Ian King

AI, physical training, and YOU

/by

AI is on the forefront of people’s minds, and the impact of this technology is being felt. Its impact is far reaching, combination of making our lives easier but at the same time forcing change including on employment and the economy.  There is a growing realization that just like the railways did some 150 years ago, or the dot.com bubble of 25 years ago, over-investment in this great technology will consequential a risk to the downside to the greater economy.

As history has shown that after the dust settles on the inevitable economic bust years, the very same technology will be consequential in rebuilding the economy.  We will slowly forget AI’s association with the late 2020s downturn and embrace the upside as we rebuild in the 2030s.  It’s not going away; it’s only going to get more significant in our lives.

So where does that leave physical training?

As an end-user, you can grab a free workout program in a matter of seconds from AI that is far more impressive looking that most ‘professional’ physical preparation coaches can produce.

Here’s an advertisement example of this:

Impressive appearance aside,  will this AI delivered training program meet your training goals and overcome physical challenges any more effectively?

As a physical training ‘professional’ (and I will be placing inverted commas around these two words until the ‘profession’ actually becomes professional) you can take advantage of the AI to provide you with programs to give your clients in the same way they can get them. Which raises the question of impact on employment – will the consumer cut out the ‘middleperson’? i.e. will AI reduce the demand for physical coaches?

Most would agree AI presents unique challenges over and above the benefits to both the end user and the ‘professional’ in physical training.

I’ve witnessed the consumer demand for physical training grow at a far more rapid pace during the half a century than I had anticipated. This gave opportunity to newcomers to the ‘profession’ at a rate faster than appropriate training or industry guard rails on training has been able to keep up.

The question I asked as this trend became apparent post the turn of the recent century was ‘who’s training who?’, a reference to the growth in entrants to the ‘profession’ resulting in their ‘professional development’ being conducted by individuals who I suggest lacked experience to teach.

And that was before the internet really kicked in.

The arrival of the internet meant anyone with a keyboard and an internet became an online teacher.  No experience or evidence of competence required.

And that was before the rise of social media. The content development increased dramatically in the race for eyeballs and followers.  Definitely no objective or regulatory standards around who was doing the teaching.

And it is in this environment that AI has entered. So where does AI get its information?

I asked Google AI ‘where does AI get its information from’, and it told me:

AI gets its information from three main sources: pre-trained neural networks, live web searches, and licensed or private datasets. [1]

  1. Training Data (Pre-Trained Knowledge)

When an AI model is built, it reads massive amounts of digital information to learn human language, logic, and general facts. [1, 2]

  • Public Web Content: Articles, blogs, digital books, and open-source code libraries gathered via web scrapers like Common Crawl. [1, 2, 3]
  • Reference Sites & Communities: Widely used encyclopedias and forum discussions like Wikipedia and Reddit. [1, 2, 3]
  • Commercial Data Partners: Information licensed directly from publishers, stock photo libraries (like Getty Images), and social platforms. [1, 2, 3]
  • Human Trainers: Feedback and review data provided by hired human evaluators to help the AI learn what polite or accurate answers look like. [1, 2, 3]
  1. Live Web Search (Retrieval-Augmented Generation / RAG)

Because training data has a “knowledge cutoff” (a past date after which the model stopped learning new things), AI tools often use live search to answer questions about recent events. [1, 2, 3]

  • Instead of relying only on its frozen memory, the AI looks up live search engines (like Google or Bing) at the moment you ask a question, reads the top pages, and summarizes the answer. [1]
  1. Proprietary and Enterprise Data
  • Companies building private AI tools connect them directly to their own internal files, customer service logs, databases, or cloud storage to answer questions specific to their business. [1, 2, 3]

Opinions on public web data are mixed. Some users on Reddit point out that training on open internet forums can copy social biases or internet rumors, while others note that models use them mostly for casual or pop-culture language rather than hard facts. [1]

The question you may want to ask yourself – is this source of information the source you want to base your physical training on?

There are a few things AI can’t replace, and one of them is experience. Even better, experiences guided by experienced coaches.

In reality many end users and coaches will accept the regurgitation of dominant beliefs and methods as collated by AI.  For those who want more, the search will be harder as you probably won’t find this non-AI value on AI search engines!

Next month, November 2026, we are offering that very experience for end users and coaches that is aimed to provide what AI cannot.

AI is here to stay. You will decide to what extent you will use it to shape your physical training decisions.

Ian King

7 Obstacles that stand in the way of optimizing Control Drills

/by

Introduction

What I learnt in the 1980s from physical therapy was there was an opportunity to ensure the small muscle groups critical in controlling joint function were given adequate focus in training. The physical therapists were championing this focus in a clinical setting and for the most part reactively – after injuries had occurred. I took this concept out of the clinic and integrated it into everyday strength training.

And as much as it’s hard for the newer entrants to imagine, these types of exercises, and the concept, simply did not exist in the strength training world at that time. Yes, everyone ‘knows’ about it now, and everyone ‘does’ some form of it now (note the inverted commas) – but it was not always that way.

So, what is the purpose of control and stability? Why did I bring this concept into the realm of mainstream strength training? And why do I make such a big deal about it?

In 1998 I said this about the role of control exercises:

One of the roles of a control exercise is to correct imbalances. The primary role, if it’s prevention as opposed to rehabilitation, the primary role of inserting a control drill is to ensure that the joint is being controlled in execution of a more complex movement. That’s the prevention role. The role … described is then the rehabilitation role. [1]

A secondary role of control drills is to activate the muscles:

… control drills are … aimed … to switch the muscles on.  They can be sequenced in such a way or provided with such a volume that they’re causing fatigue in themselves, but the primary goal of the control drill is to switch the muscle on… they’re there for selective recruitment of muscles… The control drills can be used in a number of ways. You can use them prior to each workout, as I do, to switch the muscles on, or you can use them as a workout in themselves, in particular where an athlete really lacks in control.[2]

These purposes of control drills are well summarized here:

They can be performed in higher volume in rehab/muscle balance situations, and in lower volume for maintenance of muscle balance and to ‘switch’ the muscles on. [3]

One of the keys to success as a coach and I’m sure in any high-performance endeavour is the willingness to learn and adopt new things when you see something that can better serve those you serve.

…we should not get attached to the way we do things today. If we find a better way tomorrow, we should feel no attachment to the limitations of our current way and be willing to replace any aspect of our thoughts or actions with more effective thoughts or actions.

If we become overly attached to the way we are, think and behave, we may struggle to let any aspect go and replace with a more effective option.  The key here is not to allow oneself to stereotype or perceive oneself as a person who thinks or acts in a particular way – rather, a person who thinks or acts in the way that produces the best results. [4]

Control drills have so much to offer. Yet there are a few major obstacles that stand between you and fulfilling their potential. These include but are not limited to:

  1. They are a qualitative exercise
  2. Delayed gratification
  3. The industry guru’s reactive theories and methods
  4. The industry default to loading
  5. The ‘functional training’ myths
  6. Conformity
  7. Success has many fathers

 

  1. They are a qualitative exercise

Over a quarter of a century ago I described Control drills as having a ‘qualitative focus’.[5]

To summarize this concept, the completion of an exercise set can be divided into three key components: how the exercise is done (technique), the number of repetitions completed, and the load used.  The first component can be described as qualitative and the latter two as quantitative.

This theory considers the implication of a low technique conformity. In other words what is the impact on the training effect in any given exercise when less than ideal technique is used.

The theory proposes that the training effect from an exercise where the training effect is more dependent on the technique will suffer more when that exercise is subject to low technique conformity.

Conversely, in an exercise where the training effect is less dependent on the technique and equally or more so dependent on quantitative variables – such as how many reps were completed, and what load was involved – the training effect is less compromised, relatively speaking.

Therefore, if you accept that control exercises are ‘qualitative’, you may accept that there are very limited training effects when the exercise technique is compromised.

To be blunt odds are if you have been doing what you think are control exercises, you are unlikely to have been receiving any of the benefits I proposed when I introduced this concept.

Because ‘cheating’ in terms of technique is accepted within the four walls of strength training facilities.

The limitations of cheat movements include:

  • They don’t develop the strength through the full range of movement
  • They don’t develop optimal joint and muscle interaction for athletes in some cases.
  • They can be used unnecessarily when mental discipline is lacking, or the desire for instant gratification wins over discipline and delayed gratification.
  • They give you the temptation to go to the cheat movement when you could have pushed on another rep or two without starting the cheat movements.
  • They can give false impressions of ability and program effectiveness.
  • They can result in more cheating rather than greater strength, as when the load is increased the progression can be in the degree of cheating, rather than an increase adaptation and strength expression.
  • They are difficult to monitor in degrees of cheating, which as explained above, can mean this variable is moving in addition to the progression in load.
  • They may have greater injury potential than a conventional lift. [6]

 

  1. Delayed gratification

The reduction in external load due to the reduction in speed of movement in the exercises has the potential to negatively impact the egos of some. For too many, how much weight they appear to be displacing is more important than the training effect.

There is a real chance you will not embrace the variable of technical limit combined with Speed of Movement to select your load. Instead, you may be more guided by your ego, failing to appreciate the time and place to delay gratification.

If you do not have the ability to delay gratification, I suggest you will never fulfill your potential.

This is the way the game is played. Most people go the gym and create problems. They don’t know it, but they’re creating problems. Most programs – including those being promoted as “guru” programs – are creating problems. It’s a simple tradeoff between instant gratification and delayed long-term results. Sure, you might get a pump today, but in three years’ time you’re having surgery, or you can’t train for 12 months. How does it feel to put in those 5000 hours and find out you’ve only created an injury? [7]

 

  1. The industry guru’s reactive theories and methods

Odds you are you going to be waylaid by the guru’s reacting to the disruption that resulted from my introduction of the concepts of muscle balance and muscle control from the early 1990s onwards.

After I release new concepts that disrupt the training world, the contemporary gurus have a choice to make. They could say, ‘Hey, I missed this, but that’s a great idea and I’m going to get behind it’. Or they could take action to appear as if they were all over it, typically under the pre-text ‘Hey, I didn’t miss this, you just haven’t caught up with my alternative theory’.

Here’s a few examples.

After I started teaching the important of muscle balance in program design in North America from the late 1980s onwards, including statements such as:

Balance:  all things being equal, and independent of any specificity demands, the selection of exercises should show balance throughout the body.  For example, for every upper body exercise there would be a lower body exercise.  For every upper body pushing movement, there would be an upper body pulling movement. For every vertical pushing movement there would be a vertical pulling movement.  For every hip dominant exercise there would be a quad dominant exercise.  And so on. [8]

Most programs I see lack balance.  They focus too much on one exercise or muscle group at the expense of others.  Or they may even have totally neglected a muscle group. [9]     

After I started training athletes in North America in the late 1980s and this teaching included that chin ups do not balance out bench press, I later wrote:

There is this misdirected belief that a chin up or similar (vertical pulling) is the same as horizontal pulling and work equally to provide the push-pull ratio with benching. What a load of trash! [10]

And after I began teaching my control drills concept, the external DB rotation started appearing more regularly.

Here are a few ‘challenges’ with this:

  • It was only one exercise for one joint.
  • It was almost always only one variation of all the options available.
  • I suggest it was selected because of it provided a photogenic picture.
  • It was done last in the workout.
  • It was depicted with and encouraged to use loading that essentially denied it falling within my definition of a control drill.

But what about you? There is an incredibly high probability – and I mean incredibly high – that you got sucked into to a knee-jerk reaction theory rushed to market will little care for efficacy to save face, that you have paid the price for your gullibility.  But hey, that’s marketing for you. And who cares about the long-term implications for the consumer as long as the guru stays on their perch?

 

  1. The industry default to loading

I describe the 1990s as the decade during which strength training came of age, the decade during which it became the most popular and trending physical quality.

Having lived, trained, worked and observed through prior decades when strength training was unpopular and distrusted, I sensed an incredible liberation in the ‘profession’. One of the by-products of this was the promotion of external load. By the end of the 1990s you were not really doing it right if you were not going heavy on compound movements. Even those who sought to be ‘leaders and teachers’ in the functional training movement post 2000 were part of the 1990s trend towards load. The fact that I introduced a completely different attitude at this peak should give you some insights into the push-back I received by those whose values I threatened.

Now the greatest set of exercises at risk from this industry default to loading are the selective recruitment that control drills are based on.

One of the most common beliefs is that the more you lift in the gym, the better athlete you’re going to be, and I do not support that. I believe loading is overrated. Now, that doesn’t mean that it’s bad to be stronger. That means what I’m saying is if strength, out of context with all the other factors of sport – sport technique, sport tactics, speed, and other physical qualities (speed, strength, endurance) – if strength is out of context, it doesn’t make them a better athlete. And secondly, if it’s loading that results in them compromising the selective recruitment or any of the other two factors, then it doesn’t serve them either. [11] [12]

Introducing bodyweight exercises into conventional strength training programs as I did in my published works in the late 1990s was audacious, but I got away with it, mainly in part because the exercises I introduced combined with the speeds of movement and focus on technique provided a level of muscle soreness in the short term and enhanced muscle size and strength in the medium term, not to mention the reduced injury incidence over the long term.

This acceptance of bodyweight exercises was further enhanced in the early days of the post 2000 ‘functional training movement’, where certain authors copied my exercises and methods sans referencing.

But it didn’t take long before the spectre of loading crept in. Here a few examples of this:

  • The supine single or double leg hip thigh extension with bodyweight was not suffice – along came the ‘hip thrust’ – where you could meet the default of loading. Don’t worry about the intended training effects of the original exercise, or the potential for collateral damage from the barbell version – it must be such a relief to be able to displace higher loading!
  • The external DB rotation lying on the side with little to no external load – was not suffice. Not only should you ditch the isolated nature of this exercise and instead plant yourself with one foot on a bench and the other on the ground and support yourself with your free arm braced to maximize load.

 

  1. The ‘functional training’ myths

I began sharing the control concepts and exercises in the late 1990s, before the advent of the ‘functional training movement’.  What was once relatively wise words about the need for ‘functional strength’ became commercialized post 2000 into ‘rules’ about exercise that shaped the values, habits and exercise choices of the masses.

Note there is a significant different between ‘functional strength’ and a predetermined assumption that any pre-determined exercise is ‘functional’. Which is one of my larger concerns about this ‘movement’.

These ‘functional training exercise rules’ (I call them myths) steered many away from utilizing excises like primary control drills – because they ‘broke the rules’.  This was and continues to be a loss for many.

Some of these rules (again, myths) that discouraged more discerning exercise selection included that you can only do exercise that:

  • Are closed chain i.e. You are standing on your feet
  • Are ‘compound’ i.e. multi-joint
  • Involve balance
  • Involve multiple planes of movement

Put simply this shopping list rules out most of the exercises I would recommend in the primary control drills list.  I saw this resistance coming when I said back in 1998:

And these are open chain exercises. Currently subject to debate as to whether control drills are best done in a closed chain environment. That’s the next trend. Closed chain control exercise, which a slow speed squat is anyway. [13]

And this is another obstacle for the end user – who do you listen to? What exercises do you do?

I suggest this is a case where ‘the trend is not your friend’.

 

  1. Conformity

Taking into account the above possibilities and combining this with humans innate desire to conform provides another obstacle.  After all, who feels comfortable going into a commercial gym and doing something that is so far removed from and at odds with what everyone else is doing? It takes a special person to be seen to be non-conforming.

So over time athletes have to make a choice – they keep doing what may not be serving them optionally or they find a better way.  Not all athletes want to take the better way. It requires courage and resistance to the forces of conformity and that is not the path for everyone. [14]

Keep in mind I’m not a popularist. I reach conclusions based on the efficacy of the method, not the conformity.

I train to win on the podium, not to gain friendship, respect, and allegiance or show conformity. I understand that my values may be different in this regard. [15]

I can only encourage you to think for yourself in the face of conformity pressure.

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. [16]

 

  1. Success has many fathers

When I began sharing my control theories and exercises in the late 1990s the only place you could learn about them was myself, as the source.   I expected and predicted the impending popularity of the theory and exercises:

These methods are so effective, they are sure to become mainstream.

Learning them ahead of the crowd is not just about being first…[17]

What I did not expect and predict was the way this unique concept would be treated by my ‘colleagues’.

There is a great saying about success.

Success has many fathers; failure is an orphan.[18]

As the years passed post the release of this concept, those who held or sought ‘guru’ status had a choice to make. They could cite the origin and direct you back to the source or seek to take credit and direct the interest to themselves.

I can’t say how many chose each path, but I can tell you there has been enough of those who chose the latter to muddy the water.

So, what’s that got to do with you, the end user?  You are cut off from the source, the history and original intent.  This has been the strategy of colonizers – to cut off the connection of the indigenous people from their culture, ceremonies, traditions, dress, foods, way of living and spirituality.

For a long time, the masses may have also said they see no problems with this. But at some stage more recognize the loss of indigenous wisdom is not only damaging to the effected tribe, it is damaging to society, as we all lose the lessons and wisdoms learnt by indigenous groups over long periods of time.

I say the same from the strength training world. In this case, the history of why control was introduced and integrated into strength training is being lost, as is the critical intent of the theory and method.

This Control Drills book is an attempt to claw this back; however, it would be foolish to suggest that this effort can compensate for the wholescale damage done when those who know the source choose to ignore the source and publish their diluted imitation for personal gain.

This book is giving you, the consumer, the chance to go to the source. To those for whom accuracy matters, I believe this is worthwhile.

 

Conclusion

There is so much upside to control exercises being done in manner they were introduced for. Increases in joint control, muscle balance, reduction in injury, enhanced hypertrophy and strength – just to name a few.

However not many people see these benefits because even when they stumble upon the concept of control, they are typically lured by a guru reaction theory to remain relevant and led down the proverbial garden path.

What they will get is a warm feeling from being seen to be doing the dominant trend, what all those around them are doing.

If you have been exposed to the contents of this book you now have the opportunity to choose a different path to the masses – if you want.

These are the typical challenges of any person on a journey, especially in the early days of a new frontier.

 

Note – this article is an abridged extract from the book ‘Control Drills‘ from the  box set ‘Get Buffed! Specialization Series’ of books.

References

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

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

[3] King, I., 2002, Ian King’s Guide to Control Drills (Get Buffed! ™ Series), King Sports International, Brisbane, Aust. (DVD)

[4] King, I., 2005, The way of the physical preparation coach, Ch. 18 – Right and wrong

[5] King, I., 2002, Get Buffed! II (book), p. 137

[6] King, I., 2003, Heavy Metal Q&A, t-mag.com, May 2003

[7] King, I., 2000, in Shugart, C., Meet the Press – Coach of coaches: An interview with Ian King, 29 Dec 2000, t-mag.com

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

[9] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!™ (Book), p. 77

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

[11] King, I., 2015, The Stop Injuries in Strength Training Video Series, Pt 8 of 10: The importance of technique in strength training

[12] King, I., 2018, Zero Tolerance to Injuries Series, Pt 8 of 10: The importance of technique in strength training

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

[14] King, I., 2020, This is the difference we make, Off the Record #86, 17 Mar 2020

[15] King, I., 2019, Respect, Off the Record #34, 10 Apr 2019

[16] King, I., 2005, The way of the physical preparation coach, Ch. 4 – Training program design

[17] King, I., 2002, Ian King’s Guide to Control Drills (DVD)

[18] https://www.quora.com/Who-said-Success-has-many-fathers-but-failure-is-an-orphan

Ian King

The information-solution quandary

/by

How do you solve an unresolved challenge e.g. injury, when one is applying the same information the caused the problem?

Go back two generations ago and you struggled to find answers to training questions. Information was difficult to obtain. But it was usually good information when you did find it. There was in that generation an unwritten code that you needed to have the runs on the board to justify publishing your ideas.

In the current generation it’s easy to find answers to your training questions. And that’s even before AI!  The question is, how good is that information. The old unwritten rules of you have to have proven you are an expert in the real world before you should publish are gone. Everyone with a keyboard is sharing training guidance.

With the current generation swimming in information, there is another challenge that is in part tied to the quality of the information. How do you solve an unresolved challenge e.g. injury, when one is applying the same information the caused the problem

Here’s a real-world example of that quandary….it was not created with the intent to share, but the insights and lessons are too powerful not to be shared.

Q. Greetings KSI Team, I genuinely hope this message finds you all well.

In the past, I have contacted you a couple of times to express my gratitude for your consistent efforts to provide unique insights for athletes/coaches, and for leading the industry in a way that I have rarely seen before.

With that said, I understand how busy you are, and I was genuinely hesitant about writing this email because I did not want it to come across the wrong way. However, I decided to reach out.

Long story short, in May 2025, I injured my right shoulder for the second time while performing overhead hanging. The diagnosis was subacromial impingement, bursitis, and rotator cuff tendinopathy. The first time (2018) I was diagnosed with impingement and a rotator cuff tear.

Thankfully, my right shoulder eventually recovered significantly. However, in March of this year, I injured my left shoulder while performing overhead dumbbell pressing. An ultrasound subsequently showed shoulder bursitis and rotator cuff tendinopathy, specifically involving the supraspinatus.

After extensive research and learning from individuals such yourself with experience in this area, I have come to understand that the factors contributing to this type of problem are far more complex than I initially thought. 

 As a result, I began paying more attention to scapula control/stability, direct rotator cuff work, and from a programming perspective, structural balance—a concept I had never intentionally incorporated into my training to this extent during almost a decade of training.

 The imbalances I have discovered in my body are quite significant. However, over the past year or so, after following what I believe to be a well-structured programme in which I train the basic fundamental movement patterns on a 1:1 ratio, some of these imbalances have improved.

My left shoulder is now around four months into rehabilitation. It has progressed considerably, but it is still occasionally painful, particularly when exposed to overhead positions involving either full abduction or full flexion, especially when the scapula is fully elevated and my arm is in a vertical position.

Moreover, after repeatedly observing my movement during different exercises, I have noticed that during bench pressing, my left arm—the side currently affected—appears to elevate more than my right at the top position. I have noticed something similar when performing bilateral trap 3 raises on an incline bench, as well as during prone T raises.

Perhaps I am simply being impatient, or perhaps what I am missing is hidden in plain sight. I completely understand that trying to identify the underlying issue without assessing someone in person is extremely difficult.

Nevertheless, it would genuinely mean a great deal to me if you could suggest anything that you think might be worth considering, whether that is something I may be overlooking or a different way of approaching the problem.

At this point, my best hypothesis is that there may be an issue with the coordination and balance of the scapulohumeral musculature. I have also noticed that my T-spine appears to have a slight clockwise rotation, although I appreciate that this is simply my own observation and may not be clinically meaningful.

I have wondered whether this rotation could be influenced by factors such as my writing position I have maintained since childhood, my preferred posture, my habitual sideways sleeping position, etc…

I understand this is a lot of information, and I certainly do not expect you to diagnose anything remotely. I am simply trying to learn from the best people with considerably more experience than myself and see whether there is something I may be overlooking.

Once again, I genuinely enjoy all forms of your work, and I want to thank you for being willing to share your knowledge and experience with the wider athletic and coaching community.

Keep up the excellent work, and if this is something that is difficult to respond to due to your busy schedule, please do not worry at all. I completely understand.

Kind regards.–xxxx.

P.S. After learning about your perspective on kettlebells, do you think using kettlebells or dumbbells for overhead pressing would make any significant difference in improving shoulder stability?

A. To answer your questions can I ask:

Overhead hanging – to confirm – you are holding vertical bar such as a chin bar with both hands using a prone grip (palm facing away from you) and your feet are not touching the ground?

Can I ask where the influence for this exercise came from?

The diagnosis was subacromial impingement, bursitis, and rotator cuff tendinopathy. The first time (2018) I was diagnosed with impingement and a rotator cuff tear.

Should I assume the first time you injured was doing the same exercise?

Thankfully, my right shoulder eventually recovered significantly. However, in March of this year, I injured my left shoulder while performing overhead dumbbell pressing. An ultrasound subsequently showed shoulder bursitis and rotator cuff tendinopathy, specifically involving the supraspinatus.

There is a message here – either you have a genetic weakness in the shoulder structures, or you have allowed them to become degraded over time. When I say degraded this could be any of the structures of the joint and connective tissue that contributes to the function and health of the joint.

After extensive research and learning from individuals such yourself with experience in this area, I have come to understand that the factors contributing to this type of problem are far more complex than I initially thought.

Yes, the shoulder joint is a very complex joint, due in part to the freedom of movement it has been afforded in our evolution. With this comes the burden of complexity and the great responsibility to support and control a joint with so much freedom.

As a result, I began paying more attention to scapula control/stability, direct rotator cuff work, and from a programming perspective, structural balance—a concept I had never intentionally incorporated into my training to this extent during almost a decade of training.

From this statement I see support for my earlier observation – that perhaps in the past you had not done so. Any athlete that has started their training career with me has been exposed to a high level of this joint health focus from the outset. That high standard of training is becoming less and less from what I observe. 

The imbalances I have discovered in my body are quite significant. However, over the past year or so, after following what I believe to be a well-structured programme in which I train the basic fundamental movement patterns on a 1:1 ratio, some of these imbalances have improved.

Two things – firstly a 1:1 ratio (assuming you are talking about opposing lines of movement (is not adequate when the imbalances have become advanced. That ratio is for ‘clean skins’ from the outset.

Secondly, there is more to joint health than strength exercise. I believe you have been exposed to my four pillars of joint health, however it is unlikely you have internalized them or have the skill set to implement them with the level of discernment needed to recover the condition you have created in a timely or fully effective manner.

My left shoulder is now around four months into rehabilitation. It has progressed considerably, but it is still occasionally painful, particularly when exposed to overhead positions involving either full abduction or full flexion, especially when the scapula is fully elevated and my arm is in a vertical position.

This time frame is not unusual but at the same time it is not ideal. With higher level guidance I believe the time frames can be shorter.

Moreover, after repeatedly observing my movement during different exercises, I have noticed that during bench pressing, my left arm—the side currently affected—appears to elevate more than my right at the top position. I have noticed something similar when performing bilateral trap 3 raises on an incline bench, as well as during prone T raises.

Firstly, great that you have become more observant, aware. Secondly, I am not surprised that the shoulders are acting asymmetrically. Thirdly, at a higher level of guidance you would be advised to avoid any movement and or range that results in postural deviation so to speak.

Perhaps I am simply being impatient, or perhaps what I am missing is hidden in plain sight. I completely understand that trying to identify the underlying issue without assessing someone in person is extremely difficult.

You are being impatient so to speak but if you were not you would be possibly complacent. The key is less about the emotion, and more about how you use it. You could use it get better guidance or you could use it be become more frustrated.

Yes, it is difficult so to speak without more information / assessment, but I have been involved in enough shoulder rehab to confidently know you and your current in person treatment professionals do not have the higher level skills to create a faster and more effective rate of recovery.

Nevertheless, it would genuinely mean a great deal to me if you could suggest anything that you think might be worth considering, whether that is something I may be overlooking or a different way of approaching the problem.

I definitely do not play guru from a distance. I know you will be missing something—more than one thing actually – and I know there would be things that you are doing but not doing with optimal understanding and application.

But that level of troubleshooting and individualized guidance is not something I believe should be done flippantly from a few paragraphs of text.

At this point, my best hypothesis is that there may be an issue with the coordination and balance of the scapulohumeral musculature.

Absolutely there is something ‘wrong’. But it it a structural issue and your x-rays / scans have not indicated you have torn ligaments or tendons off bone) or is it a functional issue – the way you are moving it in your attempt to rehab it is more likely the problem. What movement, when, how, etc. – and what other modalities being applied – this is most likely where the errors are being made.

I have also noticed that my T-spine appears to have a slight clockwise rotation, although I appreciate that this is simply my own observation and may not be clinically meaningful.

If it is relevant is it the chicken or egg? Was it there before the injures and contributed to them, or was it a result of the injuries? Was it like this a few years back before you first injury? And it may not be relevant to the shoulder, but it is relevant.

I have wondered whether this rotation could be influenced by factors such as my writing position I have maintained since childhood, my preferred posture, my habitual sideways sleeping position, etc…

Any spine deviations have many potential contributors – but it does help to reach a hypothesis, work on it, and see if you can correct or reduce it.

I understand this is a lot of information, and I certainly do not expect you to diagnose anything remotely. I am simply trying to learn from the best people with considerably more experience than myself and see whether there is something I may be overlooking.

You are definitely not doing it optimally. Few do, and in reality, optimal is on a continuum. The main differentiating point is what one is willing to do to find the answers. And in some cases, if one is driven to do anything. Most don’t. there is a reason I have been treated by medical professionals in Canada, or by the founder of ART in Colorado Springs USA before anyone in Australia had even heard about it; or why I travelled with an athlete 10 hours a few weeks ago for a 2 hour consult with Australia’s number one physiotherapist, or why I have had a 40-year relationship with one of Australia’s leading orthopedic surgeon. Because I am a person who will go a long way to find the answers. It’s not cheap, it’s not easy, it is time-consuming – and it is fruitful. And why I have spent a billable period of time responding to your email for free. Because I care, but I am also experienced enough to know that it is not productive or successful to care more than the individual involved, as this is a false economy that leads to dependance and lack for accountability.

Once again, I genuinely enjoy all forms of your work, and I want to thank you for being willing to share your knowledge and experience with the wider athletic and coaching community.

You are welcome. I came into a world where there was so little information, and I felt that personally. So, I have been committed to sharing, giving others what I did not have 50 years ago when I was searching for answers.

The only difference not that there are so many now with a social media account and a desire for attention that are flooding the ether, making it more challenging from individuals to sift through to find the effective and time- tested content. But that is not you. You have found KSI.

Keep up the excellent work, and if this is something that is difficult to respond to due to your busy schedule, please do not worry at all. I completely understand.

I type this somewhere over the Pacific Ocean, an hour out of landing in LA. USA, on a 14 hour flight, one of a number of legs. I typically don’t watch movies on planes. I might spoil myself with one over a meal. But on this occasion I was working on this email before breakfast was served, and went straight back to it after I ate. I just work, sleep and work. If I did not, I would not get to help enough people, such as yourself, with your question in emails. I am enroute to one of my demanding weeks of our annual calendar. But life goes on and people want answers.

I never ‘not respond’ to any genuine, worthwhile request for help. In other words, I have committed to answering every email from genuine people since emails were invented in the 1990s. Emails are an imposition in our life’s that I don’t enjoy, as I know life before them. But I do respect the access it gives everyone to be able to reach out to someone who prior they would have had no access to. Before emails if I wanted this level of interaction I would have to jump on a plane and fly to meet the person, as I have done around the world.

After learning about your perspective on kettlebells, do you think using kettlebells or dumbbells for overhead pressing would make any significant difference in improving shoulder stability?

The first question is not the equipment. This is an example of how you are potentially off-track. This is not a criticism, a reality from my perspective. And you are above average in your knowledge, so God help the rest. Here are a few more pressing questions:

  1. Should you be pressing overhead?
  2. If so, when should you return to it?
  3. What should you be doing before you return to it?
  4. Once you return to it what range, load, and SOM to use?
  5. What rate of increase in loading should you use?
  6. And then, maybe then, we can talk about the mold that the external loading was cast in….

Remember I am not denigrating your knowledge or path. Just helping you see that there are levels of skill set involved in rehab, and there are options above where you currently are. Now I fully recognize that the world is full of false prophets, so it is easy to be misled.

For example, after one US strength coach was exposed to my knee specific injury prevention and rehab, he suffered an ACL tear recreationally skiing. After the rehab of one knee in one person (himself) he felt emboldened to market himself as a knee expert, guiding others to having ‘bullet-proof’ knees. ‘Borrowing’ content from others and publishing them as your own combined with the sum total of one ACL rehab (his own) does not an expert make! Yet I see this all the time and I know the unfounded baseless crap they disseminate as a ‘guru’is not positively contributing to humanity!

I could go on with these examples, especially in this decade, the Decade of the Injury Rehab specialist….So, to all – make sure you review your influences, because unless I was you first and only influence, you are probably doing things that you think I endorse but don’t’….like overhead hanging.—Ian King

Q. Greetings KSI Team, Before I say anything, I would like to deeply express my gratitude not only for taking the time to respond, but for responding in a way that was not only surprising, but also an expression of what kind of individuals you all are.

With that said, after going through your response, I realised that there were certain gaps in the information I provided that I had neglected to mention for better context. Some of them you were able to guess correctly. I did not want my original message to become too long, as I understand even more now what your schedule must be like.

Please find below my responses to some of your well-thought-out questions:

“Overhead hanging – to confirm – you are holding a vertical bar such as a chin-up bar with both hands using a pronated grip (palms facing away from you) and your feet are not touching the ground?”

“Can I ask where the influence for this exercise came from?”

My first shoulder injury (right shoulder in 2018) occurred while performing a gymnastic rings L-sit supinated narrow-grip pull-up. The second injury (2025) occurred after performing L-sit alternating pronated-grip hangs from a pull-up bar which I haven’t attempted for years (immature and stupid). The third shoulder injury (2026) this time involving my left arm, occurred while performing overhead dumbbell pressing.

As for the influence behind these exercises, since my training discipline is calisthenics, most of it came from the internet.

“Two things – firstly, a 1:1 ratio (assuming you are talking about opposing lines of movement) is not adequate when the imbalances have become advanced. That ratio is for ‘clean skins’ from the outset. Secondly, there is more to joint health than strength exercise. I believe you have been exposed to my four pillars of joint health, however it is unlikely you have internalised them or have the skill set to implement them with the level of discernment needed to recover the condition you have created in a timely or fully effective manner.”

Yes, I was referring to the lines of movement and I have been exposed to your four pillars of joint health. However, I am confident that I do not implement them correctly. Since my shoulder problems started last year, I have not performed any upper body stretching because so-called experts on the internet advised that stretching an injured area is not a good idea. Additionally it feels a bit painful on the currently injured shoulder when performing stretches mainly for lats and shoulders like dead hang.

It’s worth noting that your overall response really made me think about a lot of things. Once again, I understand that I know nothing. And although I genuinely appreciate the compliment, I do not think I even know how to walk on all fours when it comes to knowledge and experience compared with people like yourself.

I personally responded to what I felt needed further clarification, because everything else while I was reading it, felt like being in real life and shutting my mouth (forgive my language), because that is exactly what you have repeatedly achieved throughout your response.

I could definitely keep writing and share more, but I genuinely respect your time. At the end of the day, as you rightly said, it is best for these things to be evaluated in person which I completely agree with.

The truth is that I currently live in xxxx, and I cannot travel abroad due to a visa decision that is still awaiting a decision. I would definitely like to meet in person, but for now, my current circumstances, although they may sound like an excuse, do not allow this.

However, if traveling to the xxx is something that may be within your future schedule, I would be honoured if you could let me know. You and your team are genuinely good people, and I know that sometimes positive comments can make someone settle and stop striving. However, you do not, which is a character trait I personally find quite admirable.

Thank you for every single word, thing, and act that you have done, continue to do, and will continue to do. It goes a long way.

God bless and hopefully we will meet one day. Kind regards.–xxxx

A. xxxx – Thanks for clarifying some points, and confirming you found value in my response.

When I said in person, I meant at least a person with appropriate expertise looking over your body on zoom.  Secondly, I was not suggesting myself. I am hoping that one of my higher-level coaches can look after you. I never seek to solicit work. In fact, my approach is completely the other way around.

What I was aiming to impart is that there is a level of information that if a consultant exceeds without the specific information of the individual, it can be misleading, in accurate, and in some cases potentially raise injury risk.  So, I am a big proponent of individualization in training, and this includes rehab.

I believe at least a one-off consult via zoom with one of my high level coaches would be a good start and you can receive more individualized guidance, and determine if there is value moving forwards in this approach.–Ian King

Q. Greetings KSI Team, and thank you once again for getting back to me.

Everything mentioned above has been well received, understood, and agreed with.

If you don’t mind, I would like to know what this process involves and what financial investment would be required.

In the meantime, I genuinely wish you a great day.

Kind regards.–xxxx

A. xxxx – our coaches work with our clients on a needs basis. After a pre-qualification chat, if agreed to move forward, the commitment is for the next consult only, and the rates are provided. Following that experience, you decide if you sant subsequent service

Let me know if you want to set up a call with one of my coaches.

Can you also advise – What of the KSI materials you have purchased to contribute to your education? Thanks.–Ian King

Q. Greetings KSI team. Once again, I genuinely appreciate you getting back to me with such a willingness to help.

 I would like to explore your recommendation, but I am not particularly interested in coaching. 

What I am interested in is learning more about structural balance in the body, and more specifically in the shoulder.

If there is a coach who can be trusted to guide me with this, it would be an honour to arrange a meeting. 

As far as the content forgive me, but I haven’t purchased anything yet, although it is definitely on my list. 

Speaking of content, I have been exploring more of your work and came across The Guide to Shoulder Injuries book.

Does this book contain practical applications that could help restore balance in the shoulder and help better understand it?

Thank you so much for your time and continued assistance. I look forward to hearing from you. Kind regard.–xxxx

A. 

I would like to explore your recommendation, but I am not particularly interested in coaching. 

If there is a coach who can be trusted to guide me with this, it would be an honour to arrange a meeting.

A bit confused by these two statements.  Can you help us understand what you are looking for in terms of service?

What I am interested in is learning more about structural balance in the body, and more specifically in the shoulder.

Structural balance is not a concept we use.

As far as the content forgive me, but I haven’t purchased anything yet, although it is definitely on my list.

That would explain many of the training methods and terminology you use. They are not reflective of the KSi way, which is an insight into your current injury status.

 I have been exploring more of your work and came across The Guide to Shoulder Injuries book

Book? We are not aware of this ‘book’. Can you share the url to this book?

Does this book contain practical applications that could help restore balance in the shoulder and help better understand it?

We can’t comment on that because we don’t know what book you are referring to.–Ian King

Q. Greetings, Reading again my statements at the beginning, I can see that they do in fact sound confusing.

To reiterate, I’m not looking for coaching packages, but simply some guidance that could perhaps be provided through a virtual conversation.

However, you made it clear which I appreciate, that structural balance (for the whole body and shoulder specifically) is not something you use at KSI.

It turns out that The Guide to Shoulder Injuries is not a book but a series of recorded videos, so that’s entirely my mistake.

https://kingsports.net/product/ian-kings-guide-to-shoulder-injuries/

Regardless, could this help someone learn more about shoulder health? Not just theory, but also practical application in training?

Many thanks once again.-–xxxx

A.  xxxx – thanks for seeking to clarify

Can I ask:

I’m not looking for coaching packages

What is a coaching package? Had I offered or suggested that? (I hope not because I don’t know what it is.

 guidance that could perhaps be provided through a virtual conversation.

When you say this do you mean a free chat? Ie. I arrange one of my coaches to set a time to chat at no cost?

The Guide to Shoulder Injuries is a video

Yes.  It definitely could help someone learn more. But we have put a prerequisite on the sale and are selective as to who sells sell it for. We want to ensure that learning is optimized through a better understanding of injury prevention before individuals are supported by us to ’solve the problem’. The problem Is only truly solved when one knows how to prevent it in future. And you don’t have any of our resources to our knowledge along these lines.–Ian King

Q.  Dear KSI Team, No you haven’t, but predominantly that is how coaching nowadays works.

It would have been a good start to arrange a meeting with a coach, but as you said, you don’t deal with structural balance, or specifically with the shoulder.

As far as the rest, I totally get it. I will definitely take this into consideration.  Kind regards.–xxxx

A.  Thanks for confirming we have not mentioned the words ‘coaching packages’.

I started out providing coaching services in 1980. There was no industry. The word ’strength & conditioning coach’ had not been coined. The word ‘personal trainer’ had not been coined.  There was no role in the Australian society of being paid to physically train someone, outside of say the military. I formed my company in 1986 after having build my client base to in excess of 100 elite athletes, as the first commercial entity to me knowledge in the world committed exclusively to athlete preparation and coach education. There was still no industry or profession at that time in Australia.

Thanks for enlightening me about how ‘coaching nowadays work’. I must admit, I live a sheltered life. But it did have my wondering why you would assume I would change the approach I formed before there was a ‘profession’ or ‘industry’, to conform with whatever the ‘industry trends’ are now. However, I appreciate you may not be that familiar with my professional journey or me as a person.

I simply help people. If a person fears that I am setting a trap to sell them an overpriced service that they don’t need, I cannot take responsibility for that.  I started out helping people. And the demand for my services exploded. Boring as it may seem, I still do the same thing  help people. Only now it seems some peoples perception of what I do, what I have been doing for 47 years now, is prejudiced by what newcomers to this ‘profession’ do. That’s unfortunate but it is what it is.

Yes, I did say that ’structural balance’ is not a term I use. It was, I suggest, a term that was coined in response to my teachings about the need for balance in program design supported by my Lines of Movement concept. It was a knee-jerk reaction to a challenge to the lack of balance in program design by a certain person. That makes it a greater irony for me. If you dress up a pig, it’s still a pig. A fancy name doesn’t change things.

If that is interpreted as we don’t deal with our interpretation of what causes imbalances and or we don’t deal with the shoulder joint, what can I say.

It’s been an interesting journey, and I thank you for giving me insights into how the dominant trends and thinking. I learn new things every day and I learn from everyone, and for this I am grateful to you.–Ian King

Q. Dear KSI Team, It is really hard nowadays to come across good people, let alone people who are both good and wise. Just by exchanging some emails recently, I can tell that you are quite unique. The pleasure and honour have been all mine to learn from the individuals who have shaped this industry. With that said, if that is okay with you, I would be willing to have an online video chat to learn more about your services.Many thanks.–xxxx

A. Thanks xxx – I have achieved what I have because the world has appreciated my personal commitment to helping. Let’s set up a short pre-qualification chat with one of our most suited coaches. Thanks.–Ian King
Ian King

Meet stretching – before it becomes extinct

/by

When I stayed at Mammoth Mountain in California for the first time in the 1990s with a Canadian national team for a training camp three things stood out to me about the venue. First that it was warm enough almost for t-shirt but yet there was snow. Secondly, that you could ski and surf in the same day such was the proximity of these slopes to the beach. And thirdly, the bronze monument of the Mammoth.

I was intrigued by the beauty of an animal that no longer existed in that region.  Like many animals, they had become extinct. Based on the rate of suppression and decline in take up rate post the mid-1990s, I suggest flexibility training or stretching as it is often called is at risk of the same fate – extinction.

Here’s a bit of history from my observations over the last half a century to support this concern.

The 1970s

The 1970s was big decade for stretching. The American physical educator Bob Anderson and his wife Jean self-published their first edition of the book titled Stretching. It was a small spiral bound edition, full of great guidance and driven by what I believe was a genuine intent to serve the world. It was picked up by more established publishing houses in 1980 and this helped spread the world globally.

Personally, it was where my stretching journey began:

My personal history in stretching goes back to the 1970s, in my high school years. During track and field amongst other sports I was exposed to stretching. I do not recall any negative connotations or concerns in that decade towards stretching or flexibility training. I suspect doing stretches would not have turned anyone’s head in that decade. [1]

I was the product of the 1970s, and I was the product of track and field and martial arts, both of which were sports leaders in the embracement of flexibility. So, I had a reasonably high level of personal involvement, commitment and competence in this physical quality. [2]

In the late 1970s my exposure to martial arts also began, and stretching was integral to that sport in that era.

I sum-up the 1970s approach to stretching in this way –

You did it or you didn’t do it – no-one cared

I liked the days in the 70s when no one really cared, no one even talked about it; we just did it, and no one had an opinion on that; they did or you didn’t do it. And since then, every decade, we’ve gone through a new reason why not. [3]

The 1980s

The impact of iconic books such as the Anderson’s Stretching book grew during the 1980s thanks to broader publication and distribution channels.  Stretching was simply part of what so many sports did.

In the 1980s during university, I participated in a variety of sports, some of which – such as martial arts – promoted flexibility training as paramount. [4]

I feel it’s reasonable to say that stretching was gaining momentum on the upside during the 1980s.

I took this value into my competitive training and competing in other sports in the second half of the 1980s – competitive powerlifting and weightlifting, rugby union etc. I noticed people looked, some asked questions, but no-one really cared. [5]

The other factor that in hindsight stands out to me about this decade was the lack of resistance.  I was gaining traction as a coach and consultant in strength training – and my approach was to take stretching along for the ride as a non-negotiable partner to my strength training services.  And I had zero push-back.

I was further unique, in that I chose to bring flexibility training along with strength training. From the early1980s, I would not provide strength training – either in program design or in supervision of training – without concurrent flexibility training. That was my starting point. Length and strength. [6]

I was doing it with athletes in all sports. I was doing it with up to 20 different sports at the elite level during the late 80s and 90s. And no one really objected to it. No one said anything. No one complained. The coaches probably struggled a little bit because I was eating into their time, and that’s a story in itself. But, in essence, my conclusions were shaped by the athlete’s response, their performance and injury prevention response to my application. And I formed a number of hypotheses during the late 80s, in particular, about the relationship between stretching and injury prevention.  

And I implemented them, and I studied the results, you know, in the real-world laboratory sense, in particular throughout the early 90s, when I gained a lot more control in the training process. [7]

To reiterate – I was hired to provide strength training and I gave that, and stretching, as a pair of services. The latter was not asked for, but no-one said no or objected. Quite the contrary – what I was doing in stretching was often received as more unique.

I sum-up the 1980s approach to stretching in this way –

No-one gave a rat’s ass

When I was teaching stretching in the 80s, … no one gave a rat’s ass. No one really cared. [8]

The 1980s built on the ambivalence of the 1970s towards stretching with an increased involvement in the training method.

The 1990s

The 1990s began where the 1980s had left off, and for the first half of that decade my approach of bringing stretching along for the ride did not experience any pushback.

And by the mid-90s, I formed an incredibly effective approach to flexibility, and I formed, by then, the solid belief that flexibility is the most important physical quality, and the physical quality that will have more impact upon all other physical qualities, and also on the quality of life going forwards. [9]

And then, by around 1995, I sensed a change, a new negativity to stretching.

And after 15 years of doing it, by the mid-90s, something had happened. What was that?  Suddenly I learned of a new theory.  Stretching was bad. [10] 

The 2000s

By the turn of the century this anti-stretching sentiment had momentum.

By the late 1990s/early 2000’s the stretching paradigm was that static stretching had an acute (short-term) impact of reducing your strength, so if you want to do it, only do it afterward the workout.  This paradigm suggested more dynamic or PNF (i.e. proprio-neuromuscular facilitation, a special mix of static and dynamic stretching) type stretching should be done before the workout, but again only short duration holds were apparently needed. [11]

What were the proposed reasons for the shift against stretching?

I noted three stages of negativity against stretching during the last half of a century.

The first was pushing back on the increased support for stretching being a way of reducing injuries.

My first exposure to negativity to stretching was in the late 1980s. This resistance to stretching was in the form of ‘stretching has not been proven to prevent injuries’. Essentially it was based on short-term studies suggesting that groups that stretched did not have a lower incidence of acute injuries than groups that did not stretch. This completely overlooked the long-term impact of stretching and its role in preventing use or chronic injuries.

It was not what I would call a strong pushback, and it failed to gain a lot of momentum.  You could say this reason to stretch is still hanging around in the background. [12]

The second reason that was subsequently proposed was that stretching created a risk of injuries through hypermobility.

In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s I witnessed the rise of a paradigm that suggested you shouldn’t stretch too much because if you got too flexible, you would be injury prone i.e. your increased flexibility would result in a higher incidence or chance of being injured.  [13]

And the third reason that was subsequently proposed – and I conclude the first two were not achieving the goals of suppressing stretching – was that stretching (especially pre-training stretching) made you ‘weak’.

By the late 1990s/early 2000’s the stretching paradigm was that static stretching had an acute (short-term) impact of reducing your strength, so if you want to do it, only do it afterward the workout.  This paradigm suggested more dynamic or PNF (i.e. proprio-neuromuscular facilitation, a special mix of static and dynamic stretching) type stretching should be done before the workout, but again only short duration holds were apparently needed. [14]

What do I think was the real reason behind this shift against stretching?

Quite simply, I believe the rise in popularity of stretching through the last three decades of the 20th century presented a problem to some, to which they found a solution – crush it. After all, it worked for the car industry to slow the emergence of electric cars![15]

In the 60s when I was training, nobody really did it. In the 70s when I started doing it in high school, no one really cared. In the early 80s when I was doing it in a professional training environment, people would ask, oh that’s interesting. No one really cared. Guess what? When it became so popular and the sports scientists decided that they needed to exert their influence to control the situation, what was the first thing they said? You can’t do it until we decide why you want to do it. And they’re still deciding. [16]

I suggest that as stretching gained in support throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s alarm bells were ringing. The attitude of ‘we will prove it wrong until we approve it’ was evident from academia.

In the late 1980s I took my professional skills to North America. I noticed that my commitment to stretching was significantly more than what my Canadian and American counterparts were doing.[17]

I sensed a feeling of resentment at the practitioner level that athletes were getting exposed to the benefits of stretching at time when strength / strength and conditioning cohort had no personal or professional knowledge of, belief in and skills of stretching.

So, what was happening on the coach front? At least one-third of the successfully self-marketed ‘strength coaches’ in the US market do not train at all.  However, 100% of them do not stretch, have never stretched, and would be made a fool of if the interest in and demand for stretching was to continue to rise as it was in the early 1990s. [18]

Many if not all of my colleagues have never stretched, cannot touch their toes, and therefore from an ego protection perspective the last thing they will allow is the rise of a training value that makes them look bad.[19]

This was where I felt the resistance first.

At a second level, and a few years later, the academics were what I suggest recruited to stem the tide of interest in stretching.

The academics had the power of ‘science’. If it was published in a peer-reviewed article, it carried more clout.  Despite this the practitioners who typically recruited ‘science’ to show they were ‘cutting edge’ (I coined the term ‘pracdemics’ for this)[20] did their best to support the cause to suppress stretching.

These are some of my favourites…

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…[21]

…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.[22]

…stretching the joints and the fascia is like stretching out your favorite sweater… once you have done that it will never hang the same.” [23]

So, what is really going on?

I’ve been talking about the suppression of stretching over the last 25 plus years, with the ‘C’ work – conspiracy – in the message.

In the 1990s:

There is also the underlying effect of a western world sport’s medicine philosophy that has historically paid more attention to injury rehabilitation than injury prevention… Or is there a tendency to reinforce frequent and long-term injury treatment patterns?[24]

In the 2000s:

Now, I know I’m being a little bit of a, truly am being a bit of a theorist here on the conspiracy aspect, but that’s reality. How many people want to make themselves redundant?[26]

Allow me to let you into a little secret and share the  conspiracy theory side of myself – do you think the massive medical/therapy industry really want you to learn how to avoid injuries Yes, I am a bit of a conspiracy theorist! [27] [28]

In the 2010s:

It’s really been a great example for people of what I call the conspiracy of stretching. And I’ve made that statement now since the late 90s. I started a bit tongue-in-cheek, but now I’m quite serious, where people who want to be in control, and coaches who can’t touch their toes, are saying, ‘well, geez, the movement is getting stronger.’ I better delay this until I work it out.[29]

Now, I don’t mean to come across like a conspiracy theory, but… There are reasons why in the last 10 years, last 10, 15 years, there’s been more negativities written about flexibility than there was in the prior 50. [30]

And still, in the 2020s:

Post 1995 pre-training static stretching became vilified, i.e. there were concerted efforts to discourage your pre-training sessions. You can learn what I think is the reasons behind this in my 2nd Edition Legacy book. [31]

Where is this all going?

In the late 1990s I felt the rise of consumer interest in stretching would result in stretching being the dominant ‘new training focus’ of the first decade of the new millennium. 

Will the first decade of the next century be known for the popularity of flexibility research? [32]

In both, the role and potential contribution of flexibility is poorly understood in general and therefore is no surprise that this quality has not been exploited in training.  I predict that these matters will be for most, the ‘discovery of the decade’ at some stage between the years 2000 and 2010.[33] [34]

I was wrong.

As 2010 arrived I put my hand up for an inaccurate prediction and became disillusioned with the prospects.

Now, I wrote in 1997 that flexibility was, in my opinion, the last frontier of physical training. But by the year 2010, I’m sure it would have been embraced. Well, 2010, as I’ve said before, is about to happen. And flexibility training has gone nowhere but around in circles and been attached to so many negative labels. [35]

I also tried kicking the can down the road.

.So, yeah, I don’t know, 10 years? I’ll put it back. I’ve got to write something about that. Put it back by 10.[36]

 Perhaps it will be so in the decade 2010 to 2020?  There are some signs that the ‘trend-spotters’ – those who watch for trends and start teaching them early in the acceptance phase to position themselves as the leaders and teachers of the new trend (and to allow them to create new educational material to sell to the masses) – are on the move in relation to flexibility i.e. they have gone from making fun of flexibility to now promoting their DVDs on how to do it, especially the once mocked static stretching.[37]

So, when 2020 came along I became less optimistic, conceding that the deserved rise of stretching to the recognition it deserved might not happen in my lifetime.

I say now that I don’t think in my lifetime that flexibility will be given the credibility that it deserves. [38]

Why do I talk about the possibility of extinction?

On my estimates the 2000s was going to be the decade of recognition of stretching, in the way aerobic training was in the 1980s and strength training was in the 1990s. [39]

You could call the eighties the decade of researching aerobic training, and nineties the era of popularity in researching strength. [40]

It was deserved. But it didn’t happen. In fact, the reverse happened. Two subsequent decades have past – the 2010’s and the 2020’s – and the movement to vilify stretching has gained momentum. And I give them respect for this effort, even if I don’t believe it is in humanities interests.

That’s now three decades or thirty (30) years of suppression.

Let’s talk about the game plan, including the implications.

I want to share an analogy I have learnt from listening first-hand to arguably one of the most imposing No. 8’s to play rugby for Australia, Mark Loane, talk about what he learnt from his time playing rugby in South Africa for the Natal province in 1980 the historic game plan of South African rugby – to metaphorically ‘strangle’ or the tight head prop as a means to ‘kill-off’ the opposition resistance and game plan. Now you could say that is a common rugby tactic, but I do not believe any other rugby nation has embraced or embedded this philosophy in their psyche as much as South Africa.

I see a similarity with stretching. If the vested interests can ‘strangle’ stretching, it will ‘die off’, give up, go away, become extinct. And how long will this take?

To answer that question, I share a way of viewing this, by dividing entrants to sports or strength training by their era and matching their exposure to stretching.

Table 1 – The period of entry into sport/fitness/strength training matched with the association with or exposure to stretching

The period of entry into sports / fitness/ strength training

Their association with/exposure to stretching (flexibility training)
1980-2000 Witnessed &/or experienced stretching
2000 – 2020 Heard about stretching
2020 – 2040 Did no see or hear about stretching

The 1980- 2000s cohort – Witnessed &/or experienced stretching

From speaking to a growing number of individuals whose entry into sport, fitness or strength training was in the 1980-2000 period, a pattern has emerged. They for the most part had engagement in stretching prior to 2000, however at or around 2000 when the dominant paradigms shifted against stretching, they stopped stretching.

Some found their way back. Many didn’t. Most, I suggest. I would also venture to say their injury incidence increased post being discouraged from stretching.

Here is a great example of this pattern, in a case study of an individual who found their way back to stretching.

Hi Mr. King.  After reading the Legacy book Vol 2. book here is my review. The content of the book is excellent and  in few moments eye opening.  As you know I already use your concepts in my training so I can testify that they really do work. 

I support your emphasis on flexibility and static stretching because when I started to stretch the Ian King way my health really improved. Ironically, when I started to train almost 30 years ago, I did stretch. I did stretch a lot. My early influences were books by Bob Anderson, Bill Pearl’s ‘Getting stronger’, Tudor Bumpa’s ‘Periodization’, the first edition of the NSCA`s Essentials. They all emphasized static stretching, so I stretched. I never had any overuse injuries at that time.

In the early 2000’s things started to change. I came across Functional guru (Boston guy),  he said that static stretching is bad. Big names like Bompa, Siff, Kurz also started to attack static stretching in warmups. NSCA changed their position on static stretching, so I embraced dynamic and ballistic ‘stretching’.

You guessed it, my body became full of tendinitis’s, trigger points, pain. I lived in agony for few years until I read GBII (those concepts are also  in Legacy book).  Static stretching in warm up phase plus few weekly sessions helped me to restore my health. Static stretching rules!–Hans.[41]

The 2000- 2020s cohort – Only heard about stretching

These individuals began their teenager and or adult training in the period between 2000 and 2020. They did not experience the period of increased involvement and embracing of stretching.  They did however have the opportunity to have heard about it.

Therefore, they have no first-hand experience of a world where stretching was embraced. Instead, they rely on the indigenous tradition of passing on lessons verbally from person to person, as their only source of exposure.

Now whilst this method of passing on knowledge was effective in earlier ages, I suggest it is less effective when it is competing with conflicting values and the power of the written word decrying stretching.

Therefore, power of stretching is diluted for this cohort, who have no first-hand knowledge of the prior more favorable to stretching times. Unless of course they fake it, however I suggest this is not a sustainable or effective long-term strategy.

The following is an example of this.

Original publications

‘Other’ – 2024
So, over the last twenty years all I have seen are reasons why you shouldn’t stretch!  [42]

In the 70s when I started doing it in high school, no one really cared. [43] 

I liked the days in the 70s when no one really cared. [44]

In the 1970s and 1980s athletes stretched and no-one cared. [45]

Move forward to the 1980s, and there I was, stretching happily, endlessly, in the gym, as a competitive powerlifter. And no one cared. [46]

If you trained in the 1980s and you were stretching and someone walked past you…They couldn’t give a rat’s ass. [47]

When I was teaching stretching in the 80s, … no one gave a rat’s ass. No one really cared. [48]

 I think the biggest thing with that whole paradigm is that 20 years ago, no one used to give a fuck if someone was lying in the corner doing stretching. [49]

 

 

Theres a few ‘problems’ with this account over and above the fact that by 2004, the world had moved away from stretching for a decade….

Apart from the obvious paraphrasing of a very familiar statement, this ‘coach’ was about 8 years old in 2004. Are we to believe they formed a professional judgement about the treatment of flexibility training in commercial training areas at the age of 8 years old?[50]

Quite simply, this cohort was denied first-hand experience of a world which embraced stretching. Individuals faking their life experiences is not going to overcome this reality, rather this lack of integrity is not helping stretching’s cause.

The 2020-2040s cohort – Did not witness/experience or hear about stretching

These individuals beginning their teenager and or adult training in the period between 2020 and 2040 will neither . They did not experience the period of increased involvement and embracing of stretching.  They are also unlikely to have the opportunity to have heard about it.

We are now in this period. I suggest that if the suppression of stretching can be effectively maintained, then towards the end of this time frame – which is only a little over decade away – stretching will be a relic from a past age, on the verge of and facing extinction.

Conclusion

I have come to accept that stretching as a mainstream acceptable training method may never return. At least not in the form that I believe it is most effective – pre-training static stretching.

On the contrary stretching may become extinct.

Why do I say that? Because I believe that decision lays with individuals and groups with vested interests.

You will only be ‘allowed’ to stretch WHEN two things occur:

  1. The equipment manufacturers and distributors have worked out how to profit from the training method; and
  2. When the dominant ‘gurus’ have worked out enough about stretching to make out they are experts! [51]

And they may never give it the green light to come back.

Which will be a real shame, in my opinion, for the masses.

And by the mid-90s, I formed an incredibly effective approach to flexibility, and I formed, by then, the solid belief that flexibility is the most important physical quality, and the physical quality that will have more impact upon all other physical qualities, and also on the quality of life going forwards. [52]

Rather than completely wave the white flag I have recently prepared a document to support you getting to know stretching – before it becomes extinct.  It provides a low-bar time commitment to foster more individuals giving it a go, supported by additional information about stretching.

The title recognizes an early attempt to encourage the world to stretch, published in 2000 and again in 2002 [53] – The Lazy Man’s Guide to Stretching.

I encourage you to visit stretching before it becomes extinct!

 

References

[1] King, I., 2011, Stretching debate, I Form, Magazine, Feb 2011

[2] King, I., 2019, How did you develop your approach to flexibility, Off the Record #50, 31 July 2019

[3] King, I., 2010, Legacy Seminar, Gold Coast AUS, 26 April 2010

[4] King, I., 2011, Stretching debate, I Form, Magazine, Feb 2011

[5] King, I., 2011, Stretching debate, I Form, Magazine, Feb 2011

[6] King, I., 2026, Get Buffed! V – Get Optimally Buffed! Ch 5 – Pillar 3: Stability

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

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

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

[10] King, I., 2010, Barbells & Bullshit, Pt 3 of 10 – Flexibility an example of influence on physical qualities, DVD/Audio Series

[11] King, I., 2002, Get Buffed! II – Get More Buffed! Ch. 8 – The stretch – a performance advantage!

[12] King, I., 2026, The Lazy Man’s Guide to Stretching, Ch. 7 – The flawed excuses not to stretch

[13] King, I., 2002, Get Buffed! II – Get More Buffed! Ch. 8 – The stretch – a performance advantage!

[14] King, I., 2002, Get Buffed! II – Get More Buffed! Ch. 8 – The stretch – a performance advantage!

[15] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

[16] King, I., 2011, Flexibility – You can’t do it until we decide, YouTube

[17] King, I., 2026, The Lazy Man’s Guide to Stretching, Ch. 1- My stretching journey

[18] King, I., 2018, KSI Coaching Program L0 Orientation Course, Unit 5 – What flexibility training should I do with my clients?

[19] King, I., 2019, How did you develop your approach to flexibility, Off the Record #50, 31 July 2019

[20] King, I., 2010, Barbells & Bullshit, King Sports International (Book)

[21] Boyle, M., 2004, Functional training for sport, p. 29-30

[22] Goss, K., 1999, Weight Training Secrets from Darkest Africa, draft submitted to the ASCA for publication

[23] Forum thread, 2003, Ian King’s stance on stretching, t-mag.com, from 31 May 2003 (Other)

[24] King, I., 1997, Winning & Losing, p. 26

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

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

[27] King, I., 2000, Heavy Metal Q and A with the King of Strength Coaches, t-mag.com – Issue 133 Dec 1, 2000

[28] King, I., 2003, Ask the Master, p. 87

[29] King, I., 2011, KSI Coaching Program L1 Legacy Course, Unit 11 – Flexibility (Video/Audio)

[30] King, I., 2012, Ian King Live in London, 29 Feb 2012

[31] King, I., 2025, Legacy – Ian King’s training innovations, Vol. 1 – Injury prevention & Performance enhancement, Theory #27 – It’s a conspiracy

[32] King, I., 1997, Winning & Losing, p. 113

[33] King, I., 1999, Foundations of Physical Preparation (course)

[34] King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation (book), p. 50

[35] King, I., 2010, Barbells and Bullshit – Challenging your thinking, Pt 3 of 10 – Flexibility an example of influence on other qualities (Video/Audio)

[36] King, I., 2010, Legacy Tour Seminar – Predicting the tipping point in stretching, Gold Coast, Sunday 25 April 2010

[37] King, I., 2011, KSI Coaching Program, Level 1 – Legacy, Unit 1 – History of physical preparation

[38] King, I., 2010, Barbells & Bullshit, Pt 3 of 10 – Flexibility an example of influence on physical qualities, DVD/Audio Series

[39] King, I., 2025, Legacy, 2nd Edi. Volume 1 – Injury prevention and performance enhancement, Theory #22 – The dominant focus buy decade

[40] King, I., 1997, Winning & Losing (Book), p. 113

[41] Personal communication, Hans to Ian King, Email dated 25 January 2026

[42] King, I., 2002, Get Buffed! II – Get More Buffed! Ch. 8 – The stretch – a performance advantage!

[43] King, I., 2011, Flexibility – You can’t do it until we decide, YouTube

[44] King, I., 2010, Legacy Seminar, Gold Coast AUS, 26 April 2010

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

[46] King, I., 2010, Barbells & Bullshit, Pt 3 of 10: Flexibility – An example of influence on physical qualities

[47] King, I., 2012, Ian King Live in London, 29 Feb 2012

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

[49]  Reference withheld to protect the message

[50] King, I., 2026, Legacy, 2nd Ed., Volume 2 – Flexibility and Strength, Theory #211 –

Our profession relies on you NOT fact checking

[51] King, I., 2018, KSI Coaching Program L0 Orientation Course, Unit 5 – What flexibility training should I do with my clients?

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

[53] King, I., 2002, The lazy man’s guide to stretching, t-mag.com, 28 Jun 2002. (Article)

 

Ian King

The stretching journey – Pt 1: My journey

/by

In this new millennium, at the start of this 21 Century AD, the physical quality of flexibility and the training method to achieve it is without doubt the most vilified physical quality, potentially  on the verge of extinction.  The aim of this article series is to explore how we arrived at this point.  Part 1 is dedicated to understanding how I reached my conclusions about stretching.  In doing this, I share the following:

  • My personal stretching journey
  • My professional stretching journey
  • My publishing stretching journey

My personal stretching journey

In the 1960 my first strength training coach in my home country Papua New Guinea, the late Iwila Jacobs[1], did not teach me stretching. It’s fair to say that stretching has not played a big part in most people’s interpretation of bodybuilding. To put it another way, no magazine space was wasted on pictures of bodybuilders stretching.

In the early 1970s, upon arriving in Australia for high school I took up track and field as a sport. This was my first exposure to stretching.

My personal history in stretching goes back to the 1970s, in my high school years. During track and field amongst other sports I was exposed to stretching. I do not recall any negative connotations or concerns in that decade towards stretching or flexibility training. I suspect doing stretches would not have turned anyone’s head in that decade. [2]

I was to learn later that this is a sport that has a long history of commitment to stretching. Or like too many sports, it did before the world turned.

I liked the days in the 70s when no one really cared, no one even talked about it; we just did it, and no one had an opinion on that; they did or you didn’t do it. And since then, every decade, we’ve gone through a new reason why not. [3]

In the late 1970s I took up the Korean martial art Tae Kwon Do, under a Rhee family from South Korea. And it was there that my stretching was taken to another level. Again, this may have changed since the world turned, but during my time in that and other martial arts, stretching was just what you did.

In the 1980s during university, I participated in a variety of sports, some of which – such as martial arts – promoted flexibility training as paramount. [4]

After arriving at university in Australia in 1980 I had access to the best strength training environment I had been exposed to in my short life. And I grabbed that opportunity with both hands so to speak.

I was the product of the 1970s, and I was the product of track and field and martial arts, both of which were sports leaders in the embracement of flexibility. So, I had a reasonably high level of personal involvement, commitment and competence in this physical quality. [5]

However, I didn’t leave behind what track and field, and martial arts had exposed me to. I took it forward and for me, personally, stretching then strength training was how I did it.

I took this value into my competitive training and competing in other sports in the second half of the 1980s – competitive powerlifting and weightlifting, rugby union etc. I noticed people, looked, some asked questions, but no-one really cared. [6]

It was no different than say my Tae Kwon Do training. We would warm up, then stretch, then train.

If you trained in the 1980s and you were stretching and someone walked past you, they wouldn’t even know you were stretching. They were oblivious to us stretching. They couldn’t give a rat’s ass. [7]

It was quite a sight. I would be lying on the ground out of the way in the strength training facility stretching. It was just what I did. No one else I have met in strength training had my level of commitment. Most weightlifters and powerlifters, even some bodybuilders, did stretch in that decade. But if they didn’t, they were not passing judgement or comment on what I was doing.

Move forward to the 1980s, and there I was, stretching happily, endlessly, in the gym, as a competitive powerlifter. And no one cared. There were other athletes around doing their own thing, and no one cared. I would read the academic textbooks about flexibility. The recommendations were very simple and non-controversial.  There was no mixed message. You did it, you didn’t do it, no one cares. [8]

My professional journey

When I started training others in the early 1980s, I brought stretching along with strength training.

I was further unique, in that I chose to bring flexibility training along with strength training. From the early 1980s, I would not provide strength training – either in program design or in supervision of training – without concurrent flexibility training. That was my starting point. Length and strength. [9]

And no-one cared, no one noticed, no one pushed back. I was introducing at the same time two things that most athletes in Australia in the 1980s and 1990s had not done before – including professional athletes’- serious strength training and serious stretching.

When I was teaching stretching in the 80s, … no one gave a rat’s ass. No one really cared. [10]

I was doing it with athletes in all sports. I was doing it with up to 20 different sports at the elite level during the late 80s and 90s. And no one really objected to it. No one said anything. No one complained. The coaches probably struggled a little bit because I was eating into their time, and that’s a story in itself. But, in essence, my conclusions were shaped by the athlete’s response, their performance and injury prevention response to my application. And I formed a number of hypotheses during the late 80s, in particular, about the relationship between stretching and injury prevention. And I implemented them, and I studied the results, you know, in the real-world laboratory sense, in particular throughout the early 90s, when I gained a lot more control in the training process.

And by the mid-90s, I formed an incredibly effective approach to flexibility, and I formed, by then, the solid belief that flexibility is the most important physical quality, and the physical quality that will have more impact upon all other physical qualities, and also on the quality of life going forwards. [11]

In the late 1980s I took my professional skills to North America. I noticed that my commitment to stretching was significantly more than what my Canadian and American counterparts were doing.

In the environments where I was collaborating in a hands-on sense, I noticed this was somewhat uncomfortable for my colleagues, but I didn’t understand why. After all, wasn’t what I was offering superior and best for the athletes.  For the first time I noticed pushback.

In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s I witnessed the rise of a paradigm that suggested you shouldn’t stretch too much because if you got too flexible, you would be injury prone i.e. your increased flexibility would result in a higher incidence or chance of being injured.  [12]

In the second half of the 1990s this negatively had spread back to Australia. As an example, I left a team at the end of 1995 and returned two seasons later. Same team, same players. Yet their ‘pre-training static stretching is making us weak’ attitude was a shock to me. After all, what I had done with them prior to leaving resulted in championships. In my time away they had gone down the new age route – and in two seasons dropped 10 places on the ladder to third last!

By the late 1990s/early 2000’s the stretching paradigm was that static stretching had an acute (short-term) impact of reducing your strength, so if you want to do it, only do it afterward the workout.  This paradigm suggested more dynamic or PNF (i.e. proprio-neuromuscular facilitation, a special mix of static and dynamic stretching) type stretching should be done before the workout, but again only short duration holds were apparently needed. [13]

What had significantly contributed to putting athletes on the podium and champions for team was suddenly unacceptable.

And after 15 years of doing it, by the mid-90s, something had happened. What was that?  Suddenly I learned of a new theory.  Stretching was bad. [14]

It was tough to understand. In 1989 I gave the Canadian men’s national Alpine Ski team a series of supervised stretching sessions. They loved it and wanted more. They got more over the next decade of my involvement. The Sports Science Director saw it and didn’t complain. It contributed to a positive outcome during that decade. Yet post 2000 the sports science director aligned with the new paradigm in his public presentations. It was hard to comprehend.

My publishing journey

I published extensively on the benefit of stretching from the early 1990s onwards. [15] [16][17] [18] Initially in Australia, and then in the late 1990s my writings were getting more exposure overseas, in particular the United States and Canada – in both professional as well as lay publications such as Men’s Health, Men’s Fitness and t-mag.com. The latter was one of the pioneers of online bodybuilding magazine, and the more public facing nature of this new medium gave me increased exposure to the thoughts and values of the masses, including through the extensive Q&A columns I wrote for the best part of a decade.

It was through this medium that I gained a sense of the shift in the paradigm to a negative sentiment towards stretching, especially pre-training static stretching.

I had as you might expect been promoting my perspective on the role and value of stretching to the readership, and then the ‘switch was flicked’ shortly after I began getting traction with the audience about my approach to stretching.

I was getting questions in my Q&A columns such as:

How do you feel now that you stretching message has been shown to cause weakness?

Here are some real examples:

You seem to prefer stretching before the workout. I have heard another coach speak several times and he is very set on not doing static stretching before the workout as it makes one weaker. I have read up on the subject, and it appears to be true.

I have seen that you recommend stretching before a workout (against many others’ opinions). 

I’m really confused about stretching.  As I mentioned to you in the past, I’m a trainer with ISSA and they say that stretching before you exercise can limit strength. 

Why do you recommend stretching before a workout?  Isn’t that considered “bad” these days? 

What do you think of the theory that says that pre-workout stretching kills the stretch reflex and reduces strength?

It was literally an overnight embracing of a new value set about stretching by people who, let’s be straight – were not talking from experience!

From 1995 to 2010, for 15 years I was mocked for my position. People thought I was fucking crazy. I do not know a single person in the world who has clearly stated, this is what I do, and this is why. No one else would do that because they don’t have the balls to think for themselves. … from 1980 to 1995, no one gave a rat’s ass about flexibility. So, the first 15 years, no one gave a rat’s ass. Next 15 years. They wanted to burn me at the stake, and I was ostracized on that point extensively. [19]

 

** The Laze Man’s Guide to Stretching! e-book is now available here! Education and programs for abdominal training, the first edition in a new series called the Get Buffed! Specialization Series.

 

References 

[1] King, I., 2026, Where it all began, KSI Blog, 18 May 2026

[2] King, I., 2011, Stretching debate, I Form, Magazine, Feb 2011

[3] King, I., 2010, Legacy Seminar, Gold Coast AUS, 26 April 2010

[4] King, I., 2011, Stretching debate, I Form, Magazine, Feb 2011

[5] King, I., 2019, How did you develop your approach to flexibility, Off the Record #50, 31 July 2019

[6] King, I., 2011, Stretching debate, I Form, Magazine, Feb 2011

[7] King, I., 2012, Ian King Live in London, 29 Feb 2012

[8] King, I., 2010, Barbells & Bullshit, Pt 3 of 10 – Flexibility an example of influence on physical qualities, DVD/Audio Series

[9] King, I., 2026, Get Buffed! V – Get Optimally Buffed! Ch 5 – Pillar 3: Stability

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

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

[12] King, I., 2002, Get Buffed! II – Get More Buffed! Ch. 8 – The stretch – a performance advantage!

[13] King, I., 2002, Get Buffed! II – Get More Buffed! Ch. 8 – The stretch – a performance advantage!

[14] King, I., 2010, Barbells & Bullshit, Pt 3 of 10 – Flexibility an example of influence on physical qualities, DVD/Audio Series

[15] King, I., 1991, Level 1 Strength and Conditioning Coach Course, Australian Strength and Conditioning Association. (Course)

[16] King, I., 1991, Level 2 Strength and Conditioning Coach Course, Australian Strength and Conditioning Association.  (Course)

[17] King, I., 1994, The Flexibility Video Series – Part 1, 2 and 3

[18] King, I., 1994, Flexibility Training: Upgrading its Importance in the Talented Squash Player’s Program, Presentation at Squash Australia’s National Coaching Conference, Melbourne, Australia. 19-21 Aug 1994 (Presentation)

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

Ian King

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

/by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Your values are upside down (Visual)

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

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

One of us is upside down…

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

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

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

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

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

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

I call this ‘the battle’: [9]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prioritization of muscle group

i. By sequence:

a. Within the workout.

b. Within the training week.

ii. By volume.

iii. By load:

a. Load potential.

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

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

  1. You do abs last (Sequence)

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

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

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

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

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

  1. You do too few ab exercises (Volume)

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

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

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

How do you explain that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s just a choice worth reflecting on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

But there is hope.

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

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

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

 

** The Awesome Abs! e-book is now available here! Education and programs for abdominal training, the first edition in a new series called the Get Buffed! Specialization Series.

 

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avoiding creating new imbalances (Book)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian King

Where it all began

/by

On the eve of releasing the fifth volume of the Get Buffed! book sequel, I’m taking time out to remember where it all began.

I don’t expect many of you to remember the 1960s, and I expect even less of you to have a memory of the 1960s in an island in the Pacific Ocean.

What are the chances of crossing paths with a person in the 1960s on an island in the Pacific who would shape my journey in strength training and getting buffed?  But that is what happened and the impact in reflection is indisputable.

I can’t say for sure what my exact age was, but it was single digits, when I met Iwila Jacobs. Iwila was a young man – perhaps in his late teens, perhaps in his early 20s. I didn’t know, and didn’t care. He was learning how to service motor cars in a program running out of our yard offering technical training for indigenous men, and I would help out. This worker was different. He loved to flex his bicep and show me his guns. I have never seen this before. I had never met anyone who did strength training. He would also love to walk on his hands and generally show off his strength. Yes, the 1960s island version of a strong man. Not blowing up water bottles and other tricks that I learnt later were the go-to in the US I that decade, but he had my attention!

He took me under his wing and became my first strength coach.  I wrote about this in the original Get Buffed! book in 1999:

I first went into a gym in the 60’s, when I was about 7 years of age.  I had attached myself to the local strongman, an islander by the name of Iwila Jacobs.  He was my first mentor in what was an incredibly early-developed passion for physical preparation!  The gym was the Port Moresby (Papua New Guinea – or the Territory of Papua and New Guinea as it was more correctly known at that time) YMCA.  When I was ‘discovered’ by the staff they ‘kicked’ me out – too young, they claimed![1]

My first exposure to strength training was around the age of seven years, early for any child, even in the US during the 1960’s. I befriended an employee of the family named Iwila Jacobs. He was a local with a hearing and speech disability, but what he lacked there he had decided to make up physically. Although a small man, as a young boy I thought he was Superman.

He’d developed size and strength like I’d never seen before. He was the only strength-developed person I knew. He’d obviously been reading enough muscle mags to know what to do. He’d give me endless biceps flexes, and I came to be in awe of the physique he was able to build. He’d perform walking handstands along the grandstand of the local public swimming pool and he enjoyed the reputation as the local strongman.

Iwila took me into the only gym in town, the local YMCA. I lasted only a few weeks once they worked out my age — too young to train there apparently (and I thought political correctness only came in the last decade or so!). We retreated to an alternate venue. He knew some young men who lived in a local hostel, and they had the bench press/leg extension, single station does-all machine.

I can’t say I trained continuously from that age, but the seed was planted. I’d discovered strength, hypertrophy and weight training, but my focus was still on playing various sports. With no TV, I knew nothing about the Olympics; the greatest show on earth in my world being the South Pacific Games! [2]

My first exposure to strength training may have been the catalyst that led me to pursue answers to what is the best way to strength training and therefore where the book sequel about getting buffed originated.  In reflection, it was an experience that may have been more about a pre-ordained path than coincidence. What are the chances of a young boy growing up in the islands of Papua and New Guinea during the 1960s meeting a young man who was dedicated to strength training to be bigger and stronger?

Iwila’s journey in strength training was probably in it’s infancy when our paths crossed in the 1960s. He went on and dedicated his entire life to strength training, training athletes and the strength sports.

Iwila passed away in the 2020s, perhaps in his 70s.  I wanted to share observations from others about a life dedicated to what the path he set me off on, in an era well before it was trendy or mainstream.

The following eulogy about Iwila from the PNG Olympic Committee. [3]

PNG Mourns passing of Iwila Jacobs. The Papua New Guinea sporting fraternity mourns the passing of Iwila Jacobs. The Board and staff of the Papua New Guinea Olympic Committee share shock, a deep sense of loss and sadness on his sudden passing.

 Selfless, epitomizing a humble dedicated volunteer serving at various times as an administrator, coach and referee in three (3) sports he built up over a span of five (5) decades since 1966 – Bodybuilding, Powerlifting and Weightlifting. He was instrumental in establishing the National Federations of these three sports.

He was Honorary Life Member with the Papua New Guinea Weightlifting Federation; received three SP Sport Awards for Distinguish Services to Sport in 1992; Coach of the Year in 1993 and Technical Official of the year in 1997; awarded the Logohu Medal and the International Weightlifting Federation’s Distinguished Service Award of Merit Gold Star and National Honour Award Gold Medal.

Iwila competed as an athlete as part of Team PNG in the 1979 Suva South Pacific Games, the 1982 Commonwealth Games, and the 1983 Apia South Pacific Games.

He also competed in numerous Masters powerlifting events where he reigned as champion in the Australian National & Pacific Challenge 60kg Masters Category for 14 years until his retirement in 1999.

He was proactive in all facets of Powerlifting and Weightlifting and his career is splashed with his role as an Athlete, Coach, Referee and Judge, Trainer, Tournament Director, Team Manager and Administrator.

He coached weightlifting and powerlifting teams to Oceania and Commonwealth Championships, Pacific Games and to the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester, United Kingdom.

He was also an accomplished Referee for Powerlifting and Weightlifting at the Pacific Games, Oceania and Commonwealth Championships.

He went beyond our shores, helping establish the Oceania Powerlifting Federation and a founding member of the Oceania Weightlifting Federation.

With the sport of Bodybuilding, Iwila started out as an athlete and went onto achieving accreditation as one of PNG’s first Bodybuilding Judge officiating at various regional events including the national championships and PNG Games. [4]

The above demonstrates the breadth and depth of his life in strength sports. He was one of those rare individuals who was involved in all three of the strength sports – weightlifting, powerlifting and bodybuilding – something perhaps more common back in the middle of the 20th Century.

I believe I learnt more from Iwila than simply strength training. You can see from his story his positive and determined nature in the face of adversity.  Iwila was unable to hear and his speech was challenged.  He always found a way to communicate, doing his best with the limited speech he had, using writing, or just showing you. As a child I assumed he was born with this challenge, but I since learnt that his challenges were inflicted during his childhood.

While a Grade 4 child student, Iwila was physically and brutally attacked resulting in losing his hearing which in a turn of good fortune allowed him to get treatment in Australia, where he also attended Arthur Phillip High School in Parramatta, Australia. Most remember that he could only whisper when chatting. If he couldn’t say what he wanted to, he simply wrote it down. [5]

His positivity and determination to find a way were traits I realize in hindsight have been very valuable ones to model.

In hindsight, his life is testimony to the nation, to everyone, that he was, never was, despaired nor impeded by his hearing and speech challenges, but rather, one who rose above those and went on to lead a worthy life which we all celebrate now. [6]

Iwila also succeeded in turning his passion into employment. Just as I did in the 1980s, he found a way to share the lessons he learnt about training with others, transitioning from trainng buddy to coaching volunteer to professional coach.

Iwila was an employee of High Performance Sport PNG and Technical Adviser on the PNG Weightlifting Federation Executive at the time of his passing. [7]

Iwila’s achievements in all levels of the three sports – as an athlete, coach, judge and administrator are significant.  Not many will earn a eulogy like this:

PNG Olympic Committee describes Iwila’s passing as a tremendous loss to PNG sport and the nation. He was a great ambassador for Papua New Guinea. His pioneering and spirit of excellence advanced PNG’s success in the three sports he served Bodybuilding, Powerlifting and Weightlifting. [8]

His involvement in the strength sports is somewhat of a mirror to what the Get Buffed! book sequel is – a combination of bodybuilding, powerlifting and Olympic weightlifting. Although I could not claim the level and extent of contribution he made

For the record, I had spelt his name in the way I remembered it – Iwela. I have since learnt that it was more commonly spelt Iwila.  I don’t think Iwila would have minded either way!

In the late 2000s I sent Iwila a care package of all Get Buffed! material I had published to date with a big thank you letter. I am not sure if it found its way to him, however I know he would have appreciated even the thought.

The spirt of Iwila – passion for strength training and an integrating of the three strength sports into training programs that can benefit everyone. And the encouragement to do strive for excellence whilst overcoming challenges.

His accomplishments are a testament to the enduring passion, commitment and determination to excel and achieve as an athlete and official. His path blazed a trail for all those who wanted to push their limits and excel and inspiring champions and generations to come.[9]

I hope, Iwila, that I have done justice to you and our time together in my writings over the years. I have sought to let anyone who reads my writings on strength training that it all began with you. Thank you Iwila!

 

References

[1] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed! 1 – Introduction

[2] King, I., 2004, Ian King’s Top 10 Lessons, t-mag, 20 Oct 2024

[3] http://www.pngolympic.org/uploads/documents/201218_PR_IwilaJacobsPassing_FINAL.pdf

[4] http://www.pngolympic.org/uploads/documents/201218_PR_IwilaJacobsPassing_FINAL.pdf

[5] http://www.pngolympic.org/uploads/documents/201218_PR_IwilaJacobsPassing_FINAL.pdf

[6] http://www.pngolympic.org/uploads/documents/201218_PR_IwilaJacobsPassing_FINAL.pdf

[7] http://www.pngolympic.org/uploads/documents/201218_PR_IwilaJacobsPassing_FINAL.pdf

[8] http://www.pngolympic.org/uploads/documents/201218_PR_IwilaJacobsPassing_FINAL.pdf

[9] http://www.pngolympic.org/uploads/documents/201218_PR_IwilaJacobsPassing_FINAL.pdf

Ian King

Big Muscles, Busy Schedules – 24 years on…

/by

Recently I received this question about an article i wrote nearly a quarter of a century ago. It was a great question and deserved a great answer. I share it with you and trust you find value in this exchange.

“I’ve been training for almost 16 years now, but with the demands of becoming a licensed psychotherapist, running my own practice, and having a family, time has become pretty limited. “Big Muscles, Busy Schedules” was exactly the kind of two-day-per-week program I’d been looking for—so thank you for that!

I do have a question though: looking back after 24 years, would you make any changes to the program today? For instance, Stage 6 doesn’t include shoulder work, and after Stage 1 there aren’t any direct arm exercises. Considering the more recent insights from hypertrophy research—especially from people like Chris Beardsley—would you add or modify any movements, maybe include some isolation work?

Thanks so much for your time, and for all the great work you’ve done over the years!–Jacob, DE

Jacob – thank you for reaching out and great to hear you have found value in my article/program. I fully understand the added challenges of study, work, family etc. on one’s training. This is exactly what much of my ‘Get Buffed!’ writing is for, and I quote from my Get Buffed! book: “For the average drug free-got a job/go to school person, I recommend consider using…”

As to your questions, let’s get into it:

“Looking back after 24 years, would you make any changes to the program today?”

Absolutely there may be changes – but they may not be what you think or expect. Allow me to explain – I have written very few generic programs, relatively speaking. I have actually avoided writing generic programs for the first 20 years of my coaching, and it was only from 2000 that I realized the need to write a few. I have always, and I stress always, individualized programs for athletes. Very individual.

So, the challenge I have with generic programs is the way they are interpreted. They are general examples. They are not really written for an individual per se, and ideally once the value is found in them by the end user,I would prefer they take advantage of my extensive efforts through tools including but not liited to the current Get Buffed! four book sequel and shape these programs at least a little for themselves. As the Taoist saying goes regarding the fish and the fishing basket: “

The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you’ve gotten the fish, you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you’ve gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you’ve gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?”

So, I would prefer an end user who finds value in my generic programs move on, forget the generic program in the literal sense, and shape it to their needs.

In summary, I have some degree of embarrassment and concern about writing generic programs, for the fear many will be stuck on the program, and not the message. They are not, and cannot be, designed for anyone, as they are composites of imagination as to who the end user might be.

Hopefully this is not too deep or esoteric. I just wanted to express my reservations when asked to provide generic programs. Despite the number of generic programs that I have written for end user and coach education, I have only once in sport at the representative level provided a generic program, and that was a reflection of the budget, and a realization that what I might write may be better than what they would otherwise receive.

Now let’s go deeper on your question, breaking it up into bite size pieces:

“For instance, Stage 6 doesn’t include shoulder work…”

There is absolutely a time and place to remove any given muscle group, but that decision hopefully is individualized! So I would write that again in a program, 24 later, under appropriate circumstances. Are those your circumstances? I don’t know – that is why I have a dissonance with generic programs…

“…and after Stage 1 there aren’t any direct arm exercises…”

There is absolutely a time and place to remove any given muscle group, and I do it more times than you might imagine. In particular with athletes – there are relatively few (and note I said relatively few) competitive sports that require or benefit from an over-focus on arm size. Yes, I know, this is contrary to dominant trends. It’s akin to bench pressing in alpine skiing. The focus on the chest in the last decade or so – in particular in a country with 50 or so states…. – is insane. And the rise in torn biceps in athletes is also insane. And ironically, most athletes who tear their biceps did so in the pursuit of upper arm strength and size in excess of what I consider optimal for their sport. But what would I know? I have only been at this for 45 years…

There are no shortage of individuals (and I refer mainly to non-athletes) whose arm development gives the casual observer the impression they are huge – but a closer review reveals a trunk that is not much bigger than the arms…

It all comes back to what you are chasing. And some just want the instant gratification of arm isolation programs and that a life-style choice. I am not knocking it – I just want to put arm training in context.

“Considering the more recent insights from hypertrophy research…”

Now that opens up a whole new can of worms. A few points:

• ‘Research’, and I assume you mean from a ‘recognized academic institution’, is what is allowed to be selected as a study topic and published.

• I take a different approach to research – I consider it involves objective analysis as the primary requirement, not something that is the exclusive domain of the ‘ivory tower’.

• Historic analysis of ‘research’ influence on strength training provides an ‘interesting’ insight into the mandate of being ‘research compliant’. For example, through the 1970s and early 1980sif you did heavy loaded exercises (what we now call maximal strength training) you were engaging in dangerous and high risk of injury activity. The use of free weights was painted with the same brush. If you engaged in squats (the double leg bent knee type), you were stretching the ligaments of the knee and you should not squat. The lower back EMG studies showed little to no activity past a certain degree of flexion (they omitted to place the electrodes on any other muscles involved including the hamstrings…) and therefore you should not engage in forward flexion such as a deadlift. I could go on.

• ‘Research’ for the most part does not answer long term questions such as what should I do today that will optimize my training outcome in 40 year’s time.

So no, I am not ‘research compliant’. I wasn’t when the article and program was written in 2002, and I am still not now. Does that mean I am divisive of ‘research’? Not at all. I just take it with a grain of salt, except when I find a person is the average of the dozen or so undergraduate students and their long term goal is the 8 weeks duration of the study…(Yes, I am being facetious.)

To take this one step further, I seek to provide what the late US thinker Buckminster-Fuller is credited with calling ‘generalized principles. The aim is to provide guidance that does not need massive tweaking every tie there is a ‘trend’ or ‘research’ change. Which is why we are still talking about this program 24 years later….

“…would you add or modify any movements…?”

I may well do, but I would prefer to provide those tweaks on the basis of knowing more about the end user. I read a few years back in one of those ‘secret’ titled books about program design that a ‘fitness professional’ knows 80% of what they need to know before meeting the client, and only an additional 20% is gained upon meeting them. What a load of BS! Did this ‘author’ actually believe this, or was is a shot at an impressive marketing line? If they did believe it, God help their clients…

We can be better than this. And you, the client, deserve better that this.

‘Research’ or that ‘80%’ learnt by the ‘fitness professional’ does not answer questions such as:

• What is your age and gender?

• What is your maturation and aging status?

• How many hours a week do you work at your job? • Is your job blue (manual) or white (more sedentary) collar?

• How much stress is involved in your job?

• How long does it take you to travel to and from work?

• How many days a week do you work from home?

• How are your personal relationships going, including with any significant other?

• How many kids do you have?

• How old are your kids?

• What is your training history?

• What is your injury history?

• What equipment do you prefer to train on?

• What exercises do you prefer to do?

• What training methods do you prefer to do?

• What training equipment do you prefer to use?

• What results have you got from your training?

• What is the temperature, humidity, altitude and air quality where you live and train?

• What is the water quality, amount and frequency that you consume?

• What about your diet and nutritional supplements?

• What about your past and present medications

• What other health conditions are you at risk or suffer from?

• What is your personality and emotional status and how does this impact your choice of training location?

• What time of day do you get the best results from training? Listen, I am just warming up. But I hope you get the hint. ‘Research’ does not have those answers, and good luck if you believe your ‘fitness professional’ has 80% of all they need to know to program you before you even meet them….

In conclusion, it takes all types to shape our world. Some want a free or cheap program that will meet a lot of their needs. Other will want a bit of help, some with their motivation, or accountability, others with some more superficial guidance. When I fully individualize training program for an athlete or client, ideally with the prospect of being involved in a primary role of a decade or two, I take all the time I need to match the program variables to the individual. My generic programs are great, and in some cases may be better than what some may provide you in their best interpretation of an ‘individualized’ programs. But when comparing apples to apples, my individualized programs, or you tweaking my generic programs relying on the education I have provided in books and articles during the last five decades, is better.

Ian King

Does exercise accuracy matter?

/by

Introduction

When speaking to physical trainers, therapists and other aligned professionals as I travel on the quest to answer the question ‘What is the best way to train?’, I appreciate learning from them. What they think, what they say, and what they do with athletes and clients.

This journey has involved the privilege of travelling the world for many decades seeing these training trends firsthand.  When asked what the most common exercise I see being done from my innovation, it is, without question, the single-leg stiff-legged deadlift.  The only problem is that I almost never see it being done in the way I intended. It would be difficult to walk into any gym in the world now and not see someone performing an imitation of a small oil rig.

Over time I also hear the words used to describe the exercise and the interpretation of when and how to use it varies more and more.

For example, I was recently in a seminar when one of the participants  – a highly qualified and experienced practitioner, albeit a post-2000 entrant to their profession – repetitively referred to my exercise innovation of some forty years ago as a ‘single leg RDL’. And spoke about their application of it to rehab a client’s chronic hamstring injury. With limited success.

It may have been that little bit of German heritage in myself, but my excellence-at-risk meter tends to rise towards the red line when I see and hear these things that for me are the opposite of exercise accuracy. But perhaps that is my problem. Perhaps exercise accuracy doesn’t matter?

When I speak about exercise accuracy, I refer to the origin, name, execution, the application.  I will continue on with the theme of the exercise I called the single leg stiff leg deadlift.

The origin

In this section, I share my observations of the evolution of the stiff-legged deadlift.

The stiff-legged deadlift

First, there was the stiff-legged deadlift.  It was an exercise done for the most part by competitive lifter – Olympic and power – as a supplementary exercise to pulls and deadlifts.

I described this exercise many years ago in the following way:

MG Stiff Legged Deadlift:  Take a medium grip (about shoulder width) and commence in a standing position.  Lower the bar down by bending at the hips, not at the knees.  In the start, the knees should be slightly bent and remain exactly at joint angle during the lift. [1]

It was a two-legged (bi-lateral) loaded exercise using the barbell.

You will find this exercise championed in books that shaped training through the lat half a century including but not limited to:

The single-leg stiff-leg deadlift

During the early 1980s, I concluded that the dominant approach to strength training was creating muscle imbalances because of the bias in programs towards exercises such as the bench press and the squat.  I didn’t want that collateral damage for the athletes I trained, and I set about developing a categorization of exercises to avoid such imbalance in program design. This led to the concept of ‘Lines of Movement’, where I introduced terms and definitions to place every strength exercise into an exercise category.

 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.  

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:[3]

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

So, when I was writing a program, I increased the balance of the program by ensuring balance in the Lines of Movement.

When developing the term ‘hip dominance’ and defining what constitutes a hip dominant exercise, I realized that there were too few exercises in this category and that I needed to match the number, joint involvement and loading potential of exercises in the ‘Quad Dominant’ category.

I leaned on the traditional double leg barbell stiff-legged deadlift to create a single-leg, nil, or low-loaded variation option.

During the 1980s I refined the movement however, as with all my innovations, I trialled and tested it for a decade before extensively publishing it commencing from the late 1990s.

You can see the original exercise in the image below, taken from the How to Teach Strength Training Exercies Video Series (2000).

The ‘Romanian Deadlift’ (RDL)

The “Romanian Deadlift’ appeared in the US in the early 1990s. Initially, this exercise had no known name, or at least not one that the person I learnt it from gave it.  Dragomir Cioroslan, (a former Romanian national weightlifting coach who went on to work with the US Weightlifting team) and his protegee’s were doing a series of demonstrations and seminars during the early 1990s when many, including myself, were intrigued by a unique exercise that they were using as a supplementary exercise – somewhat of a cross between a deadlift and a stiff-legged deadlift.

I had been analyzing the physiques of Dragomir’s athletes for a few days before I got to see them train, and I was puzzled by their hamstring development. There were other shape differences between the and other weightlifters of that era, but that was the one that I linked to this exercise. So, before I got to see them lift, they had my attention.

I began integrating the ‘Romanian Deadlift’ into my training programs and in the absence of a name I called it the Romanian Deadlift, in respect of the origin. I have since noted others came to this same name conclusion. In all publications since that time, I have continued to use that name for this exercise.

The name

By the time I learnt of the loaded bilateral single-joint exercise we called the Romanian Deadlift, I was already well advanced in using the exercise variation I had developed and named the single-leg stiff-legged deadlift.

I began integrating the ‘Romanian Deadlift’ into my training straight away, however, it was not as a substitute or synonym for what I had developed but rather as an additional tool in the toolbox. In my mind they were two different exercises.

Not only was one unilateral and the other bilateral, but also because they were conducted with strikingly different techniques and loading potential.

When I see or hear the term ‘RDL’ to refer to the single-legged deadlift as I had innovated, I question their understanding of that person as to the execution and intent of each exercise.

For me, the only thing they have in common is that they are both relatively isolated posterior chain exercises i.e., they only involve the hip, rather than the knee and the hip.

The execution

To commence the discussion of the difference in execution between the single leg stiff legged deadlift and the Romanian Deadlift, I share the descriptions of each I provided in the late 1990s.

Romanian Deadlift

In plainer terms this is a flat back version of the stiff-legged deadlift.  With the bar on your back, take a shoulder-width stance and slightly bend the knees.  The knee angle is now not to change during the lift.  Flex or lower forward from the waist, keeping your chest up and hip/spine flat i.e. aligned.  Only flex forward as far as you can PRIOR to any rounding of the spine or posterior rotation of the hip.  For most, this will not be very far!

You can also accentuate the hamstring involvement by pushing the bum back and allowing your weight to drift to your heels during the lowering.     During the lift, squeeze the gluts.  This increases the hamstring involvement, which is the aim.[4]

Single Leg standing Stiff Legged Deadlift

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

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

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

Unfortunately for the world’s interpretation of how to execute the single leg stiff legged deadlift, only a few years after I began more openly sharing the exercise in publications, it appeared unreferenced in a prominent magazine, performed in a way that reflected the ‘author’s’ lack of understanding (and perhaps also the male models lack of flexibility, balance and single leg strength – to be able to do the exercise!). Learn more about that here.

To be clear, consider the following comparison:

Variables SL Stiff Legged DL Romanian Deadlift Similar Different
Hip dominant exercise

*
Isolated hamstring Less so More so (1)

*
Number of limbs One (unilateral) Two (bilateral)

*
Loading on feet Central Rear

*
Spine shape Rounded Flat

*
Chest shape Collapsed Up

*
Loading potential Lower Higher

*
  • When done correctly as per the manner originally intended.

Between the descriptions provided and the table above, it may be clearer why I do not see the words ‘RDL’ relevant to the single-leg stiff-legged deadlift. There are far more differences than similarities.

The application

The original rounded-back stiff-legged barbell deadlift is an excellent exercise for strengthening spinal segment strength in addition to hamstrings. However, the political correctness trend in exercise has veered away from exercises and variations that include a rounded spine. That’s unfortunate for athletes who experience loading and/or impact in a less-than-neutral spine shape.

The application of the exercise I innovated, the single-leg stiff-legged deadlift, is not as clear-cut as many assume. In theory, being a unilateral, single-joint exercise, it would have a broad application earlier in the training career, year and return from injury/surgery.

However due to the range involved, the increased loading on the hamstring due to the more bloated nature of the exercise, the increased demand on balance, and the fixed load of the body, this exercise needs to be reviewed and reflected on prior to being included in a training program.

Additional points to consider include:

  • When conducted in an optimal manner (as per it was developed) – with the non-working leg remaining still and parallel to the working leg – the range may be limited by the hamstring flexibility (this was not a problem for me during the developmental decade, because of the premium I placed on flexibility training).
  • If the athlete/client lacks the balance and or range to execute the movement tin the intended manner, you can choose between developing these qualities or default to the influence of allowing the back leg to raise.
  • If you go with the softer option, you are reducing the work (including balance) in general due to counterbalancing of the back leg, and reducing the workload and isolation on the hamstring by allowing the pelvis hemispheres to diverge.
  • Therefore, a decision needs to be made regarding progression – to work on improving range, repetitions, and or load. Generally speaking, I recommend working from the former to the latter.

The Romanian Deadlift (RDL) provides greater loading potential than the single leg stiff legged deadlift version, however, the following are important points:

  • The RDL should not be considered as an equal and opposite of a squat, as the relative loading potential of this exercise compared to the squat is less.
  • The RDL as a rounded back exercise should not negate the inclusion of a rounded back variation in athletes who may be exposed to loads in their sport where the spine is less than in neutral (rounded).
  • If the pivot at the hip joint is not maintained as the exclusive pivot point, the relative load/work/isolation on the hamstrings is reduced.
  • Therefore, considering the progressively reducing nature of athlete flexibility, you may not be working through the range you initially expected or anticipated.

Now to touch briefly on a key point in the application. There has been a long-retained belief, at first in the physical therapy disciplines and now also in the physical training disciplines, that isolated hamstring strength training is the key to rehabilitating or preventing hamstring strains.

Many decades ago, I reached an alternative conclusion. It’s not the aim of this article to go deep on this subject, however, I feel it may be remiss of me to not touch upon it.

Keep in mind my suggestion that if you fail to identify the cause of the injury (and I suggest weak hamstrings are not the cause in the overwhelming majority of cases), then your ‘solution’ may contribute to the problem.

Learning that the single leg stiff legged deadlift – an exercise near and dear to my heart because it is essentially one of my ‘babies’ –  is being used in a ‘hamstring strengthening program’ to rehabilitate athletes with hamstring strains, or prevent hamstring strains, is difficult to hear.  I do not believe the goal will be achieved, and the athlete does not deserve to be a guinea pig for this misguided paradigm.

Conclusion

For almost twenty years now I’ve watched the single-leg stiff-legged deadlift gain global acceptance – in and out of the gym. The only problem was that it was not being done in the intended manner.  More recently I have seen this popularity expand into rehabilitation, and this becomes even more concerning.  And to hear the confusion around the name, such as the use of the term ‘RDL’ in the same exercise name, is a reflection of a lack of understanding o the nuance of the RDL to achieve the hamstring isolation.

Maybe that’s just me being too German-like, seeking precision and excellence in the process.

Maybe exercise accuracy doesn’t matter?

 

References

[1] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed! 1 (book), p. 244

[2] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, P. 32

[3] 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

[4] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed! I, p. 230-231.

[5] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed! I, p. 210-211.

Ian King

The origin and intent of Speed of Movement (SOM) and Time Under Tension (TUT)

/by

Introduction

I began my professional journey training athletes in 1980, and in the 1980s was also personally involved in competitive strength sports.  At that time there were a number of burning questions I had about training including questions about optimal speed of movement in strength exercises

I was not satisfied conducting the speed of movement in strength training aimlessly, or worse, in a way simply to allow myself to lift more weight. I witnessed ample examples of both around me every day. I wanted more purpose, a better understanding, a pursuit of excellence to optimize training for myself and those whose training I was responsible for.

I set out on a journey of discovery. Very little information was available. So I formed my own theories and methods, and set about testing them for over a decade before discussing them publicly.

I had no desire or intention to market or expose the concept. I developed it to serve the athletes as best as I could. Nor did I anticipate the extent to which this concept would travel globally, or how its origin and intent would be misinterpreted.

The purpose of this article is to share the journey of the concepts and methods I developed and refined in the area of Speed and Movement (SOM) and Time Under Tension (TUT). In doing so I provide those historical clarity for those who value accuracy of information and history.

 

What is Speed of Movement?

So, what is Speed of Movement in strength training? I have summarized the answer to this question in my 1998 text, How to Write Strength Training Programs:

Speed of movement in strength training refers to the rate at which the external resistance or body is moved.  Another word commonly seen in North American literature is tempo.  I am not sure whether this is a typical North American word or an attempt to mimic European terminology.  Speed of movement can be measured in various ways including

  1. Angular velocity (degrees per second).
  2. Meters per second.
  • Number of seconds per contraction phase.
  1. Angular velocity: Is suited for comparison to measurements made in clinical settings e.g., the Cybex and Kingcom devices have settings that are measured in degrees per second. However I have not found this a practical method in the field.
  1. Meters per second: Is suited for comparison to movement speed e.g. running speed, which is more measurable and has greater application than the measurement unit of angular velocity for the practitioner. However it is still difficult to measure in the gym and convey to the trainee.

iii.  Number of seconds per contraction phase: I believe is the easiest and most applicable to the practical environment of strength training.  During the early 1980’s I noticed Ellington Darden (an American strength expert writing for Nautilus) write about number of seconds the eccentric and concentric contractions should take to complete on the Nautilus machines.  By the mid 1980’s I had developed a system of denoting and communicating speed of movement in strength training that involved a simple numbering system. [1]

 

What were the dominant paradigms about Speed of Movement (SOM) in strength training in the early 1980s?

My search for the answers to my questions about speed of movement led me to the teaching of a few, the only ones I could find in the early 1980s who addressed this topic. I documented these findings in earlier writings:

During the early 1980’s I noticed Ellington Darden (an American strength expert writing for Nautilus) write about number of seconds the eccentric and concentric contractions should take to complete on the Nautilus machines. [2]

I was first influenced by Arthur Jones and Ellington Darden.  They were the first I had seen to attach numbers to training programs.[3]

They advocated for a controlled speed of approximately 3 seconds lowering (eccentric) and 1-2 seconds lift (concentric). The dominant message was that the eccentric phase should take longer than the concentric phase. There was no reference to the variable of the pause, the duration between the two muscle contraction phases.

I acknowledged that Jones and Darden were predominantly coming from a bodybuilding perspective. At the same time, I noted that track and field athletes and coaches at the highest level advocated all strength movements be executed explosively and with no pause. I can remember watching a national representative throwing athlete performing barbell pullovers at the Australian Institute of Sport, very concerned that his shoulder was to about to dislocate.

There was no common ground or agreement – it was either controlled speed movements for bodybuilders or explosive movements for power athletes.

Whilst I appreciated their respective influences, I felt a number of elements missing. This left me asking the following questions:

  1. What if we applied a pause between the contraction phases?
  2. What if we used various speeds for different exercises or different training outcomes? g., could there be a time for a bodybuilder to lift explosively, or a power athlete to lift slowly?
  3. What if we varied the pause duration for different exercises or different training outcomes?

These questions may seem redundant now, however in the early 1980s they were pertinent, because no-one that I had found was addressing these three questions.

So, I created my own theories and methods about Speed of Movement.

 

What difference does the pause between the eccentric and concentric phases make in strength training adaptations?

When I began competing in strength sports the role of the pause became blatantly clear, at least to myself. I was stunned by the implications of the pause on the chest during the bench press. A competitive powerlifter is required to pause the bar on the chest until the referee signals to commence the concentric (lift) phase.  The duration of the pause was subjective. Some held the pause shorter, some longer.  The duration of the pause had significant implications on how much weight you could displace successfully and be given green lights by the judges (a successful attempt).

I had developed an awareness of the pause or isometric contraction between the eccentric and concentric contractions.  This was intuition, a gut feeling… [4]

I was also surprised that no-one in that era was considering the role of the pause in not only load displacement, but on the training effect.

In forming my position in relation to the pause, questions that I had included:

  1. What’s the difference between an exercise that commences with the eccentric contraction and a movement that commences with the concentric contraction?
  2. What is the purpose of the pause?
  3. When should I pause?
  4. How long should I pause for?
  5. What happens if I vary the pause?

1. What’s the difference between an exercise that commences with the eccentric contraction and a movement that commences with the concentric contraction?

I recognized that you could divide lifts into two categories based on the muscle contraction involved first.  For example, when conducting pushing movements such as bench press and shoulder press, one typically commences with the eccentric phase.  When conducting pulling movements such as rows and pull ups, one typically commences with the concentric phase.

2. What is the purpose of the pause?

My reflections and experimentation with the pause led me to three primary benefits of the pause including:

  1. Negating of the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) contribution from the eccentric phase to augment the load potential in the concentric phase and its implication on muscle recruitment. g., the longer I held the pause on the chest in a bench press following the eccentric phase, the less weight I could lift, however there was a potential that the muscle could be working harder. This benefit is most apparent in pushing movements (movements that commence with the eccentric phase).
  2. Developing joint angle specific strength. E.g., the longer I held the pause on the chest in a row following the concentric phase, the less weight I could lift, however there was a potential that the muscle could be working harder at that joint angle, developing a joint-angle specific adaptation. This benefit is most apparent in pulling movements (movements that commence with the concentric phase).
  3. Developing technique, or joint angle specific co-ordination. When learning a new movement that involves technical cues, a slower speed of movement can assist with the learning process.  Using the pause to contribute to slowing the movement down and allowing the athlete time to refocus on the subsequent body position associated with the upcoming contraction phase is valuable for this learning. E.g., at the bottom of a squat, I teach a certain management of the pelvis position, a concept I have published since the late 1990s yet one of the few to be embraced. To optimize the learning of this pelvic control and associated torso and limb relationship management, a pause is critical.

3. When should I pause?

There are two pause opportunities in a repetition:

  1. At the end of the eccentric phase and before the concentric phase.
  2. At the end of the concentric phase and before the eccentric phase.

Pause i. impacts the role of the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) in a way that Pause ii. does not.  Pause ii. has since been promoted for its potential in energy recovery. However, I believe this is a very simplistic approach and fails to consider the cost implication of holding load in a static position, even if a biomechanically conductive position. My approach was to treat the pause equal at both ends.

4.  How long should I pause for?

In relation to the duration of the pause I had simply concluded that the longer you paused, the harder it was to do the lift.  Typically, I would advocate a pause duration between 0 and 4 seconds. I did not seek to quantify the duration of the pause. Now I don’t pretend to be a scientist. I have consistently said let the sports scientists come along in the future and give greater clarity to my theories. Ironically a few years later science did just that in relation to the impact of the pause.[5]

…My intuition has since been supported by science, especially the work of Australian strength researcher Greg Wilson, whose studies included a study that showed that the elastic energy from the eccentric phase continues to contribute to or augment the concentric power up until the length of pause equals or exceeds four (4) seconds (in the bench press at least).[6]

I don’t believe it is coincidence that the researcher who a few years later gave validity to my hypothesis (at least as it relates to bench pressing) was also a competitive powerlifter!

A point I want to clarify here is that Wilson’s research at that time related only to the competitive bench press, not any other lifts. This is another area that I believe has been poorly dealt with in publications since I promoted Wilson’s research – especially with those who use the ‘open book’ method of publishing (open a book and copy some of the contents, then publish the copy as their own).

For example, one publication claimed Wilsons research showed ‘that it took a 4 second pause before we eliminated the stretch-shortening effect.  So, anything less than a four second pause still involves the use of momentum.’

No reference was made about any given exercise. Had this publication been based on original writing’, perhaps the ‘author’ may have read the original research and had a better understanding of what Wilson’s research said.

5. What happens if I vary the pause?

After recognizing and respecting the overlooked critical nature of the pause, the question was what happens when I vary the pause and when does it apply?

A number of training principles guide this decision:

  1. Specificity
  2. Variety
  3. Periodization

i Specificity: My thinking respected the dominant paradigms in the respective and opposing fields -bodybuilding and power sports. From a specificity perspective, I would use longer pausers for hypertrophy and learning, and shorter pauses for maximal load and explosive power.

2, Variety: However, there is a role in the application of the pause for what many would consider non-specific training.  This is no different than any other program design variables – one is not compelled to be ‘specific’ all the time. In fact, additional training benefits come from variety.

The following is an example of this as applied to repetition range variety.

Variation may also give unexpected adaptations from repetitions. A trainee pursuing hypertrophy, after spending considerable time training in classic hypertrophy brackets (e.g., 8-12) may experience further significant hypertrophy when changing to a higher or lower rep bracket. Whilst this appears to contradict the above table, it shows that variety alone can accelerate gains. Note this applies in both strength (neural) and size (metabolic) training. The message is clear – irrespective of the specific goal, training in too narrow a rep bracket may not be as effective as alternating or mixing with different rep brackets. The key is not which reps to use, rather how much time to spend in each different rep bracket.[7]

3. Periodization: The fundamental principles of periodization recognize the value and need for change throughout a training year (horizontal integration) and throughout a career (vertical integration). For example, an athlete may commence their training year in the General Preparatory Phase (GPP) with less specificity in the pause and move towards greater specificity in the pause duration as their Competitive Phase (CP) approaches. Also, as an athlete advances in their level of qualifications over the years, the athlete may spend less time in non-specific pauses and more time in more specific pause duration combinations.

 

What happens when you vary the Speed of Movement (SOM)?

When choosing my early speed of movement combinations, I was relying on experience and intuition.  There were no quantifiably measured training effects from specific speed of movement combinations, which is no surprise because at the time I developed the Speed of Movement concept during the mid 1980s’ there was no reference I could find in literature on this subject.

I typically used longer duration combinations for hypertrophy and learning technique, and shorter duration combinations for developing maximal strength and explosive power.

These generalizations are summarized in the following table:

The speed of movement combinations suited to various strength training methods. [8] 

Eccentric Speed/Time

(seconds)

 Pause Speed/Time

(seconds)

 Concentric Speed/Time

(seconds)

 Training Methods Most Suited to these Speed Combinations Examples of SOM Combinations
very slow and controlled long slow and controlled stability/control & general fitness; metabolic-end hypertrophy;

strength endurance

 8:0:4

6:1:3

4:2:1

3:1:3
slow controlled medium fast/attempt to be fast general fitness; metabolic-end hypertrophy;

strength endurance

  

3:2:1

 
medium controlled short fast/attempt to be fast neural-end hypertrophy; metabolic-end max. strength; strength endurance 3:1:1

2:1:1
fast controlled nil fast/attempt to be fast neural-end maximal strength;

explosive power; strength endurance

 2:0:1

1:0:1
fast nil fast/attempt to be fast explosive power;

quickness/SSC;

strength endurance

 10*

*0*

*

 

How did I choose to communicate Speed of Movement (SOM)?

My primary focus was coming up with a solution to communicate with the athletes I trained exactly what Speed of Movement (SOM) I wanted them to use. I needed a simple yet effective way to achieve this:

To communicate how fast or slow I wanted an athlete to move the load in strength training, I developed a numbering system in the 80’s. [9]

By the mid 1980’s I had developed a system of denoting and communicating speed of movement in strength training that involved a simple numbering system. [10]

I settled on a three-digit method:

There are three numbers e.g., 3:1:1. All the numbers refer to seconds.  The first number relates to the eccentric phase.  The second or middle number to the pause or isometric contraction duration between the eccentric and concentric contraction.  The third number refers to the concentric phase. 

The fact that the first number always refers to the eccentric contraction can cause some confusion in the trainee as a percentage of strength exercises commence with the concentric contraction, especially the pulling movements such as the chin ups.  However, once they become familiar with the system it works excellently.  In brief, most pushing movements commence with the eccentric contraction, and most pulling movements commence with the concentric contraction.[11]

I also responded to the criticisms of my timing system in my 1998 book How to Write Strength Training Programs: [12]

  • The first criticism regarded the confusion allegedly caused because I say the first number refers to the eccentric, even when the movement doesn’t commence with an eccentric contraction.
  • The second criticism I addressed was about how ‘hard’ it is to count reps and monitor speed of movement.

Around 2010, twenty plus years after publishing the three-digit timing system, I read ‘new’ criticism. Ironically, the person leading the criticism below is a person who chose to teach this concept in a variety of publication over an extended period of time, unreferenced of course, except for the first time they published in, in line with what seems to be an industry protocol – reference it once and you have no need to apply referencing again.

I think the use of the three digit formula is partly to blame…[13].…the idea of controlling rep speed is vital.  You have to do some kind of tempo prescription.  I think the idea of using numbers was based on an over-reaction…[14]

Now heading towards forty years since I developed this concept, the criticisms continue.

In the past, we used this numerical system regularly to communicate tempo; however, we no longer use that method because it isn’t an effective way to communicate how the rep should always be performed.[15]

Time Under Tension (TUT) was such a popular idea for a long time. Here’s why it’s actually useless and what you should consider instead…[16]

As to the specifics of how I chose to communicate the three-digit timing system, I wrote this statement in 1987:

If speed indicators are given, the first number refers to the lowering (eccentric phase) speed in seconds, the middle (second) number to the duration of the pause in seconds, and the last number (third) to the duration of the lifting (concentric phase) in seconds.  e.g. 8:0:4 = 8 second lowering time, no pause, and 4 second lifting time. [17]

And repeated it in countless publications since, such as the below example:

There are three numbers e.g. 3:1:1. All the numbers refer to seconds.  The first number relates to the eccentric phase.  The second or middle number to the pause or isometric contraction duration between the eccentric and concentric contraction.  The third number refers to the concentric phase. [18]

I also provided guidelines clarifying expectations when the number ‘1’ appeared last, or when even faster movement was expected in the program design:

Additionally, when the number one does appear as the third number, the power athlete must have it reinforced – this means to try and go fast!  This is rarely done.  And when the asterisk (*) is used – it must look fast![19]

The first time – and last time – I observed this explanation published by other authors applying appropriate credit was by Charles Poliquin in 1997, over a decade after I had developed it:

Tempo, the speed of your lift, is always expressed in three digits, a formula refined by Ian King, Australia‘s leading strength coach. The first digit is the lowering (negative) portion, the middle digit the pause (isometric) phase, the third digit the return (positive) movement. Using the Front Squat example below, 3 refers to the three seconds it should take the lifter to squat down; 2 refers to a two-second pause at the bottom; 1 refers to the one second it should take the lifter to return to the start.  X is used to denote “as fast as possible. [20]

In the 1980s and early 1990s, in both publication and in programs, I would place a colon or hyphen between the numbers. Considering I was handwriting the training programs for each athlete in the 1980s, it was an effort I will not forget! During the 1990s I morphed this into writing three numbers with no punctuation, more due to time efficiency than anything else. The variation used in unreferenced and uncredited publications indicates which decade of my publishing they are copying.

 

How and why was Time Under Tension (TUT) developed?

I coined the term ‘Time Under Tension’ (TUT) also in the 1980s.  It was not needed as a communication for athletes. However, it was relevant to coach education.

TUT is not a synonym for speed of movement. It is a term used to measure the impact of the speed of movement – i.e., how long were the muscles under tension of the load/lift.

The application of my three-digit timing system made it possible to measure the duration of reps and sets to ascertain where they sat in the TUT table. In fact, without this system, this concept – TUT – would not have been very measurable.

The time from the start to the end of a set I called the ‘time under tension’ (TUT).[21]

This term has gone on to become not only popular but an accepted commonly used term in strength training.

Here’s how I describe TUT:

Time under tension (TUT) refers to the time that the muscle is working continuously.  This is usually measured in seconds and refers mainly to the duration of tension within a set, although can be calculated as total time under tension in the workout.  Time under tension is associated with metabolic adaptations from strength training, and is believed to be highly correlated with hypertrophy training.  For example, a higher number of reps as are used in hypertrophy training, have an inherently higher time under tension (all things being equal) than a lower number of reps as typically used in neural strength training. [22]

 The following provides working guidelines for the application of the TUT concept in strength training program design:

The following table shows a guideline for the training methods and benefits associated with varying time under tension.  As is evident there is a degree of overlap between time ranges.[23]

Common interpretation of time under tension (TUT).[24]

 TUT Dominant Training Effect
1-20 seconds Speed strength/maximal strength
20-40 seconds Maximal strength/hypertrophy
40-70 seconds Hypertrophy/muscle endurance

 

Guideline for time under tension and associated training methods and adaptations. [25]

Time under tension for set (seconds) Dominant Training Effect Training Methods and Adaptations
1-20 secs

N

E

U

 Quickness / SSC

Explosive power

Neural-end maximal strength (relative strength)
20-40 secs

R

A

L

 

 Metabolic-end maximal strength (absolute strength)

Neural-end hypertrophy
40-70

M

E

T

A

 General strength/metabolic-end hypertrophy

Stability/control & general fitness
>70

B

O

L

I

C

 Stability/control & general fitness

Muscle endurance

 

TUT was never suggested to be a science per se, rather a guideline.  One day the scientists will have their say for those who seek ‘research’ approval.   Nor was TUT developed to be taught to the end user. It was a professional-level concept aimed at providing some degree of quantification and categorization of the impact of combinations of Speed of Movement on training adaptation.

I am intrigued by the embracement of TUT in academic literature. This concept is referred to in so many articles, yet the expectations of appropriate, professional referencing are not met.

 

What was the publishing timeline of SOM and TUT?

I started using my three-digit timing system in program design with athletes in the mid-1980s.  In the initial years I would verbally explain it to them to help them interpret their written programs.  Keeping in mind that the individualized training program I gave to individual between 1980 and 1989 were hand-written, therefore access to printed documents was not as easy as it has been since the advent of the Information Age in 1989.

The next phase of communication with the athlete about SOM and the three-digit timing system was a printed document, kept loose-leaf in their training diaries. This worked reasonably well with the training diaries that I began producing in 1987[26] for athlete.

In about 1988 I began integrating this printed document into their training diaries.

The first commercial artifact I made available to the broader public was the 1989 edition of the training diary, however sales were by word of mouth, not marketed.

I had no desire or intention to market or expose the concept. Unlike the ‘modern-day’ strength coach, my focus was exclusively on giving athletes in my care a performance advantage and sharing proprietary concepts with others was not fitting with that vision.

This presented a challenge when I began to receive requests to publish training programs. I was not accustomed to writing programs with SOM guidance, so I had to choose between providing what I considered a sub-standard training program for publishing by excluding SOM, or including SOM and providing excellence, at risk of exposing the performance advantage.

I chose a compromise – I submitted the programs for publishing with SOM guidelines in them but intentionally avoided any additional attention to this unique and proprietary concept. You can see examples of this, published and presented in Canada[27] [28] and the USA[29] [30] [31] [32] from the early 1990s onwards.

It was not until 1998 [33], over a decade after I began applying the concept, that I published more openly about it.  The reason this occurred included:

  1. I have a multiple decade tradition of choosing not to publish on an innovation prior to a decade of testing and refinement.
  2. I increased my focus on coach education and this coincided with that move.
  3. The concept was being ‘leaked’ by a certain individual.

Let me be very clear – there were several colleagues who were exposed to the three-digit timing system during the second half of the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s. However, in that time there was only one whose modus operandi was to identify excellent, but little know training concepts typically found outside of North America and publish them.

The approach typically used was to publish them in the first instance giving recognition to the original source but claiming to have modified, and from then on drop the referencing to the origin.  This strategy was attempted on the three-digit timing system, however perhaps unlike other original thought providers, my response resulted in a backing off from that approach, and they reverted back to more honest recognition of the source.

Tempo refers to the speed of a lift and can be expressed in a three-digit formula developed by Ian King, one of Australia’s most accomplished strength coaches.[34]

The first time I have found a publication by this individual using my three-digit timing system in program design was in 1997, over a decade after I developed the system.[35]

“It’s always expressed in three digits, a formula refined by Ian King, Australia’s leading strength coach…” [36]

Until then, the programs provided by this coach – either in public domain or in service to athletes – did not contain any digit-timing system. In fact, they did not recognize the pause between eccentric and concentric contractions at all.

However, to this coach’s credit, independent from my works as evidenced by their 1988 article, [37] they were aware of the value of varying repetition speed. However, this was in the absence of any awareness of the role of the pause between eccentric and concentric contractions, and in the absence of any digit timing system. Instead, words were used to communicate the indented speed. (See table below from this 1988 article). [38]

Providing further clarification about the intent and use of SOM and TUT

In 1998 I published content including the following with the intent of providing clarity about SOM and TUT. There had been an over-reaction to the concept, and more (slower reps, longer duration TUT) was being popularized as better:

Where I believe most get it wrong is this…the system never came with a user manual.  The number one use of this system I believe is this.  For those concerned about power, rate of force development, I do not recommend using anything less than a fast or attempted to be fast concentric contraction for some 80-90% of total training time. 

A lack of awareness of the ‘need for speed’ (attempted acceleration) in the concentric phase in the power athlete may result in an adaptation to a non-specific rate of force development.  This is the same non-effective and perhaps detrimental training effect that occurred when athletes first started using strength training and used the bodybuilding methods.  A total lack of awareness of the need for a fast/attempted to be fast concentric contraction.  Therefore, the power athlete cannot afford to spend more than 10-20 % (as a generalization) of their total strength training time using number greater than 1 as the third number.  Additionally, when the number one does appear as the third number, the power athlete must have it reinforced – this means to try and go fast!  This is rarely done.  And when the asterisk (*) is used – it must look fast!

Note that …. programs as published in most popular media are for bodybuilders.  Slower concentric times are used – and this is okay for bodybuilders…Great for hypertrophy, but non-specific to rate of force development.  Use sparingly with the power athlete.  Spend most of the time reinforcing ‘speed’!

The second most common error is for the program writer to compile a sequence of numbers which, when combined with the reps written, result in a time under tension that is not specific to their intended training outcome e.g. 421 x 10 reps (=70 sec) for maximal strength.  This is an easy error to make and simply requires first understanding training effects as they are related to total time under tension, and then analyzing the program before it is given out.

The major groups of speed combinations I use are as follows (see Table 53).  You may note that only one out of five (or 20%) of the combinations use a deliberately slow concentric phase.

Table 53 – The major groups of speed of movement combinations in strength training.

Eccentric Speed/Time Pause Speed/Time Concentric Speed/Time
Very slow and controlled Long Slow and controlled
Slow controlled Medium Fast/attempt to be fast
Medium controlled Short Fast/attempt to be fast
Fast controlled Nil Fast/attempt to be fast
Fast Nil Fast/attempt to be fast

 

The advent of the four-digit system

Following my 1998 ‘user-guide’ about the three-digit system, Charles Poliquin began publishing a four-digit system:

“…I now use a four digit system which is a refinement of a three digit system developed by my Australian colleague Ian King….” [39]

In my response to this ‘refinement of my system’ I wrote:

More recently some have added a fourth number to my three number speed description.  This fourth number describes the pause time between the end of the concentric and the start of the eccentric phase.  My initial numbering system inferred this pause to be the same as the pause between the end of the eccentric and the start of the concentric phase.  There is technical merit to the addition of this fourth number, but I am not convinced that the average athlete or even program designer understands the rationale behind differentiating between the two pauses…. [40]

Note that the four-digit approach arrived nearly 15 years after I commenced using the three-digit system.

Perhaps my expectations are too high assuming that such a time gap would have provided more clarity about the subject. Even so-called ‘industry experts’ struggle with accurate interpretation.

Poliquin preferred a three-number system, while King preferred a four-number system…[41]

 

The industry response to SOM and TUT

It is interesting to note that after the publishing of SOM in Australia, Canada and the US between 1986 and 1996, there was limited uptake of the SOM and TUT concept and method.

For example, as an insight into lay media trends of the time, a program published in Men’s Fitness in 1997, there was no reference to SOM. [42]

This is not, in my opinion, an exception, rather than the rule. Take Dietmar Schmidtbleicher’s accumulation and intensification approach to strength periodization. [43] This method was proposed by the West German strength researcher in the at least the early 1980’s and further promoted by Canadian strength coach Poliquin including in his 1988[44] NSCA article.

It was only when this concept was published in populist lay-person publications that even physical preparation coaches began aware of and adopting the concepts.  Again, I refer to the strength training program in the 1997 Issue of Men’s Fitness – not a single reference to this training method.

However, the awareness of these concepts changed after they were shared through lay publications, such the internet bodybuilding magazine t-mag (as they were known then), and books targeting the end-user such as Poliquin’s 1997 book[45]:

T: A lot of people don’t know this, but you pretty much invented tempo prescriptions, right? (Note: In case you don’t know, tempo prescriptions are those numbers like 211 you see beside most of the exercises listed in T-mag training articles.)

Ian: Definitely. That is my baby….

T: How did you come up with this idea? 

Ian: It was just one of those conclusions I’d reached from my involvement in sport. I knew there was a difference between when someone holds the bar on their chest or bounces it off. So, what I did is control the variable in the pause between the eccentric and the concentric. I created a method for communicating what speed I wanted them to use in each part of the lift. It was, of course, in the form of three digits with each digit representing a certain number of seconds.

I do need to give credit to Arthur Jones and Ellington Darden. They were probably the only people making references to the eccentric and concentric speeds. Some say Arthur only wanted to control tempo to protect his equipment, but I don’t know about that. I just put it into a user-friendly, easy to communicate form for the athlete and I respected the pause. Since then, science has validated that pause, but I created the method from intuition before science validated it. This is what I meant by not waiting on the research. [46]

The father of this numbering system, or at least the uncle, is Australian super coach Ian King. I call him the uncle of this practice because Ian doesn’t take full credit for the numbering system. Instead, he lists Arthur Jones and Ellington Darden as the first to attach numbers to training programs. However, Ian was the first to recognize the role of tempo, or speed of movement, in what’s known as the stretch shortening cycle.[47]

You may not know this, but Ian King invented modern tempo prescriptions, you know, those 311 or 302 numbers you see listed after exercises in most strength coaches’ training programs. Good thing too, since manipulating rep speed can lead to different lifting goals (hypertrophy, explosiveness, maximal strength, etc.)[48]

 

Lack of accurate attribution

It would seem perhaps only a minority seek to determine the origin of concepts.  In relation to SOM and TUT, I rarely see the appropriate attribution.   I suggest two possibilities for this – firstly, the post 2000 advent of the 4th digit to SOM. This is despite that author providing appropriate attribution:

“…I now use a four digit system which is a refinement of a three digit system developed by my Australian colleague Ian King….” [49]

Secondly, I suggest that there has been a concerted effort by certain individuals to disguise the origin of much of their published works.

For example, in 2006, an individual who has worked to position himself as an ‘industry leader’, and who has published my speed timing methods frequently in the absence of any credit, gave an account of the history of the concept, concluding with an alleged rumor that ‘some say it [speed timing system] came out of Australia’.  Yet, in the same publication, this author claimed to have ‘read nearly everything there is to read in the field of strength and conditioning’.

This trend of factually incorrect referencing continues:

The late Charles Poliquin was the first to teach us about tempo, suggesting a three-digit formula to help coaches communicate how reps should be performed by their athletes (later refined to a four-digit formula)…[50]

I expect that ethical and well-researched authors and presenters will appropriately reference and credit the origin of SOM and TUT. They were developed to serve the end-user, not to gain approval from or impress colleagues.

 

Conclusion

I set out in the early 1980s to learn what was the best way to train, both for my athlete clients and for myself.  That journey included a focus on the question of what the optimal speed of movement is. The conclusions I reached from the search led to the two concepts.  Firstly, the creation of a Speed of Movement (SOM) concept for the end user, using a three-digit system to communicate that speed.  Secondly, a Time Under Tension (TUT) concept with guidelines relative to desired training outcomes to guide program design for professionals.

At the outset there was no intention to develop a concept and methods to be marketed or used as a tool for self-promotion, as my SOM and TUT concept and methods have been used by some. Rather it was a personal journey to solve an existing challenge, with no intention of releasing in the short-term.

SOM and TUT were never intended to be ‘exact science’. I leave that to my academic colleagues to qualify the concept. There were intended as methods of communication and concepts to provide framework for training program design decisions.

The fact that some find criticism is of little interest or relevance. SOM and TUT are not created to be obligatory-use concepts, and therefore one can chose to use them or not.

If your training results or those of your clients have or are being enhanced by your application of SOM and TUT concepts, they are serving in the manner intended.

——

NB. Want to dive deeper int SOM and TUT? Check the KSI Short Course – Time Under Tension – Exploding the Myths!

 

References 

[1] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (book), Speed of Movement, p. 115

[2] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (book), Speed of Movement, King Sports International Publishing, p. 123

[3] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed! (Book), King Sports International Publishing, p. 68.

[4] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (book), p. 123

[5] Wilson, G.J., Elliott, B.C., and Wood, J.A., 1991, The effect on performance of imposing a delay during a stretch-shorten cycle movement, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 23(3):364-70

[6] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (book), King Sports International Publishing, p. 123

[7] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (book), King Sports International Publishing, p. 93

[8] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (book), Speed of Movement, King Sports International Publishing, p. 126

[9] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!™, Ch 12 – What speed of movement should I use?, p. 61-67

[10] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (book), Speed of Movement, p. 123

[11] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (book), Speed of Movement, p. 124

[12] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (book), Speed of Movement, p. 124

[13] xxxx, 2005, The Evil Scot: An interview by Chris Shugart, T-mag.com

[14] xxxx, and xxxx, 2009, Program Design Bible

[15] xxxx and xxxx, 2020, Secrets to Successful Program Design, Human Kinetics

[16] https://www.skillbasedfitness.com/its-time-to-forget-about-time-under-tension-tut/

[17] King, I., 1987 (1st Ed; 4th Ed 1990), Training Diary

[18] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (book), Speed of Movement, p. 123

[19] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (book), Speed of Movement, p. 123

[20] Poliqin, C., 1997,  The Poliquin Principles, Science of Tempo, p. 25

[21] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!, King Sports Publishing, Brisbane, Australia, p. 61

[22] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs, p. 129-131

[23] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs, p. 129-131

[24] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!™, p. 61-52

[25] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs, p. 129-131

[26] King, I., 1987, Athlete Training Diary, 1st Edition (subsequent editions in 1988, 1989 and 1990). (Book)

[27] King, I., and Poliquin, C., 1991, Strength training for Alpine Skiing, Level 3 coach education seminar for the Canadian Association of Coaching Whistler Canada.

[28] King, I., 1993, Plyometric Training: In Perspective (Part 3), Science Periodical on Research and Technology in Sport, 14(2), Canada. (Article)

[29] King, I., 1992, Strength training and conditioning for rugby, Presentation at the 1992 NSCA National Convention, 18-20 June 1992, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (Presentation)

[30] King, I., 1996, The 12 Week Beginning Program Combining Strength Training and Jump Training for Long Term Development – Part 1, Performance Conditioning for Volleyball, Vol. (3):4, p. 4-5. (Article)

[31] King, I., 1996, The 12 Week Intermediate Program Combining Strength Training and Jump Training for Long Term Development – Part 2, Performance Conditioning for Volleyball, Vol. (3):5, p. 4-5. (Article)

[32] King, I., 1996, The 12 Week Advanced Program Combining Strength Training and Jump Training for Long Term Development – Part 3, Performance Conditioning for Volleyball, Vol. (3):9, p. 2-3. (Article)

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

[34] Poliquin, C., 2000, Current Trends in Strength Training – A reference manual,  Tempo, p. 41

[35] Poliqin, C., 1997,  The Poliquin Principles, Science of Tempo, p. 25

[36] Poliqin, C., 1997,  The Poliquin Principles, Science of Tempo, p. 25

[37] Poliquin, 1988, Five steps to increasing the effectiveness of your strength program, NSCA, Vol 10(3):34-39.

[38] Poliquin, C., 1988, Five steps to increasing the effectiveness of your strength training program, NSCA J 10(3):34.

[39] Poliquin, C.,1999, Modern Trends in Strength Training, (draft)

[40] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (book), Speed of Movement, p. 124

[41] Robertson, M., 2010, Old school tempo training for more muscle, t-nation.com, 26 April 2010.

[42] xxxx, and xxxx, 1997, Three‐phase Weight Training Program, Men’s Fitness, Dec 1997

[43] Schmidtbleicher, D., Maximalkraft und Bewegungsschnelligkeit, Limpert Verlag, Bad Homgurg, 1980.

[44] Poliquin C. Five steps to increasing the effectiveness of your strength training program. NSCA J. 1988; 10: 34‐39.

[45] Poliqin, C., 1997,  The Poliquin Principles

[46] King, I., 2000, in Shugart, C., Meet The Press – Coach of coaches: An interview with Ian King, 29 Dec 2000, t-mag.com

[47] Louma, TC and King, I., 1999, 4 Seconds to More Productive Workouts, Fri, May 21

[48] Shugart, C., 2001, The Ian King Cheat Sheets, Part 1 – T-mag.com

[49] Poliquin, C.,2000, Modern Trends in Strength Training

[50] xxxx, and xxxx, 2020, Secrets to Successful Program Design, Human Kinetics