Ian King

I spoke to xxxx (professional) and they said it can’t be so….  

/by

There is a phenomenon in sport, and perhaps life, where decisions are made about potential, possibilities and peoples lives from a remote, authoritarian and dogmatic perspective.

But who does it serve? Surely it wouldn’t be that humbling to take a less all-knowing approach?

In the 1980s a young national league Australian Rules player suffered what we now call chronic fatigue. The coach told him “I talked to the trainer and there is nothing wrong with you. You just aren’t fit enough.” So they send him off on a special training camp where he paddled in the ocean for hours, ran along beaches for hours, swam in open seas for hours.

Who does it serve? The coach’s and trainers need to be able to diagnose all conditions, the ego of the trainer about more of their services being needed…but what about the athlete? Would it be so demeaning to seek independent unbiased professional advice? To say “I don’t really know why you are complaining about being tired, but lets explore your situation and find out more to help you get over the condition.”

In the 1990s in the lead up to a World Cup, a head national coach put his team through a grueling training session, applying the dominant trend of the time, which essentially ended the team’s hope of winning (and that’s the opinion of some of the athletes involved in retrospect). Faced with a very tired and sore group of athletes, the head coach told the team: “I have spoken with the support staff and they have all told me you can’t be tired, so you are not tired!”

Who does it serve? The coach’s need to be right, the ego of the professional o feeling good about being remotely all knowing…but what about the athlete? Or the team? Would it be so terrible to say “I don’t really know why you are complaining about being tired, but lets explore your situation and find out more to help us win?”

In the 2000s a provincial level rugby playing hurt his shoulder. The coach, supported by the medical staff, decided he was okay, and sent him back on. He damaged his shoulder so extensively later in that game it shortened his career and affected his quality of life forever.

Who does it serve? It helped the team win that game. It confirmed the coach had full control over medical interpretations….but what about the athlete? Would it have been so scary for the team to lose that player for the rest of the game to prevent future surgery? To have said “I don’t like the thought of losing you in this tight game but based on your concerns lets check out your injury and not take risks with you.”

In the post 2010 decade I was working with a young UK soccer player who was recovering unsuccessfully from surgery. He had entered into an agreement to play for a US college on scholarship, but was in no condition to do so. The head college told him “The physical therapist tells me there is no reason why you cannot play and train so I expect you to turn up on Monday and participate fully.” And that was before the physical therapist had even laid hands on the athlete…

Who does it serve? The interests of the college, the ego of the professional…but what about the athlete? Would it be so dangerous to say “I don’t really know why you are reporting pain or concern, but lets explore your situation and find out more?”

Post 2010 I raised a point of concern with a sports coordinator of a high school about injury risks in a training session. The response included “I have spoken to our strength and condition coach and he tells me that the volume of training the athletes are doing does not represent a risk.”

Who does it serve? The interests of the school, the ego of the professional to be right, to be all knowing…,but what about the athlete? Would it be so bad to say “I don’t really know why you concerned about pain, but lets explore your situation and find out more?”

I don’t know what training is going to do. I have a theory or hypothesis and I take it carefully in case I am off-track. If it turns out I missed the target, then I seek to amend the situation, and learn from it. It’s not that hard if you can put aside the need to be all knowing or be right. I even tell the athlete in advance – I don’t know for sure but this is where I am thinking of going, is that okay, and let’s learn from this. Together. It’s not that difficult.

Who does it serve? The athlete.

Ian King

Physical train wrecks  

/by

It does not have to be this way

Every day I speak with athletes who have more injuries than I believe are necessary or acceptable. The list of injuries is getting longer, relative to the decades past. This may be the trend, however no athlete needs to follow the trend. However for them to buck the trend, they will need to think differently, act differently and have different values than those around them. Because too many in the sports circle now accept, embrace and even benefit from this high incidence of injury.

Todays athlete injuries story – shoulder surgery at 17 years of age, multiple shin stress fractures in the next few years, following by multiple ankle joint and ligament strains in the next few years, followed by a dislocated wrist.

The one before – ACL, torn peck, etc etc.

Now I don’t blame the athlete in the first instance, especially when their first injury was in an age when in other aspect of life society does not deem them legally responsible. Noting that the exposure to ‘strength and conditioning’ was about two years prior to the shoulder injury, I confirm another example supporting my hypothesis that if we were to remove all ‘strength and conditioning’ programs globally, the athlete injury rare would halve or more.

In the first instance the sports administrators, coaches, physical coaches, and commercial sellers of goods and services should take a look at their values and competencies. Coaches – if just getting a job gives you a sense of fulfilment, I hope one day you look for more, including best the best you can be for the athlete. However as that is not likely to occur en-mass, the responsibility must come back to the athlete, especially the athlete 18 years or older.

Athletes – it’s time to wake up. You don’t have to be injured. You don’t have to accept this paradigm. But you are going to need to do something about it yourself because no one else is. Its your call. Accept the smorgasbord of injuries like most do – or be different. Find out what you can do to fulfill your potential through injury free training and competing. It is possible. We do it every day.

Ian King

Should I stretch before or after training?  

/by

Shortly after the ‘stretching before training and games is bad’ paradigm raised up in the late 1990s, a default position was also promoted – to stretch afterwards. Ironic (or tragic) in that in my opinion for the most part, those promoting this position don’t stretch and have low competency and personal scores in flexibility.

I am often asked my position on this topic. The mere fact a person asks indicates they have been influenced in some way by this ‘trend’. Here is typically how I answer this:

The new athlete asked: “Do would you recommend stretching before or after training?”

Coach King: “Stretch before. Stretching afterwards is the default positioned promoted by those involved in discouraging effective stretching, their motive something we could chat fo hours on.

Stretching after has the single advantage of having higher body temperature, which in itself is not a pre-requisite for success or change from stretching.

Stretching after has the following disadvantages:
1. You fail to receive the benefits of pre-training stretching, which include but are not limited to increased joint gap therefore reduced joint wear, reduced compression of nerves, better blood supply, and less pain.
2. You are tired and therefore risk the following – performing the stretching will less quality than if done first and fresh; and not doing it all because you just want to have a shower, meal etc and relax

So if it was a choice, I would always do before.”
–Ian King

Ian King

Mobility training is fake stretching  

/by

The new athlete said to me: “I do my mobility work and then I feel good for a while but during the workout I feel all stiff again.”

I said: “Before we go any further I just to make it clear I don’t use the word ‘mobility’, at least not in the way it is currently used.”

Athlete: “Why not?”

IK: “I believe the term mobility is used to give people the feeling they are doing what stretching used to do for them before the ‘stretching inquisition’. In other words it’s fake stretching, and it’s about as effective as a fake.”

Athlete: “Why do people say stretching is bad and mobility exercises are better?”

IK: “Let me share with you my observations over the last few decades. First athletes stretched or they didn’t, depending on their sport historical or their own individual influences. For example, track and field and dance and martial arts and gymnastics were great examples of sports that stretched. But not the only ones. I can remember attention given to stretching in one of my first weightlifting books, and also in other strength books from the 1970s.

There was no judgment – you either did it or not. Then I noted the rise of popularity in stretching and at the same time the rise of individuals and organizations such as academic institutions keen to control sport and leave their foot print.

Now the individuals involved in seeking to be in control for the most part didn’t stretch themselves, were not flexible and no-one had worked out how to make money from stretching.

I believe this is why stretching is being demonized. I suggest that when those who seek to control information and trends find themselves able to touch their toes or make a quick buck, you will be given the green light.

But you don’t have to wait – you can take the benefits of stretching right now.

As for ‘mobility’ warm ups – apart from raising body and joint temperature (which are good things) they have no significant impact on flexibility. So stop kidding yourself. Stretch first, and then if you need or want specific warm ups, do activities that you are going to be done in load – not some non-specific irrelevant exercise just because everyone else is….

So if you are training with us, there will be no fake stretching….”

Ian King

Planning a specialisation strength program  

/by

One of the great challenges for a person (including the ‘professional’ coach/consultant) is to design a strength training program around a body part or line of movement specialisation program. This challenge was reflected in this question i received from a KSI client:

Since I no longer train for sporting prowess/performance (basketball and track), but simply for health/fitness (and to keep up with my kids’ play) yet, feeling like a “somewhat” concrete goal might be fun, I’ve been looking at various “symmetry” scales and formulae (McCallum’s, as well as Willoughby’s in your GBIV), which has quickly made me become aware of a few things: My training/sporting background gave me a solid lower-body foundation (hips/glutes being 3” above “ideal”, thighs 2½” above “ideal”, and calves 1″), but to the “detriment” of upper body symmetry.

For example, according to various scales (and, of course, I realize fully this is just for “fun” and to give a general perspective on things), chest size is below by 2”, arms by 1 to 1½ inches, forearms 1 inch, and neck, 1¼ inch!!!!!

In terms of strength, and as one would expect, lower body strength is well above average, and upper body is just around average, except for one glaring exception: shoulder pressing strength is well below (in spite of having reasonable shoulder development?!?). So, this leads me to the following (and was hoping to get your feedback)…

I was considering giving your Great Guns program a go (which I thought would be a great way of emphasizing arm/forearm development), but was wondering how to prioritize (or deprioritize the lower body, as the case may be) other lagging parts (neck, chest, and, then, shoulder pressing strength)?

Should I postpone those other areas to future cycles/phases? Is there any way to work on chest size AND shoulder strength, WHILE still prioritizing arms? Or is this overkill? Your comments, as always, are appreciated.—Éric

To which I responded with:

Eric- a specialization program is just that – specializing in one area. What I taught in my 1998 ‘How to Write’, in my 1999 book ‘Get Buffed!’ and throughout my articles in various magazines (hard copy and online), every singe program creates a priority – by virtue of the sequence, relative volumes and relative load potential of the exercises provided.

You are leaning towards doing the arm specialization program, which is great, but at the same time are wishing you could specialize in a number of other muscle groups. When you specialize by sequence – which is inherent in all program by default – assuming volume to each muscle group or line of movement is equal, you still have prioritization or specialisation.

However when you add prioritization or specialization by volume also, which occurs in specialization programs such as the ‘Great Guns’ program – you are forced then to reduce volume in other muscle groups or lines of movement. What you are being tempted to do is overload your program, which in turn will overload your body. This is common in strength training, and the most common outcome is the conclusion that growth without drugs is impossible.

This is not correct. The best way to answer your own question – and that is the purpose and intent of my educational material, to help you make your own decisions – is to determine the amount of volume (lets use the simple method of number of sets to measure that) to your number one specialization. In this case, you have nominated your arms.

Lets take my general recommended volume range of 8-15 sets per workout (not including abdominal, control or warm up sets) and use the average number of 12. Now lets use my maximum number of workouts per 7 day cycle that I believe suits most and that is four workouts a week. We are left with 60 work sets in total for the week.

Once you have worked out how many sets you want to allocate from these 60 sets to your number one specialization priority (in this case your arms), then allocate volume (total number of sets) to your remaining body.

You can show a secondary priority and a third priority – in fact this will happen by default – and so to some extent you can sequence your priorities, but no other muscle group other than your arms is going to get real prioritisation.

On the flip side the only way you can do a specialization program and get away with it is to put other muscle groups / lines of movement on hold, or in maintenance. This applies to training outside of strength training also, which has direct application for all athletes.

So I know, I have not answered your question in the way you may have been hoping – in the old world ‘I am the guru and the only way you will get anywhere is through me’ approach – but I believe I have answered your question from the ‘you are your own guru’ perspective, or at least nudged you to realize your own ability to answer your questions.—Ian King

Now I’ll be the first to agree that the challenge of designing a strength program around a specialisation program is a challenging task. The approach I use and teach my high level coaches at an individual consulting level is one that applies a series of high level decisions and a considerable time to construct the training program, which is a level of excellence and cost that many avoid in the ‘hope’ that their quicker, less considered decisions are adequate. I am continually amazed at how humans give their motor vehicle more individualised service than their bodies! To answer the challenges presented by this task i encourage close study of my Get Buffed! educational series and or a program design consultation with one of my high level coaches.Ian King PS. The following response was received:

Ian… Contrary to what you might have implied in your last paragraph, this has been IMMENSELY useful. Right in line with your espoused philosophy and educational approach of “teaching a man how to fish” rather than simply “giving him the fish”

As you know, I already own a very extensive library of much of your material but, in some cases, getting a fresh perspective and slightly different angle (with a more specific context) on some of the ideas can help one along in exactly the right way.

This will help guide me with my planned phases. If need be, I’ll send you a copy of my written program, for some more specific guidelines, but I feel you’ve already done more than enough.

As always, I’m grateful for your time, insights and wisdom.

Be well…
-Eric

Ian King

Thank you for helping me get back in to exercise pain free and keeping me there  

/by

I recently received this email:

“Hi Ian, 7 years ago I bought your Get Buffed books and did the programs in get buffed 1 and 2. When I did these programs I was in the best shape of my life. After that I made a program of my own when I bought the book ‘How to Write Strength Training Programs, yet still in great shape and getting stronger.

Then some where along the way I decided to look in to power lifting and xxx and using exercise technique from the book xxxx. I started to get minor injuries and weakness with certian muscle groups. After a year of incorrect lifting and programing with little core work (because the progarms said don’t worry about it. and I listened?!?!!?!) I herniated my disc.

I look back today at my lifting career and thank you for all your knowledge and for writing the get buffed books. Those books single handedly are the best books on training I have. I thank you for sharing you training ideas, and exercise techniques.

After my injuries I still use Get Buffed 1 and how to write strength training programs all the time to stay pain free today.

Thanks for everything you do in strength and condidtion, I will always reference your work because it is the gold standard, your methods are unrivaled.

Thank you for helping me get back in to exercise pain free and keeping me there.” –Andrew

To which i responded with:

Andrew – thanks for your email, and great to hear that 7 years ago you got your hands on some of the best training advice available. And great to hear that this resulted in the best shape of your life. This is no surprise because the Get Buffed!™ content and programs are based on decades of application and refinement with large sample sizes of athletes in long-term programs, and including multiple sports.

The programs and content in GB and my other books and educational content are not selected because they are trendy – in actual fact, when I first release my ideas, they are anything but trendy! Take my suggestion to stop doing walking lunges – I am receiving the typical stones being thrown at me when I challenge the habits of the masses driven by the misguided recommendations of ‘experts’. What they do ultimately become is the new trend, as evidenced by the popularity of my bodyweight an other unilateral movements in the GB program, the universal application of my speed of movement (using digits to communicate lifting speed), control drills to activate prior to strength training, and my lines of movement concepts – quad dominant, hip dominant, horizontal and vertical pulling, to name a few.

The programs and content in GB and my other books and educational content are not selected because they support the beliefs of my peers – in fact, quite the opposite. Take my suggestion in the late 1990s that the chin up was not adequate to balance the work of the bench press, and that a horizontal pulling movement (my lines of movement concept) was in fact the true opposing movement, yet was totally absent in the popular programs and guru advice of the time. In fact, that stirred such a hornets nest that things got really ugly in the US, with people being threatened not to attend my seminars. The programs and content in GB and my other books and educational content are not selected because I wanted to be sensationalist – I don’t mess with the careers and potential of Olympic and other high level athletes – there is no room for error at this level. So rest assured ideas such as do abs first, the concept of loading is over-rated, lower volume training, reverse periodization – these we all created in response to long term application with no tolerance for error.

In fact after the stone-throwing slowed down, it was ‘interesting’ to watch (in some cases the most vocal critics!) publish these very same concepts. Books, programs, courses.

You decision to leave the path of my concepts is not totally surprising. I believe that most training decisions (by end users and ‘professionals’ – and I use that latter word lightly!) is more influenced by marketing, scarcity and conformity than by the objective reasoning promoted in science. I have no hesitation in acknowledging my weakness in marketing, and in many ways I don’t want to compete. I have seen completely incompetent people with no experience, to whom the market has spoken because they couldn’t get work training athletes – position themselves as ‘experts’ through marketing in this information era, and I refer specifically to the post 2000 era. How do they do this? Deceit turbocharged by powerful marketing techniques I suggest, and I dedicated my 2010 book ‘Barbells & Bullshit’ to educating about. (see below – I have given you a complimentary copy of the e-book version)

Quite simply, and to use a saying (of which I am prone to doing!) often the empty vessel makes the most noise.

So you got drawn away as do the masses to the new shiny object that ‘everyone’ else is doing, and surprise, surprise, the long term implications were less than what you were hoping for.

To read your words, which I do receive regularly, is encouraging.

“I look back today at my lifting career and thank you for all your knowledge and for writing the get buffed books. Those books single handedly are the best books on training I have. I thank you for sharing you training ideas, and exercise techniques.”

Because I have shared so openly (at least until recently) and honestly. I understand many don’t want to look under the hood of their own industry, with implications for even the end user as you have found out, however for me it has been painful watching my material being plagiarized by those whose sole intent was personal gain. I believe the world it worse off for the actions of these charlatans, some of whom are still feted in professional circles, at least for now.

For me the material in the Get Buffed! series is a by-product of my experience training athletes. As you know it’s a very powerful by-product, so you can imagine how powerful the original intent athlete preparation methods are.

One of the major goals I set my self a few decades ago was to ensure no athlete in my care is injured, and if they are, that I rectify their condition immediately.

So the injury prevention focus in all my training programs is strong, supported by a long list of innovations in injury prevention and rehab (I dedicate a few chapters in the KSI Level 1 ‘Legacy’ Course to this subject alone).

You are an example of a person who has benefitted from this, evidenced when you write:

“After my injuries I still use Get Buffed 1 and How to Write Strength Training Programs all the time to stay pain free today.”

For this I am very happy for you, and I know this material will serve you for life, serve your kids and their kids.

What I am concerned about is the dilution of my works by those who have plagriazed them, as they have lost their power to serve. We are in a world where I believe injuries from training are reaching epidemic levels, and much of what I set out to do has been dissolved by certain individuals who put their needs ahead of the world.

So I am very happy for you that you have returned to the integrity of my works. I am also appreciative of any person who carries on my mission and vision through appropriate sharing the accuracy of my training information backed up ethical referencing. For example the publishing house I worked with recently, only the second publishing house in the world who during the last decade plus have sought my permission to reproduce my concepts, and sought my guidance and approval for how to reference and credit them. When you consider how many books have been published by people who knew or should have known better diluted the intent of my work and amnestically omitting to reference, you may appreciate how low the integrity of the world in which you live in is.

Many will say ‘Ian, shut up and live with it’. I say you are drinking from this well, you are eating from this table. You are paying the price with your bodies, your health. It is not just about me. It is about my children, it is about you, and your children. Do you really want to live in a world, and raise your kids in a world, where the dominant value is deceit, where you will get injured from the training you do because no-one had the courage to stand up and say ‘that’s not right’?

I believe your actions is acknowledging the below go further than you relationship with your maker, I believe you enhance the conditions for all humans when you write the below, and I thank you for this:

“Thanks for everything you do in strength and condition, I will always reference your work because it is the gold standard, your methods are unrivalled.”

And in your final statement, when you say:

“Thank you for helping me get back in to exercise pain free and keeping me there.”

It reinforces that this is my goal, this is my mission and vision, that you enjoy the fruits of your training in an injury-free way. Thank you. To say thank you with more than words, I have just invited you to complimentary access viewing of my seminar ‘What you wish you were told before you got started’, which is for the end user market pursing getting bigger, stronger and leaner, of course with my inseparable focus on injury prevention for life! This is from our growing collection of e-videos: http://subscriptions.viddler.com/kingsports Enjoy!

Ian King

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

Helping as few as one person avoid damaging their body through the training is worth the effort!  

/by

I received this email today and I thought it was such a great email that it was worthy of a longer reply. So here it is!

Hi, I was listening to Mike Mahler’s podcast with Ian recently and what he had to say was very eye opening and went against some, actually most of my perceived training wisdom I have garnered over the years from the internet and other sources that Ian would probably find appalling. The more I listened and read up on Ian’s concepts the more I realised maybe I have been doing everything wrong.

I had walking lunges in my warmups, I didn’t stretch until the end of a training session. Anyway I could gone on forever in that vein, I would say I am general population, no athlete. I know Ian doesn’t coach general population. Hence I am writing this.

I am over 40 male carrying a bit to much weight. I tried to get strong over the years, but I say I did more damage than good. Never had great flexibility and probably have enough imbalances to write a book on. I injured my knee (mild cartilage damage), but recovering well with physio exercises. So range of motion has returned and I am pain free with just some minor stiffness.

Finding bodyweight and 16kg kettlebells good in my rehab and might continue in that vein for a time.

So I guess it comes down what product of Ian’s would be good for a 40 plus male (general population) looking to train and enhance his strength, flexibility, iron out imbalances and give longevity to his training life. If Ian doesn’t have a product that’ suit me, that’s fine. I would assume his business is mainly built around elite athletes.

Any help with this inquiry would be greatly appreciated. Yours Sincerely, –xxxx

P.S. Apologies for the long winded email, but I just can’t afford to many more mistakes with my training.

So I wrote back:

xxxx– great to hear you received value from the Mike Mahler podcast! I like the way you say ‘perceived’ training wisdom. Because at the end of the day, that is all it is when we take on others thoughts. When they are truly our own, based on our own experience and analysed as objectively as we can, then they can be more than this.

Most people I talk to are little more than a collection of other peoples thoughts, and the threads are so clear to me I can typically trace their influences.

I like the way you are willing to review your current training habits. I share my conclusions to help people just like yourself, not to be right. So it’s rewarding to hear you have at least paused to reflect on your choices.

I am also impressed with your realization and conclusion about your pursuit of strength that ‘I did more damage than good.’ This rings a bell of familiarity in my writings!

I have formed the opinion that most strength training programs do more damage than good. However it takes many years for the average person to realize this, if ever. The short-term results cause pleasure, but the long-term results inevitably pain. King, I., 2004, Get Buffed!™ III, p. 8-9

…in my opinion most people do more damage to their bodies and long term health than good, through their training. Amazing when you consider the aim of training generally is to improve your body. King, I., 2007, Email to clients – KSI pre-production offer, 6 June 2007

So to answer your question – which of my products would serve? I would recommend the education in the Get Buffed! book combined with the info in the GB II book. I am not suggesting that all the programs in the book are right for you right now, but they are only generic programs and I have always recommended you individualize your training. And the content in the book will help you do that.

Whilst our main focus has been elite athletes, the GB range (an extensive range of products for people just like you) is a by-product of the conclusions I reached during my many decades of training a high volume of elite athletes. The content and methods published in these books have been very well received, changing the way the world trains arguably more than any other single source. And amongst the most plagiarized books as well, so it’s great if you can get the original intent from the source.

In conclusion, I like your PS – you can’t afford to make many more mistakes in your training. I agree, which was my motive for publishing as extensively as I have during the last 20 years – if I can prevent as few as one person from damaging their quality of life, it’s worth my effort. So I look forward to what you can change for the better in your training with my published training information! –Ian King

Helping as few as one person avoid damaging their body through the training is worth the effort!

Ian King

Stop doing walking lunges! (Especially in the warm up!)  

/by

Why I tell the world to stop doing walking lunge (especially doing the warm up)

Following my post where I pleaded for the world to stop hurting themselves with walking lunges, especially in the warm-up, I was asked by the readers to explain why I said this. I treated their questions with the respect that a genuine desire to learn deserves, and took the time to share the following thoughts.

I want to clarify that no exercise is ‘bad’ – however the way we implement or combine or include them can make the extremely inappropriate for the majority – like the walking lunge!

…from my observations, most physical preparation programs do more harm than good. They may give short term results or confidence to the athlete, but result in significant performance restrictions and or injuries long term.

The more an athlete participates in physical preparation, including the younger they start in physical preparation, the greater the incidence and severity of injury. Unfortunately these injuries are being blamed away by many involved in sport as being a function of the increased demands and impact forces in ‘modern day’ sport. This to me is little more than an excuse, an exercise in putting one’s head in the proverbial sand. Quite simply, the majority of training programs are flawed from a physical preparation perspective and are causing the increased injuries.
–King, I., 2005, The way of the physical preparation coach, p. 66-67

Here’s seven reasons why I tell the world to stop walking lunge. I know what many will say – as I mentioned in my post, the world is making great grounds in life departments such as ‘clear living’. However when it comes to exercise, we are back some 30 years ago….

1. HISTORY – WHERE DID IT COME FROM? Thirty years ago, the walking lunge was almost the exclusive domain of the college basketball player in US strength and conditioning program. I am sure there were some other pockets of use history including for example certain martial art disciples, however there was little other reference or application. The lunge existed n bodybuilding, but the walking lunge as we know see it – conducted by all ages, both genders, all strength levels, at any stage of the workout but most commonly in the warm up – that is a post 2000 phenomenon.

So where did it come from? I suggest that the walking lunge is a trend driven by ‘authors’ who lack the experience and wisdom to understand what they are recommending. With the promotion of the ‘functional training’ movement (advanced by one company in particular with strong commercial interests in the sale ‘functional’ equipment) combined with continued desire to suppress effective and appropriate stretching in the warm up – the walking lunge found its way into books about exercises that should be done, including in the warm up. These trend spread from sport to sport, and then down the ages, like a disease creeping around the world with no geographic boundaries. You cannot go out into the world of sport on any given day and not witness its application, in particular in the warm ups.

When I see groups of athletes and individuals being guided to perform this movement, in particular young athletes in their warm ups, I immediately conclude that their coach is a trend-following non-thinker who has not done many of the exercises they recommend. If they did they would tell you what most young athletes would tell you if their voices were not suppressed – walking lunges hurt their knees!! Coaches do them because they choose to blindly follow the dominant trend and actively seek to appear to like all their peers. And it is a dominant trend globally – one that will during the next 10-40 years see an expansion of the knee and hip replacements at a rate that will please the joint replacement industries, doctors and physical therapist. At a cost to both society and the individual that will rival the strain on the economies that poor nutritional and lifestyle choices make.

2. INAPPROPRIATE WARM UP EXERCISE. The lunge is a loaded strength exercise. If it was being conducted in an adult strength program it would come with some sub-maximal repetitions. At what stage of a warm up protocol is it appropriate to apply what is more most people a maximal if not supra-maximal loading in the warm up? The wear and tear on the patella-femoral joint (under the knee cap) is significant and serious and little time passes before you have eroded the cartilage or bone surface, and experiencing conscious knee pain. If the lunge or walking lunge would be done for valid reasons by an advanced athlete, ideally it would be conducted after appropriate warm up activities and sub-maximal sets.

Put simply – there are very few people on the planet that could safely execute a bodyweight walking lunge in their warm up routine and successfully avoid any short or long term knee damage or pain from doing so.

3. THE LUNGE DOES NOT IMPROVE FLEXIBLITY AND IS NOT A STRETCHING EXERCISES. The walking lunge is not an flexibility exercise and does not contribute to increased length. At best it might maintain range, however the subsequent muscle soreness and associated tightness in the quadriceps and hip flexors ultimately means you will lose range. It lacks the element of relaxation which is key to creating changes in connective tissue length, and is followed by and associated with increased tension and shortening of the connective tissue, as any demanding strength exercise does.

It is a strength exercise. I know of no-one who should be doing in their warm up, where the warm up is less than 30 mins, and that includes the elite male strength athlete. It has no place whatsoever in the warm up routine of a young or developing athlete. Yes where will you most likely see it being done – in the warm up routine young or developing athletes.

4. MUSCLE BALANCE AROUND THE HIP AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS IMBALANCE. When I released the ‘Lines of Movement’ concept in 1998, something I had been developing for the prior decade, it was a result of my awareness of the need to balance the muscles around the hip – especially the quad/hip flexor group and the posterior chain group – hamstrings and gluteals. I was concerned that the plagiarists who hijacked this concept and published it unreferenced would lack the understanding and passion for the intent of this concept such that their frequent publishings would advance this understanding. In hindsight my concerns were founded. In fact, these same plagiarists, even after moving to someone else’s concept because they need to be seen to be new and ‘cutting edge’ – demonstrate their lack of understanding of my concept and its intent with the exercises programs and equipment they promote in their more recent ‘writings’.

What I am saying is that the cause I set out to help – the health of the hip and knee and all connective tissue of the lower extremities – has not been served by the shallowness and lip service that my Lines of Movement concept set out to solve.

Balance : all things being equal, and independent of any specificity demands, the selection of exercises should show balance throughout the body. For example for every upper body exercise there would be a lower body exercise. For every upper body pushing movement, there would be an upper body pulling movement. For every vertical pushing movement there would be a vertical pulling movement. For every hip dominant exercise there would be a quad dominant exercise. And so on. –
– King, I., 1998, How to Write (book)

[NB. The above quote should not be confused with the verbatim and paraphrased copies that have appeared in many unreferenced sources since.]

What we have in the lunge and walking lunge is an exercise that is at the extreme end of the continuum of quad dominant exercises, which the is not balanced by sequence, volume or load potential by another exercise. Quite simply – athletes exposed to this misguide trend of the walking lunge develop imbalances between their quads dominant and hip dominant muscles (the terms I provided in my ‘Lines of Movement’ concept. As such they experience a higher frequency and greater severity of lower extremity injuries – both soft tissue and bone. Groin, abdominal, hamstring, quad, and calf strains. Shin splints. Knee pain.

5. EXCESSIVE LOADING AND RANGE FOR STRENGTH LEVELS If a coach had any ability or awareness to assess each individual athlete for their ability to safely and effectively execute a lunge, let a lone a walking lunge, they would realise that the vast (more accurately overwhelmingly) majority of athletes being asked to perform these exercises lack the ability to tolerate the strength of their own body weight through the full range or in most cases, any range at all. Therefore even if a coach sought to justify inclusion of this exercise on the basis that the athlete needed strength in this range, there is no basis for justification on the grounds the athletes lacks the strength to tolerate the movement. In essence, not only do we have the injury creation realities of excessive loading and inadequate warm up, we also face the transfer of poorly executed loaded movement to sport.

In other words, not only are we injuring the athlete, which in itself is a solid performance decrease, there is also massive potential for the adaptation to these inappropriate movement patterns to further cause performance deterioration.

6. INAPPROPRIATE LOADING WITHOUT SUFFICENT WARM UP. If for whatever reason you believed this exercise were appropriate for you, there are a number of strategies I would strongly recommend you implement. You will note these are not implement by the hordes of young athletes around the world being led to execute these movements in their warm ups. You can learn more about these in my education especially my Level 1 KSI Coaching Course, but here’s some tips to get you going:

a. Joint mobilizations: I teach another unique concept where I apply passive joint preparation drills in the warm up process, particularly relevant for knees. I developed these for personal use whilst rehabilitating my knees post surgery, so I have a very personal connection to the role and benefit of these drills.

b. Control drills prior: another unique concept I introduced to strength training was the concept of performing certain drills to switch on the muscles, especially the stabilisers that control the movement – prior to loading.

c. Warm up sets. How do you do a warm up set of a walking lunge at less than or at 50% of your work set load when your bodyweight is your work set load? That is the challenge for you – because you need to precede these movements with a warm up.

7. LOST OPPORUNITY TO DO SOMETHING MORE APPROPRIATE. Now I am talking about lost opportunity. I believe (nothing new about this!) that time is your only truly limited resource, so use is wisely. I know a lot of things that would be far more effective use of your time than the walking lunge, especially in the warm up. Take for example strength – real stretching. I know, we are in an era in the worlds history where you have been conditioned (during the Decade of Deceit, 2000-2010) that stretching is bad, will make you weak, will cause you to injured, should only be done at the end of the workout, blah blah blah. I don’t ever want to be following what the masses do – how can I give athletes the performance advantage if I am doing what everyone else is doing?

Look at it this way. If you do it the way everyone else is doing it – all things being equal, how are you going to be better than everyone else? Realistically changes do occur (albeit slowly) in sport training – because someone dared to do it differently. These people gain the advantage, are at the cutting edge. The sheep follow. Which do you want to be?
— King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book) And I also aim a genuine desire to have an injury free career and life for the athlete.

Conclusion So what does the future hold for you and the walking lunge? I have no doubt that sometime in the next 10-30 years there will be a mass shift away from this exercise, driven by a belated awareness of the damage is had caused. I have placed more concepts and theories in the market that I can remember that were unpopular at the time yet some years later became mass accepted. Typically, at the tipping point of acceptance, a ‘trend spotting author’ that relies on publishing to maintain market credibility and income, will with great fanfare ‘bring these concepts to the market’, with no reference to the pioneers. The mass acceptance of what I teach you now about the walking lunge will be great for the individuals whose training lives begin after this shift.

But what about the ones who have been doing this movement for years now, or will be doing this movement for the time between now and when the market perception shifts? They will pay the price.

Take advantage of what I have shared with you. It is just one of the many training theories and concepts I have formed and shared during the last 30+ years. However one idea that will give you longer and better quality life will be better than none!

So what will it take for you to benefit? However for you to benefit from this wisdom you will need to possess a human trait that perhaps only 5% or less of the population do – you will need to be comfortable breaking the mould, going against the grain, declining these movements when others blindly follow. This will most likely determine whether you will benefit as of now from this wisdom I have shared. What will others think?

I know personally the stones that paradigm shifters get thrown. The irony is that those who mock you today will one day be doing what you are doing. One example of that is burned into my memory is one particular coach who was extremely scathing about my concepts – and then published them for the ensuing 10 years without a single reference. It wasn’t much fun to watch or be part of, but it was a great example of what those who get left behind are willing to do to appear as if they were at the forefront of ‘new ideas’ all along.

Resist the temptation in program design to conform to mainstream paradigms simply for the sake of conforming, no matter how dogmatically they are presented, or how much you may be ridiculed or ostracized for trusting your intuition over conformity. Make our own minds up based on a combination of respect for your intuition, the athlete/client’s intuition, the results, and in respect of the body of knowledge available.
— King, I., 2005, The Way of the Physical Preparation Coach

I share the above for the same reason I train athletes –because I want to give them the best that I can to help them be the best they can be. As you can see I lack the motive of appeasing, impressing or endearing myself to my peers. I understand that my approach to training will always antagonise the emotionally immature, whose ego attachments are threatened by ideas or actions they do not do. In our coach education we attract those who seek to fulfil their po9tential, as opposed to those who seek to protect their ego. And as for the athletes – they are very happy to receive the best training guidance available in the world, giving them an injury free career and life, and placing them on the podium ore often than otherwise!

And now with the internet, if you are a non-athlete training, and have succeed to battle you way through the static on the ‘net and found these teaching that for the last few decades have been exclusively for a small elite and very fortunate group of elite athletes – that’s to your credit! Enjoy the rewards!

Ian King

Let the children play!  

/by

Directional concerns with the training of the young athlete

During a recent visit to Fiji I took the opportunity to study the conditions in which athletes are developed. Having been there before, and having been raised in a similar environment, I had certain expectations. The question was had things changed, had the influences of western world habits and trends risen and changed things.

My interest in training of the young athlete is personal and professional. As a parent it’s pertinent. As a coach, I spend the first two decades focusing on the peak years of sports performance, generally speaking 16 to 36 years of age. During the last decade and a half, I have sought to gain extensive experience in the practical application of training the young athlete, with the view to developed real world contributions to the multi-year periodization models I had developed during the prior decades. Additionally, I now also have a responsibility for the athletes who I trained during the 1980s and 1990s who now face the challenges of both aging and damage from sport at the elite level during their younger adult years. To add to this, they also bring their children to me, so my recent (last 15 years) focus on young training is serving all well.

I have a number of concerns about the direction of young training, and some key ones below:

  1. The over structuring of young sports training in general.
  2. The application of ‘strength and conditioning’ to the young athlete
  3. The perceived correlation between equipment and development of the young athlete
  4. The Western lifestyle impact on athletic development

For the purposes of this discuss I refer to the ages of 0-16 yrs as ‘young athlete’. I was able to apply my theories in relation to these concerns in my review of contemporary training habits in the island of Fiji.

To further explain my concerns, I expand in the following:

1. The over structuring of young sports training in general

I’m not the first to raise this concern, and I won’t be the last – unless things change globally, which I am not optimistic about. Essentially, in a world where children ‘play’ time is potentially reduced on prior generations, where their play time is less play and more electronic interaction, I believe what little play time available should be used to develop the general athletic skills needed to optimize long term athlete potential. Nothing new about this, I appreciate, and most would agree. Where the paths diverge is how the sports training is conducted. Where adult coaches speak a lot, where adult concepts and emotions dominate, where winning is the most important things, where a lot of whistles are blown, where kids are taught structure (tactics) before technique, where ‘fitness’ training equals (or in some cases dominates) technical training – this is the world of young sports training I see dominate.

My solution? Less structure, less adult involvement, more skill and fun based activity. Again, this is nothing new. Books have been written on this subject, such as the excellent book ‘Just Let the Children Play’ by Bob Bigelow. For whatever reason, it’s for the most part lip service around the world. The children are not being allowed to play.

Except in the places like islands in the Pacific Ocean. I am happy to report the children do still play. They play more than they do in the more developed western world. And this is good!

In my opinion it explains why the first thing you see when you arrive in the terminal at Nadi – in a poster over the bag carousel, and the last thing you see at departure at the International terminal in Nadi – in a billboard in the parking lot – is this boast – more rugby champions per capita are developed in Fiji than in any other country.

And I believe that is for the most part due to the way the kids play!\

2. The application of ‘strength and conditioning’ to the young athlete
Based on my observations, since about 1980 there has been a progressive downward movement in age as to who has formal ‘strength and conditioning’ programs provided. As of now, it is not uncommon for children as young as 10 years of age to be exposed to formal ‘‘strength and conditioning programs. I see two main challenges with this.The first one is the imbalance of time and effort dedicated to the athletic qualities – which, based on Tudor Bump’s influence, I indentify as technical, tactical, physical and psychological. In essence, I see too many young athletes being exposed to non-specific physical development programs and training who are seriously lacking in technical and tactical development. What we are creating, in my opinion, is a generation of athletes who cannot pass, kick or catch a ball very well, but are really ‘strong and conditioned’. To be more accurate they look like they are. This early imbalance, again in my opinion, will lead to inability for the athlete to fulfil their potential in the long term.

The second concern I have is with the application of training programs that have significant flaws in them. This simply means the young athletes have more years on inappropriate physical training programs, and as a result develop injuries and undergo surgery earlier than their predecessors. I am confident this would be statistically supported in any appropriate survey or research. One day, there will be a greater awareness and acceptance of the flaws that have existed in these training programs, and ideally the damaging content will be reduced, if not eliminated. However this optimism may take many years if not decades to be realized, at best.

3. The perceived correlation between equipment and development of the young athlete

There is a perception in our marketing driven western world sporting environment that you need not only equipment, but you need the latest equipment. For those exposed to it, his paradigm leaves those without a lot of equipment or not the latest equipment with a sense of inadequacy, and those with both a false sense of confidence. However for those not exposed to it, it has no relevance or impact.

Essentially kids need very little if any equipment to create play. I have seen many young athletes playing on the street with a crushed soft drink can, or in a park or in a village with an old volleyball, soccer ball or rugby ball.

In Fiji equipment is scare. In most Pacific island equipment is scarce. Yet Fiji still have reason to claim they produce more rugby stars per capita than any other country. And the Pacific Island continue to be a rich provider of athlete talent for many sports who recruit them from the islands.

I visited the classrooms of a primary school in Fiji recently, with a group doing volunteer work, and noted the humble resources they had available. I was keen to learn the correlation between this ‘disadvantages’ as we would perceive it in our developed countries, with their educational development. Without proclaiming to be an educational expert, I informally took the pulse of these kids in the basics of readying, writing and arithmetic (see the video below – note it’s rough and its sideways – unbeknown to me the kids were filming it!) I started out by giving them my Phone to play with and it was obvious the overwhelming majority didn’t know what it was. I was very happy with what I heard and saw. I don’t believe they were ‘disadvantaged’ as much as we may have believed because of our skewed reliance on resources and equipment.

4. The Western lifestyle impact on athletic development

In countries devoid of TV and other electronic devices, kids are forced to play. In countries devoid of heavy western eating influences, the kids eat more the traditional diets. Although not as traditional as the generations before them, anything is better than a diet of fast foods that kids in Western countries get exposed to.

During the last few decades the kids in the Pacific islands have been devoid of TV and other electronic devices, and most had not seen or heard of McDonalds. Inevitably this will change, and the pool of talent will dry up. There will come a time when we need to take this optimal lifestyle more seriously to ensure we optimally develop the young athlete.

Conclusion

Just as the American dentist Weston-Price concluded in his early 1900’s study of traditional nutrition, where he concluded that shifting to westernized nutrition was a step backwards as relates to health, I believe that as we shift from more traditional play based lifestyles for our young athletes, the future athletic potential is also diminished. Whilst it may not be possible or even appropriate to completely turn back the clock, I believe any parents and or coaches interested in optimizing the long term athletic ability of the young athlete can and should take some lessons from the experiences shared by the children in more traditional less-westernized cultures, such as the Pacific Islands.