Ian King

What’s in a name? Pt 3 – Will a name change save you?

/by

In the 1970s, at least in the Western world, there was very little title variation.  In sport in America there was the title strength coach, but there were so few of them employed that the title was relatively unknown. In you were to get work physically training people it would be in the fitness industry – and even that was relatively small cohort – and your title was ‘gym instructor’.

Since that decade the names options have not only gone through a degree of evolution, but there has also been a growth in diversity.   Here’s the interesting aspect of this – due to relative youthfulness of this ‘profession’[1] (I suggest it’s about 50 years old), combined with a relatively unregulated environment (compared with more established professions), individuals are free to adopt whatever title or name they wish. And the last fifty years has shown the propensity of individuals to do just that.

In more established professions, a title or name is controlled by strict regulations. Take the title ‘Doctor’ for example.  I would imagine that someone was not a doctor on Monday, and without any change in their professional training, chose the title or name ‘Doctor’ on Tuesday, would be quickly subjected to regulatory enforcement.

Or if a person with the regulatory approval to describe themselves as a psychologist on Monday woke up on Tuesday and chose to title themselves as a ‘psychiatrist’ on Tuesday – without any change in their professional training.

Contrast that with the physical training ‘profession’ – A person could call themselves a ‘Gym’ or ‘Fitness Instructor’ on Monday, wake up on Tuesday and decide to change their title to ‘Personal Trainer’, wake up on Wednesday and decide to change it again to a ‘Strength & Conditioning Coach’, wake up on Thursday and decide to change it again to ‘Physical Preparation Coach’, and on Friday choose to revert their title back to ‘Personal Trainer’.  All without any change in their professional training, and with no fear of regulatory enforcement.

The question can be posed – why individuals change their title or name, and is that working out for them. In other words, is the name change achieving the goal or reason they change their name?

A brief historical observation journey

To start to understand the habit within our ‘profession’ for changing one’s title, I will share my half a century observation on evolution and diversity in names.

I am going to focus on paid roles, not volunteer positions, and speak of my personal observations. Yes, someone may have been guiding Milo as he carried the calf on his shoulder in 2000 BC, but I can’t say for sure (I wasn’t there) and I don’t know if anyone can confirm if a coach or advisor existed, where they a volunteer or a paid professional?

1970s: As I commenced with above, the 1970s saw a small number of ‘strength coaches’ in the (US) sport industry and ‘gym instructors’ in the fitness industry.

1980s: The term ‘strength & conditioning coach’ was formalized by the American organization the National Strength & Conditioning Association (formerly the ‘National Strength Coaches Association’) or NSCA in the US in 1981 and began to grow in use from a very small based as that decade continued. In the fitness industry, the title ‘Personal Trainer’  grew in the US but did not spread out of the US until the 1990s.

1990s: The term ‘strength & conditioning coach’ began to grow from a very small base outside of the US, for example in Australia.  I began publishing the term ‘physical preparation coach’ in this decade, and this was picked up on by a few Australians. In the fitness industry, the NSCA expanded their reach by introducing a ‘Personal Trainer’ Certification.

2000-2020: The term ‘strength & conditioning coach’ continued its global expansion including in Europe. The term ‘physical preparation’ coach grew from a small base in the US and around the world following the promotion of my 1990s works internationally.  And the PT market firmed up as a large part the NSCA membership base.

2020s: Following the 2010s, which I have labelled the ‘Decade of Dysfunction’ or ‘Decade of Injury’[2] and I have provisionally called the 2020 decade the ‘Decade of Injury Rehabilitation’.[3] It is no surprise we now see a new addition to the name options, with names such as ‘Injury prevention & rehabilitation specialist’.

So why do some change their name?

As an observer and student of this ‘profession’ I have formed certain opinions about the relatively rapid rate of new name adoptions. For example, why did so many fitness ‘professionals’ in the late 1990s and post 2000 change their title from ‘Personal Trainer’ to ‘Strength & Conditioning Coach’?

I have concluded that sport is generally seen in the eyes of most to be a more significant segment than the general population segment.  Which is why I suggest that this name change occurred at the rate it did, in the absence of any real change in client base. I believe these individuals were seeking significance in the first instance, and as second consideration, the hope (or wish?) that this would result in the attraction of the higher valued athlete clients.

In the next evolution or more accurately reincarnation, I then observed some post 2000 transition a second time to the title ‘Physical Preparation Coach’.  Again, I suggest that the desire to be appeared to be more aligned with sport and athletes as the primary motivator, and the wishful hope that a name change might attract athlete clients.

I have also witnessed a ‘regression’ in perceived social significance of title. For example in one case I witnessed a name change from Personal Trainer to Physical Preparation Coach, and then a few years later a revert back to Personal Trainer.

A case study

What I have described is well illustrated in this case study. The following titles have been used by this case study in a 10-year period from 2015-2025:

2015 – 2018

Personal Trainer

Diet and Exercise Coach

Nutrition Coach

Nutrition and Exercise Coach

2018+

Physical Preparation coach

Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation Specialist

Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation Pro

 

That’s a minimum of seven title changes/choices over ten years.

Is it working?

If a professional gained a new qualification you might expect them to change their title. However, when you see the change in the absence of educational change the conclusion I have reached in many cases is that there is a hope that by changing the name of the title, there will be a different / better outcome in client attraction and or social significance.

Now if this theory was accurate, it remains subjective and difficult to measure at to the impact of these name changes.

However, having watched this habit appear and accelerate since about 1995, I have not seen the weight of evidence in the last 30 years to support that this strategy is effective in achieve the goals. And less so in the long term.

Conclusion

From the 1970s to the mid 1990s there was little change in the title a physical coach would assign themselves. Since the mid 1990s, there has not only been a evolution in terms, there has also been a ‘fluidness’ in the use of those terms. Whilst the physical coaching ‘profession’ retains it unregulated and immature status, individuals retain the ability to change the title of their services at will.

The question remains – why is this occurring, and is it achieving its goals?

I’m not convinced that changing your name/title is going to save you, compared to say an upgrade in qualifications and or competence.

It matters less what you call yourself. It matters more the impact of your service, the value you bring to the market.

 

References

[1] You will note the presence of quotation marks or inverted commas around the word ‘profession’.  The message is the question mark about whether the term is accurate or applicable. In other words, is this ‘profession’ professional? Compared to other more established professions, I suggest not.

[2] “I have labelled the 2010-2020 decade as the Decade of Dysfunction (i.e. the Decade of Injury), as during this time the scoreboard of injuries was clear – the incidence, severity, and reduction in age serious injuries were occurring had increased exponentially”—King, I., 2025, Legacy 2nd Ed., Vol. 1 – Injury prevention and performance enhancement, Theory #17 – The dominant focus by decade

[3] “We are only halfway through the 2020s decade however if I was to call it now, I would label this decade as the Decade of Injury Rehabilitation based on the growing number of individuals, I see marketing themselves or seeking to become ‘experts’ in this space, including in the absence of any formal training.”—King, I., 2025, Legacy 2nd Ed., Vol. 1 – Injury prevention and performance enhancement, Theory #17 – The dominant focus by decade

——-

King Sports International (KSI) is the original global provider of physical coach education, since 1999.  KSI introduced the ‘professions’ first professional development ‘Boot Camps’, circa, 1999, and the ‘professions’ first ‘Coach Mentoring Program’ in 2003. Prior to that, Ian King wrote and taught the curriculum for Australian Strength and Conditioning Coaches from 1989 to 1998. Prior to that, Ian wrote and presented Australia’s first state-based fitness industry strength training accreditation course in Queensland from approx. 1983-1988.  KSI content is original content, based on the tested results from half a century of training elite athletes in large samples sizes in a wide range of sports through a diverse range of countries and cultures.

You can learn more about KSI Coach Education Program here or by emailing us at question@kingsports.net.

Ian King

Jett’s in the loop – and that’s a problem

/by

In late 2015 an Australia family packed up and left for Europe to support their teenage athlete children’s motorcross dreams.  Hunter was Jett was 16 years of age, and his younger brother Jett was 12. They spend about three years in Europe racing before achieving the bigger picture goal of gaining the opportunity to compete in the US supercross and motorcross seasons.

Their competitive success to date has left no doubt that they are amongst the greatest athlete exports out of Australia.  So great, one or both could challenge for the title of GOAT – greatest of all time, in US super/moto cross racing history. Of the two Jett is currently more dominative – when he is on the track.

And that’s the challenge for Jett. The greatest challenge for Jett in achieving the GOAT status are potential injuries. In the AMA 450cc Supercross class, Jett has completed one out of three seasons. He won the season completed. In the AMA 450cc Motorcross  class, Jett has completed one out of three seasons. He won both of the seasons he completed.

That’s a total of 3 seasons out of six or 50% completion.

While many ask whether he is going to be the next GOAT, perhaps a more pertinent question may be to understand why he is in the situation where he has a combined season completion rate in the 450cc class of 50%.

I suggest that Jett’s in ‘the loop’. The injury loop as I call it. And that’s a problem.

The aim of this article is to discuss the ‘loop’.  Ideally, we would be discussing the cause of the injuries in the first place, however that would be for most too esoteric. So, at the shallow level of public discourse, I will stick with the less disputable – the injury loop.

The challenge for me is witnessing greatness being jeopardized by the preventable. The talent is indisputable. But is it going to be unfulfilled?

The Loop

The injury loop is where an athlete gets an injury, fails to rehabilitate fully before returning to competition, and suffers another injury as a result of that failure. [1]  I have spoken about this phenomenon for a number of decades now.

This is what most people do. They get a niggle, they ignore it. The niggle kind of keeps coming back. They say it can’t be so, because their left brain will tell them it can’t be so. They ignore it. Now perhaps at some point in time it gets so bad they’ll go and see someone and get ineffective treatment. It won’t work.

They’ll keep training and then they’ll blow up. They’ll have a tear. They’ll have an injury. Then they’ll get poor rehabilitation. They won’t fix the cause. They’ll address the symptom. They’ll go back to training. They’ll either blow the same thing, or they’ll blow the other side. And this is a pattern that continues to repeat itself.

So, I cannot stress enough. If your body is telling you there’s something not right, fix it. When we’re young we think we’re bulletproof. When we get a little bit older, reality sets in. You should be wiser beyond your years when it comes to the pain message from the body. Do not ignore your body. Find somebody who can help you remove that little niggle. Do not wait until it becomes an injury. Do not injure yourself before you cease training.[2] [3]

Predictable and preventable. Now, according to some, injuries can only be avoided through divine intervention. That’s a theory. There are many theories, but mine is human intervention can actually prevent because you can predict them. So, what we’ll be doing today is showing you how very briefly to look at a joint and say, ‘this is what’s going to happen.’

So, after trauma, what happens next?  We have some form of treatment or intervention. So, the intervention comes in two forms. The intervention can either be through treatment of some kind, or it can come through surgery.

And most treatments are ineffective and ultimately end in surgery anyway.

And this is a loop. I get a pain message, I ignore it, it goes away, I get it again, I ignore it, and you start looping down here and ultimately there’s trauma, which brings us to our next level. After trauma, we go through a period of rehabilitation. And then we return to training. And then what happens next? The cycle begins again. I’m not being cynical, I’m being literal. The cycle begins again. They either injure the same side again, or they injure the opposite side, or contralateral.

So, the other side in that plane, to the back, to the other side, or the front to the other side. So basically, the first inhibition here will lead to all these things and will lead to a subsequent injury.  So, the cycle goes round and round in circles until the person can’t train and has to quit physical activity or retire from sport. So, with my approach to prevention of injury as being the most important thing a physical preparation coach does, nobody will get surgery, and everything below here becomes redundant. [4] [5]

Sometimes the lack of full rehabilitation is caused by impatience. Sometimes by incompetence on the part of the support team. Sometimes it neither but instead a high-level concept that is outside the awareness of the majority.

Either way there are two indisputable facts – one, it could be prevented. And two, it is going to cause future injuries and negatively impact the duration and or height of the athlete’s career.

Jett’s injuries

Dec 2025 – Fractured right ankle (talus and navicular), surgery

July. 2024 – Torn left thumb ligament (ulnar collateral ligament), surgery

2-25 – ACL tear, meniscus damage, right knee, surgery

Solutions

Rather than simply criticize what’s going on, I provide some guidance for those are looking for a better way to return to sport from injury.

  • Respect the niggle
  • Fix the niggle – fast
  • Get the best guidance possible
  • Establish clarity around risk : reward outcomes
  • Have a clear time frame
  • Ensure optimal rate of rehab
  • Create a progressive return to sport plan
  • Have pre-determined milestones for determine when to return to eath progressive level of sport
  • Stop with the ‘injuries in sport are normal’ attitude

Respect the niggle

The body sends messages about pain and impending injury potential

… generally speaking, most people get a niggle and they ignore it. They get a niggle and then someone else tells them to ignore it. And they get a niggle, and they go to someone and they say, ‘Oh, I don’t know about it, I don’t really know.’ And six months later, it’s a big problem. So, they’ll sit out for a few weeks, and they’ll come back and it’s okay now and they’ll get injured again… A few weeks from now, they’ll be out for a few more months, and it’ll just go like this. This is how sport’s done.[6]

Fix the niggle – fast

I suggest you respect the message, which I call a niggle. And fix it immediately. [7]

The second thing that happens, you get to know about it at this point in time, is you get some sort of symptom or pain. You get a message from the body.

And I’ll call it pain, but most people don’t describe it as pain because it’s too low level. It’s more like a niggle. They feel a niggle. And typically, we ignore it. Or we tell someone about it and they say, ‘oh, it’ll go away shortly, don’t worry about it.’ Or tell me about it if it’s still there in two weeks’ time. The bottom line is it’s really just, now that’s the body giving you a message. There’s something wrong, fix it. Most of us ignore the message. Now there’s also a left-brain desire not to have the problem, so it doesn’t exist, doesn’t exist, put your head in the sand and hope it goes away. My approach to this is I remove the niggle within the first 24 hours.

My approach to this is I remove the niggle within the first 24 hours. I want to get rid of all niggles within the first 24 hours. That means two things. It means the athlete has to report the niggle, and then you have to have the ability to remove it. Now, the athlete can also be educated to the point where they learn to remove it themselves. And athletes I work with are that well-trained and that smart about their body, they know how to address their niggles.[8] [9]

Get the best guidance possible

My hope is that the level of guidance sought at least matches what is at stake.  In other words, in the case of a elite athlete, let alone a potential GOAT, I would hope no stone has been left un-turned, so to speak.

I have spent too much time with elite athletes who were broken when I met them and chose to stay on their own path to know that this is simply not the case.

I don’t put all the blame on the athlete alone, although unless they are a minor (under 18 years of age) they have to take some responsibility.

I believe that in many cases its their support staff or sports medicine team protecting their own egos that denies the athlete the best outcome.

Here are a few examples:

Case study 1 – The athlete was the reigning Olympic champion in their sport, but injury and poor results had meant they were not on track to even qualify to go to the next Olympics. They were advised by their physical therapist to come and see me and they did. They returned to the next Olympics and were on the podium.

Case study 2 – The athlete was the reigning Olympic champion in their sport but injury had meant they were not on track to even qualify to go to the next Olympics.  They wanted to come and see me but their physical therapist didn’t want them to. They sent them to someone else. They failed to qualify and be selected for the next Olympics, and their career came to an end.

Case study 3 – The athlete had missed selection for the Olympics because of injury. The national team doctor had recommended surgery to solve the problem and they did this. The problem remained. The national team doctor had another solution – retire. The athlete did not take this advice, instead following the recommendation of a team mate to see me. They overcame the injury and went to the next Olympics.

Case study 4 – The athlete has just gone to their third Olympics and at the age most have retired by were performing at their career best. They met a physical coach who encouraged them to change their physical coach. They failed to qualify and be selected for the next Olympics, and their career came to an end.

Case study 5 – The athlete had been selected for their first Olympics but had injured themselves prior to the event and could not attend. They began training for the next Olympics. In this time they met with me and they knew I had helped another athlete podium in their discipline. They did not follow my guidance. They had repeat injury prior to the next Olympics but were given to the 11th hour to qualify post-surgery, which they did.  They finally got to their Olympics but how many more? And will they ever stand on the podium at the Games?

Case study 6 – The athlete has just become the first person in their country to win a Gold Medal in a certain Olympic event.  However, injury and poor results had meant they were not on track to even qualify to go to the next Olympics. I met with them and I gave them insights into what was going on.  The athlete was furious with the coach for allowing this situation to develop without understanding what was happening. The coach did all they could to prevent the athlete from continuing along the guidance as it was exposing their mistake.  They failed to qualify and be selected for the next Olympics, and their career came to an end.

What are you willing to do get the best answers? Recently I got up a 4am, flew a few hours, drove a few more – to have a 2 hour consult with a person I believe to be the best in their field in the country – and then returned along the same drive / fly travel, arriving home at 10pm that night. And that was for a non-national level (at the moment) athlete.  Being and getting the best is not convenient.

Establish clarity around risk : reward outcomes

There are times in injuries when I recommend you understand the risks and rewards. And there are times you will take the risks and there are times when you will not. But I recommend you be informed and make an informed decision.

The risk reward goes beyond surgery and treatment decisions. It includes return to sport decisions. Unless that athlete is either at the end of their career or the opportunity reward is incredibly high, I do not support return to sport prior to full recovery.

Here’s a challenge for motorbike athletes – you might be limping, but you can still twist the throttle. In other words, you can ride, but should you?

Here are a few examples:

Case study 1- The athlete was selected for their run-on opportunity in their career for their national team. The challenge is they had broken ribs.  We spend some time discussing the risk : reward. If they sit out, the opportunity may never come again. If they play, they could puncture their lungs. They sat out. And the opportunity came again. They had promised to gift me that game journey. I lost out on the jersey, but we gained on the future health and career longevity of the athlete.

Case study 2 – The athlete has, I suspect, been offered an inducement not to play, to damage the team’s success.  I had previously salvaged their career through over-rediing a inaccurate diagnosis and treatment path that was seeing them out of their sport for an extended period. They came to me, and every consultant in the team, to support their decision not to play based on a cited injury. I did not give them guidance either way, as I believed that was their decision to make. They chose to sit out. They got the inducement. The team lost that day.°

Case study 3 – The athlete had a displaced clavicle (collar bone)  at the sternum (chest) end. They had been selected to play for their national team. I took them to meet with a trusted orthopedic surgeon. We discussed the risk reward at length. If they didn’t have surgery they could play tomorrow, but risk puncturing their lungs. If they had surgery, there would be no risk of lung damage, but they would be out of selection for an extended period of time.  There not competing for selection with other genuine competitors. They chose not to have surgery. They did not suffer any lung damage. They played the number of games they were driven to play.

Have a clear time frame

Time frame matters for perception. There is a saying in sociology that revolts are caused when there is a discrepancy between what someone has been told or been lead to belief, and reality. The same frustration can creep into return to sport decisions.

In sport there are diverse approaches to time frame. One physical therapist I worked with would tell everyone a time frame longer than what they know would occur, I suggest embellishing their reputation as a ‘god’.

Many coaches I have worked with would pressure the medical team to shorten the prognosis time frame for return to sport in the interests of the coaches win : loss record.

Predicted time frames aside, consider also the individual situation. Surgery technique advancements have led to short recovery times, but the human doby ultimately will decide, in collaboration with how and what you are doing, when it is ready. This reality needs to be including in the counselling of the athlete from the start.

Ensure optimal rate of rehab

If or when the rehabilitation from injury is going slower than is optimal, frustration and the associated poor decision making can come into the equation.

People just accept slow rehab and then they train at the same time because they’re not going to take two months off or six months off or two years off training. So, it just slows it down again. You know, slow rehab causes a lot of problems…I want to get results really fast. [10]

Fix it. It’s not being fixed fast enough. Rehabs too slow. Rehab across the world is too slow.[11]

To provide clear expectations around this, I teach that if within two weeks you are not confident that the current consultant or strategy used by consultant is going to get you the results you want within the time frame you want, look to change it up. [12]

And what I’ll teach you is that if the issue isn’t resolved within two weeks, you need to go see someone else. Now I’m being a little bit exaggerated, but not too much. If you’re not making pretty significant progress in a two week time period, move on. Either move on to the technique you’re using in treatment, or move on to another therapist. But the therapists that really annoy me are those who create an emotional dependence of the client or the athlete on them. And it does occur. [13]

If someone is going to a therapist, this is my rule to an athlete: if you go to somebody two times and you aren’t confident that you’re on the road to full recovery, change your direction. You’ve got two shots at it. Fix it or merely fix it in two shots or we’ll move on …. [14] [15] [16]

Create a progressive return to sport plan

The benefit of making a theoretical plan in advance is that it can help you mitigate decisions influenced by non-optimal factors such as athlete or stake-holder frustration about any delays in return to sport.

This plan is a projection and can be simple or structural in nature. However, no matter how minimal the plan, an expectation set in relative calmness prior to the moment it is needed is a wise step in this situation.

For example – and only as an example e-  training comes before competition, lower-level competition comes before higher level competition, and race simulation in training comes before lower-level competition.

Have pre-determined milestones for determine when to return to each progressive level of sport

Once you have a progressive plan of activity in the return to sport plan, you will want to have a set of criteria to match that activity.

To be blunt, if you are still limping, you are not ready to be racing at the highest level. Yes, you can do it, but that decision is keeping the athlete in the loop.

Ideally, stay consistent to the plan.

My goal is to get this ankle fully healed up and return as competitive as ever and make the 2026 season as successful as we can.—Jett Lawrence, Dec 2025[17]

Stop with the ‘injuries in sport are normal’ attitude

It’s one thing for low level and amateur athletes to blame their injuries on the sport. [18]

I really believe that there is a philosophy at least in western world sport and in general life that it’s okay to be injured and injuries are normal. Aside from the cost of injury to the community, the cost to the individual is significant and my philosophy is that no, it’s not okay to be injured….[19]

However, to hear it from athletes and stakeholders of athletes who are at or aim to be the elite level, it unacceptable.

I have a different attitude, and it’s a better one that ‘injuries are out of our control’. [20]

It is my belief that the injuries are unnecessary and unacceptable. And I get tired of people saying that that’s just the impact in sport. You know, that’s just the nature of the sport. That’s bullshit. [21] [22] [23]

…too many in the sports circle now accept, embrace and even benefit from this high incidence of injury. [24]

With all due respect, it was tough hearing the number one stake holder default to this attitude:

“It’s just one of those things. A lot of people go through it, they have just a few years of just silly mistakes and that’s all it is with Jett. Like, the knee was just something weird, tabbed his foot and it did his ACL, it was just weird, you know.

“So, this one was the same, it just went over a jump, his foot touched the gear lever, clicked it into neutral and boom, had neutral when he hit the face of the next jump. We have not hit neutral on that motorcycle in four years, but just his foot just touched it and that was it, game over.

Here’s a different viewpoint, one that seeks to bring more variables back into the control of the athlete and their support team:

Traumatic injuries, sometimes called impact injuries, occur suddenly and often when significant forces (gravity or external load/other people’s bodies) are involved.  Because of this, it is easy to explain them away as ‘it just happened as a result of the impact’. I do not agree with this. I believe most impact/traumatic injuries are chronic injuries in disguise and can be avoided or at worst reduced in incidence and severity.

If fifty percent of all injuries were of this traumatic/impact nature (just to use an example), I believe that more appropriate understanding of injury symptoms and cause-effect relationships in training program design could eliminate these  chronic injuries. [25]

Conclusion

Jett’s injuries during the last five seasons are indisputable. That he is in what I refer to as the ‘injury loop’ is conjecture. Based on a bit of practice.

I do not expect the case study here to change direction. However anyone in a similar situation, or wishing to avoid this situation, may benefit from from the lessons provided.

However, no lesson will be taken if the common thinking is maintained. This is a Google AI conclusion to the question ‘which knee did Jett Lawrence injury’.

“Lawrence also sustained an unrelated injury to his right ankle during a pre-season training crash in December 2025).

If you think its unrelated, you have a lot of company, with people who abdicate the opportunity to shape their destiny. If it’s unrelated, he is not an my so-called ‘injury loop’.

On the other hand, if you believe the ankle injury may be related to the knee injury, then you might find value in lessons shared.

 

References

[1] King, I., 2025, Legacy Vol 1 – Injury prevention, Theory #77 – The injury loop

[2] King, I., 2015, The Stop Injuries in Strength Training Video Series, Pt 2 of 10 – Why injuries in strength training occur

[3] King, I., 2018, Zero Tolerance to Injuries Video Series, Pt 2 of 10: Why injuries in strength training occur

[4] King, I., 2015, The Stop Injuries in Strength Training Video Series, Pt 3 of 10: Insights into common strength training injury sites and causes

[5] King, I., 2018, Zero Tolerance to Injuries Series, Pt 3 of 10 -Insights into common strength training  injury sites and causes

[6] King, I., 2015, Injury prevention and rehabilitation (Seminar), Singapore 11 April 2015

[7] King, I., 2025, Legacy Vol 1 – Injury prevention, Theory #75 – Remove the niggle in 24 hours

[8] King, I., 2015, The Stop Injuries in Strength Training Video Series, Pt 3 of 10: Insights into common strength training injury sites and causes

[9] King, I., 2018, Zero Tolerance to Injuries Series, Pt 3 of 10: Insights into common strength training  injury sites and causes

[10] King, I., 2012, Speed seminar, Adelaide, Sun 25 March 2025

[11] King, I., 2012, Speed seminar, Adelaide, Sun 25 March 2025

[12] King, I., 2025, Legacy Vol 1 – Injury prevention, Theory #84 – The two week rehab rule

[13] King, I., 2000, Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation Series (DVD)

[14] King, I., 2015, Strength Training and Injury Prevention. 2015 SWIS Conference 13-14 Nov 2015, Canada

[15] King, I., 2015, The Stop Injuries in Strength Training Video Series, Pt 1 of 10

[16] King, I., 2018, Zero Tolerance to Injuries Video Series, Pt 1 of 10: Introduction into injuries in strength training

[17] https://racerxonline.com/2025/12/20/jett-lawrence-injured-in-training-crash

[18] King, I., 2025, Legacy Vol 1 – Injury prevention, Theory #29 – It’s not okay

[19] King, I., 2000, Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation Series

[20] King, I., 2025, Legacy Vol 1 – Injury prevention, Theory #30 – The sport didn’t cause the injuries

[21] King, I., 2015, Strength Training and Injury Prevention. 2015 SWIS Conference 13-14 Nov 2015, Toronto ONT Canada

[22] King, I., 2015, The Stop Injuries in Strength Training Video Series, Pt 1 of 10 – Introduction to Injuries in Strength Training

[23] King, I., 2018, Zero Tolerance to Injuries Video Series, Pt 1 of 10: Introduction into injuries in strength training

[24] King, I., 2015, Physical train wrecks – it does not have to be this way, 13 Aug 2015

[25] King, I., 2005, The way of the physical preparation coach – Ch 13: Injury prevention and rehabilitation, (Book),

 

Image  “Washougal MX 2021 P1277967” by Ryan Elwell is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Ian King

Awesome Abs – And 10 reasons why it won’t happen!

/by

The abdominals are one of the most emotionally driven muscle groups in physique enhancement. Perhaps not as high up on the value list as say arms for males or currently the gluts for women, but they have been a mainstay for a long time.

There are a few questions about this, including is the focus producing the full potential of the abdominals? If it was, because of their relatively high standing in the emotional stakes, then the outcomes should mean there are very few shortcoming existing.

I suggest that is not the case. However, I respect that my ‘take’ on abs may be different than yours, and definitely different to the mainstream interpretation.

Here’s ten reasons why I have little confidence that what you are doing with your abdominal training will meet my definition of ‘Awesome Abs’:

  1. Your ab picture is small (Purpose)
  2. Your values are upside down (Visual)
  3. Your ab work is not contributing to the battle (Injury prevention)
  4. Your transfer to sport and or life is not effective (Transfer)
  5. You didn’t take the class (Prioritization)
  6. You do abs last (Sequence)
  7. You do too few ab exercises (Volume)
  8. Your ab view is too narrow (Lines of movement)
  9. You’re too scared to be / do differently (Conformity)
  10. You’re sucked into the conspiracy (Commerce)

 

  1. Your ab picture is small (Purpose)

I’ve said above that abdominals are a highly emotional muscle group in physical enhancement training. However, that is predominantly for one purpose only – aesthetics. The visual appeal of ‘ripped/shredded’ abs, affectionally referred to as a ‘six pack’. And no longer the exclusive domain of males.

That’s cute. But it’s a small picture.  If you consider my alternative picture on what the abs offer, you are focusing on 33% or 1/3rd of the ab offering and leaving the remaining 2/3rds on the table.

Here’s my ‘bigger picture’ of the abs, one that I have been sharing for over quarter of a century:

There are a number of reasons why you may or should be doing abdominal exercises and they include:

  • Abdominal training and visual impact
  • Abdominal training and transfer to sport and or life
  • Abdominal training and injury prevention [1] [2] [3] [4]

Perhaps now you can see why I suggest that if not you, the majority have a very small picture view on their abdominal training influences.

  1. Your values are upside down (Visual)

To continue with this discussion, even if you were to suggest that your training embraced this bigger picture, I would challenge you on your values. Which of these purposes do you hold in the highest regard and which do you place at the bottom of your focus?

I suggest that an objective analysis of your abdominal training values, as demonstrated by your exercise choices, may be different to mine.

One of us is upside down…

As you will learn in this book there are a number of purposes or benefits from doing what I refer to abdominal training including visual, transfer to life and or sport (function) and injury prevention.  As you may have picked up on by now, I actually have a reverse perspective on the relative value of these three purposes or benefits – injury prevention, transfer and visual.[5]

Make no mistake – your values will drive your program design, and in turn the training results you get.

  1. Your ab work is not contributing to the battle (Injury prevention)

When I’m talking about the injury prevention role of abdominals, one of those key tasks is to contribute to a force couple with the abdominals to posteriorly rotate the pelvis (stand the pelvis up). [6]

I’m going to ask her to suck her stomach thin and to squeeze her cheeks. Why do I want to do that?  Well, I want to, they’re the two force couples and we’ll change the shape of her pelvis…She’s got a lack of awareness posturally. She hasn’t got a lot of support. And I’ve only just looked at one half of the force couple. [7]

What are the force couples for posterior rotation of the pelvis? …Glutes and abs…Versus what? Quads and hip flexors, generally speaking…[8]

I call this ‘the battle’: [9]

What is it, the force couple? Hip flexors, quads, pulling the pelvis forward, glutes not strong enough to hold it back, abdominals not contributing to hold it back. The hip flexors and quads are winning the battle. [10]

And the challenge for you, the way I suspect you are doing abdominal training, you are losing the battle:

Why is it pulling forward? What’s winning the battle? … The hip flexors and quads are winning the battle. [11]

This pattern results in the hip flexors winning the battle against the abs and glutes, consequently pulling the top of the pelvis forward and resulting in a pinching of the nerves feeding the lower body. Why? Because the quads/hip flexors get a better training effect. [12]

  1. Your transfer to sport and or life is not effective (Transfer)

The third purpose for abdominal training I identify is transfer.  And yes, everyone talks about – but if I was to literally interpret what the world is doing, I am going to assume that the so called ‘plank’ is the exercise that has been crowned as being the exercise with the greatest transfer. Now I don’t, because I do not believe that is the reason this exercise is arguably the most commonly used abdominal exercise in the world these days, taking over from the pre-2000’s garden variety ‘sit-up’. Call me cynical, but I suspect that the plank is chosen because it’s perceived as easy to teach and creates a painful muscle fatiguing outcome in the clients who have been conditioned to believe that muscle fatigue means a satisfactory training effect is occurring.

But if I did literally interpret the omnipresent ‘plank’, humans must live and play sport with rigor mortis….

  1. You didn’t take the class (Prioritization)

Since the 1990s, I’ve been providing a concise ‘prioritization of strength training’ lesson.

Prioritization of muscle group

i. By sequence:

a. Within the workout.

b. Within the training week.

ii. By volume.

iii. By load:

a. Load potential.

b. Percentage of maximum load. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

I may be off point here, but if you are doing what everyone else is doing with your abdominal training, I am going to conclude you didn’t take the class – Prioritization in Strength Training 101!  Because they are simply not congruent!

  1. You do abs last (Sequence)

If most or all the time you do abs last in your strength workout, you are being compliant. Compliant with what most do.

The continuing dominant paradigm is that abdominals should be done last.  What if they are the weakest body part?  That doesn’t seem to matter!  What if they are the number one training focus for performance?  Again, it doesn’t seem to matter – they are placed last.  Why?  The repetitive answer I get to this is ‘because they cause fatigue of stabilizers and it would be dangerous to do things like squats after doing abdominals’.  Where is the evidence?  Is this evidence from empirical observations or ‘scientific’ research?  Again, that doesn’t seem to matter.  NOBODY does abdominals first!  What a load of trash!  The excuses support the paradigm, nothing more.  I train abdominals first when they are the priority for whatever reason and only put them to the end of the workout when I don’t want to totally avoid any possibility of total body fatigue prior to a maximal strength workout.  That is, I wouldn’t want the total body fatigue draining the neuromuscular system, reducing the potential for load.  But nothing to do with injury potential! [20]

But not compliant with what I concluded in the 1980s and shared repetitively in print from the 1990s onwards. [21]

Some key things I do (and perhaps a little different to what you may be used to!) is I spend a substantial amount of program time doing abdomen at the START OF THE WORKOUT.  Yes, that’s right, before any other exercises.  I know what you are going to say – how many times have I heard it?  Your granddaddy told your daddy and he told you – doing abs first will cause fatigue in the support muscles, which is evil blah blah.  Before you reel out the rhetoric give it a go.  Absolutely bash your abdominals and then squat – then come to your own conclusions.  It’s okay to have a different opinion to the rest of the well-trained monkeys! [22]

So, if you are doing what everyone else is doing – doing abs last most or all of the time – you are not going to achieve what I believe is the potential of your abdominals.

  1. You do too few ab exercises (Volume)

Most do one or two sets of abdominal exercises per workout and believe that’s sufficient. That might be in point some of the time, or for those who say only doing a total of one or two sets of lower or upper body per workout. And that’s rare.

Most do two to six (2-6) exercises and four to twelve (4-12) sets per muscle group. But not on the abs.

Bill Pearl’s  classic Keys to the Inner Universe lists and graphically illustrates over 100 ab and trunk exercises! Despite all this info, there seems to be a gap in the knowledge and the actual practice. I still see exercise programs that select only one abdominal exercise, usually a trunk flexion movement. Would you use only one exercise to train your legs or your chest? [23]

How do you explain that?

The only way you can is on the basis you believe the abs don’t deserve equality in volume to other muscle groups.

And that’s another reason you are not going to experience ‘Awesome Abs’, not at least by my definition.

  1. Your ab view is too narrow (Lines of movement)

Prior to the release of the Lines of Movement concept in the 1990s, the world viewed ‘legs’ as just that – legs.  All leg exercises were grouped together. Don’t believe me? You obviously weren’t doing leg exercises pre-2000 if you don’t!  In his classic book ‘classic Keys to the Inner Universe’[24] the legs were just that. A category that included squat and squat variations, along with deadlifting and deadlift variations.

This is not a criticism of Bill’s work. He was just reflecting the thinking of the time.  And so was everyone else. Up until at least, the late 1990s when I began to speak more openly about ‘Family Trees’ and ‘Lines of Movement’ in strength training.

That’s a concept I’m sure you’ll have never heard before because this is the first time I have spoken about it. [25]

The challenge with a broad grouping list is that it’s easy to miss appropriate balancing where there is the need to recognize the differences in specific muscle group actions within the muscle group.

Which is why I separated ‘Hip dominant’ from ‘Quad dominant’.

After many years I have decided that there are two family trees in lower body exercises – one where the quad dominates, and one where the hip dominates. [26]

And you are probably making this mistake by assuming and treating the ‘abdominals’ (or worse still, the ‘core’) as one. They are not.

I divide the abdominal muscle groups or functions down into six (6).  The technical correctness of my divisions I will leave to those with the time and motivation to debate to do so.  This is a simple and effective approach to ensuring exposure to all abdominal and some of the other trunk stabilizers…[27]

I provided the ‘Abdominal Lines of Movement’ over a quarter of a century ago, yet most chose not to ‘take that class!’. If you are choosing to ignore some or most of these abdominal ‘Lines of Movement’ – and most are – you’d better have a very good reason for it – other than ignorance…

  1. You’re too scared to be / do differently (Conformity)

As I mentioned above, you are most likely doing abdominals the way everyone else is. And that’s fine. It’s just not optimal.

I resonate with the American existential psychologist and author Rollo May’s treatise on conformity:

The opposite of courage isn’t cowardice; it’s conformity.[28]

It may be harsh, but I am willing to challenge you – one of the main reasons you are doing what you are doing in relation to your abdominal training is that you would prefer to conform. And that’s a choice.

You could break the mold. But it would mean being different, and I understand not too many of you are ready to be different.  Conformity is much more comfortable… Most humans chose to live a life less courageous, more ordinary. So, you are ‘normal’ by choosing the same.[29]

It’s just a choice worth reflecting on.

Including once you have considered my thoughts about the drivers of the trends you are conforming to.

  1. You’re sucked into the conspiracy (Commerce)

When I first started writing about a possible ‘conspiracy’ in training back in the late 1990s, I didn’t feel totally comfortable because back then anyone talking conspiracy was considered somewhat of a ‘nutter’, at risk of not being taken seriously. Fast forward to the 2020s, and everyone has a conspiracy theory they want to share. So, rest assured, this talk is not a new post-Covid trend compliant behaviour. I’ve been singing from this song-sheet for a bit longer than that…[30]

So, your approach to abdominal training is compliant with the majority, or the dominant trend.  For those interested in unpacking this, how is a trend shaped?  I have for a number of decades shared my beliefs on what are the influences that shape trends in strength training. [31]

Trends I suggest are commercially driven. So, they are not there because they are optimal, they are not dominating because they are in the best interests of the end user – they dominate because people with adequate financial resources have driven the paradigm for their commercial benefit. [32]

For me the number one driver of behavior in our industry are those with vested interests.  The product/equipment manufacturers and distributors are great examples of this…

In the early years of my coaching career, I was where many of you are probably now, believing that to study and learn from ‘trends in training’ was wise.  It didn’t take me long to revise my perspective substantially since then. Throughout the 1990s I warned of the dangers of following trends. In my 2002 second edition of my 1997 book Winning and Losing I dedicated an entire chapter to this topic, titled ‘Don’t Get Sucked in by the Trends!’ [33]

To cut to the point – the risk abdominal training trends face is that too many can be done without equipment. And this is a problem…

Did you know the next craze to come out in this industry is this? It takes 15 minutes a day, six days a week, and involves no equipment. It’s going to be the next really big fad. There’ll be no equipment, and it will take up a time. What are my chances? None whatsoever. Because of why? There’s no equipment. Can’t sell it. No one’s going to make any money off it. And it doesn’t meet the needs of instant gratification. There are two criteria. The only stuff that you get exposed to in this country is stuff that people can make money off, and it’s convenient. And your entire professional thinking is based on those two things. You are completely bound on the variables of because someone decided they could commercialize it and make a profit margin from the sale of goods, that it met your perception of instant gratification. Neither of those two things are fundamentally sound. [34]

Just like another training method that has for the last few decades been successfully suppressed – stretching. Because it too – God forbid – is not equipment dependant…yet!

Who’s promoting you to flexibility? No one because they can’t make any money out of it. What’s the other thing? It’s one of the few physical qualities where perhaps more is better. How are you going to sell that? I want you to stretch for 20 hours a week. Not too many people want to join me. 

I’ll go and stretch for two hours. Who’s going to come with me? It doesn’t meet the social trend. Because you are marketing driven to be this, and the quickness, the marketing stimuli is so short and fast now that no one produces articles. They produce short things and they’ll be this and they’ll be this. And instead of every month, they go every week and it’s every day and it’s five times a day. And that’s the speed of marketing. The world isn’t stretch deficient because stretching isn’t effective. It’s just not marketable from the American marketing perspective. [35]

I know the world has fallen off the map when it comes to appropriate application of stretching.  I fear also that abdominal training may be slipping as well – for the same reason. Exercises that do not rely on equipment threaten the take up of equipment sales for those exercises that are reliant on equipment. Your training habits are up against well-funded opposition. You need to decide whose interests you are going to serve.

Conclusion

So, there you have it. You have the opportunity for ‘Awesome Abs’, but odds are, at least from my perspective, you probably won’t achieve them.   That may be harsh, but from travelling the world helping athletes and others with their training during the last half a century, that’s the conclusion I’ve reached.

But there is hope.

Provided you are ready and willing to take a bigger picture view of your abdominals, and to step outside the comfort and confines of the average person’s choices. To ‘think for yourself’. [36]

To help you do this, I have a created a book to help – and yes, the book is titled ‘Awesome Abs!’

When the abdominal student is ready, the ‘Awesome Abs!’ book can appear. That’s up to you. And of course, your view of the abdominals purpose and whether you feel you have fulfilled the potential of your abdominals.

 

References

[1] King, I., 2001, Thinking Man’s Guide to Ab Training, Testosterone, Issue No. 4, April 2001, p. 42-49. (Article)

[2] King, I., 2002, Awesome Abs – Stage 1, t-mag.com, 12 April 2002. (Article)

[3] King, I., 2002, Get Buffed! II: Get MORE Buffed! Ch. 9 – The abdominal exercises. (Book)

[4] King, I., 2026, Awesome Abs – Ch. 3- Why do abdominal training, Get Buffed Specialization Series (Book)

[5] King, I., 2026, Awesome Abs – Introduction, Get Buffed Specialization Series (Book)

[6] King, I., 2025, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 1 – Parts 1 & 2 : Injury Prevention and Performance Enhancement – Theory #94 – The pelvis force couple (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[7] King, I., 2016, A coach’s guide to preventing, identifying, managing, and rehabilitating lower back injuries, SWIS Presentation, Canada

[8] King, I., 2018, Does powerlifting transfer to sport? SWIS Convention Canada, 28 Oct 2018

[9] King, I., 2025, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 1 – Parts 1 & 2 : Injury Prevention and Performance Enhancement – Theory #95 – Who’s winning the battle? (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[10] King, I., 2010, Barbells & Bullshit, Los Angeles, 2 Oct 2010 (Seminar)

[11] King, I., 2010, Barbells & Bullshit, Los Angeles, 2 Oct 2010 (Seminar)

[12] King, I., 2001, Pelvis has left the building – How pelvic alignment and proper exercise program design can keep the injury goblins at bay, t-mag.com, 28 Dec 2001

[13] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Prioritizing muscle groups (Book)

[14] King, I., 2011, KSI Coach Education Program, L1 Legacy, Unit 10 – Balance (Course)

[15] King, I., 2013, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations, Ch. 28- Prioritization (Book)

[16] King, I., 2015, Strength training and injury prevention, Presentation at the 2015 Society of Weight Training Specialists (SWIS) Symposium, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 13-14 November 2015 (Presentation; Video)

[17] King, I., 2018, Ian King’s Guide to Strength Training, Vol. 3 – How to transfer strength training, Chapter 6

Avoiding creating new imbalances (Book)

[18] King, I., 2026, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 2 – Parts 3 & 4: Flexibility & Strength, Theory #255 – Reimagining strength training prioritization, (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[19] King, I., 2026, Get Buffed! V – Get Optimally Buffed, Chapter 7 Program design for Neuromuscular Optimization (Book)

[20] King, I., 2002, Get Buffed! II (Book), Sequence of Abdominal Training within the Workout, p. 130

[21] King, I., 2025, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 1 – Parts 1 & 2 : Injury Prevention and Performance Enhancement – Theory #99 – Abs first (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[22] King, I., 2003, Ask the Master (Book), p. 15

[23] King, I., 2001, Thinking Man’s Guide to Ab Training, Testosterone, Issue No. 4, April 2001, p. 42-49. (Article)

[24] Pearl, B., 1979, Keys to the Inner Universe, 1st Ed., Physical Fitness Architects, Pasadena, California

[25] King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series (DVD)

[26] King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series (DVD)

[27] King, I., 2002, Get Buffed! II: Get MORE Buffed! Ch. 9 – The abdominal exercises. (Book)

[28] May, R., 1953, Man’s Search for Himself (Book)

[29] King, I., 2022, Off the Record #122 – We work together every week, 6 April 2022 (Article)

[30] King, I., 2025, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 1 – Parts 1 & 2 : Injury Prevention and Performance Enhancement – Theory #27 – It’s a conspiracy (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[31] King, I., 2025, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 1 – Parts 1 & 2 : Injury Prevention and Performance Enhancement – Theory #122 – Training trends are commercially driven (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[32] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book), Chapter 7 – Training Theories, p. 41-42

[33] King, I., 2018, KSI Coaching Program, L0 – Orientation, Unit 2 – What are the influences on the way I train my clients?

[34] King, I., 2010, It won’t sell, 8 Oct 2010, YouTube

[35] King, I., 2010, It won’t sell, 8 Oct 2010, YouTube

[36] King, I., 2025, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 1 – Parts 1 & 2 : Injury Prevention and Performance Enhancement – Theory #124 – Over-react in the short-term and under-react in the long-term (Book, 2nd Ed.)

Ian King

A thought for physical coaches – The lifetime value of our decisions

/by

In my holistic research recently I was exposed to information that I have wondered about. One of the individuals I have determined to be worthy of learning from shared information recently that I picked up on. I knew who their influences were, and I often wondered what the asset position is of the person I learn from. I learnt some answers to that today. Not the exact answer, but enough to get insights.

This information typically only becomes accessible when you get close enough to the mentor, and if you dedicate enough time to studying what they share – in print (books, emails, newsletter) and in videos and seminars.  I have done a lot of study of this person – years of it – to stumble upon this simple nugget.

As the person who commenced the first physical coach mentoring program, the value in mentoring matters to me, as it does to anyone when they choose a mentor.

Moments such as when I learnt this nugget of information from the mentor I speak about in this article require a moment when the person drops their privacy guard and shares a bit more openly. I know that moment. When I am talking to my higher-level coaches, I am more open with them but even then, need to review everything I am inclined to share before it comes out of my mouth.

There are a lot of reasons for this.

Firstly, there is simply privacy. We all want to determine who learns what about our person affairs. I am very conscious of this personally, and professionally, as our high-level coaches can confirm.

Secondly there is interpretation. In some situations, with some people, information shared with intent to help does not always work out that way. The way information can be interpreted can at times be more damaging than good, including with the best interpretations of both parties. Let alone when one of the parties has less than good intent.

The third consideration is readiness.  I am a strong believer that a student needs to qualify they are ready for that information, because if they are not, it will not server optimally.

Finally, there is confidentiality. When a person shares something with someone, even with the ‘right person’ at the ‘right time’, if that person then shares that information with another person who the original person has no say as to what is shared to whom, then all bets are off. It’s a shit show and all the efforts of the original person to ensure their information serves optimally is shattered

I know. It’s as simple as seeing as a person blasting out my innovations during their 10-year incubation period.[1] Ones that I have not even chosen to make public or talked about much.

So, after all this, I will share with you the information. But you will note that I am not giving names or details or specific context.

The person who I trust to learn off publicly thanks the person who exposed him first to the line of thinking, some 35 years ago – for how much money that person’s advice had made him. And it was a bigger number than I was expecting. And I know that my mentor is humble and discreet and not a bullshitter. Basically, he is disqualified from being an IG influencer!

And so, I know his asset position is even more than that…Wow!

And I know the lifetime value of this mentor’s mentor choice.

This is one of the many things that intrigue me.

So many focus on the perception others have of them.

Like – what if I changed my professional description from ‘personal trainer to physical preparation coach?’ Or what if I changed my title back from ‘physical preparation coach to personal trainer?’  Will I get more interest in me, my services?

Or how many people do I have following me on IG, or what multisyllabic words can I say or to get more? Or whether I should get hair implants and a fake tan? What car should I buy, drive and post about?

The other thing that I guess more perplexes me is how do I get across to our lower and even middle level coaches what we focus on and achieve in the higher levels?

After all, our ‘profession’ is so low bar – low income, low behaviour, low expectations – that there is very little awareness or expectation of more.

And then there is our ‘lane’. We are expected to stay within sets and reps.

Yet we do so much more.

KSI and my lifetime value to our high-level coaches – at least those who stay the course and change enough to graduate is getting clearer now, after a quarter of a century.

And it does have a dollar value. It might not be the same number as the one I learnt today about my mentor. But it is a number that if we shared it openly would at best get dismissed, at worst be subject to financial regulator complaints.

Ah, the challenges of life.

And then there are the challenges for those who remain the crab bucket of our average in our ‘profession’. Not for me thanks. And not for our gradates. It’s not easy getting out of that crab bucket but it’s worth the challenge. I know, it’s only for those with a strong desire and believe, willing to face and overcome adversity. But then living homeless is also filled with adversity – as I know personally – so we all pick our poison.

 

References

[1] King, I., 2025, Legacy – Ian King’s training innovations, Vol 3 – Injury prevention & performance enhancement, Theory #13 – A decade of testing

Ian King

Jimmy you might be asking the wrong person!

/by

I recently received a marketing email from Jimmy on behalf of a Chinese equipment company. It contained training values around a subject if have some familiarity with – the concept of control and stability and selective recruitment as it relates to strength training. Marketing my idea back to me a quarter of century later and wrapping it in the all-important marketing word ‘sciences’ …-well, Jimmy you might be asking the wrong person!

I began publishing an alternative model for the periodization of strength in the 1990s. This model included the sub-quality of control and stability, which prior to that did not exist in the strength vernacular, with all due respect to those who published on this topic before this.

I presented my unique model of strength periodization from the early 1990s onwards. [1] [2]  [3] The followings show the contrast between the classical or mainstream accepted model and my innovative model of strength periodization – which included a never included sub-quality – Control and stability. [4]

Here’s an example of this:

An alternative model for the periodization of strength. [5] [6]

Control/ stability/ recruitment enhancement

Hypertrophy/General strength

Maximum strength

 Explosive Power Maintenance of specific strength qualities

So – control, stability and recruitment…

Fast forward a quarter of a century later and I receive this marketing email from some China based manufacturing company:

Hi there, We’ve long admired how KSI grounds athlete development in science — especially your emphasis on ‘Control & Stability’ and ‘Muscle Activation’ as foundational, not just outcomes.

That’s why we designed three pieces specifically to support those principles *in practice*:
• Yoga rollers — for deep neuromuscular activation during stability drills
• Stability balls — with consistent rebound & surface grip to challenge control without compromise
• Non-slip base kettlebells — so asymmetrical loading stays focused on muscle recruitment, not floor friction

All use odor-free, eco-friendly materials (TPE/EVA/rubber-coated) — because safety and feel matter when teaching.

Which of these aligns most with your current teaching focus? Happy to share specs or samples if helpful.

Best regards,-Jimmy, Senior Marketing Specialist [7]

Now perhaps I can’t expect young Jimmy from Nantong, Jiangsu Province, China to be a student of the modern history of physical preparation. And I shouldn’t be too surprised how marketers lean on the magic word ‘science’ to validate what they are selling. After all, many ‘professionals’ in our industry do the same.

The challenge I have is that as the person who introduced the idea, I have some degree of familiarly with its origin. And if you refer to science as an academically approved study published in a peer-reviewed journal – no Jimmy, it was not based on science. If you definition of science is a coaches ideas doing their best to be objective, then maybe it was science. But I know my academic colleagues would not agree,

The Sports Science section in the May issue of Sportsmed News is characterized by poor attention to detail and again, a lack of science.  Had the author (lan King) invested sufficient time in collecting his ideas… There continues to be a paucity of sports science reaching the readers of Sportsmed News and the content in future issues must be improved; reliance on “theories based on tradition” (Sportsmed News May 1996,p7) is not science – it is handed-down information based on the guess-work and hit-and-miss efforts of others. Sports Science is evolving at a phenomenal pace and your readers deserve better. [8]

After all, if I have a dollar for every time I have been accused of lacking in ‘science’, then I would be sitting on beach with my feet up.[9] [10] Now if ‘science’ has provided validation since, I am not sure what it is in comparison to. My goal was simply to share with the world the conclusions I had reached during the 1980s about something that I felt was missing in the sub-qualities and periodization of strength.

Jimmy if you have a moment, and if you have the desire to learn some modern history, and if accuracy matters in your marketing – check out a summary of the origin of these terms and concept in the context of strength in Theory #381 – Period if strength and a new sub-quality! in Volume 3 of the 2nd Edition Legacy book trilogy. Or take me off your marketing list as it’s tough to read this BS….And while you are at it, because I know you are driven to excellence, can you reference your studies re. the ‘science’….As a lifelong student I am keen to learn!

As to your question –

Which of these [items of equipment] aligns most with your current teaching focus? Happy to share specs or samples if helpful.

Can I suggest you check out my thoughts about the relationship between equipment manufacturing and marketing”

I’m not here to make money for an equipment distributor. I’ve walked away from significant offers because I don’t like their ethics. What I tell you is free of commercial, cultural bias, and obviously that’s not popular. It’s not allowed to be popular. For starters, I’m telling you, you don’t need equipment. [11]

And the influence on training trends.

No. Can you tell me a piece of equipment that surpassed a barbell or dumbbell? Now, most people would answer that question. They would paraphrase the marketing that they’ve been told. I know the answers. Fortunately, you’ve been silent long enough for me to keep talking. But I’m telling you, there hasn’t been. Between your body weight, a barbell and a dumbbell, you don’t have a bloody good reason for something else. A really good reason. [11]

Jimmy if you are interested check out the following:

  • #207 – The way you train is driven by commerce [13]
  • #208 – The equipment manufacturers conspiracy [14]
  • Chapter 1 – in the soon to be released Get Buffed! V book….[15]

I know, it’s probably AI anyway…And Jimmy might not actually be Jimmy… None-the-less, Jimmy, you might be asking the wrong person….

 

References

[1] King, I., 1993, Multi-year Periodization of Strength, A presentation at the Resistance Training Seminar for the Australian Coaching Council High Performance Course, Australian Institute of Sport, Canberra, 11-12 October.

[2] King, I., 1995, Periodization, ASCA Seminar Series, Brisbane 11 April 1995. p. 9.

[3] King, I., 1995, Periodization, ASCA Seminar Series, Brisbane 11 April 1995, p. 10.

[4] King, I., 2013, Legacy- Ian King’s training innovations (book) 1st Edition book

[5] King, I., 1999, Foundations of physical preparation (Course)

[6] King, I., 2000, Foundations of physical preparation (book), Table 20,  p. 75

[7] Nantong Modern Sporting Industrial Co., Ltd.  Nantong Modern Sporting Industrial Co., Ltd.  Nantong, Jiangsu Province, China

[8] Jenkins, D., 1996, Letters to the Editor, Sportsmed News, August 1996, authored by two academics at the local university

[9] King, I., 2025, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 1 – Parts 1 & 2 : Injury Prevention and Performance Enhancement, Theory #16 – Sticks and stones,  King Sports International (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[10] King, I., 2011, Burnt at the stake, 3 May 2011 (Article)

[11] King, I., 2011, How to Write Seminar Series – Pt 1 – How do I ensure balance in my strength training to prevent injuries? Nerang Gold Coast Qld Aust., Sun 15th May 2011 (Seminar/Video)

[12] King, I., 2011, How to Write Seminar Series – Pt 1 – How do I ensure balance in my strength training to prevent injuries? Nerang Gold Coast Qld Aust., Sun 15th May 2011 (Seminar/Video)

[13] King, I., 2026, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 2 – Parts 3 & 4: Flexibility & Strength, King Sports International (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[14] King, I., 2026, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 2 – Parts 3 & 4: Flexibility & Strength, King Sports International (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[15] King, I., 2026, Get Buffed! 5 – awaiting publication

 

Ian King

The Wallabies Kiwi experiment

/by

In 2008 the Australian Rugby Union (ARU) employed a non-Australian to coach the national men’s team for the first time, making Australia possibly the first Tier 1 rugby nation in the professional era to do so.  This coach was Robbie Deans from New Zealand.   It was a move some called brave, but either way it raised eyebrows. Since then, the ARU has seen fit to engage two more foreign coaches, also from New Zealand. To date, our southern hemisphere rivals New Zealand and South Africa have not followed in this path.

Since 2008, New Zealand coaches have held Australian men’s national coaching positions for a combined eleven (11 years) of the last eighteen (18) years, or 61% of the years. Suffice to say they have been the dominant influence on the direction of the men’s national rugby team over the last two decades.

There is more than sufficient data to review the ARU’s decision to look overseas, and in particular to New Zealand, for coaching guidance.  Keep in mind that this decision has broader impacts than the scoreboard. It also reflects values around coach development and impacts opportunities for domestic coaches.

A statistical analysis of the Wallabies Kiwi coaches

The following is a statistical analysis of the Australian men’s national team coaches that hail from New Zealand.  The analysis focuses on

Robert Deans [1]

Robert Deans coached the Australian national men’s team during the period 2008 to 2013, or six (6) seasons. His win loss record with the Wallabies was 58.7%, making him the most successful of the three New Zealand coaches to coach Australia. [2] He also holds the record for the most tests coached by an Australin men’s national coach at 75 tests.

Against his former nation the All Blacks, Deans was 3 games out of 18 (17%).[3]

During his six-year tenure as the Wallabies national coach, Deans did not win a Bledisloe Cup during (0%), won one Rugby Championship (17%), and placed third in the only World Cup he presided over (0%).When Deans was appointed as the men’s national coach in December 2007, Australia’s international rugby ranking was 5th, and in the month of his resignation (July 2013) it was 3rd. [4]

Dave Rennie [5]

Dave Rennie coached the Australian national men’s team during the period 2020 to 2022, or three (3) seasons. His win loss record with the Wallabies was 36.4%, making him the least successful of the three New Zealand coaches to coach Australia. [6]

Against his former nation the All Blacks, Rennie was 1 game out of 7 (14%).[7]

During his three-year tenure as the Wallabies national coach, Rennie did not win a Bledisloe Cup during (0%), or Rugby Championship (0%), and did not preside over a World Cup (-%).When Rennie was appointed as the men’s national coach in November 2019 Australia’s international rugby ranking was 5th, and in the month of he left the role (January 2023) it was 6th. [8]

Joe Schmidt [9]

Joe Schmidt coached the Australian national men’s team during the period 2024 to 2025, or two (2) seasons. His win loss record with the Wallabies was 39.3%, making him the second least successful of the three New Zealand coaches to coach Australia.[10]

Against his former nation the All Blacks, Rennie was 0 game out of 4 (0%).[11]

During his two-year tenure as the Wallabies national coach, Schmidt did not win a Bledisloe Cup during (0%), or a Rugby Championship (0%), and did not preside over a World Cup (-%).

When Schmidt was appointed as the men’s national coach in January 2024 Australia’s international rugby ranking was 9th, and in the month of he left the role (mid 2026) it was 8th. [12]

Table 1 – Summary of success of the Australian Rugby’s New Zealand Coaches.

Coach

Win-Loss Record [13]

 Cup Results [14]

World Rugby Rank

# Yrs

 P W L D % Bled [15] RC RWC Start Finish Change

Dean

 6 75 44 29 2 58.7% 17% 1 0 5th 3rd

+2
Rennie

3

 33 12 18 3 36.4% 14% 0 n/a 5th 6th

-1
Schmidt

2

 28 11 17 0 39.3% 0% 0 n/a 9th 8th

+1
AVERAGE

3.7

 45 22 21 2 44.8% 10%

A statistical analysis of the Wallabies Australian coaches

The following table summarizes the win-loss record of the Wallabies Australian coaches during the ‘professional era’.[16]

Table 2 – A summary of the win-loss record of the Wallabies Australian coaches during the ‘professional era’. [17]

Years Wallaby Coach W-L %age
1997-2001 Rod Macqueen 79%
2001-2005 Eddie Jones 58%
2006-2007 John Connolly 64%
2013-2014 Ewen McKenzie 59%
2014-2019 Michael Cheika 50%
2023-2023 Eddie Jones 22%
Averages 55.3%

The average of the six (6) Australian coaches of the Wallabies during this period was 55.3%

A comparison between the Wallabies New Zealand and Australian Coaches

The following table compares the win-loss record of the Wallabies Australian coaches during the ‘professional era with the win-loss record of the Wallabies New Zealand coaches during the same era.

Table 3 – Comparison of the Wallabies Australian coaches during the ‘professional era with the win-loss record of the Wallabies New Zealand coaches during the ‘professional era’.

Origin of Coaches

 W-L %age

Wallabies New Zealand coaches

44.8%
Wallabies Australian coaches

55.3%

The verdict is in

With the completion of three coaching contracts in review, we have the results to form an comparative analysis of the decision by the Australian Rugby Union to select foreign coaches, and exclusively New Zealand coaches.

The New Zealand coaches average win-loss record is 44.6%, 11% lower than the 55.3% average for the Australian coaches.

A bigger picture look

To understand the role of the dominant New Zealand coaching influence in Australian national men’s coaching during the last twenty years, we can wider the lens and take a bigger picture look at the on-field results of the Wallabies since the game went ‘professional’ in 1996, thirty (30) years ago.

The following table and graph combine all Wallaby coaches’ performances during the professional era to date.

Table 4 – The combined chronological results of all Wallabies coaches during the ‘professional era’.

Years

Wallaby Coach

 W-L %age

1997-2001

Rod Macqueen

79%

2001-2005

 Eddie Jones

58%

2006-2007

 John Connolly

64%

2008-2013

 Robbie Deans

59%

2013-2014

 Ewen McKenzie

59%

2014-2019

 Michael Cheika

50%

2020-2023

 Dave Rennie 36%
2023-2023 Eddie Jones

22%
2024-2025 Joe Schmidt

39%

The data in this table is expressed in the graph below.

Figure 1 – The combined chronological results of all Wallabies coaches during the ‘professional era’.

 

It is reasonable to suggest there is a linear decline in win-loss records over the last thirty years, and origin of the coach does not appear to the cause of that trajectory.

Conclusion

The aim of this article is to compare the results achieved by foreign coaches hired by the Australian Rugby Union to the results achieved by domestic coaches.   The data suggests that the New Zealand coaches results are lower than the Australian coaches results, specifically in the win-loss record.

It is also important to note that the aim of this statistical analysis was to review the decision by the Australian Rugby Union to select foreign coaches, and exclusively New Zealand coaches. It is not to judge the coaching ability of the coaches involved, rather to look at the results during their time in Australia, in the Australian social, political and physical environment.

 

These coaches have all experienced greater success before arriving in Australia, and also afterward, for those coaches who have continued to coach.

The point was raised earlier that there may be broader implications for Australian rugby than the on-field results.  For example, the lost opportunities and lack of focus on domestic coaches and coaching development, to name one.

Since turning ‘professional’, Australian rugby during the last thirty years has slipped from number two (2nd) in international rankings to as low as tenth (10th), currently sitting in 8th. [18]

It is reasonable to conclude or suggest that the Australian Rugby Union has turned to arguably the greatest rugby nation in the world, New Zealand, for coaches in the hope to reverse this decline. It’s also reasonable to conclude is has not worked.

Some might say that the graph turning up recently is a positive sign. Getting excited about raising from 22% to 29% win-loss is questionable.

The question remains – if it’s not the coaches, what is the cause of this downward trajectory?

 

References

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbie_Deans

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_national_rugby_union_team_coaches

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bledisloe_Cup

[4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data:Men%27s_World_Rugby_rankings.tab

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Rennie

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_national_rugby_union_team_coaches

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bledisloe_Cup

[8] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data:Men%27s_World_Rugby_rankings.tab

[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Schmidt_(rugby_union) 

[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Schmidt_(rugby_union)

[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bledisloe_Cup

[12] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data:Men%27s_World_Rugby_rankings.tab

[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_national_rugby_union_team_coaches

[14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rugby_Championship

[15] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bledisloe_Cup

[16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_national_rugby_union_team_coaches

[17] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_national_rugby_union_team_coaches

[18] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data:Men%27s_World_Rugby_rankings.tab

 

Ian King

Reflections of a Dad

/by

When I receive course submissions such as the one below, in response to a unit in the KSI Child to Champion Course, its rewarding to know the lessons shaped over 45 years of coaching and shared in this educational tool for parents and coaches of the young athlete is worth the effort.

This is what this dad shared with me…

Unit 2 – The purpose of sport

I totally agree with Ian’s approach and message here. If you think about the big picture, how many kids are going pro? Or Division 1? Very few. But that shouldn’t be the goal. If your kid plays a sport growing up, and comes away with it healthier, feeling good about themselves, made a bunch of friends, memories, learned lessons that carry over to life etc, but never play in college or beyond, then in my mind it was a total success.

Absolutely. At 49 years old, I’m amazed by the impact of the lessons I learned from the best (and worst) coaches in my life. In terms of ‘positive’, I had an amazing sensei when I was 7, and the best hockey coach I ever had was when I was 11. I got so spoiled I thought all my coaches would be like that (they weren’t) But what I took away from just those two men was amazing, and shaped so much of who and what I am today. It was a huge thrill that I was able to take my older son to that same sensei when he was 8.

When I find a youth sports coach in any sport that makes the kids’ self-esteem a priority, I work to maximize the amount of time my kids spend with them. The opposite can be tougher (minimizing time spent about bad coaches), but it’s still something I do.

I don’t think I’ve seen many coaches that are malicious, and actually set out to humiliate kids, etc (though I’m sure there are some malformed people out there) but I do see a great many coaches that pay lip service to ‘having fun, creating a fun environment’, etc, but when push comes to shove, parents are yelling, heat of the game, they revert back to ‘just win baby’ mentality. I will admit that while I’ve never bought into the youth coaching ‘win at all costs’ thing, I have caved to parental pressure and changed my approach for the worse. Especially when I was young.

I’m going to talk to both of my sons today about their mindset. How they approach each practice, game, training session, etc, and focus on how they see themselves, what they’re capable of, etc. Prioritizing their self-esteem, that growth mindset, that it’s not all about the scoreboard, etc.

I think this section should be required reading for youth coaches, gym teachers, anyone working with kids in a sport/training environment.-John, USA

This has got it all – relating to the message through personal experiences that have seen the highs and lows of youth sport, living through it again with his kids, and being inspired to act in the now to shape a better outcome for the next generation.

And that response was just to one of the early units, in a course with over 60 units.

Thanks dad John for sharing those well considered reflections!

Learn more about how we are helping parents and coaches of the young athlete here.

Ian King

34 year ago…

/by

A few weeks ago another athlete reached out for a phone chat. They wanted to say thank you for you contribution to their sporting career. The last time we met and sport was 34 years ago.

He also spoke proudly of the reports and other printed information I had prepared and given him back in the day, and kindly offered to send them to me so I could obtain a copy. After all, computers had just arrived in 1992 – they are very simple, more like glorified type-setting devices – but emails had not, an internet as we know know it and cell phones were even further away.

I am always touched by athletes who care enough to express gratitude, and I told them that. I also took the time to catch up on their life, and there were some lessons for me.

  1. Show gratitude – forever

I know it sounds basic however I do my best to do this, and I appreciate athletes who also do this. I am humbled by the actions of some of the athletes, who work hard to find me over a quarter of a century later, as I realize they may have exceeded their teacher in this regard.

  1. I need to be better

I learnt during this chat that he had a serious, life impacting injury later in the seasons that I had prepared him for. Although he was in an Australian Institute of Sport squad, there were higher levels of squads above that, and he did not receive the level of service that these higher level squads were given. I did not recall his injury, and had no involvement in his rehab – which was tough for me to learn.

With all due respect to my sports medicine colleagues of that era, I typically took a responsible to assist towards an optimal outcome of an injury athlete.  I was under the pump so to speak with the higher-level squads (and other sports) in that era, but I should have done more for him

  1. Theories leave a paper trail

In the paperwork this athlete shared with me I took note of certain items that showed my long commitment to certain beliefs, including and listed alphabetically:

Clean skins

I have used the words ‘clean skins’ to describe the athletes I ‘inherited’ in the 1980s and 1990s who had never done physical preparation before.

When I first started professionally training athletes in the early 1980s, I got what I now call clean skins. These were athletes that were great at their sport (typically at the top of their sport provincially, nationally, and internationally) yet has never done what I call dryland or physical preparation. Others now instinctively default to the less-than-optimal term ‘strength & conditioning’…That’s right – never ever done anything more than non-specific fitness training run by their coach. So, what I got to learn from and observe were bodies where the only collateral damage to their bodies was what playing their sport had done. I am talking about Olympians, and captains of national teams included.  Yes, their bodies had collateral damage, but it was directly correlated with their position in their sport. [1]

Here’s a statement in this 1992 communication that confirmed that this reality:

If you commence training some muscles for the first time e.g. shoulder joint muscles, you will need to learn to stretch these joints specifically.[2]

Predict into and plan for the future

A mindset I teach athletes and coaches is what it takes to be great, to be the champion today, dose not stand still. To maintain dominance in sport, we need to anticipate and plan for what the sport may be like moving forwards.

You can see this in my 1992 report to the athlete:

Plan for the [their sport]  of the future – it will be faster, more skillful, the players bigger, stronger, faster……. [3]

Recognizing the sub-qualities of strength

In the 1980s and early 1990s the greatest challenge in strength training for sport in Austarlia was to overcome the negative attitudes athletes had towards strength training. Yes, I know, that’s hard to imagine. Note the references to this:

It is important to note that the term strength i s used t o describe all types o f strength – maximal strength, speed-strength (including explosive power) and strength endurance…. Whilst different players play different styles o f [their sport] and different positions have varied strength requirements, don’t make the mistake that has been made by many players in the past, largely from poor advice given – get strong! Strength is not a dirty word – just make sure that you are developing the correct type of strength in the correct muscle groups.

Now that the world, including Australian athletes, have over-reacted, post 2000 in particular I have felt compelled to take the opposite approach – counselling against the over-reliance on strength and strength training. And that has happened in the span of just a decade or so.

Don’t assume, as an athlete, that strength training holds your salvation! Strength training only holds your salvation if lack of the specific strength qualities needed in your sport is truly your number one limiting factor to enhanced performance. And in my opinion, it rarely is. Technique, tactics and selected psychological traits rate higher in my opinion as the limiting factor in most athletes, rather than strength.

So when you strength train, do it in context – balance it relative to your limiting factors i.e. what stands between you and the next step of greatness.  Prioritize the most importance or weakest link, that which will have the greatest impact now on your performance.  And when you do strength train – do it well.  Do what you need to perform, not look good relative to the model of the bodybuilding physique[4]

Relationship between strength and endurance

In the 1980s and early 1990s developing an ‘aerobic base’ in the off-season was the dominant paradigm.

There has been a traditional bias towards gaining an ‘aerobic base’ at the commencement of the general preparation phase – in all sports, all the time, with all athletes.  Is this based on fact?  I suggest not.  I suggest it is a myth.  Yes, there will be times when this method is applicable, and there will be times when it won’t be. 

My breaking of this ‘aerobic base’ rule has attracted a lot of flak, as would any paradigm shifter.  I was wrong. It can’t be done.  This is the way we have always done it.  It has to be done this way. [5]

I wrote my report in 1992 for this athlete and their squad in this environment.

The relationship between strength and endurance is becoming more clearly

understood. During periods of priority strength training, endurance training needs to be minimized and well controlled. Failure to achieve a balance between the two will have a greater negative effect on strength than endurance. [6]

A point of significance worth noting was that one of my ‘co-consultants’ in this athletes squad was one of the very consultant who retaliated against my stance against the sanctity of the aerobic base.  When I say I have been stoned and burnt at the stake metaphorically:

I have fallen on my sword and been burnt on the stake a lot of times in the last 30 years. Not because I want to be right, but if I feel the dogma isn’t serving the athlete or the people, why go on with it? [7]

I say it because it is real, and one of those moments was because I took a stance against the aerobic base myth, partly based on my personal and professional conclusions, and partly because the ‘interference’ conclusions raised in research.

The Sports Science section in the May issue of Sportsmed News is

characterized by poor attention to detail and again, a lack of science.  Had the author (lan King) invested sufficient time in collecting his ideas… There continues to be a paucity of sports science reaching the readers of Sportsmed News and the content in future issues must be improved; reliance on “theories based on tradition” (Sportsmed News May 1996,p7) is not science – it is handed-down information based on the guess-work and hit-and-miss efforts of others. Sports Science is evolving at a phenomenal pace and your readers deserve better. [8]

Yet, in the very same sports squad that this athlete was part of, my strength training programs were paired with an ‘endurance’ program based on this very ‘aerobic base’. Not only is it difficult to produce optimal results with conflicting guidance, irrespective of all other physical quality training including strength, how does an athlete actually ‘convert’ their long distance and interval training to ‘speed’ during the pre-season, in a way that results in dominating in speed during the season proper?

Well done xxxx – concentrate on your speed over the shorter distances in the next few months – Off season report for this athlete[9]

No-one can suggest this quote or the endurance programs provided were me demonstrating a ‘poor research’ approach. It is factual. And the athletes and team in this sport who were able to fully follow my more encompassing athlete preparation guidance won a number of significant championships during the 1990s…but of course, that is not ‘research’, my apologies, just poor ‘empirical’ information.

Experiences like this led me to share the below:

I became known as a person who was not that scientific. But guess what? The athlete standing on the podium didn’t give a …. rat’s ass that I wasn’t very academic or that I’d forgotten how to pronounce an anatomical term. They really didn’t care. So, I don’t mind being considered as unacademic, because my role, my niche, my gift, is to help the elite athlete become successful beyond their own expectations. There’s no correlation with my academic qualifications. [10]

When an athlete is on the podium, you think they care whether what they did was in the latest scientific journal. There is no correlation between science and what happens to performing sport at the elite level. [11]

There is no correlation between the podium and science – in other words, that a Gold medalist is not likely to be backed by more science than a Silver medalist, and who in turn is not likely to be backed by more science than a Bronze medalist.  Well, at least, not the ones I help put on the podium. [12]

I understand I am expected to be apologetic for the heretical stance I have and continue to take – putting the athlete before the professional reputation of academics who recommend training based on the very thing they virtual-signaled me for – lack of research.

But I don’t think I will. And I don’t believe the athletes who have stood on the podium, or the teams that have won Championships are losing too much sleep about that.

Relationship between strength and flexibility

There has been one constant in my professional career – the value I have placed on flexibility this has led to very clear and effective theories about the role and application of flexibility training. That the post 1995 training world has stepped further away from these theories that I developed in the 1980s has not changed that position.

Flexibility and strength training have also suffered misinterpretation. If you increase your volume of training by adding strength training, you will need to increase your stretching… The factor that will influence your flexibility the most – either negatively or positively – is whether you are doing enough flexibility training of the correct type. [13]

Relationship between strength and skill

One of the key reasons strength training was rejected in Australia by sports coaches, athletes and academics until about the mid 1990s (this phenomenon existed in other countries such as the US, they simply moved through them at an earlier year) was the fear of being ‘muscle bound’.

This a valid conclusion I suggest, at least in the way strength training was conduced in the 1960s and 1970s:

Between 1960 and 1970 many leading sports coaches in the western world gave strength training a go and found it was causing their athletes to become muscle bound (stiff) and resulted in increased injuries. So, they stopped, concluding that strength training was bad for sport.

They were right with the way they were doing it- it was not optimal. It took another 2-3 decades for the sporting world to learn that there are many different variables in strength training that when manipulated in varying combinations created diverse results. And some of these were better than others for any given athlete at any given time. [14]

However, I felt I was providing the 1980s and 1990s athletes with a more optimal form o strength training, I needed to encourage them to overcome the negative recent history of the impact of strength training on skill.

Another traditional attitude in [their sport] is that strength will decrease skill. Strength training has the potential to enhance many skills, and the finer skills which it has minimal impact o n it certainly doesn’t have a negative impact on. If you wish to retain or improve skill – you need t o train that exact movement! [15]

Post 2000 the overreaction to strength training, at the expense of other athletic components, let me to counsel in reverse:

Many athletes get a warm feeling from the muscle mass and strength increases from strength training. In part because of the social rewards placed on ‘getting buffed’, and in part because it gives them a feeling of being a warrior. There is no correlation between muscle mass and or non-specific (gym) strength that trumps optimal technical and tactical development. More likely, you will see a decline in technique if your dryland adaptations contest skill execution. [16]

Relationship between strength and speed

During the 1989 and early 1990s, strength training was not used by athletes in Australia to develop speed. In fact, very few athletes – including elite athletes – were given any speed training. What was done was more endurance, interval training. Hard to believe?

In 1999, an athlete who I had cared for since our first meeting after he graduated high school, was at a World Cup. He approached the coach responsible for their physical training, and asked if he could have a supervised speed session. In response, based on what the athlete shared with me, this national team physical coach said words to the effect:

‘You don’t need to do speed training, You get your speed from the gym. But if you feel you need to, run up and down that grassed area, and I will watch you from the roof top (of the local licensed premises)…’

This ‘interesting’ phenomenon where even speed-strength sport athletes were denied either strength or speed training or both was what I was countering when I wrote this in my 1992 report:

From a historical perspective it has been believed that forwards need to be stronger than backs. When one considers the relationship between strength and speed, one may recognize the need for greater strength. [17]

Strength tests do not measure your ability to play your game

In the 1980s I became concerned that the advent of strength testing in Australia was being used to inappropriately select athletes for teams or squads. For example, in 1989 I was in a national team selection discussion where the head coach was using my testing results to justify his desired selection. I did all I could to negate this direction.

It is also important to note that strength testing does not measure your ability to play [their sport] – but rather, measures qualities that contribute to success i n [their spor]. Whilst different players play different styles of [their sport] and different positions have varied strength requirements… [18]

Think for yourself

My consistent message to athletes and coaches is think for yourself.

But at this stage, it’s still considered a little bit naughty for a person to form their own opinion, or for a person like myself to teach you to form your own opinion, but it’s a little bit naughty. By now you’ve realized that that’s what I do, and I believe it is the most effective way to act as a professional as well as live your life. And I also believe that if you’re intuitively smart, that your conclusions will be confirmed by inverted comma science at a later date, as a number of mine have. So, I didn’t read a book and say, that’s the belief I want to have. I didn’t go to a seminar and heard a speaker and was so influenced by it that I thought, well, that’s the belief I want to have [19]

At the end of the day, all I really ask you to do is think and ask yourself the question, what’s best for them now? What’s best now? What’s best now? What’s best now? Never assume, never apply a stereotypical or generic concept. Always question it. And even if you don’t have the answer now, guess what? The fact that you’ve raised the question will give you a chance of having the answer in one day. If you never ask the question, you will never get the answer. [20]

You can see this was there in 1992:

Don’t blindly follow the leader’ in your training – think about what you are doing. [21]

Title

I signed that 1992 document off with…

lan King, Consultant – Physical Preparation of the Athlete [22]

I have written about the options and history of a job descriptions as far back in the 1990s, through to more recent times.

I am not supportive of  the  term strength and conditioning…I believe the term ‘physical preparation’ is a better term.  Athletic preparation another.[23]

Is there a better term than ‘strength and conditioning’?   Yes, I believe that the words ‘physical preparation’ is a more appropriate term. [24]

In the 1980s, I  forged a career in Australia that did not exist. The role did not exist, and there was no job title. What would I call myself?  I looked around the world for guidance and found two dominant influences – the United States National Strength & Conditioning Association (NSCA) and an Eastern European perspective on athlete training by Tudor Bompa, whose 1983 book ‘The Theory and Methodology of Training’ was one of the most influential books I was exposed to in that decade.

The answers and conclusions I reached from my search for a professional job title continue to shape the world in various ways.   With a growing number using the term ‘physical preparation coach’, it’s timely to share the origin and intent of this term. In this article, I achieve this through consideration of cultural influences, sports history, and my personal experiences. [25]

Learn more about the history of this title or role description in this article series. [26] [27]

Conclusion

I want to say thank you to the athlete who triggered this article. Thank you for trusting me 34 years ago. Thank you for reaching out, for your gratitude. I know we could have done more for you back in the day. However ,it is never too late – I will be reaching out to you for an in-person consultation to make amends and meet my commitment to the athlete – for life.

 

References

[1] King, I., 2023, I miss the clean skins, Leondo #14, 14 Sep 2023

[2] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[3] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[4] King, I., 2004, Get Buffed! III, Introduction

[5] King, I., 1997, Winning & Losing, p. 19-20

[6] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[7] Casey, Sean, 2011, Interview with the expert – Ian King – Part 1 of 2, Casey Performance, March 02, 2011

[8] xxx, x., 1996, Letters to the Editor, Sportsmed News, xxxx1996 (full reference withheld in respect)

[9] Provided by the fitness consultant

[10] King, I., 2010, Barbells and Bullshit – Challenging your thinking, Pt 1of 10 – How to think and learn

[11] King, I., 2011, Child to Champion, Cape Cod MA USA, 4 November 2011 (Seminar/Video)

[12] King, I., 2020, In theory this should, Off the Record #124, 21 Oct 2020

[13] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[14] King, I., 2020, Stereo-typing training, Off the Record #115, 8 Sep 2020

[15] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[16] King, I., 2023, Supercross Super injured, Blog, 23 May 2023 https://kingsports.net/supercross-super-injured/

[17] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[18] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[19] King, I., 2012, KSI Coaching Program Level 2 Foundations, Unit 4 – Theory of flexibility development, (Video) 17 May 2012

[20] King, I., 2013,  Lines of movement, Presentation at Tufts University,  Boston, MA, USA, 12 March 2013

[21] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[22] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[23] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing, Ch. 16 – The strength & conditioning coach, p. 87

[24] King, I., 1999, So you want to become (Book), p. 16-17

[25] King, I., 2025, What’s in a name? Pt 1 – Origin and intent of the term physical preparation coach, (Blog), 16 May 2025

[26] King, I., 2025, What’s in a name? Pt 1 – Origin and intent of the term physical preparation coach, (Blog), 16 May 2025

[27] King, I., 2025, What’s in a name? Pt 2 – Considering the bigger picture of physical preparation, (Blog), 30 May 2025

 

 

Ian King

I wonder if these coaches care

/by

I was in the equivalent of a Home Depot in Australia about a year ago. A chain of stores by the name Bunnings. I sought the assistance of one of the workers in the store. I noted his height and could not help myself – I asked him if he had used it in sport.

About an hour later we wrapped the conversation. I learnt a lot. I learnt he was a talent-identified athlete, selected in national junior squads, played overseas including the US – until his injuries forced very premature retirement. I was struck by one particular statement. He said during his short career he found himself asking the question:

I wonder if these coaches care whether I can bend over and pick up my kids when I get older… and now I can’t.

As anyone familiar with my work knows that statement is very close to home – you can this in Theory #11 and #117 in Legacy 2nd Ed Vol 1

And that’s because I want a long career in sport. I want you to LeBron James for 21 years. And that’s five Olympic cycles, 20 years. That’s at the top. That’s what I want. And then I still want you to be able to play with your kids 20 years later. That’s the difference. [1]

And now he was having kids and had concerns for them in sport….And, he struggles to bend over and pick them up…

I excitedly told him about all my learnings in this area and that I could give him access to some videos…

Then I felt the guilt. I had not done enough. I needed to be able to give him something more concise. This has burnt me for the last year, and now I am making amends.

I have worked to create and make available an educational program that I hope can help the parents and coaches of the young athletes that have a nagging feeling that is must be a better way – and are looking for guidance to find that way.

Do you have children or coach children in sport? If so, you may find value in this latest offering. If not, I understand. After all, according to Ben Sasse, former US Senator of the great state of Nebraska (2015-2023)… and (who is tragically battling late stage cancer)

One of the unexpected by-products of the digital age is Americans are “having less sex and making fewer babies.” [2]

Fortunately, my life’s work is not focused on what popular or trending. After all, I was focused on strength training in the 1980s when most athletes and coaches were led to believe it would make you muscle bound and injured.

In fact, history has shown that typically the topics I focus on lead a renaissance of interest…

What I took too long to say was I understand and apologize if I have taken up your time on a subject of no interest to you – the athlete preparation of the young athlete, 0-18 years of age.

I spent my first two professional decades, between 1980 and 1999, with an almost exclusive focus on the adult athlete.  Once we began to build a family, I realized the gap in my competency, and this was a failing to serve my children.  I had been moved by the saying:

The cobbler’s children have no shoes.[3]

I had seen it in too many other professionals’ lives and didn’t want to make that mistake. After all, what athlete deserved  more attention than my own children.

So, I set out as a serious student of the athlete preparation of the young athlete. I did have the benefit of my prior 20 years.

Firstly, I was exposed to the work Dr. Tudor Bompa, a Romanian who immigrated to Canada, and published what I still believe is the best book ever on the theory of athlete development, in his 1983 Theory and Methodology of Training. I read his books, attended his presentations, met personally for discussions, and even shared the stage in a speaking engagement. My appreciation of his contribution runs through all my published works.

I also was fortunate enough also to have spent 10 of those early years working and collaborating with a former Hungarian who emigrated to Canada by the name of Dr. István Balyi. When we first met in 1989 in Canada, I had not heard of him. By the turn of the century his reputation as a world leader in long-term athlete preparation was taking shape. By 2010, the acronym LTAD had become an industry buzzword, one of those must quote line where nothing changes, just your ability to say the words.

After two decades of adult coaching and one additional decade focused on research and application of training the young athlete, I began sharing what I had learnt in 2010 onwards.  As I explain in Theory #13  of my recent book Legacy 2nd Ed Vol 1 – – A decade of testing:

… the concepts that I typically developed over a decade and then shared with the world …. [4]

I do normally refine my concepts for about five to ten years before talking about them. So, I don’t rush them to the market. [5]

The pattern I have established is test and refine a training concept or innovation for about a decade before sharing it as a recommended way.[6]

From 2010 onwards I conducted a series of presentations in various countries, teaching parents, coaches of the young athlete, and the young athletes themselves, what I had leant. [7]  [8]  [9]  [10]  [11]  [12]  Whilst still continuing to apply and research in this area.

Now in 2026, over a quarter of a century after I set out on this journey, I believe I have earned the right to share what I have learnt.

For those who are genuinely interested in improving their ability to serve the young athlete – as a parent and or coach – I welcome you to share this journey as we formulate an online course like no other to serve this specific niche.

Why? Because as I explain in Theory #18 of Legacy 2nd Ed Vol 1….

I owe it to the athlete

To bring you into this…

We owe it to the athlete

This raises the question – where is the world going? If I was to predict the future based on the current plots on the graph – I would say we are heading into an undesirable direction.  I have seen nothing to date to suggest otherwise. 

This is bad news for some, good news for others. Those who stand to lose include the athletes and their families who are hurt by the lost opportunities of their sons and daughters, brothers and sisters.

Those who stand to gain include the injury treatment and rehabilitation sector (doctors, surgeons and physical therapists in particular).

Another party who will gain are those who master the KSI way. It’s getting increasingly easier to provide a superior alternative to the average. However, at what cost to the athlete?  This is a self-serving benefit from which I take no joy.[13] 

We do today what others will do tomorrow. Why? Because we innovate ruthlessly in pursuit of the answer to the question ‘What is the best way to train?….[14]

In creating this educational program, I am making amends to the athlete I spoke about above, who never got be play adult sport. And to all the other young athletes, parent and coaches who believe there is a better way but not sure what that is.  And I am reaching out to all current and future young athletes, their parents and their coaches.

The Child to Champion Course was built for you.

 

References

[1] King, I., 2025, Building a body that lasts, Kent UK, Wed 8 Oct 2025 (Seminar)

[2] https://abcnews.com/Politics/book-excerpt-ben-sasses-hate-heal/story?id=58506498

[3] This saying is explained by Google AI as a mid-16th century proverb indicating that a person with a specific skill or expertise often neglects to apply that skill for their own family or personal benefit. It highlights the irony where a professional is too busy serving others to take care of their own needs.

[4] King, I., 2013, Report #1: Keys to success in coaching athletes, King Sports International

[5] King, I., 2016, A coach’s guide to preventing, identifying, managing, and rehabilitating lower back injuries, SWIS Presentation, Canada

[6] King, I., 2025, What’s in a name? Pt 1 – The origin and intent of the term physical preparation coach, (Blog  www.kingsports.net), 16 May 2025

[7] King, I., 2011, Child to Champion, Brisbane, AUS, 14 March 2011 (Seminar/Video)

[8] King, I., 2011, Child to Champion, Brisbane, AUS, 14 March 2011 (Seminar/Video)

[9] King, I., 2014, Child to Champion, Barrie, Ontario, CAN,10 April 2014, (Seminar/Video)

[10] King, I., 2014, Child to Champion, Cape Cod MA USA,13 April 2014, (Seminar/Video)

[11] King, I., 2014, Child to Champion, Cape Cod MA USA, 21 November 2014 (Seminar/Video)

[12] King, I., 2017, Child to Champion Seminar, Cape Cod MA, USA Thu 9 Nov 2017 (Seminar/Video)

[13] King, I., 2011, KSI Coaching Program L1 Legacy Course, Ch. 34- Concerns for the world of physical preparation

[14] King, I., 2023, The Between Sets Newsletter The KSI Newsletter No 222 Dec 202-3Jan 2024

Ian King

The “ABC” of program design

/by

In 1980 I set out on my professional journey to find answers to the question ‘What is the best way to train?’  How to design training programs was integral to finding these answers, as the decisions made in program design shape the training outcomes.

One of the components of training design is the decision as to what days to perform certain training on.  I refer to this program design step as the allocation of training, specifically exercises and or muscle groups to training days.

This refers to all forms of training, not just strength training. However, in relation to strength training it was apparent there were three dominant approaches – the method that referred to a sequential number of the training day within the week e.g. Training Day 1, Training Day 2 etc.; the method that referred to the day of the week that certain training was to be performed on e.g. Mon, Wed, Friday; and the method that referred to the muscle groups to be trained in the workout on that day e.g. Leg day; chest, shoulders and triceps day; and back and bicep day.

These three approaches to allocation of training were evident over decades, and therefore, I suggest they earned the title as ‘traditional’ approaches.  They were also evident in a broad range of strength training disciplines and across cultures, therefore earning the title of ‘dominant’ approaches.

I considered these traditional dominant approaches and soon found significant limitations with them, based perhaps on the fact that the bodies that I was testing and refining my training solutions on were athletes in diverse sports as opposed to general population or athletes limited to one sport, and the fact that I moved away from an exclusive muscle group approach to include my Lines of Movement concept. In summary, I found these traditional approaches for the allocation of training to be limiting, presumptive and restrictive in nature.  So, I did what has become a half-century habit – I innovated. This is discussed in full later in this article.

The aim of this article is to review the influences and adoption of these three traditional, dominant approaches to allocation of training, and to outline the alternative I developed to overcome the limitations of these traditional approaches.

The dominant approaches to the allocation of training

From my professional entry point in 1980, I identified three dominant approaches to the allocation of training.  They were as follows.

Allocation of training to a sequential number of training days within the week

The allocation of training to a sequential number of training days within the week resulted in the workout being named as a number, e.g. Workout 1, Workout 2, etc.

Workout 1 Workout 2 Workout 3
Exercise 1 Exercise 1 Exercise 1
Exercise 2 Exercise 2 Exercise 2
Exercise 3 Exercise 3 Exercise 3
Exercise 4 Exercise 4 Exercise 4
Etc. Etc. Etc.

 [1]

Allocation of training to the day of the week

The allocation of training to the day of the week resulted in the name of the day being used to identify that workout.  For example, a three-day-a-week strength program would be depicted as below, and it was either ‘Monday’s workout’, or ‘Wednesday’s workout’, or ‘Friday’s workout’.

Monday Wednesday Friday
Exercise 1 Exercise 1 Exercise 1
Exercise 2 Exercise 2 Exercise 2
Exercise 3 Exercise 3 Exercise 3
Exercise 4 Exercise 4 Exercise 4
Etc. Etc. Etc.

[2]

Allocation of muscle groups to workouts

The allocation of muscle groups to the workout approach resulted in the name of the muscle groups being used to title that workout.  For example, a three-day-a-week strength program would be depicted as below, e.g. the ‘chest/shoulders/triceps’ workout might be done on say Monday, the ‘Legs’ workout may be done on Wednesday, and the ‘Back & Biceps’ workout might be done on Friday. Realistically, the frequency of training may be higher; however, this was kept simple for illustrative purposes.

Chest/Shoulders/Triceps Legs Back & Biceps
Exercise 1 Exercise 1 Exercise 1
Exercise 2 Exercise 2 Exercise 2
Exercise 3 Exercise 3 Exercise 3
Exercise 4 Exercise 4 Exercise 4
Etc. Etc. Etc.

 [3]

The traditional influence on these dominant approaches to the allocation of training

From my professional entry point in 1980, I began collating training reference material as part of my search for the answer to the question, ‘What is the best way to train?’ This reference material indicated that there was a strong enough history to describe these three dominant approaches to allocation of training as traditional.

As I began to develop, test, and refine an alternative approach from the early 1980s onwards, the reliance of these dominant approaches to the allocation of training continued for another two decades.  Therefore, these three methods dominated program design for a minimum of thirty years (1970-2000).

It was not until after I published my 1998 book ‘How to Write Strength Training Programs’ that the alternative approach that I had developed gained traction, as evidenced in program design-related publications.

The global acceptance of these dominant approaches to allocation of training

The use of these two dominant approaches to the allocation of training has not been restricted to one country. They have appeared in literature in many different countries.

The strength training genre adoption and preferences to these traditional dominant approaches to the allocation of training

A number of different strength training genres contribute to strength training as a whole. These include but are not limited to, weightlifting. powerlifting and bodybuilding.  There are also sports such as track and field that have led the way in the use of strength training for sport. There are also professional genres, such as the American concept of ‘strength and conditioning coach’ (originally referred to as ‘strength coaches’),that have made a significant contribution to strength training as it is now known. All of these genres had adopted these traditional dominant approaches to allocation of training.

There does appear to be a historic preference amongst each strength training genre for one or the other of these two traditional dominant approaches to allocation of training.

For example, weightlifting may have a historic preference for the allocation of training to a sequential number of training days within the week approach.

  [4]

Powerlifting may have a historic preference for the allocation of training to the day of the week approach.

[5]

Bodybuilding may have a historic preference for the allocation of muscle groups to the training days approach.

 [6]

The ‘strength & conditioning’ genre has a historic preference for the allocation of training to the day of the week approach.

 

 [7]

And in some cases, referenced the muscle group to training days ala bodybuilding.

 

 [8]

The limitations of these traditional dominant approaches to the allocation of training

Each of these dominant traditional approaches to allocation of training presented specific limitations, especially in the application of program design to the bodies on which I was testing and refining my training solutions on.  My niche since 1980 has been the physical and athletic preparation of elite athletes in diverse sports and countries, as opposed to a one-sport focus, or domestic-based athletes, or lower-level athletes or the general population.

The limitations of each traditional dominant approach to the allocation of training

In addressing the limitations of each of these three approaches to allocation of training,  I will reverse the order to work from most restrictive to least.

The most presumptive and restrictive is what I will refer to as the bodybuilding approach, which groups muscle groups together in a broad-brush method and allocates them to training days, e.g. the ‘back’. Before my Lines of Movement concept being published, and in some situations, I am sure this continues to today, the ‘back’ refers to both horizontal and vertical pulling muscle groups. I found this approach inadequate and replaced it in the 1980s with my Lines of Movement approach to allocation of training days.

The second most restrictive approach, although not to the extent of the above, is what I will refer to as the powerlifting approach, which nominates a day of the week. This suits domestic-based, stable competition; however is more clunky for the internationally competing athletes, who competition is not a regular one day of the week, on a predictable cycle e.g. every weekend for some weeks, e.g. American football is played domestically, and in many leagues up u on the same day each week, or a primary day of the week.  This approach is not suitable for many sports.

Thirdly, what I will refer to as the weightlifting approach, simply adds a number to the more workouts in a week planned. This is a more flexible approach.

It is interesting to note the historic influence adopted by more recent influences, such as the US National Strength and Conditioning, which in its relatively short history, appears to have favored what I refer to as the powerlifting approach to allocation of training day, with a lesser inclusion of bodybuilding.

Below is an example from what I believe is the origins of the NSCA – a powerlifting strength coach with a major focus on servicing American football players – in the case of this program shared by the late legendary Bill Starr, the author of the iconic book ‘The Strongest Shall Survive’.

  [9]

An alternative approach to the allocation of training

In the early 1980s, I was following the powerlifting approach. Here is an example of this from a program I wrote in 1983.

 [10]

However, during the 1980s, I adopted a new approach of allotting training days by sequential letters of the alphabet.  Here is an example from 1990.

 [11]

You will see this practice of muscle group allocation to the sequential letter of the alphabet in all my published works from about the mid-1980s onwards. Here is an example from my 1998 book, How to Write Strength Training Programs. [12]

Allocation of muscle groups to training days in strength training refers to the decision of which muscle groups to place on which training days.  Once the number of training days and which training days have been selected, this is somewhat like filling in the spaces. 

The steps involved in allocating muscle groups to training days include:

  1. Determine all the muscle groups to be trained: Simply brainstorm and list all the muscle groups you wish to train. The following is a sample list, not in any order:

Figure 1 – A sample list of muscle groups, not in any order.

_______________________________________________

vertical pulling (i.e. scapula depressors e.g. chin ups)

biceps

abdominals

vertical pushing (i.e. arm abduction e.g. shoulder press)

hip dominant (e.g. dead lift and its variations)

horizontal pulling (i.e. scapula retractors e.g. rows)

quad dominant (e.g. squats and its variations)

triceps

lower back

calves

horizontal pushing (i.e. horizontal flexion e.g. bench press)

forearm extension/flexion

________________________________________________

  1. Determine how many days of training per week or microcycle: Now decide how many training days per week or microcycle.  For the purposes of the example we are using, I have chosen four (4).
  1. Determine which days will be training days within that week or microcycle: Now determine which days you will train on – the following table builds on the example we are developing.

Table 1 – Number of training sessions and which days in the week.

 

SUN MON TUE WED THUR FRI SAT
  A B   C D  

 [13]

The popularization of my alternative approach to the allocation of training

The following are examples of the application of this method for the allocation of training.  These tables are from my 1998 book How to Write Strength Training Programs. [14]

[15]

Despite about a decade and a half of use and publishing about this method, from the mid-1980s to 2000, it was not until my work was published in the US online bodybuilding magazine known at that time as t-mag.com that it gained popularity, and this approach became more common. When you consider that significant training methods such as the West German sport scientist Dietmar Schmidtbleicher’s alternating accumulation and intensification did not get much notice from its earlier publishing in the early 1980s until it was published by a different author on t-mag.com, it should not be a surprise. The fact that it takes a bodybuilding magazine to gain traction is not lost on me, however.

 

References

[1] Qld Amateur Weightlifting Association, Preliminary Certificate Course

[2] Kazmier, B., 1981, The Bench Press

[3] Fleck, S.J., and Kraemer, W.J., 1987, Designing resistance training programs, Human Kinetics

[4] The United States Weightlifting Federation Coaching Manual, Vol. 3 – Training Program Design

[5] National Coaching Accreditation Scheme, Australian Powerlifting Federation, Interim Level 1 Powerflifting Manual, 1 Jan 1994

[6] Keller, L., 2000, The Men’s Health Hard Body Plan, Rodale Publishing

[7] Baechle, T.R. (Editor), 1990, Essentials of strength training and conditioning, National Strength and Conditioning Association of America

[8] Baechle, T.R. (Editor) et al, 1994, Essentials of strength training and conditioning, National Strength and Conditioning Association of America

[9] Starr, B., 1979, The strongest shall survive

[10] King, I., 1983, Bodybuilding programmes (Booklet), unpublished

[11] King, I., 1990, Program written for an athlete

[12] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Chapter 3 – Allocation of muscle groups

to training days

[13] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Chapter 3 – Allocation of muscle groups

to training days

[1] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Chapter 10 – Frequency of training

[2] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Chapter 10 – Frequency of training

 

© 2025 Ian King & King Sports International. All rights reserved.