Ian King

Lines of Movement – The Origin and Intent

/by

During the 1980s I began to research methods of categorizing strength exercises.  By the end of this decade I had developed a concept I called ‘Lines of Movement’.  After trialling this method for about ten years, I released details of this and other methods I had developed for categorizing exercises. I structure this organization under the umbrella concept of ‘Family Trees of Exercises’. I then expand into ‘Lines of Movement’. Then I divide exercises based on the number of limbs and joints involved.

These methods go far beyond simple organization – they allowed me to develop my methods of analyzing balance in strength training program design.  I believe these innovations are highly effective tools available to guide a person designing a program to create optimal balance and reduce injury potential.

I began my first public teaching of these concepts in 1998 with the following statement:

That’s a concept I am sure you have never heard before because this is the first time I have really spoken about it. [1]

I began teaching the concept of ‘Line of Movement’ during the late 1980s.  For example, in my 1989 presentation titled ‘5 Steps to Improved Resistance Training’[2] I wrote:

However it was not until 1998 that I chose to expand publicly on my innovations in this area: [3]

Family Trees of Exercise

The Family Tree concept is the foundation of my categorization, as taught below:

The following shows a breakdown of the body into major muscle groups/lines of movement, and then into examples of exercises.  It is what I call ‘the family trees of exercise’.  Use this to assess balance in your exercise selection. [4]

The first time I expanded fully on this concept was in a 1998 seminar:

After many years I have decided that there is two family trees in lower body exercises – one where the quad dominates, and one where the hip dominates. When I say hip I mean the posterior chain muscle groups – the hip extensors;  which are gluteals, hamstrings, and lower back – they’re your hip extensors.  And I believe this – the head of the family in the quad dominant exercises is the squat.  That’s the head of the family. And there are 101 lead-up exercises to it and there’s a few on after it as well. But the core exercise for the quad dominant group is the squat.  It’s the most likely used exercise in that group for the majority of people. 

The hip dominant exercises – the father of the hip dominant tree is the deadlift – which when done correctly would be the most common exercise of that group. There are lead-in exercises, and there are advanced exercises from it.

So I build my family tree around the squat and I build my family tree around the deadlift.  And I balance them up. In general, for every squat exercise or every quad dominant exercise I show in that week a hip dominant exercise in that week. And what do most people do in their program designs – they would do two quad dominant exercises for every hip dominant exercise.  What is the most common imbalance that occurs in the lower body? 

….To balance the athlete I work on a ratio of 1 to 1 of hip and quad dominant  – in general.  And I can assure you – most programs you’ll see are 2 to 1 – quad and hip.

That’s a concept I’m sure you’ll have never heard before because this is the first time I have spoken about it. [7]

In the following I discuss exercise options within each Family Tree:

….[hip flexion] Perhaps the long term staple of this family tree has been the straight or bent knee leg lifts whilst hanging from a chin bar…. Alternatively, I have devised many lower level movements so that this family tree can be given appropriate attention [9] 

…[quad dominant] I therefore chose to use the squat as the ‘head’ of the quad dominant family tree… Take the squat (quad dominant) and the deadlift (head of hip dominant family tree). [10] 

The squat is what I refer to as the ‘head’ of the quad dominant ‘family tree’…[11]    

The deadlift is what I refer to as the ‘head’ of the hip dominant ‘family tree’ …[12]  

The ‘head’ of the vertical pulling family tree is the chin up or similar. [13]

The chin up is what I refer to as the ‘head’ of the vertical pulling ‘family tree’. [14]

I spoke about Family Trees and my subsequent exercise category, Lines of Movement, in a number of different publications in the late 1990s:

I’m going to start working with exercises that I call come from the hip dominant family tree. Some of them are fairly unusual. But the aim of them is to balance the muscle development and the strength development with exercises more commonly done with the quadriceps.[15] 

Lines of Movement

I first expanded in writing on the Lines of Movement concept in my 1998 ‘How to Write Strength Training Programs’ book:  [8]

My first step is to create the following three sections:

  1. Upper body.
  2. Trunk.
  3. Lower body.

I then divide these three into the following:

1.  Upper body

  • Pushing.
  • Pulling.
  • Rotation.

2. Trunk

  • Flexion.
  • Extension.
  • Rotation.

3. Lower Body

  • Quad dominant (exercises that prioritize the quadriceps e.g. the squat and all its variations).
  • Hip dominant (exercises that prioritize the hamstrings, gluteals, and lower back (e.g. the dead lift and all its variations).
  • Rotation.

My next division is as follows, and takes into account lines of movement (i.e. vertical and horizontal.  Technically speaking, the vertical plane should be called the frontal plane, but more relate to vertical)… [17]

Up until I released these concepts in the late 1990s, the strength training industry relied solely on the division of the body into muscles groups when designing or analyzing a strength training program.

Before Ian popped up from Down Under, most coaches said to train all the muscles of the legs in one session and use the most efficient exercises. That means squatting and deadlifting on the same day. Problem — As effective as these big mass builders are, they’re also very fatiguing and really sap your energy levels. If you start your workout with squats, your deadlifts will suffer and vice versa. [18]

The following is a sample list, not in any order, of the major muscle groups of the body that I published in 2000: [19]

A sample list of muscle groups, not in any order. [20]

_______________________________________________

abdominals

lower back

hip dominant (e.g. deadlift and its variations)

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

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

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

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

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

biceps

triceps               

plantar flexors (calves) / dorsi flexors

forearm extension/flexion

________________________________________________

The following is another sample list, not in any order of importance, of the major muscle groups of the body and the ‘new terms’ I used to describe them, published in 2000. This list also clarifies the core strength movements associated:[21]

Table 1 – The twelve major muscle groups.

Street Name Anatomical Name My Terms Core Movements
Chest Pectorals Horizontal push Bench press
No name! Scapula retractors Horizontal pull Row
Shoulders Deltoids Vertical push Shoulder press
Upper back Lats Vertical pull Chin ups
Legs Quads/hamstrings Quad dominant Squats
Butt Gluteals Hip dominant Deadlift
Lower back Spinal erectors Back extensions
Stomach Abdomen Trunk and hip flexors Sit ups and knee ups
Lower leg Calf Calf press
Upper arm Bicep and tricep Arm curls/extensions
Lower arm Forearm flexors/extensors Wrist curls/extensions
Traps(upper) Trapezius Shrugs

After applying the conventional muscle group methods for many years, I had come to the conclusion that they did not adequately respect the overlap of muscles used in the different days of strength training, nor did it provide adequate insurance against imbalanced programs.

This injury prevention motive for creating this concept was reinforced in my earlier writings:

To simplify and ensure balance in upper body program design and training, I have divided the upper body movements generally speaking into four…..[22]

Muscle imbalance

Historically the focus in lower body strength training has been on the quads, and quadricep dominant exercises such as the squat.  This has been OK for say bodybuilders, whose worst-case scenario is to have poor posterior leg muscle development.  Even in track and field you will find authors admitting that during the 70’s the focus in power development in sprinters etc. was via leg extension as opposed to hip extension. If you take this fault in program design and training into strength training for athletes in general, the price can be a lot higher.  It is my belief that an imbalance between quad dominant and hip dominant exercises where quad dominance is superior results in a significantly higher incidence of injury and a detraction from performance.[23]

At the time of developing this concept (the late 1980s) the only references in the industry were to ‘quad dominant’ (a physical therapist term) and push-pull (a term used in strength circles).

There was no reference to ‘hip dominant’, nor was there any recognition to the differentiation of the vertical and horizontal planes available in upper body movements.

So I developed, tested, refined and ultimately shared my concepts by 1998 and in the years that followed:

Now, a little additional clarification before I go on. I refer to muscles or workouts that are predominantly anterior thigh as being quad dominant, and those that are predominantly posterior thigh as being hip dominant. The following is a hip dominant routine that balances out the previous quad dominant routine. [24]

Initially appropriate recognition was given, for example:

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

Horizontal pulling (row)
Horizontal pushing (bench press)
Vertical pulling (chin-up)
Vertical pushing (shoulder press)
Hip dominant (deadlifts)
Quad dominant (squats)

Ian has a few other categories for abs, lower back, calves, and arms, but the ones above are main muscle groups you need to worry about. Based on this list, you need to be doing vertical as well as horizontal pushing and you need to be doing the same number of sets for each and keep the rep ranges equal where appropriate.

Let me give you an example of how this list can help you. Before Ian provided this simple list, I did almost nothing but chin-up variations for back training. Sure, I did rows occasionally, but not very often as compared to chins. This was an imbalance. Now I do just as many sets of horizontal pulling as I do vertical pulling and it’s really helped my back development. [25]

And this:

My favorite four-day configuration is one Ian King uses in his more advanced workouts, which you can find on t-nation.com.  I use his terminology to describe them:

Horizontal push/pull: …

Hip-dominant: ….

Vertical push/pull: …

Quad-dominant:….[26]

For simplicity’s sake, let’s use Ian King’s terminology and call them ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ pulling.[27]

The unreferenced and un-credited use of Lines of Movement

From about 2005 onwards, the number of ‘author’s publishing my original works without appropriate referencing or and credits resulted in a dilution of the quality of the concepts, and the awareness of the origin.  In my opinion this original desire by these authors to take credit for the concepts resulted in later publishing by ‘authors’ whose education lacked the teachings of the origin and intent of the concepts.

In the case of one ‘author’ who has created a niche market in the area of this and related topics, I have not found a single reference or credit to the source during the decade post 1999. Ironically this ‘author’ instigated a mass walk out of a seminar I conducted in the north-east of America where I was teaching these very concepts – alleging the content was terrible.

It is difficult to reconcile claims such as made the statement below from this ‘author’.

“I have read nearly everything there is to read in the field of strength and conditioning….”[28]

Either this claim is significantly embellished, or alternatively they choose to suppress the origin of the concept.  Neither option presents a positive role model of ethical, professional behavior, for future generations.

I note also there has also been a trend in some instances from 2005 onwards (seven years after I first publicly released the concept and nearly two decades after I created it) to substituting one word in my model – the word ‘knee’ replacing the word ‘quad’.

In fact, these authors now publish more widely than I do on my concept, without any reference to its origin, and may have succeeded in leading the masses to conclude this is the model.

I note that only ethical and well-read ‘authors’ reference the source.

Using Lines of Movement in program design

I used my Lines of Movement concept to illustrate program design breakdown and progressions. A number of examples of this are found below.  Prior to my publishing this technique, there was no such method of presentation.

Apart from the obvious advantages of analyzing and discussing program design via the use of Lines of Movement, the method I innovated to present program design as shown in the example below allows a person to illustrate or refer to Lines of Movement / muscle groups without needing to name the specific exercise.

An example of a 3/wk ’semi-total body’ split routine.  This split requires less of your time and allows more time for muscle recovery than a standard total body workout. [29]

Monday (A) Wednesday (B) Friday (C)
Quad dominant (e.g. squat) Horizontal push  (e.g. bench) Hip dominant (e.g. deadlift)
Lower back (e.g. good morning) Horizontal pull (e.g. row) Vertical push (e.g. shoulder press)
Vertical pull (e.g. chins) Triceps Biceps
Forearms Calves Upper traps

An example of a 4/wk split routine.  This split requires more of your time but also allows more time on muscle group. [30]

Monday (A) Tuesday (B) Thursday (C) Friday (D)
Horizontal push (e.g. bench press) Hip dominant (e.g. deadlift) Vertical pull  (e.g. chin up) Quad dominant (e.g. squat)
Horizontal pull (e.g. row) Hip dominant (e.g. good morning) Vertical push (e.g. shoulder press) Quad dominant (e.g. lunge)
Triceps Upper trap Biceps Calf

Unlike those who have copied my works in this regard, I did not abandon reference to or respect of the subject of muscle groups. In fact, I would typically interchange between terms as a synonym. This is also well illustrated in the above table from my 1998 book ‘How to write strength training programs’. [31]

Conclusion

The Lines of Movement Concept was released 21 years ago, in 1998, and was quickly embraced by authors who in the first instance recognized and credited the source. It within a few years from that certain authors began using this concept frequently in their publications, unreferenced. Professions with higher integrity protect the copyrights of innovators. Apparently not this industry. 

Writers who have done their research and are ethical in their values will appropriately and consistent with acceptable professional referencing guidelines will display referencing and crediting when using these concepts in their publications.

[1] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs (Book)

[2] King, I., 1989, 5 Steps to Improved Resistance Training, Weights Workout ’89, Workshop Tour

[3] King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series (DVD), Disc 3, approx. 1hr 03m 00sec in.

[4] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (Book), p. 38

[5] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (Book), p. 38

[6] King, I., 2000, How to teach strength training exercises (Book), p. 41

[7] King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series (DVD), Disc 3, approx. 1hr 06m 00sec

[8] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (Book), p. 39

[9] King, I., 2000, How to teach strength training exercises (Book), p. 54

[10] King, I., 2000, How to teach strength training exercises (Book), p. 99

[11] King, I., 2000, How to teach strength training exercises (Book), p. 102

[12] King, I., 2000, How to teach strength training exercises (Book), p. 108

[13] King, I., 2000, How to teach strength training exercises (Book), p. 115

[14] King, I., 2000, How to teach strength training exercises (Book), p. 118

[15] King, I., 1999, Ian Kings Killer Leg Exercises’, t-mag.com

[16] King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series (DVD), Disc 3, approx. 1hr 03m 00sec

[17] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (Book), p. 40

[18] Shugart, C., 2001, The Ian King Cheat Sheets, Part 1 A quick and dirty look at all the cool stuff Ian King has taught us so far, t-mag.com, 24 August 2001

[19] King, I., 2000, How to Teach Strength Training Exercises (Book)

[20] King, I., 2000, How to Teach Strength Training Exercises (Book)

[21] King, I., 2000, So You Want To Start A Weight Training Program? Part 4: Muscle group allocation and Exercise selection, Peakhealth.net  August, 21 2000

[22] King, I., 2000, How to Teach Strength Training Exercises, (Book), p. 114

[23] King, I., 2000, How to Teach Strength Training Exercises (Book), p. 99

[24] King, 1999, Limping into October Pt. 2 (now showing as ‘Hardcore Leg Training – Part 2’)
T-mag.com, Fri, Sep 24, 1999

[25] Shugart, Chris, 2001, The Ian King Cheat Sheets, Part 1 – A quick and dirty look at all the cool stuff Ian King has taught us so far, Fri, Aug 24, 2001, T-mag.com

[26] Schuler, L., 2006, The New Rules, Ch. 3 – The building blocks of muscle, p. 42, (2009 paperback version) Penguin Publishing, New York.

[27] Schuler, L., 2006, The New Rules of Lifting, p. 149, Penguin Publishing, New York.

[28] Authors name withheld to protect the message. A 2005 quote.

[29] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!, Chapter 4 – How often should I train? (Book), p. 18

[30] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!, Chapter 4 – How often should I train? (Book), p. 18

[31] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (Book), p. 25

Ian King

The Strength Training Over-Reaction

/by

In the 1950 and 1960s strength training began to appear in US sport. In 1969 Boyd Epley became the first full-time strength coach hired in the US college system. However the dominant belief at that time about strength training was that it made you slower. 

As an excellent example of this are the words attributed to Nebraska University Athletic Director Mike Devaney when he hired Boyd Epley:

“If anyone gets slower you’re fired.”

I witnessed first hand this era in Australia, with many sports I worked with during the 1980s at the elite level having no prior involvement in strength training.  It wasn’t just athletes and sports coaches that shied away from strength training. Industry professionals had no interest.

In 1988 I was working out in the gym at the Sydney University with the late Charles Poliquin (where the first annual national convention for the National Strength and Conditioning Association of Australasia – as it was known then – was being held) when in bounced through the door two men. One was the person who had essentially brought the organization to Australia and the other was a speaker from South Africa. Both were dressed like Richard Simmons look-a-likes, and they spoke light-heartedly and mockingly about how the ‘aerobs’ (themselves) were off to a jog leaving the ‘anaerobs’ (Poliquin and myself) in the gym.  We were apparently two different tribes. You were either a Fixx like jogger (who felt a unique obligation to dress like Richard Simmons!), or a ‘weightlifter’.

I’ll never forget being in the Australian swim team bus in a pre-Olympic training camp for the 1992 Barcelona Olympics.The athlete I was working with and I were receiving significant mocking for our dalliance into serious strength training.

In the 1980s, if you did anymore than bodyweight or dared to leave the Universal multi-lever machine for the free weights, you were targeted by the other athletes and coaches.

It was not until the 1990s that strength training gained acceptance. That’s at least four decades of waiting and hoping for recognition. In the 1990s strength training research boomed, and strength training gained mainstream acceptance. It was no longer the activity of weird men in dark gyms, or the occasional athlete in diverse sports – it was for everyone.

Up until the 1990s a ‘strength coach’ had to prove they were not going to slow down or cause injury to the athlete.  Up until about the mid-1990s in Australia I was the only one who had full-time income as a ‘strength coach’, paralleling Poliquin’s experience in Canada.  In the mid-1990s things began to shift and positions began to open in the industry in Australia. Post 2000 it became a formality – sporting teams felt obliged to hire strength(and conditioning) coaches.

I share these insights to provide background to my suggestion that what has occurred since is an exuberant over-reaction to a genre that was suppressed for so many decades.

However it’s time to regain balance in the strength perspective.

As a pioneer for strength training in the 1980s and 1990s, I have become an advocate for a more balanced approach since. I am under no illusion – strength training, or the lack of it in sport, was my opening to sport. However unlike some of my colleagues, I didn’t stay there. I moved on to address the success of the athlete in a balanced, holistic fashion, rather than exclusively how much they lifted in the gym.

In the introduction to this series I talked about human over-reaction:

Futurists describe human response to a new idea as an over-reaction in the short term and an under-reaction in the long term.[1]

This is what I suggest has occurred with strength training.  Let’s begin with simple examples.

At the 1991 NSCA convention I watched a number of individuals that were obviously athletes but I could not figure out which sport. This was frustrating me as I take the study of athletic shape seriously. They were more muscular than track and field athletes but lacked the upper trap development of the stereotypical weightlifter. And they had larger than average hamstrings.

I was stunned to learn they were in fact weightlifters on the US national team. It was Wednesday June 19 1991 and the pre-convention seminar was titled ‘The US Approach to Teaching the Olympic-style Lifts and their use in Sports’, presented by Dragomir Cioroslan.[2]  I learnt a lot that day from Dragomir. One of the lessons was the way he had his athletes perform the stiff legged deadlift. So I called this the ‘Romanian Deadlift’ and wrote about it. It got picked up.

So much so that by the end of the 1990s, and to this day, if you ask someone to do a deadlift they will typically immediately perform a stiff legged deadlift. It virtually caused the conventional bent knee deadlift to become extinct. Or at least in the minds of the masses. This became the norm, the trend.

It didn’t stop there. Prior to late 1990s if you asked someone to do a stiff legged deadlift or good morning (assuming they knew what these exercises were) they would perform them with a rounded back.

Now Dragomir’s stiff legged deadlift was flat backed, and the impact on the hamstring was apparent. So now this became the trend, and no one would perform either the stiff legged deadlift or good morning ever again – or so it seemed. In fact, the next phase was the creation of the trend was that rounded back deadlifting was actually bad.

Did either of these responses need to occur? That a deadlift is a stiff legged deadlift, and that rounded back deadlifting became bad? Not at all. Why did it occur? Because humans over-react.

Now you would imagine that this over-reaction is a short-term ‘thing’. What we don’t know is what a‘short-term’ is defined as? We are nearing the end of our third decade of strength acceptance and the trend of over-reaction is still rising.

So what else influences me to believe we are still over-reacting in favor of strength? 

As those who are more familiar with my writing would know I endorse a Tudor Bompa influenced approach to the physical qualities. That there are four dominant physical qualities, presented alphabetically below.

Endurance

Flexibility

Speed

Strength

Most accept that there are other qualities in addition to strength, but I wonder if enough have reflected on their relative values?

One of the greatest examples of this continuing strength bias is the reaction to this statement:

Stretching makes you weak.

The mere forming of these words has effectively discouraged a global generation to stop stretching.   For those who want to get stronger, anything that may impede this outcome is unacceptable.  An antithesis.

The specifics of the studies, the flaws, the limitations, are ignored. In fact in a ‘study circle’ that I participate in, when latest ‘pre-training static stretching makes you weak’ research article was disseminated not a word was spoken. In contrast, the week before, an article proposing the superiority of isolated chicken protein versus beef protein elicited astute and appropriately probing questions about the study protocol and potential flaws.  Analytical thinking was applied.  Yet when the words ‘stretching makes you weak’ care across the desk there was silence.

Now imagine this statement, if made today:

Strength training makes you tight.

For those of you who want to get more flexible and supple, this is the antithesis, and you would pause and reflect on your strength training.

But that is not, and would not happen today. Because today strength training is considered to be the most important variable. Note this is a trend – not the way it will always be.

Now rather than it be about strength vs. flexibility (because that is a battle that cannot be one in todays paradigm), how about this:

Strength training negatively impacts skill execution in sport.

Think this is ridiculous? Try this. Assess your basketball free throw line shooting ability. Go and do a pushing upper body workout and IMMEDIATELY return to the free throw line. (Now no one does that in the real world, but minor (?!) details such as that were of no interest in the stretching makes you weak studies!).  How’s your shooting going?

Now even though athletes value skill, this is still unlikely to sway strength coaches because of a. their current buy into strength training is the most important training component; and b. their jobs are not being measured by the skill set or even by the scoreboard, but by the 1RM or 3RM of the athlete.   And that is just a trend. That will change. One day a more holistic measurement of physical preparation will be applied.

In conclusion, strength as a quality and training method is over-rated in its importance. This is the trend. I suggest you engage in significant reflection before embracing this trend.

[1] King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation (DVD)

[2] King, I., 1999, Heavy Metal No. 6, t-mag.com

Ian King

Trends in Training

/by

In the early stage of my coaching career I was exposed to the belief that studying, internalizing and implementing the latest trends in training was an optimal path for improving coaching competency. During my first decade of professional development (the 1980s) I embraced this paradigm.  However as I entered my second decade (the 1990s) I began to question this approach.

I came to conclude that trends are a reflection of human behavior in a given period of time, rather than an insight into what is optimal.  As a result of this I continued to study trends, however ceased internalizing and teaching them.

So why do I continue to study trends? There are a number of benefits of studying trends. Firstly it is an insight into the mindset of the masses, and as a coach of competitive athletes, it helps us to dominate when we are familiar with the mindset of our opponent. Secondly as a coach educator it helps me understand why the masses are influenced to think the way they do. Thirdly, as a student of behavior and one who enjoys the disciplines of sociology and futurism, it’s just interesting!  It’s a form of archeology rolled into attempting to predict the next trend! For example, its insightful to watch which of my innovations have been accepted by the masses, which have not, and why. That’s what I do in my spare time.

Understanding where humans have come from helps understand why they do what they are doing, and where they are going.It’s the bigger picture of training.

I realized by the early 1990s that the quickest and easiest way to influence people and position yourself as a ‘teacher’ was to use the words ‘trend’ combined with the word ‘modern’.  And if you threw in the word ‘strength’ (and read the article in this series dedicated to ‘strength’) you quickly achieve this goal. And I watched this happen, including the use of some of my works in these very publications.  However I withdrew from this ‘trend’.  Misleading the masses in this way was not congruent with my values.  Would I be more popular and made more money (in the short term) if I stayed with the ‘modern trends’ paradigm. Absolutely.  Would you be more popular and potentially make more money (in the short term) if you did too? Probably. 

It’s a niche role in our industry for individuals to position themselves as ‘teachers’ by identifying the ‘latest trend’ before it reaches the tipping point, and begin teaching it.

For example, the person who has written the most ‘functional’ training books was using the methods they taught in these books when they got exposed to the ideas that form the basis of so-called ‘functional training’. In fact they were highly critical of them at their first exposure. However they were able to jump on this trend and position themselves as an expert in this.  They achieved their goal of being unheard of to becoming ‘significant’.

Now the fact that they have to change their beliefs every time trends change is not a factor that appears to challenge their value system.   For example in the early 2000s static stretching was really, really politically incorrect:

…our facilities train more athlete per day than any other that we know…..None of our athletes, from pros down to middle school students,stretch prior to these workouts. Our athletes do not do static stetches…[1]

As the years rolled on there was a small groundswell of return in interest in static stretching. Enough for a trend spotter to fear the tipping point was arriving, and feel the need to jump onboard:

….stretching is highly underrated…… [2] One thing that’s fundamentally different now from when the original ‘Functional Training for Sport’ book [2004] was written is there was no emphasis on tissue quality…tissue work…rolling, stretching. [3]

When they realized their earlier book has no reference to tissue tension manipulation, they salvaged this by including us ‘all’ i.e. we ‘all’ missed it.

I can’t believe there was no reference to static flexibility and no reference to foam rolling just a few years ago. We had no concept of changing tissue density [tension]. [4]

Really? It was a 2004 publication! Anyone who was a competent coach was all over tissue tension by then!

Put simply trend-spotting publications will only teach you what are the acceptable trends of the time, not what is best for you as a coach and your athletes.

So what can or should you be learning to fulfill your potential as a coach? Generalized principles. This is a term and concept I learnt from the highly acclaimed US innovator, the late Richard Buckminster Fuller.[5]

One of the inherent challenges in studying and embracing dominant trends is the human propensity to over-react. Put simply, the longer a value or person has been suppressed the greater the chances that the release will result in a reaction that is in excess of optimal. 

To explain this phenomenon I shared this thought over the decades:

The standard reaction to anew idea is over-reaction in the short term, and under-reaction in the longterm.[6]

Futurists describe human response to a new idea as an over-reaction in the short term and an under-reaction in the long term.[7]

Don’t get caught up in trends…In the early stages of any trend there is a tendency to over-reaction the short-term, and under-react in the long term. [8

One of my passions is the study of futurism and human behavior. As such I had developed a saying based upon this study, about how humans reaction to new ideas in the short and long term.[9]

Strength training is a great example of this, as it waited over half a century for acceptance. We are now in that over-reaction to strength training phase, as I explain in a later installment of this article series.

In summary, trends should not be ignored. However on the flip side nor should they be glorified and imitated. When I see a coach or facility reflecting the dominant trend I have empathy for the coach/owner and sympathy for the athlete/client.

It’s challenging to fulfill your potential when decisions are driven by trends.

As a coach or gym owner you may feel good about it because you are ‘like’ everyone else, and we all know that leads to others ‘liking’ us. However from the real world of athlete performance, I’ve not met too many champions who were disappointed when their training was different to the masses.

[1]xxxx., 2004, Reference withheld to protect the message

[2] xxxx, 2010, Reference withheld to protect the message

[3] xxxx., 2010, Reference withheld to protect the message

[4] xxxx, 2010, Reference withheld to protect the message

[5] https://www.bfi.org/about-fuller

[6] King, I.,, 1999, Understanding Plyometrics, (book), Introduction, p. 1

[7] King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation (DVD)

[8] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed! (book), p. 77

[9] King, I., 2010, Barbells & Bullshit (book), Chapter 3 – Those sayings look familiar?!, p. 13

Ian King

Where’s the evidence?! Part 5 – Which ‘evidence’ will you choose?

/by

A young adult was watching a physical coach performing a pre-training static stretch with a large group of young athletes. They turned to those around them and said:

“You know they are wasting their time!?”

The coach whose professional implementation judgments they were calling into question was myself. The year was 2018.

Which type of evidence were they operating on? To understand that answer here’s a clue – they were an undergraduate student. There’s additional irony in this story as their college course was in physical therapy.   Here a few years in undergraduate study trumped the experience and conclusions of a person who had conducted four decades of multi-year, large sample size, many sports, many different countries experiments.

Reminds me of the 1980s when periodization was taught dogmatically and as a fact in coach education despite having no real science to justify it. If you were to engage in any speed work before developing an ‘aerobic base’, you were also ‘wasting your time’. Actually, more than that, the athlete was definitely going to get injured.

Was there any real science in this? No, but that didn’t matter. Once enough people were echoing the myth, and that was enough. Once it’s in printed word, that’s enough. Once certain ‘experts’, ‘gurus’ or ‘leading’ coaches saying it, that’s enough. It forms a ‘truth’ all of it’s own and everyone assumes that for a theory to reach this level of ‘definiteness’ it must be fact, supported by science.

I was keen to understand the science of this conclusion. With all due respect to the aerobic base proponents, I didn’t agree. So when I got the chance to listen to a strong advocated of this training method at a national convention I listened intently….. Until I heard the evidence – this is what it was:

…a newspaper article published a story where a person said they heard an New Zealand All-Black say they felt fitter because of their off-season aerobic training.

That was it?!

I was keen two to learn of the convincing science confirming that static stretching before training is bad. Here are two examples of this ‘evidence’:

xxxx says wild animals don’t do static stretching–they do long, slow-moving stretches, or even explosive bounding movements that form an integral part of all of their lives. “And the stretch is not a relaxed stretch; it’s done with a lot of tension. That’s an important point because we are often told to stretch only relaxed muscles. Look at the stretch of a cat, how it stretches up to its maximum with tension, according to what feels right. This type of active intuitive stretching equips you to cope better with strenuous exercise.[1]

Really? That was it?!

If you took rubber bands out of the freezer and prepared to use them by stretching them, what do you think would happen? You would easily break quite a few. This is why athletes frequently pull muscles…[2]

Really? That was it?!

So it must be true. After all, here’s a professional development organization also stating it’s true:

In general, there is little need to place much emphasis on stretching in your exercise routine, at least from a health or injury prevention perspective. [3]

And here’s another ‘guru’ telling you it’s true:

None of our athletes, from pros down to middle school students, stretch prior to these workouts…Our athletes do not do static stretches…[4]

Now did the science change with this very ‘guru’ ‘changed his mind’? An, no.

One thing that’s fundamentally different now from when the original ‘Functional Training for Sport’ book [2004] was written is there was no emphasis on tissue quality…tissue work…rolling, stretching. I can’t believe there was no reference to static flexibility and no reference to foam rolling just a few years ago. We had no concept of changing tissue density [tension]. [5]

I couldn’t believe it either! That this ‘expert’ published on such limited experience in that they no idea in 2004 that stretching and rolling contributed to altered muscle tension! The ‘we’ needs to be ‘I’….”I had no concept….”

What didn’t change was the damage that was done. The myth became a paradigm and the paradigm became ‘assumed science’. Sure there are some abstract short term studies showing that pre-training did certain things. Where there any conducted over years confirming that removing pre-training static stretching was superior?

So perhaps we can forgive or understand this undergraduate ‘I know’ attitude on the basis that all she knew was the theory she was told, and we are in an era of anti-static stretching.

But what about the ‘gurus’ who mess with the values of the average professional and end user and whose ‘teachings’ depends on the popular trend at the time? The way the wind is blowing on any given period of history….

Here’s a great example of this questionable influence. Say a physical coach with university qualifications and 20 years of industry experience? And who was struggling with chronic back pain? What ‘evidence’ would they rely upon to guide their ‘stretching is bad’ position on static stretching? The below is a verbatim transcript:

Strength Coach: I’ve read a lot of stuff that says doing static stretching before [training] actually makes the muscle weaker and the contractions less forceful. So I’ve always seek out stuff to validate this bias. So I’ve never really dived into stretching.

IK: So just as a matter of interest, you’ve heard the theory. Did you test the theory?

Strength Coach: No.

IK: So you’re leading a life on the basis of other peoples opinions? Can I ask you another question – how many original studies have you cited that came to that conclusion? The hard copy or electronic copy in your hands?

Strength Coach: Zero.

IK: I’m glad you’re honest with me.

Yes, just as the majority do – this extremely well intended and experienced physical coach has chosen the ‘evidence’ of the consensus thinking.

And they are not alone in doing so…..

You have choices in evidence, and that is your prerogative. I simply encourage you to be clear about your ‘evidence’, and encourage you to consider a more holistic approach to ‘evidence’. This means that personal and professional experience and observations with cause-effect relationship do count!

References

[1] Reference withheld to protect the message.

[2] Reference withheld to protect the message.

[3] ACSM’s Health & Fitness Journal (July/August 2009), Question Column by David C. Nieman Dr.Ph., FACSM

[4] Reference withheld to protect the message.

[5] Reference withheld to protect the message.

Ian King

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

/by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, that was until just recently.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

References

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

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

 

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

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

 

[5]E.E. Cummings

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

Ian King

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

/by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could go on, all day long…

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

Now let’s talk about training.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

References

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

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

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

Ian King

Where’s the evidence?! Part 2

/by

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to dictionary’s: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I call that conformity evidence.

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

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

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

I know what you’re thinking…

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

[Read Part 3….]

 

 

 

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

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

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

Ian King

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

/by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could go on…

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

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

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

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

It starts all over again.

Where’s the evidence for that Ian?

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

“…do you live in a cave or what?…

“…this guy is a muppet….”

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

“Have you have lost your mind dude…”

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

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

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

So, where’s the evidence?

(Go to Part 2….!)

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

References

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

Ian King

Nutritional supplements and strength training: Part 5 – Questions you should consider asking before ingesting

/by

If you have read and been influenced by the prior four installments in this article series on nutritional supplementation. I trust you moved past the place where your primary influences on selecting your supplements included what ‘everyone’ is taking, the claimed benefits in the marketing material, and the claimed ingredients on the label.

If so you may find real value in this, Part 5, of the series. In this article I focus on what I believe are some of the key questions to ask and answer prior to selecting a supplement.

Note many of the questions revolve around the concept of trust. Not blind, head in the sand type of trust, that may have been the platform for some of your selection decisions in nutritional supplementation to date. Rather the kind of trust that is earned slowly and lost fast.

How many people in the US alone take nutritional supplements? About 75% of the population! There are a lot of people who need to be asking questions before they consume their nutritional supplements!

Here are seventeen (17) questions you should consider asking before settling on a supplement.

  1. Who owns the company?
  2. Who founded the company?
  3. What was the reason the company was founded originally?
  4. Are nutritional supplements their core business?
  5. How long have they been operating?
  6. How many product recalls and FDA complaints have they been subject to?
  7. Does the company care about your health as much if not more than their profits?
  8. Who formulated the product/s?
  9. Are their scientists in-house or outsourced?
  10. Do they manufacture in-house or outsource?
  11. Do they manufacturer at GMP?
  12. Do they guarantee the potency of every pill?
  13. What is their refund policy?
  14. What customer support do they offer?
  15. Is the product approved for use in your country?
  16. Will the products dissolve in a timely and optimal way?
  17. Will I pass a drug test?

Q1. Who owns the company?

The first question is about ownership. Put aside the company name. Ask who owns it? Company acquisitions are part of business life, and often the original name is retained to exploit the marketing power of the original owner. Don’t accept or assume that the name on the company still owns the company. Dig a bit deeper.

When you are confident you have found the owner of the company – be it an individual or an entity – do your homework on the owner. What you are wanting to understand are the values of the people who run the company. Do they really care about you?

Q2. Who founded the company?

If it turns out the current owners (individuals or entity) were not the ones who founded the company in the first place, find out who was the founder of the company.

Q3. What was the reason the company was founded originally?

The purpose behind the company’s origin provides a great insight into the values and operations of the company. Was the company found with the primary purpose to make a profit, or were there more altruistic motives, such as contributing to the quality of life of society.

The original purpose for the existence of the company in the first instance tells you a lot about the company. Sure, things can change, but this information is I suggest incredibly valuable and insightful.

Q5. How long have they been operating?

Relatively few companies make it past the ten year mark, and even less the twenty year mark – and so on. Now being a younger company doesn’t make it bad, it just means it hasn’t proven itself. Generally speaking a company that has compliance, integrity, or profit before purpose issues usually gets found out over time. On the other hand, those companies who are truly adding value to customers in a sustainable business culture typically last longer.

Q6. How many product recalls and FDA complaints have they been subject to?

In the internet era it’s not too difficult to discover the ‘skeletons in the closet’ of a company. Now you can give a company a ‘leave pass’ on one or two ‘hiccups’, however if you start seeing a pattern you may want to pass on this company’s offerings.

Q7. Does the company care about your health as much if not more than their profits?

Profit before purpose is important. I have no issues with companies making a profit – in fact it’s healthy for their sustainability. However it can be done without putting the needs and safety of the consumer at risk.

Your challenge is to get a feeling for a company’s values, and find a company that aligns with your own values of the profit and purpose trade-off.

Q8. Who formulated the product/s?

Now I don’t mind any one putting their hand up as to formulate a product, however with consumer safety and efficacy in mind, I would prefer there is evidence of that person/s background in the science of formulation.

Q9. Are their scientists in-house or outsourced?

Are the ‘scientist/s’ behind the formulation a full-time employee of the company or a sub-contractor? I have my concerns with consumers who rely on sub-contracting relationships with their scientist.

This ‘guns for hire’ approach does not give me confidence about the longevity of the company, as they may lack the uniqueness in the market pace on the basis of who else may gain access to their formula’s.

Q10. Do they manufacture in-house or outsource?

Manufacturing in-house gives me confidence about the control of the manufacturing process. It also gives the company greater commercial sustainability as they are less likely to be sharing their formulas (directly or indirectly) with other companies.

Manufacturing out-sourced can and does work, however it demonstrates a company that lacks the financial means to develop their own manufacturing plant.

Q11. Do they manufacturer at GMP?

Look for GMP reference in the company’s web site about their manufacturing. GMP stands for ‘Good Manufacturing Practices’, a term aimed to designate that drugs or nutritional supplements are being manufactured at pre-determined high standards. This is not optional for drugs, but it is for nutritional manufacturing.

Now a lot of people may throw around claims about their GMP processes. If you want to be sure, I suggest you take a walk through the manufacturing plant.

A hint here – if you find this difficult to achieve, and when you do are dressed in head, clothing and feet covers like you are entering a nuclear plant – you can have more confidence they do use GMP! If not, you should be very skeptical!

Regarding claims of FDA Approved supplement (food) manufacturing facilities, the FDA denies that exists, stressing the difference between FDA ‘registered’ and FDA ‘approved’:[1]

FDA does not “approve” health care facilities, laboratories, or manufacturers. FDA does have authority to inspect regulated facilities to verify that they comply with applicable good manufacturing practice regulations. Owners and operators of domestic or foreign food, drug, and most device facilities must register their facilities with FDA, unless an exemption applies.

Q12. Do they guarantee the potency of every pill?

Will the company guarantee that each and every pill will be exactly what the label says – in both what types of material it contains, as well as the dosages of each of the materials will be as per the label.

This is more important than you may realize, and offered by less companies than you may expect.

Q13. What is their refund policy?

Does the company have a rock solid clearly stated refund policy? Is it at least at 30 days no questions asked one? What is their history of keeping their word?

A company with a great track record in the refund department should give you a lot of confidence. So go behind their claims – find out if they do what they say they do.

Q14. What customer support do they offer?

Once you have bought the product, how much help can you get? Can you call their customer support center on a toll-free number at least during business hours and get support? Do they offer online resources such as a Q&A database for a customer with a more inquiring mind to find out more about the products? For example, does product x have gluten? Does it contain anything else commonly considered an allergen?   Do they offer free customer web portals that allow the customer education and online order managing?

Q15. Is the product approved for use in your country?

In a global economy it is quite normal that products travel from the country of manufacturer to a different country for consumption. The question is whether the product is approved by the regulators of your country for sale. The fact that it got in through customs is not evidence of this.

Consuming a product that is not approved for use in your country will most likely deny you of any usual consumer recourse in the event of an adverse product reaction. Even worse, selling that product to a client in a country where the product is not approved for sale may deny the seller any product indemnity insurance, exposing them to litigation (a risk I see taken by physical coaches all too often).

Also be mindful that even if the product is manufactured in your country is no guarantee that it is approved for sale in your country!

Q16. Will the products dissolve in a timely and optimal way?

There is still a major question – will the product dissolve in the body in the time frame it has before elimination. Don’t take this for granted.

The following is provided by ConsumerLab.com:[2]

The standard laboratory test for disintegration (part of the test known as the United States Pharmacopeia [USP] “Disintegration and Dissolution of Dietary Supplements” method <2040>), is an important test of product quality, although passing this test alone does not assure bioavailability – which depends on additional factors such as how well ingredients are absorbed. During the test, the product under investigation is continuously agitated in warm water for 30 minutes. In that time, the pill should have dissolved or fallen apart to the extent that, if touched, there is no hard core remaining.

They also go on to say: [3]

Poor disintegration is most common with vitamin and mineral supplements. However, other products, including herbals, sold in tightly packed or heavily coated tablets or caplets, may also have poor disintegration, remaining intact after the 30-minute test. Most capsules, by contrast, fall apart easily, and most chewable products (as long as they’re chewed) disintegrate. Poor disintegration can result from poor manufacturing practices and quality control.

Upgrading formulas includes research and development costs. Does the company have the financial means to do this? How often? Hopefully every 5-10 years. Now I am not talking about changes to the artwork of the label – I am talking about real upgrades, improvements, to the formula.

Q17. Will I pass a drug test?

Now I understand that question is not relevant to everyone but it is to say Olympians, and any others who participate in sports that have ‘real’ drug tests.

The World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) is responsible for controlling drug testing globally. It’s important to note the following:[4]

WADA is not involved in any certification process regarding supplements and therefore does not certify or endorse manufacturers or their products. WADA does not control the quality or the claims of the supplements industry which may, from time to time, claim that their products have been approved or certified by WADA.

If a company wishes to promote its products to the sport community, it is their responsibility as a manufacturer to ensure that the products do not lead to any anti-doping rule violation. Some third-party testers of supplements exist, and this may reduce the risk of contamination but not eliminate it.

So don’t get misled by the supplement companies claims. At best they have used a third party certification, which is better than nothing, but this approval is not given by WADA itself.  An example of a third party certification organization for WADA compliance is Informed Choice.org.

Summary

So there you have it – seventeen questions you should consider asking and answering before putting a nutritional supplement in your mouth. If you think that is too many questions, rest assured, there are many more that you can and probably should ask!

In conclusion you might also reflect on a comparison of the questions I have raised versus the methods of discernment typically offered up on other articles. I suggest many of the are off-track or lacking.

[1] https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm047470.htm

[2] https://www.consumerlab.com/results/hometest.asp

[3] https://www.consumerlab.com/results/hometest.asp

[4] https://www.wada-ama.org/en/questions-answers/prohibited-list-qa#item-1359

Ian King

Nutritional supplements and strength training: Part 4 – Has the full vitamin story been told?

/by

Vitamins and minerals as food extracts have a long history dating back to the early 1900s when they were first identified. They have since been recognized for their potential to contribute to human health, although there is a divergence of thinking as to their exact potential and role.

This debate is almost mute in the sport and fitness industry, where the focus on these micronutrients has been overshadowed by the development and marketing of more supplements touted as ‘performance enhancement’ supplements.

In fact its fair to say that the humble vitamin has become so ‘boring’ or ‘old-world’ or ‘not sexy’ that potentially the majority of those taking supplements in this industry do not both to include them in their supplement regime.

Why have the majority in the sports and fitness industry eschewed the humble vitamin? One contributing factor could be that the lack of consensus and presence of debate surrounding the efficacy (and in the minds of some) and safety of this century old discovery. This has certainly made it easier for the so-called performance enhancement supplement manufacturers and marketers to promote their offering in an environment where the full vitamin story may not have been told.

The aim of this article is to contribute to and perhaps enhance your consideration towards vitamins. Perhaps if the extent of the role of the humble vitamin was more greatly appreciated, the average person influenced by the power of marketing may have more reason to return to the basics, or at least include these basics.

The journey of one vitamin – Vitamin C – will be used to give insights into and highlight the journey of vitamins. Vitamin C is also an excellent showcase as it is one that has received a lot of attention since Linus Pauling turned his (and the world’s) attention to it from the late 1960s.

The vitamin story origin

The vitamin story origin began back in the early 1900s. Casimir Funk, a Polish biochemist, is credited this origin, when in 1911 he published on the subject, using the words “vital amines” or “vitamines” to describe his discovery. In 1912 he published another article proposing :

“…the existence of at least four vitamins: one preventing beriberi (“antiberiberi”); one preventing scurvy (“antiscorbutic”); one preventing pellagra (“antipellagric”); and one preventing rickets (“antirachitic”) “[1]

Ironically Funk proposed the idea that various diseases could be cured with nutrients.[2] I say ironically because from the out-set the battle lines were drawn with an industry that was already in existence, and arguably felt threatened – the medical industry.

This cited quote from a 1922 Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in relation to certain supplements:

“ The claims set forth on the labels of the medicinal values of these preparations are extravagant and misleading…”[3]

The Vitamin C story

Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, a Hungarian scientist and 1937 Nobel Peace Prize winner, is credited with discovering Vitamin C in the 1930s. Within a few years, vitamin C (ascorbic acid) became recognized as a substance that greatly improved one’s health.[4]

One prominent US scientist who took a great deal of interest in the vitamin discovery was Linus Pauling.

Linus Pauling has a very substantial resume. He is described as: [5]

“…an American chemist, biochemist, peace activist, author, educator, and husband of American human rights activist Ava Helen Pauling, Pauling published more than 1,200 papers and books, of which about 850 dealt with scientific topics. New Scientist called him one of the 20 greatest scientists of all time,[6] and as of 2000, he was rated the 16th most important scientist in history.[7]”

Along the way he won two Nobel Peace prize – unshared (1954 for Chemistry; and 1962 for Peace Activism) – making him only one of four individuals to have won two, one of only two to have won them in different fields, and the only person to have been awarded two unshared Nobel Peace Prizes. [8]

He then turned his attention to health, and concluded that:

“Optimal health could be achieved by perfecting reaction conditions and making sure that the body maintained the proper balance of chemicals–nutrients, catalysts, and products.“[9]

He coined the term ‘orthomolecular’, meaning the ‘right molecules in the right amounts, and used the term in conjunction with the word ‘medicine’.

He first used the term in print in 1967 in relation to psychiatric therapy. He had by then become convinced that conditions such as schizophrenia could be treated with nutrients such as niacin, an approach developed by Abram Hoffer and Humphrey Osmond. However, his theory of orthomolecular psychiatry was ignored or criticized by the medical community. [10]

Pauling became openly vocal specifically about vitamin C form about 1969, when he “was commenting to reporters that physicians should pay more attention to vitamin C”. [11]

Pauling took a much larger step when he became intrigued with the biochemistry of nutrition. This included exploring the possibility that mental retardation and mental illness (especially schizophrenia) were caused by various biochemical and genetic disorders. This later led to collaborative clinical research with Dr. Abram Hoffer on the therapeutic efficacy of vitamins in cancer.[12]

Pauling proposed that conditions such as:

“…mental abnormalities….. and cancer might be successfully treated by correcting imbalances or deficiencies among naturally occurring biochemical constituents, notably vitamins and other micronutrients, as an alternative to the administration of potent synthetic psychoactive drugs”. [13]

In 1976, Pauling and Dr. Ewan Cameron, a Scottish physician, reported that a majority of one hundred “terminal” cancer patients treated with 10,000 mg of vitamin C daily survived three to four times longer than similar patients who did not receive vitamin C supplement. This research was criticized by r. William DeWys, chief of clinical investigations at the National Cancer Institute, amongst others.[14]

They published their results between 1974 and 1978. [15] [16] [17] [18]

This is where he may have stepped over the line in the eyes of the medical and pharmaceutical industries. He was easy pickings as he was reaching into areas that many were to claim were not his ‘specialty’:

Many felt Pauling was too far out of his field of expertise with his research into nutrition, and he was largely ignored by mainstream medicine and nutritional science.[19]

I’m not sure that ‘ignored’ is the best way to describe the response. I suggest it was more active than that, as exemplified by the below comment:

Treating cancer with high-doses of vitamin C is a zombie idea that began with Linus Pauling, and has failed to die ever since. But has new research vindicated this idea? No. No in any meaningful way.[20]

The medical response to Vitamin C

At the time of Linus Pauling putting his credibility behind increased Vitamin C dosage, the US Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA – RDAs were originally set in 1941)[21] and the figure in place at that time for Vitamin C was 60 mg/day for both adult men and women.[22] Which was the equivalent of the vitamin C in average orange.[23] In other words, it was expected that most people could get all the vitamins they needed from their diet, and to suggest supplementation was challenging to the mainstream belief.

In response to Pauling’s claims:

“Dr. Victor Herbert, a clinical nutritionist who had helped set the FDA’s recommended daily allowances for vitamins, wrote Pauling a letter demanding the evidence for recommending increased doses of vitamin C”.[24]

In return Pauling collated the literature and research on the health benefits of Vitamin C and in 1971 published a book titled ‘Vitamin C and the Common Cold’.

This contributed to a generation who began taking their daily Vitamin C tablet, as you may discover if you ask those alive during that decade.

Not everyone was happy however. This is one of the reviews to Paulings book, published in the Journal of American Medical Association.

“Unfortunately, many laymen are going to believe the ideas that the author is selling,” Franklin Bing wrote in a scathing review of the “irritating” book in the Journal of the American Medical Association.[25]

In his 1971 book Pauling recommended 1,000 mg of vitamin C daily, claiming it will reduce the incidence of colds by 45% for most people but that some people need much larger amounts. In his 1976 revision of the book he suggested even higher dosages, and in third book, Vitamin C and Cancer (1979) he claimed that high doses of vitamin C may be effective against cancer.

In How to Feel Better and Live Longer (1986) Pauling claimed that megadoses of vitamins

“….can improve your general health . . . to increase your enjoyment of life and can help in controlling heart disease, cancer, and other diseases and in slowing down the process of aging.”[26]

By 1991 he was recommending daily doses of 6,000 to 18,000 mg of vitamin C, 400 to 1,600 IU of vitamin E, and 25,000 IU of vitamin A, plus various other vitamins and minerals.

In a 1984 US court case,[27] Pauling testified that the proper intake of vitamin C for adults was “around 10 or 20 grams per day,” that this would significantly reduce death rates, and that he knew of people who had taken 150 grams of vitamin C daily for years without serious side effects:

I have taken 50,000 milligrams a day for several days in succession without having any serious side effect, and I know people who have taken a hundred and fifty thousand milligrams, a third of a pound a day, day after day for years without any serious side effects. [28]

Within a year of Pauling’s 1978 research into the cancer benefits of Vitamin C, research results from a Mayo Clinic trial that apparently ‘proved’ Pauling’s conclusions were mistaken[29] [30] and he was generally criticized for ‘flawed research’. [31]As to the accuracy of these claims I will allow you to reach your own conclusions.

You can also reach your own conclusions about two very different ‘research conclusions’ as to the role of Vitamin C in cancer treatment. Some suggest their were less than desirable motives behind the Mayo study results.[32]

Meanwhile, the RDA for Vitamin C was upgraded in 2000 from 60 mg for both adult men and women to 75 mg/day for adult women and 90mg/day for adult men.[33] Some variation was provided for different conditions, and for the first time an ‘upper safe limit’ was given, at 2,000 mg/day.

So there is movement in the mainstream, medical industry influenced recommendations, however the gap remains huge between what the likes of Linus Pauling and others concluded some half a century ago, and what we are ‘allowed’ to consume.

So what were leading strength training expert saying during the decade where Pauling and his associates were producing their studies? In the late 1970s, in his book, The Strongest Shall Survive,[34] Bill Starr suggested the strength training athlete consume 4,000 mg/day of Vitamin C.

A significant breakthrough in the medical community occurred when in 2002 in a Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) article, vitamin supplementation was embraced for arguably the first time, even if it was at a lower level.

Most people do not consume an optimal amount of all vitamins by diet alone. Pending strong evidence of effectiveness from randomized trials, it appears prudent for all adults to take vitamin supplements. The evidence base for tailoring the contents of multivitamins to specific characteristics of patients such as age, sex, and physical activity and for testing vitamin levels to guide specific supplementation practices is limited. Physicians should make specific efforts to learn about their patients’ use of vitamins to ensure that they are taking vitamins they should…. avoiding dangerous practices….[35]

Even so, fifteen years later, the medical embrace of Vitamins such as Vitamin C is lukewarm at best:

The data show that vitamin C is only marginally beneficial when it comes to the common cold,” says Dr. Bruce Bistrian, chief of clinical nutrition at Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.[36]

What if?

So what if vitamins had the potential to do more than reduce the time frame for a common cold, or enhance general health? What if it could do the things that Linus Pauling; Canadian biochemist, physician, and psychiatrist Abram Hofer;[37] [38] and others (including more recently the likes of Andrew Saul)claim they can do?

What if, for example, the story of the New Zealand farmer who recovered from near death through intravenous Vitamin C administration is true?[39] What if this case has broader application?

The challenge with this latter case is that it was published in a very mainstream Australian TV program, a serious break from tradition in what could reasonably be described as a bow for the anti-vitamin advocates and industry.

Here’s the major stumbling block – nutritional supplement labels cannot make disease related claims.

Developed country nutritional supplement manufacturers can only make certain claims. For example in the US claims on the label must meet one of three criteria, as determined by the relevant government regulator, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA):[40]

1) the 1990 Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) provides for FDA to issue regulations authorizing health claims for foods and dietary supplements after reviewing and evaluating the scientific evidence, either in response to a health claim petition or on its own initiative;

2) the 1997 Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act (FDAMA) provides for health claims based on an authoritative statement of the National Academy of Sciences or a scientific body of the U.S. government with responsibility for public health protection or nutrition research; such claims may be used 120 days after a health claim notification has been submitted to FDA, unless the agency has informed the notifier that the notification does not include all the required information; and

3) as described in FDA’s guidance entitled Interim Procedures for Qualified Health Claims in the Labeling of Conventional Human Food and Human Dietary Supplements, the agency reviews petitions for qualified health claims where the quality and strength of the scientific evidence falls below that required for FDA to issue an authorizing regulation.

In essence, until the medical and scientific community is willing to embrace that nutritional supplements have more of a role to play via supplementation than ‘general health’, there is little chance that the broader society will learn about any such additional benefits.

At this stage the FDA accepts some general health benefits of nutritional supplements, but nothing more:[41]

Scientific evidence shows that some dietary supplements are beneficial for overall health and for managing some health conditions. For example, calcium and vitamin D are important for keeping bones strong and reducing bone loss; folic acid decreases the risk of certain birth defects; and omega-3 fatty acids from fish oils might help some people with heart disease. Other supplements need more study to determine their value. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not determine whether dietary supplements are effective before they are marketed.

Until this changes – and it’s been this way for over half a century – you will only find a diluted ‘general’ comment about nutritional supplements in relation to their role in dealing with more serous health issues.

…if you start to look at supplement labels or brochures you’ll find diseases are not mentioned. Instead of finding supplements labeled for arthritis or high blood pressure, the labels say things like “helps maintain healthy joint movement” or “supports blood pressure levels in the normal range.[42]

This has been a point of frustration in the bodybuilding and fitness industry since as early as the 1950s in the US, where the enforcement action taken by the FDA against all the major supplement industry players (Weider, Hoffman, Johnson, and Rader, in relation to his labeling claims.[43]

If you want to hear more about or from those who belief that nutritional supplements have the ability to fulfill the things that Pauling, Hofer and others spoke about, you won’t get that information from manufacturers. But you will get that information from sources that are not regulated by government agencies.

Here are a few resources you might want to check out if you are interested in this area:

These are just a few of the growing global discussion on the role of supplementation in matters relating to larger health issues.

A question worth asking for those who are not currently facing serious medical issues and who are committed to optimal health – if certain nutritional supplements (e.g. Vitamin C) in specific dosages (i.e. what are considered above the RDA upper limit of 2,000mg/day) – do have the potential or ability to positive impact the more serious health conditions, what could they do for the health of others?

I will leave you to determine if that is a question you have.

Conclusion

So who do you believe when it comes to your health and vitamins and minerals? Or vitamins and minerals vs. drugs for your health? This is your decision. What I have done in the above article is to give you some insights into the history of vitamins and minerals,and sought to broaden your awareness about the claims and history of the claims as they relate to vitamins and serious health conditions.

On one hand you have incredibly smart people such as Linus Pauling (even though some found it appropriate to label him a quack[44]) making significant claims about the health benefits of vitamins, yet on the other hand you have some saying they are either useless[45] or actually cause disease[46].

There is a lot of talk on the internet about whether Linus Pauling has been vindicated. Here are titles from just the first page of a Google search ‘has Linus Pauling been vindicated’:

  • Linus Pauling Vitamin C Theory Vindicated? [47]
  • Linus Pauling May Have Been Vindicated – Vitamin C May Treat Cancer[48]
  • A vindication of Linus Pauling’s bizarre theory that vitamin C prevents cancer? [49]
  • High dose vitamin C and cancer: Has Linus Pauling been vindicated[50]
  • Vitamin C, Linus Pauling was right all along. A doctor’s opinion[51]
  • Linus Pauling vindicated – International Health News[52]
  • Vindication For Linus Pauling | Life Extension Magazine[53]
  • Linus Pauling Vindicated; Researchers Claim RDA for Vitamin C is Flawed[54]

It’s been over 50 years since Linus spoke out about the benefits of high dose vitamins. If he was on track, there’s been more than one generation of humans potentially denied the benefits due to the lack of clarity on the subject. Are you going to be one of them? It may be time to do your own research, including personal experiments to reach your own conclusions.

 

References

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

[2] https://amazingwellnessmag.com/features/history-of-vitamins

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

[4] https://paulingblog.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/casimir-funk-and-a-century-of-vitamins/

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#cite_note-Horgan-6

[6] Horgan, J (1993). “Profile: Linus C. Pauling – Stubbornly Ahead of His Time”. Scientific American. 266 (3): 36–40. Bibcode:1993SciAm.266c..36H. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0393-36.

[7] Gribbin, J (2002). The Scientists: A History of Science Told Through the Lives of Its Greatest Inventors. New York: Random House. pp. 558–569. ISBN 0812967887.

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#cite_note-Horgan-6

[9] https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/MM/p-nid/57

[10] https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/MM/p-nid/57

[11] https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/MM/p-nid/57

[12] http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/about/linus-pauling-biography

[13] http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/about/linus-pauling-biography

[14] https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.html

[15] Cameron E, Campbell A. The orthomolecular treatment of cancer. II. Clinical trial of high-dose ascorbic acid supplements in advanced human cancer. Chem Biol Interact 1974;9:285-315

[16] Cameron E, Campbell A, Jack T. The orthomolecular treatment of cancer. III. Reticulum cell sarcoma: double complete regression induced by high-dose ascorbic acid therapy. Chem Biol Interact 1975;11:387-93.

[17] Cameron E, Pauling L. Supplemental ascorbate in the supportive treatment of cancer: prolongation of survival times in terminal human cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1976;73:3685-9.

[18] Cameron E, Pauling L. Supplemental ascorbate in the supportive treatment of cancer: reevaluation of prolongation of survival times in terminal human cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1978;75:4538-42.

[19] https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/11/23/vitamin-c-curative-power.aspx

[20] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/high-dose-vitamin-c-and-cancer-has-linus-pauling-been-vindicated/

[21] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Reference_Intake

[22] http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/93/25/14344.full.pdf

[23] http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/many-mgs-vitamin-c-medium-oranges-6455.html

[24] https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/MM/p-nid/57

[25] https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7547741/vitamin-c-myth-pauling

[26] http://osupress.oregonstate.edu/book/how-to-live-longer-and-feel-better

[27] Pauling L Testimony at a hearing concerning Michael Gerber, M.D., March 6, 1984

[28] https://www.casewatch.org/board/med/gerber/pauling_1984.pdf

[29] Creagan ET, Moertel CG, O’Fallon JR, et al. Failure of high-dose vitamin C (ascorbic acid) therapy to benefit patients with advanced cancer. A controlled trial. N Engl J Med 1979;301:687-90.

[30] Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Creagan ET, et al. High-dose vitamin C versus placebo in the treatment of patients with advanced cancer who have had no prior chemotherapy. A randomized double-blind comparison. N Engl J Med 1985;312:137-41.

[31] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1405876/

[32] https://www.cancertutor.com/war_pauling/

[33] http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/vitamins/vitamin-C

[34] https://www.amazon.com/Strongest-Shall-Survive-Strength-Training/dp/B000GK2BLU

[35] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069676

[36] https://www.health.harvard.edu/cold-and-flu/can-vitamin-c-prevent-a-cold

[37] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abram_Hoffer

[38] http://orthomolecular.org/history/hoffer/index.shtml

[39] https://www.foodmatters.com/article/nz-farmer-beats-swine-flu-with-vitamin-c-60-minutes-report

[40] https://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/ucm111447.htm

[41] https://ods.od.nih.gov/HealthInformation/DS_WhatYouNeedToKnow.aspx

[42] https://www.nowfoods.com/now/nowledge/why-dont-supplement-labels-talk-about-disease

[43] Roach, R., 2008, Muscle, Smoke and Mirrors, Vol. 1, Author House, p. 208.

[44] https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.html

[45] https://www.businessinsider.com.au/what-vitamins-should-i-take-2015-10?r=US&IR=T

[46] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-184617/Vitamins-increase-risk-heart-disease.html

[47] https://newsblaze.com/issues/science/linus-pauling-vitamin-c-theory-vindicated_40227/

[48] https://raypeatforum.com/community/threads/linus-pauling-may-have-been-vindicated-vitamin-c-may-treat-cancer.14891/

[49] http://edzardernst.com/2014/08/a-vindication-of-linus-paulings-bizarre-theory-that-vitamin-c-prevents-cancer/

[50] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/high-dose-vitamin-c-and-cancer-has-linus-pauling-been-vindicated/

[51] 8https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=has+linus+pauling+been+vindicated&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[52] https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=has+linus+pauling+been+vindicated&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[53] https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=has+linus+pauling+been+vindicated&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[54] http://www.laleva.org/eng/2004/07/linus_pauling_vindicated_researchers_claim_rda_for_vitamin_c_is_flawed.html