out with this insight into understanding how players impact the momentum of the game and the scoreboard, irrespective of their individual players statistics. I analyzed three games played by this basketball team in question prior to this disempowering yet enlightening comment by the coach. This it as a great example of a teaching opportunity in the area of coach education, specifically tactical development!

I divided all periods of play into periods of when the player chastised for not being ‘noticeable’ was on the court, and when this player was off the courts. Let’s give this player the code name ‘Player H’. Player H was averaging about 45-50% court time, never starting a game.

Total periods Win Loss Draw
H OFF 12 1 9 2
Averages 8% 75% 17%
Av Points Differential 2 -5 0
H ON 11 4 5 2
Averages 36% 45% 18%
Av Points Differential 3.25 -3% 0

There were 11 periods of play over three game when Player H was ON the court, and 12 periods of play over these three games when Player H was OFF the court. Note this team has not won a game, trial or regular season. The season is 7 games long.

So what do the TEAM stats – as measured by the scoreboard – tell us about Player H’s contribution?

  • When Player H is ON the court, 36% (4) of the playing periods are won by his team. When player H is OFF the court, 8% (1) of the playing periods are won by his team.
  • When Player H is ON the court 45% (5) of the playing periods are lost by his team, compared to 75% (9) when Player H is OFF the court.
  • There is no statistical difference in relation to drawn points periods when Player H is ON (17%) or OFF (18%) the court.
  • The average wining margin of playing periods won when Player H is ON the court is 3.25, compared to the average winning margin of 2 when Player H is off the court.
  • The average losing margin of players periods lost when Player H is ON the court is -3 and the average losing margin for lost playing periods when Player H is OFF the court is -5.

So the court didn’t notice Player H when he was on the court? This is a classic example of coaches failing to understand the impact individual players have on TEAM performance. Failing to understand how individual players contribute to team success is a guarantee to fail as a coach in team sports. Failing to reinforce a TEAM based culture and tactics. And failing on the scoreboard as well.

Additionally, what impact did these words from the coach have on the player? The athletes unsolicited comment:

“With a statement like that, I really want to play for that coach….”

Yes, that was sarcasm used by the young athlete. Cumulatively, the comment contributed to the young athlete questioning whether to continue playing that sport for that institution. How does this help anyone? Not the player, not the institution represented, not the sport. Oh, and not the coach.

So what do you think Coach? Has this helped you notice the ‘Player H’s’ when they are on the court now?

The third step

The third step is to possess the coaching skill-set (as a coach) or influence (as a player) to successfully create this tactical foundation and culture.

When I am coaching new teams and I see this behavior I call it out for what it is – selfish; and provide instant negative reinforcement for it. It is an epidemic in sport that makes it so easy to win in team sports for those coaches and team who understands the value of a TEAM first culture, and have the courage and skillset to implement it.

Let’s assume in the case study presented at the start of this article the coach was committed to team-value based tactics (which we know is not correct). What should or could they have done about this display of individual-centric values by this young athlete?

One solution would have been to ‘drag’ (take off the field, counsel) the player immediately and given them a solid insight into why that behavior is unacceptable and inappropriate. That is, if it had to get that far. These values should have been clarified in the first few weeks of a new team assembling, during training. The clarification of team values is arguably THE MOST IMPORTANT act a coach can do to establish success.

So how can you readily identify TEAM based cultures and tactics vs individual-centric team cultures and tactics? Simply watch when a player passes the ball –did the player pass the ball as a first option, or as a last option, when they have exhausted all their own options?

Therefore how to do you change team tactics to a team-value based culture? Conduct drills and provide positive reinforcement verbally to unselfish play, where the player’s decision making reflects the internal question of ‘what would be best for the team?’

I understand that the greatest challenge for any coach seeking to implement this is that the team performance may suffer in the learning phase. This short term loss will be more than off-set by the long term rewards for having a team-value tactical culture.

In my experience implementing this tactical strategy, the key is initially to reward to process (e.g. of passing as the first option, not the last option) over the outcome. Yes, the parents on the side of the field will be critical because their ‘Young Johnny’ could have scored had he been selfish, or the team could have ‘won today’ had he been selfish. Perhaps the pass was dropped, and the score did not occur. Or perhaps the team lost. What astounds me is all the lip service given to ‘long-term athlete development’. This concept is NOT JUST RELEVANT to physical development (although I suggest most coaches who talk about this fail to develop this physical anyway but that is another discussion) – it also relates to technical (skill), tactical (tactics) and psychological development. Not just also – probably more importantly!

Historic influences on this individual-centric team value

So where did this player driven and coach accepted inappropriate behaviors evolve? In this discussion, we will look beyond the obvious human trait temptation of selfishness and meeting individual needs.

In Australian team sports, this change towards a greater focus on individual player game stats became apparent in the late 1990s. In American it would have been a decade or so earlier.

The advent of individual statistics in a team sport, supported by ‘strength and conditioning’ programs offering short term gain for long term loss, have been two forces most coaches either lack the wisdom to see through, or simply lack the understanding to decipher the information. If a coach fails to correctly identify the common denominators between winning and losing, they will never fulfill their potential as a coach. Sadly, from my observation over the last four decades, this fate awaits the majority of them.

I have seen many school sporting cultures where ‘young Jonny’ will never pass the ball, because he believes (and his belief is continuously reinforced by coach and parents behavior) that if he does things that make him look good, he will receive accolades. Forget about the scoreboard. As long as ‘young Jonny’ looks good!

This is where ‘strength and conditioning’ post the late 1990s in Australian sport has come to lend a hand. The short-term benefit available to all young athletes is that they can gain the equivalent of a year of two of physical maturation in one off-season in the gym. This means that they can make those extra meters in contact, make the big hits, look better statistically and attract the attention of the uneducated observer.

What suffers? Team work. Team success. When ‘young Jonny’ tucks the ball under his arm in rugby, one thing becomes very evident – he is not going to pass the ball! It doesn’t matter if there was an overlap or a extra man, ‘young Jonny’ is going to hold onto that ball.

Conclusion

I suggest that any act or omission by a coach that reinforces individual centric values and tactics in team sport dooms that team to failing to fulfill their potential. Based on my observations, I suggest two things:

  1. The majority of coaches in the current landscape lack the value of or the ability to identify and correct team-value tactics and culture.
  2. The trend has and will continue to move away from team-value tactics and culture.

For example, what we have now, say in Australian rugby, are a team full of ‘young Jonny’s’ who either do not possess the skill set to run and pass at the same time, or who choose not to pass. Watch any game of rugby union in Australia, from kids to the national team, and you will see a number of passes per phase that would average below two. You could be forgiven for thinking you were watching 1970’s rugby league, in an era when the skills were low and the physicality was all that was on offer.

I use rugby union as example; however all team sports have suffered the same fate. I often wonder why the majority of these sporting events are called team sports. The majority of male players in Australian team sports are clearly committed to demonstrating their physical superiority over the opponent, with little regard for team outcome.

On the flip side, winning in team sport has never been easier, because most coaches and team fail at the fundamental tactical development step. Imagine how many other steps they fail at?!

So what is the solution? Coach education. Not just the theory of coaching. The education must include the ‘art’ of coaching. And who by? Coaches with personal mastery, not ‘coaches’ with theoretical knowledge only.  What are the chances of this happening? Not high. What will happen to those athletes, coaches, sports, countries or teams that do follow this? Great things.

Another reason why success in sport is so easy. So few will ever take the steps that result in success. So a great coach in a great sport has really very little competition.

 

Note:

For those athletes and coaches who are concerned about the direction of training and want to believe there is a better way – congratulations. There is a better way. We have spend the last four decades discovering better ways to train, and we teach these better ways when we work with athletes or coaches. The KSI Coaching Program aims to provide you with the tools to train athletes and others in their highest and best interests, with no interest in what the dominant trend is or will be in the future. Learn more about KSI Coach Education here https://kingsports.net/courses/