Ian King

Update re KSI Coaching Program  

/by

With the increased interest in our coaching program, combined with our growing awareness of how unique, special and powerful our coaching programs are, we recognize the need to simply and streamline the program, allowing all to investigate whether this is a fit for them, and progress along the path up to at least the level of longer-term committment, which is usually the major factor that seperates participants in the program.

So click on the link below to check out the current shape of the KSI Coaching Program.
http://www.kingsports.net/kingcoaches.htm.
We then encourage you to email us or post on the forum any questions you may have about where you are up to in the program and where you would like to go.

We are preparing to run a Level 1 in MA and CA, USA, in Nov 2011, and then 2012 will be a massive year. For some of you there may be just one or two components that are missing then you will be able to join us in Park City in August 2012 for what is shaping to be the most significant year in our collective lives.

In addition there is the planned 2012 World Tour (yet to be formally announced) which may present some of you with more exposure to our coaching program.

To summarize for you, the Legacy Course is now Level 1, the on-line theory course known as ‘Foundations’ is Level 2, and the relatively new two day practical course (introduced less than a year ago and another factor that really separates what we do from the imitators – we actually can and do coach athletes, and teach you the same) is Level 3.

Once you have achieved all three you are eligible to join us for the Level 4 – Resident Coaching Camp – a 3 day live-in coaching camp providing you with a variety of coaching experiences you are not likely to get anywhere else in the world, and the final step in the part-time end of the KSI Coaching Program.

From then on, Level 5 is a one year commitment, Level 6 longer, and Level 7 is the domain of those who seek excellence the KSI way. Essentially coaching at a level most dream of.

To summarize the KSI Coaching Program consists of the following levels:

* Level 1 – Legacy Theory Course
* Level 2 – Foundations Theory Course
* Level 3 – Art of Coaching Practical Course
* Level 4 – Resident Coaching Course
* Level 5 – Coach Intern Program
* Level 6 – Coach Mentor Program
* Level 7 – Graduate Coach Program

Essentially each level is a pre-requisite for the next level however we are flexible with the first three, provided they are completed prior to Level 4. This flexibility is necessary considering some of you completed some of these components in previous years.

If you still have questions after reading this summary, please email us at question@kingsports.net. See you at a course soon!

Ian King

Ian King

Caught in the web of confusion re stretching  

/by

I recently received this excellent question that I believe typifies the mess most find themselves in due to the way information is brokered and thinking controlled by those seeking to be the gatekeepers:

Subject: To Ian King, About your article in T-Mag #89 (Lazy Man’s Guide..) Please Help

Hello, I really need help about stretching because my mind is a mess because of stretching articles (especially in T-Nation and exrx.net), forums etc. There are PNF’s, dynamic, static; before workouts, after workouts…

My story is this: Last year (2010 May), about the pain in my elbow areas, doctor said that I’ve tennis elbow. After a long break, I started to work out 2 weeks ago, again. Because I know that I’ve a problem in my elbow, I worked with light weights. But, after the second workout I felt the same pain again in my elbow area. I went to another doctor this time and he said that I’ve triceps tendonitis. His recommendation was to do a static stretching after the warm-up (but before weight lifting), 20 rep * 30 sec. I don’t really trust Turkish medical system and its doctors but I’m sure he knows much more than I do. Even though the stretching routine he recommended is interesting, I think his diagnosis is correct.

I don’t know what to do. A lot of people say “never do static-stretching before the weight-lifting, static stretching makes your muscles weaker” and this makes me think “My muscles and probably tendons are already weak and if I do static-stretching before the workout, can I become more susceptible to injuries?” Lots of other questions arise while reading articles.

What should I do? The fitness world shouldn’t be this complicated for a newbie! It’s just stretching! 🙂

Thanks Ian.
–xxx

xx – I understand your confusion – a product of the information age as I talk about in my video here: www.getbuffed.net

Before I address your email let me categorically state my opinion – any person training who does not stretch, increases the likelihood in injury with each passing day. Of course that is my opinion, however that opinion is based on more experience than most. In fact, I haven’t found too many who have trained more athletes in more sports in more countries for more years. So if you trust experience, that may mean something. If you trust science only, it won’t. If you want to do what everyone else is doing at any given time, it may not.

Let’s talk about science briefly. Lyn Jones, former Australian and US weightlifting coach, said that scientists are historians. I agree. Squatting was not ‘scientifically acceptable’ until the 1990s. Nor were amino acids and protein powders and multi-vitamins. If you were a person who wanted to conform to science you would not have used these exercises or nutrients until the 1990s. That could have been at cost to you in your training had you been at the grindstone for the prior one to two decades.

In the late 1980s, as the first person to do so, I recognized the role of the pause between the eccentric and concentric contractions in strength training. My theory was not scientifically support until the early 1990s. Did that stop thousands of athletes who I trained between these periods from using and benefiting from my hypothesis that they knew to be my three digit timing system? No. Why? Because athletes don’t wait for science to catch up. Science tends to study what athletes are doing to see if it is justifiable. Science isn’t bad. It’s just behind the front line. You need to decide if you want to wait for science of move with earlier indicators.

Now let’s discuss social conformity. You are not alone is seeking to conform. 95% of the population is estimated to share your beliefs. Then there are the trend spotters, who promote training concepts only when they feel there is enough support so they won’t be considered whacky, but not so much awareness that they can still convince the majority they are the saviour, bringing the news to the people. Stretching is the greatest example of this. I have for over 30 years verbally and in writing supported static stretching. The numbers joining me got very thin during the late 1990s and early 2000s when the crowds seeking to stone us got larger. In fact, I don’t know of any other voice who stood firm on this. Now I see the trend spotters rushing to position themselves as experts in static stretching, making and offering ‘how to video’s’ for their commercial gain. The same people who sought the safety and comfort of the dominant paradigm when it wasn’t safe to venture out with an ‘I believe static stretching is great and should be done at the start of training’ t-shirt on.

So you are not alone. You are joined by the masses, and encouraged by the trend spotters seeking to commercially exploit the latest social trends.

Now back to your story. You were sore so you sought to get stronger. You have accepted another popular dominant myth – that if you are injured it is because you are weak. Mmmm. So you sought to strength it and made it worse. No surprise there.

You should go and kiss that doctor. He is a wise man in his recommendation, albeit his strength program is a bit thin on volume.

You are right – the world shouldn’t be complicated – it’s just stretching! I’ve been saying this for decades! Well, in the 1970s and 1980s is was like this. The books were few but there was not fear or pressure to deny the role of static stretching. It was when those who had positioned themselves as experts in training and research were challenged by the rising interest in stretching during the 1990s that they had to delay the inevitable to give themselves a chance to learn more about an area they had neglected, to maybe train so they could have some to and then position themselves as an expert. Well, they have had a decade or so, and now I see they feel more comfortable about the topic, so the tide is turning – the masses are now being slowly given the green light – by the very same people who held up a red light until they could get a handle on it.

So don’t be a bunny. Do what I did. Ignore all advice and experiment in an objective, rational manner on yourself. Come to your own conclusions about training, without fear or favour. Even if these conclusions leave you alienated by society for a year or 2o.

I wrote this in my 2005 philosophy of training book that may assist: *

p. 17… 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.

And this from my 2005 bok about stretching and dogma…

p. 39… Due to the significant absence of flexibility training in training programs to date, most athletes, coaches and other ‘experts’ have never been involved significantly in a stretching training program. Despite this, and despite the obvious physical manifestations of lacking ability to demonstrate range of movement, many form outspoken and dogmatic positions on topics including stretching

You should really listen to at least part 1 of my Barbells and Bullshit audio or DVD program (I have loaded part 1 of this series on the KSI membership site).

Thanks for communicating. You are an excellent example of the average person torn between conforming with current trends and social pressures, and doing what they intuitively suspect may be best for themselves. Will what I wrote help? Not sure – depends whether you want to be part of the 95% victims of social conformity or the 5% victors.

All the best.

Ian King

* not to be confused with the blatant paraphrasing copies like this since been published in places that I thought had more integrity:

… When designing training programs, resist the pressure to conform to any tradition or system of beliefs, no matter how dogmatically that tradition or those beliefs are presented, or how much you get “slammed” for not conforming]

Ian King

The child and the injury – Pt 2  

/by

The older sibling was not at our 10 year old team training. He was waiting at the car with him mother, waiting for his younger brother to finish.

The mother said to me:

“Did you know that ‘Peter’* did a grade two strain of his calf on the weekend?”

The boy’s 12 years old. It’s his second serious injury.

I just looked at the ground, bit my lip, and gently shook my head. What could I say? I hear this every day. It’s monotonous. I care about the kids and the family, however we are fighting a losing battle.
I felt like singing a few lines from the song by the band Queen:

“Another one’s gone, another one’s gone, another one bites the dust….”

The weekend newspaper in my city carried a story by a prominent sports doctor stating statistics show sports injuries are on the rise. He stated ‘We must do more’. More lip service, I thought. Like that’s going to happen. I can guarantee you – like taxes – sports injuries will continue to rise.

I had to say something. How do you break it to a mum that most of what her kids do in sport is doing more harm than good? So I said:

“I was just talking about this the other day with my coaches. We were saying how when we were kids, no one got injuries like the kids today. I played sport before school, at every school break, and after school. I didn’t get my firsts sports injury till my first year of high school, and that was a sprained ankle! I played a lot of sport, but admittedly it was play based, not like the formal training the kids do these days.”

Mum reflected on what I said. Then she asked:

“So why do you think this is?”

I responded:

“Adult training is being taken down the age groups. Every year, more adult like training is being done at an earlier age. The adult training is usually flawed. People think professional athlete training is good, so they imitate it. It rarely is optimal. It’s training that used to be done only at adult ages, so the injuries were coming out at about the same time everyone expected the athlete to retire from old age anyway. But now with the same training being imitated at the younger age groups, the flaws in training are evident well before they get to retire, sometimes even before they get to start their adult career! Surgery for sports-related injury before the young athlete reaches twenty years of age is not uncommon.”

I could see the mother taking it in so I continued.

“Playing sport the way it is being done is not necessarily good for your son. Now, your son is in one of the worst sports – soccer. Two things cause this – soccer’s traditional distain for stretching, and the high impact, high volume multi-directional movements on a hard surface.”

Mum responded:

“We are seeing that now!”

And we moved on with our day. Did I make a difference? I’m not sure. The forces of mainstream values in sport are big and strong – and off track, causing more harm than good.

If you have children – and if they are playing sport – have you thought about this? Are you wondering whether what they are doing is doing more harm long term than good? You should be.

* Not his real name

Ian King

The child and the injury – Pt 1  

/by

There we were, ten or so ten year old boys and myself – in the middle of the oval, in a circle – conducting the pre-training stretching routine as I do. As I have done for over thirty years. Obviously it has evolved somewhat, and this version is adapted to the age group and time frame of the training session.

An older sibling, a boy of twelve years of age, often participates in part of the training with us. He was sitting with us in the circle, but not participating.

My attention was atypically drawn from my own stretching to the status of this boy. I said:

“What are you doing? Why are you not joining in?”

A lot nicer than I would have been with a regular player in any team I work with, and especially an adult athlete.

He said:

“I can’t.”

Genuinely perplexed, I asked:

“What you do you mean ‘you can’t’?”

He said:

“I can’t. I’m not allowed to.”

Wishing to understand him more fully, I continued my questions:

“What do you mean you are not allowed?”

What he was about to say floored me. Luckily I was on the ground anyway!

“I’m can’t stretch before a game. My physiotherapist said so.”

Knowing how inflexible this athlete was, and how much I felt he need to stretch, I continued:

“Why have you been told that?”

To which he said:

“I don’t’ know. They said it was bad for me, and so I can’t do it.”

I did my best to encourage the boy to give stretching a go, but I could see his heart was not in it.

I shook my head and went back to focusing on my team’s needs.

After all, the boy had already had surgery on one knee….

Ian King

Surely they can perform better than this!  

/by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

Surely they can perform better than this?

Ian King

There is no such thing as a functional exercise  

/by

There is no such thing as a functional exercise or training program.

It’s time to put some perspective on the use of the word ‘functional’, which has become somewhat of ‘catch-cry’ since the start of the 21st century. I believe it has probably gone too far now, and too many reputations on based on it, for the use of the term ‘functional’ to regain perspective. Nevertheless, here is my belief:

There is no such thing as a functional exercise. Nor is there such as thing as a functional training method.

To me, function in an outcome. The ability to perform specific function/s. The adjective interpretation.

To claim an exercise or training method is ‘functional’ is to speak from the ‘prescriptive’ perspective rather than the ‘process’ perspective. It is based on an assumption that every person using the exercise or training method has the same training goal AND responds in a predictable way.

Functional as it is popularly used is nothing more than an extension of the over-application of the term and concept ‘specificity’ – which proceeded ‘functional’ in terms of being the dominant trend term and concept – and also assumes an outcome. To claim an exercise or training method is ‘specific’ relies on an assumption that you know how any given person will respond to the exercise or training method, and that you know in advance that this adaptation will enhance their ability to perform a specific task or sport.

It would appear that any exercise that is uni-lateral, bodyweight only, and standing or sitting on an ‘unstable’ surface is instantly titled ‘functional’ – however if applied to say an elite competitive Olympic weight lifter has as much guaranteed ‘functionalism’ as power clean has to an arm wrestler.

Invariably the assumption is made that if we give a person an apparently specific movement for their training goal (e.g. sport) then the exercise is ‘functional’. Let me list some of the flaws:

1. The initial aim of all non-specific (off-field) training should be to counter the damage done by the sport, not rehearse it!

2. For me, the next goal of strength training is to provide a stimulus not found when playing the sport.

3. There is an assumption that the ‘apparently specific’ movement will actually transfer to improved ‘function’. This is a ‘prescriptive’ approach to training, not a process approach. I support the latter.

4. The exercise is an exercise. It is not functional nor dysfuntional. The outcome or training effect MAY be an increase in function.

5. Does this mean that exercises not considered ‘specific’ or ‘functional’ are thereby now dysfunctional?

This mis-use of the term ‘functional’ provides newcomers and students in the industry with a misguided starting point. Unless we delight in misleading others, a serious review of the use if this term is warranted.

The use of the term or concept ‘functional’ has even reached the stage of being used to identify schools of thought or belief – in the same way some refer to there being a ‘one set to failure group’, apparently there is now a ‘functional training group’.

Exercise equipment has suffered to same fate in that during the rise of ‘functional training’ many devices were labelled as bad or causing injuries. Machines are innate. If they are associated with ‘bad’ or ‘injury’ it is a function or outcome of their use, not the machine itself. They are nothing more than an innate object.

There is a time and place for everything. The exercise or training method can be used with an intent to create functional strength (strength that is optimally used by an individual in pursuit of their specific goal), however an exercise or training method is not in itself ‘functional’, nor is it by that definition ‘non-functional’.

To use the term ‘functional’ to label an exercise, training method, program, training device or training philosophy is inappropriate, inaccurate and misleading.

An exercise or training method is not ‘functional’. The outcome or training effect MAY be.

Ian King

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

/by

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

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

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

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

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

But it wasn’t over….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Falsehood (n.)

Fiction

Illusion

Invention

Fabrication

Untruth

And I said – that’s about it!

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

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

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

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

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

The titles currently available in this series include:

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

And now….

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

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

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

Ian King

A great lesson from a unique athlete

/by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian King

I was in the best condition of my life – I don’t understand it….

/by

‘I was in the best condition of my life – I don’t understand it.’

That was in essence what the athlete was reported in the media as saying – after his hamstring tore off from the bone.

I don’t want to draw attention to the athlete or the organization, as they don’t deserve anything perceived as negative aimed at them – they are simply a pretty good snapshot (in my opinion) of where the elite sporting world (and all levels down) are at in relation to the perspectives towards injury.

You see, the person responsible for injury prevention/rehabilitation added to this snapshot when he was quoted by the media as saying words to the effect:

‘It was just a freak accident.’

You might get by now that I don’t buy into this perspective – that in my opinion the athlete was not the best shape of his life (at least not in a global way – maybe in one specific area); and that it was not a freak accident.

Let me guess – after watching the video of the incident (no, I didn’t guess on this, as this was reported in the media!) they didn’t see anything significant that would explain why the injury would occur. Does that make it a freak accident? If we allow our bodies to get into an appropriate condition, and this leads to an injury during a relatively benign activity (like getting out of bed, tying your laces, picking something up off the floor – and yes, these are common actions associated with ‘can’t be explained’ injuries) – does that mean it was a freak accident? No – it means we got so off track in our condition that a minor incident was all that it took to take us over the edge.

So we have a franchise out of pocket for the players salary for the year, a teams plans thrown into turmoil because they just lost their marque player a week or two before the season start, an athlete who is out of action for the year and who knows what long term ramifications – these are not light consequences. These are not freak circumstances. He was not in the condition of his life.

This occurred as a result of the low level of understanding of professional athletes and their service providers (and the broader community) of what it takes to cause an injury and what it takes to prevent an injury.

It’s not good enough, but if people choose to participate in this perspective of injury, then they can’t shift the responsibility away – they got what they deserved. There is a better way….