Ian King

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

/by

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

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

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

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

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

 

  1. Your ab picture is small (Purpose)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Your values are upside down (Visual)

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

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

One of us is upside down…

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

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

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

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

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

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

I call this ‘the battle’: [9]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prioritization of muscle group

i. By sequence:

a. Within the workout.

b. Within the training week.

ii. By volume.

iii. By load:

a. Load potential.

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

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

  1. You do abs last (Sequence)

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

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

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

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

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

  1. You do too few ab exercises (Volume)

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

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

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

How do you explain that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s just a choice worth reflecting on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

But there is hope.

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

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

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

 

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avoiding creating new imbalances (Book)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian King

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

/by

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

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

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

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

There are a lot of reasons for this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is one of the many things that intrigue me.

So many focus on the perception others have of them.

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

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

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

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

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

Yet we do so much more.

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

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

Ah, the challenges of life.

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

 

References

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

Ian King

Jimmy you might be asking the wrong person!

/by

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

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

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

Here’s an example of this:

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

Control/ stability/ recruitment enhancement

Hypertrophy/General strength

Maximum strength

 Explosive Power Maintenance of specific strength qualities

So – control, stability and recruitment…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As to your question –

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

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

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

And the influence on training trends.

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

Jimmy if you are interested check out the following:

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

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

 

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Ian King

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

Care and what’s missing

/by

When a human is moving in a certain direction in life, it takes a specific amount of momentum to change direction. That may sound deep and cryptic, so let’s simplify it – until something significant (read catastrophic) happens, humans would prefer to conclude they are heading in the right direction.

Now, to relate that to sports and physical training, and competition.

How does an athlete know if their training is on track to achieve their goals? The scoreboard.

How does an individual training in what we call the general population space know if their training is on track? If it’s achieving their goals.

Before you conclude that the questions are asked and answered, allow me to dig deeper on this discussion.

In relation to the athlete, if you assume the primary driver is the scoreboard, then the feedback about the direction may be enough to redirect the training effort. However, that is a flawed assumption, for reasons I share below.

And when it comes to the general population, assumptions about their goals can also be misleading.

Case studies

Over the last five decades, I have been involved in numerous case studies of individuals, athletes, teams, sports coaches, and physical coaches. Here are a few of them.

The athlete said to me, “I have been on the World Cup circuit for 7 years now and never stood on the podium. If I don’t do that this year, I am going to quit racing.”

Hearing that clarity in metrics was music to my ears. We were on the podium in the first World Cup race of that next season.

Easy.

The athlete came to me as the two-time reigning gold medalist in their event. They knew their current trajectory was going to result in missing out on being selected for the next Olympics. They were taking action. We went to the next Olympics and got on the podium again.

That’s a relief because the stakes were so high.

The athlete came to me after making their decision to go to their third Olympics. They were so far off the pace that they would not even qualify. They had improved their Olympic result from Games one to Games two and wanted more. We went to the third Games and achieved the best results in not only their history, but their country’s history.

Tick.

The leadership group came to me and said, “We failed to make the playoffs last year and do not want to go there again. Can you help us?”

They were in the Grand finale the next year, and were back-to-back Champions two years later

Done.

The athlete came to me because an athlete I worked with suggested it. They were the reigning Gold Medalists and the first person from their country to hold that title in a country rich in that sport. They were struggling and even though the next Games were some years away, they may have been sensing the training direction was off track. I shared my thoughts, and they didn’t take them up.

The athlete never returned to the Olympics.

The athlete came to me because an athlete I had worked with suggested it. They had been selected to represent their country in their first Olympics the year before, but had been seriously injured in the lead up to the Games and were not able to go. I shared my thoughts, and they didn’t take them up.

A similar injury that prevented them from attending the prior Olympics has since occurred and we will have to wait and see what the future holds at the Olympic level.

The athlete came to me to qualify for their third Olympic Games after a long life happens layoff. Due to age and life odds were against them, and they recognized it. Not only did we qualify for the next Olympics, but the athlete set national records in the lead-up up to the Games, and the Games result was very encouraging.

After that Games, the athlete changed direction, failed to qualify for the next Games, and never returned to the Olympics.

The young would-be physical preparation coach asked me the question: “What’s missing? I can’t seem to attract athlete clients or teams?” I shared two key points – you have to pay your dues first, and in the meantime, gave them a strategy to put food on the table through general population clients.

They took action on the second part and rejected the first part, saying, “You think I’m being impatient. I believe I’m just driven.”

History shows they have general population clients; however, they have never achieved their once-written goal of working with elite athletes and teams. Or many athletes at all.

It was not the only time that I have seen instant gratification over-ride decision making in young want-to-be-significant-yesterday physical coaches, despite the obvious gap between their experience, competencies, and value in the marketplace, and who they believe they ‘deserve’ to be working with.

The two key variables – Care and what’s missing

I have come to conclude that there are two key variables in the path to sporting success. Caring enough to change direction and knowing what direction to pivot to.

Care is not as simple as it sounds. I could say an athlete who fails to successfully pivot and achieve at the level or fails to redirect to return to the highest level, doesn’t care. But that is potentially inaccurate. It’s more than ‘do they care’ – it’s what do they care about?

The initial assumption is often that they all care about the scoreboard and being the best that they can be at all stages of their career. I have learnt this is not so.

In the 1980s, I felt many of Australia’s Olympic athletes were just over the moon to get to the Olympics. Medaling was not high on their priority list, based on my observations. Alternatively, there was no individual or collective expectation that could or would occur.

And that observation is not restricted to the 1980s. I have and still this this in some athletes today.

Other factors that may be the self-selected dominant key performance indicators for elite athletes over and above the scoreboard may include:
• Pleasing their coach
• Gaining approval from stakeholders
• Getting noticed and getting attention’
• Looking good (e.g. what I call the ‘closet bodybuilder’)[1]

In my observations of the general population, factors that may be the self-selected dominant key performance indicators for the general population over and above their expressed goals may include:
• Just having the motivation to be consistent in training
• Feeling good about their training
• Feeling good about the short-term visual impact of their training

In summary, when I say whether an athlete cares, what I mean is whether the scoreboard is their dominant KPI. I am not judging them when it is not, however, I am going to call it ‘they don’t care’ (NB. About the scoreboard being the #1 KPI!)

Now let’s talk about what’s missing.

I don’t expect an athlete to know the answer to the question of what’s missing. Or more accurately, I appreciate their need for third-party guidance in seeking the answer to the question. I just hope the guidance they are given is optimal.

If I were to create general categories of athletes about the variables of care and what’s missing, this is what I would say:

Category

 Care What’s missing?

1

Don’t care

Don’t know

2

Care

Don’t know

3

Care

Know
4 Don’t care

Know

Let’s dive deeper into my experiences with each category.

Category 1 – Don’t care, don’t know

These athletes don’t care about their performance limitations or declines at the highest level because, in my opinion, that is not their KPI. As they don’t see a problem, they do not buy into the thought that something is missing.

There is no shortage of individuals who will put their hand up to train these athletes, as they have more than enough credibility to post on their social media accounts.[2]

They don’t need my help to underperform. They do just fine all by themselves.

Category 2 – Care, don’t know

These athletes care about their performance limitations or declines at the highest level because the scoreboard is their KPI. They care less about what they look like; in fact, ideally, they don’t care at all, provided what they look like is shaped by the optimal nature of their training.

They may have some idea or no idea what is missing – that is far less important than their willingness to seek answers.

There is nothing more impressive than the nation or world’s best athlete having the humility and the courage to acknowledge training is off track and seek guidance. I just hope the guidance they get more than rewards them for their willingness to seek guidance.

These are my kind of athletes.

Category 3 – Care, know

These athletes care about their performance limitations or declines at the highest level because the scoreboard is their KPI. However, they have the answers to what’s missing, or believe they do. Are they on track?

If the proposed answer is:
• From the same pool of thinking that created the performance decrement[3], or
• From a third party with a poor track record; [4] or
• From a third party with limited to no track record, let alone a track record of success.[5]

Then I have less optimism for a successful outcome.

Category 4 – Don’t care, know

These athletes don’t care about their performance limitations or declines at the highest level because, in my opinion, that is not their KPI. They know there is a problem, and any idea of what’s missing, they have had the potential to reverse the rot. But they don’t care as their KPI is to be able to remain a professional athlete for as long as possible, to keep getting the rewards of such – media, social recognition, and income.

Most coaches and trainers would give a body part to be seen as associated. I prefer to be the pig (committed to winning), not the chicken (associated with someone who was once a winner).[6]

Window of opportunity

I am going to contrast the window of opportunity to pivot and change direction in training between the athlete and general population.[7]

I sense that the general population may be happier to pivot or change later or slower. They have a lot of time on their hands, considering the rough life span estimate of 80 years.

Athletes, on the other hand, at the elite end, do not have that luxury. If an athlete makes a decade at the top level, they have done well, and two decades is excellent. I see more and more athletes blowing their chance because they failed to pivot or failed to do it in a timely manner. But then again, I am using the word ‘fail’ relative to the KPI of the scoreboard. If we recognise other more dominant goals, they didn’t fail at all.

Yes, as rewards grow in sports, athletes are hanging in there longer. However, the window issue still remains.

Conclusion

As an athlete or end user in the general population, I trust you have found value in the simple message, based on five decades of experience and built on the simplicity of two key variables – do you care, and do you know the answer to what’s missing?

Yes, care needs to be matched to true drivers and not judged as a failure or a success.

Other synonym includes information and action. There was a time pre-internet when an individual may have been willing to take action but could not find the information. Such as how could anyone around the world back in the 1960s and 1970s get their hands on the magazine articles written by the great former Mr Universe bodybuilder and actor Reg Park or how could one get their hands on West German training literature before the Berlin Wall came down in 1989? Or their hands on training literature from the former Soviet Union before the same year?

However, the question is now less about whether you can get the information.

The challenge is now, which information? You have so much offered up, especially on the internet, by so many, that the risk is who or what you choose to guide you, not the absence of information. It’s great to have freedom of expression and vehicles for such expression; however, if the criteria for expert status are a keyboard, an internet connection and the desire to be significant even in the absence of competence, it creates a challenge for the consumer.

I commend you if you care that something may be missing in your training. I am even more hopeful for you if you are seeking answers and solutions because you realise you may not have all the answers to what may be missing or off-track in your training.

I just hope the guidance you are given is optimal.

 

Footnotes

[1] This is a term I coined some decades ago to describe any athlete who is more concerned with how they look than how they perform in their sport. These athletes never fulfil their potential.

[2] Case in point–an athlete failed to make a certain Games due to injury and yet post the Games was marketed by a coach on the basis of their qualification, without any reference to the failure to fulfil their potential due to injury. The athlete did not return to their chosen sport, pivoting sports instead, and was ruled out of that second-choice sport with more injuries just a year or so later.

[3] Case in point–I helped an athlete prepare for their first Games, and despite the success of those Games(the color of the medal was favorable) I expressed my concerns for the future. The athlete was successful in returning many times to the Games and podiumed more than once subsequently. However, in my opinion, they underperformed on what was possible. The answer to what was missing was, history shows, off-track. Was it because the solution had been potentially sourced from within the same thought pool that created the problem in the first place? Or was it that the solutions obtained from outside of the stakeholders were off track?

[4] Case in point–a professional team were the reigning champions when they sought to do one better and set records as well as win the championship. They hired a coach who, in my opinion, had a track record of helping top-of-the-table teams decline down the ladder. The team didn’t have my intimacy with performance tracking on that individual and moved forward. I called a collapse before the end of the season, and that came within the last few games. The coach was cut after one season, but the damage was done.

[5] Case in point–A multiple-time Olympian and reigning national record holder moved to a coach with no prior experience in that sport at that level. They got what you would expect–no further involvement at the Olympic level.

[6] Case in point–A service provider promotes a meetup with a once high-profile ‘client’ athlete who, unbeknownst to the uniformed, had over the years slid to a ranking worse than 1,000. And a few weeks later, the athlete entered a top-level competition only to withdraw early due to injury. The athlete was squeezing the last out of a successful and profitable career, and at least they have earned that…

[7] My experience with the latter is limited, so anyone who wants to throw a rock at that, I will have to accept that. However, when it comes to my personal conclusions and observations about elite athletes, it is not so easy to dismiss.

 

© Ian King 2025. All rights reserved.

Ian King

What’s in a name? Pt 1 – The origin and intent of the term physical preparation coach

/by

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

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

Australia

I entered the profession in 1980 in Australia through an exercise physiology degree and that was the only possible specific outcome expected for graduates. And that was only available in corporate fitness. I knew only a few graduates that got that work. The rest added a second degree (e.g., teaching, physiotherapy etc.) or got work in totally unrelated fields.

There were no jobs in sport outside sports administration for graduates. At best you could hope to get a volunteer role as a fitness coach or sprint coach. For that you might receive a season pass. However, to get those roles you needed no qualification other than a proven personal history in the activity.

Therefore, a very fit person who loved to run a lot could be considered as a candidate for a role as a fitness coach, as all fitness training for sport in the early 1980s in Australia was distance running with a sprinkling of interval training

And a former sprinter could be considered as a candidate for the role of sprints coach. All sprint training for sport conducted in Australia in the first half of the 1980s was interval training, as the bias in speed was towards endurance.  And keep in mind that many sports, including what was then the Victorian Football League (VFL – now the Australian Football League or AFL) didn’t endorse any short sprinting as it was considered too risky for their players to engage in due to the risk of soft tissue injuries.

You might be wondering what was going on with strength training in sport in that era. The very few sports that engaged in strength training limited their work to bodyweight exercises, and for this training was supervised by the sport coach e.g. some swim coaches such as the late John Carew (this story shared with me in person) would have basic equipment on the side of the pool such as a chin up bar. However, this was rare. Strength training was taboo in Australian sports, as it apparently caused athlete to be ‘muscle bound’ and or injured.

In fact the status of the sporting training industry in the early eighties was one where strength training was rarely conducted.  The ‘it will slow me down’, and ‘it will make me inflexible’ attitudes dominated.  Training in general was at that time a neglected area.  The Australian Rules Football players (then playing in the VFL) were participating in various types of formal training, but the strength training was circuit training with light weights and the conditioning consisted of carrying bricks in the hands for many kilometers.  At least they were doing something.  Rugby league players in the New South Wales Rugby League were starting to do things, but they were even more archaic than the Australian Rules footballers.  Rugby union players were warming up by stubbing out their cigarettes and then commencing a short game of touch football.  Swimmers would fade like superman faced by kryptonite at the mere mention of the word weight training. [1]

And in all fairness, the way strength training was being conducted, the concerns were reasonable. I specifically refer to the influence of bodybuilding training, the methods, of which I have spoken about in length in prior publications.

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. [2]

As the only one in my entire university department with a serious interest in strength training.

My main focus in study at that time was on strength.  I appeared to be the only one in my course with this interest at that point in time.  Aerobic training was the main focus of research in the seventies and early eighties.  The main vocational specialty areas being pushed onto students at that time (outside of physical education teaching) was laboratory testing.  A number of graduates went out and established commercial laboratory fitness testing facilities and services – with limited success.  Corporate fitness was also being promoted as a future growth area. [3]

I was confident that there was a better way for athletes to strength train than the dominant paradigms and was committed to helping athletes achieve that.

However, who was getting to train athletes in the early 1980s? It wasn’t happening. At best you could get a job in the fitness industry as a ‘gym instructor’, and if athletes just happened to be gym members, you may get contact with them.

I was in a unique situation at my university during the early 1980s for a number of reasons. Firstly, the weightlifting club I was involved in attracted athletes who embraced strength training in that era, including track and field athletes, martial artists, and contact sport athletes. Secondly as the only university in our state at that time, we had an incredible number of Olympians as students, and I became the first strength consultant employed at the university gym. Essentially, I spent more time in the gym that I did in the lecture rooms and that didn’t go unnoticed by the athletes. That became my classroom.  Additionally I was working part-time and one off gigs as an exercise physiologist and gym instructor at various gymnasiums.

In summary Australia did not have a term to describe a profession of training athletes because the role did not exist.  The Australian Sports Medicine Foundation (ASMF) was founded in 1963 and they provided education in the area of in the moment treatment of injuries as their only specific to sport educational offering. Individuals who filled these roles were referred to as ‘trainers’, typically of lower qualifications than a physiotherapist, whose role was to provide massages, run water, and provide immediate assistance to athletes at the moment of injury.

And that was the landscape of Australian sport when I was creating a role that didn’t exist – providing professional commercial physical training services to athletes. When asked what I did in the early 1980’s I would say ‘I train athletes’. To which the response was invariably ‘What sport?’ People assumed I was a sports coach because there was no other role in sport at that time.  I was doing something that had no name in Australia.

United States of America

There had been a different role and position description in the US.  This was referred to as a ‘strength coach’.  The use of this term and role professionally can be traced back to the 1950s in the United States.

Gym owner and former team manager of the 1952 US Olympic Weightlifting Team, Alvin Roy, is proposed to have been the first strength training consultant engaged in US high school, notably in the sport of American football. [4]  Roy went on to also become possibly the first strength training consultant engaged in American college sport when he worked with the Louisiana State University Football team in 1958.  [5]

Alvin Roy is also considered to be the strength consultant in professional sport in the US when in 1963 he was hired to work with the 1963 San Diego. And Kim Wood is considered the first full time NFL strength coach when he was hired to work for Cincinnati Bengals. [6]

Boyd Epley is considered the first strength coach hired full-time in US college sport  when he was hired in 1969 by the Athletic Director of the University of American to work with the American football team.[7]

The National Strength Coaches Association (NSCA) was formed in the US in 1978, specifically to unite and support strength coaches at the college level in American football. In 1981, they changed the name to the National Strength & Conditioning Coaches Association, broadening the title to include ‘conditioning’, without having to change the acronym of NSCA.

Europe

There was less clarity from Europe as to a term or job description. The UK was relatively underdeveloped in the area of sports training. One of the key influences in the UK was Frank Dick, who published a book titled ‘Training Theory’ in 1974.  There was no reference to a term for the coach responsible for physical training, likely because this was most likely the responsibility of the head coach in the UK during that era.  Most found the information from the Soviet Union during the 1980s to be unreliable, in part due to the Cold War between the US and the USSR (1947-1991).[8]  The ‘Berlin Wall’ didn’t fall until 1989, therefore, literature coming out of the well-organized state known as East Germany was limited.

This didn’t mean literature was devoid in Europe. It just wasn’t readily available to the rest of the world.  This changed when Canada became one of the most highly funded nations in sport preparation in the lead up to their two decades of Olympic Games – the Montreal Summer Olympics in 1976 and the Calgary Winter Olympics in 1988.

One such immigrant to Canada was Hungarian Tudor Bompa, who released the first edition of this book, ‘Theory and Methodology of Training’, in 1983.

In this book, he shared a very different approach to sports training compared to the only other organized theory, that of the US – and their ‘strength and conditioning’ –  identifying what he referred to as four ‘Training Factors’ – physical, technical, tactical and theoretical.

Choosing a path

As a student of the profession seeking direction in a career path that did not exist in Australia (at least not in a commercial, get paid for your services, sense), I was left to make a decision – which path to follow? What name do I use to describe my services? Do I follow the path that made the most sense – the Eastern European influence shared in the book by Bompa? Or do I follow the US path, one that was showing greater growth in public awareness, and backed by the might of the US culture, population, popularity and money?

I share this dilemma in my 1997 book ‘Winning and Losing’:

The concept of strength and conditioning as a role has a strong American influence.  Not so the concept of someone responsible for physical preparation. [9]

I did not rush to this decision. The pattern I have established is test and refine a training concept or innovation for about a decade before sharing it as a recommended way.

In 1988, the NSCA arrived in Australia. I took on the state director role in that first year, and then the National Executive Director role (an unpaid role) for nearly a decade.

During that time, a few key events occurred. I share two of them with you.

A conversation that shaped the acceptance of the term ‘Strength & Conditioning’ in Australia

After the arrival of the NSCA in Australia, and in my role as the leader, I had a meeting with the key figure in the Australian Sports Commission/Coaching Council. The NSCA of Australia (as it was known at that time) was seeking recognition from this body to be treated in the same way as all other sports registered with and recognized by the government regulatory body.

He expressed serious reservations about this, specifically that he felt that the NSCA was too unbalanced, more about strength training than other forms of physical training. I assured him that was not the case. I believe that this conversation was pivotal in achieving the goal of the NSCA of Australia. I also believe my answer was naïve.

I have reflected on that conversation a lot since and realize in retrospect how my advocacy shaped the history of this movement in Australia.

By the early 1990s, as I developed a more thorough insight into the NSCA in the US,  I had moved away from my support for the term ‘strength & conditioning’.

Inspired by Bompa’s writing, I formed the belief that adding the word ‘coach’ after the training factor ‘physical preparation’ would be a far better alternative.

I shared the reasons for this conclusion in my 1997 book ‘Winning and Losing’:

I am not supportive of  the  term strength and conditioning for two reasons.  …  Firstly, I am not supportive of this term because of the implications of its literal interpretation.  It separates strength from all the other elements of conditioning.  I believe this is inappropriate and misleading.  It then, by virtue of word sequence, places strength as a more important component than conditioning.  Again I suggest that this is inappropriate and misleading.  The message being given by the mere use of this term is counterproductive – unless you agree with strength being separate and more important.

The second reason I am not supportive of the term strength and conditioning is based on a historical understanding of it’s origin.  In 1978 the National Strength Coaches Association (NSCA) was created in mid-west America.  In 1982, for whatever reason, the word ‘Coaches’ was replaced with the word ‘Conditioning’.  (it fitted in with the initials NSCA!)  This association has gone on to shape and influence the role of ‘strength and conditioning coaches’ throughout the western world.

…. I believe the term ‘physical preparation’ is a better term.  Athletic preparation another.  [10]

A second conversation that shaped the future of the term ‘strength & conditioning’ in Australia.

Following on from my formative late 1980s conversation with a key government figure and the resultant regret, I did not want to be in that position again. I had decided that the term ‘physical preparation coach’ would be my path.

In the early 1990s, an opportunity arose to change the NSCA of Australia to an independent organization. This was not a breakaway in any sense. The population of the target audience in Australia was so small the organization struggled to stay afloat, and the US NSCA was clear in their lack of interest at that time in establishing themselves outside of the US.

A meeting of the then Board of Directors was called to discuss and decide on the future of our organization.  I saw this as an opportunity to move the organization to a term more aligned with my values. At the same time, I recognized that the organization was not mine per se, and that the Board would ultimately make that decision.

I shared this story and the outcome in my 1997 book ‘Winning and Losing’:

  In 1993, I proposed to the then Executive Committee that the NSCA (Australia) be replaced by a Australian organization, with no royalties being paid to America, providing publishing opportunities to Australians, and providing information relevant to Australian sport, employment and culture.  This recommendation was accepted.  However my views that the term strength and conditioning be deleted was not supported.  The end result – The Australian Strength and Conditioning Association.  This decision may have had a big impact on the acceptability of this term in Australia today. [11]

I accepted the decision of the board and continued to serve the organization for the rest of the decade, despite holding different values about the title I preferred to describe my services.  Up until 1996, I was one of the only individual gaining full-time income in Australia training athletes, and the broader sporting bodies had not been exposed to the term ‘strength & conditioning’, so what I referred to myself as was not an issue.

Post 1996, certain changes occurred in the Australian sporting landscape, and the awareness of this term ‘strength & conditioning’ grew at a faster rate. This and other factors led me to decide in 1999 to commence my own coach education program.

Adoption of the term ‘physical preparation coach’

Up until I published my 1997 book ‘Winning and Losing’, only a few Australians in the physical training niche had heard of my term, and some later adopted it.  After the release of my 1997 book and subsequent books, along with the commencement of the KSI Coach education program in 1999, others around the world who were exposed first-hand to this term began to adopt it.

It’s now been 40 years since I was first faced with the dilemma of what path to choose in the title of my services and its associated training values.  I see the term now being used in a ‘second generation’ sense, that is by individuals who did not learn it firsthand from me.

For anyone who values origins and intents, this journey back in time may serve to educate.

Conclusion

In this article, I have sought to share with you the origin and intent of the term ‘physical preparation coach’. I have consistently referred to and recommended the book by Tudor Bompa, as this book shaped my thinking.

…by Tudor Bompa in his classic book Theory and Methodology of Training: The Key to Athletic Success  (first published 1983).  This is an excellent text and I believe it should be in every coach’s library.  Not an easy book to read first up, but one which you will find yourself returning to as a reference guide.  An excellent starting point to give you structure in theory and methodology. [12]

I have no ‘skin in the game’ as to what term you use to describe yourself. At the end of the day, it is a semantic. I am less interested in a persons name or title, and more interested in how they conduct themselves and serve the athlete/client.

I have seen the term ‘physical preparation coach’ abused by individuals who I suggest apply to term to themselves to provide the perception they offer more than they do.  As the person who coined the term, it was intended to be used as a reflection of a more balanced and holistic approach than what the term ‘strength & conditioning’ implies. Most personal trainers, from my perspective, typically work with only two physical qualities, e.g., strength and endurance. Unless your services offer a full suite of physical preparation training, then the use of physical preparation is not relevant.

Finally, both the term ‘strength & conditioning coach’ and ‘physical preparation coach’ have one word in common – coach. For me, coaching involves regular collaboration over the training process. Most physical coaches operate from a prescriptive approach, and as such, the term ‘coach’ is not relevant on this basis.

 

References

[1] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book)

[2] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs (book)

[3] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book)

[4] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book)

[5]  https://titansupport.com/category/ken-leistner/

[6]  https://titansupport.com/category/ken-leistner/

[7] Shurley, JP, and Todd, JS. “The Strength of Nebraska”: Boyd Epley, Husker Power, and the Formation of the Strength Coaching Profession. J Strength Cond Res 26(12): 3177–3188, 2012

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War

[9] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book)

[10] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book)

[11] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book)

[12] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book)

Ian King

Coach, Trainer or Ambulance Chaser?

/by

In 1997 I published a book titled ‘Winning and Losing’, aiming to share the lessons of my prior two decades of professional experiences. One of those was that I felt physical preparation coaches should be more focused on injury prevention and rehabilitation, not just performance enhancement.  Additionally, the 1990s strength coaching focus was on how much you could lift in compound lifts such as the power and Olympic lifts, which was in itself leading to more injuries as not everyone was ready to go heavy in compound strength exercises, as was the dominant paradigm of that decade.[1]

There is no reason why a strength and conditioning coach should not be contributing to injury prevention/rehabilitation.[2]

Nearly 30 years later I back what I said. What I didn’t anticipate was the direction that would be taken, and I don’t support aspects of this approach. A statement in my 1999 book ‘Understanding Plyometrics’ sums it up.

The standard reaction to a new idea is over-reaction in the short-term and an under‐reaction in the long term. [3]

Tracking the changes in industry response to injury prevention and rehabilitation

Having been involved in the era of no interest/focus on injury prevention/rehabilitations through to now, I have had the opportunity to track the changes.

Firstly, from a broader professional ‘strength and conditioning’ role perspective, one of the major shifts has seen sporting team employ individuals whose work sits between the physical therapist and the physical preparation coach. In speaking with a sport coach in South Africa recently, I was given an insight into how South Africa potentially leads the way in this area. Irrespective of the value of this role, at least one can see the intention to transition between various professional services.

Secondly from the second-tier ‘personal trainer’ market, one that since its inception around 1990 has been fixated on trend following, there has been a post 2010 demand for them to be able to ‘fix imbalances’ and injuries.  This is replacing the dominant focus of the first decade this century where everyone was a ‘fat loss expert’. Now they are clamouring to be an injury rehab specialist.

It has been, hands down the most dominant question I have been asked by personal trainers during the last five years.

Here’s a major challenge for me. Who contributed to the injury epidemic? Those who physically train others. Who is going to, apparently, solve this with their ‘rehab knowledge and skills’? The same group.  So we are going to solve this societys injury problems withj the same ‘professionals, with the same thinking, and in the same environment in and by which the injuries occurred in the first place?

I suggest not.

My hope is that some will see the light in this oxymoron, and choose to master injury prevention before they pick the low hanging fruit of the situation they contributed to.

Of course, that is a tough ask, and I am under no illusion that my sentiments will put the brakes on the trend to be the injury rehab hero.  A client base conditioned by marketing -combined with the average person’s desire for instant gratification – is going to have its wants (note, not needs) met by a profession that essentially trend chasers.

Secondly, on a more micro-level, I have been able to observe the response to a specific artifact I published in 2000, before the shift in focus to include injury prevention and rehabilitation.  It was a video series titled Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation.

Ambulance chasing

The almost immediate effect I witnessed on those who ordered this educational video was a significant shift to what it referred to as an ‘ambulance chasing’ in many industries. They have a powerful new toy that would give them more clients and they became consumed with this.  To the point where these individuals would market:

‘Hey, do you have an injury? Contact me and I will fix it’.

You have probably seen similar billboards on the side of a highway or similar, where a pro bono motor vehicle or workplace accident attorney is inviting ‘victims’ to contact them.

My concerns

What don’t I like about this?

  1. Injury prevention/rehabilitation should be a holistic part of what you do as a physical preparation coach, not the leading focus of your service (unless you are a physical therapist)

My interpretation of a physical preparation coach’s role is to physically prepare individuals, not to offer or lead with injury prevention, offering ‘treatment’, or claiming they can ‘fix’ injuries in individuals they have not met yet. If an injury issue arises in the broader services, approach pathways should be considered – and these pathways should include a multi-disciplinary approach.

  1. How can the injury problem be solved by the same professionals that created them?

As I stated above, in my opinion, the exponential increase in injury rates and severity is in large part caused by the physical preparation training provided.  I understand that this is just my opinion. However, if there is validity in this perspective, under what circumstance can the conditions that caused the injury be resolved by the same person, in the same environment and or the same conditions? To think that this is a viable option is one of the great mysteries to me.  I do not support an injury rehabilitation skill claim by a physical preparation coach until they have demonstrated their competence in injury prevention.

  1. If you want to focus on injury rehabilitation, become a physical therapist.

Now if a physical preparation coach is so attracted to injury rehabilitation, I suggest they complete appropriate professional development courses (e.g. a degree in physical therapy) and become a physical therapist. At least then you may have some appropriate professional indemnity insurance.   I know many individuals who have graduated with sports science degrees and then also completed physical therapy degrees when they realized they were more attracted to rehabilitation. To their credit, they have sought the approach of professional development for their chosen path.

At least then you will be working ‘in your lane’, have an industry body to support you, be able to get professional insurance covering your services, and are more likely to survive being judged in the light of a court-house should that occur.

  1. Who is being served by a physical prep coach chasing injured clients? The needs of the physical prep coach to gain clients and significance, or the clients?

I understand that there is a massive demand for injury rehabilitation. I also know there are some relatively powerful yet simple methods to address basic injuries, some of which I outlined in my 2000 video series.  However, I question the motivation of a physical coach when it is apparent that they are short of clients and seeking significance.  Absolutely in today’s market, it is low-hanging fruit, and you can pay your car lease payments and gym rent by this path.

However, if you were good at what you are doing – training individuals using long-term planning and results – you would not have the time to do what essentially is a separate higher education degree – and be the ‘physical therapist’.

I suggest the needs of the client should come first, not the needs of the service provider.

  1. The human body and injuries are very complex – are you really the person to ‘treat’ them? Instead of a professionally trained physical therapist?

A lesson I am continuously reminded of as the decades pass is how complex the human body is. I continue to get lessons and learn about the body and injury.  I appreciate the support and guidance I receive from professionals I collaborate with to seek solutions and answers to injuries including but not limited to doctors, surgeons, radiologists, physical therapists, chiropractors, and orthotists.   I don’t know too many physical preparation coaches who have this level of knowledge of the human body. One was our late KSI graduate coach Mike Pimentel. Note Mike was a university-qualified Athletic Trainer with years of clinical experience before training and converting to become a full-time physical preparation coach. ,

Other than Mike Pimentel I have not met – in my 45-year professional journey to date – anyone else who is a competent, successful and in-demand physical preparation coach – who leads with or dominates in their service focus on attracting and ‘healing’ injured clients. They may be out there, but we have not crossed paths.

If you want to be a physical therapist, do the right thing by clients and get appropriate higher-level education and training..

My response to these ambulance chasers

Within a few years of releasing the video series Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation I made it very clear to the coaches in the KSI Coaching Program who had been side-tracked by the shiny new object of being a healer that they were not using the information I provided in the manner intended, and encouraged them to become a physical therapist if that was their primary interest. This seemed to work at the time.

When I realized this message was not getting through to those who were not in the KSI Coaching Program, I made the video series available exclusively to KSI Coaches.

When I realized this was not working, and that there were still individuals mistreating the information, I restricted its sale to those at a minimum of L2 in the KSI Coaching Program.  Unfortunately, that still failed to solve what I saw to be a mistreatment of the intent of the information, and have since raised the pre-qualification to L4 and now L6 respectively.

What I was looking for is at what level of learning is it apparent that individuals will respect the intent. A major conclusion I have reached is that until a physical preparation coach can demonstrate that they can provide services that prevent injuries, they have no place in claiming or offering services that ‘rehabilitate’ injuries.

I understand that with the exponential growth in injuries, the new ‘black’ (the new go-to) in physical preparation is the desire to be able to ‘fix injuries’. It’s replaced the hottest trend in the physical preparation world between 2000 and 2010 to be a ‘fat-loss expert’.

But who is this desire to be in the pathway of profit from injuries serving?

I suggest the service provider more than the client, which will mean another failure to solve the rapidly growing injury trend.

And I do not support that.

Solutions

Addressing significant and or chronic injuries is most likely going to need a multi-disciplinary approach. If you are seeking these services, I encourage you to consider some of the issues raised in this article when selecting your service provider.

Even our high-level coaches – Level 8 and above – recognise when they are out of their depth.  In fact, in our most recent high-level camp, we held a meeting with a 40-year physiotherapist to allow our coaches to discuss best practices when working with aligned professionals.

Let me be very clear – due to the level of competence I believe needed before seeking to develop competence in injury rehabilitation (as opposed to prevention) we do not teach rehabilitation until L8 of 10 levels in the KSI Coaching Program.  Now I understand that this statement alone will preclude many from starting the KSI Coaching Program – when Joe Bloggs down the road claims he can teach PTs how to be physical therapists in a short course.

But that’s the way we roll.  The most important aspect of our service is what’s best for the client. Or as our slogan says ‘Where the athlete comes first’

If, as an end user, you do have injury concerns and want a physical preparation coach who is highly trained in the KSI, whose values align with those in this article, and who embraces the client’s needs first, I encourage you to seek out current L8 and above KSI coaches.

I appreciate there are relatively few current high-level KSI coaches, however, if you do have the opportunity to work with one, you will experience that current high-level KSI Coaches are trained in the KSI approach to injury prevention and rehabilitation. You will not see them soliciting injured people to contact them, nor will you see them offering to ‘fix’ injuries out of context.

Conclusion

During the last five decades, I have created a holistic approach to helping people with needs in physical preparation. This work has been at the forefront. For the last three decades, I have been sharing with physical preparation coaches what I have learnt through the KSI Coaching Program.

The ongoing challenge I have faced is encouraging these ‘students’ to hold the interests of the client first, rather than their own needs for significance and clients.

So what’s it going to be? Coach, trainer or ambulance chaser?

—-

PS. As a matter of reflection, there was another sentence or two in the same paragraph that appeared in my 1997 book that appears to have been selectively ignored by ambulance chasers:

As with all aspects of training, I never make a big deal about what I can do. I try to take a low profile. This is very important when you are taking a big step outside your boundaries, into another’s field of expertise, such as injury prevention and rehabilitation.

References

[1] At least until I began publishing my ‘different’ approach e.g. The Limping Programs published on T-mag (as it was known then) from 1999 were disruptive to these values.  You can find these programs and the rationale behind them in the Get Buffed!™ educational range.

[2] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing

[3] King, I., 1999, Understanding Plyometrics – A Guide for Athletes and Coaches

Ian King

Rhabdo – The New Black

/by

Mike would not be happy

In the late 1990’s a member of the Tufts University in Boston Massachusetts reached out to me. As a result of that initial email exchange, he first attended a live seminar with me in his home city in 2000,  and from there attended every professional development opportunity held in the US and some additional ones abroad. He was committed to this role, serving the athlete.

His name was Mike Pimentel.  Mike’s initial qualification was as an Athletic Trainer and he worked in the Tufts Athletic Training Department for about a decade, from memory. In the 1990s he was then approached to start up and run a new department at Tufts, their ‘strength & conditioning department’.

Faced with serving the entire athletic preparation at the university of over 700, Mike was no stranger to going the extra mile for his clients. Sleeping under the desk in his office due to working late and the long drive home and back for an early start, was just one example.

Being at the coal face, Mike felt pieces were missing and was looking for the answers, looking for a better way to prevent injuries and enhance performance.  That’s where I came in.

From about 2002 to 2018 I visited the university annually, providing guidance and learning more about the challenges faced.

One of the many innovations Mike put into place was a course that resulted in students with the qualifications to provide training supervision to their cohort.  Mike was a pioneer in solving the challenges faced by NCAA colleges, where the demand for athlete preparation services typically exceeded the budget.

I know I speak for all the students and alumni during Mike’s 30-year contribution at Tufts that all were blessed by his presence. It may have only been a Div. 3 college, but they received first-class service.

Just six years after Mike’s passing, his beloved Tutfs was home to the latest new-age equivalent of vomiting to prove how tough the training session was – heat induced near fatal rhabdomyolysis.

So what is rhabdomyolysis?

Rhabdomyolysis is a big word for saying that training was so intense, and the body temperature was so elevated, the muscles started breaking down, releasing their content into the bloodstream, and endangering organ status in doing so.

Rhabdo is the abbreviation.

What are some other variations?

Rhadbo symptoms can appear similar to heat-related illnesses and dehydration. It’s likely that athletes training in hotter environments show extreme symptoms of heat stroke first. The only way to determine if you have rhabdo is through testing.

How dangerous is it?

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention it is “a serious medical condition that can lead to permanent disability or death.”

How common is it?

Rhabdo is fast becoming the gold standard of ‘conditioning training intensity’. Here are some other examples (this list is not exhaustive):

Year Institute Sport # affected Timing
2024 Tufts Univ. Boston[1] Men’s Lacrosse 12 out of 50

(25%) confirmed [2]

 Sep 16 2024
2023 Mid America Nazarene University in Kansas, American Football Pre-season football late July
2023 US Miltiary[3] Military training 52 – 40.5 cases per 100,000 person-years, the highest rate observed during this study’s 2019–2023 surveillance period.
2018-2022 Between 2018 and 2022, at least 11 football players in the US—at the student and professional level—have died of heat stroke. And the number of young athletes diagnosed with exertional heat illness has been increasing over the past decade or so…[4] [5] [6] [7]
2020 Manly-Warringah Rugby League Club, Sydney[8] Rugby League 1 death 23 Nov 2020; First training back in the off-season
2019 Manly-Warringah Rugby League Club, Sydney [9] Rugby League 1 near-death offseason conditioning
2012 Ohio State University[10] Women’s Lacrosse 6 athletes admitted to hospital March[11]
2011 University of Iowa [12] American Football 13 athletes admitted to hospital offseason conditioning, return from school break
2010 Oregon high school American Football Among 43 players, 22 (51%) experienced rhabdomyolysis; 22 patients had upper arm myalgia; 12 were hospitalized; 3 experienced triceps compartment syndrome. an upper arm exercise held in a non-air-conditioned wrestling room.

Conclusion

There was a time when getting an athlete to vomit during ‘conditioning’ training was a sign of how ‘tough’ the session was, perhaps a badge of honour for the trainer. Not that I agree with this approach but it cannot be denied as a phenomenon.  Now it appears the stakes have been raised. Vomiting is not good enough. Near-death or death appears to be the new gold standard in ‘that was a tough workout.

That’s not encouraging. It’s insane, but is it going to turn around? Based on the lack of accountability I see in the official who ran the programs highlighted above, I suspect the answer is no.  It is going to get worse.

What you and I can do, if you share my thoughts on this, is to ensure that no such situation or outcome occurs on our watch.

We are here for the athlete, and I cannot see now near-death or actual death experiences from off-season conditioning training is serving the athletes.

On its surface, a statement such as this should be redundant. But it isn’t, considering the trend.

I believe Mike would not be happy about the event that occurred at his beloved alma mater in 2024. And no one who puts the athlete first should be happy with this new ‘training trend’.

 

References

[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2024/09/23/tufts-university-lacrosse-players-rhabdo-training/75347715007/

[2] https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/tufts-mens-lacrosse-players-hospitalized-following-workout-led-by-graduate-of-navy-seal-training-program/3494987/

[3]  https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11107841/ The 529 reported incident cases of exertional rhabdomyolysis among active component U.S. service members in 2023 represent an unadjusted annual incidence rate of 40.5 cases per 100,000 person-years, the highest rate observed during this study’s 2019–2023 surveillance period. This increase in crude incidence rates was most noticeable in the Marine Corps,

[4] https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2023/09/football-players-deaths-excessive-heat-coaching/

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/24/football-player-heat-deaths-athlete

[6] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/09/21/heat-kills-student-athletes-how-schools-can-help/74843984007/

[7] https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/aug/23/high-school-football-deaths-heat-stroke

[8] https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/may/03/nrl-player-keith-titmuss-died-after-inappropriate-training-session-coroner-finds

[9] https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-premiership/nrl-2024-former-prop-lloyd-perrett-launching-legal-action-against-sea-eagles-heat-stroke-keith-titmuss-news-videos-highlights/news-story/f444cc32ea5ef9d968a7d5b899af09c8

[10] https://www.dispatch.com/story/lifestyle/health-fitness/2013/03/09/rhabdomyolysis-laid-low-6-athletes/23706206007/

[11] “In the Ohio State case, Kelly Becker told university officials that on March 6, 2012, the women lacrosse players performed a series of grueling upper-body workouts unlike anything they had done to that point in the season. The workout included pull-ups (she did 56), chin-ups and triceps-crunching dips without rest during a 20-minute workout. Two days later, they pushed football blocking sleds. The six players went to the hospital the next day.”

[12] https://www.espn.com/college-football/news/story?id=6061650

 

Ian King

Principles – The North Star of Physical Preparation

/by

The enduring power and importance of training principles

Before maps and compasses, humans would look for guidance when travelling, typically seeking them from stars that were consistent in their visibility.   Even in the more modern times, these same stars provide an enduring back-up system to travellers.

One can liken training to travelling. The purpose of training is to take our athletic and or physical qualities from Point A- where we are today – to Point B – where we want to be in the future.

In this physical training journey, decisions are made moment by moment. This is the reality of what earlier European literature referred to as the ‘training process’.  Ideally you begin with a plan, but the realities of the body combined with the environment require constant adaptation.

In making these constant and in the moment decisions we again ideally have something to guide us, in the same way stars were used for navigation before the advent of compasses and maps.

From my earliest professional development, I was influenced to believe that training principles would be used to serve this purpose.

What are training principles?

I describe training principles as:

Principles of training are general rules or guidelines that can apply to all aspects of training.  It is important for a student of physical preparation know these principles, to understand them, and most importantly, to consistently apply them in the training of the athlete.[1] [2]

For me ‘principles of training’ fall within ‘the theory of training’, and I appreciate not everyone wants to embrace theory. However, I strongly suggest that for the safety of the athlete/client, and for the optimization of retaining, that all physical preparation coaches embrace and internalize the principles of training. For this reason principles of training feature prominently in our coach education since it’s commencement in 1999.

What are examples of principles of training?

The following lists describes dominant principles of training as they were presented from 1999 in our coach education courses and books.  They are listed alphabetically, not in any order of importance: [3] [4]

  1. Active and conscientious participation.
  2. Contrarian principle.
  3. General to specific.
  4. Individualization.
  5. Opposite and equal effect.
  6. Progressive Overload.
  7. Recovery.
  8. Reversibility.
  9. Specificity.
  10. Transfer.
  11. Variety.

Do principles change over time?

The upside of learning and internalizing the principles of training is that, unlike trends in training, they do not change.

In fact, it is a tenant of what I seek to learn, master, and teach – the concept of generalized principles. Concepts that remain unwavering over time, despite many other things changing around it.  I credit the US thinker and inventor Buckminster-Fuller for the term ‘generalized principles’ – things that never change – and mastering and teaching these are far more important than ‘science’ or ‘trends’.

I am proud to have contributed to the area of principles of training, an area I have so much respect for, with a number of original principles.  I look forward to them standing the test of time…[5]

The world, society and the training environment is subject to continual change. There is the risk that some may assume that newer ways of doing things, such as the arrival of new trends of training, may over-ride or negate the role and importance of training principles.  I suggest this is not the case.

It would appear I am not alone in stressing that changing times do not mean principles wane or change. In his augural address, the 54th President of the United States said:

“As my high school teacher, Miss Julia Coleman, used to say: “We must adjust to changing times and still hold to unchanging principles.” [6]

What happens when we ignore these principles of training?

 When we ignore the principles of training there are levels of risk that may result.  I list them below:

  1. Overtraining
  2. Imbalanced adaptations leading to acute or chronic injury
  3. The shortening of the career, the quality of life, or of life itself.

1. Overtraining

Overtraining can occur very easily and subtlety, with the chances are the moment that it occurred and the decisions make that caused it going unnoticed and unrecognized.  It takes a commitment to objective review and high standards of excellence in outcomes to provide a measure of analysis and comparison.  In other words, most of these moments in training are missed and lessons are not learnt.   This is particularly applicable when the implications of that overtraining are not immediately and blatantly apparent.

Overtraining can lead to sub-optimal training and competition results, onset of injury, reduction of career span and quality of lifelong term.

2. Imbalanced adaptations leading in the acute and/or chronic injury

As with overtraining, any inherent imbalance in training stimulus – in all macro and micro variables – can be subtle, delayed in their appearance, yet significant on the downside.  And again, due to the subtle nature of these negative adaptation, and the lack of clarity around what is an optimal adaptation, the moments that these occur are typically missed, and the lessons fall to be received.

Case Study #1 – Acute or/or chronic Injuries

The following refers to an Australian NRL teams first season under a new coach:

The Titans came into their 2024 campaign with high expectation — and at one stage they were even exceeding it — but the season ended with a whimper after injuries decimated Des Hasler’s squad.

 Tino Fa’asuamaleaui was the first to go down with an ACL rupture ending his season in Round 3, while Jayden Campbell had a delayed start due to a knee injury before copping two more setbacks in another knee concern and a hand injury.

AJ Brimson battled with a niggling groin injury which eventually caused his season’s end prematurely, while Beau Fermor, Phillip Sami and David Fifita also had stints on the sideline.[7]

3.  The shortening of the career, the quality of life, or of life itself.

These subtle failings in training that it appears everyone is not held accountable for, can and most likely will result in significant life-changing implications. These range from shorter careers, through to shortened quality of life post-career, through to premature (or in some instances immediate) death.

Case study #2 – Career ending injury.

Here is a case study that highlights this risk.

“We went on a run, weren’t allowed any water and told ‘if you don’t like it, you can take your car keys to the field and go home’.

“Coaches and trainers do this regularly – try to see how tough you are.

“We had a run, then a short break, then got sent on another run… again without water, then a third run. 

“I guess my mind was stronger than my body. I don’t remember what happened – I collapsed and woke up in hospital with around seven doctors and nurses around me… I thought I was going to die.

“I couldn’t move my arms or legs … I’ve never been more scared.

“I was literally on my death bed … and it was 100 per cent avoidable.

“A nurse later told me that 60 per cent of people who get heat stroke die … I was one of the lucky ones.”

Perrett was just 23 at the time but his career was over. “I stayed at Manly but was never the same,” he said.[8]

Perret is now taking legal action against the club.[9]

Case study #3 – Life ending injury.

In November 2020, during the first training session back in the general preparatory phase at the NFL franchise Manly Warringah Sea Eagles, a 20 year old rugby league player passed away as a result of the training session.

Keith Titmuss lost consciousness immediately after a 139-minute training session at the team’s headquarters on Sydney’s northern beaches on November 23, 2020.

A coronial inquest into his sudden death heard several experts concluded the forward was suffering from exertional heat stroke when he had a seizure at an indoor facility. [10]

On the face of it one might consider the athlete may have had a pre-existing condition that led to his passing. However, evidence presented at the subsequent coronial inquiry may provide a different perspective. On 4 November 2019 the club doctor Luke Inman sent an email to the then head of sports science at the club warning about heat and the need for head monitoring at training:

“You are leaving yourself open to litigation from a player if they suffer heat stress or at worst, dies,” the email warned.[11]

This email was followed up the 7th April 2019 with the same warning, this time to more stakeholders within the club:

On 7 April 2019, Dr Inman forwarded a copy of his 4 November 2018 email to Mr Booth, copying in Mr Bonasera, Mr Hasler and Mr Singe, and relevantly wrote: Hi Mark, I am well aware of the NRL policy and guidelines. Furthermore, John Bonasera forwarded you my email in Nov 2018 regarding heat measurement at training and the clubs stand on the “recommendation” is that it is performed at every training session during the hotter months in preseason (see below). You were made aware of the clubs medical policy for heat measurement at training by John Bonasera and have not complied. You are leaving yourself and the club open to litigation from a player if they happen to suffer from heat stress or worse, die. We have already had one extreme example of this. I would strongly advise that this measurement is continued at training please. It does not take long to set up.

The counsel assisting the coroner Adam Casselden SC said the evidence before the coroner showed the training session had been “objectively tough”:

“It was unnecessarily and inappropriately tough, given it was the first extended training session of the new season,” he told the NSW State Coroners Court.

“With the benefit of hindsight, (it was) an inappropriately high level of intensity and not of a safe level or environment.” [12]

The coroner concluded:

“… the training session was “more likely than not inappropriate”, given a range of factors including the hot and humid conditions during the indoor part of the session.[13]

You can read the transcript from the coroners inquest here. [14]

Conclusion

 The coronial magistrate inquiry into the tragic passing of Keith Titmuss provided a number of recommendations including:

* Mandating a 14-day period of controlled training load acclimatisation following an off-season or extended break for players.

* It should also consider screening and classifying players for EHS risks, the mandatory reporting of every EHS incident and identifying what cooling strategies should be implemented for outdoor and indoor training sessions, he said.

* Magistrate Lee also recommended Manly make improvements to its record-keeping policies.[15]

It’s unfortunate to see the profession of physical preparation acting in a way that requires the oversight of the judicial system.  Does our profession really need a Magistrate to remind them of the fundamentals of the theory of training, including the principles of training? Simple concepts such as progressive overload and individualization?

From my perspective the risks involved when one ignores the principles of training can be serious. The case studies shared, and those that were not, are all for the most part avoidable. They do not need to happen.

It is important for a student of physical preparation know these principles, to understand them, and most importantly, to consistently apply them in the training of the athlete.[16] [17]

Our thoughts are with these athletes and their families.

 

References

[1] King, I., 1999, Foundations of Physical Preparation (Course)

[2] King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation (Book), p. 26

[3] King, I., 1999, Foundations of Physical Preparation (Course)

[4] King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation (Book), p. 26

[5] King, I., 2011, Legacy (Course), Unit 5 – Principles of Training, p. 2

[6] Inaugural Address of Jimmy Carter, Thursday 20 Jan 1977, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/carter.asp

[7] https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-premiership/nrl-2024-gold-coast-titans-season-review-ins-and-outs-transfer-targets-des-hasler-challenge/news-story/e1b658203153a70f60ef2deb13675fd0

[8] https://www.nine.com.au/sport/nrl/news-2024-the-mole-exclusive-lloyd-perrett-legal-action-manly-sea-eagles-keith-titmuss-20240501-p5jb0s.html

[9] https://www.nine.com.au/sport/nrl/news-2024-the-mole-exclusive-lloyd-perrett-legal-action-manly-sea-eagles-keith-titmuss-20240501-p5jb0s.html

[10] https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-premiership/teams/sea-eagles/inappropriately-tough-session-before-rising-manly-stars-death/news-story/6f20fa3b30ed01621a271fa4a49086db

[11] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-09/nsw-ex-manly-coach-des-hasler-evidence-keith-titmuss-inquest/103448148

[12] https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-premiership/teams/sea-eagles/inappropriately-tough-session-before-rising-manly-stars-death/news-story/6f20fa3b30ed01621a271fa4a49086db

[13] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-03/keith-titmuss-inquest-findings-inappropriate-training-session/103800424

[14] https://coroners.nsw.gov.au/documents/findings/2024/Inquest_into_the_death_of_Keith_Titmuss.pdf

[15] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-03/keith-titmuss-inquest-findings-inappropriate-training-session/103800424

[16] King, I., 1999, Foundations of Physical Preparation (Course)

[17] King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation (Book), p. 26

 

 

Ian King

The western world’s blind spot to global physical preparation publications

/by

From their commencement in 1978 the American National Strength Coaches Association (NSCA, later changed to National Strength & Conditioning Association) produced very helpful and welcome articles on physical training (mainly strength training). However, one thing stood out at least during the period up to 2000 – referencing of non-US writers was sparse to say the least.

I asked around in the US as to why and the best explanation I could get as to why was that they felt that the non-US research could not be ‘verified’.

I don’t believe it was that simple, however that’s a discussion for another day. Let’s just say there were many nations that have been ahead of America during the modern history of our profession in the area of studying and quantifying physical preparation. And when the US stepped up its game the focus was narrow i.e. strength-centric. And I believe this disregard for non-US training publications created  a blind spot for in this profession.

A recent article highlighted this phenomenon.[1] The polite and helpful comments by a reader shed light on this. Full credit to the article author contribution, however it did reflect what I believe is the western world’s professional blind spot. And provides us all with an opportunity to make amends, to dig deeper and appreciate the origin and history of training theory and methodology globally.

I share this enlightening exchange below:

Reader Interactions – Comments

Anders Lindsjö

DECEMBER 14, 2022 AT 12:06 PM

Thanks for a very good article that hopefully will help coaches to use VBT in the future

REPLY

Giorgio

DECEMBER 14, 2022 AT 5:18 PM

Stepping off a low platform and immediately rebounding was in use in Germany and Poland ten years before Verkhoshansky experiments…

REPLY

Kim Goss

DECEMBER 14, 2022 AT 6:35 PM

Thanks for the comment. Can you give me a published, dated reference from researchers in those countries that I can research to compare their work with the classical plyometrics (i.e. shock training) from Yuri Verkhoshansky’s? I’ve never seen anyone challenge Verkhoshansky’s claim that he was the creator of classical plyometrics. Fun Fact: Dr. Siff told me the East Germans had teams of researchers translating the work of Russian sports scientists such as Professor Verkhoshansky.

REPLY

Giorgio

DECEMBER 14, 2022 AT 10:32 PM

It all begins with a statement by Tadeusz Starzynski, Polish jumping coach, in his “Le Triple Saut”, Editions Vigot, 23 rue de l’ Ecole de Medecine – 75006 Paris, 1987. On page 120 of this publication Starzynski states :
“La plyometrie est connue depuis longtemps et pratiquee dans l’ entrainement des triple sauteurs polonais depuis 1952”

REPLY

Giorgio

DECEMBER 14, 2022 AT 10:43 PM

Continuing my research, I found an old German manual, author Toni Nett, dating back to 1952.
The title was “Das Ubungs und Trainingsbuch der Leichtathletik”, Verlag fur Sport und Leibesubungen Harry Bartels, Berlin Charlottenburg 5, Fritschestrasse 27/28. In the section dedicated to the triple jump, the exercises using depth jumps with rebound appear

REPLY

Giorgio

DECEMBER 14, 2022 AT 10:56 PM

Already in 1962 Mr. Tadeusz Starzynski had published a manual on the triple jump, where he presented the methodologies already used for a long time in Poland (including depth jumps with rebound).
The title was Trojskok, Seria popularnych podrecznikow lekkiej atletyki, pod redakcja Jana Mulaka, Sport i Turystyka, Warszawa 1962.
This publication is in my possession and I can send you a copy.

Kim Goss

DECEMBER 15, 2022 AT 8:03 AM

This is why I played it safe and used the title “A Brief History….” “Rather than “The Brief History.” 🙂

The goal of the article was to recognize a few of those Iron Game pioneers who helped with the evolution of athletic training – I’m sure I left many other deserving individuals out.

With what you’re presenting, we could say that Verkhoshansky did extensive research on depth jumps and helped popularize this form of training in sports other than track and field. That said, your references are intriguing.

In “Supertraining,” the athletic fitness textbook Verkhoshanky co-authored with Dr. Siff, there is an extensive reference list. However, even though Verkhoshanky was a jumps coach, there are no references to the publications you listed. How could he have missed this?

This information will come in handy next time I write an article about plyometrics.

Kim

P.S. Thanks for the offer to share a copy. First, I’ll see if I can find those references through my resources first.

REPLY

Giorgio

DECEMBER 15, 2022 AT 10:39 PM

There’s more : Track Technique – The Journal of Technical Track & Field Athletics, Fred Wilt Editor, no 17, September 1964 Heinz Rieger, Training of Triple Jumpers. The article was translated and synthesized by Gerry Weichert from no 8 issue of “Der Leichtathlet” dated June 6 1963. Rieger was coach of the ASK Vorwarts Club in East Berlin ( former DDR).
Several Depth Jumps exercises are presented in this very old article.

Giorgio

DECEMBER 15, 2022 AT 11:19 PM

Track Technique – The Journal of Technical Track & Field Athletics, no. 20, June 1965
Heinz Kleinen, Winter Conditioning and Training for Triple Jumpers
Translated by Jess Jarver from no 4, January 28 1964 issue of Die Lehre der Leichtathletik, published in Berlin, West Germany
Several depth jump drills in this article.

REPLY

Giorgio

DECEMBER 15, 2022 AT 11:27 PM

In short, in Poland, West Germany and East Germany, Depth Jumps with rebound had already been known and practiced for a long time

REPLY

Kim Goss

DECEMBER 16, 2022 AT 2:09 PM

Good stuff! I’ll be sure to refer to this material in future articles I write about plyometrics when appropriate.

It also could be argued that gymnasts practiced depth jumps long before Verkhoshansky published any of his research. Again, the best compromise seems to be that Verkhoshansky popularized applying many training methods from track and field to other sports. Oh, and that he had a better publicist! 🙂

Thanks again for the references!

REPLY

Giorgio

DECEMBER 17, 2022 AT 3:58 AM

I would like to point out that the Germans, during the execution of the depth jumps, used mats, precisely because of the very strong impact on the ground, very similar if not equal to the “shock” method (and we are in 1950 – 1951).

 

References

[1] Goss, K., 2022, A Brief History of VBT: Iron Game Pioneers Who Revolutionized Athletic Training, Simplifaster,  https://simplifaster.com/articles/history-vbt-pioneers-revolutionized-training/