Ian King

Readers response to Barbells & Bullshit (book)  

/by

I received this feedback recently and responded. It’s great to have genuine people reach out and offer their support:

Hi Ian, I’ve just read your Barbells &… book. I did so with a mixture of sadness and anger. While xxxx had made me aware of the plagiarism of your work that had occurred, it was quite shocking to read about the extent of it, over and over and…. I offer my moral support. On a positive note, I did find the book important in showing the social conditioning pressures we all face and the inconsistent application of the scientific method by scientists; so thanks for that.  Best wishes for 2011,
–G

Thanks G – yes, now you know that xxx was not exaggerating. It has been very unpleasant to see the extent that my material, developed over the last 30+ years, from literally days and nights in the hot sun and pouring rain, in snow, earthquakes and blizzards, in many different countries, in many different environments and cultures, has been raped and pillaged,.

One of the great tragedies in my opinion in the impact on my children and their children’s children, that the theft of the legacy of this material may have on them. I have a big focus on life legacy, and I feel my kids and their children’s children have been stolen from as much if not more than I. They are aware of what is going on but at their tender age, it is unlikely they grasp the full long term implications.

It also provides me with many questions that I seek to answer. I am giving reflection to questions such as:

1. Is this behaviour, including the way the industry has responded to it, the start of a new era, or the extreme acts at the end of an era of social morality?

2. Is this behaviour US centric or global? Are we seeing the extension of the US corporate and cultural traits of ‘if it’s not oral, its not immoral?’ It’s only wrong if you don’t get caught? Or in this case as it appears, it’s only wrong if you get convicted?

Many interesting questions.

I personally never expected to see the level of ‘behaviour’ in anyone as that I have encountered in this ‘case’, so it has been a real eye opener about the breadth and width of human integrity. It has also been eye opening as to who is prepared to stand up against to this kind of behaviour and who, for various reasons from lethargy to protection of personal benefits, would prefer to turn a blind eye or pretend it didn’t happen.

This has been a true life lesson, one that I intend to share in full in the years to come. I will also be preparing a ‘report card’ on the integrity test that has been placed in front of the individuals, businesses and organizations to whom I have laid this moral dilemma in front of. They have all been in a position to take a stand and fold.  Some who I didn’t really expect to take a strong stance have done so, and some who I expected would take a strong stance, have not. The report card will show each entities response. To date, the report card would not please a mother.

Appreciate your thoughts and support.

Great to hear you got value from the book in general. It was certainly a unique book with heaps of real world material! I do expect that in future generations the life lessons unfolded in my writings regarding every aspect of athletic and physical preparation will continue to serve and grown in their value to the world.

Ian King

Out-dated methods – shame, shame, shame!  

/by

Imagine if this was a respone my last post generated (just imagining of course):

“My understanding from studies concerning this issue that I have read, are simply stating that static stretching prior to physical exercise causes a decrease in force output of muscle tissue (poor performance). The studies opt for dynamic stretching prior and static stretching at the end of physical exercise. I do believe we need to read ANY study with a “critical eye”, but we shouldn’t be too bold as to suggest motive when we simply do not want to let go of dated methods.”

Ah, studies, studies, studies. I am glad we have studies to guide us from ‘outdated methods’. I am glad I didn’t squat until the mid 1990s because studies didn’t support it. In fact, they discouraged it. I am glad I didn’t start using a multi-vitamin until after the 2002 JAMA study said it may be prudent.  I am glad I didn’t use protein powders or amino acids until the 1990s because only then were there studies supporting it.

And it’s unfortunate I just can’t let go of outdated methods. You know, some people even still use the missionary sex position – and as our great-great grandparents and their grandparents before them and so on probably did the same, that’s really outdated…..Shame, shame, shame!

YOU JUST CAN’T USE SOMETHING THAT ANOTHER PERSON/S LABELS AS OUTDATED!

And while we are being open and confessing, I must admit to using a barbell…And I believe my great uncle Vinny also trained with one, so I know I really should let go of that outdated method….

Isn’t it great that most of us don’t do outdated stuff! But those who do – don’t they know that is not acceptable?!

Now that’s ANOTHER logical reason not to static stretch – it’s outdated!!!

More than that – it’s another FEAR based reason – fear that you may not be ‘up to date’ with the latest ‘trends’ and ‘science’….

After so many decades you would have thought I would have learnt to conform…and if I haven’t, a response like this imaginary email may surely guide me to conformity…

..we need to …

…we shouldn’t …

And Ian, stop being so brave as to suggest motive….how dare you. After all, there is at least one other person (I know, a few more!) that strongly believe you have no right to form an opinion outside the boundaries of the dominant beliefs….

Let’s get really clear – I don’t give a rat’s ass what you believe in or do in training, In fact, the more f-up the methods used, the easier for others to succeed in competitive sport etc.  My goal is simply to let those who do have some semblance of belief that they were born with a brain and intuition that it still works, and they are allowed to use it if they want…that there may be an alternative to the dominant beliefs – as threatening as that may be to some……

Quick question if I may – do the studies show that ‘outdated’ is sub-optimal? I sure hope so, because I need those words to cling on to….

Ian King

Static stretching fear mongering

/by

I recently received a thesis study conducted in the US and shared with me by a coach out of Austria, which I appreciated.

Here are some thoughts I shared in return.

Note the aim (or at least my aim) of static stretching is not necessarily to in the acute sense enhance or detract VJ height.

Nor is eating a large meal full of high fiber protein in the acute sense intended to enhance or detract from training ability or work capacity.

Why don’t we see studies about how eating large, heavy meals followed immediately by DJ results in a decease in DJ height?

Because it is not the trend of thinking.

The only reason the relationship between stretching and jumping is hypothesized about, discussed, studied etc., is because there is an influencing drive to find rationale sounding reasons not static stretch.

Why? Because we will reduce injuries and negatively impact the pharmaceutical industry.

Now there is a hypothesis we won’t be reading about in our life-time – that accurate teaching of SS results in a decrease in pharmaceutical industry gross income…

Ian King

Performance Coach or Director – Why the term sucks  

/by

[The following is an extract from the book ‘Barbells & Bullshit’ by Ian King, 2010.]

I have noted a trend over the last decade or so for physical preparation coaches involved with athletes and sporting teams to refer to themselves as ‘performance’ coaches or directors. In fact, this title appears to be the pinnacle of employment positions within sporting teams. I don’t support this and here’s why.

In my thirty year involvement in the industry to date I have watched the slow acceptance of physical preparation coaches by other coaches in sport. From my perspective the formal role of the physical preparation coach in western sport began in the 1970’s at the earliest. My point is the industry is relatively young.

As such, it’s been pretty easy for the more established coaching roles to manipulate physical preparation coaches. The most common techniques I have seen include:

1. The athletes are getting injured because of what the physical preparation coach is doing
2. The athletes are performing worse because of what the physical preparation coach is doing.

To achieve point 2, you will often hear coaches blame the team’s ‘fitness’ for poor performance. This technique is so entrenched that you will commonly hear lay people make the same statement – ‘They are not fit enough’.

Teams and athletes don’t lose simply because of their physical preparation. Physical preparation is at most 25% or one of four components of athletic success. When you add culture, equipment, and funding you now have ten components. Physical is one-tenths or 10% of this model. It’s a very long bow to suggest that controlling the physical preparation dictates the performance.

All the use of the term ‘performance coach’ does is play into the hands of those who seek to use the ‘new kid on the block’ (physical preparation) as the fall guy should one be needed in the event of individual or team failure. Controlling one-tenth of the total athlete preparation gives physical preparation coaches no more rights to claim they are ‘performance coaches’ than any of those in the coaching and support team who control / influence the other nine components in the 10-part model.

It reinforces the myth that if an individual or team fail to win, it is because they lack appropriate physical preparation.

And no, the flip side is rarely promoted – that when they win it is because of their physical preparation. The same people in the coaching team who seek to shift the blame to the physical preparation coaches in the event of a loss will step up in the event of a win to take credit. Now they seek to be titled ‘great coaches’.

This pattern of blame / credit is only outperformed in inaccuracy by the physical preparation coach who controls only one of the four sub-components of physical preparation (e.g. strength training only) – and seeks to take credit for the wins. They control 25% of 10%, or an estimated 2.5% of the generalized preparation.

The only situation I believe a physical preparation coach can even consider calling themselves a ‘performance coach’ is when they control over 50% of the total athlete preparation. Which means they would have to control technical, tactical, physical and psychological preparation (totaling 40%) – and more – to control over 50% if the total program.

Rarely achieved. I would not need more than one hand to count the number of physical preparation coaches I have encountered in three decades in this industry who meet this criteria.

This also raises the question of how many years back in each athlete’s career they had this control. Take the athlete’s age minus say 4 years of age, and then divide by 2 – have they been in control for more than half this number? If not it means they haven’t controlled the majority of the training process that led to this point.

Know anyone who would meet these criteria?

Most physical preparation coaches live in so much fear of losing their job they don’t have any intention of seeking to alter or control departments outside of their own. In fact, this scarcity mentality – where is my next job coming from? What will I do if I lose this job?- usually means they allow others in the administration, coaching and support team to interfere with the physical preparation program to the extent that I doubt they could be said to even control that.

[Learn more about this book at http://www.kingsports.net/products-ksi-book-b&bs.htm]

Ian King

Feedback on my latest book – Barbells & Bullshit  

/by

I recently received this feedback about my latest book:

Ian, Great book… …keeping me up late. Very entertaining, hilarious, gut-wrenching and scary as you unfold the reality of this industry, while pairing it with guidance to a conscious way of thriving in the field of physical preparation and life. Also, you have brilliantly made the book very interactive, which I assume was done purposely, and adds to the suspense and overall enjoyment.  Thank you once again!
–Ryan

To which I replied on the KSI forum as follows, content that normally stays on the members only http://www.coachking.net/ forum:

Excellent perception Ryan – there are many subtle and interwoven themes in this text which you have an awareness of, and even for my top coaches, they need all their knowledge and experience to decipher them

I appreciate your feedback, and commend you for digging into the book. many will disregard as a reading option simply because it’s theme is not compliant with mainstream conditioning of ‘what you need to study – e.g. references to research, or how to get bigger biceps, or apparently ever more pertinent today, how to lower body fat using the ‘only’ way to train ‘that only I know how’

As the fitness industry grows, should it continue along its current path, I will be exposing more ‘conspiracies’ of the exploitation of the masses for the gain of a few – economically and egotistically.

One only needs to lift the lid on larger and older industries to see the techniques that are and will continue to expand in their use in the ‘fitness industry’

Like the US economy, I feel the American-influenced fitness industry may be so ‘sick’ that it is beyond repair, short of greater social changes. An alternative is to create a universal sub-culture of those whose are passionate about physical preparation at any level of involvement, have the ability to think objectively and independently and reject the conditioned thinking enforced on the masses, and who do not support, endorse or wish to be part of a current, self-serving ‘fitness industry’.

Ian King

The World is Flat!  

/by

Popular stories have humans believing the world was flat and that Christopher Columbus, in his late 1400’s explorations to the America’s, travelled in spite of this belief and the risk of ‘falling off the edge’ of this flat earth. If this were true, Columbus showed courage and shaped the world as a result.

As a race humans have advanced in many regards, however the limiting beleifs prevail. That is, whatever is the domiantly held belief is what the majority cling to without adequate investigation of the accuracy of the belief.

These holding to domianant beliefs may provide short term feelings of security, but at what price?  You would not have squatted until the 1990’s when ‘science’ first endorsed this exercise. You would not have taken a multi-vitamin until post the year 2000, when for the first time a medical journal acknowledged that most people should consider taking a multi-vitamin. The list goes on. At what price to you? You could spend most of your life missing many valuable and beneficial activities simply because of your desire to comply with the dominant beliefs.

Which raises the question – where do the dominant beliefs come from and who controls them? Two key answers – commercial interests and information gatekeepers.

When does an exercise trend become a trend and why? For the most part when an equipment manufacturer concludes their is a market for their proposed product and moves forward.

The second player is the ‘information gatekeeper’. The person or organization who upon realizing that a new habit is about to gain momentum, seek to endorse and teach the new habit (now called a trend) simply to be seen as being on the cutting edge of yet another new development.

A summary of many dominant trends over the last decade reveals a list of equipment that in my opinion was not borne out of the need for a new solution. But rather out of the realization that it could be manufactured and sold to the masses.

Most of what you do, as an end user as well as a professional in the fitness or sport industries, is a product of the influences created by equipment manufacturers and distributors, often in combination with the information gate keepers of their chose.

Do you need it? Is it the best solution for you? Is it in your best interests? These are some of the questions you have not likely asked. Rather, you have probably accepted the dominant trend and followed along.

That’s your choice. I suggest you can do better.  I suggest you can get better results. I suggest you deserve better. Are you ready and willing to learn how?

———————-

New DVD released Oct 2010 –

The World if Flat!
Challenging your point of view!

In this DVD from a live seminar I dedicate approximately two hours to this and surrounding topics.

YouTube clips from that DVD:

Click here to order the DVD – http://bit.ly/9KJVmR
Ian King

Enough to make your blood boyle

/by

I looked, and looked again – surely not! I couldn’t believe my eyes! There on the ‘net on an ‘industry leading’ site was three stages of a strength progam that KSI had provided a client some years prior. Being given away as a PDF download – free! How is that possible!?

For the duration of our business operations (25 years in 2011 of continual service as a company specializing in the physical preparation of the elite athlete) we have always prided ourselves on the confidentiality of our clients program. They don’t get published – fullstop. There is also a little matter of protecting our proprietary information….

The program was verbatim save for a few minor details:

1. The KSI copyright that was on the document when it went to the client had been removed.
2. There was no reference to Ian King on the program.

So the publisher and readers, as there were not the client, would not have known the true origin of the program.

But what about the exercise descriptions…over 65 of them…verbatim…..except for the substitution of one word – the ‘King’ in the King Deadlift had been changed to ‘Single-leg’. Can’t figure out why? Ok, I can work that out….

Over 60 exercise descriptions and no-one figured it out…Amazing really. Considering also the web-site owner/publisher claims to have ‘read everything there is to read in the field of strength and conditioning….’

If that was the case, what would be the explaination for missing all of the copied text of these 60+ uniquely worded exercises, such as:

Bulgarian squat

Some know this as a Bulgarian squat – with a difference. Face away from a normal height bench, and place your rear leg up on the bench. You can check your distance by having a relatively vertical shin throughout the movement. Place your hands on your head, and keep your chest and trunk vertical throughout.

Lower the body down by bending the knee of the lead leg until the knee of the back leg is almost on the ground.

We are going to use a speed of 515 – 5 sec lower, 1 second pause top and bottom, and 5 second lift. If you can do more than 10 reps, you can hold dumbbells in your hand. I don’t expect this to be necessary initially. Keep the knee aligned over the feet during the lower and the lift. You don’t need to do a warm up set – get straight into the work set.
–King, I., 1999, Get Buffed book

Some know this as a Bulgarian squat – with a difference. Face away from a normal height bench, and place your rear leg up on the bench. You can check your distance by having a relatively vertical shin throughout the movement. Place your hands on your head, and keep your chest and trunk vertical throughout.

Lower the body down by bending the knee of the lead leg until the knee of the back leg is almost on the ground.

We are going to use a speed of 311 – 3 sec lower, 1-second pause top and bottom, and 1 second lift. If you can do more than 10 reps, you can hold dumbbells in your hand. Keep the knee aligned over the feet during the lower and the lift. You don’t need to do a warm up set – get straight into the work set.
–from rugby programs posted on this web site

Single leg squat

…stand on 1 leg beside the squat rack or similar. Place the other leg out so that the heel stays just off the ground at all times. Bend the support knee and go down as far as you can whilst keeping your foot flat on the ground. 3 seconds down, no pause, controlled explosive up.

Initially I suspect your range will be limited but as you get better at it over time, aim to increase range as well (and maybe even more importantly) as reps. Using your bodyweight only, I expect somewhere between 5-10 reps on day one, and look to use DB’s in one hand if you exceed 15 reps. If this is the case, I have to wonder what you were doing during the earlier part of the workout?!

Use the squat rack to hold on to for balance if needed (and you probably will need to) but don’t get sucked into the temptation of using it to pull yourself up. Remember this is a leg day!
–King, I., 1999, Get Buffed book

Stand on 1 leg beside the squat rack or similar. Place the other leg out so that the heel stays just off the ground at all times. Bent the support knee and go down as far as you can whilst keeping your foot flat on the ground. 3 seconds down, no pause, controlled explosive up.

Initially I suspect your range will be limited but as you get better at it over time, aim to increase range as well (and maybe even more importantly) as reps. Using your bodyweight only, expect somewhere between 5-10 reps on day one, and look to use DB’s in one hand if you exceed 15 reps.

Use the squat rack to hold on to for balance if needed (and you probably will need to) but don’t get sucked into the temptation of using it to pull yourself up.
–from rugby programs posted on this web site

Squat

Place the bar as high as is comfortable on the neck, take a narrower than shoulder width stance, and allow only a slight external rotation of the feet. Immediately prior to commencing the descent, bend your knees slightly, suck in the lower abdomen, and squeeze your cheeks. This will ‘set’ your pelvis in a slightly posteriorly rotated position. As you lower, keep the hips in line with the spine – which means maintain this hip position. Don’t misinterpret this – you can flex forward at the hips, just don’t change the hip/spine relationship. Squat as deeply as you can without exceeding forty-five degree trunk flexion relative to vertical. Keep your knees equal distance apart during the lift. Immediately prior to the ascent, focus on squeezing the cheeks tight and hold them tight during the concentric phase. The aim here is to prevent anterior rotation of the pelvis during the initial phase of the ascent….
–King, I., 1999, Get Buffed book

Place the bar as high on your neck as comfortable. Grip the bar with your hands as close to the shoulders as comfortable, and ensure that your elbows are pointing directly downwards to the ground. Use a foot stance that is shoulder width, and have your feet either straight or slightly externally rotated. Immediately prior to commencing the descent, bend your knees slightly, suck in the lower abdomen, and squeeze your cheeks. This will ‘set’ your pelvis in a slightly posteriorly rotated position. As you lower, keep the hips in line with the spine – which means maintain this hip position. Don’t misinterpret this – you can flex forward at the hips, just don’t change the hip/spine relationship. Squat as deeply as you can without exceeding forty-five degree trunk flexion relative to vertical. Keep your knees equal distance apart during the lift. Immediately prior to the ascent, focus on squeezing the cheeks tight and hold them tight during the concentric phase. The aim here is to prevent anterior rotation of the pelvis during the initial phase of the ascent. The concentric phase should mirror the eccentric phase exactly.
–from rugby programs posted on this web site

Deadlift

• Stand in front of the bar, feet under the bar, shins a few inches away from bar.
• Take hand grip just outside shoulder width, palms down.
• Bend the knees and take position : shoulders vertically over bar, shins on bar, arms straight, hips in line with spine, back flat, head in line with spine, looking a few meters head or straight, shoulder blades retracted.
• Prior to commencement of lift contract abdominal and gluteals, extending legs until no slack in arms.
• Use leg and hip extension to take the bar from ground to where bar is just over knees.
• The trunk angle and scapula retraction is not to change during this ‘first pull’.
• From the above knee position, stand up (the second pull).
• Apply more acceleration in the second pull than the first.
• Bar to be in contact with body throughout the whole lift.
• Arms stay straight throughout the lift.
–King., I., 2000, How to Teach

Deadlift : Stand in front of the bar, feet under the bar, shins a few inches away from the bar. Take a grip just outside shoulder width, palms down. Bend the knees and take position : shoulders vertically over bar, shins on bar, arms straight, hips in line with spine, back flat, head in line with spine, shoulder blades retracted.

Prior to commencement of lift contract abdominal and gluteals, extending legs until no slack in arms. Use leg and hip extension to take the bar from ground to where bar is just over knees. The trunk angle and scapula retraction is not to change during this first pull. From eh above knee position stand up ( second pull). Apply more acceleration in the second pull than in the first. Bar to be in contact with body throughout the whole lift. Arms stay straight throughout the lift.
–from rugby programs posted on this web site

King Deadlift

This is a single leg bent knee deadlift – one of my very own creations! Stand on one leg (starting with the weak side) and bend the other leg up until the lower leg is parallel to the ground. Hands on hips or by side. The aim is to bend the knee of the supporting leg until the knee of the non-supporting leg is brushing the ground. In reality, you may have to settle for a shorter range (you’ll understand why I say this as soon as you do this workout). If this is the case – and I expect it will be – look to increase the range from workout to workout.

You are allowed to flex (bend) forward at the waist as much as you want, and doing so will increase the gluteal involvement. Keep the working knee aligned neutrally throughout the movement. Take 3 seconds to lower, 1 second pause each end and 2 seconds to lift. No warm up set needed. When you can do more than 15-20 reps FULL RANGE look to hold DB’s in the hands – …
–King, I., 1999, Get Buffed book

This is a single leg bent knee deadlift. Stand on one leg (starting with the weak side) and bend the other leg up until the lower leg is parallel to the ground. Hands on hips or by side. The aim is to bend the knee of the supporting leg until the knee of the non-supporting leg is brushing the ground. In reality, you may have to settle for a shorter range (you’ll understand why I say this as soon as you do this workout). If this is the case – and I expect it will be – look to increase the range from workout to workout.

You are allowed to flex (bend) forward at the waist as much as you want, and doing so will increase the gluteal involvement. Keep the working knee aligned neutrally throughout the movement. No warm up set needed. When you can do more than 15-20 reps FULL RANGE look to hold DB’s in the hands.
–from rugby programs posted on this web site

Thin tummy variations:

Description – Lay on your back, knee bent, feet flat, place both hand under your belt line, with your fingers heading down into the pubic area and the thumbs placed higher up on the rectus abdominus (upper abdominal region); throughout all the following levels of difficulty, use the fingers to provide feedback that the ‘lower abdominals’ (obliques and transverse abdominus) are contracted, pulling the lower tummy thinner and creating a high level of tension under the skin; and that the upper abdominal region is hollowed, and non-contracted; and that this relationship is held. Should it at any time change or you feel that it is going to change e.g. upper tummy bulge, pelvis anteriorly rotate, terminate the range or the set. I focus more on how the muscles are ‘set’ than on the pressure of lumbar to ground or position of pelvis, although both are symptomatic of a good ‘set’ position.

Level 1 – Isometric holds (looking for above ‘set’ position) in the lying, knee bent positions.

Level 2 – As above., but lift one leg up, lower it, reset, other leg etc.

Level 3 – As above., but when you lift one leg up, extend it out as far as control (i.e. set position) allows.

Level 4 – As above., but start with both knees up, bent to 90 degrees knees and hips, cycling one leg out towards a parallel to ground position at a time as far as ‘set’ position control allows.

Level 5 – As above., but extending both legs out together.
–King., I., 2000, How to Teach

Description – lay on your back, knees bent, feet flat, place both hands under your belt line with your fingers heading down into the pubic area and the thumbs placed higher up on the upper abdominal region; throughout all the following levels of difficulty, use the fingers to provide feedback that the lower abdominals are contracted, pulling the lower tummy thinner and creating a high level of tension under the skin; and that the upper abdominal region is hollowed, and non-contracted; and that his relationship is held. Should it at any time change or you feel that it is going to change (e.g. upper tummy bulge, pelvis anteriorly rotate, terminate the range or the set. Focus more on how the muscles are ‘set’ than on the pressure of lumbar to ground or position of pelvis, although both are symptomatic of a good ‘set’ position.

Level One – isometric holds – looking for a good set position

Level Two – as Labove, but lift one leg up, lower it, rest, repeat opposite leg

Level Three – as above, but when you lift one leg up, extend it out as far as control (i.e. set position) allows

Level Four – as above, but start with both knees up, bent to 90 degrees knees and hips, cycling one leg out towards a parallel to ground position at a time as far as the ‘set’ position will allow

Level Five – as above, but extending both legs out together.
–from rugby programs posted on this web site

Toes to sky variations

Description – Lay on your back, arms out on the ground at 90 degrees to the trunk, have your legs together, 90 degrees hip flexion, so that legs are vertical.

Level 1 – Lift the pelvis as far off the ground whilst maintaining totally vertical leg position (initially this may not be very far at all, at even at best the movement is limited in its range) and hold for 5-10 seconds.

Level 2 – As above., but bend one knee to 90 degrees at knee; alternate each rep which leg is bent, which is straight.

Level 3 – As above., but bent both knees so that the knees are bent to 90 degrees.
–King., I., 2000, How to Teach

Description – lay on your back, arms out on the ground at 90 degrees to the trunk, have your legs together, 90 degrees hip flexion so that legs are vertical.

Level One – lift the pelvis as far off the ground whilst maintaining totally vertical leg position (initially this may not be very far at all, at even at best the movement is limited in its range) and hold for 5-10 seconds.

Level Two – as above, but bend one knee to 90 degrees at knee, alternate each rep which leg is bent, which is straight

Level Three – as above, but bend both knees so that the knees are bent to 90 degrees
–from rugby programs posted on this web site

These are samples of the 60+ exercise descriptions. I’m not talking about a three line generic descrition about how to do a DB press. These have a unique signature over many of them – a number of the exercises were original innovations, some were original exercise names, some were unique in their execution.

Difficult to see how a ‘well-read’ person could not have seen the finger print of the original source. What would be a motive if they had been recognzied and ignored? On the flip side, a poorly read person may have not picked up on the origin.

Either way, seeing this kind of behaviour, it’s enought to make your blood boyle. Then I realized that for some to have empathy, they would probably need to have had an original ideas worth protecting….

Ian King

Performance coach. Really?  

/by

The following is an extract from Ian King’s latest book ‘Barbells & Bullshit’ – due to be released later this month.

I have noted a trend over the last decade or so for physical preparation coaches involved with athletes and sporting teams to refer to themselves as ‘performance’ coaches or directors. In fact, this title appears to be the pinnacle of employment positions within sporting teams. I don’t support this and here’s why.

In my thirty year involvement in the industry to date I have watched the slow acceptance of physical preparation coaches by other coaches in sport. From my perspective the formal role of the physical preparation coach in western sport began in the 1970’s at the earliest. My point is the industry is relatively young.

As such, it’s been pretty easy for the more established coaching roles to manipulate physical preparation coaches. The most common techniques I have seen include:

1. The athletes are getting injured because of what the physical preparation coach is doing

2. The athletes are performing worse because of what the physical preparation coach is doing

To achieve point 2, you will often hear coaches blame the team’s ‘fitness’ for poor performance. This technique is so entrenched that you will commonly hear lay people make the same statement – ‘They are not fit enough’.

Teams and athletes don’t lose simply because of their physical preparation. Physical preparation is at most 25% or one of four components of athletic success. When you add culture, equipment, and funding you now have ten components. Physical is one-tenths or 10% of this model. It’s a very long bow to suggest that controlling the physical preparation dictates the performance.

All the use of the term ‘performance coach’ does is play into the hands of those who seek to use the ‘new kid on the block’ (physical preparation) as the fall guy should one be needed in the event of individual or team failure. Controlling one-tenth of the total athlete preparation gives physical preparation coaches no more rights to claim they are ‘performance coaches’ than any of those in the coaching and support team who control / influence the other nine components in the 10-part model.

It reinforces the myth that if an individual or team fail to win, it is because they lack appropriate physical preparation.

And no, the flip side is rarely promoted – that when they win it is because of their physical preparation. The same people in the coaching team who seek to shift the blame to the physical preparation coaches in the event of a loss will step up in the event of a win to take credit. Now they seek to be titled ‘great coaches’.

This pattern of blame / credit is only outperformed in inaccuracy by the physical preparation coach who controls only one of the four sub-components of physical preparation (e.g. strength training only) – and seeks to take credit for the wins. They control 25% of 10%, or an estimated 2.5% of the generalized preparation.

The only situation I believe a physical preparation coach can even consider calling themselves a ‘performance coach’ is when they control over 50% of the total athlete preparation. Which means they would have to control technical, tactical, physical and psychological preparation (totaling 40%) – and more – to control over 50% if the total program.

Rarely achieved. I would not need more than one hand to count the number of physical preparation coaches I have encountered in three decades in this industry who meet this criteria.

This also raises the question of how many years back in each athlete’s career they had this control. Take the athlete’s age minus say 4 years of age, and then divide by 2 – have they been in control for more than half this number? If not it means they haven’t controlled the majority of the training process that led to this point.

Know anyone who would meet these criteria?

Most physical preparation are in so much fear of losing their job they don’t have any intention of seeking to alter or control departments outside of their own. In fact, this scarcity mentality – where is my next job coming from? What will I do if I lose this job?- usually means they allow others in the administration, coaching and support team to interfere with the physical preparation program to the extent that I doubt they could be said to even control that.

Ian King

Surely they can perform better than this!  

/by

Many years ago I met a gentleman at a NSCA trade show who owned a major equipment distribution company in the industry, and who had a booth at the trade show. He seemed a genuine person. So recently when I learnt his company was distributing my material – just without my name on it and without any revenues coming to me – I thought – surely they can perform better than this!

After all, isn’t that what a reasonable person would do? Surely they would be reasonable.

I said to my IP attorney ‘This deserves a personal approach. I am sure polite, personal and respectful communication can have these sales to cease and desist’.

So I emailed this gentleman. His response was that he didn’t remember me and that he didn’t know what I was talking about. You could expect that – after all he is a busy man. I understand that. So he referred me to one of his employees.

The employee was polite in his communication. He did remind me that they were after all just the distributors. Perhaps that was to infer they had no moral and or legal obligations? And the end result was – nothing.

And I said to myself – surely they can perform better than this!

So are we talking about difficult to see copyright breaches? Or just a few lines in breach?

Here are just a few of the offending sections. And before we go on, I want to stress – I simply included one example from a variety of different topics – in other words, just a sampling. It is unlikely you would have the attention span to review all the offending sections…..

FROM HOW TO WRITE STRENGTH TRAINING PROGRAMS (King, I., 1998)

However if this sequence shows throughout say a 12 week cycle or beyond, you risk developing muscle imbalances. To avoid this, I alternate or reverse the priorities. See this in Table 4. The key here is starting in a non-specific priority and slowly shifting towards specificity in order of priority.
–King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs (book), Exercise Selection, p. 25

If you continue to follow the exact same movement pattern split for long periods of time, you will very likely develop muscle imbalances and risk injury. To avoid this, alternate (i.e. do the exact opposite movement pattern) or reverse the priorities (i.e. the last movement pattern on the last day becomes the first movement pattern on the first day in the next phase.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 180-181; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 133

…all things being equal, and independent of any specificity demands, the selection of exercises should show balance throughout the body.
–King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs (book), Exercise Selection, p. 41

All things being equal, and independent of any specificity demands, the selection of exercises should show balance throughout the body…
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 66; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 107

Linear periodization : involves a linear progression in lowering reps and increasing load (representing the inverse relationship between volume and intensity).

… The benefits of this method include that it allows the trainee to develop load selection as a progression of reduced reps.

…The disadvantages includes that the early stages may cause a detraining in neural adaptation, and the later stages may cause a detraining in metabolic adaptations.
— King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs (book), p. 81

Linear Periodization: involves a linear progression in lowering reps and increasing load (representing the inverse relationship between volume and intensity).

…Advantages: allows the trainee to increase loading regularly and develop load selection as a progression of reduced reps, simply and effectively.

Disadvantages: may cause a detraining effect in neural adaptation in the early stages, and a detraining effect in metabolic adaptation in the later stages.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 172; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 116

4. Priority: This is what I suggest to be the most important and powerful guide in sequencing exercise – do first whatever is the priority of that phase – even if it does ‘break all the rules’.
— King, I., 1998, How to Write, p. 51

#8: Priority First
As a general rule – the most important qualities/movements to be trained should be trained in the freshest state. Allocate activities in a priority basis to different training days (e.g. number one and two priority need to be trained first on separate days ideally), regardless if this breaks any rules or ‘split’ that you have previously used.
–Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 13

I firmly believe that strength training program design has been historically influenced by anabolic steroids. If you accept the influence that bodybuilding, weightlifting and powerlifting have had on program design, and you understand the role drugs play in these sports, you gain a fuller appreciation of this influence.
— King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs (book), p. 141

…the anabolic steroid issue …It would be short-sighted of me to ignore the influence of these drugs on the sport of bodybuilding. If you understand the influence of bodybuilding on general fitness, and you understand the influence of drugs on competitive bodybuilding, hopefully you can see what I am getting at.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 22; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 28

35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program
9. Plan alternating muscle group allocation in subsequent phases to receive varied benefits.
–King, I., How to Write Strength Training Programs, p. 23

Eighteen Steps to Programming Success
18. Plan movement pattern allocation in subsequent phases to achieve varied emphasis and benefits.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible, p. 180

My next and final step is to divide all the above into unilateral and bilateral, and single and double/multi-joint exercises
–King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, p. 40

Exercises can be progressed as follows:
* Single joint to multiple joint
* Unilateral to bi-lateral.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible, p. 64; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 106

Time magnifies errors in training.
–King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs (book), p. 75

It’s important to recognize that time will magnify any and all errors in training.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible, p. 181

Variation may also give unexpected adaptations from repetitions. A trainee pursuing hypertrophy, after spending considerable time training in classic hypertrophy brackets (e.g. 8-12) may experience further significant hypertrophy when changing to a higher or lower rep bracket. Whilst this appears to contradict the above table, it shows that variety alone can accelerate gains. Note this applies in both strength (neural) and size (metabolic) training. The message is clear – irrespective of the specific goal, training in too narrow a rep bracket may not be as effective as alternating or mixing with different rep brackets. The key is not which reps to use, rather how much time to spend in each different rep bracket.
— King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Repetitions, p. 101

An interesting observation is as regards variety in rep selection. While periodization of training has been well documented, if your goal is just hypertrophy – would staying in the hypertrophy rep range be the best choice? Actually – no, a trainee seems to experience the best gains when using both higher and lower reps than the “goal” rep bracket. Basically the lower reps allow heavier weight to be used, so the athlete returns stronger when he or she returns to their original rep bracket. If we go higher – the athlete experiences a longer time under tension and therefore has more endurance when he or she returns to the original rep bracket. The underlying message is obvious – variety alone can accelerate your process and regardless of your goal, the main premise to understand is that it is not merely which rep brackets to use, but also how long to stay within each rep bracket.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 50; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 90

Number of Reps: Again whilst number of reps is a critical issue, it is limited as a measure of volume unless the majority of exercises involve similar metabolic cost
— King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Volume, p. 146

I think this [number of reps] is a flawed model as it makes the assumption that all reps are created equal and performed at the same speed.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 49; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 90

A repetition in strength training is one full cycle of the contraction modes involved.
— King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Volume, p. 99

A repetition….can be thought of as one full cycle of the contraction modes involved.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 48; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 89

The influence of training age on number of sets: a beginner is not likely to need any more than one to two sets per exercise to gain a training effect. It could be argued that the more advanced a trainee becomes, the more sets required. I believe this is true up to a point. There is a point in time where further increases in volume (no. of sets) will not benefit, and the search for further training effects should be limited to increases in intensity.
— King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Volume, p. 112

Training Age: a beginner to strength training is unlikely to need exposure to more than 1-2 sets of a given exercise….. And clearly the more advanced trainee needs greater volume, however this is only true up to a point. There is definitely a point of diminishing returns when it comes to total sets, and at this point further progress can only be made by increases in intensity.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 52; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 92-93

FROM GET BUFFED! (King, I., 1999)

Another less common criticism (one I used to get more so in the early 1990s) is that it is too complex and the movements should be ‘just done’. Yes, the system does need to be understood by the program writer (I suspect this to be the greatest challenge to these critics); and yes, it does need to be explained to the trainee. No, it doesn’t have to be executed with perfection – it is just a guideline (so don’t get out your metronome!)…
–King, I., Get Buffed (book), 1999, p. 65

It may appear over-complicated.…A common argument is ‘if I focus on maintaining a 321 speed then I can’t focus on just working hard’.…So the tempo system DOES need to be understood by the coaches and the trainee. Does it need to be executed with a metronome for absolute accuracy? No – it is just a useful guideline.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible, p. 57

The first set
The primary effect of the first work set is shock. The body, subject to the laws of homeostasis and innate protective mechanisms, rarely functions optimally during the first work set.
–King, I., Get Buffed (book), 1999, p. 53-55

…the first set of a workout tends to be a ‘shock’ to the body. The body rarely functions well during the first work set of an exercise.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 54; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 94

The second set
The second work set benefits from the first work set – in what can be described as ‘neural arousal’, or greater neuro-muscular innervation.
–King, I., Get Buffed (book), 1999, p. 53-55

The second set however tends to benefit from the first set in terms ofneural innvervation – the body is ‘awake’ now.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Design Bible, p. 54; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 94

The third and subsequent work sets
In a nut-shell, if you are lifting the same load for say three sets of ten, it is unlikely it was your maximum in set one.
–King, I., Get Buffed (book), 1999, p. 53-55

…In a nutshell if you are still able to lift the same load for three sets, it is likely that you have selected loads based on the facts you are doing three sets – i.e. you didn’t use your maximum load.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 54; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 94

In my opinion, it is difficult to do more than two sets at the same reps and load if the effort is maximal.
–King, I., Get Buffed (book), 1999, p. 53-55

In general, I rarely use more than two sets of the same exercise at the same load.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 54; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 94 (NB. In this rare situation, credit was given, but does provide right to copy text verbatim without appropriate referencing methods)

Australian biomechanist Greg Wilson did some great research in the 1990s in quantifying the role of the SSC. He found that if you do a conventional bench press with an eccentric or lowering phase that was about a second, it took a full four second pause in between the eccentric and concentric to completely eliminate the stretch shortening cycle, i.e. if you lower the bar and you rest it on top of your chest for a period of less than four seconds, you’re still getting an added boost from all the elastic energy.
–King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!, Chapter 12 – What speed of movement should I use?, p. 63

Research by Greg Wilson in 1991 showed that it took 4 seconds to dissipate the stretch shortening cycle in the bench press. In other words – you were still using momentum if the pause was any less than 4 seconds. All this tells us is that for pure muscle work – pausing makes it harder. For strength and speed work, we should exploit the stretch shortening cycle and have no pause.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 57; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 98

For those concerned about power (rate of force development), I don’t recommend using anything less than a fast or attempted-to-be-fast concentric contraction for some 80-90% of total training time.
–King, I., Get Buffed (book), 1999, p. 65

For anyone concerned with power or speed, anything less than an explosive (or an attempt to be explosive) is not recommended for the bulk of your training….
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible, p. 59

Single leg squat:
stand on 1 leg beside the squat rack or similar. Place the other leg out so that the heel stays just off the ground at all times. Bend the support knee and go down as far as you can whilst keeping your foot flat on the ground. 3 seconds down, no pause, controlled explosive up. Initially I suspect your range will be limited but as you get better at it over time, aim to increase range as well (and maybe even more importantly) as reps. Using your bodyweight only, I expect somewhere between 5-10 reps on day one, and look to use DB’s in one hand if you exceed 15 reps. If this is the case, I have to wonder what you were doing during the earlier part of the workout?! Use the squat rack to hold on to for balance if needed (and you probably will need to) but don’t get sucked into the temptation of using it to pull yourself up…
–King, I., Get Buffed (book), 1999, p. 203-204.

One leg squat:
Stand on 1 leg beside the squat rack or similar. Place the other leg out so that the heel stays just off the ground at all times. Bent the support knee and go down as far as you can whilst keeping your foot flat on the ground. 3 seconds down, no pause, controlled explosive up. Initially I suspect your range will be limited but as you get better at it over time, aim to increase range as well (and maybe even more importantly) as reps. Using your bodyweight only, expect somewhere between 5-10 reps on day one, and look to use DB’s in one hand if you exceed 15 reps. Use the squat rack to hold on to for balance if needed (and you probably will need to) but don’t get sucked into the temptation of using it to pull yourself up.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible, p. 83

But if you accept that sport science and sport historians have much in common, you wouldn’t be waiting for full confirmation.
— King, I., 1999, Get Buffed! (book), Ch 22 – Injury prevention, p. 109

Sports scientists have become sports training historians as the researchers tend to study what coaches are doing anyway.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 57; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 40

There is an incredible trend in strength training to do three sets of every exercises. More specifically, three (or more) sets at the same weight on the same exercise -most commonly, 3 sets of 10! Why is this? I’ve asked myself that question many times, and the only answer I come up with is the power of tradition.


You see, these magic numbers were ‘validated’ way back in the late ‘40’s and early ‘50’s by an American army surgeon by the name of De Lorme when he presented research evidence supporting the use of three sets of ten reps. All credit to the contribution De Lorme made to the science of training, but that was fifty years ago. Yet what do you see almost every time you look at a training program? 3 x 10 (or 15 or 12 or 8, or 6 etc.) ! What do you see every time you browse (I say browse, because invariably there’s nothing that warrants reading) through a mainstream bodybuilding magazine? 3 x 10!
— King, I., 1999, Get Buffed, p. 52

Despite the absolute limitless combinations of sets and reps that can be performed – three sets of ten remains the single most common set and rep scheme. In the late 1940’s Thomas DeLorme and his Boston team of orthopaedic surgeons were experiencing difficulties rehabilitating World War II Veterans, so they tried a radically new medical approach: Strength training.


Known as the DeLorme-Watkins protocol, the program consisted of one ste of ten reps at 50% of your ten rep max, one set at 75% and one set at 100%. That was it. That was where the industry standard came from. And here we are over sixty years later and this is still the primary set-rep scheme that most trainers are using. In sixty years have we not learned anything.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 36; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 39

Most train hard and long, and with high frequency. Unless one is supported by a incredibly higher recovery system (natural or chemically enhanced), this approach will result in over-training and non-achievement of goals.


… I have very firm beliefs on this topic. Volume and intensity are inversely related. When one is up, the other is forced down. You cannot do a high volume workout (i.e. a high number of sets) and have as high an intensity as you would have with a lower number of sets. Many kid themselves on this, but you cannot avoid reality.
–King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!, p. 33

…but you cannot train hard and long. I agree with this statement.Volume and intensity are inversely related. When one is up, the other is down. Most trainers, quite honestly, seem unaware of this simple concept, or are perhaps in denial as regards this, but it is an irrefutable fact.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 51; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 92

FROM THE FOUNDATIONS OF PHSYICAL PREPARATION (King, I., 1999/2000)

The principle of recovery recognizes that the training effect is not simply a result of training alone, but occurs from a combination of training and the subsequent recovery from training.
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation, Ch 2 – Principles of Training, p. 34.

The principle of recovery and regeneration recognizes that training alone does won’t produce any results. You don’t actually improve as a result of training – you improve as a result of recovering FROM training.
–Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p.43

The principle of specificity suggests that your adaptation to training will be very specific to the nature of the training you are doing. For example if you are doing a number of long, slow jogs per week, your physical capacity to do that specific activity may be enhanced. An acronym that appears to have lost popularity but is quite illustrative of this point is the SAID Principle – specific adaptations to imposed demands.
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation, Ch 2 – Principles of Training, p. 35

Specificity
Also known as the SAID principle, which is an acronym for ‘specific adaptation to imposed demand’. This principles suggests that the body adapts to the specific demands placed on it. For example, long slow running will enhance your ability to run long and slow, but is unlikely to enhance your ability to bench press maximal weight. Training programs need to reflect the specific goal that we are trying to achieve.
–Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p.43

Opposite and equal effect
The concept is based on the belief that to every action (in training) there is a positive and a negative outcome, and that often the negative outcome is equal or as powerful as the positive outcome.

… Lets use swimming for example. Most swimming strokes involve repetitive internal rotation of the upper arm. Consequently the internal rotators of the arm/shoulder become shorter and tighter than the external rotators….

The strong message in the equal and opposite effect concept is that every single training method will have a negative effect – and must be countered. This is why ultimately it is not a question of which is the best training method – rather a matter of using a wide range of methods…
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation, Ch 2 – Principles of Training, p. 30-31

Equal and Opposite Effect
…This means that in training, there is both a positive and negative outcome to any method used, and that the negative outcome is as equal as the positive one.

…..For example a bench press is a fantastic upper body strength exercise – but when overused it can cause the upper pecs, shoulder and the internal rotators of the arm/shoulder to become shorter and tighter than the external rotators…

…The underlying message of this principle is that every single training method that create a positive change, carries with it an equal negative effect, which must be addressed. As a result, you can see that there cannot be any perfect program – as every program by the nature of this principle will have a negative outcome also.
–Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p.43 (NB. In this rare situation, credit was given, but does provide right to copy text verbatim without appropriate referencing methods)

FROM HOW TO TEACH STRENGTH TRAINING EXERCISES (King, I., 2000)

Slow side raises on Ground:
Lay on your back, knee bent to about 90 degrees, and knees together. Roll the knees over together so that they are on the ground, with the shoulders and upper back still parallel to the ground. Now flex the trunk, basically up towards the roof or sky. I like to have the fingers lightly touching the front of the head, elbow out at 45 degrees from the body, and arm/elbow angle not changing during the lift. The placement of the hands will alter the level of difficulty. The further the hands are above the head, the harder the movement.
— King, I., 2000, How to Teach Strength Training Programs, p. 62

Side raises on Ground:
Lie on your back, knees bent to about 90 degrees and knees together. Roll the knees over together so that they are on the ground with the shoulders and upper back still parallel. Now flex the trunk, basically up towards the roof or sky. I like to have the fingers lightly touching the front of the head, elbow out at 45 degrees from the body, and arm/elbow angle not changing during the lift. The placement of the hands will alter the level of difficulty. The further the hands are above the head, the harder the movement.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 161; Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible, p. 161

DB Bench Press :
• lay on your back (supine) on a bench
• dumbbells in each hand
• have the dumbbells facing palm down towards the feet
• now push the dumbbells straight up until the arms are fully extended
• have the dumbbells nearly touching in this top position
• lower down fully to the starting position
— King, I., 2000, How to Teach Strength Training Programs, p. 144

Incline DB Press:
Lie on your back on an Incline bench, with a DB in each hand, palms facing forward towards the feet. Push the dumbbells straight up until the arms are fully extended – have the DB’s nearly touching in this top position. Lower down fully to the start position.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible, p. 127

FROM ASK THE MASTER (King., I., 2003)

Designing a prioritization program is a real art that few have mastered.…in essence all programs have an imbalance or a prioritization. This come from the sequence of exercises within the workout and week, the allocation of volume, the relative use ofintensity, the comparative selection of exercise categories and so on.
–King, I., Ask the Master (book), 2003, Program Design – Strength Training, p. 143

Programs can be prioritized by volume of movement (number of sets and reps), sequence of movement (in the workout, in the week and in the program), and loading of movement (amount of weight involved).
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 66; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 107

FROM THE WAY OF THE PHYSICAL PREPARATION COACH (King, I., 2005)

Less is more.
This training principle extends from the above, and reinforces that in many cases, you will get a better training effect from doing a smaller amount of training. That is, that you will get more results when you do less training.
— King, I., 2005, The Way of the Physical Preparation Coach, Ch 2 – Training Theory, p. 5

#5: Less is more
Training hard does not necessarily equal more return. Performing more challenging exercises does not mean faster results….Select the LEAST challenging variation for the client – that’s where the best return on investment is going to be….Keep it simple. Less is more.”
–Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, 2nd Ed., p. 12

CONCLUSION

I can only conclude that the moral compass of this company defines the sale of publications containing extensive copyright breaches as acceptable.

How does this serve the greater good of the industry? I can understand it helps their bottom line. Is this a case of profit before integrity?

Surely they can perform better than this?

Ian King

There is no such thing as a functional exercise  

/by

There is no such thing as a functional exercise or training program.

It’s time to put some perspective on the use of the word ‘functional’, which has become somewhat of ‘catch-cry’ since the start of the 21st century. I believe it has probably gone too far now, and too many reputations on based on it, for the use of the term ‘functional’ to regain perspective. Nevertheless, here is my belief:

There is no such thing as a functional exercise. Nor is there such as thing as a functional training method.

To me, function in an outcome. The ability to perform specific function/s. The adjective interpretation.

To claim an exercise or training method is ‘functional’ is to speak from the ‘prescriptive’ perspective rather than the ‘process’ perspective. It is based on an assumption that every person using the exercise or training method has the same training goal AND responds in a predictable way.

Functional as it is popularly used is nothing more than an extension of the over-application of the term and concept ‘specificity’ – which proceeded ‘functional’ in terms of being the dominant trend term and concept – and also assumes an outcome. To claim an exercise or training method is ‘specific’ relies on an assumption that you know how any given person will respond to the exercise or training method, and that you know in advance that this adaptation will enhance their ability to perform a specific task or sport.

It would appear that any exercise that is uni-lateral, bodyweight only, and standing or sitting on an ‘unstable’ surface is instantly titled ‘functional’ – however if applied to say an elite competitive Olympic weight lifter has as much guaranteed ‘functionalism’ as power clean has to an arm wrestler.

Invariably the assumption is made that if we give a person an apparently specific movement for their training goal (e.g. sport) then the exercise is ‘functional’. Let me list some of the flaws:

1. The initial aim of all non-specific (off-field) training should be to counter the damage done by the sport, not rehearse it!

2. For me, the next goal of strength training is to provide a stimulus not found when playing the sport.

3. There is an assumption that the ‘apparently specific’ movement will actually transfer to improved ‘function’. This is a ‘prescriptive’ approach to training, not a process approach. I support the latter.

4. The exercise is an exercise. It is not functional nor dysfuntional. The outcome or training effect MAY be an increase in function.

5. Does this mean that exercises not considered ‘specific’ or ‘functional’ are thereby now dysfunctional?

This mis-use of the term ‘functional’ provides newcomers and students in the industry with a misguided starting point. Unless we delight in misleading others, a serious review of the use if this term is warranted.

The use of the term or concept ‘functional’ has even reached the stage of being used to identify schools of thought or belief – in the same way some refer to there being a ‘one set to failure group’, apparently there is now a ‘functional training group’.

Exercise equipment has suffered to same fate in that during the rise of ‘functional training’ many devices were labelled as bad or causing injuries. Machines are innate. If they are associated with ‘bad’ or ‘injury’ it is a function or outcome of their use, not the machine itself. They are nothing more than an innate object.

There is a time and place for everything. The exercise or training method can be used with an intent to create functional strength (strength that is optimally used by an individual in pursuit of their specific goal), however an exercise or training method is not in itself ‘functional’, nor is it by that definition ‘non-functional’.

To use the term ‘functional’ to label an exercise, training method, program, training device or training philosophy is inappropriate, inaccurate and misleading.

An exercise or training method is not ‘functional’. The outcome or training effect MAY be.