Ian King

Inspiring a new generation of coaches to think for themselves  

/by

Inspiring a new generation of coaches to think for themselves (And reference the source in a way that was selectively forgotten during the first decade of the 21st century….)

 

I recently received a message from a reader, and it went like this:

Hi Ian, I have written an article based on the interview that you did with John Meadows and Shelby Starnes about stretching. It summarizes the things you talked about and I give my on take on parts of it. I just want to thank you for bringing this to my attention as its not something I had ever previously considered in my training, but now I do.

I hope I’ve translated the messages correctly. My article’s name is ‘Stretching is King’ I’m a primary school teacher and I’ve hopes of one day moving my learning on strength and conditioning education into the real world. I’ve trained for over 10 years myself and helped to coach friends during this time but as you say, and as I know from my current job, ‘learning is doing’ and in some capacity, whilst rearing two children and holding down other obligations, this is my passion, education and teaching. I’ve done my best to read and watch everything you’ve done so far, and the honesty of your information is what is different to those who attach it to a sales or marketing ploy and it is tangible the passion you have. Thanks.

Part 1 https://da-dk.facebook.com/536020846487579/photos/pb.536020846487579.-2207520000.1395985026./553231818099815/?type=1

Part 2 https://m.facebook.com/536020846487579/photos/a.546284098794587.1073741829.536020846487579/557198894369774/?type=1&refid=17

It’s great to see a new generation of coaches and teachers being exposed to the possibilities of the human body, rather than the dominant dogma of any given era. And to return to a higher level of integrity where writers accurately and honestly reflect the source of their information. This is encouraging and exciting for the future, even if only for those who are positively impacted by individuals such as this!

Ian King

Ian King

Before you apply the stimulus – in each and every decision in training

/by

I recently visited the dentist for work on my teeth. At a point in the surgery, under a local anaesthetic, I began coughing and was aware of a sensation affecting first my head, then my whole body. I realized that the dentist had just inserted a compound in my teeth, and I intuitively felt I was reacting negatively to this compound. I was quicker to reach this conclusion due to the work I done over the years refining my reading of intuitive feelings.

I immediately raised this possibility with the dentist, to which he assured me was not possible because the compound was a naturally occurring substance. At the end the treatment my symptoms had not abated, and I raised this possibility that my body was reacting negatively once again. I raised this again for a third time in the waiting room post the treatment, whilst paying for the service. On all three occasions I was told it can’t be, and given the same reasons – it was a natural substance and no-one has eve reacted poorly to it.

Within hours I was totally incapacitated in bed, unable to work, struggling to function. By the end of the day I was back at the dental surgery, asking them to remove the substance, which they did. Almost immediately the acute symptoms lifted, with the residual effects affecting me for the next day or so. In the western world approach to medicine, dentistry and related fields there is no provision for assessing the potential impacts of a treatment before applying it. And feedback such as what I provided is typically disregarded.

These professions, at least as measured by the history of professional education, are far older than physical preparation, therefore I should have no surprise that in physical preparation professional development there is also no provision for seeking guidance in any format about the potential impact of any given training stimulus before it is applied. The ability to do so is virtually unheard of, and those who professional and commercial values would be at risk of being devalued if the masses were to rapidly accept the possibility that it could be done are not about to allow this approach to be promoted and endorsed.

At every level of program design and training application in the training process there is the need and opportunity to do exactly this – gain rapid information to guide each and every decision about what may be the potential impact of applying any given stimulus. This is something we teach to the coaches in the KSI Coaching Program. It can be done, we believe should be done, and we do it. Keeping in mind my belief that strength training has the most powerful ability to change the structure and function of the body per unit time than any other of the physical quality trainings, you may appreciate my concern of how strength training exercises, methods and other loading parameters are applied in the complete absence of any of these predeterminations.

Essentially, within weeks, a human’s life can be changed forever for the better or worse – and I suggest for the overwhelming majority of time for the worse. I believe that few who make and influence these training decisions have any real world insights into the long-term adaptations that result from the stimulus they are blindly applying.

This is not good enough. It is not optimal. The fact that this non-discerning approach re potential impacts of training on the body short, medium and long term) is ignored by the masses is not cause to continue down this path. It is, for me, cause for massive concern and motive to change, to learn how to do it better.

Ian King

Coach King, What do you think of CrossFit?  

/by

I recently received another request to share my thoughts about cross-fit.

“As someone who I look up to a greatly respect in the area of physical training, I am interested what your thoughts are on CrossFit as an effective training program?”

Before I responded in full asked “Tell me what you think about CrossFit.” I value the market research that consumer comments provide. The writer kindly responded in full and I will share his response in the below.

Firstly I would like to establish commonality in grounds for discussion. In any meaningful dialogue I believe it’s important that meanings are clarified and defined.

To this end, CrossFit is simply a word, or a mixing of two words. So in itself, CrossFit has no more meaning than the meaning a person attaches to it. For most people, the meaning will be shaped by their experiences or perception of what this word (or two words) stands for.

According to Wikipedia, CrossFit is:

CrossFit is a strength and conditioning program with the aim of improving, among other things, cardiovascular/respiratory endurance, stamina, strength, flexibility, power, speed, coordination, agility, balance, and accuracy. It advocates a perpetually varied mix of aerobic exercise, gymnastics (body weight exercises), and Olympic weight lifting.

This source provides further clarification with:

CrossFit Inc. describes its strength and conditioning program as “constantly varied functional movements executed at high intensity across broad modal and time domains with the stated goal of improving fitness, which it defines as “work capacity across broad time and modal domains.” Hour-long classes at affiliated gyms, or “boxes”, typically include a warm-up, a skill development segment, the high-intensity “workout of the day” (or WOD), and a period of individual or group stretching. Some boxes also often have a strength focused movement prior to the WOD. Performance on each WOD is often scored and/or ranked to encourage competition and to track individual progress. Some affiliates offer additional classes, such as Olympic weightlifting, which are not centered around a WOD. (1)

Acknowledge success

Before I go any further I also want to acknowledge the success of CrossFit as measured by financial value and growth.

To his credit from a financial and organizational perspective, the founder of CrossFit Inc, founder Greg Glassman, has been able to retain control over his training concepts. In contrast, I have watched my original training concepts and methods be published extensively by various ‘authors’ without reference or credit. Take the ‘Functional Training Movement’ for example – if you took my concepts out of the books written by one of the more prolific authors in this sector, the book would fall over. Interesting when you consider this same person orchestrated a mass walkout of one of my seminar in 1999 on the basis of how terrible the content was, only to turn around and republish all the content during the next decade in complete absence of crediting or acknowledgement. So kudos to Greg. He had the business acumen I lacked in the 1990s. He has managed to date to avoid the damage caused by those who adhere to the ‘New Rules’ of publishing in strength training.

The value of CrossFit is reflected in the reported $16 million CrossFit Inc paid his ex-wife for her share in the company.

In relation to growth, since its inception in 2000, the number of affiliated gyms globally is quoted at 9,000 or more. Glassman commercial approach deserves recognition.

Drivers

So what has driven CrossFit? I identify two main drivers of any new trend or movement (apparently it is now a ‘sport’ also). Firstly, the demand from consumers is based on the ‘new’ paradigm solving a problem that was not being solved by their prior solutions. The second driver is marketing forces, driven by commercial interests.

The growth and relatively longevity of the CrossFit movement or trend suggests that it is providing solutions to the unresolved needs of many people. I will leave exactly how to social researchers, however I suspect it may be the attraction of group training combined with the feeling of working hard, meeting the masses perception of what training should feel like.

The involvement of a large fitness industry company in Reebok, who around 2010 entered into a ten year agreement with CrossFit, suggests commercial marketing motivation to contribute to growing the trend. The impact in prize money alone compares a $25,000 total prize money in CrossFit Games 2010 to $1,000,000 in 2011. (2)

It is now in the interests of Reebok to drive this vehicle commercially.

The success to date of CrossFit is undeniable. More evidence of this is the number of my ‘colleagues’ who have become overnight experts on CrossFit, allowing them to jump on it’s band wagon of success.

Now let’s get more specific about CrossFit as a training method.

Opposite and Equal

The attraction of CrossFit to commerce and consumer has been established. So what is it actually going to create in terms of long and short term training effects?

A valuable insight into the potential short term impact of CrossFit as a training method is provided in the response I received from the person who raised the question about CrossFit with me. They wrote:

“Well, I have been involved in CrossFit for about 16 months and found it to be very effective in developing all aspects of fitness. I became leaner, increased my endurance, flexibility, co-ordination, power, speed and strength.”

As CrossFit rises in popularity the amount of what I call short term research conducted on CrossFit (1) will increase. Here’s an example:

A 2010 U.S. Army study conducted during a 6-week period produced an average power output increase of 20% among participants, measured by benchmark WODs. The average one repetition maximum weight deadlift increased by 21.11%. (3)

My attitude is you can wait for the studies but you don’t have to. You can reach conclusions earlier and benefit. Additionally, most studies will be short-term in nature. What may be lacking is a fuller understanding of the long-term impacts of participation in CrossFit.

To help answer that question, there’s a concept that is extremely relevant – the opposite and equal concept. It’s an original concept I released in 1999:

This is a very interesting principle, a concept that I have created. One that upon mastering will assist you to avoid negative outcomes from training. 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. (4)

Strengths

The strengths of CrossFit are easy to identify. It has attracted a large and enthusiastic following in a short period of time. To achieve this it must be providing a solution that its participants had not been able to find previously.

Additionally once any belief or movement or trend reaches a percentage of market saturation it experiences a degree of self-perpetuating increase. Behavioural scientists suggest that in the same time it takes a new idea to reach 10% of the market, it shoots to 90%. So however long it takes for 10% of the market to accept and join in with an idea, it can advance another 80% in market participation in the same time.

I suggest CrossFit has or is reaching this tipping point.

From what I can see and hear, its participants enjoy the group motivation and the experience of pushing themselves. To this extent CrossFit has achieved a phenomenal job in creating this ‘community’ atmosphere.

Along with this level of physical effort come physical adaptations, including the ones listed by the person who wrote in with the question – effective in developing all aspects of fitness. They became leaner, increased their endurance, flexibility, co-ordination, power, speed and strength.

I would like to place this in context:

• I still call this a short or medium term result, not a long term result.
• I am not making any comment in this article about the effectiveness of CrossFit to transfer to any specific event or sport other than general fitness adaptations and participation in the ‘sport’ of CrossFit itself. The discussion of merits of CrossFit for specific occupational and or sporting outcomes is outside the context of this article, although very deserving of focus in an article dedicated to this topic.

Another strength of CrossFit is that it embraces a wide range of exercises, many of them with excellent theoretical benefits. In fact you could attribute any rise in participation numbers in strength sports (Olympic Weightlifting, powerlifting) to CrossFit.

Additionally, the characteristic of CrossFit to provide frequent variety in exercise programs may be attractive to many who require this to keep the motivation to train.

Now as my opposite and equal concepts suggests, there is an equally powerful downside to CrossFit that need to be considered.

Even the writer of the question that promoted this response recognized this, to their credit:

“There are a lot of things I like about CrossFit, however, I do understand that there are negatives as well.”

Weaknesses

Most of my initial concerns for CrossFit participants revolve around injury potential. I was not surprised when the question writer shared the below:

“Recently I suffered an injury at training, and while it did not occur doing a typical CrossFit exercise, I wonder if the training I have been performing over the past 16 months may have contributed to it. I was in a group fitness class and was asked to perform single-leg bounding over a short distance (around 15-20 meters). This was early in the morning, and there was dew on the grass. Upon landing, my right foot slipped forwards. There was a loud noise and a sharp pain in my knee. I found out later that I had a proximal rupture of the patella tendon. Not a common injury, as you are probably aware, and I was told that it is quite likely I had a pre-disposing weakness in the tendon. I have had a bit of a history if chondromalacia patella, which I had been managing, but no real issues with the knee besides that.”

1 Individualization: The concept of individualization has been a long-touted one in the physical training industry. It makes most text books. I describe this principle of training as:

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 – speed, strength, endurance, flexibility and so on. (5)

In group exercise, the ability to individualize training is negated, which includes CrossFit.

Now rather than single out CrossFit for this flaw, I suggest that unlike say technology in general, I have seen no advancement at all in over three decades of industry involvement in the ability of fitness ‘professionals’ to individualize training.

There are a number of reasons I propose for this incredible limitation in this industry:

• The focus on research for justification of training protocols – it is difficult if not impossible to find a research study on your specific client giving you answers to stimuli (the training program) that has not been applied yet.
• The complete absence of teaching of the art of training, as opposed to the science of training.
• The willingness of what I certain inexperienced and incompetent individuals to position themselves as ‘experts’, write books and give seminars on how to train people. The people I refer to are very good networkers, very good marketers, will to deceive to create false perceptions of their guru-ness, yet have never coached or trained people to any level of success. In other words they are incompetent yet teaching. An excellent saying I learnt from John C. Maxwell is this:

You teach what you know but you reproduce what you are.

Therefore what they say and write about sounds great, but all that is developed in their paying audience is more of their incompetence, and no advancement occurs in average professional competencies. Unless you believe the ability to market through misleading content is an advancement – you can read more about this in my book ‘Barbells & Bullshit’ (6).

Therefore a person going to see a ‘personal trainer’ is unlikely to receive any more individualization in training than they would if they participated in group training.

2 Level of difficulty in exercise: A CrossFit class can contain a diverse range of exercises including many classics such as Olympic and power lifts. This is great in theory – total body, dynamic exercises etc. However from a finer point of view these exercises can be classed as higher level of difficulty which is associated with higher levels of risk for those whose bodies are or may never be ready for them.

In my 1998 book ‘How to Write Strength Training Programs’ (7) I provide the following guidelines for exercise selection:

Exercise selection in strength training refers to which exercise to use. Exercise selection is often presented as a difficult or confusing task, but the following should simplify this aspect of writing programs. When choosing exercises consider the following:

1. Training method.
2. Exercise suitability.
3. Specificity.
4. Injury history/prevention needs.
5. Training history.
6. Current physical status.
7. Strengths and weaknesses.
8. Level of supervision.
9. Balance. (7)

If you have multiple individuals in the class, it is in my opinion totally improbable that advanced exercises are suitable to them all.

3 Unfamiliar exercises: CrossFit characteristically provides high levels of variety in exercise. This alone could provides a discussion of the merits of this strategy as to the whether it is optimal to train with exploitation of the variety variable, however that is a discussion again beyond the level of this article.

What I will focus on is the impact of conducting a relatively unfamiliar exercise (that is you may not have done it for a few weeks). From a muscle perspective, this ‘shock’ can provide the delayed muscles soreness that some seek to validate their training. In other words, it can feel good. My concern is that loading a relatively new exercise is not necessary or wise for the majority of people the majority of the time.

In sharing my progressive loading models in my Get Buffed! books, I wrote:

In brief, I suggest that the first week of any new training cycle be treated as an ‘exposure week’, not a maximum effort week. What is often overlooked is the adaptation that results simply from the exposure – not only is a maximum effort unnecessary, it may also be counterproductive! Additionally, this sub-maximal approach in the first week allows for greater focus on technique. (8)

4 Extreme loading and technical breakdown: CrossFit is also characterized by high intensity of effort and high loading. In essence, there is a risk most participants are exceeding their technical limit most of the time.

I call this your technical limit – the loading limit before you lose the technical model you have chosen. This is a pretty redundant concept to most in the gym and they have no technical model – they just lift. Now this is great for some competitive lifters, who success is determined simply by whether the load goes from Point A to Point B within minimum guidelines. But if you want to selectively recruit specific muscles for sport performance or aseptic reasons – get a technical model. (9)

I have been discouraging this approach for a number of decades. I published the below nearly 25 years ago:

All individuals will have a ‘technique limit’ in weight selection at any given time on each exercise. The training effect will increase the limit progressively. Utilisation of loads in excess of that technique limit will result in technique breakdown and should be discouraged. (10)

The greatest concern as it relates to CrossFit participants is the injury risk:

In the case where loading exceeds technical ability, injury potential is increased, athlete’s career lengths are reduced, life-time quality of life is reduced, and transfer is reduced. (11)

5 High volumes: CrossFit is also characterized by high volume, although I appreciate this relative nature of this comment. To place it in context, I share my definition of relative volume as measured in number of sets.

Generally speaking, any number of work sets exceeding a total of 12 for the workout (yes, that right, 12 sets for the total workout, not per muscle group!) should only be contemplated by those with optimal lifestyles and recovery conditions. If you have a day job and/or consider your recovery average, this rules you out. (12)

Now in fairness the above describes conventional set, rest strength training. In relation to circuit training, I allow a higher number of sets. In my Guidelines for optimal number of sets per training session for each generalized training method (13) I provide up to 30 sets allowance, however this is on the basis of lower intensity sets.

The risks of high volume work are the reduced ability to recovery, and the increased injury risk associated with training under residual fatigue. I believe injuries resulting from progressive build up of residual fatigue are the ones least likely to be correctly related to their cause.

The battle against ineffective, inefficient and injury creating high volume training will never be over. (14)

6 Imbalances in the training program: In 1998 I released for the first time my concept of ‘Lines of Movement’:

That’s a concept I am sure you have never heard before because this is the first time I have really spoken about it. (15)

Now I am going to show you how I break the muscle groups up: (16)

Lower body:
Quad dominant
Hip dominant

Upper body:
Horizontal plane push
Horizontal plane pull
Vertical plane push
Vertical plane pull

I taught this with the intent of helping the world of strength training reduce their injuries from muscle imbalances. This intent has not been overly successful, in part I suggest because the concept was hijacked by the industry leading plagiarists who really didn’t understand it and therefore could not possibly teach it in with the impact of its intention.

From my generalized understanding CrossFit, there are potential program design imbalances e.g. more exposure to quad dominant exercises than hip dominant exercises, resulting in injury potential. This point was not lost on the question writer:

“My thoughts are that CrossFit did contribute to my injury due to the large volume of jumping, squatting and running. I would love to know your thoughts on this as well.”

7 Time magnifies error: I released a saying in 1998 –

Time magnifies errors in training (17).

All the above concerns will be magnified over time. Considering the extreme nature – volume, intensity, and exercise selection – I suggest you can expect some significant physical complications the longer one participates in activities such as CrossFit. There are many physical therapists and chiropractors who echo this sentiment. Additionally, I am very familiar with the impact on the body of those who participate occupationally in such training environments, especially the Special Forces military personnel.

Summary

The points I raise above in my concerns were well summarized by the question writer whose question stimulated this article:

“…I do understand that there are negatives as well. The focus of the WODS is to perform a given amount of reps in as little time as possible, or to perform as many reps as possible in a given time limit. This can lead to a breakdown in form and potential injury. The volume of training also seems to be quite high and could lead to overtraining and overuse injuries if not properly managed. There is also no individualization in the training program. Though some coaches are quite good at pointing out what you need to work on and many clients will use “open box” time to work on these.”

In summary, when (not if) a person comes to me and tells me of their injuries whilst participating in CrossFit, I initially ask if they plan to continue in CrossFit. If they do, I tell them I cannot help them. I have a saying that you cannot successfully solve an injury problem in the same environment that it was created in (18) and this is more applicable in any training environment that magnifies its flaws, as I suggest CrossFit does.

Conclusion

In conclusion I have been impressed with the magnitude and success of the CrossFit movement, and I am delighted to see the achievement of Greg Glassman in maintaining control of his intellectual property. There are many ways to achieve fulfilment in exercise and participation is CrossFit is an option. The power that Glassman and CrossFit have is their ability to refine and adapt their training protocols to deal with any recognition of the injury potential associated. Whether they do is unknown and their prerogative. Perhaps the masses are happy to take the injury risks in return for what their culture and environment offers.

As to you as an individual making this decision, it is yours to make. For me the body the only one we have for life, and should be treated with the utmost respect and care. I have worked with many athletes who have taken these risks in their training and competition with the potential for great reward, and I can understand why they have done this. An Olympic medal or world championship or playing professional sport comes with many financial and social rewards, and I know even as they suffer physically for the years after, most feel the sacrifice was worth it.

The question I believe you need to ask yourself is – are the rewards and benefits of CrossFit as it is currently conducted worth the risk for you? Only you can answer that, and I respect whatever decision you make.

References

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CrossFit
(2) http://www.afr.com/p/national/little_caution_over_the_crossfit_NlmYqOEvlcD1tAkVQGt94L
(3) Crossfit Study”. U.S. Army. May 2010. Retrieved 11 April 2014.
(4) King, I., 1999/2000, Foundations of physical preparation , p. 25
(5) King, I., 1999/2000, Foundations of physical preparation , p. 30
(6) King, I., 2010, Barbells & Bullshit: Challenging your thinking.
(7) King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (book), p.38
(8) King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!™(book), p. 23-26
(9) King, I., 2000, Heavy Metal #4, t-mag.com
(10) King, I.J, 1990,: Guidelines for the Safe Implementation of Strength Training Programs, The Sportsmed Newsletter (Qld Branch of the ASMF Newsletter), February issue 1990
(11) King, I., 2005, The way of the physical preparation coach, p. 48
(12) King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!™, p. 53-56
(13) King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!™, p. 34
(14) King, I., 2011, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations, p. 82
(15) King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs
(16) King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series (DVD), Disc 3
(17) King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (book), p.75
(18) I wonder how long it will take for the industries leading plagiarists – and they are truly world champions at it – to be publishing this saying/concept one as their own…You may even hear it as soon as the upcoming ‘functional training’ seminars in the US…

Ian King

Looking for the messages from the Lance events  

/by

Watching the Lance Armstrong drug allegations situation I feel this event may be more significant that it appears on the surface. It certainly raised a lot of questions for me – including how far into cycling will the expose go and will it jump to other sports. However the biggest question I have yet to answer is why such a big name American athlete has been ‘taken down’. If you read between the lines there has arguably been a degree of protection offered to high profile US athletes in relation to positive or potentially positive drug tests, so why Lance?

I can only think of two possibilities. Firstly he really upset someone. However the collateral damage to the sport of cycling is too big for this. Which leaves me with my second possible answer – it’s a genuine desire to play it straight, a rare example in a sporting landscape that has all the rules but so few ever get caught up on the wrong side of the rules.

If this is the case, what is driving this position of greater integrity? Is this a sign of the promise of 2012 and the ushering in of a higher social values with the Age of Aquarius?

This will be interesting to watch, to see if this is just that or an aberration before things return to the way they were.

Nike’s decision to cut ties with Lance was either a case of their corporate ethics genuinely being violated, or they were concerned about the impact on their bottom line. Either way, it was a significant move.
One thing I can say with certainty is that I have not seen any promise of this greater integrity in corporate or organizational ethics in physical preparation. I am familiar with certain US companies that see fit to continue to retain and endorse certain individuals who values and actions include publishing other peoples works unreferenced, uncredited and in many cases verbatim, and on a number of occasions claiming or inferring it as their own. In essence, what I believe has been the greatest intellectual property heist in modern physical preparation. Yet these companies still endorse and engage these individuals.

Will the corporate integrity shown in cycling and Nike spread to physical preparation? I hope so, for everyone’s sake.

Ian King

They will be exposed – in a way that will last forever  

/by

They will be exposed – in a way that will stand forever

I received a number of responses to the blog article ‘Can’t attract athlete clients? Here’s three solutions’. Here is one of them, and my response.

“Hi Ian, why the protection of xx in this article? Sure that’s who is being referred to in this – his plagiarism should be greatly exposed – unless of course there is some legal agenda ? Keep up the great work, best wishes, Mark.”

Mark, in response to your post: Thank you for your comments. I value hearing your concern that the actions of plagiarists and copyright infringers be exposed. I will take a moment to respond to your post if I may.

The examples used in this article were simply that – examples. The main aim and message of this article was in relation to the most common solutions used to gain work with athletes, and concluded with my recommended method. I did not want to dilute this message.

Another consideration in my decisions in writing this article was my concern that naming people for negative contributions gives too much credit and attention to them, which is in part what they seek – attention. Therefore I am very conscious of this and selective in my use for this reason. I do not wish to bring the spotlight on these people any more than is worthy. Unfortunately, there is time when it is necessary to bring them into the light. I would much prefer to bring the light to those who make a positive contribution to the industry specifically the betterment of humanity generally. The people you refer to, in my opinion, do not fall into this category.

A further consideration is that I recognize the substantial number of people who either lack the intelligence or the integrity to acknowledge the extensive intellectual property infringements, for varying reasons not limited to because they don’t want to, because ‘he’s a really nice guy’, or because they have a vested interest in maintaining the veneer that nothing inappropriate has occurred. I seek to avoid exposure to this sub-section of the industry as they further damage my belief in the goodness of humanity.

However, when the medium is appropriate, I assure you, there is no ‘protection’ of those who choose this path of deceit and misleading. A reality for me is that when th0se who seek this instant gratification to be ‘experienced’ and an expert in their field actually reaching the conclusions and achievements and theories the claim to have, do these acts of intellectual property infringement, they overlook the far-reaching implications that the written word becomes an artefact that potentially lasts for centuries.

Therefore long after their lives have ended, their lasting legacy will be these artefacts, which will forever bear testament to their actions as serial plagiarists. This fate will befall both their self-published as well as their mainstream published artefacts.

I would like to gift you a copy of the e-book version of my book ‘Barbells & Bullshit’. You will note that this text begins to expose the extent of the infringements. Send me an email at question@kingsports.net so I have an email address for you.

I would also to draw your attention to the future release of my book and course titled ‘Apocalypse – What some are willing to do, others are willing to turn a blind eye to, and the majority have got no idea about’. The electronic course version will be in excess of 750 pages. This publication exposes what I describe as the greatest intellectual property heist in modern physical preparation, and all the individuals and companies that have participated.

In conclusion we share the belief that the actions of plagiarist should be exposed, and during the remainder of my life I will do just that. I optimistically trust that, for the betterment of those entering our industry, as well as for the greater good of society as a whole, those supporting our position in this and other matters of integrity will grow, and contribute to forcing a change in the values of American-led professional and commercial standards in such as a way that acts such as these will be more effectively discouraged and ultimately stamped out.

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 analyze 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 athlete’s 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 are the latter gets 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!