Ian King

Can’t attract athletes clients? Three solutions  

/by

In my opinion most athlete preparation is doing more harm than good to most athletes. This statement should not be a surprise to those who have read my works over the last few decades. What surprises me is that so many decades later nothings changed. In fact, I fear it’s got worse. In seeking to understand why this might be I reflect on the career path of most would-be athlete preparation coaches, and share these reflections with you. You might not like what I say, although it is not written with any intent to offend. It does challenge the dominant thinking, so on the basis of this I understand that this may be the effect. However if so few as one athlete is saved from the rubbish training and subsequent career shortening and performance decreasing training stimulus that most athletes get exposed to, the bruising of the reader and the stab wounds in my back will be worth it.

After over thirty years of coaching athletes and educating coaches I have seen the athlete preparation industry go from being an unknown and unheard of role to being a frequently sought after career path. I have also seen many express their desire for the opportunity to train athletes, and watched how they have gone about it. My interest in this has been more than casual, due to my concurrent role in both training athletes and educating coaches. I will share with you the two most popular solutions I have seen used by those seeking to become trainers of athletes. I share them with you not because I endorse them, but rather because this is what I see. I don’t like these solutions and I will tell you exactly why that is. Then rather than leaving you with what not to do, I will share my preferred solution.

Solution 1 – Get higher levels of education

I watched a number of young men graduate from sports science degree in the 1980s and long to work with athletes. Nothing happened. One sustained himself with teaching first aid courses, and the others worked as gym instructors. After a few years most went back to university and obtained higher degrees. Then they succeed in obtaining work with athletes – by impressing the sports administrators, not by attracting the athletes independently.

I was working with a professional national league team in the late 1980s and early 1990s when a young man approached the team. He had never trained athletes before but he was involved in a higher degree course. The coach hired him on the basis of that.

I have seen this solution unfold on many occasions. A graduate wants to work with athletes, but cannot attract them. They go back to university and armed with the authority of their research needs or conclusions, they approach coaches and sporting administrators to gain work. This solution is very effective it seems, and the social status of ‘research’ may hold the explanation. When I say successful, I am referring to the would-be coach. Not the athlete. If you can’t coach, if you can’t attract athletes, there is nothing in a higher degree course that I have seen that is going to make you a better coach, or more likely to attract athletes. They don’t care. They go where their instincts tell them they can trust. Except in a team sport situation – their contractual obligations require them to conform and work with the ‘physical coach’ hired by their team.

As a result many athletes get trained by highly qualified inexperienced and incompetent coaches. The end result – shorter careers and lost opportunities, due to the application of performance decreasing and injury producing training methods.

Now let’s get real clear – I am not attacking higher education. I am critical however of the use of this socially respected qualification to back-door into coach athletes. If you can’t coach, if you lack the gift or the competency, getting a piece of paper, doing some research, and reading a lot of ‘information’ doesn’t change this. I know that is going to upset a lot of people, but irrespective of the unstoppable march of ‘research’ credibility, there is an art to coaching, and I have never seen this art taught successfully in a university.

I believe this trend will continue. In fact you will probably need a PhD in a decade or so just to get hired by many teams. Just remember – this doesn’t mean you can or should coach. It means you are more likely to get a job with a sports team, and more athletes are going to suffer for this.

I call this the back-door approach to coaching – what you can do to get into coaching if you can’t coach. I also liken it to the ‘bail-out’ strategies used by governments during the Global Financial Crisis of the late 2000s’. In the second half of the 2000’s decade a number of national economies got into strife (and are still there). The solution of choice by many governments was to ‘bail-out’ selected industries and companies. Those who support the free market system suggested that the bailed-out industries should have been left to market forces – if that meant they collapse and disappear so be it.

What will be the implications of the bail-out solution? The future holds the answer to this question.
Imagine what would happen if the ability to attract athletes based on competence rather than qualifications or marketing was the system applied? I suggest many currently employed would be out of a job, and many athletes would be better off for this.

Solution 2 – Market Yourself

This scenario starts out the same way, typically with a young person who has graduated from their sports science course and fails to attract athlete clients. The only difference is now some don’t wait to graduate to employ this strategy.

Here’s a great example. In the late 1990s I was approached by a young man who expressed his burning desire to gain employment training athletes. He expressed this goal in his CV, in his emails, and verbally.

“Objective: To gain a full time professional strength and conditioning position with a professional sports organization or high level training facility.”

He had graduated some five years prior and was having no success. He had hoped gaining access to my information would be the key to him overcoming this challenge and finally attracting athletes. It wasn’t.

“I have read “so you want…” thoroughly. While I agree with your statements it is easier for you with an established record to attract new clients than it is for an “outsider” like me to break in. The reason I’m asking is to see where my weaknesses are – what is holding me back in other words as I’m failing to identify it somehow.”

Even when I sought to help him out be referring athletes to him it didn’t work.

“Incidentally the volleyball team that you put me in contact with didn’t return my emails. I guess I’m not important enough yet.”

He could not understand why it wasn’t happening.

“I don’t think it is qualifications – I have a bundle – and I don’t think its training experience – I have lots of that – it just seems to be sports teams/organisations in general that I can’t break into …Your other comments as regards not allowing administrators to evaluate you is a good one – but until I am “in” as it were I don’t see what I can do to avoid it.”

Finally he began to lose hope and consider alternative career paths.

“I’d like to move out of the personal training field and train athletes exclusively but bills need to be paid. I’ve been at this gym since late Sep and was this week offered the head personal trainer position — unsure as to whether or not to accept it — the money is a little more – but the job becomes more of an administrative position….I’m just concerned as to whether or not the move to an administrative position would “hurt” my career in the longer term (ie the goal being to train athletes similar to yourself).”

Then he found marketing. With the tools developed by a fellow failed coach turned marketing expert, he was able to market his way to his desired perception of significance. Through self claims and claims through third party, the perception was promoted.

“In the fitness industry I am probably best known for my ability to design programs…

…he has a stable of Olympic and national level athletes that swear by his training methods.

…he’s a performance coach….”

He just needed to take another coaches experiences and training theories, mix them with the deception that they were his experiences and conclusions, turbo-charge them with marketing – and voila – he was instantly a great coach worthy of learning from.

In fact people pay top dollar to attend his coach education seminars, and he is given regular speaking opportunities at professional development seminars. And people are influenced by this information. Not bad for a person who failed to attract any meaningful athlete client base. That is, if you think that is good. History has shown – he would starve if he relied on his ability to attract athlete clients based on his coaching ability.

In my opinion there is no positive correlation between marketing competency and coaching competency. Rather I suggest their may be an inverse correlation – the more a person markets the lower their coaching competency. You could liken to the theory of compensating.

Here’s another ‘challenge’ from these first two solutions. The two solutions outlined above are now the dominant methods of choice. So when a young or new coach entering the profession seeks ‘practical’ information, they are more likely to be influenced by those who have chosen these two solutions than any other influence.

If they watch sport covered by television they will see the dominant training trends – and probably copy them. When they select books and articles on the basis of the best marketing – because this is the path I suggest most take in selecting their influences – their minds are filled with a lot of damaging, ineffective and confused training methods. Who does this serve? The egos and the bank accounts of those who seek to achieve the perception of ‘greatness’ through marketing. No-one else.

Solution 3 – Get better

For me this is the only solution that serves the world. If you want to attract more athletes, or any athletes, get better at coaching. Not the answer you wanted, I’m sure. I have seen this concept rejected by many before you, some who have turned to the above two solutions instead.

Imagine this. You get one person and train them. You analyse the results of a long period of time. If the results are not good enough you change, experiment. You don’t talk about it, boast about it, lie about it, embellish it, and post about it. You just do it and accept the realities of the outcome. Then you do it again, and with more people, and get better. You may start with kids. You may not charge when you start. The only constant variable is you do and objectively assess. And keep going. To aid your progress you avoid being influenced by those who failed to attract athlete clients or can’t coach. You selectively choose influences that from your first hand experience you know have coached successfully. It means putting the athlete first, ahead of your own ego.

Yes, this would take delayed gratification. It might be slow. It might be hard work. It might mean not feeling important or significant for a long time. It may mean playing second fiddle to the needs of the athlete. This is why most don’t do this. The first two solutions I reviewed above will get faster results in terms of perceptions. They won’t mean you can coach, and they won’t provide you with the tools to attract an athlete client base independent of team employment for the rest of your life.

What it will mean if you follow my third solution of getting better at coaching is that you will positively enhance the careers and lives of athletes. You will develop skills that will ensure you can put food on the table for the rest of your life. You might not become ‘internet famous’ but you may fulfill your potential to serve others. Imagine that.

It’s your choice. I believe however that the world needs more people to follow solution three.

Ian King

Burnt at the stake

/by

One more time won’t kill me

In 1997 I labelled the 1980s as the decade of aerobic training:

You could call the eighties the decade of researching aerobic training,
–King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing

And I challenged the dominant values of that decade, only to be figuratively speaking burnt at the stake as a heretic.

In 1997 I labelled the 1990s as the decade of strength training:

…and nineties the era of popularity in researching strength.
–King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing

And I challenged the dominant values of that decade, only to be figuratively speaking burnt at the stake as a heretic.

I have labelled the 2000s as the decade of deceit:

…the 2000s ‘The Decade of Bullshit’
–King, I., 2011, The Times May be A-changing, Strengthguild.com

And am challenging the dominant values of that decade – it won’t kill me to be burnt at the stake as a heretic one more time.

Heresy in endurance training

During the late 1980s and early 1990s I reached conclusions about the flaws in application of aerobic training approach that dominated the 1980s, and I spoke out against this.

I’ve probably lead the anti-aerobic movement. You go back ten years ago and everything was aerobic. I was one of the first to say, listen, I’ve tried it and I’ve tried other ways and I think I can give you a better way. Now what we’re seeing is an overreaction. We’re seeing people saying to not do any aerobics. It’s just gone too far.
–Shugart, C., 2000, Meet Ian King (interview), Fri 29 Dec 2000

During the 1980s I experienced the impact of concurrent aerobic training and strength training in both my personal sports training and in the sports training of the athletes I worked with. Ahead of any research on this topic, I knew something wasn’t right. I experienced and observed the interference that aerobic training had on the strength qualities. I questioned the ‘aerobic base’ approach.

…this excessive aerobic training is not only failing to address their weakness (lack of strength and power), but is often having a negative effect on strength and power.
— King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing

By the early 1990s I published comments that undermined the claim made by leading local academics, who at that time were promoting the aerobic base as a science, and using newspaper clippings of athlete’s quotes as their evidence. I suggested that the aerobic base was a myth, and that in fact there was no science behind it at all.

Instead of producing the evidence of the science behind the aerobic base (of which there was none), the academics whose opinions and reputations were threatened by my comments took action to silence me. I was terminated from my position as the sub-editor of the state branch of the Australian Sports Medicine Federation journal, of which both myself and the academics I apparently threatened by speaking out were contributors and sub-editors of. They had written a letter of complaint to the editor of the publication about me, needless to say it was directed at my position on aerobic training, rather they brought out a strategy that was to be used by others in the years to come – they claimed my writings lacked adequate scientific reference.

Burnt at the stake for such heresy!

After maintaining this position professionally for over twenty years, and bearing the brunt of ridicule and violent attacks, I noted that certain others began publishing similar positions. Two things were apparent –firstly, the writings looked, well, very familiar….

Like this one:

Aerobic training has been overemphasized in training literature and practice. It is essentially in many cases an ineffective and inefficient method for performance improvement
–King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing

….quite simply aerobic training is grossly over-rated. Over rated for health, over rated for performance….
–2005, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

And secondly, the concepts were reaching the stage of acceptance in the market place:

Let us use the aerobic base belief as an example. There has been a traditional bias towards gaining an ‘aerobic base’ at the commencement of the general preparation phase – in all sports, all the time, with all athletes. Is this based on fact? I suggest not. I suggest it is a myth.
–King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing

I’m not exactly sure why we feel so compelled to develop an aerobic base….I don’t believe we have ever really adequately explained this need for aerobic base. I think it is simply an assumption…
–2005, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

Heresy in speed training

During the late 1980s and early 1990s I reached conclusions about the flaws in application of speed training approach that dominated the 1980s, and I spoke out against this.

By the late 1900s I had also begun to implement my reverse periodization model in speed and endurance training for field team sport athletes. Unbeknown to me, the late great Charlie Francis had been implementing a similar model for many years. My suggestion that you didn’t need to and shouldn’t be training speed through the use of long to short distance progression was considered again a threat and heretical. I was banished from the ovals of the field sport team I was initially implementing my trials with, forced to run a renegade program on council parks around the town.

Burnt at the stake for such heresy!

I will never forget the way one particular athlete rubbed his hands together at how he was going to put myself and my small group of speed trained athletes in our place. The pre-season fitness training was build around repetitions of 400 metres, and he knew my boys had barely run further than 40 meters for months, and to make it worse, we rarely ran flat out. It was going to be easy.

My protégés burned this athlete and the rest. When the fruits of my methods became apparent the speed coach quit, and the athlete who led the charge against my boys was forced into retirement that same season. Too slow.

After maintaining this position professionally for nearly twenty years, and (along with Charlie Francis) bearing the brunt of ridicule and violent attacks, I noted that certain others began publishing similar positions. Two things were apparent –firstly, the writings looked, well, very familiar….
Like this one:

Detection of and reaction to stimulus:…the ability to detect and react to stimulus. This is usually the first action in a chain of speed responses.
— King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

Reaction time: The ability to detect and react to a stimulus. This usually the first action in a series of speed responses.
–2003, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

Agility and co-ordination: The first few movements following the reaction to the stimulus…include sports where the distances moved and time frames involved are short…
— King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

Agility and co-ordination: This is the first few movements following the reaction to the stimulus… for sports where the distances moved and the time frames involved are quite short
–2003, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

And secondly, because most of this publishing copying occurs in the fitness industry and they don’t see much need for real sports training information (despite the marketing claims) such as speed training, this area has not yet reached mass popularity and acceptance amongst the market masses to the level where the extensive copying in publishing has occurred.

Heresy in strength training

During the late 1980s I reached conclusions about the flaws in application of strength training approach that dominated the 1980s, and I spoke out against this in the early 1990s.

Strength training of the 1980s was based largely on the belief that heavy loads in strength training were neither specific or beneficial, and therefore higher rep, faster movements dominated training. I was the first ‘strength coach’ in the Australian national league sport of Australian Rules to introduce maximal strength training. I was the first person in perhaps the world of rugby union outside of South Africa to implement maximal free weight strength training in rugby. I was the first person at least in my country in rowing, swimming, squash, and diving, and the list goes on – to promote free weight maximal strength methods in these sports.

I will never forget the day the Australian rugby coach took some of the Australian rugby union players to see the New Zealand ‘All Blacks’ ‘strength and conditioning’ coach (not that was what he was called in the late 1980s). He derided my maximal strength methods to these athletes and the coach, with comments such “When do you get this loads on the field? You don’t! They are not relevant!” And proceeded to show the boys how to do high rep sets of leg presses, leg extensions and bench presses on the Universal machine.

I challenged this over-application of specificity in a presentation in New Zealand in 1993, , the ‘home’ of specificity in strength training:

Without discarding circuit training methods completely, one can question the acclaimed specificity of circuit training to the game of rugby if done for the strength benefits – the loading in inadequate; if done for joint angle specificity – this can only be achieved by playing the game; if done for limb velocity specificity – the angular velocity of the hip in sprinting is between 500-900 degrees per second – unachievable in the gymnasium (28); if done for energy system specificity – only playing the game or performing game like drills will provide the peripheral endurance (34) specificity required.

It is important for the coach to ask “which method will create the most effective transfer to the athletes ability to play rugby?”, not simply “what methods appear the most specific?
–King, I., 1993, Strength training for rugby, New Zealand Journal of Sports Medicine, v. 21(4):23-26

I was ‘burnt at the stake’ for such heresy!

Heresy in flexibility training

During the 1980s I reached conclusions about the flaws in application (or lack of) of flexibility training approach that dominated the 1980s, and I spoke out against this.

I maintained that static stretching can and should be done before training, and that static stretching should dominant the stretching program.

I find it is the most effective practical way to achieve changes or improvements in flexibility…. Generally speaking I recommend your total stretching program consist predominantly of static stretching.
— King, I., 2002, Get Buffed! II

No-one took much notice of this in the 1980s or early 1990s, but by the late 1990s the ‘scientific’ reasons why one should not stretch, static stretch, or do static stretching before training had begun to proliferate. I spend the fifteen years between 1995 and 2010 being pillared from post to post for my position. After all, all the ‘big names’ in the US strength coach and academic circles maintain the evils everything I stood for. Not one person in the world of ‘strength and conditioning’ had the originality or courage to speak up in support.

Burnt at the stake for such heresy!

After maintaining this position professionally for over twenty years, and bearing the brunt of ridicule and violent attacks, I noted that certain others began publishing similar positions. Two things were apparent –firstly, the writings looked, well, very familiar….

Like this one:

I believe that stretching is the only physical quality that in relation to it’s training, the saying ‘more is better’ applies.
— King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

In my opinion – stretching is perhaps the only training activity where more is better.
–2003, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

And secondly, the concepts were reaching the stage of acceptance in the market place:

I do two things that are still considered relatively unique. I recommend stretching, and I recommend stretching before the workout

–King, I., 2002, Get Buffed!™ II

The key may lie in performing static stretching near the beginning of the workout,… Yes, static stretch. Yes, before the workout.
–2011, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

Teaching in America

During the late 1990s, courtesy of the emergence of the internet and a few years of reduced team sports requirements, I took my message to America.

In 1999 I taught my seminars in the US city of New York, which resulted in a serious back lash. I suspect it was my teaching that chin ups do not equate rows, nor do they negate the bench press, that was the cause of most of the angst. At that time, the most influential strength coach who enjoyed control of the market promoted training methods totally devoid of rows, and heavily biased towards chin ups.

I experienced personal attacks and rumour-spreading, like the time I went to a national convention and one exhibition booth person nearly fainted when he saw me – he was adamant I was in jail, and wanted to know when I was released. The old chest-nuts came out – my seminars were bad and I didn’t use enough science. My seminar hosts were threatened with ramifications if they went on with my seminars, seminar participants were personally phoned, including by certain state police calling outside their geographical jurisdiction as well as their legal jurisdiction to threaten arrest of those who got involved with me. Just because I dared suggest that horizontal pulling needed to balance horizontal pushing.

Then on to Boston, where my content was so threatening the local gate-keeper of information gathered his flock a few hours into the seminar, and made a very public showing of walking out, taking his flock with him. Not content with this, this local ‘identity’ contacted my host, and left them in no doubt about how bad my seminar was, how bad a presenter was, and what the serious ramifications would be if they dared bring me back to the area.

I believe that my position about loading being over-rated, that one should use bodyweight before loading were the main killers, along with my suggestions of balance in strength training, and my unique concept of lines of movement. At that time any compliant trend-following person was using the power and Olympic lifts with focus on maximum loading, and the concept of lines of movement and balance in strength training were totally new. And I’d suggest so in contrast to what the gate-keeper of information was doing that I had to be eliminated.

Burnt at the stake for such heresy!

My position of bodyweight before external load. It was considered so extreme in the 1990s that the publisher of the internet magazine t-mag.com felt the need to pre-warm users about the absence of external load and conventional exercises, and encourage them to let go of convention and risk the ridicule of doing something different:

Of course, the most difficult part of the workout was shrugging off years of brainwashing. Doing exercises with little or no weight was a hard pill to swallow, but once I reminded myself that I didn’t care how different or weird the movements looked, I had a great workout. Remember, screw the pack mentality and give this workout a try!
–TC Louma, Editor T-mag.com, Sep 24 1999

By 2005 it was being taught in the absence of credit or reference by people who had attended my seminars where I taught this.

Or my position on balance in strength training:

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

Horizontal pulling (row)
Horizontal pushing (bench press)
Vertical pulling (chin-up)
Vertical pushing (shoulder press)
Hip dominant (deadlifts)
Quad dominant (squats)
— Shugart, Chris, 2001, The Ian King Cheat Sheets, Part 1 – A quick and dirty look at all the cool stuff Ian King has taught us so far, Fri, Aug 24, 2001, T-mag.com

By 2005 it was being taught in the absence of credit or reference by people who had attended my seminars where I taught this

After maintaining these positions professionally for nearly twenty years, and bearing the brunt of ridicule and violent attacks, I noted that certain others began publishing similar positions. Two things were apparent –firstly, the writings looked, well, very familiar….

Like this one:

…all things being equal, and independent of any specificity demands, the selection of exercises should show balance throughout the body.
— King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs

…all things being equal, and independent of any specificity demands, the selection of exercises should show balance throughout the body.
–2005, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

I apply the following guideline to any athlete, not just young athlete – why use external loading before developing the ability to manage the load of bodyweight?
— King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!™

My theory has always been that the only reason an athlete should lift weights is when their bodyweight no longer provides any challenge to them.
–2003, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

…if your bodyweight for whatever reason is too much for your leg strength, you can always do a one-legged leg press or hack squat.
— King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!™

In fact in my experience I’d suggest that some athletes cannot even work with their bodyweight so we may need to modify certain exercises.
–2003, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

And secondly, the concepts were reaching the stage of acceptance in the market place:

The following article is Part I of a two-part leg training article that’s very different from anything you’ve ever done. How so? Well, for starters, some of the exercises don’t even require you to use any weight…
–Louma, TC., 1999, describing the single leg based lower body program known as ‘The Limping Program’

I occasionally flirt with the idea of not even performing conventional two-legged exercises….and simply concentrating on single leg strength….
–2005, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

The industry integrity heresy

Post 2010 I find myself again being labelled as a heretic. Even dishonest by some well-marketed industry commentators. Because as I have done during the past thirty years, I am calling it as I see it. Only this time it’s not training methods or paradigms about training. It’s about the standards of the physical preparation industry, specifically the US-led ‘fitness industry’.

I labelled the 1980s as the decade of aerobic training, the 1990s as the decade of strength training focus, and the 2000s as the decade of deceit.

During the decade immediately post 2000 I have observed what I describe as an unacceptable level of deceit in publishing and marketing permeate this industry. To the point where those who have positioned themselves, primarily through symbiotic relationships with information equipment distributors, now openly encourage their followers to lie, cheat and steal.

The situation has got so messed up that potentially good people coming through have unwittingly been caught up in this web of deceit. It will take years to unravel. It may take greater social and economic upheavals to bring to an end. Whatever it takes, it will be a great day when this behaviour is no longer endorsed and accepted.

Contrary to the beliefs of at least one ‘well-respected professional’, I suggest that a companies willingness to engage known individuals whose published words are not original, and who openly encourage people to lie, cheat and steal – is not, for me, an exoneration. Rather it is a sad reflection of the value system of the organizations involved, and the willingness of the masses to accept information from such organizations.

I liken it to the days prior to environmental protection from industrial waste and development. Companies would (and in some cases still do) release toxic waste products into the environment carte blanche. Did the absence of enforcement suggest this was acceptable and in the interests of the planet. No, and history has shown societies are not taking a belated stand against such behaviour. When enforcement is lax – where companies distribute their waste in an environmentally damaging way and no enforcement results – does this mean that the companies were right and acting in the good of greater society? I’d suggest not.

I propose we are in a similar period in the ‘physical preparation industry’. Where companies knowingly mislead or endorse those who mislead the masses through deceitful content, which is not in the interest of the masses. The only interests being served are the professional, personal and commercial interests of those providing the misleading content and benefiting from the subsequent sales.

For me, the absence of any regulation of this behaviour does not equate to the conclusion that the behaviour is right or in the interests of those who it is claimed they are serving. Rather, it is a sad reflection of the current state of integrity in this industry.

I might be amongst the first to have concerns. I might be amongst the first to publicly express those concerns. I might be one of the few who have walked away from consulting/writing opportunities as a personal stand against this situation. However I will not be the last. And I believe that one day, hopefully in my lifetime, we will see a shift towards an industry cultural standard where the interests of the end-user is prioritized, rather than the self-serving interests of select companies, organizations and individuals. (Who knows, it may be even sooner should the broader economy continue its tailspin)

Call me an eternal optimist if you want. That’s a lot nicer than what those who perceive I threaten their egos and income are calling me!

My message to those who perceive my stance threatens them is this – I’ve been around a while, and taken many stance. Throw as many stones as you want. You are not the first to attack, and you won’t be the last. I’m happy to go to battle for things I strongly believe in. It’s not going to change my position and direction. It never has in the past.  What has changed is the way of doing and thinking. Inevitably in the direction I have called. So get ready for the change! You can choose it, or it will be forced upon you. Your call.
Conclusion

From being a paradigm shifter I experienced ridicule and attack. Many times, in many decades over many different aspects of physical preparation. Did this stop me? No. Has history proven me to be off-track? No.

I labelled the 1980s as the decade of aerobic training and during the early 1990s I sought to put the 1980s aerobic training approach back into an appropriate context.

I labelled the 1990s as the decade of strength training and during the late 1990s and early 2000s I sought to put the 1990s strength training load-based focus and other paradigms back into context.

The same people who reacted violently to my teachings now typically teach my innovations. Of course, in the absence of any referencing, as I suspect this would be too embarrassing for them to reveal the hurt I caused with my honest non-compliant teaching.

I predicted the 2000s might be the decade of flexibility training focus and acceptance – but I got this wrong.

Now post 2010 I have labelled the 2000s as the decade of bullshit, a period dominated by lies and deceit, covered over eventually be the teaching of the information gate keepers that it okay to lie, cheat and steal.

And as I have done for the past three decades, I am speaking out without fear or favour, telling you that I believe you are being seriously misled and that the only purpose this serves is the personal and commercial interests of those decades’ information gate-keepers.

I seek to encourage a return to values of honesty and truth; values that the US led fitness market in particular have discarded in the extreme during the 2000s. It seems that anyone with a burning desire to be perceived as an ‘expert’, and a lack of integrity can market successfully the perception of their greatness, and in the absence of appropriate experience. The period of 2000 to 2010 has seen a rapid descent into marketing and publishing deceit, as if the industry and perhaps society is either sensing an end to the current was we life, or intending to induce an end, by such self-destructive and non-sustainable behaviour.

I believe the lies and exploitation of the masses through marketing of training equipment under the guise of ‘new trends in training methods in physical training’ has reached serious stages, and can no longer be ignored.

And just as I did in the decades before, the fire under the stake are being lit. One particular ‘respected author’ referred in writing to my ‘dishonesty’. After all, how dare I undermine the perception of greatness that these people have created through deception? There is no way the product sales of major US equipment and distribution companies are going to be threatened by some irritant from Australia.

And how can the average person, who has believed the marketing pieces and editorially sculptured bios of these ‘experts’, be expected to have their perception of these people shattered by suggesting they are not the honest experts you have been led to believe? And what about the damage that may be caused when the average consumer in this industry concludes ‘If they are lying about x and y, what else are they lying about?’ No, this would be intolerant and must be stopped!

History has shown that the initially controversial and personally-damaging positions I have taken during the last thirty years have eventually become accepted practice, in many cases taught by the very same people who sought to destroy the message initially. Based on this, I suspect that sometime in the next few years or decades, there will be return to integrity in marketing and sales in the physical preparation industry. And it wouldn’t surprise me to see those on the bandwagon include those who currently are the ones throwing stones at my position that the market is dominated by deceitful exploitation of the trust-worthiness of the masses.

Are these personal attacks going to stop me? No. Will history prove my position to be accurate? I believe so.

So take your pick – ridicule and attack my position that lies and deceit in marketing and publication have dominated the landscape during the last ten years like most people will, because this is what the majority do. And I can guarantee you some time in the future you will accept this position, albeit probably taught to you by some trend watcher. Or step back, let go of the conditioned belief you have about the credibility of your ‘gurus’ – and give it an objective reflection.

What do you stand to gain or loose? If you like to be average, you probably want to join the masses and ridicule and attack my position. If you want to gain what I consider to be your best interests – I strongly suggest you consider rejecting the average. Typically there is a decade gap I have noted between when I teach something unique and effective that threatens the status quo, and when these same individuals who were threatened and attacked me begin teaching the very same things. You stand to gain an average of decade head start on the masses if you take the lesson now.

One of the few differences between my ‘controversial’ position in the past and this current controversial position is this – I used to take stands about training methods. Now I am taking stands against human values and behaviours. I believe what’s at stake now and its potential benefits to society are even greater. I guess I can expect the initial back lash to be even greater, as much more is at stake. It’s not just the ego of those who have staked their reputations and credibility on a training method. I am now getting between desperate people and their money.

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, German philosopher (1788 – 1860)

Ian King

The moral and economic decline of a once great nation  

/by

My attention was brought to a recent US blog extolling the benefits of stealing. From the outset, I say perhaps I have lost touch with the ‘new world’, because I was stunned by the content and the message.

Apparently, if you are not stealing:

• You do not have the keys to being a good strength coach or personal trainer
• You are a dumb personal trainer
• You are not participating in continuing education
• You are not a good person like Robin Hood (allegedly) was

Apparently, stealing in this context is synonymous with continuing education. Stealing in my legal contexts goes along these lines – an intent to permenantely deprive the owner.

There are apparently added benefits to ‘stealling’:

• Its cool
• All the good coaches do it

Of course, like any advertorial, there was a call to spend money in the writers directions. The reader was encouraged and invited to ‘come and steal’ from the writer and his buddies. And the investment needed, the reader was assured, was akin to buying the tools needed for burglary.

You see, ordinary ‘stealing’ may be free, but ‘good stealing’ involves parting with money. And there were two specific products/services promoted.

Now perhaps I live in a cave hidden form the world, but my understanding was that no religion or law endorsed, promoted or condoned stealing. If fact some cultures cut off your hand for doing so.

So how does the incitement to ‘steal’ help America? A once proud nation, whose national currency has halved in value in the last decade, with no signs of recovery. My understanding was what drove America in its growth periods was innovation and productivity. Writings such as these are the antithesis of this – don’t bother innovating, and don’t bother with productivity – you can get what you want the easy way.

I believe a criminologist from the school of ‘theres a correlation between poverty and criminality’. Are the recommendation and acceptance of these values a result and an indication of how much poverty abounding in this industry in America.

I suggest that the values promoted in this blog contribute to the moral and economic decline of a culture and nation. But what I am learning is those in a sinking ship don’t always think rationally. In fact, in raising similar points, one of their colleagues has labelled me as dishonest, so you are going to have to make up your own mind on this one.

So what was the motive of this promotion of the concept of stealing? Apart from another way to market goods and services, my opinion is that there is a desire to de-sensitize the market to intellectual property ‘stealing’ because this gives more latitude to those who want to publish but don’t have any original ideas.

Personally, I don’t see how the promotion of these values helps anyone, and I don’t know who it serves for America to stay morally and economically depressed or decline further.

Two misguided analogies were given –

1. Anthony Robbins
2. Robin Hood

In relation to Anthony Robbins, copying what they do and copying what they published are not one and the same. Additionally, I doubt Anthony Robbins would have been promoting the concept of stealing and that the investment in his educational material was akin to paying for the tools of burglary. And as for the Robin Hood analogy – I doubt the marketer/author was giving the proceeds of his sales to charity, so that was a real big stretch to make it fit the message.

I’ll say it again – perhaps I am too old fashioned for this world. However I stand by what I said – I don’t see how these values positively serve, and suggest they instead contribute to the moral and economic decline of a once great nation.

Ian King

Be honest? I’d like to see that….  

/by

I must say I was surprised to read this author promote a call for credit to the original source. Very UnAmerican, as least as the US ‘fitness-industry’ has been influenced during the last decade, from 2000 to 2010. A period I refer to as the ‘decade of the bullshitter’.

In this recent book this author referred to another coaches plea for respect and credit to be given to his works.

From what I’ve heard, from the far end of Siberia to Iceland to California, thousands of coaches are performing with their athletes Javorek’s complex exercise, but some of them give credit to themselves. I really worked hard on developing these exercises and I like to share with everyone my ‘little secrets’. Just give credit to the creator.



My original goal with the complex exercises was to find an efficient and aggressive method of performance enhancement that saves time and makes the program more enjoyable. If you choose to use them (in some form) with your athletes, be honest and call your new complex exercises ‘Variations to Javorek’s Complex Exercises’.
–John, D., 2011, Mass Made Simple, Quoting Istvan Javorek’s comments on Javorek’s web site, p. 108

This is the first time I can recall seeing a call of this nature. What I have seen a lot of is what Javorek is referring to – people who know the source, yet choose to take credit, or fail to give credit.

After all, the most common term in the US ‘fitness’ industry lingo of the last decade has been ‘Steal’. Everyone wanted to say they ‘stole’ x from someone else. It was hip. A badge of honor. After all, many of these, especially those who informal education exposure was limited to the period 2000-2011, had been extolled the virtues of stealing. ‘It not cheating’ etc etc. In fact, they had also been extolled to lie.

It was the first time I have seen the act of stealing (in relation to intellectual property) being discouraged. Isn’t that interesting.

As impressive as this is, it did raise a few questions for me.

Firstly, would Americans reach out to non-Americans with the same call? Would Americans encourage their fellow coaches to show the same respect for out-of-country intellectual property? What if those breaching the intellectual property rights of the out-of-country coaches were their mentors, people they had been taught to believe were really knowledgeable, experienced, competent coaches?

I’m not so sure that this would happen. Why? In addition to my belief that America has a history of recognizing only that which is within their own country (have observed this myopic view during my 22 years of travelling in and through North America) it would be a tough pill to swallow for any ‘student’.

Another question, inter linked with the first, relates to the Javoreks plea for those using his intellectual property to be honest. Imagine that – those who seek to control and influence the masses in the US fitness industry being honest. I’d like to see that.

“No, I didn’t come up with that idea.”

“Nor that one.” 

“Or that one.”

“No, not that one either.”

I believe one of the reasons these information brokers fail to give credit when they know the source is that the majority of their publications would be credited. If you took out the credited content, their wouldn’t be enough pages left to hold the book up. Who would buy it? What impact would this have on their reputation? After all, they have wormed for years to be in the position they are in.  Why give it up for honesty? I’ve got certain books on my book shelf where I have color highlighted the copied and / or uncredited content – and there aren’t too many pages left unmarked. The ‘books’ look more like a kids coloring in book than an educational text. On that thought, the kids colouring book would hvae more credibility, and probably more value for a student to study!

Honesty? Istvan would like to see that. I’d like to see that.

Ian King

Do the words ‘volunteer’ and or ‘amateur’ need to be antonyms of excellence?  

/by

Rarely a day passes without the opportunity to watch and analyse a sports coach in action. I don’t mind at what level, what gender, what sport, or what country. I really enjoy studying the art of coaching and asking the question ‘how can it be done better?’

For me, we all have limited resources – limited energy, limited recovery ability, limited time, and limited attention span. The more efficient we teach athlete preparation, the more we have in reserve to include other aspects. Which is divergent to what I see as a growing and continuing trend – the limited focus on improving efficiency and the greater focus on adding more to the athletes schedule, in part because of ‘trends’.

In my discussions with coaches and coaching directors, one common theme appears – ‘We are amateurs and therefore you have to understand Ian’….-read – don’t expect us to pursue excellence because we are ‘just volunteers’.

To which I say – the main differences between a volunteer coach and an elite professional coach is the latter get’s paid, works with higher profiles players with more money at stake, and have bigger egos. There is nothing in my three decades plus of professional observations that leads me to believe that the professional coach is, should or needs to be a better coach. I just don’t understand why the volunteer coach and or amateur coach can’t, shouldn’t or don’t need to strive for excellence. To continually ask and answer the question – ‘How can I do this better? How can I get better results with athletes?’

From my conclusions, we have got sport upside down. The greatest window of opportunity to affect and shape an athlete is when they are young. Very young. And that window reduces with age. In most countries, however, we give the athletes to the volunteers and amateurs during this largest window of opportunity for development. And to those kids that rise to the surface, we give them more funds, allegedly better coaches, and definitely better facilities.  For every kid that rises to the surface in this process, hundreds fall through the cracks, lost potential for all.

Now I don’t have a problem with the fact that most of our young athletes will be coached by volunteers and amateur coaches. What I do have a challenge with is why the assumption that if a coach is a volunteer or amateur that we should all give up and assume the pursuit of excellence is out of the question.

I don’t buy into the cultural perception that to prove you are a great coach you have to show you have worked with elite athletes. Why can’t you be the greatest coach in the land and work with kids? I believe you can, and I believe you should aim to be – because I don’t accept that the words ‘volunteer’ and or ‘amateur’ coach and the world ‘excellence’ are oxymoron’s, incompatible, or are antonyms!

Ian King

Let’s talk about honesty, Lou  

/by

I refer to Lou Schuler’s decision to publicly refer to my efforts to protect my intellectual property as dishonest (http://www.amazon.com/review/R1EKIUGPBU1KDE). I understand there is subjectivity in the definition of this word. I also understand his desire to protect his co-author. That aside…
…Let’s talk about honesty.

I don’t believe it is honest to use Lyle MacDonald’s words in your 2006 book ‘New Rules’ – unreferenced, uncredited, and without permission. For example:

“Imagine my surprise when I saw the original protocol repeated verbatim in New Rules of Lifting completely uncredited.”
–MacDonald, L., 2008,Warp Speed Fat Loss by Alwyn Cosgrove Contains Plagiarised Material, July 9, 2008, http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/miscellany/plagiarism-part-2.html

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it is honest to do a deal with someone for them to be primary author, and then behind the scenes plan to shift them back to secondary author without their knowledge, as occurred in the lead up to the Book of Muscle. Or as it occurred with Mike Mejia’s books with you.

“Now, the big question is, how can we fix this? To credit it to “Lou Schuler, with workout programs by Ian King,” is completely contrary to what we originally discussed. I hope you’ll believe me when I say those original conversations seem like years ago, given how fast things move at Rodale. I have no excuses for switching tracks on this. I just got so caught up in where the book was going that I forgot where it started….

A similar situation cropped up with Home Workout Bible. I’d originally conceived it as Mike Mejia’s book, but an editor got fired, the book fell months behind schedule, and I ended up having to write almost all of it. And by then, Testosterone Advantage had sold well and my name had the power to get us on bookstore shelves. But Mike’s name is as prominent as mine on the cover, and he wrote the foreword, so it looks very much like his book.

I’ll confess I’m panicking a bit here, because I very much screwed this up and I’m not really sure how to get back to the right place. We only have three months to write this thing, and now we have an element of bad faith to further cloud our effort, and it’s entirely my fault.”
–Schuler, L., 2003, Personal communication with Ian King, Saturday, 5 October 2002

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it’s honest to have you listed as the primary author of the Book of Muscle on Amazon.com etc. since the books release in 2003. You blamed the ‘switcheroo’ on Men’s Health decisions makers – it is still MH who influences the ‘switcheroo’ at Amazons?:

Men’s Health: The Book of Muscle : The World’s Most Authoritative Guide to Building Your Body by Lou Schuler and Ian King (Oct 17, 2003)

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it is honest to use content from my works in your 2006 book ‘New Rules’ – yes, I know you did give some credit and referencing – but when I put my Get Buffed!™ II and Get Buffed!™III books beside your 2006 New Rules book – boy, they have a lot in common. With your editing skills you have covered the tracks well, to your credit. When you are confident with your knowledge base, I note that you do really re-work sentences. Much better job than your counter-parts did in editing a certain 2009 book about female training.

What makes me more cynical than your average avid fan is that I have collated a lot of the copying done by your co-author from the original sources, and watched the patterns unfold over the years. Too many ‘co-incidences’ for me. Take the strength programs for example. Now I know the limitations of the intellectual property laws in relation to program design, however seriously – save any denial of ‘open book publishing’ for your less discerning fans.

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it is honest to use someone’s original exercise innovations, exercise names, and loading parameters – ones taught to you personally by the originator – and then tell the audience that the only way to learn more about them is through ‘personal contact with yourself’ or by buying your book:

“Q. [from the audience] Where can I find all these exercises?

A. Only through personal contact [with me]. Firstly, write them all down, and then you have some. And second of all, it is in the ‘Martial Arts book [Secrets of Martial Arts Conditioning, A. Cosgrove, 2003], the early stage exercises are in there, but obviously…
–Cosgrove, A., 2003, Your body as a barbell – unconventional bodyweight exercises, DVD, 18 Oct 2003

My definition of honest would have been to credit all the original innovations, exercise names and loading protocols, and when asked this question, tell the person where you learnt them from, for example:

Ian King’s Killer Leg Exercises (DVD), 1999
Twelve Weeks of Pain, King, I., 1999, T-mag.com
Strength Specialization Series (video/dvd) (1998)
How to Write Strength Training Programs (book), 1998
Get Buffed! I (book), 1999
How To Teach Strength Training Exercises (book), 2000
How to Teach Strength Training Exercises (DVD), 2000
Get Buffed! II (book), 2002
Ian King’s Guide to Control Drills, 2002

And other places….

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it is honest to take advantage of someone’s generosity, following them giving you an opportunity in a guided learning experience because you lack experience in programming and training athletes, to then take the program and publish it in part or whole in the following publications, without permission, authority, and credit or referencing:

Cosgrove, A., 20??, 12 Week rugby program, strengthcoach.com
Cosgrove, A., 2003, Macrocycles

This program was provided to an existing long term KSI client, by KSI, with copyright KSI on every page. Yet the copyright symbol was removed (isn’t that a circumstance of aggravation in US copyright law?) and published in part and whole in at least the above two locations.

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it is honest to tell your readers that the program you have provided in the publication they have bought is designed with them in mind, when it wasn’t:

“I’ve designed this program around a typical client, looking to get in shape, with limited time, resources and equipment.…. This book is written with you in mind.”
— Cosgrove, A., 2003, Macrocycles, p. 7

Unless the target audience of this book were males living in Asia aged between 18 and 28 years, playing elite sport in a government funded program preparing to play in a World Cup – then this is, for me, the absolute opposite of honesty.

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it is honest to infer you trained an athlete to an Olympic medal when your resume from 1999 makes no mention of this:

“I had a guy who took a silver medal for boxing in the Olympics in the super-heavyweight division…”
–Cosgrove, A., 2003, Your body as a barbell – unconventional bodyweight exercises, DVD, 18 Oct 2003

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it’s honest to boast in the morning that you have never had an original idea in your life, and that afternoon to refer to your original ideas:

“I don’t invent anything – I just steal. My joke is I have never had an original idea in my life.”
–Cosgrove, A., 2003, Assessment Seminar (DVD), Charles Staley Bootcamp, 3:05min in

“I remember once thinking that if you did a curl here [beside your body], a curl here [in front of your body] and a curl here [behind your body, that’s three bicep exercises… but then you do cable and dbs and a bar and you actually have nine. And if you do two angles at each position forward that takes you up to 18 exercises……if you did each one for 3 weeks that would be a year before you would have to repeat and I haven’t even turned my hands over [pronated]…”
— Cosgrove, A., 2003, Your body as a barbell – unconventional bodyweight exercises, DVD, 18 Oct 2003

“Biceps – three categories, it’s a very simple approach but it’s very effective. In your biceps, I want you to look at your biceps this way: Category 1 – elbow behind body; category 2 – elbow beside body; category 3 – elbow in front of body. Now with a different colour pen, write the following – supination, neutral, pronation. The message here – to fully exploit your biceps – you would need to consider those 6 options. And that gives you how many? That gives you endless options. Endless options….there is 3 ways by 3 ways…at least 9 if not more variations……in other words if we just took a pair of DBS we have got 9 different bicep…. exercise, without considering all the cables and bars and different sorts of shape bar and the machines…”
— King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization DVD, Part 4, 2 hr 50min

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it’s honest to claim in your bio that you are ‘recognized’ by a company, and to use a company name that doesn’t exist to create for yourself a Mike Myer’s like ‘international man’ perception:

Kingsports International Australia

There is no such company, at least that’s not our company’s name, and never was. If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it’s honest to claim to claim a ‘country’ recognizes you.

Through the years in this field Alwyn has been recognized as a specialist in Athletic Preparation by … Australia

Nor am I aware of any ‘specialist in Athletic Preparation’ certification offered by any organization in Australia. Or for that matter the US or the UK – which is also claimed.

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it’s honest to reproduce someone else’s concepts and theories, uncredited, unreferenced and without permission for reproduction. For example:

Balance : all things being equal, and independent of any specificity demands, the selection of exercises should show balance throughout the body.
–King, I., 1998, How to Write (book)

All things being equal, and independent of any specificity demands, the selection of exercises should show balance throughout the body.
— Cosgrove, A., 2005, Fitness professional program design bible
–Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness professional program design bible (2nd Ed)
— Cosgrove, A., 2009, Program Design Seminar handout

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it’s honest to reproduce someone’s exercise descriptions, as has occurred to over 70 exercise descriptions, appearing uncredited, unreferenced and without permission for reproduction in over 15 different publications by the same ‘author’, all published with the ‘author’ claiming copyright.
For example:

Single leg partial squat

Stand on the edge of a low block (eg. 1/3 to ½ the height of a normal bench height). Have the weak leg on the box and the strong leg off the edge of the box. Bend at the knee of the weak side, lowering down (2-3 seconds) until the sole of your feet almost brushes the floor. Keep sole parallel to ground. Pause for 1 second and return to full extension in about 1-2 seconds. At the 10th rep, pause at the bottom position for 10 seconds. You must not rest the non-supporting leg on the ground at any stage during the set. Hands on hips. Then continue reps until you get to 20. Repeat the 10 second pause. Can you go on? If yes, remember, what you start you must finish – this exercise must be done in multiples of 10, with a 10 second pause in bottom position at the completion of every 10 reps. If you get to 50 reps, look to raise the height of the block. Preferably don’t hold on to anything during the set – the challenge of balance will add to the fatigue. However you may wish to do this near a wall or squat stand just in case. You don’t need to do a warm up set – get straight into the work set. And be careful when you get off the block at the end of the set…..!
–King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!™

Single leg partial squat :

Stand on the edge of a low block (e.g. 1/3 to ½ the height of a normal bench height). Have the weak leg on the box and the strong leg off the edge of the box. Bend at the knee of the weak side, lowering down (2-3 seconds) until the sole of your feet almost brushes the floor. Keep sole parallel to ground. Pause for 1 second and return to full extension in about 1-2 seconds. At the 10th rep, pause at the bottom position for 10 seconds. You must not rest the non-supporting leg on the ground at any stage during the set. Hands on hips. Then continue reps until you get to 20. Repeat the 10-second pause. Can you go on? If yes, remember, what you start you must finish – this exercise must be done in multiples of 10, with a 10 second pause in bottom position at the completion of every 10 reps. If you get to 50 reps, look to raise the height of the block. Preferably don’t hold on to anything during the set – the challenge of balance will add to the fatigue. However you may wish to do this near a wall or squat stand just in case. You don’t need to do a warm up set – get straight into the work set.
-Cosgrove, A., 2003, Macrocycles
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, Fitness professional program design bible

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it’s honest to reproduce someone else’s periodization works uncredited, unreferenced and without permission, with the ‘author’ claiming copyright. For example:

Alternating periodization: involves alternating between volume (another term used is accumulation) and intensity (again, another term seen is intensification).
–King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs

Alternating Periodization: involves alternating between volume and intensity (accumulation/intensification)
— Cosgrove, A., 2005, Fitness professional program design bible
–Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness professional program design bible (2nd Ed)

The advantages includes that it avoids the detraining issues involved in linear progression (ie. reduces the concern of detraining metabolic or neural adaptations because of more frequent exposure to each).
–King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs

Advantages: avoids the detraining issues involved in linear progression (due to more frequent exposure of neural and metabolic effects). Generally speaking this is often the best choice for most trainees.
— Cosgrove, A., 2005, Fitness professional program design bible
–Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness professional program design bible (2nd Ed)

The disadvantages include that it requires to trainee to be experienced in load selection as the reps drop suddenly and significantly.
–King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs

Disadvantages: requires experience in load selection as the reps change quickly and significantly.
— Cosgrove, A., 2005, Fitness professional program design bible
–Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness professional program design bible (2nd Ed)

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it’s honest to reproduce someone else’s philosophies uncredited, unreferenced and without permission, with the ‘author’ claiming copyright. For example:

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.
–King, I., 2005, The Way of the Physical Preparation Coach

When designing training programs, resist the pressure to conform to any tradition or system of beliefs, no matter how dogmatically that tradition or those beliefs are presented, or how much you get “slammed” for not conforming. This applies to training and life.
–Cosgrove, A., 2006, 10 Things I’ve Learnt, T-mag.com, Feb

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it’s honest to reproduce someone else’s physical qualities works uncredited, unreferenced and without permission, with the ‘author’ claiming copyright. For example:

Speed can be defined as the time taken between two points.
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

Speed can be defined as the time taken between two points.
— Cosgrove, A., 2003, Martial Arts

There are a number of sub-qualities of speed.
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

Speed can in effect be broken down into several qualities
— Cosgrove, A., 2003, Martial Arts

Detection of and reaction to stimulus: The first sub-quality of speed can be said to be the ability to detect and react to stimulus. This is usually the first action in a chain of speed responses.
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

Reaction time: The ability to detect and react to a stimulus. This usually the first action in a series of speed responses.
— Cosgrove, A., 2003, Martial Arts

Agility and co-ordination: The first few movements following the reaction to the stimulus rely on agility and coordination.
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

Agility and co-ordination: This is the first few movements following the reaction to the stimulus.
— Cosgrove, A., 2003, Martial Arts

Acceleration: The athlete’s speed component focus following the first few movements is on acceleration – provided the sporting action has the distance and time frame to cope. If the action or event is over within one to two seconds, the need to fully exploit acceleration is absent.
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

Acceleration: the ability to increase speed and approach maximum speed. This is less important in short distance sports as the action is typically over in 1-2 seconds and the need to fully exploit acceleration is absent.
— Cosgrove, A., 2003, Martial Arts

Maximum velocity: As stated above, the point at which one ceases to accelerate is ones maximum velocity.
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

Maximum Speed: the point at which you cease to accelerate.
— Cosgrove, A., 2003, Martial Arts

Speed endurance: Speed endurance is the ability to maintain high levels of speed. There are three categories of speed endurance…
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

Speed endurance: the ability to maintain high levels of speed. Can be further broken into…
—- Cosgrove, A., 2003, Martial Arts

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it’s honest to reproduce someone else’s principles of training uncredited, unreferenced and without permission, with the ‘author’ claiming copyright. For example:

Progressive overload: This principle stresses two issues. Firstly the need for overload in training, and secondly the need for progression in training overload.
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

Progressive overload: This stresses two issues. Firstly the need for overload in training, and secondly the need for progression in training overload.
—- Cosgrove, A., 2003, Martial Arts

General to specific: This principle stresses the benefit of progressing from general training to specific training. This principle can be applied in both long-term planning (e.g. multi-year periodization) as well as short term planning (e.g. annual periodization). General to specific can viewed as opposite ends of a continuum…
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

General to specific: This principle explores the benefits of progressing from general training to more about sport specific training. This principle should be used both long term and short term when designing a conditioning program. General training to sport-specific training can be thought of as opposite ends of a continuum.
— Cosgrove, A., 2003, Martial Arts

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

Individualization: This principle stresses that to optimize the training effect, it is necessary to take into account all the factors that the individual athlete presents. This suggests that each training program needs to be individualized. Modified to suit the individual, in each aspect of training…
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

Individualization: To really maximize the training effect it is necessary to take into account every single individual difference that the athlete presents. Each training program needs to be individualized and modified to suit the individual.
—- Cosgrove, A., 2003, Martial Arts

I don’t believe it’s honest to reproduce someone else’s recovery theories uncredited, unreferenced and without permission, with the ‘author’ claiming copyright. For example:

The principle of recovery recognizes that the training effect is not simply a result of training alone, but occurs from a combination of training and the subsequent recovery from training. It is only when recovery is allowed that we see the super-compensation effect, the unique phenomenon where the bodies physical capacity is elevated in response to training…
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

The principle of recovery recognizes that training alone does not produce any results. That’s right – you don’t get better by training – you get better by recovering from training…. The training effect is a combination of training and the subsequent recovery from training. It is only when recovery is allowed that we see the super-compensation effect, when the body’s physical capacity is elevated in response to training.
—- Cosgrove, A., 2003, Martial Arts

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it’s honest to reproduce someone else’s ‘steps to program design’ uncredited, unreferenced and without permission, with the ‘author’ claiming copyright. For example:

1. Determine goals
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

1. Determine Goal(s)
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

3. Determine length of program
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

2. Determine the time frame to achieve goals or the length of the training cycle
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

4. Select appropriate method of periodization
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

3. Choose a suitable periodization model
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

5. Determine appropriate rate of change of program
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

4. Determine rate of change of program
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

8. Determine frequency ie. number of training days per week/microcycle
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

6. Determine the frequency of the workouts per week (how many training sessions?)
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

9. Select which training days
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

7. Determine the days of the week for training sessions
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

12. Determine priorities in muscle groups
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

9. Determine movement patterns to be training that will address the biggest weaknesses and prioritize.–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

15. Allocate muscle groups to training days
p. 13 under this step in HTW – If you were doing a total body workout that is the same for each of the 3 or so weekly workouts, you would only use column A. If you were working with a 3 day split routine where each day was different, you would use column A, B and C….
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

11. Allocate corrective stretching exercises and movement patterns to each training day (can use a split routine OR a single workout).
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible, Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

17. Determine proposed duration of program
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

12. Determine total training time per workout.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible, Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

21. Calculate total set time
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

13. Calculate available work time (total training time – warm up time- stretching etc)
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible, Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

22. Determine total number of sets permissible for each training session
This is calculated by dividing the proposed duration of the workout by the total time per set (which is TUT per set + rest period as calculated in Step 22 above)
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

14. Divide available work time by total time-under-tension + rest period for all prescribed sets (determined from periodization model). This will give you a number of allowable exercises.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible, Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

28. Select suitable exercises for each muscle group
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

15. Select the exercises for each movement pattern that is most appropriate for the client and most likely to assist you in accomplishing your objective.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible, Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

31. Determine sets, repetitions and rest periods for each exercise
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

5. Select appropriate set, rep, tempo and rest periods for each program within the cycle
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible, Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

32. Select speed of movement / technique for each exercise–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

5. Select appropriate set, rep, tempo and rest periods for each program within the cycle
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible, Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

35. Final analysis of program, including checking total volume and duration
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-

17. Check reps, time under tension, tempo, rest periods etc. after exercise selection for any modifications.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible, Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

In fact, put simply, I don’t believe it’s honest to knowingly reproduce other peoples works and claim that as your own copyright. If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

Nor do I believe it’s honest to lie, cheat and steal. Apparently your buddy and co-author does:

History suggests that breakaway organisations ultimately fall into the same trap that their original organisation did – take martial arts for example!” 1
—A. Cosgrove in personal communication to I King, 4 Dec 1999

I don’t invent anything – I just steal. My joke is I have never had an original idea in my life.
–Cosgrove, A., 2003, Assessment Seminar (DVD), Charles Staley Bootcamp

I steal from a lot of people.
–Cosgrove, A., 2003, Your body is a barbell (seminar on DVD)

Steal! Ok well, don’t “steal”. Just aggressively learn from everyone you can.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, Program Design Bible

From my viewpoint, physical training is an actual juggling of seven key areas. (I’ve completely stolen the names for these phases from several sources…)
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, 7 Keys to Athletic Success, t-mag.com, Sep 2006

A saying I stole from Ian King is…
–Cosgrove, A., 200?, Profile Alwyn Cosgrove – Martial Arts Strength Coach, cbathletics.com

Steal. Steal and modify. It’s not “cheating” to use the experiences of others to better yourself.
–Cosgrove, A., 2006, Developing a Training Philosophy, T-mag.com, Wed, Nov 22, 2006

If someone else got results faster than I did, I would copy them. I don’t have a religious attachment to my ideas. I’d steal their ideas.
— Cosgrove, A., 2009, ‘Straight Talk about the Fitness Biz, T-mag.com, Thu, Apr 02 2009

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I understand that you have your own definition of honest. I also understand that you work this definition in the broader cultural and industry boundaries, which appear in many ways to share you definition. But if it’s okay with you, I don’t share you definition of honesty – and if that make me the opposite, dishonest, I’m happy with that. I sleep well at night, irrespective of how long my fan list is or how many hits I get on my web site. As you have said, one of the many differences between us is that I’m a coach and you are a writer, I don’t need to garner public support and any specific perceptions from the masses to put food on my table.

If you can convince your loyal followers that you and your buddy are honest and have done no wrong and no copyright breaching has occurred – good luck to you. I’m pretty sure that when you reach the pearly gates (or what ever you define as your day of reckoning) your higher source is not going to be so gullible.

Calling me dishonest, Lou
Sure won’t make it right
But if you want
I’ll say a prayer
For your soul tonight

–Modified from John ‘Cougar’ Melloncamp’s song ‘Rain on the Scarecrow [I could have ‘omitted to reference it. Claimed copyright, and then if caught out by John, I could have said – ‘The printer forgot to include the page with the credit on it’…or ‘I thought I had the rights to it’. But to do that would not be honest. Or perhaps from your perspective, Lou, to give credit would be dishonest.]

Kids, I’m sorry
There less legacy for you now
Since some else decided
It’s okay to steal
Rain on the keyboard
Blood on the copyright
Ian King

Surely they can perform better than this!  

/by

Many years ago I met a gentleman at a NSCA trade show who owned a major equipment distribution company in the industry, and who had a booth at the trade show. He seemed a genuine person. So recently when I learnt his company was distributing my material – just without my name on it and without any revenues coming to me – I thought – surely they can perform better than this!

After all, isn’t that what a reasonable person would do? Surely they would be reasonable.

I said to my IP attorney ‘This deserves a personal approach. I am sure polite, personal and respectful communication can have these sales to cease and desist’.

So I emailed this gentleman. His response was that he didn’t remember me and that he didn’t know what I was talking about. You could expect that – after all he is a busy man. I understand that. So he referred me to one of his employees.

The employee was polite in his communication. He did remind me that they were after all just the distributors. Perhaps that was to infer they had no moral and or legal obligations? And the end result was – nothing.

And I said to myself – surely they can perform better than this!

So are we talking about difficult to see copyright breaches? Or just a few lines in breach?

Here are just a few of the offending sections. And before we go on, I want to stress – I simply included one example from a variety of different topics – in other words, just a sampling. It is unlikely you would have the attention span to review all the offending sections…..

FROM HOW TO WRITE STRENGTH TRAINING PROGRAMS (King, I., 1998)

However if this sequence shows throughout say a 12 week cycle or beyond, you risk developing muscle imbalances. To avoid this, I alternate or reverse the priorities. See this in Table 4. The key here is starting in a non-specific priority and slowly shifting towards specificity in order of priority.
–King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs (book), Exercise Selection, p. 25

If you continue to follow the exact same movement pattern split for long periods of time, you will very likely develop muscle imbalances and risk injury. To avoid this, alternate (i.e. do the exact opposite movement pattern) or reverse the priorities (i.e. the last movement pattern on the last day becomes the first movement pattern on the first day in the next phase.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 180-181; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 133

…all things being equal, and independent of any specificity demands, the selection of exercises should show balance throughout the body.
–King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs (book), Exercise Selection, p. 41

All things being equal, and independent of any specificity demands, the selection of exercises should show balance throughout the body…
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 66; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 107

Linear periodization : involves a linear progression in lowering reps and increasing load (representing the inverse relationship between volume and intensity).

… The benefits of this method include that it allows the trainee to develop load selection as a progression of reduced reps.

…The disadvantages includes that the early stages may cause a detraining in neural adaptation, and the later stages may cause a detraining in metabolic adaptations.
— King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs (book), p. 81

Linear Periodization: involves a linear progression in lowering reps and increasing load (representing the inverse relationship between volume and intensity).

…Advantages: allows the trainee to increase loading regularly and develop load selection as a progression of reduced reps, simply and effectively.

Disadvantages: may cause a detraining effect in neural adaptation in the early stages, and a detraining effect in metabolic adaptation in the later stages.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 172; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 116

4. Priority: This is what I suggest to be the most important and powerful guide in sequencing exercise – do first whatever is the priority of that phase – even if it does ‘break all the rules’.
— King, I., 1998, How to Write, p. 51

#8: Priority First
As a general rule – the most important qualities/movements to be trained should be trained in the freshest state. Allocate activities in a priority basis to different training days (e.g. number one and two priority need to be trained first on separate days ideally), regardless if this breaks any rules or ‘split’ that you have previously used.
–Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 13

I firmly believe that strength training program design has been historically influenced by anabolic steroids. If you accept the influence that bodybuilding, weightlifting and powerlifting have had on program design, and you understand the role drugs play in these sports, you gain a fuller appreciation of this influence.
— King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs (book), p. 141

…the anabolic steroid issue …It would be short-sighted of me to ignore the influence of these drugs on the sport of bodybuilding. If you understand the influence of bodybuilding on general fitness, and you understand the influence of drugs on competitive bodybuilding, hopefully you can see what I am getting at.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 22; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 28

35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program
9. Plan alternating muscle group allocation in subsequent phases to receive varied benefits.
–King, I., How to Write Strength Training Programs, p. 23

Eighteen Steps to Programming Success
18. Plan movement pattern allocation in subsequent phases to achieve varied emphasis and benefits.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible, p. 180

My next and final step is to divide all the above into unilateral and bilateral, and single and double/multi-joint exercises
–King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, p. 40

Exercises can be progressed as follows:
* Single joint to multiple joint
* Unilateral to bi-lateral.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible, p. 64; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 106

Time magnifies errors in training.
–King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs (book), p. 75

It’s important to recognize that time will magnify any and all errors in training.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible, p. 181

Variation may also give unexpected adaptations from repetitions. A trainee pursuing hypertrophy, after spending considerable time training in classic hypertrophy brackets (e.g. 8-12) may experience further significant hypertrophy when changing to a higher or lower rep bracket. Whilst this appears to contradict the above table, it shows that variety alone can accelerate gains. Note this applies in both strength (neural) and size (metabolic) training. The message is clear – irrespective of the specific goal, training in too narrow a rep bracket may not be as effective as alternating or mixing with different rep brackets. The key is not which reps to use, rather how much time to spend in each different rep bracket.
— King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Repetitions, p. 101

An interesting observation is as regards variety in rep selection. While periodization of training has been well documented, if your goal is just hypertrophy – would staying in the hypertrophy rep range be the best choice? Actually – no, a trainee seems to experience the best gains when using both higher and lower reps than the “goal” rep bracket. Basically the lower reps allow heavier weight to be used, so the athlete returns stronger when he or she returns to their original rep bracket. If we go higher – the athlete experiences a longer time under tension and therefore has more endurance when he or she returns to the original rep bracket. The underlying message is obvious – variety alone can accelerate your process and regardless of your goal, the main premise to understand is that it is not merely which rep brackets to use, but also how long to stay within each rep bracket.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 50; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 90

Number of Reps: Again whilst number of reps is a critical issue, it is limited as a measure of volume unless the majority of exercises involve similar metabolic cost
— King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Volume, p. 146

I think this [number of reps] is a flawed model as it makes the assumption that all reps are created equal and performed at the same speed.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 49; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 90

A repetition in strength training is one full cycle of the contraction modes involved.
— King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Volume, p. 99

A repetition….can be thought of as one full cycle of the contraction modes involved.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 48; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 89

The influence of training age on number of sets: a beginner is not likely to need any more than one to two sets per exercise to gain a training effect. It could be argued that the more advanced a trainee becomes, the more sets required. I believe this is true up to a point. There is a point in time where further increases in volume (no. of sets) will not benefit, and the search for further training effects should be limited to increases in intensity.
— King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Volume, p. 112

Training Age: a beginner to strength training is unlikely to need exposure to more than 1-2 sets of a given exercise….. And clearly the more advanced trainee needs greater volume, however this is only true up to a point. There is definitely a point of diminishing returns when it comes to total sets, and at this point further progress can only be made by increases in intensity.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 52; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 92-93

FROM GET BUFFED! (King, I., 1999)

Another less common criticism (one I used to get more so in the early 1990s) is that it is too complex and the movements should be ‘just done’. Yes, the system does need to be understood by the program writer (I suspect this to be the greatest challenge to these critics); and yes, it does need to be explained to the trainee. No, it doesn’t have to be executed with perfection – it is just a guideline (so don’t get out your metronome!)…
–King, I., Get Buffed (book), 1999, p. 65

It may appear over-complicated.…A common argument is ‘if I focus on maintaining a 321 speed then I can’t focus on just working hard’.…So the tempo system DOES need to be understood by the coaches and the trainee. Does it need to be executed with a metronome for absolute accuracy? No – it is just a useful guideline.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible, p. 57

The first set
The primary effect of the first work set is shock. The body, subject to the laws of homeostasis and innate protective mechanisms, rarely functions optimally during the first work set.
–King, I., Get Buffed (book), 1999, p. 53-55

…the first set of a workout tends to be a ‘shock’ to the body. The body rarely functions well during the first work set of an exercise.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 54; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 94

The second set
The second work set benefits from the first work set – in what can be described as ‘neural arousal’, or greater neuro-muscular innervation.
–King, I., Get Buffed (book), 1999, p. 53-55

The second set however tends to benefit from the first set in terms ofneural innvervation – the body is ‘awake’ now.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Design Bible, p. 54; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 94

The third and subsequent work sets
In a nut-shell, if you are lifting the same load for say three sets of ten, it is unlikely it was your maximum in set one.
–King, I., Get Buffed (book), 1999, p. 53-55

…In a nutshell if you are still able to lift the same load for three sets, it is likely that you have selected loads based on the facts you are doing three sets – i.e. you didn’t use your maximum load.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 54; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 94

In my opinion, it is difficult to do more than two sets at the same reps and load if the effort is maximal.
–King, I., Get Buffed (book), 1999, p. 53-55

In general, I rarely use more than two sets of the same exercise at the same load.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 54; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 94 (NB. In this rare situation, credit was given, but does provide right to copy text verbatim without appropriate referencing methods)

Australian biomechanist Greg Wilson did some great research in the 1990s in quantifying the role of the SSC. He found that if you do a conventional bench press with an eccentric or lowering phase that was about a second, it took a full four second pause in between the eccentric and concentric to completely eliminate the stretch shortening cycle, i.e. if you lower the bar and you rest it on top of your chest for a period of less than four seconds, you’re still getting an added boost from all the elastic energy.
–King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!, Chapter 12 – What speed of movement should I use?, p. 63

Research by Greg Wilson in 1991 showed that it took 4 seconds to dissipate the stretch shortening cycle in the bench press. In other words – you were still using momentum if the pause was any less than 4 seconds. All this tells us is that for pure muscle work – pausing makes it harder. For strength and speed work, we should exploit the stretch shortening cycle and have no pause.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 57; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 98

For those concerned about power (rate of force development), I don’t recommend using anything less than a fast or attempted-to-be-fast concentric contraction for some 80-90% of total training time.
–King, I., Get Buffed (book), 1999, p. 65

For anyone concerned with power or speed, anything less than an explosive (or an attempt to be explosive) is not recommended for the bulk of your training….
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible, p. 59

Single leg squat:
stand on 1 leg beside the squat rack or similar. Place the other leg out so that the heel stays just off the ground at all times. Bend the support knee and go down as far as you can whilst keeping your foot flat on the ground. 3 seconds down, no pause, controlled explosive up. Initially I suspect your range will be limited but as you get better at it over time, aim to increase range as well (and maybe even more importantly) as reps. Using your bodyweight only, I expect somewhere between 5-10 reps on day one, and look to use DB’s in one hand if you exceed 15 reps. If this is the case, I have to wonder what you were doing during the earlier part of the workout?! Use the squat rack to hold on to for balance if needed (and you probably will need to) but don’t get sucked into the temptation of using it to pull yourself up…
–King, I., Get Buffed (book), 1999, p. 203-204.

One leg squat:
Stand on 1 leg beside the squat rack or similar. Place the other leg out so that the heel stays just off the ground at all times. Bent the support knee and go down as far as you can whilst keeping your foot flat on the ground. 3 seconds down, no pause, controlled explosive up. Initially I suspect your range will be limited but as you get better at it over time, aim to increase range as well (and maybe even more importantly) as reps. Using your bodyweight only, expect somewhere between 5-10 reps on day one, and look to use DB’s in one hand if you exceed 15 reps. Use the squat rack to hold on to for balance if needed (and you probably will need to) but don’t get sucked into the temptation of using it to pull yourself up.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible, p. 83

But if you accept that sport science and sport historians have much in common, you wouldn’t be waiting for full confirmation.
— King, I., 1999, Get Buffed! (book), Ch 22 – Injury prevention, p. 109

Sports scientists have become sports training historians as the researchers tend to study what coaches are doing anyway.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 57; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 40

There is an incredible trend in strength training to do three sets of every exercises. More specifically, three (or more) sets at the same weight on the same exercise -most commonly, 3 sets of 10! Why is this? I’ve asked myself that question many times, and the only answer I come up with is the power of tradition.


You see, these magic numbers were ‘validated’ way back in the late ‘40’s and early ‘50’s by an American army surgeon by the name of De Lorme when he presented research evidence supporting the use of three sets of ten reps. All credit to the contribution De Lorme made to the science of training, but that was fifty years ago. Yet what do you see almost every time you look at a training program? 3 x 10 (or 15 or 12 or 8, or 6 etc.) ! What do you see every time you browse (I say browse, because invariably there’s nothing that warrants reading) through a mainstream bodybuilding magazine? 3 x 10!
— King, I., 1999, Get Buffed, p. 52

Despite the absolute limitless combinations of sets and reps that can be performed – three sets of ten remains the single most common set and rep scheme. In the late 1940’s Thomas DeLorme and his Boston team of orthopaedic surgeons were experiencing difficulties rehabilitating World War II Veterans, so they tried a radically new medical approach: Strength training.


Known as the DeLorme-Watkins protocol, the program consisted of one ste of ten reps at 50% of your ten rep max, one set at 75% and one set at 100%. That was it. That was where the industry standard came from. And here we are over sixty years later and this is still the primary set-rep scheme that most trainers are using. In sixty years have we not learned anything.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 36; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 39

Most train hard and long, and with high frequency. Unless one is supported by a incredibly higher recovery system (natural or chemically enhanced), this approach will result in over-training and non-achievement of goals.


… I have very firm beliefs on this topic. Volume and intensity are inversely related. When one is up, the other is forced down. You cannot do a high volume workout (i.e. a high number of sets) and have as high an intensity as you would have with a lower number of sets. Many kid themselves on this, but you cannot avoid reality.
–King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!, p. 33

…but you cannot train hard and long. I agree with this statement.Volume and intensity are inversely related. When one is up, the other is down. Most trainers, quite honestly, seem unaware of this simple concept, or are perhaps in denial as regards this, but it is an irrefutable fact.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 51; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 92

FROM THE FOUNDATIONS OF PHSYICAL PREPARATION (King, I., 1999/2000)

The principle of recovery recognizes that the training effect is not simply a result of training alone, but occurs from a combination of training and the subsequent recovery from training.
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation, Ch 2 – Principles of Training, p. 34.

The principle of recovery and regeneration recognizes that training alone does won’t produce any results. You don’t actually improve as a result of training – you improve as a result of recovering FROM training.
–Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p.43

The principle of specificity suggests that your adaptation to training will be very specific to the nature of the training you are doing. For example if you are doing a number of long, slow jogs per week, your physical capacity to do that specific activity may be enhanced. An acronym that appears to have lost popularity but is quite illustrative of this point is the SAID Principle – specific adaptations to imposed demands.
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation, Ch 2 – Principles of Training, p. 35

Specificity
Also known as the SAID principle, which is an acronym for ‘specific adaptation to imposed demand’. This principles suggests that the body adapts to the specific demands placed on it. For example, long slow running will enhance your ability to run long and slow, but is unlikely to enhance your ability to bench press maximal weight. Training programs need to reflect the specific goal that we are trying to achieve.
–Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p.43

Opposite and equal effect
The concept is based on the belief that to every action (in training) there is a positive and a negative outcome, and that often the negative outcome is equal or as powerful as the positive outcome.

… Lets use swimming for example. Most swimming strokes involve repetitive internal rotation of the upper arm. Consequently the internal rotators of the arm/shoulder become shorter and tighter than the external rotators….

The strong message in the equal and opposite effect concept is that every single training method will have a negative effect – and must be countered. This is why ultimately it is not a question of which is the best training method – rather a matter of using a wide range of methods…
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation, Ch 2 – Principles of Training, p. 30-31

Equal and Opposite Effect
…This means that in training, there is both a positive and negative outcome to any method used, and that the negative outcome is as equal as the positive one.

…..For example a bench press is a fantastic upper body strength exercise – but when overused it can cause the upper pecs, shoulder and the internal rotators of the arm/shoulder to become shorter and tighter than the external rotators…

…The underlying message of this principle is that every single training method that create a positive change, carries with it an equal negative effect, which must be addressed. As a result, you can see that there cannot be any perfect program – as every program by the nature of this principle will have a negative outcome also.
–Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p.43 (NB. In this rare situation, credit was given, but does provide right to copy text verbatim without appropriate referencing methods)

FROM HOW TO TEACH STRENGTH TRAINING EXERCISES (King, I., 2000)

Slow side raises on Ground:
Lay on your back, knee bent to about 90 degrees, and knees together. Roll the knees over together so that they are on the ground, with the shoulders and upper back still parallel to the ground. Now flex the trunk, basically up towards the roof or sky. I like to have the fingers lightly touching the front of the head, elbow out at 45 degrees from the body, and arm/elbow angle not changing during the lift. The placement of the hands will alter the level of difficulty. The further the hands are above the head, the harder the movement.
— King, I., 2000, How to Teach Strength Training Programs, p. 62

Side raises on Ground:
Lie on your back, knees bent to about 90 degrees and knees together. Roll the knees over together so that they are on the ground with the shoulders and upper back still parallel. Now flex the trunk, basically up towards the roof or sky. I like to have the fingers lightly touching the front of the head, elbow out at 45 degrees from the body, and arm/elbow angle not changing during the lift. The placement of the hands will alter the level of difficulty. The further the hands are above the head, the harder the movement.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 161; Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible, p. 161

DB Bench Press :
• lay on your back (supine) on a bench
• dumbbells in each hand
• have the dumbbells facing palm down towards the feet
• now push the dumbbells straight up until the arms are fully extended
• have the dumbbells nearly touching in this top position
• lower down fully to the starting position
— King, I., 2000, How to Teach Strength Training Programs, p. 144

Incline DB Press:
Lie on your back on an Incline bench, with a DB in each hand, palms facing forward towards the feet. Push the dumbbells straight up until the arms are fully extended – have the DB’s nearly touching in this top position. Lower down fully to the start position.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible, p. 127

FROM ASK THE MASTER (King., I., 2003)

Designing a prioritization program is a real art that few have mastered.…in essence all programs have an imbalance or a prioritization. This come from the sequence of exercises within the workout and week, the allocation of volume, the relative use ofintensity, the comparative selection of exercise categories and so on.
–King, I., Ask the Master (book), 2003, Program Design – Strength Training, p. 143

Programs can be prioritized by volume of movement (number of sets and reps), sequence of movement (in the workout, in the week and in the program), and loading of movement (amount of weight involved).
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 66; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 107

FROM THE WAY OF THE PHYSICAL PREPARATION COACH (King, I., 2005)

Less is more.
This training principle extends from the above, and reinforces that in many cases, you will get a better training effect from doing a smaller amount of training. That is, that you will get more results when you do less training.
— King, I., 2005, The Way of the Physical Preparation Coach, Ch 2 – Training Theory, p. 5

#5: Less is more
Training hard does not necessarily equal more return. Performing more challenging exercises does not mean faster results….Select the LEAST challenging variation for the client – that’s where the best return on investment is going to be….Keep it simple. Less is more.”
–Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, 2nd Ed., p. 12

CONCLUSION

I can only conclude that the moral compass of this company defines the sale of publications containing extensive copyright breaches as acceptable.

How does this serve the greater good of the industry? I can understand it helps their bottom line. Is this a case of profit before integrity?

Surely they can perform better than this?

Ian King

What is the future of an industry that condones this type of behavior?  

/by

In 1998 and 2000 I published the How to Write and How to Teach books. I then took some of the How to Write content and made it more user-friendly for the end user in Get Buffed! 1999.

Most appreciated the contribution I made through these writings. They were based on my experiences and conclusions from being in the industry for the prior 2 decades, training athletes at the elite level in over 20 different sports in over 10 different countries; and my personal training experiences from the prior 4 decades, inlcuding competing in a variety of sports.

You can imagine the shock when I found extensive portions of my original works published in a variety of publications by the same author.

It’s been a learning experience as to what certain individuals are prepared to do to gain short term personal advancement. I had never expected to see this type of behavior in the physical preparation industry. I understand there are many and varied moral values in the world and that the prisons around the world are full of people who make decisions that led to their incarceration. Perhaps it was naivety, perhaps a believe and trust in the goodness within people, but for some reason I just didn’t expect to witness such extensive criminal behavior in relation to intellectual property in our industry.

The learning hasn’t stopped there either. There has been many lessons about what so called ‘professionals’ who seek to be ‘industry leaders’ are willing to do actively or by omission to support this behavior. Again, perhaps I was naive, in thinking that those who seek to be role models would not support these criminal acts.

I understand the readership and the followers of those who choose to flaunt copyright law may have varied value systems – until or unless it was their car being stolen or their home being broken into and items stolen. I suggest that they may at that time get a sudden case of morality and claim at least temporarily it’s not right that their possessions be stolen.

Another lesson has been about how organizations – both profit and non-profit – react to these revelations. Again, perhaps naively, I assumed that any organization seeking to position themselves as pillars of the physical preparation industry would distance themselves immediately from this criminal behavior. And certainly any organization seeking to be industry regulators would enact their clearly worded Ethics guidelines and negatively reinforce this behavior.

However the values highlighted by ‘Gordon Gecko’ in the 1987 movie ‘Wall Street’ and by former US President Bill Clinton in 1998 during ‘Lewinskygate’ appear to be inherent in US domestic physical preparation. Values such as: If it’s oral it’s not immoral (I did not have sexual relations with that women). It’s okay to lie if ‘no-one gets hurt’. Its only wrong if you get caught. Or, according to one industry regulating organization – its only an ethics violation if a person is convicted.

Which leaves me asking some big questions – What is the future of an industry that condones this type of behavior? Who is being served by the endorsement of this deceit? How does this serve the greatest good of those who have invested unknowingly in this kind of behavior (in part because of those endorse the individuals/ and who knew better, looked the other way), and who made their investment in the hope that they will be led to a better place personally, financially and professionally? Is the global social and economic environment one that will support this supposedly-left-in-the-1980s mentality that greed is good and there are no moral limits in commercial enterprise?

This is just one example….The Bullshitter’s Program Design Bible 1st Ed: http://bit.ly/9A1OFt

“It’s like lip-synching to someone else’s voice and accepting the applause and rewards for yourself”

–Dummer, G. M., & Douglas, M. M. (September, 2008). Plagiarism. Paper presented at Responsible Conduct of Research Workshop, Michigan State University Graduate School, East Lansing, MI.

Ian King

Myth – Falsehood (n.), Fiction, Illusion, Invention, Fabrication, Untruth  

/by

Someone sent me a file and said ‘Look at this’. So I did. It was a program, free to anyone to download who visited this particular web site. It was allegedly a program written by the ‘author’ for ‘an international rugby team’. And I nearly fell out of my chair….

You see over the last 30 odd years I have written more programs for athletes than most could dream about. Literally thousands. One of my rules – personally, professionally and in my company – is that the programs written for a client/athlete remain confidential. Any programs I publish were generic programs written for that situation only.

So why was I completely shocked when I opened this file that a concerned person had forwarded to me? Because this ‘free downloadable’ program was EXACTLY the same program that my company had provided one of our clients some years ago. How the f#%k did it get to being given away? How was it that the confidentiality of my company’s client was being compromised?!

This downloand was WORD PERFECT! IT WAS LAYOUT IDENTICAL! I personally did the layout so I know the origin. AND WHEN I LAYED THE ORIGINAL BESIDE THIS ‘AUTHORS’ PROGRAM – ALL THAT HAD BEEN DONE TO CHANGE IT WAS ….NOTHING!!! Hold it – I found ONE change – the word ‘King’ in relation to ‘King Deadlift’ had been replaced with the words ‘Single Leg’.

So 50% of that clients program was included in this ‘give away’. Now it all came back to me – how this breach of confidentiality and breach of KSI copyright could have happened – but I still could not believe it – who would do that? What kind of integrity deficit behaviour is this? I still shake my head to this day….

But it wasn’t over….

Someone else sent me an ‘ebook’ by another ‘author’. I opened it up and…..holy f&$k!! It’s the SAME PROGRAM – AGAIN! This time it was 100% of this program – a confidential, proprietary document, now being sold by the ‘author’…..

By now I didn’t bother sitting on the chair – because I kept falling off it in shock…
I read….

I’ve designed this program around a typical client, looking to get in shape, with limited time, resources and equipment. …

What a load of f%$#&)g bullshit!!  What kind of person would do this?!

Not only do we have the issues of selling/giving away proprietary information the property of another person/company, and the confidentiality issues that have been breached in relation to the clients rights – we also statements grossly misleading statements like this.

The greatest effort that appeared to occur prior to the publising of this document, containing 100% of the program, was on this occasion it appeared the font had been changed….

There were a few other minor modifications – and I mean minor.

I believe that I may spend the rest of my life wondering what it takes for any person to stoop this low.

In naming this product, I ran the word ‘Myth’ through the
Thesaurus, and it listed the following:

Falsehood (n.)

Fiction

Illusion

Invention

Fabrication

Untruth

And I said – that’s about it!

So…You may have heard of the ‘Secret’ DVD, released in the personal development world to much acclaim. This series will expose you to some ‘other’ secrets that will give you a life lesson and insight that could positively shape how you choose to further your professional development.
The ‘Secrets Series’ is a body of works for the consummate professional who is committed to fully appreciating the impact of published works that are based on experiences and conclusions that are not the authors, and understanding the history of conceptual development.

In the Barbells & Bullshit series Ian King teaches how we all decide, consciously or unconsciously, to reason, act and receive based only on our own experiences and conclusions, or to be a collection of the thoughts of others through intentionally or otherwise accepting their influence.

These selected works analyzed in this Series serve to ram home the extent to which people are satisfied to be and teach a collection of others peoples ideas, a dilution of the intent of the original author.
Once you fully appreciate the extent to which this occurs in your industry, it is expected that you will be shocked into being more analytical about the influences you are being exposed to, and the source of all material that is promoted in your intellectual space.

This series provides you with massive lessons in integrity (or lack of) and how you can so easily be caught up in learning second hand, diluted versions of an original message. The marketing and commercial interests of the author and publisher are pitted against the good of the buyer, a battle occurring that many consumers of informal education in this industry are blissfully ignorant of. This ignorance and blind faith in the integrity of others has potential price to pay by misleading the consumer, and by presenting a model of integrity that has dubious value for all within the industry and the broader community.

A true teacher of the art of practical application can seek only to teach what they have mastered. This approach is recommended to anyone serious at being the best they can be in the physical preparation industry.

The titles currently available in this series include:

Vol 1 – The Code to the Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible (1st Edition)
Vol 2 – The Code to the Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible (2nd Edition)

And now….

Vol 3 – The Marcocycle Myth
Subsequent volumes will be released in the immediate future.

Learn more at http://www.kingsports.net/products-ksi-manuals-secrets.htm

Order here http://www.kingsports.net/SearchResult.aspx?CategoryID=34

Ian King

A great lesson from a unique athlete

/by

I just learnt the Australian silver medalist in the moguls skiing event at the to 2010 winter olympics is a self made multi millionaire. Apparently he has been for the past 7 or 8 years!

I don’t know the details of his wealth nor am I interested in what the general media’s opinions are. In this example, my learning comes from ‘picking the fruits instead of studying the roots’ as Jim Rohn taught.

From my understanding, here is a person, with all the choice in life he needs. He chooses to be an athlete, and a very successful one, requires no funding or sponsorship, does things on his own terms and compete’s because he just wants too. A nice place to be for an athlete, or for anyone in life!

My question is, why don’t more athletes and coaches develop at least one additional leveraged income stream on a very casual or even part time basis, during the competitive years or most productive coaching years, that continues to work even when they don’t?

What impact might building a leveraged or passive income stream have on your performace as an athlete or coach?

Come the athlete’s retirement or the coach wanting a break/retire from coaching, it would be nice to have leveraged or passive income there to live on and give you choice in your life. How would this make you feel? What would you do if you didn’t have to work? What you’re doing now? Interesting questions….

I trust you’re not letting your busy-ness or ego get in the way of your truth in this life time