Ian King

The Strength Training Over-Reaction

/by

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

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

“If anyone gets slower you’re fired.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endurance

Flexibility

Speed

Strength

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

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

Stretching makes you weak.

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

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

Now imagine this statement, if made today:

Strength training makes you tight.

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

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

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

Strength training negatively impacts skill execution in sport.

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

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

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

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

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

Ian King

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

/by

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

“You know they are wasting their time!?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

That was it?!

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

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

Really? That was it?!

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

Really? That was it?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strength Coach: No.

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

Strength Coach: Zero.

IK: I’m glad you’re honest with me.

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

And they are not alone in doing so…..

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

References

[1] Reference withheld to protect the message.

[2] Reference withheld to protect the message.

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

[4] Reference withheld to protect the message.

[5] Reference withheld to protect the message.

Ian King

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

/by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, that was until just recently.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

References

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

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

 

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

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

 

[5]E.E. Cummings

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

Ian King

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

/by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could go on, all day long…

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

Now let’s talk about training.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

References

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

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

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

Ian King

Where’s the evidence?! Part 2

/by

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to dictionary’s: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I call that conformity evidence.

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

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

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

I know what you’re thinking…

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

[Read Part 3….]

 

 

 

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

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

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

Ian King

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

/by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could go on…

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

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

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

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

It starts all over again.

Where’s the evidence for that Ian?

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

“…do you live in a cave or what?…

“…this guy is a muppet….”

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

“Have you have lost your mind dude…”

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

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

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

So, where’s the evidence?

(Go to Part 2….!)

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

References

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

Ian King

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

/by

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q1. Who owns the company?

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

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

Q2. Who founded the company?

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

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

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

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

Q5. How long have they been operating?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q8. Who formulated the product/s?

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

Q9. Are their scientists in-house or outsourced?

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

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

Q10. Do they manufacture in-house or outsource?

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

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

Q11. Do they manufacturer at GMP?

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

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

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

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

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

Q12. Do they guarantee the potency of every pill?

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

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

Q13. What is their refund policy?

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

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

Q14. What customer support do they offer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They also go on to say: [3]

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

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

Q17. Will I pass a drug test?

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian King

Nutritional supplements and strength training: Part 3 – Who do you trust?

/by

We have a growing consumer awareness of food selection. The interest in organic foods is growing[i], the demand for fast food declining.[ii] So why is the awareness of the inherent challenges in nutritional supplement consumption so low? Why are you – and the majority of people – willing to do what everyone else is doing in the blind faith and trust that the supplement has what the label says it has, and does not contain any toxic or otherwise unhealthy material?

Let me summarize it this way – as long as ‘everyone’ is currently using it, the packaging looks great, and the nutritional labeling appears to be stacked full of what you were looking for, it’s good to go! Take the supplement, no further questions needed.

This may seem a bit too blasé in text, however tell me if this isn’t an accurate description of how the majority think. I suggest it is.

And what categories of nutritional supplement are the most exposed to ‘challenges’? According to a 2015 statement by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

“They’re most common in weight loss supplements, products that promise to boost sexual performance, and bodybuilding products, [FDA spokesperson Lyndsay] Meyer Meyer said”.[iii]

How real is the problem? According to a 2015 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, an estimated 23,000 emergency department visits in the United States every year are attributed to adverse events related to dietary supplements. Note that the categories of supplements where the greatest risks were was similar to those quoted by the FDA spokesperson (see Table).[iv]

So where specifically do the risks lie? Here are

  1. Manufacturing standards
  2. Misleading products and product claims
  3. The sale of illegal supplements
  4. Supplements containing drugs
  5. Raw material selection and contamination
  6. Truth in labeling
  7. Outsourcing manufacturing
  8. All of the above

The following provides further insights into each of these seven areas of risk.

 1.  Manufacturing standards

The manufacturing of nutritional supplements in the US has been described as ‘lightly regulated’.

Yet these pills undergo limited scrutiny by regulators. The FDA treats them like food — not like drugs — under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. Supplement manufacturers can put a wide variety of claims on their bottles, so long as there’s at least some research to back them up and so long as they’re honest about their ingredients. There’s no requirement for manufacturers to specify the quantity of ingredients or to warn consumers about potential side effects. What’s more, there are no regulators checking to make sure these manufacturers are telling the truth about what’s in their products before they hit store shelves.

To remove a supplement from the market, the FDA first has to prove that it’s not safe — which is what happened in the case of OxyElite Pro. This is basically the opposite of how pharmaceuticals are regulated. There, drugmakers need to prove their medicines are safe and effective through high-quality scientific studies before they ever reach consumers.[v]

Put simply, unlike pharmaceutical drug manufacturing, the FDA does not have premarket approval on supplements. Instead they have post-market oversight on supplements. They have to monitor the landscape and prove issues exist. This opens the door for a ‘it’s easier to seek forgiveness than to get approval’ approach, and you, the consumer, are in the middle of this mess.

The limitations of this lower standard of manufacturing compared to drugs is highlighted by the following:

The passing of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act in 1994 permitted dietary supplement manufacturers to bring to market products labeled as supplements without the scrutiny required of pharmaceuticals. 

This lack of oversight has permitted the introduction of numerous supplement products, often containing unapproved active pharmaceutical ingredients, into the marketplace, which has led to harm, as was exemplified by the use of the supplement Pai You Guo.7

In these situations, it is incumbent on the FDA to contact the manufacturer of the supplement to trace the source of the product, and initiate a recall. However, a recent investigation by the Office of the Inspector General determined that the FDA does not possess accurate contact information for 20% of supplement manufacturers.8 This may explain why our study found a large discrepancy between the number of adulterated supplements reported by the FDA and the number that were actually recalled. .[vi]

As a result, this is what is often seen, as reported by Dr. Daniel Fabricant, who heads the FDA’s division of Dietary Supplement Programs:

Sixteen nationwide recalls and warnings have been issued in the past month and a half, including vitamins manufactured by Mira, which contained the risky steroids dimethazine, dimethyltestosterone and methasterone. More than 3,000 products were recalled nationwide last year.

Written product recipes at numerous supplement companies are nonexistent, Fabricant said, and many recipes — known as master manufacturing records — are apparently cobbled together when owners learn that government inspectors are on their way.

Worse, drums in which products are mixed are not always appropriately cleaned, Fabricant added, and in some firms these vessels are pitted — damaged — possibly from age and/or overuse. 

Debris left from previous batches sometimes winds up in newly made products, he said.

Too often, dangerous drugs of all kinds — from male sexual enhancement compounds to weight-loss medications — are turning up in vitamins and other supplements nationwide. [vii]

2.  Misleading products and product claims

The supplement history has a long history of deceit.

In 1989 Nautilus founder Arthur Jones was quoted as saying:

“I am not a bullshit artist, and under no circumstances am I going to get involved in the so-called health food market, which is one vast con game.”[1]

Arthur Jones tells a great story in his 2004 autobiography titled ‘And God Laughs’[2] about a veterinarian who was pestering him about the secret to the success of the 1973 Colorado Experiment, where Casey Viator allegedly put on an incredible amount of muscle mass in only four weeks. Jones tells him ‘the secret’, which reminds me a lot of my chapter titled ‘Colates’ from my 2010 book Barbells and Bullshit. Jones went on to write:

But if I had ever published that elephant shit story as fact in a muscle magazine, the bodybuilders would buy it by the ton, at any price; and the worse it tasted the better they would like it. I also told that veterinarian that the elephant shit always made you very sick, but he assured me that he was more than willing to put up with that.

And if I had published that story as fact, within a few weeks Weider would have been offering what he would have claimed was the only source of pure elephant shit.

US Government regulatory action against false claims in the supplement industry can be traced back at least to the 1960s (and probably earlier), when Peary Rader (Ironman Magazine), Bob Hoffman (York Barbell) and then the Weiders (1970s) were all targets of the US Food and Drug Administration.[3]

It appears not much has changed in the near half a century since.

According to the 2010 article explaining labeling and product claims in the US supplement market:

“….The impact and consequences of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA)… Briefly, the DSHEA is an amendment to the U.S. Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that establishes a regulatory framework for dietary supplements. It effectively excludes manufacturers of these products from virtually all regulations that are in place for prescription and over-the-counter drugs.”[viii]

According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) themselves:

“Generally, manufacturers do not need to register their products with FDA nor get FDA approval before producing or selling dietary supplements. Manufacturers must make sure that product label information is truthful and not misleading. FDA’s post-marketing responsibilities include monitoring safety, e.g. voluntary dietary supplement adverse event reporting, and product information, such as labeling, claims, package inserts, and accompanying literature. The Federal Trade Commission regulates dietary supplement advertising.”[ix]

Basically say what you want and unless someone complains or by some other less likely situation the FDA finds out you are ‘embellishing’ at best, downright lying at worst.

Manufacturers can put virtually any claim on a supplement, without any requirement to provide persuasive clinical evidence, as long as it’s accompanied by the Quack Miranda Warning: “These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.” Disease treatment claims are not permitted, but are typically restated as permissible “structure/function” claims, implying an ability to improve the structure or function of the body only….

There are essentially no pre-marketing requirements before selling products. Once available for sale, there is little ability for the FDA to issue cease-sale orders and recalls. Regulators can block the sale of products only after significant problems have been identified (i.e., ephedra)… 

The regulation of marketing claims is effectively left to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which can prosecute manufacturers for fraud.” [x]

In 2015 a sweeping multi-agency federal investigation in the US has resulted in a slew of criminal and civil charges being brought against more than 100 companies that either make or market supposed dietary supplements for selling products that allegedly contain ingredients other than those listed on the label, or products that make unsubstantiated health or disease-treatment claims.[xi]

The Justice Department unsealed a criminal indictment against USPlabs of Dallas and a number of the company’s executives and employees. It charges, among other things, that they conspired to import a synthetic stimulant made in a Chinese chemical factory and then used it in products they advertised as containing all-natural plant extracts.

The indictment also alleges that USPlabs knew some of their products could cause liver damage, yet sold them anyway — in particular, a product called OxyElite Pro.[xii]

At the center of the sweep is USPlabs, a company based in Dallas that sold the best-selling workout supplements Jack3d and OxyElite Pro, which contains the amphetamine-like stimulant dimethylamylamine, or DMAA. On Tuesday, federal prosecutors brought criminal charges against USPlabs and six of its executives related to the sale of those products.[xiii]

The United States filed a civil complaint against Riddhi USA Inc. of Ronkonkoma, New York, and its owner and President Mohd M. Alam to prevent the distribution of adulterated and misbranded dietary supplements in violation of federal law, the Department of Justice announced today.[xiv]

3.  The sale of illegal supplements

As there is no pre-marketing requirements before selling the products, there is a pattern of companies taking even illegal substances to the market, in the hope that they would be caught.

The following is an example of a large distributor being exposed for allegedly selling illegal supplements. Most of us have shopped here:

GNC Holdings Inc, the largest global dietary supplement retailer, has agreed to pay $2.25 million to avoid federal prosecution over its alleged sale of illegal dietary supplements, the U.S. Department of Justice said on Wednesday.[xv]

The following is an example of a smaller distributor being exposed for allegedly selling illegal supplements. The risks of mail order supplements!

Twelve years after FDA prohibited the sale of dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids (ephedra), a New York man has been found guilty of violating the ban.

Following a three-day trial, a jury in Atlanta convicted Chenhsin Chan (aka Paul Chan) on 30 felony counts in connection with the online sale of dietary supplements containing ephedrine, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced last week.

Chan of Elmhurst, New York was convicted on 10 counts of mail fraud, 10 counts of introducing adulterated food into interstate commerce, five counts of knowingly distributing a listed chemical without obtaining the required registration, and five counts of money laundering.

The 44-year-old Chan sold more than US$4.5 million in dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids, but the jury forfeited assets he purchased with funds from the crimes, including a New York property that had been purchased for $950,000, a Mercedes Benz, a Lamborghini Gallardo and more than $666,000 in proceeds from the illegal activities, the DOJ noted in a press release.[xvi]

4.  Supplements containing drugs

In the ideal world when you buy and ingest a supplement you would hope there are no surprises in the contents, especially unknown drugs.

From January 1, 2004, through December 19, 2012, 465 drugs were subject to a class I recall in the United States. Just over one-half (237 [51%]) were classified as dietary supplements as opposed to pharmaceutical products (Table). Most recalls occurred after 2008 (210 [89%]). Supplements marketed as sexual enhancement products (95 [40%]) were the most commonly recalled dietary supplement product, followed by bodybuilding (73 [31%]) and weight loss products (64 [27%]). Unapproved drug ingredients (237) accounted for all recalls. Fifty-seven recalled products (24%) were manufactured outside of the United States. There were 147 recalls (62%) that involved units distributed internationally. No adverse events related to recalled drugs were noted in the Enforcement Reports.

The FDA Tainted Supplement Report listed 332 adulterated products since December 2007. Only 222 of these products (69%) were recalled by the FDA.[xvii]

Placing drugs in supplements, even if only for a short time, is a method that has been spoken about in the industry for decades. The rumor was this was a technique used by early supplement manufacturers post the arrival of steroids in the 1960’s to get early market traction with their product users who were of the impression they were simply buying a supplement product.

The following supports this story. There is some suggestion that manufacturers intentionally add the drugs:

A report in the Journal of the American Medical Association in April noted that potent drugs are sometimes purposely added to supplements to increase strength, usually weight loss remedies and sleep aids. [xviii]

Now if you are a drug tested athlete, or at least a drug tested athlete in a sport that does real and transparent testing, the risk of drugs in your supplements is an additional concern.

These risks are summarized in a 2017 paper as below:

An example of the presence of doping substances in supplements can be seen in the study published in 2003 by Geyer et al., where 94 of the 634 supplements analyzed (14.8%) had prohormones that were not mentioned on the label. More current is the study by Judkins et al. in which, of the 58 supplements analyzed, 25% contained low levels of contaminating steroids and 11% were contaminated with stimulants. These data have led to the investigation of contamination in different food supplements; in most of them, small quantities of banned substances have been found, due to cross-contamination during manufacturing, processing, or packaging. In some cases, this contamination was not intentional and was due to poor quality control, but in others the adulteration of the substance was intentional [10]. In the United States (US), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), broadly speaking, regulates quality, and the Federal Trade Commission supervises the marketing and advertising of dietary supplements. However, according to the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), dietary supplements, including nutritional ergogenic aids, that are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease, currently do not need to be evaluated by the FDA prior to their commercialization.[xix]

In my experience very few athletes succeed in a defense of blaming their nutritional supplement for the positive whereby their sentence is reduced. Examples of these minority include:

  • In 2008 US swimmer Jessica Hardy failed a drug test (allegedly for the banned drug clenbuterol) and was banned for four years. When the arbitrators found that Jessica Hardy’s positive test was caused by a contaminated Advocare Arginine Extreme supplement her ban was reduced to one (1) year. Hardy subsequently took civil action against Advocare, and Advocare reciprocated in like way.[xx]
  • In 2003 US swimmer Kicker Vencill failed a drug test (allegedly for the banned drug 19-norandrosterone) and was banned for four (4) years. After appeal the arbitrators accepted the positive result was caused by an inadvertent ingestion and reduced his ban to two (2) years. Following that Vencill won a civil claim when a jury ruled unanimously that a multivitamin taken by Kicker Vencill was contaminated with steroid precursors and was responsible for his positive test. Jurors awarded damages of $578,635 against the manufacturer against Ultimate Nutrition of Farmington, Connecticut.[xxi]
  • Lyman Good, UFC fighter, was tested positive for steroids in October 2016, and blamed his use of a product called ‘Anavite’ made by Gaspari Nutrition and sold through Vitamin Shoppe. In Oct 2017 he sued the following: Vitamin Shoppe, Gaspari Nutrition Inc., Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Richard Gaspari and Gaspari and Hi-Tech CEO Jared Wheat are also named as defendants. According to his affidavit, his suspension was later reduced when a lab detected the steroid in an unopened bottle of Anavite.[xxii] [xxiii]

The following summary of drugs found in nutritional supplements was published in 2016 that lists 850 US supplements that allegedly contain drugs.

Now you can see if your favorite supplement has been flagged by health authorities. We used data from the FDA and the Department of Defense, as well as published studies from scientific journals and court documents, to create a searchable database of dangerous supplements. All of the products listed below have been found to contain hidden drugs.[xxiv]

Here are some of the categories of drugs found in these supplements in the above collation: [xxv]

Appetite suppressants – Hidden drugs found in supplements in our database: sibutramine and its analogs (deisobutyl-benzylsibutramine, desmethyl sibutramine, didesmthyl sibutramine, n-desmthylsibutramine, n-di-desmethylsibutramine), cetilistat, fenfluramine, lorcaserin, rimonabant.

The government removed sibutramine from the market in 2010 for safety reasons… Sibutramine was the most popular drug on our database: 240 products, mostly for weight loss, contained this drug or one of its derivatives.

Laxatives – Hidden drugs found in supplements in our database: phenolphthalein

Phenolphthalein is a laxative no longer approved for sale in the US… Sixty-six supplements in our database contained phenolphthalein, most of them marketed for weight loss.

Muscle relaxants – Hidden drugs found in supplements in our database: chlorzoxazone, methocarbamol

A number of supplements marketed as arthritis and joint pain relievers have been pulled from the market for containing illegal drugs.

Sexual enhancers – Hidden drugs found in supplements in our database: sildenafil, tadalafil, vardenafil, and their analogs (acetildenafil, aidenafil, aminotadalafil, benzamidenafil, dapoxetine, desmethyl carbondenafil, dimethyl sildenafil, dimethylacetildenafil, dimethylsildenafilthione, hydroxyhomosildenafil, hydroxylthiohomosildenafil , hydroxythiohomosildenafil, noracetildenafil, piperadino vardenafil, propoxyphenyl sildenafil, sulfoaildenafil/thioaildenafil, sulfoaildenafil methanesulfonate, sulfohomosildenafil, sulfohydroxyhomosildenafil, sulfosildenafil, thiomethisosildenafil); dapoxetine

Sildenafil is the active ingredient in the prescription drug Viagra. It’s been found in hundreds of supplements (including 159 on our database). We also found dapoxetine in eight supplements in our database.

Anti-anxiety drugs – Hidden drugs found in supplements in our database: picamilon

Used in Russia to treat various neurological conditions, the synthetic drug has never been approved for sale in the US but has been found in many brain-enhancing supplements here unbeknownst to consumers.

Antidepressants – Hidden drugs found in supplements in our database: fluoxetine, doxepin

Seven of the weight loss supplements in our database contained fluoxetine, which is the active drug in the prescription antidepressant Prozac. Fluoxetine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), a type of drug used to treat depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and panic disorder. You’d have no idea you were taking an SSRI in your weight loss supplement. “SSRIs have been associated with serious side effects including suicidal thinking, abnormal bleeding, and seizures,” an FDA warning letter reads. “In patients on other medications for common conditions (aspirin, ibuprofen, or other drugs for depression, anxiety, bipolar illness, blood clots, chemotherapy, heart conditions, and psychosis), ventricular arrhythmia or sudden death can occur.”

Diuretics – Hidden drugs found in supplements in our database: bumetanide, furosemide

Some weight loss supplements contain prescription-strength diuretics.

Stimulants – Hidden drugs found in supplements in our database: BMPEA, DMAA, DMBA, DEPEA, ephedrine, ephedrine alkaloids, fenproporex 

BMPEA, DMAA, and DMBA were hidden ingredients in many popular muscle-building and fat-burning supplements….DMAA was banned in the US, UK, and several other countries because it has been linked to strokes, heart failure, and sudden death. Yet it was the second most popular drug on our database, appearing in 110 products on our database. DMBA is a synthetic version of DMAA …Similarly, BMPEA was never approved as a pharmaceutical, so it has never been studied in humans — and, again, it’s another common supplement ingredient.

Anabolic steroids – Anabolic steroids lurked in 81 products on our database. Most of them were marketed to men, promising to help build muscle fast.

Anti-inflammatory drugs – Hidden drugs found in supplements in our database: diclofenac, ibuprofen, indomethacin, naproxen, phenylbutazone.

Other – Hidden drugs found in supplements in our database: anthistamines (chlorpheniramine, cyproheptadine), phenytoin (anticonvulsant), chlorpromazine (antipsychotic), aromatase inhibitor, propranolol (beta blocker), nefopam (non-opioid pain relief)

5. Raw material selection and contamination

The next step to consider is the selection of the raw material. In essence you are relying on the integrity and values of the company to select safe and effective raw materials, free from contamination.

How is this working out?

In 2010 US based Consumer Reports tested 15 popular protein supplements and concluded:

All of the drinks in our tests had at least one sample containing one or more of these contaminants: arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury. For most drinks we tested, levels were in the low to moderate range, when we could detect them. But with three of the products we tested, consumers who have three servings daily could be exposed to levels of one or two of these contaminants that exceed the maximum limits proposed by U.S. Pharmacopeia, the federally recognized authority that sets voluntary standards to cover dietary supplements.[xxvi]

The worst offending product? EAS Myoplex Original Rich Dark Chocolate Shake.

In 2018 the Denver-based Clean Label Project used the independent analytical chemistry laboratory Ellipse Analytics to test 134 of the top selling (based on Nielsen and Amazon.com best-selling lists) animal- and plant-based protein powders.[xxvii] Clean Label selected and purchased the powders from retail store shelves and from online sources. The products were screened for over 130 toxins including heavy metals, BPA, pesticides, and other contaminants with links to cancer and other health conditions.

  • Of the 134 products tested, 53 were found to have “substantially elevated” levels of the following heavy metals – Lead, Mercury, Cadmium, Arsenic and BPA.

  • Of the whey-based protein powders, about 10 percent of contained lead levels above health guidelines.

  • Of the plant-based protein powders.75 percent had measurable levels of lead.

  • Each contained on average twice the amount of lead per serving as other products.

  • In addition to lead, the plant powders in several cases contained mercury, cadmium and arsenic above health-based guidelines.

The five products that received the poorest overall scores in this test were:

In summary:

Unfortunately, federal regulations do not generally require that protein drinks and other dietary supplements be tested before they are sold to ensure that they are safe, effective and free of contaminants. [xxviii]

As a result ‘most consumers don’t realize their lives are on the line before the government steps in’:

“No supplements are prescreened for efficacy and safety by the government,” said Bryn Austin, a professor in the department of Social and Behavioral Sciences at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “The FDA is reactive. Because of the way Congress ties their hands, they have to wait until there’s serious harm — deaths, injury, liver damage, transplants. Most consumers don’t realize their lives are on the line before the government steps in.” [xxix]

6.  Truth in labeling

In 2013 ConsumerLab.com found problems with the quality of five the 16 protein products it selected for testing and confirmed these findings in a second independent laboratory:[xxx]

  • A protein powder from a popular brand was missing 16 grams of protein per scoop — the majority of the protein it promised. Instead, it contained an extra 16 grams of carbohydrates (including an extra 3 grams of sugar)
  • A powdered meal replacement shake was contaminated with 12.7 mcg of lead per serving (far more than permitted in California without a warning label)
  • A popular protein energy meal with spirulina had an extra 6.7 grams of carbohydrates (including an extra 4 grams of sugar) and an additional 25.7 calories per serving
  • A protein powder — from a “GMP certified” facility — claiming “0” cholesterol really had 10.2 mg
  • A protein supplement claiming 5 mg of cholesterol actually had 14.2 mg

In 2015 the New York State attorney general’s office accused four national retailers on Monday of selling dietary supplements that were fraudulent and in many cases contaminated with unlisted ingredients.[xxxi]

The authorities said they had run tests on popular store brands of herbal supplements at the retailers — Walmart, Walgreens, Target and GNC — which showed that roughly four out of five of the products contained none of the herbs listed on their labels. In many cases, the authorities said, the supplements contained little more than cheap fillers like rice and house plants, or substances that could be hazardous to people with food allergies.

At GNC, for example, the agency found that five out of six samples from the company’s signature “Herbal Plus” brand of supplements “were either unrecognizable or a substance other than what they claimed to be.” In pills labeled ginkgo biloba, the agency found only rice, asparagus and spruce, an ornamental plant commonly used for Christmas decorations.

At Target, the agency tested six herbal products from its popular “Up and Up” store brand of supplements. Three out of six – including ginkgo biloba, St. John’s wort and valerian root, a sleep aid – tested negative for the herbs listed on their labels. But the agency did find that the pills contained powdered rice, beans, peas and wild carrots.

Here are the products that were analyzed by the attorney general, along with the test results that were described in cease-and-desist letters that the agency sent to the four retailers.

In 2016 further tests were conduced by ConsumberLab.com including 27 protein supplements — 14 selected by ConsumerLab.com and 13 others that passed voluntary certification testing – of which 28% failed quality tests. The reports findings included:[xxxii]

  • Two protein powders contained more cholesterol than claimed. In fact, one which did not list any cholesterol actually had 16.5 mg per serving
  • One protein powder contained 181.4 mg more sodium than listed
  • Another product contained 70 mg more sodium than listed and was contaminated with cadmium, a toxic heavy metal

7.  Outsourcing manufacturing

In 2003 the AustralianTherapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) suspended the licence held by Pan Pharmaceuticals Limited of Sydney to manufacture medicines, for a period of six months, because of serious concerns about the quality and safety of products manufactured by the company.[xxxiii]

The suspension follows audits of the company’s manufacturing premises, which revealed widespread and serious deficiencies and failures in the company’s manufacturing and quality control procedures, including the systematic and deliberate manipulation of quality control test data. The licence has been suspended in order to urgently address the safety and quality concerns posed by the multiple manufacturing breaches. Where the quality of a medicine cannot be certain, neither can the safety or effectiveness of that medicine.

Due to the serious and widespread nature of the manufacturing problems identified and following expert advice regarding potential risks, the TGA has taken the decision to recall all batches of medicines manufactured by Pan Pharmaceuticals Ltd since 1 May 2002 and that are being supplied on the Australian market.

219 products manufactured and supplied in Australia by Pan Pharmaceuticals Limited have been identified for immediate recall. These products have been cancelled from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods for quality and safety reasons. The company has also had its approval to supply its range of export products (approximately 1650) cancelled.

In addition, a further, larger recall of products manufactured by Pan Pharmaceuticals Limited under contract for other sponsors is underway. The TGA has been working with the sponsors of these products to identify those for recall. Lists of these products have been published in the newspapers and details are also available on this website.

This action essentially emptied all chemists (drug-stores) in Australia of nutritional supplements, creating a national shortage. It also made it very clear to astute consumers that they may have thought they were buying different brands, in reality most were being made in the same manufacturing facility.

While we all have our favorite brands of dietary supplements, the brands may not be as distinct as we think from a manufacturing perspective. Dietary supplement manufacturing spans a wide spectrum. One of the most common manufacturing methods is for a finished product company to contract the manufacturing to another entity. This practice is referred to as contract manufacturing or outsourced manufacturing. Contract manufacturers have been part of the dietary supplement industry from its inception, when most finished product companies were retailers and not manufacturers.[xxxiv]

There are issues arising when the finished product company sub-contracts the manufacturing process:

The use of contract manufacturers also presents some challenges. The finished product company bears ultimate responsibility for the quality of the products that bear their label. This means that the finished product company has to abide by cGMP regulations themselves and must also ensure that their contract manufacturers are compliant as well.[xxxv]

In an already low-regulated and problematic industry, another ‘cog’ in the process provides further potential complications of accountability and quality assurance. The cost to establish in-house manufacturing facilities is a luxury only a small percentage of supplement companies have.

8.  All of the above

Many cases that have been subject to reporting by government regulatory agencies include more than of the above seven category breaches. Here’s a great and recent case example of this:

“…an eighteen count indictment against Jared Wheat, the CEO of Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Hi-Tech), a supplement company based in Norcross, Georgia, has been unsealed. According to the superseding indictment, the current charges against Wheat include wire fraud, money laundering, introducing misbranded drugs into interstate commerce and manufacturing and distributing controlled substances, specifically Schedule III controlled anabolic steroids. There are also charges in the indictment against John Brandon Schopp, the Director of Contract Manufacturing for Hi-Tech.

The indictment alleges that Wheat, Schopp, and Hi-Tech manufactured and distributed to prospective and current customers false U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Certificates of Free Sale, good manufacturing practice (GMP) certificates, and GMP audit reports. The indictment contends that the GMP certificates and audits reports, which are supposed to come from an independent third party, were issued by PharmaTech, a company controlled by Wheat. The manufacturing and distributing controlled substances charges stem from the government’s allegations that Hi-Tech produced at least five supplements containing anabolic steroids. Anabolic steroids are a Schedule III controlled substance and require a prescription. The misbranded drug charge alleges that Wheat and Hi-Tech manufactured a supplement named Choledrene which contained lovastatin. Lovastatin is an ingredient used in statin drugs and is regulated by the FDA. Hi-Tech should never have used lovastatin as an ingredient in any supplement, and they did not include it on the list of ingredients on the bottle.[xxxvi]

The following is an interesting insight into the effectiveness of past attempts to modify behavior in this industry:

If he is found guilty, this will not be Wheat’s first time in jail. In 2014, he served two months in federal prison for failing to carry out a recall brought about the Federal Trade Commission’s claim of false advertising for Hi-Tech’s weight loss products. Wheat was released when the recall had been completed. In 2009, the FDA announced he received a two-year prison sentence after being found guilty of selling counterfeit medications online, which he claimed were made in Canada, but were actually manufactured in unsanitary conditions in Belize. An investigation by AJC listed several other legal battles between federal authorities and Wheat/Hi-Tech. [xxxvii] [xxxviii]

An irrestible opportunity to make serious money – Seeking forgiveness is easier than seeking permission

“Pssst! Wanna start a supplement company? There is sooo much money to be made! We can make up anything we want, say anything we want, and if theproverbial hits the wall we can go straight. After all, humans are so gullible. As long as we hire some great copy writers to make some very convincing long copy. We can also make an internet (and or hard copy) magazine to provide ‘third-party’ indirect endorsements!”

The global dietary supplements market is expected to reach USD 278.02 billion by 2024, according to a new report by Grand View Research, Inc. Favorable outlook towards medical nutrition market in light of increasing application for the treatment of malnutrition and cardiovascular disorders is likely to promote the market for dietary supplements. 

Rising sales of sports nutrition products in the U.S. and China on account of increasing prevalence of fitness and sports at a domestic level along with new product launches is likely to have a significant impact on the industry over the projected period. The market is expected to generate revenues worth USD 37.16 billion by 2024.

Rising consumption of clinical nutrition products as a prevention medium for reducing malnutrition is expected to have a substantial impact. Furthermore, increasing prevalence of premature births on a global level is expected to promote the use of medicinal supplements over the forecast period. The market was worth USD 19.17 billion in 2015 and is projected to witness growth at a CAGR of 9.5% from 2016 to 2024.[xxxix]

Groundbreaking US female computer scientist and a Navy officer Grace Hopper[xl] (back when it was virtually impossible for a woman to succeed in either role) is commonly credited with coining the phrase that’s the mantra of a lot of 21st Century nutritional supplement entrepreneurs:

“It is easier to get forgiveness than permission.”

The following is an example of this commercial value set:[xli]

AngelList “corporate policy” is that team members should ask forgiveness, not permission. We would rather have someone do something wrong than ask permission to do it. 

Now in fairness they do add:

Or better, we would rather have someone do something right and not need permission to do it. This is the most common outcome.

But when you and I can make SO much money, let’s forget about that….

Conclusion

So how widespread in the supplement industry are these ‘challenges’? According to 2013 statement by Dr. Daniel Fabricant, head the FDA’s division of Dietary Supplement Programs at the time:

“…About 70 percent of the nation’s supplement companies have run afoul of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s manufacturing regulations over the past five years, according to a top agency official….

Consumers are put at risk by poorly measured ingredients, uncleaned manufacturing equipment, pesticides in herbal products, supplements contaminated with illegal prescription medications — even bacteria in pediatric vitamins, recall notices and agency inspection records have shown….

While most vitamins and supplements are not harmful — and at least one vitamin brand was credited with an 8 percent reduction in cancer among men over 50 — the industry is beset by repeated recalls, manufacturing problems and adverse reactions caused by tainted products, health experts and regulatory officials say….” ”[xlii]

If you have read this entire article, and have reached this point, I would be keen to know what you are thinking. Has this changed your view point on who you can trust? Personally, the more I became aware of this challenge during the last few decades, the more I have retreated to working with companies led by people whose value for excellence, safety, and regulatory compliance I trust. After all, it is more than just the health of my family and myself – I am responsible for the lives and careers of many athletes and coaches, whose livelihoods, reputations and legacies can be extinguished with a few words – ‘positive drug test’.

Quite simply I am amazed at how much energy goes into the discussion of supplements focused almost exclusively on the manufacturers marketing and labeling claims, completely oblivious to the real challenges in nutritional supplements – the challenges raised in this article. Your beliefs are virtually useless in the absence of your awareness of the companies values, integrity, raw material selection, manufacturing process and so on.

“From California to Maine, consumers ingest pills, powders, and liquids every day, not knowing whether they are wasting money or whether they may end up harming, rather than helping, themselves,” said Benjamin Mizer, principal deputy assistant attorney general. “Unfortunately, many of these products are not what they purport to be or cannot do what the distributors claim they can do.”[xliii]

Here’s my challenge to you. Do you want to do what’s best for your short, medium and long term health? Or is your desire to conform to the power of marketing and social trends so great that you are willing to forgo your health? Because I suggest right now the latter is your dominant value. Perhaps you didn’t know any better? Now you do. It will be interesting to see what direction you take now…..

 

References

[1] Cited in Roach, R., 2011, Muscle, Smoke and Mirrors, Vol. 2, Author House, p. 619.

[2] Jones, A., 2004, And God Laughs, The Autobiographical Memoirs of Arthur Jones, PDA Press.

[3] Roach, R., 2011, Muscle, Smoke and Mirrors, Vol. 1, Author House, p. 394.

[i] https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/demand-organic-food-growing-faster-domestic-supply

[ii] http://fortune.com/2015/04/22/mcdonalds-restaurants-closing/

[iii] Marcus, M., 2015, How safe are your dietary supplements?, CBS News, Nov 18 2015, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dietary-supplements-how-safe-are-they/

[iv] Geller, A.I., et al, 2015, Emergency Department Visits for Adverse Events Related to Dietary Supplements, New England Journal of Medicine 2015, 373:1531-1540. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1504267

[v] Belluz, J., 2015, The government is bringing criminal charges against companies that sell bogus dietary supplements, Vox, No 18 2015, https://www.vox.com/2015/11/17/9751592/dietary-supplements-justice-criminal-charges

[vi] Harel, Z., Harel, S., and Ward, R., 2013, The Frequency and Characteristics of Dietary Supplement Recalls in the United States, May 27 2013, JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(10):929-930.https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1678813

[vii] Ricks, D., 2013, FDA official: 70% of supplement companies violate agency rules, Newsday, Aug 16 2013, https://www.newsday.com/news/health/fda-official-70-of-supplement-companies-violate-agency-rules-1.5920525

[viii] Gavuro, S., 2010, Supplement Regulation: Be Careful What You Wish For, Science-based Medicine, Augus 5 2010, https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/supplement-regulation-be-careful-what-you-wish-for/

[ix] https://www.fda.gov/food/dietarysupplements/default.htm

[x] Gavuro, S., 2010, Supplement Regulation: Be Careful What You Wish For, Science-based Medicine, Augus 5 2010, https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/supplement-regulation-be-careful-what-you-wish-for/

[xi] Moran, C., 2015, Feds File Criminal, Civil Cases Against More Than 100 Supplement Companies, Consumerist, 17 Nov 2015, https://consumerist.com/2015/11/17/feds-file-criminal-civil-cases-against-more-than-100-supplement-companies/

[xii] Swetlitz, I., 2015, Dietary supplement manufacturers face flurry of federal charges, Statnews, Nov 17 2015, https://www.statnews.com/2015/11/17/supplements-fda-criminal-charges/

[xiii] Latman, P., and O’Connor, A., 2015, Makers of Nutritional Supplements Charged in Federal Sweep, Well, Nov 17 2015

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/federal-officials-target-dietary-supplement-makers/

[xiv] Department of Justice (DOJ), 2017, United States Files Enforcement Action Against Long Island Company and Its Owner to Prevent Distribution of Adulterated and Misbranded Dietary Supplements, Press Release, 23 Oct 2017, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-files-enforcement-action-against-long-island-company-and-its-owner-prevent

[xv] Lynch, S., 2016, GNC settles dietary supplements case with U.S. government, Reuters, 16 Dec 2016, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gnc-hldg-settlement-idUSKBN13W2B2

[xvi] Natural Products Insider, 2016, Dietary Supplement Marketer Convicted of Selling Ephedra Years After FDA Ban, June 03, 2016, https://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/litigation/dietary-supplement-marketer-convicted-selling-ephedra-years-after-fda-ban

[xvii] Harel, Z., Harel, S., and Ward, R., 2013, The Frequency and Characteristics of Dietary Supplement Recalls in the United States, May 27 2013, JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(10):929-930.https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1678813

[xviii] Ricks, D., 2013, FDA official: 70% of supplement companies violate agency rules, Newsday, Aug 16 2013, https://www.newsday.com/news/health/fda-official-70-of-supplement-companies-violate-agency-rules-1.5920525

[xix] Martinez-Sans, J.M., et al, 2017, Intended or Unintended Doping? A Review of the Presence of Doping Substances in Dietary Supplements Used in Sports, A revew, Nutrients, 4 Oct 2017

[xx] Swimming Worldm 2009, Jessica Hardy Suspension Reduced to One Year, Supplement Ruled as Contaminated; USA Swimming Releases Statement; USADA Press Release; AdvoCare Disputes Findings – Updated, 4 May 20109, https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/jessica-hardy-suspension-reduced-to-one-year-supplement-ruled-as-contaminated-usa-swimming-releases-statement-usada-press-release-advocare-disputes-findings-updated/

[xxi] ESPN, 2005, Vencill was suspended two years, missed Olympics, 14 May 2005, http://www.espn.com.au/skiing/news/story?id=2059714

[xxii] Rummell, N., 2017, Pro Fighter Blames Supplements for Failed Drug Test, Courthouse News Service Oct 19 2017, https://www.courthousenews.com/pro-fighter-blames-failed-drug-test-supplements/

[xxiii] Earlier in 2017 the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency conducted its own analysis of Anavite and found it contained 1-andro. The agency now warns athletes not to use it, noting that Gaspari Nutrition has received numerous warnings from the Food and Drug Administration since 2014 regarding claims that its products are adulterated with potentially dangerous ingredients.

[xxiv] Belluz, J., and Oh, S., 2016, Unregulated, https://www.vox.com/a/supplements

[xxv] Belluz, J., and Oh, S., 2016, Unregulated, https://www.vox.com/a/supplements

[xxvi] Consumer Reports, 2010, How about some heavy metals with that protein drink?, June 2 2010, https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2010/06/how-about-some-heavy-metals-with-that-protein-drink/index.htm

[xxvii] Clean Label Project, 2018, 2018 Protein Powder Study, https://www.cleanlabelproject.org/protein-powder/

[xxviii] Consumer Reports, 2010, How about some heavy metals with that protein drink?, June 2 2010, https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2010/06/how-about-some-heavy-metals-with-that-protein-drink/index.htm

[xxix] Marcus, M., 2015, How safe are your dietary supplements?, CBS News, Nov 18 2015, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dietary-supplements-how-safe-are-they/

[xxx] ConsumerLab.com, 2013, 31% of Protein Powders and Drinks Fail Tests by ConsumerLab.com, June 2 2013, https://www.consumerlab.com/news/Protein_Powders_Reviewed/06_11_2013/

[xxxi] O’Connor, A., 2015, What’s in Those Supplements?, Well, https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/sidebar-whats-in-those-supplements/

[xxxii] ConsuberLab.com, 2016, Protein powders, shakes and drinks review, June 10 2016, https://www.consumerlab.com/reviews/Protein_Powders_Shakes_and_Drinks_Including_Nutrition_Diet_Meal-Replacement_and_Sports_Endurance_Recovery/NutritionDrinks/

[xxxiii] Australian Government, Department of Health, Therapeutic Goods Adminstration, Pan Pharmaceuticals Limited: Regulatory action & product recall information, April 28 2003, https://www.tga.gov.au/product-recall/pan-pharmaceuticals-limited-regulatory-action-product-recall-information

[xxxiv] Alschuler, L., 2011, Who Makes These Dietary Supplements, Anyway?, Natural Medicine Journal, Dec 2011, Vol 3(12), https://www.naturalmedicinejournal.com/journal/2011-12/who-makes-these-dietary-supplements-anyway-0

[xxxv] Alschuler, L., 2011, Who Makes These Dietary Supplements, Anyway?, Natural Medicine Journal, Dec 2011, Vol 3(12), https://www.naturalmedicinejournal.com/journal/2011-12/who-makes-these-dietary-supplements-anyway-0

[xxxvi] The Partnership for Safe Medicines, 2017, Company And Ceo Charged With Illegally Adding Scheduled Drugs To Supplements, Oct 27 2017, https://www.safemedicines.org/2017/10/company-and-ceo-charged-with-illegally-adding-scheduled-drugs-to-supplements.html

[xxxvii] The Partnership for Safe Medicines, 2017, Company And Ceo Charged With Illegally Adding Scheduled Drugs To Supplements, Oct 27 2017, https://www.safemedicines.org/2017/10/company-and-ceo-charged-with-illegally-adding-scheduled-drugs-to-supplements.html

[xxxviii] Brunkner, M., 2009, Diet Supplement king gets 50 months in prison, NBC News, Crime and Courts, February 3 2009, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28983195/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/diet-supplement-king-gets-months-prison/#.WwkvG2Xuz7Y

[xxxix] Grand View Research, 2016, Dietary Supplements Market Size Is Projected To Reach $278.02 Billion By 2024, Demand In Food & Beverage Sector : Grand View Research, Inc., San Francisco, July 18, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE), https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/07/18/856668/0/en/Dietary-Supplements-Market-Size-Is-Projected-To-Reach-278-02-Billion-By-2024-Demand-In-Food-Beverage-Sector-Grand-View-Research-Inc.html

[xl] https://www.facebook.com/notes/big-optimism/grace-hopper-its-better-to-ask-forgiveness-than-permission/521620811362966

[xli] Venture Hacks, 2013, Good advice for start-ups, Ask forgiveness, not permission, Feb 11 2013, http://venturehacks.com/articles/ask-forgiveness-not-permission

[xlii] Ricks, D., 2013, FDA official: 70% of supplement companies violate agency rules, Newsday, Aug 16 2013, https://www.newsday.com/news/health/fda-official-70-of-supplement-companies-violate-agency-rules-1.5920525

[xliii] Belluz, J., 2015, How 2 dietary supplement companies made $400 million off bogus weight loss products, Vox, No 19 2015, https://www.vox.com/2015/11/19/9761524/usp-labs-indictment

Ian King

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

/by

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

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

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

1940-1950s

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

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

1960s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isn’t that interesting.

Conclusion

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian King

Dysfunctional Training

/by

A method you are already employing

After four decades of professional involvement I have concluded that what most of what the world does in their so-called ‘strength and conditioning’ programs is create dysfunction in the body. I have now chosen to call it dysfunctional training.[1] I understand it is not their intent to create dysfunction, however I firmly suggest it is the outcome.

It’s not a totally new thought. In the 1990s, after nearly 20 years in the industry, I wrote:

… I believe that most injuries are actually caused by the way athletes train… – training, during which focus is geared towards performance enhancement, may induce most injuries…. [2]

In the 2000s I wrote:

I have formed the opinion that most strength training programs do more damage than good… [3]

…from my observations, most physical preparation programs do more harm than good….[4]

In the 2010s I wrote:

How many people around the world are being led into less-than optimal training because their trainers/coaches lack the ability to discern and evaluate information? And at what cost to their health, injury status, and longevity? Only those in the sickness industry could celebrate this.[5]

Rather, it is a term coined with the benefit of extensive reflection. I have had four decades professionally to gain additional clarity and have decided this training should be labeled ‘dysfunctional training’. This term not only aptly describes the situation it also provides a counter-balance to the common use of the term ‘functional training’.

Use of the term functional training is complete misnomer. In fact I suggest that is the myth perpetuated by equipment distributors for commercial gain. What I strongly suggest is that what you are doing and what the world is doing would be more actually described as dysfunctional training

I appreciate that the overwhelming majority of my industry ‘colleagues’ are not going to like what I have to say here. That’s okay with me. Just stop reading and move on to more agreeable content. [6] My goal is to help those who are seeking a better way with no intent to offend, nor any fear of doing so.

What is the definition of dysfunction?

I define dysfunction as it relates to training as a collection of training decisions (aka a program) that result in the decrease in function of any systems of the body. Dysfunction is only really noticed when it reaches its finally stage, injury. And even then it is typically denied.

In the early stages of the development of dysfunction in any system, the positive adaptations in other systems can appear to provide a net positive training effect. However as the dysfunction grows it outstrips any positive adaptations, at which point causing some to question what is going on. However prior to this tipping point of a net negative outcome, few if any are aware of the growing dysfunction they are developing through their training decisions.

How does dysfunction occur?

Dysfunction of a system of the body occurs when a stimulus applied to the body (e.g. training) and the adaptation or response to that stimulus degrades the function of any system of the body.

To give examples as they relate to the musculoskeletal and neuromuscular system, I refer to my joint gap theory as an example of function or dysfunction:

I’m going to share with you very simply my philosophy on use injuries. I have two bones and some connective tissue. 

We have increased compression of soft tissue as a result of that changed relationship between bones [joints]. We can also have a nerve impingement….[7]

This is my number one reason for stretching. Put simply, if the bones get drawn closer together than desirable, the impingement of connective tissue at the joint can cause all sorts of problems, especially nerve pinching – this can set off all types of neural activity which translates as muscle spasm through to feelings that the muscle has been torn.

You can have a reduction in muscle function due to changes in joint relationships – and you don’t necessarily even know it. This can occur before measurable discomfort occurs. And joint surface changes can also commence before you experience or acknowledge the pain. Pain inhibits function.

In addition to the performance enhancement benefits, your joint health is at risk….

It makes little difference how big and strong you get in the short term, if in the long term you are physically limited because you allowed the joint to become damaged. Joint damage will be accelerated if the joint gap or relationship (distance between two bones) changes. [8]

As it relate to the function of the musculoskeletal and neuromuscular system, any training that negatively impacts the optimal joint relationship is one way to create dysfunction. This form of dysfunction is beyond epidemic – its almost inevitable due to the way programs are designed.

What are the stages of dysfunction?

I have identified five stages of dysfunction:

  1. Dysfunction
  2. Discomfort
  3. Pain
  4. Injury
  5. Surgery

Characteristics of the different stages of dysfunction.

Stage 1 – Dysfunction

Assuming that the human presents in an optimal systems condition prior to the commencement of any physical training program, this period (Level 1) spans from the first stimulus that creates dysfunction through the Level 2 where some signs of discomfort are felt. This can be a lengthy process, depending on the training stimulus and other stresses on the body. What I suggest is that this phase is the phase that occurs over the longest time period, relative ot the other four phases.

This phase is the period during which anyone relying on detectable signals (e.g. pain or injury) is at a loss, as there are no obvious signals. There is a downward trend that is measurable, but only if those performing the assessment had the awareness to look for subtle changes. In other words, this is a period of naïve bliss, typically referred to as the ‘short-term’ adaptations, where the initial conclusion is that great things are occurring, because the initial interpretation or adaptation appears positive.

Stage 2 – Discomfort

The ‘discomfort’ stage is such that it can, and is typically, ignored. Alternatively it is misinterpreted. Either way, the messages being sent out by the body to the brain at a conscious level are rarely respected. Or if they are recognized, the symptoms are addressed, not the cause.

This stage is potentially the second longest time period.

If these messages were respected and a genuine solution sought, it may result in obtaining the solution their and then.

Stage 3 – Pain

This level may be enough to force some to find a solution e.g. rest, or therapy etc. However not all will respect the messages even though they have been raised to a higher level.

The higher the pain threshold, the more ‘determined’ (stubborn?), the more the person has reason to ‘hurt themselves’ – the more the pain will be ignored.

So some may stop here, some will not. This stage is typically shorter in time frames than Stage 2 – Discomfort.

Stage 4 – Injury

After a period of time where the messages from the body are ignored, the body will break. This stage is typically one of the shorter time frames.

Most will stop here, some will not. Either way few will seek and find the true cause, and address it. As such, their injury is likely to return or an injury in a related, explainable way will occur.

If a person reaches this stage they are less likely to acknowledge their contribution to the condition.

Stage 5 – Surgery

If the injury is severe it may warrant surgery or the individual may choose surgery for its expedience or due to the conviction of their advisors.

For the most part surgery requires the same amount of rehabilitation that a less invasive/more conservative approach would require.

Again, if the individual fails to recognize or accept that factors that caused the condition in the first place they are likely to reinjure the same or a related site.

Time based phases of dysfunction

I identify or recognize a sequence or progression of dysfunction that can be categorized as follows:

Short term

It is quite common that a short term positive effect is felt by the person. For example, they may experience increase in muscle strength or size.

Even if the program is dysfunctional – and there is a near 100% probability it is – the negative changes such as changes in join relationship, tissue length, tension or posture will not be apparent, and these degradations may not outweigh the perceived benefits in the short term.

To use the most simple example, a person may be seeking to simply increase muscle size in say their chest and this is occurring. Currently, and beknown to them, their humerus (upper arm) is becoming internally rotated and their chest muscles shortened.

Could you be creating an injury through your training? Even though you are getting bigger, stronger, and leaner and really enjoying it? Sure can – in fact I usually judge how long the average person has been training for by giving their bodies a quick once over visually – the more advanced the postural ‘flaws’, the longer they have been training! Sad? Yes, but fairly accurate.? [9]

Medium term

This is where the individual begins to question either their lack of progress, or clear limiting factors in their function, of the reduced functionality of their body.

They are either experience pains in the shoulder or similar, or wondering why their chest is no longer growing.

Really astute individual may change direction in their training at this stage, but this requires the willingness to be non-conforming with what the masses are doing, ruling out the majority. Most continue as they are despite internal questions as to the efficacy of their approach.

To continue on the simple example of above, this is where the internally rotated upper arm and shortened chest muscles from their dysfunctional, imbalanced program, begin to become evident.

…Imagine that – training and being worse off for it. Well how do you think the athlete would feel if he/she found out! Yeah, they’re real fit – to sit in the stands in their team uniform and watch![10]

Long term

This is the stage where their performance is declining, either through injury induced limitations or limiting factors such as reduced power output etc.

In the simple example above, the individual either faces serious shoulder pain, injury or surgery; and or their chest muscle mass has not progressed for some time. It is quite common to see massive anterior deltoid development in these cases, giving the false illusion of their chest muscle mass. This rarely fools expert observers, however, including bodybuilding competition judges.

…most strength training programs do more damage than good. However it takes many years for the average person to realize this, if ever. The short-term results cause pleasure, but the long-term results inevitably pain. [11]

……most physical preparation programs…may give short term results or confidence to the athlete, but result in significant performance restrictions and or injuries long term.[12]

Why is achieving improved function versus dysfunction so challenging for the masses?

The greatest challenge the world faces in relation to receiving a functional training adaptation is the inability to define and measure it. What is optimal function of the systems of the body? Sure, many can give lovely theoretical response. Let’s be realistic – the industry has yet to learn how to do and or teach individualization of training – what chance do we have of ‘professionals’ being able to diagnose trends in function?

…You need to determine what’s optimal length, tension, stability, and joint position/relationship for each of your “at risk” joints. . Good luck with the latter. I haven’t found too many who’ve mastered the relationship between optimal length and tension and joint health….[13]

The second challenge is the length of time that passes, and the associated change in function of the body, that occur from the point of optimal function to the first sign of discomfort. This is potentially the longest time frame of all five stages. Which means the challenge of reversing the function becomes greater for two reasons. Firstly because ‘professionals’ do not possess the competence to reverse the issues, and secondly because the time frame of reversal is beyond the attention span of most end users.

The third challenge is my perspective or reality that commercial forces, specifically equipment manufacturers, influence the majority of training decisions. The fact that it is rare to see an exercise promoted that didn’t involve the subject holding onto or connected to a training device of some kind is not a coincident. And ideally, a new device, which requires the market to go out and replace their prior purchases. As to what Kettlebells are to Dumbbells, etc. In other words between commercial influence in marketing, the desire to conform by individuals, and the lack of or unwillingness to apply the level of discernment granted the human brain, there is very little chance of the masses moving towards let along achieve true improved functions in the systems of the body as a training adaptation.

Training trends have nothing to do with improving function. The promotion of the term ‘functional training’ sounds as if it does, however I suggest that this very ‘phenomenon’ is in fact a classic example of equipment distributors manipulating the market. I suggest that if you study the rise of this so-called ‘functional movement’ trend, it coincided with the decision by a previously relatively unknown distributor of track and field equipment to shift their focus to the importation and distribution of small pieces of diverse equipment post 2000.

To facilitate this they funded years of national seminar tours under this very name, and promoted willing ‘experts’ who were taken from unknown to recognizable names in exchange for their willingness to espouse the benefits of ‘functional training’. These newly promoted ‘experts in functional training’ were supported in this exchange with the opportunity to publish books on the subject, despite only years before being violently opposed to the suggestion that multi-joint maximal load exercises (e.g. the power lifts and Olympic lifts) were not optimal options for athlete development.

In order to pre-empt the argument that the presence of the term ‘functional training’ in professional development organization’s training modules and seminars etc. is indicative of it’s validity I suggest you look at who is sponsoring the professional development organizations. Equipment manufacturers and distributors figure prominently.

What is significant about the post 2000 era that is tied to a rise in dysfunction?

Post 2000 saw the proliferation of ‘strength and conditioning’ (I really don’t like using that term however I appreciate readers can relate to it) down the ages. Prior to 2000, in Australia, there were less than a dozen or so individuals that were making the equivalent of a full-time salary.

Post 2000 witnessed a strong progressive increase in demand for these services. By 2010, most high schools in the country had strength and conditioning coach and or their own strength training facility.

The more an athlete participates in physical preparation, including the younger they start in physical preparation, the greater the incidence and severity of injury. Unfortunately these injuries are being blamed away by many involved in sport as being a function of the increased demands and impact forces in ‘modern day’ sport. This to me is little more than an excuse, an exercise in putting one’s head in the proverbial sand. Quite simply, the majority of training programs are flawed from a physical preparation perspective and are causing the increased injuries. [14]

Put simply, the same crappy programs that were bring introduced to adults pre-2000 are now being given to children.

The number of young Australians undergoing knee reconstruction surgery has risen more than 70 per cent in the last 15 years, according to the study published today in the Medical Journal of Australia, with the greatest increase among children under 14…

… Nearly 200,000 ACL reconstructions were performed in Australia between 2000 and 2015. The annual incidence increased by 43 per cent, and by 74 per cent among those under 25 years of age,..[15]

Interestingly, these statistics completely support my repeated references to the period post 2000 as being a period of increased dysfunction and injury.

The only discrepancy with this research article is that their conclusions as to the cause does not include my hypothesis – that the number cause of this sharp increase in injury incidence is more correlated with the introduction of so-called ‘strength and conditioning programs’ into the younger age groups than any other potential contributing variable.

So why do the majority allow these dysfunctions to take hold?

I suggest one of the major contributing factors to this blindness to the creation of dysfunction is that is few understand at a sufficiently appropriate level the mechanisms for optimal systems function, and dysfunction in systems performance. They fail to understand that any changes to the joint gap and or join relationship will negatively impact the nerve and blood supply distally.

In fairness the physical therapy professions have limited ability to predict and prevent injury, the final stage of dysfunction. They have zero ability to identify and prevent the early stages of dysfunction. So is it realistic to expect a physical preparation coach (read ‘strength and conditioning coach’ if you need to) to be able to do so?

However I am less interested in what is reasonable for our industry standards currently. I am more interested in what’s best for the end user. And being guided to train to degraded systems function is not what clients/athletes sign up for. But that is what they are getting.

Conclusion

Quite simply what you and everyone else is doing is creating dysfunction. The only difference or question is when will this become apparent? Will you or your client be that exception that survives? Or will your client or yourself be another statistic of unfulfilled potential and or injury?

I understand that this is difficult to accept, and it is much easier to criticize the concept and move on. You can do this, however your body does not lie. If you are creating dysfunction in yourself and or your client/s it will come out one day.

Most of the concepts I published in the 1990s are now universally accepted. Not all – yet – but most. And if this is not apparent to you, this is in part a reflection of the acceptance of low standards of publishing especially in the US where plagiarism in the ‘new frontier’ has been rampant.

Everything I teach will come to pass. Whether in my life-time or after is the only question. The only question that really matters is whether you will take advantage of the concepts I share, or whether you will put your head in the sand (figuratively speaking) and hope I am off-track.

I publish challenging and disruption concepts such as this to give you an opportunity to benefit now. I understand that most of you will choose not to. That is your prerogative. I look forward to studying the long term adaptations from which ever path you choose.

The first thing I recommend you determine is this – is anything you are doing or omitting to do in your training creating an injury? What I am saying is eliminate the self-inflicted injury potential first, as this is the one you have the most control over! [16]

 

References

[1] An original concept which I trust fares better than many of my earlier concepts in terms of receiving appropriate referencing.

[2] King, I., 1997, Winning & Losing, King Sports International, Ch 5, p. 25

[3] King, I., 2004, Get Buffed!™ III, King Sports International, p. 8-9

[4] King, I., 2005, The Way of the Physical Preparation Coach, King Sports International p. 66

[5] King, I., 2010, Barbells & Bullshit, King Sports International, p. 100,

[6] You won’t see the word ‘research shows’ so you have great justification already. There I have given you your excuse, so don’t waste my time with troll-like responses about the lack of science. If anyone chooses to disregard my four decades of processing more bodies elite athletes than anyone you are likely to meet that’s fine by me. However if you are an end user, you might want to keep reading because at least you won’t have a professional ego to protect, and my message could really save you a lot of grief.

[7] King, I., 2000, Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation Series, Disc 1

[8] King, I., 2002, Get Buffed!™ (book), p. 102

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

[10] King, I., 1999, So you want to become a physical preparation coach, p. 30-31

[11] King, I., 2004, Get Buffed!™ III, King Sports International, p. 8-9

[12] King, I., 2005, The Way of the Physical Preparation Coach, King Sports International p. 66

[13] King, I., 2003, Out of Kilter III – End needless knee pain!, t-mag.com, 28 Nov 2003

[14] King, I., 2005, The way of the physical preparation coach, p. 66-67

[15] https://www.msn.com/en-au/health/medical/acl-reconstructions-up-more-than-70-per-cent-among-young-australians-study-finds/ar-AAwbKpY?li=AAgfDNO&ocid=mailsignout

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