Ian King

Nutritional supplements and strength training: Part 1 – The arrival of smoke and mirrors

/by

Any survey or cross reference of articles titled ‘The Top Bodybuilding Supplements you need to be taking’– and there is no shortage of the there article [1] [2] [3]– on what are the top most popular strength training supplements today’ would find the following common them – creatine, BCAA, caffeine or similar stimulants, glutamine, fish oils, and protein powders. The question I have, which may surprise – is this approach optimal?

Now we could debate which are really the top most popular supplements, however just run with this message – why is it that everyone is basically singing from the same song sheet? It is because the masses have got it worked out and you shouldn’t mess with this formula? Or is it more of a case of conforming sheep?

Anyone willing to take a journey down the modern history of supplementation in strength training may reach the same conclusions that many have, including the author of trilogy book series ‘Smoke and Mirrors’ Randy Roach[1] – that the game changed forever in the 1960s.

1940-1950s

In the post was late 1940s environment the story goes that friends of English athlete turned bodybuilder Reg Park would share their milk and cream rations with him, allowing him to consume more protein than the average person.

“In the Golden Age of Classic Physique Building (the 1940s and 50s), the approach to diet was much simpler than today. The CPB Champs simply ate a high protein diet consisting of what they considered to be “nutritious, wholesome foods.” So basically the diet was meat (all kinds), dairy (whether cow-based or goat-based), eggs, fruits, vegetables (in salads or cooked), nuts, and a bit of whole-grain cereals & bread (starchy foods were used sparingly).”[2]

1960s

1960 was considered a seminal year in strength training nutritional supplements. During the late 1950s American pharmaceutical companies such as Ciba began producing anabolic steroids for human use. This changed the landscape in the ‘iron game’.

“At the beginning of the decade, protein was still #1 on the bodyuiblders checklist, but it would soon drop to the #2 position as the sport begian to shift into anabolic over-drive.” [3]

Roach in his book ‘Muscle, Smoke & Mirrors’ talks about how the arrival of anabolic steroids on the strength training scene in the US from 1960 onwards muddied the waters, allowing marketers of equipment and supplements to make all sorts of claims about the effectiveness of their equipment, training protocols or over the counter supplements, whilst the truth was more about the steroids.

Bob Hoffman of York Barbell and Joe Weider of the Muscle and Fitness magazine were two names that have been connected with this 1960s phenomenon where drugs were giving the results yet equipment, training programs and supplements were being advertised as the reason behind the great gains.

Here is an example of 1960s marketing (by Bob Hoffman) that Roach raises questions about the true cause of the improvement:

“…training experiments with simple exercises, with particular emphasis on nutrition, notably the continued regular use of Hi-Proteen an ENERGOL, and more use of our Super Gain Weight Tablet, Liver, Iron, Vitamin B12. I gained at an amazing rate and soon developed noticeable muscles.” [4]

Weider it was suggested stood on both sides of the aisle, decrying the use of drugs in articles but willing to use drug supported athletes to market his supplements and other products.

This drug use quickly spread into other sports. In a November 1962 issue of ‘Iron Man’, editor and owner Peary Rader….

“….spoke out early and pleaded with his readership in an article titled “Don’t Do it Fellows” . He wrote on Dianabol and Nilivar and the fact that they had already spread into the coaching ranks of both high school and college football.” [5]

US chiropractor and strength coach Ken Leistner tells a great story about what Joe Weider said to him when Ken challenged Joe as to why Ken, as a teenager bought and used all the supplements that Joe was marketing and they didn’t get him the results advertised. He said Joe Weider said words to the effect:

“My job was to pull as many boys off the street and into the gym as I could using the advertising that I did. In the time you realized it was bullshit, I already had you hooked into a healthier lifestyle of workout out and eating better.” [6]

From my personal observations during the four decades from the 1980 to the current decade, and from my study of iron game magazines from the 1970s, I suggest that the game developed in the 1960s has continued to date – that is, great gains and great outcomes by performance enhancing drugs have provided the backdrop to benefit claims for a wide range of training methods, equipment and supplements.

In the ideal world, it would be of great value to see the full ‘supplement’ use of any claims about supplementation disclosed before any conclusions are reached. This concern not only relates to typical bodybuilding supplement claims, it also relates to a number of ‘research articles’ that have been published based on elite athletes in sports with high performance enhancing drug use. The results are simply misleading in the absence of controlling the variable of drug use. At least that is the objective nature of science – to control the variables and change and measure the other/s.

The same marketing techniques that were developed and refined over half a century ago, I suggest, still dominate the market. And as a result, the masses have been misled for six decades and continuing.

When I ask anyone in strength training which supplements they are taking, the overwhelming majority will be taking the most dominantly marketed supplements of the times. Do they work? Are they effective? Who knows. That is not the reason they are taking them. They are taking them because that is what everyone has been led to believe, through effective marketing, they ‘need’ to be taking them.

What is that was not the case? What if we stripped back to square one and only added for supplements long use after an appropriate, objective personal trial of them.

As with my approach to training, I am less interested in what can be shown to produce an effect, and more interested in what is the optimal approach.

There are only so many supplements most individuals will consume contemporaneously, whether from a budget limitation or other reasons. I suggest your goal should be to order your supplement intake in a priority based on optimal effectiveness, rather than a blind adoption of the dominant, market driven trends.

Now I understand the human desire make emotional decisions and justify them logically. So if you are drawn to using the same supplement suite as everyone else, I’m confident you can find a ‘reason’ for them.

However for those who are committed to thinking for themselves, are willing to act primarily upon their own personal conclusions, to follow the advice of one of America’s most intelligent men – Buckminster Fuller, who wrote:

“…fifty-three years ago at age thirty-two, jettisoned all that I had ever been taught to believe and proceeded thereafter to reason and act only on the basis of direct personal experience.” [7]

So what were the dominant habits of strength athletes prior to the 1960s when the arrival of anabolics masked any hope of truth in marketing? Up until the 1960s two main supplements dominated. You can see these two in this quote from the Legend, three times Mr. Universe Reg Park.

In an interview with Reg published by Osmo “John” Kiiha in his magazine ‘The Iron Master’ Reg is quoted as saying:

“I liked to eat like a king, but only food that was good for me. I ate prodigious amounts of food during the day, but adhered to a very balanced diet with everything in proper proportions. My favorite food is steak, which I sometimes eat twice a day. I also like salads, orange juice and wine. I have a wine cellar in my home. I also have used protein supplements and take vitamin and mineral tablets.” [8]

Isn’t that interesting.

Conclusion

In summary things changed in the 1960s and stayed the same since. Drug supported physiques are used to market you the supplements that you take, on the belief or inference that the results achieved by the model are the ones you are going to achieve by use of the supplement being marketed. And you believe it.

References

[1] https://www.musclesmokeandmirrors.com

[2] Reg Park’s diet for a classic physique, Classic physique builder, https://classicphysiquebuilder.blogspot.com.au/2009/02/reg-parks-diet-for-classic-physique.html

[3] Roach, R., 2008 Muscle, Smoke & Mirrors, AuthorHouse, p. 381.

[4] Roach, R., 2008 Muscle, Smoke & Mirrors, AuthorHouse, p. 383.

[5] Roach, R., 2008 Muscle, Smoke & Mirrors, AuthorHouse, p. 387.

[6] Roach, R., 2008 Muscle, Smoke & Mirrors, AuthorHouse, p. 389.

[7] Buckminster Fuller, R., 1981, Critical Path

[8] Reg Park’s diet for a classic physique, Classic physique builder, https://classicphysiquebuilder.blogspot.com.au/2009/02/reg-parks-diet-for-classic-physique.html

Ian King

Stop lifting your leg!

/by

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

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

‘Why are you lifting your leg?’

They replied:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Put simply you are doing less work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The top position

The bottom position

Need more clarity?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To which they replied:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian King

To think or conform?

/by

I received an email from a young man on the subject of stretching, a classic case of humans choosing conformity over thinking. The email went like this:

“Recently I purchased your Legacy book. The book is full of training gold, especially important information is about stretching. You should spread the truth about stretching. I can`t believe how everybody is wrong with this dynamic stretching B.S. Static stretching rules. I´m more flexible than ever, feel great, and it does transfer to dynamic motions.” [i]

I was really impressed that this young man sought to gain a personal experience about stretching prior to reaching a conclusion. He thought for himself, in the face of dogma to the contrary, and reached a conclusion contrary to the dogmatic teaching.

As for spreading the ‘truth’ about stretching, that’s what I have been doing for nearly 40 years now. The challenge is most people don’t want to think independently. The famous Dr. Albert Swcheitzer when asked in about 1952 reached the same conclusion.  Earl Nightingale tells this story in his 1956 audio ‘The Strangest Secret’. (A must listen to!)

Here is the transcript:

“Some years ago, the late Nobel prize-winning Dr. Albert Schweitzer was asked by a reporter, “Doctor, what’s wrong with men today?” The great doctor was silent a moment, and then he said, “Men simply don’t think!” [ii]

Now as far as the truth or wrong, I tend to avoid these words where possible. To ignore the value of static stretching and replace it with dynamic stretching – or to leave your static stretching till after the workouts. These are mistakes.

However, I understand how static stretching is promoted, and I understand most people are more committed to conformity than fulfilling their potential.

I have watched many of those who have achieved marketed position of influence in this industry promote their values on stretching. I know personally that the minority of these influencers who actually train don’t stretch, and never have.  To acknowledge they have missed the point in training as regards stretching is not going to happen in their lifetimes. And the influencers who don’t train have no chance of knowing personally the best alternatives or combinations.

As for conformity, I again refer to the best-selling (in the true sense of the word, not in the way current industry marketers use it) for one of the best comments on conformity:

“Rollo May, the distinguished psychiatrist, wrote a wonderful book called Man’s Search for Himself, and in this book he says: “The opposite of courage in our society is not cowardice … it is conformity.” And there you have the reason for so many failures. Conformity and people acting like everyone else, without knowing why or where they are going.” [iii]

[Imagine if referencing and crediting were the norm in this industry? wouldn’t that be amazing! instead of this encouragement to lie, cheat, steal and plagiarize…]

Now concepts are promoted with great dogma, which is why I have historically encouraged people to challenge and ignore the dogma:

“Not only are you taught with a degree of dogma in formal education, you are often taught not to think – rather to accept ‘this is the way’.  Certain informal education teaches you to think for yourself (as we do at KSI) or teaches you a different perspective to the one you were taught to dogmatically adopt in your formal education. Exposure to this can cause some initial unease.” [iv]

I don’t suggest knowing the truth, however I have reached conclusions and encourage others to do the same, even if they are contrary to the dominant paradigms:

“I don’t know about truth, but I can say that blind and dogmatic teaching of this by personal trainers and others has contributed to some serious misconceptions…” [v]

My strong recommend has been to:

“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.” [vi]

Not to be confused of course with a thinly paraphrased paragraph that followed a year later in an article at t-nation.com from another ‘author’….

“When designing training programs, resist the pressure to conform to any tradition or system of beliefs, no matter how dogmatically that tradition or those beliefs are presented, or how much you get “slammed” for not conforming.” [vii]

My message to the young man who wrote to me, and to you to, is have the courage to think for yourself! And if you need help, I wrote the book ‘Barbells & Bullshit’ to help you. If nothing it will shock you into realizing that your own conclusions will be far more accurate and ethical and better for your than the self-serving dogma dished up by many who seek to exert their influence for reasons other than a pure intention to serve you. You can get this book in hard copy or e-book.  If you email me at question@kingsports.net sharing your commitment to think for yourself, I would love to give you a free copy of the e-book.

So, the choice is yours – to think or to conform. Just don’t expect the masses to be so brave!

 

References

[i] Personal communication, name available on request, 26 April 2017

[ii] http://www.nightingale.com/articles/the-strangest-secret/

[iii] http://www.nightingale.com/articles/the-strangest-secret/

[iv] King, I., 1999, So You Want to Become a Strength and Conditioning Coach

[v] King, I., 2001 (?), Q & A, T-mag.com, Issue #10

[vi] King, I., 2005, The Way of the Physical Preparation Coach, p. 17

[vii] xxxx 2006, xxxxx, T-mag.com, Feb

 

© 2017 Ian King & King Sports International. All rights reserved.

Ian King

Are your single leg training concepts from the 1990s still relevant?

/by

I recently received a email where the writer asked:

“ Dear Ian, I’ve come across your single leg 2 part routine limping into October online. This I believe is the gold dust I have been looking for. I’ve been attempting to create something similar to this without realizing it!

Is this something you would still recommend as I notice it was posted online in the late 90’s? It still seems very relevant to me.

I feel it’s next to exactly what I’m looking for. A routine to follow for a 3-4 week phase that will help reduce any muscular imbalances I have before I start my pre season conditioning early June.

Any advice on this would be very much appreciated. Kind regards.”
–Tom

This is what I responded with:

“This is a program that changed the way the world trains, and the reason why you were looking to create something similar – because it created a human trend that spread throughout the world. Take the concepts I promoted in the late 1990s about unilateral body weight lower body exercises, lines of movement, speed of movement, control drills prior to strength training and so on, out of those interesting books on ‘functional training’ and books would fall over, and no, despite the complete absence of ethical and professional referencing, that author did not come up with those ideas. What he do however was orchestrate the famous ‘Boston Walkout’….

https://youtu.be/DqNvk12dotE

Is the content of this 1990s program still relevant? I don’t produce trends. I produce concepts that serve forever. So yes, it is still relevant. It will not in itself solve your problems because it only addresses the strength side, and there is so much more to training as an athlete than ’strength and conditioning’, despite the dominant paradigm created by a historical incident of convenience in 1981. Keep in mind also that it is a generic program, not individualised.

On that point, on individualization, it’s ironic that the industry has not only failed to moved towards higher competency in individualization, but the trend based focus is attaches to (and you have been caught up in) has result, I suggest, in a move away from individualization. The art of individualizing training is not taught, and possessed by few. It goes a massive distance further than doing a weekend course with a three digit trademark certification and buying the related testing device.

On the point of relevance I developed these ideas during the late 1980s and early 1990s and published them after over a decade of experimentation and refining in the late 1990s. If you think the ideas may be dated, you are more alone than you may appreciate.

Now it was only about 5 years later, but I nearly fell out my chair and swallowed my protein shaker when I was sent (by a concerned colleague) a video from a 2003 seminar in Nevada where the presenter presented my unique approach to bodyweight exercises and then told the audience the only way to learn more about them was through personal communication with himself or by buying his book (must have had amnesia about the dozen or so resources he learnt them from that he could have recommended, or the actual source of the info…)

https://youtu.be/dbE90Fr_vgc?list=PL502185E23BBDA89F

I was shattered to see virtually the entire contents of my ‘How to Write Strength Training Programs’ book (1998) repackaged verbatim and promoted as an ‘industry bible’, (verbatim and lightly paraphrased), in 2005 and again in 2009, with the ‘authors’ seeking to pass it off as their own works, sold for 3 times the price people would have paid for the original works.

https://youtu.be/E5sQ05aA728?list=PL502185E23BBDA89F

I was ‘intrigued’ when I noted an article by a certain ‘functionalist’ author promoting the benefits of single leg exercises in around 2011, over 10 years since I championed the concept against industry beliefs, and in the same online magazine. I failed to see how you could publish with such ‘revolutionary’ ideas in the same magazine over a decade later! And then there was the national convention in a large island country where the key note speaker proudly presented on the concept of stability exercises etc., and new strength sub-quality that I published about in the early 1990s, nearly 20 years prior!

So if these otherwise ‘highly regarded’ industry experts (although I not sure how you get ‘highly respected’ when the C+V keyboard buttons are your best friend?) find worthiness to promote off these concepts some 10-20 years after they were first published (and up to 30 years after I began developing them conceptually), and the market didn’t react poorly to them (after all, some will only present on content they are confident will be ‘popular’ and ’trendy’) then this may be a hint of their timelessness!

I trust this answers your question.
–Ian King

Ian King

When buff is ‘bad’  

/by

I was near the finish line at a high school yesterday watching over 100 thirteen to fourteen year old boys complete a cross country race. As I do everywhere I studied their shape and development.

Apart from the expected changes some were experiencing consistent with entering the early teen age years, there was another noticeable physical sign on many of the boys.

It was apparent to me which of the boys was engaging in body shape changing strength training. Now for most the changes they were making would have been impressive – larger muscles, heavier and potentially stronger than they were or their peers were. This is what would catch the eye of most, and appear impressive.

And I have no doubt in the short term they will experience these benefits and feel rewarded for participating in what is considered normal and appropriate – the application of strength training to young athletes applied with the current paradigms.

However, based on over three decades of stuying the human body’s response to stimuli, and seeking to understand and then be able to predict the relationship between cerain stimuli in training and the incidence and severity of injury, I d did not share that feeling of being impressed.

Quite the opposite actually. I added more numbers to the sample group for the purposes of testing my hypothesis of future injuries patterns for these boys.

What I saw was a potential relationship where over 80% of these boys engaged in what is considered normal practice strength training will suffer injuries during the next few years BECAUSE of their strength training.

The most glaring imbalance I saw in their body was quad dominance, with their quad muscles over-shading lagging hip muscles – hamstrings and glues.

During the 1980s, after identifying muscle imbalance from traditional strength training, I began to develop a concept I called ‘:Lines of movement’. What resulted were six primary divisions or categories of exercise, which I didn’t publish until 1998.

These categories included:

• Hip dominant • Quad dominant • Horizontal push • Horizontal pull • Vertical push • Vertical pull Within a few years this concept was hijacked and published unreferenced by certain ‘writers’ keen to promote their self-interests, rather than the interests of the end-user, for whom it was developed.

Perhaps this is the reason why not only have we failed to fulfill the concept I developed nearly 30 years ago, but we are also arguably worse off as a society in relation to injuries that I suggest are a direct result of the training we do.

Once I realized the tragic direction the world has been taking in relation to training induced injuries, combined with the unfettered abuse of my concepts for self-serving purposes at the expense of the intended recipients – I have dedicated more time and energy to the purpose of helping people avoid the pitfalls presented by writers who for the most part lack real success in training, yet are ‘teachers’.

I have done a number of seminars throughout the world this year on this subject and will speak this message at the November 2015 Society for Weight Training Specialists (SWIS) convention in Toronto, Canada – in addition to a number of presentations on this topic in a number of different countries during the remainder of the year.

 

I can only reach out and seek to warn parents and other care-givers – we need to pull back in the involvement of young athletes in the formal physical preparation program, especially strength training, until training methods and coach competencies are significantly higher.

 

If you have children in sport, or if you coach young athletes in physical training, I want to say thanks for contributing and look forward to meeting you in a seminar during 2015! The world needs you to step up, up-skill and take great pride in ‘first, do no harm!’

Ian King

Feedback on my latest book – Barbells & Bullshit  

/by

I recently received this feedback about my latest book:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian King

That single leg squat exercise description looks familiar!  

/by

The challenge of communicating exercise technique guide lines in writing is conveying enough and accurate information. So I have put a lot of thought and time into my exercise descriptions.

In 1999 I wrote this nice little description for the single leg squat (bolding added now):

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

I was conducting research and I came upon the following exercise in a publication copyright claimed by another author (bolding added):

One leg squat :

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

And I said to myself: “That looks familiar!” So I cross-referenced it and I said to myself: “Wow! No wonder that looked familiar!”

Then in a different publication I came upon this (bolding added):

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

And I said to myself: “That looks familiar!” So I cross-referenced it and I said to myself: “Wow! No wonder that looked familiar!”

Then in another publication I came upon this (bolding added):

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

And I said to myself: “That looks familiar!” So I cross-referenced it and I said to myself: “Wow! No wonder that looked familiar!”

Then in another publication I came upon this (bolding added):

One leg squat:

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

And I said to myself: “That looks familiar!” So I cross-referenced it and I said to myself: “Wow! No wonder that looked familiar!”

Then in ANOTHER publication I came upon this (bolding and underlining added):

Single leg squat
Start: Stand on your right leg with a bench behind you. Extend your left leg forward so that the heel stays just off the floor at all times.
Movement: Bend your right leg and lower yourself to the bench. Do not sit down. Instead skim the bench, and then drive back up to the starting position. During the movement, be sure to keep your right knee tracking over your middle toe. Initially, your range will be limited, but as you get better at it over time, aim to increase your range of motion by removing the bench and using a squat rack or other stable object to hold onto for light support until you are able to perform a single leg squat with full range of motion. Use only your bodyweight to start.

By now I knew it was going to be familiar….

I wonder how my other exercise descriptions fared?….

Ian King

Build 12″ Guns!

/by

You too can build 12” guns!! Excited? Okay, I agree, not very appealing. The only reason you would have been attracted to this headline is to see what’s wrong with the writer. But this is exactly what you are going to get when you take advice off people who probably have exactly that – 12” biceps.

I have read of late (more times than once) that you don’t need to do specific bicep exercises to build big biceps. Mmm. Wonder what the definition of big is? 12”?

Now before we get into it I want to make it real clear I am not glorifying big upper arms. I can take them or leave them. In fact when you look at my list of the disadvantages bulging biceps present you will appreciate this. What I am simply seeking to do is put forward a version that may help you get sucked into the bullshit, if in fact you do want to build big upper arms.

The proposal that you don’t need to do specific bicep exercises to build big upper arms can only, I conclude, come from the minds attached to bodies that have never build big upper arms.

Here are my concerns with building big biceps:

• Powerlifters are more likely to tear them in deadlifting

• Weightlifters struggle to catch the bar on their shoulders in the front squat/clean recovery position

• Athletes get distracted from effective strength training by building big upper arms

But apart from that, if you want to build big guns, go for it. If you want to take them significantly past 12”, you might want to ignore the no-bicep exercise bullshit.

You can see I’m not a big fan of bicep focused training for anyone other than bodybuilders and body beautifuls. But I am as equally not a fan of bullshit like this theory.

I found an example of this ‘no-bicep curl exercises needed’ theory in a book (1). I believe that the authors specifically set out to shape the readers value system and induce compliance to their theory with the following subjective statements:

• If they thought that doing a lot of sets of bicep curls every week would help them build their own biceps, they would be going out and doing this, just like the ‘meatheads and mooks’ do.

[You probably don’t want to think of yourself as a ‘meathead’ and/or ‘mook’ – so you may think twice about doing a bicep curl]

• Curls are mostly for newbie’s and juicers.

[You probably don’t want to feel or act like their definition of a newbie or a drug user, so you may choose to avoid doing bicep curls]

• The changes in muscle size would not be dramatic.

[A statement of fact, of dubious accuracy, but perhaps enough to discourage you from, God forbid, doing a curl]

• Unless you had a specifics reason for doing arm-isolated exercises, you should save your time and energy for other pursuits.

[Now if you needed any more discouragement, you just got it – no way are you ever going to do bicep curls again!]

Let’s take a step back. Where did these beliefs come from? Science of course. Three studies were quoted, none of which have any guarantee they relate to you. But let’s humor their ‘evidence’ for a bit longer.

The first study was conducted 13 years to the release of the book, was based on a research group of elderly m en. Unlikely to have any bearing on you, however that was enough for the writers to conclude that doing bicep curls only work for beginners.

The second study cited was conducted 14 years prior to the release of the book, and was based on competitive bodybuilders, again unlikely to have any specific bearing on you. But it was enough apparently for the authors to conclude therefore that any one beyond a beginner will see minimal if any hypertrophy from doing isolated bicep curls, because these competitive bodybuilders, during the period of this research study, didn’t.

With the third study cited, comfortingly was conducted in the same millennium, no details were provided of what they did, who they were, and there were allegedly no changes in arm size in the nine weeks of the program. It’s difficult to give any comment as to how this result may relate to you or not because inadequate details were given. Suffice to say it was allegedly research and therefore we don’t need details – we just need to believe! [Sounds a bit like sciences predecessor of social conditioning, religion…]

That’s it – on the basis of the above, you are to stop doing specific bicep curl exercises…..

Now what are the other alternatives that these writers and anyone else, yourself included, may reach a conclusion. That is, other than be basing your thoughts and actions on the apparent authority of the printed word, or on the basis of research with limited application to yourself.

Well, there is experience. You could come to your own conclusion based on your experiences. Let me share you mine. Now according to this theory, or at least this theory as presented by these ‘experts’, I should not get any results in increased upper arm girth from adding isolated bicep exercises. Why?

Because that only works for beginners and juicers, of which I am neither. And because a study conducted nearly two decades ago allegedly using experienced, competitive bodybuilders, failed so see any change in upper arm girth during the period of that particular study, that is further evidence that I would be wasting my time. After all, I too am experienced aren’t I? After all, these authors appear to have categorized themselves as experienced.

So furthering this line of thinking, what constitutes experienced? What equates with being a competitive bodybuilder? What if a person is one but not the other? Does that mean that this research applies still?
I can tell you this – I consider myself to be experience (continual strength training for approximately 30 years) but I am not, have never been and will never be a competitive bodybuilder. I know these authors have not, are not, and probably never will be competitive bodybuilders either. So it must be their experience that places them in the same category of non-response to isolated bicep curl as this study group cited above?

So how do you measure experience? Is it on number of years alone? Or is there potential for some level of qualification? Say an upper arm circumference measurement. Let me give you mine. Anything less than a 16” upper arm on an average height male is not advanced.

Anyway, as an experienced person (based on both years in training and passing this arbitrary upper arm circumference), what happens when I do isolated bicep training – they grow. Immediately.

So the value to you of the cited science is dubious, and the belief-shaping message by these authors (and others of their ilk) was not based on the writer’s personal experience, which is understandable as if you were as familiar with the upper arm circumference of the authors….

Yes, you can build big upper arms through heavy pressing and pulling, especially with the way the triceps dominate the bulk of the upper arm. But if you want to create specifically large biceps, create a peak in them, and maximize the contribution of the biceps to upper arms – you are not going to do this by avoiding specific bicep exercises. What research can I quote to give my statement credibility? None.

Or at least none that would fit the expectations of those who want to see a research article quoted, irrespective of whether it is relevant or not. Irrespective of whether it is valid or not. Irrespective of whether the researcher was even in town the day the research was allegedly conducted…

Just the observations over a few decades are used to support this conclusion.

This is just one example of how easily your conclusions and behavior can be influenced by people who seek to shape your beliefs, in the absence of personal experience.

[This is an extract from my upcoming book ‘Barbells & Bullshit]