The English rose and a coaching challenge

On the 11th March 2023 in his first year and 4th game as head coach of the English national men’s rugby union team, Stephen Borthwick set a record. But not the kind of record anyone would want or celebrate. At the spiritual home of English rugby, Twickenham, his team was beaten 10 – 53 by France.

·       England 10-53 France: Steve Borthwick’s sorry side concede their most points EVER at Twickenham in Six Nations[1]

·      England suffer historic humiliation after France’s Twickenham tour de force[2]

·      Post-Eddie England humiliated by France in record Six Nations thumping[3]

·      France humiliates England in record 53-10 win in Six Nations[4]

The game result also came with some unenviable records:

  • A record loss for a home game;
  • The third highest loss deficit in English history in any game;[5]
  • The worse deficit for England in Six Nations history.

The 53-10 scoreline in England’s devastating home defeat to France in the Guinness Six Nations has made the record books for all the wrong reasons.[6]

So, Stephen has a challenge.

Let’s go back a bit in time.

In late 2015 the English Rugby Union hired their first foreign coach in Australian Eddie Jones,[7] replacing Stuart Lancaster. Lancaster had achieved a 61% win/loss record in his four-year, one world cup cycle tenure.[8]

Eddie rewarded this decision in 2016 with an unbeaten record and a Six Nations title.  He also became only the second coach to achieve an unbeaten year record. Eddie backed it up with another Six Nations title in 2017. He achieved a third Six Nations title in 2020,[9] and led the team to the finals in the 2019 World Cup where they were defeated by South Africa.

Jones achieved the title of the most successful English coach ever over his seven year stint finishing with a  73%.[10]

So, what’s that got to do with Stephen Borthwick and the latest ‘record’? Everything.

Some infer that the slump is because Eddie has left, such as this heading:

Post-Eddie England humiliated by France in record Six Nations thumping[11]

I suggest there is potentially a different perspective to this story.

At England Eddie Jones joined that small list of ‘first year winners’.  That creates a new challenge. Some say there is only one way to go from there – down. I like to think there are two. Stay winning, or decline.

Eddie took the former path for his second season, and then took the latter path for the following two seasons.  There’s a story behind that (you can read more about that in my upcoming rugby book), but for now I’m going to stay focused on Stephen Borthwick’s predicament.

The following tables depicts England’s annual Six Nation’s results under Eddie Jones.

Table 1 – Eddie Jones’ England’s 7 Year Six Nations Ladder Results

You can see three phases here- the decline from 2016 peak to 2018, and then the recovery from 2019 into a new peak in 2020, followed by a further decline into 2022.

However, the Six Nations tournament is only part of the picture. The annual win-loss results may be more informative.

The following charts shows this pattern.

Figure 1 – Eddie Jones’ 7 Year English RugbyWin-Loss Stats

Stephen has a challenge. He has been left with downward momentum by his former mentor and predecessor. Will he successfully overcome that challenge?

Some doubt it such as this journalist:

Hopeless England suffer their most humiliating day and worse is to come.[12]

What do you think?

~~~~~~~~~

If you’re a rugby fan and interested in my experience with rugby union specifically over the last 40 years, you might be interested in a book I’m currently writing. Send me an email (info@kingsports.net) or post a comment on this blog and I’ll ensure you’re the first to know about the completed book once finished.

 

References

[1] England 10-53 France: Steve Borthwick’s sorry side concede their most points EVER at Twickenham in Six Nations

[2] England suffer historic humiliation after France’s Twickenham tour de force

[3] Post-Eddie England humiliated by France in record Six Nations thumping

[4] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/sports/article/2023/03/11/france-humiliates-england-in-record-53-10-win-in-six-nations_6018971_9.html

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_England_national_rugby_union_team_records

[6] https://www.rugbypass.com/news/a-list-of-england-rugbys-heaviest-defeats/

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Jones_(rugby_union)#:~:text=Jones%20was%20named%20as%20the,end%20of%202023%20World%20Cup.

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Lancaster_(rugby_union)

[9] https://www.sixnationsrugby.com/history/roll_of_honour/

[10] https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/england-eddie-jones-record-six-nations-b2239811.html

[11] https://www.smh.com.au/sport/post-eddie-england-humiliated-by-france-in-record-six-nations-thumping-20230312-p5crd7.html

[12] https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/england-france-score-result-six-nations-b2298855.html

A lament for the late arrivals

In the modern history of athletic preparation, there has been growing consideration for physical preparation. What the Americans call ‘strength & conditioning’. It may not be accurate to suggest that physical preparation is a new concept. The interpretation of the stories of the Greek athlete Milo of Croton from 6th BC gives support to a longer history.

However physical preparation has changed a lot in the forty-plus years during my professional involvement in sport.

A review of literature review reveals that track and field and then American football led the way in embracing physical preparation during the last century, especially the American version of physical preparation where ‘strength training’ dominants, literally and figuratively (i.e. in the title – strength… and then conditioning).

As surprising as it seems to the younger generation these were the only sports up until about 1980 in the US and 1990 in Australia that fully embraced the American interpretation of physical preparation.

Post 1980 (North America) and 1990 (Asia Pacific) a new wave embraced the American interpretation of physical preparation. Power and mixed energy sports such as most field sports e.g. rugby union, rugby league, Australian Rules Football, to name a few Australian based sports.

I call this the second wave.

Post 2000 there was a third wave that involved sports such as swimming. Some may suggest that swimming embraced strength training earlier – not based on my experiences working with both US and Australian-based swimmers. Let’s just say the discussions in the national team environment, that I was party to, were not favorable in the direction of strength training for swimming. I did not see any real acceptance of this until post 2000, and I include observations of coaching protocols as well as the content being shared at the annual Australian Swim Coaches Association (as it was known then) conventions.

Post 2010 there was a fourth wave that involved sports with great balance and less direct relationship with swimming e.g. surfing, off-road motorcycle racing. I call these the late arrivals.

There is I suggest a pattern to the sequence of acceptance by sports of the American influenced ‘strength and conditioning’. From sports where strength training plays a bigger role through to sports where strength training plays a lessor role.

Table 1 – Four waves of sports that embraced physical preparation.

Phase USA Australia Sports
1 – Early embracers <1980 <1980 Track # field, American football
2 – >1980 >1990 Power and mixed energy sports e.g. rugby, Australian Rules
3 – >2000 >2000 Diverse medium sports e.g. swimming
4 – Late arrivals >2010 >2010 Displacement, balance and more coordination-based sports e.g. off-road motorcycle disciplines

©King, I., 2021

Put simply, there is a reason they are late arrivals. And therefore, blind acceptance and embracing of methodology applied in all other sports has even more potential downsides the further along the continuum you go.

I feel for the late arrivals, and I lament the collateral damage they are potentially walking into. To see they feel, they are being more ‘professional’ by the mere act of ‘going to the gym’ and embracing the same training values as their predecessors sports is hurtful to watch.

There is a reason certain sports were later to the ‘strength training’ party, and if you fail to respect that and fail to reflect and consider more optimal ways, then these sports will pay the biggest price of them all. And I suggest it is happening.

Firstly, if the lessons of the last century of strength training for sport were made available. However, they are not.

Let me give an example. There would be very few swimming coaches in the Australian high-performance environment alive and coaching today who were around in the 1960s when Australian swim coaches began their initial flirtation with strength training. They learned certain things and reacted appropriately, pulling back from this modality, in at least the way it was being done. I base these observations on personal discussions with the late John Carew. I doubt too many if any of the current Australian elite swim coaches have had such discussions. The lessons have been lost.

The outcome is increased injuries and decreased performance. The exact opposite to the proclaimed benefits of ‘strength and conditioning’. A great example of this is Australian rugby, where it’s been nearly 20 years since Australia beat the New Zealand All Blacks for the cherished Bledisloe Cup, and the nation has sunk to a historic low world ranking of 7th in recent years. There are reasons for this, and a big part of this I suggest is the misguided off-field training resulting in decreased performance potential and increased injury incidence and severity.

It’s tough to beat a nation where the players may be more culturally and genetically suited to the game when your off-field training is letting you down.

Secondly, it may also be fine if strength training for sport, the American way, has evolved well past the programs used for American football. However, I suggest they have not.

Again, in anticipation of challenges to my last statement, let me give you an example – a golf scholarship athlete at a Div. 1 US NCAA college given the exact program as the American football team at the same college – post 2010…

Many American football players do not run far, do not touch the ball and so. If you are not playing American football and conduct your off-field training in a way that is heavily influenced, you will pay a price. And I suggest that is happening.

However how many were around in the 1970s transition to the 1980s in physical preparation to know from a personal/ professional perspective what had transpired in the formation of the American interpretation of physical preparation. Not many. The lessons have been lost.

All athletes want to play, and some want to play at the higher levels. In this pursuit, they seek additional and ‘new’ ways to train, to gain confidence they are ‘on track’ e.g., training like ‘all the other pro’s’.

I feel for the late arrivals, and I lament the collateral damage they are potentially walking into. There should have been a better message for you by now, however there is not. Tread carefully.

Ideally, I should be saving I hope your non-specific (physical preparation) training helps you thrive. That would be nice. However, based on my experience and observations – what I know – if you do what the rest of your colleagues are doing in their interpretation of the best way to train, survive may be a more appropriate term.

You deserve better. Our profession has failed to deliver safe training, let alone optimal training. Now it’s up to you to be more discerning. Don’t assume. Don’t imitate. Seek answers, dig deeper, objectively question and interpret the cause-effect relationship of what you are seeing and doing. Be more scientific in your review than our profession is.

Your future depends on it.

And not just your sporting future.

Still hamstrung, after all these years

The story goes that back in about the 1970s two high level bodybuilders agreed to a sprint race, and during that sprint race they both tore hamstrings.

This story entertained many, however I took a more serious lesson from it.

Combined with my observations of the shift in posture from the 1960s to the 1970s bodybuilder and took into account that the clients I served displaced further and faster that the average bodybuilder, alarm bells were ringing.

The development of the Lines of Movement Concept (especially the hip vs quad dominant component was a direct response to my concerns about injury potential from muscle balance.  As was the introduction and innovation of bodyweight and unilateral exercises into strength training in a way that was considered unconventional at the time (however since 2000 have become the backbone of the so-called ‘functional training’ movement). [1]

Or you can learn about it second hand, however I suggest the power of the message may have been diluted in these versions.

That’s just not my biased opinion – that an observation of the direction of injuries globally.

So in the 1980s I  committed to ensuring the muscle imbalances evident from mainstream strength training trends would not be part of the life of athletes I worked with.

Decades later I look back with confirmation that my Zero Tolerance approach to injuries, especially soft tissue injuries, has been successful.

Successful for athletes that I have worked with during the past four decades. However, the message, even with the concept being republished endlessly by others, has not been successful.

It appears humans are still struggling to prevent simple yet debilitating injuries such as hamstring strains.

These soft tissue injuries are predictable, preventable, unnecessary and non-productive.

Recently at an off-road motorcycling competition I observed a rider enter the pits prematurely and heard him declare he has torn his hamstring.  I was more than intrigued, mixed with the usual compassion for the athlete.  He had torn his hamstring on a motorbike?

As a student of injury prevention, not only did I provide care and guidance over the next hour, I tested my hypothesis as I typically do with a series of questions to the rider.

My conclusion – just another victim of mainstream training paradigms. He was buffed. Anyone male would be proud of the physique he had developed. But stretching? No, not much of that. I checked out his all-important quads and they were rocks. They looked great.   A real Men’s Health model candidate. However, the rest of the body was suffering for the training outcome he had produced – especially the hamstrings.

At first he was keen to tell me had been tight all is his life. That was shut down quickly with his – and to his credit – acknowledgement he had not done much to change this.

Then he went down the path of ‘I am a rower and that is why I am tight’. That was shut down quickly when I raised some of the elite rowers I had worked with, and that I had failed to observe tightness as a common theme in rowers.

Once we got through the excuses and the defense mechanisms and got to hear how he trained – there were no surprise. He had absorbed the current paradigms of training and was just another victim of the times.

There is no shortage of statistics on the extent of hamstring injury; Here are a few collated by Eirale C. and Ekstrand (2019)[2]:

  • Epidemiological studies assessing sports constantly rank hamstring injuries as one of the most prevalent factors resulting in missed playing time by athletes.[3] [4] [5]
  • Hamstring ‘strains’ account for a substantial percentage of acute, sports related musculoskeletal injuries with a prevalence of 6 to 25%, depending on the sport. [6]
  • Hamstring strains are far more common in positions in which sprinting is more often required.[7] [8] [9]
  • A survey of the UEFA Champions League showed that muscle injuries make up more than 30% of all player injuries and cause about 1/4 of total time lost due to injury.[10]
  • Over 90% of muscle injuries seen in this study involved four major muscle groups of the lower extremity: hamstrings, adductors, quadriceps and gastrocnemius. [11]
  • Injury to the hamstring muscle group is reported to be the most common injury subtype representing 12% of all injuries and more than 1/3 of all strains.[12]
  • A professional male soccer team with 25 players may expect about five hamstring injuries each season, equivalent to more than 80 lost football days and 14 missed matches.[13]
  • In soccer injury to the hamstring muscle group is reported to be the most common injury subtype representing 12% of all injuries and more than 1/3 of all strains.[14]
  • In a track and field sprinting study the most frequent diagnosis was hamstring strain.[15] For example, thigh strain was the most common diagnosis (16%) in sports injury surveillance studies at the 2007, 2009 and 2011 IAAF (International Association of Athletics Federations) World Athletics Championships.[16] [17] [18]
  • In the American football muscle strains account for 46% of practice injuries and 22% of pre-season game injuries, the second most common pre-season injury.[19]
  • More than half (53.1%) of all hamstring injuries in American football occurred in the 7-week pre-season, before the teams had even played their first regular-season game.[20]

And there is also no shortage of claimed causes and preventions. Perhaps the most popular of these is described in the following statement:“The best evidence for injury prevention is available for programmes designed to increase hamstring strength, particularly eccentric hamstrings strength.”[21]

So, what impact have all these theories and research had on hamstring injury incidence?

“Despite a massive amount of recent research and consequent prevention programmes, hamstring injury incidence is not decreasing.” [22]:

I shake my head as to why the sporting world is still plagued by soft tissue injuries. Everyone now wants to be a ‘injury rehab specialist’ – yet no-one wants to be an ‘injury prevention’ advocate.

Perhaps it is understandable, when you search the ‘web you find so many articles, website and experts purporting to have the education to prevent hamstring injuries. I am very uninterested in theories. I want to know of sporting seasons with high volumes of athletes and minimal if any soft tissue injuries. That’s the only evidence that matters.

Soft tissue injuries such as hamstring strains are completely optional and unnecessary. It’s pretty easy to make them extinct or near extinct. Yet they continue.

Two things are apparent to me – the rise in soft tissue injuries, and the concurrent rise in funding and research on how to prevent them has been ineffective.

Yet the ‘search’ continues. The NFL has just allocated $4m USD (yes, 4 million) to:

“…fund a team of medical researchers led by the University of Wisconsin” to “investigate the prevention and treatment of hamstring injuries for elite football players.” [23]

The NFL has had only one century to solve the mystery of hamstrings…[24]

This statement was made in relation to this research:

“The persistent symptoms, slow healing, and a high rate of re-injury make hamstring strains a frustrating and disabling injury for athletes and a challenge for sport medicine clinicians to treat,” said Dr. Bryan Heiderscheit, PT, PhD, FAPTA, Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.” [25]

I agree it would be frustrating for the athletes – if they were trained in a manner that resulted in hamstring strains. I agree it would be a challenge for sports medicine clinicians to treat – if they didn’t know how to prevent and rehabilitate them on the rare occasions they might occur.

However, I don’t agree with the following suggestion in relation to the recent NFL funding:

“To truly understand and reduce hamstring injury risk requires a study of an unprecedented size and scope.”

And what will it result in? Will it solve the leagues 100 years search for answers to hamstring strains? Let’s review the hamstring strain stats in the NFL in about a decade. That should be enough time.

I have my predictions, and I am sure they differ from those invested in the ‘research’ of hamstring strains. Our profession has been ‘researching’ hamstring strains for decades, and I suggest that it has not resulted in a downturn in hamstring incidence.

But you don’t need my opinion. The statistics tell the story.

It appears the world is still hamstrung, after all these years.

 

References

[1] You can learn more about these concepts in the original writings of How to Write (1998) and How to Teach (2000), the Legacy book (2018) or the KSI Coaching Courses.

[2] Eirale C. and Ekstrand, J.,  2019, Hamstrings are dangerous for sport and sport is dangerous for hamstrings, Aspetar Sports Medicine Journal, Vol. 8, p. 438-444.

[3] Ekstrand J, Healy JC, Walden M, Lee JC, English B, Hagglund M. Hamstring muscle injuries in professional football: the correlation of MRI findings with return to play. Br J Sports Med 2012; 46:112-117.

[4] Orchard JW. Intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors for muscle strains in Australian football. Am J Sports Med 2001; 29:300- 303.

[5] Eirale C, Farooq A, Smiley FA, Tol JL, Chalabi H. Epidemiology of football injuries in Asia: a prospective study in Qatar. J Sci Med Sport 2013; 16:113-117.

[6] Heiderscheit BC, Sherry MA, Silder A, Chumanov ES, Thelen DG. Hamstring strain injuries: recommendations for diagnosis, rehabilitation, and injury prevention. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2010; 40:67-81.

[7] Elliott MC, Zarins B, Powell JW, Kenyon CD. Hamstring muscle strains in professional football players: a 10-year review. Am J Sports Med 2011; 39:843-850.

[8] Ekstrand J, Hagglund M, Walden M. Epidemiology of muscle injuries in professional football (soccer). Am J Sports Med 2011; 39:1226-1232

[9] Orchard JW, Seward H, Orchard JJ. Results of 2 decades of injury surveillance and public release of data in the Australian football league. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41:734-741.

[10] Ekstrand J, Hagglund M, Walden M. In jury incidence and injury patterns in professional football: the UEFA injury study. Br J Sports Med 2011; 45:553-558.

[11] Ekstrand J, Hagglund M, Walden M. Epidemiology of muscle injuries in professional football (soccer). Am J Sports Med 2011; 39:1226-1232.

[12] Ekstrand J, Hagglund M, Walden M. Epidemiology of muscle injuries in professional football (soccer). Am J Sports Med 2011; 39:1226-1232.

[13] Ekstrand J, Hagglund M, Walden M. Epidemiology of muscle injuries in professional football (soccer). Am J Sports Med 2011; 39:1226-1232.

[14] Ekstrand J, Hagglund M, Walden M. Epidemiology of muscle injuries in professional football (soccer). Am J Sports Med 2011; 39:1226-1232.

[15] Jacobsson J, Timpka T, Kowalski J, Nilsson S, Ekberg J, Renstrom P. Prevalence of musculoskeletal injuries in Swedish elite track and field athletes. Am J Sports Med 2012; 40:163-169.

[16] Alonso JM, Junge A, Renstrom P, Engebretsen L, Mountjoy M, Dvorak J. Sports injuries surveillance during the 2007 IAAF World Athletics Championships. Clin J Sport Med 2009; 19:26-32.

[17] Alonso JM, Tscholl PM, Engebretsen L, Mountjoy M, Dvorak J, Junge A. Occurrence of injuries and illnesses during the 2009 IAAF World Athletics Championships. Br J Sports Med 2010; 44:1100-1105.

[18] Alonso JM, Edouard P, Fischetto G, Adams B, Depiesse F, Mountjoy M. Determination of future prevention strategies in elite track and field: analysis of Daegu 2011 IAAF Championships injuries and illnesses surveillance. Br J Sports Med 2012; 46:505-514.

[19] Feeley BT, Kennelly S, Barnes RP, Muller MS, Kelly BT, Rodeo SA. Epidemiology of National Football League training camp injuries from 1998 to 2007. Am J Sports Med 2008; 36:1597-1603.

[20] Elliott MC, Zarins B, Powell JW, Kenyon CD. Hamstring muscle strains in professional football players: a 10-year review. Am J Sports Med 2011; 39:843-850.

[21] Bahr, R., 2019, Prevention hamstring strains – a current view of literature, Aspetar Sports Medicine Journal, Vol. 8

[22] Eirale C. and Ekstrand, J.,  2019, Hamstrings are dangerous for sport and sport is dangerous for hamstrings, Aspetar Sports Medicine Journal, Vol. 8, p. 438-444.

[23] https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-scientific-advisory-board-awards-4-million-research-funding-hamstring

[24] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League

[25] https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-scientific-advisory-board-awards-4-million-research-funding-hamstring

Life’s not fair. Even at the Olympics.

Having the 2020 Games postponed by a year and not really being sure whether it was even going to happen was tough.

How hard was it to time a peak in the unknown?

There were the 12 Victorian (AUS) swimmers denied the opportunity to compete in the Olympic trials due to COVID regulations around travel. [1]

There is talk of a Canadian swimmer whose positive COVID-19 test precluding them from their Olympic Trials was shown to be a false positive the day later.

Then there were the three Olympic athletes ruled out of the Games before leaving home due to positive COVID tests.[2] And that was just the tip of the iceberg.

And the Ugandan athlete who test positive upon arrival in Japan and has been ruled out of the Games. [3] And that won’t be the last case we hear of.

And the athletes who have been ruled out after testing positive at the Games – and this is just  Day 1.[4]

Then there was the Canadian female basketball player who had to choose between being a breast feeding mum or an Olympian, as family members have been banned from the Tokyo Olympic Village.[5]

Then there was the US track athlete who had to choose between copping a drug ban for not opening the door to drug testing officials or sharing the abortion she had two days prior to the visit as the reason for not answering the door. The end result – no privacy and a drug ban.[6]

On the flip side there is the 80+% of Japanese who disapprove of the Games happening at all.[7]  One can only assume they feel the imposition of the Games is not fair.

Life’s not fair. Even at the Olympics.

References

[1] https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/olympics/swimming/tokyo-olympic-swimming-trials-australian-athletes-hopes-of-qualifying-crushed-by-covid19/news-story/436ca2c9da2be93cdef478ae4e40ea92

[2] https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1110516/chile-taekwondo-player-tests-positive

[3] https://swimswam.com/vaccinated-ugandan-olympic-athlete-denied-entry-to-japan-after-coronavirus-test/

[4] https://www.npr.org/2021/07/18/1017606827/two-athletes-have-tested-positive-for-covid-19-inside-the-olympic-village

[5] https://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/summer/basketball/olympics-canada-basketball-kim-gaucher-breastfeeding-1.6078717

[6] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/01/sports/olympics/abortion-doping-olympics-mcneal.html

[7] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/05/17/national/tokyo-olympics-cancel-survey/

Tokyo. It’s actually happening!

Its July 2021 and the Games of the XXXII Olympiad originally scheduled for Tokyo 2020 are now happening!

Up until a few months ago no-one was sure they would.

Many Games become ‘known’ for something.

Especially since 1968….

Mexico City 1968 was known for two African American athletes, Tommie Smith and John Carlos each raised a black gloved fist during the playing of the US national anthem.

According to Wikipedia[1] – “Smith and Carlos delivered the salute with heads bowed, a gesture which became front-page news around the world. As they left the podium they were booed by the crowd. Smith later said, “If I win, I am American, not a black American. But if I did something bad, then they would say I am a Negro. We are black and we are proud of being black. Black America will understand what we did tonight.

Tommie Smith stated in later years that “We were concerned about the lack of black assistant coaches. About how Muhammad Ali got stripped of his title. About the lack of access to good housing and our kids not being able to attend the top colleges.”

One can only hope the public reaction would be more considerate in these times.

These Games were also know for the introduction of drug testing resulting in one athlete being banned. This was the the lowest positive drug testing count of all subsequent Olympic Games, and only one of three times the count was single digits (along with 1992 and 1996)

Munich 1972 was known for the group of Palestinian terrorists storms the Olympic Village apartment of the Israeli athletes, killing two and taking nine others hostage. Understandably this overshadowed the feats such as American swimmer Mark Spitz’s seven gold medals and teenage Russian gymnast Olga Korbut’s two dramatic gold-medal victories.

Montreal 1976 was marred by an African boycott involving 22 countries, protesting the New Zealand rugby team had toured Apartheid South Africa.  In addition, the locals financially supported debt from these Games for a number of decades.

Moscow 1980 was known for the United States led a boycott of the Summer Olympic Games in Moscow to protest the late 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.  Over 60 countries joined the US in this boycott.

Los Angeles 1984 was known for the Soviet Union boycotting the games.  Perhaps payback for 1980?

Seoul 1988 was known for the first high profile positive drug result given to Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson. The 100 m track sprint event  has since been notoriously referred to as ‘the dirtiest race in history’.

Barcelona 1992 became the first Olympics where athletes were disqualified for the use of the drug Clenbuterol (US athletes Jud Logan and Bonnie Dassie).  Tough calls, as this Games had the second lowest positive drug test numbers in the post 1968 history of drug testing (5 positives). Unlike Montreal, the locals appeared happy with the long-term impact of the Games.

Atlanta 1996 was known for the domestic terrorist pipe bombing attack on Centennial Olympic Park which killed one person and injured 111 others.  This overshadowed many of the results, however it was also the third lowest positive drug test Games with only 7 positives in the record books.

Sydney 2000, Athens 2004, Beijing 2008, London 2012, Rio 2016 – all seemed relatively calm in comparison.

Then along came Tokyo – and the global pandemic of COVID-19.

Perhaps Tokyo will be known as the Games that were delayed for a year and nearly didn’t happen.

Tokyo may be one of only 11 cities that have hosted more than one Olympic Games (1964 and 2021), however they also cancelled an Olympics previously (1940).

Hopefully they will not also become known as the Games that were cancelled during the event….

 

References

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Olympics_Black_Power_salute

The best gift a physical preparation coach can give

At a time of year when giving is on the mind, I want to share that in my opinion the best gift a physical preparation coach can give is the gift of quality of life. And whilst the cardio-vascular benefits have decades of support, and the muscle density has now been raised to the same level of value through recognition of muscle mass loss as a correlate with aging and other risk factors, this is still not what I am specifically referring to.

I am referring to the muscles, bones and nerves.

In the early 1980s as I set out on my professional journey I realized the shift in posture from the 1960s and earlier bodybuilder (Reeves, Park etc) to the post 1970s bodybuilder such as Arnold. Their shape changed, and from my perspective for the worse.  I trained athletes, however I respected the power of bodybuilding as a medium and knew that these ‘dis-eases’ would filter into athlete preparation.  It was not happening, at least not on my watch.

This realization along with a desire to categorize strength exercises led me to the years of reflection that resulted in the Lines of Movement concept. Quite simply I wanted to avoid imbalances, and I ultimately shared this concept so the world could do the same.

Now that has not happened. Despite every ‘professional’ being able to recite the major categories in the Lines of Movement (albeit with that little one word twist that is a reflection of in individual’s attempt to be ‘original’), wax lyrical on the need for balance, and show the vernacular of push pull etc. in their training programs, the results show that knowing something and doing something are not the same.

Not that our Eastern philosophers are surprised, as they were very clear –‘To know and not do is to not know.’

In fact since the 1970s, more ways to create imbalance than I had ever expected have been added post 2000, as I speak about in Vol. 3 of Ian King’s Guide to Strength Training.

I don’t expect to save the world anymore. I have learned to let it go. I even witness young athletes see me one day and then be overwhelmed by the opportunities of professional sport and embrace all that is done to them, including the young highly gifted athlete whose shoulder relationship degraded by another say 10% in as little as 3 weeks. We know which bed he will be resting on soon and it is one with bright lights above and a person standing over him with a scalpel…

The greatest power I have is to identify and empower those rare individuals who are have come to a point in their career when they realize something is not right. Who have the courage to think for themselves, to train in a way that is not supported by the dominant trend or the current internet driven guru. It is these individuals that I now communicate almost exclusively with in a professional sense.

For whilst I have given up on expecting to save the world, based on the failure of the late 1990s teachings to achieve the intended goal in the ensuing 20 years, I have also given up the expectation that any but an incredibly small minority of the professionals in this industry either have the humility and courage to do what is best, or care enough for others to take these steps.

And for this minority, the best gift you can give is the gift of quality of life. The ability to move for as long as possible in the later years. The ability to play with your kids and grandkids in the back yard. And in the perfect world, your great grandkids.

For this gift will be the exclusive domain of those who listen to and are guided by my brutal search for the best way to train and remain injury free. A search I have been on for 4 decades now, and a few more planned!

So it is incredibly rewarding when I receive feedback such as this. And note this person has only just completed our Level 0 Coaching course! A very powerful experience, yet so many move levels to follow. If we can change lives through you, we are fulfilling our potential, for together we can do more than I an on my own.

Really enjoyed it Ian gained a lot of information and knowledge (also when I look back at my training/ injury history it all seems very clear why I had those injury’s now. Incorporating a lot in too my training and clients. so far so good. Really like the way KSI goes about things. I am interested in learning more and progressing to level 1.”—CE, NZ

The Strength Training Over-Reaction

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

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

“If anyone gets slower you’re fired.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endurance

Flexibility

Speed

Strength

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

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

Stretching makes you weak.

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

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

Now imagine this statement, if made today:

Strength training makes you tight.

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

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

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

Strength training negatively impacts skill execution in sport.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

“You know they are wasting their time!?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

That was it?!

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

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

Really? That was it?!

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

Really? That was it?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strength Coach: No.

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

Strength Coach: Zero.

IK: I’m glad you’re honest with me.

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

And they are not alone in doing so…..

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

References

[1] Reference withheld to protect the message.

[2] Reference withheld to protect the message.

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

[4] Reference withheld to protect the message.

[5] Reference withheld to protect the message.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q1. Who owns the company?

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

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

Q2. Who founded the company?

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

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

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

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

Q5. How long have they been operating?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q8. Who formulated the product/s?

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

Q9. Are their scientists in-house or outsourced?

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

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

Q10. Do they manufacture in-house or outsource?

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

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

Q11. Do they manufacturer at GMP?

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

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

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

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

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

Q12. Do they guarantee the potency of every pill?

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

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

Q13. What is their refund policy?

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

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

Q14. What customer support do they offer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They also go on to say: [3]

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

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

Q17. Will I pass a drug test?

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nutritional supplements and strength training: Part 4 – Has the full vitamin story been told?

Vitamins and minerals as food extracts have a long history dating back to the early 1900s when they were first identified. They have since been recognized for their potential to contribute to human health, although there is a divergence of thinking as to their exact potential and role.

This debate is almost mute in the sport and fitness industry, where the focus on these micronutrients has been overshadowed by the development and marketing of more supplements touted as ‘performance enhancement’ supplements.

In fact its fair to say that the humble vitamin has become so ‘boring’ or ‘old-world’ or ‘not sexy’ that potentially the majority of those taking supplements in this industry do not both to include them in their supplement regime.

Why have the majority in the sports and fitness industry eschewed the humble vitamin? One contributing factor could be that the lack of consensus and presence of debate surrounding the efficacy (and in the minds of some) and safety of this century old discovery. This has certainly made it easier for the so-called performance enhancement supplement manufacturers and marketers to promote their offering in an environment where the full vitamin story may not have been told.

The aim of this article is to contribute to and perhaps enhance your consideration towards vitamins. Perhaps if the extent of the role of the humble vitamin was more greatly appreciated, the average person influenced by the power of marketing may have more reason to return to the basics, or at least include these basics.

The journey of one vitamin – Vitamin C – will be used to give insights into and highlight the journey of vitamins. Vitamin C is also an excellent showcase as it is one that has received a lot of attention since Linus Pauling turned his (and the world’s) attention to it from the late 1960s.

The vitamin story origin

The vitamin story origin began back in the early 1900s. Casimir Funk, a Polish biochemist, is credited this origin, when in 1911 he published on the subject, using the words “vital amines” or “vitamines” to describe his discovery. In 1912 he published another article proposing :

“…the existence of at least four vitamins: one preventing beriberi (“antiberiberi”); one preventing scurvy (“antiscorbutic”); one preventing pellagra (“antipellagric”); and one preventing rickets (“antirachitic”)[1]

Ironically Funk proposed the idea that various diseases could be cured with nutrients.[2] I say ironically because from the out-set the battle lines were drawn with an industry that was already in existence, and arguably felt threatened – the medical industry.

This cited quote from a 1922 Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in relation to certain supplements:

“ The claims set forth on the labels of the medicinal values of these preparations are extravagant and misleading…”[3]

The Vitamin C story

Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, a Hungarian scientist and 1937 Nobel Peace Prize winner, is credited with discovering Vitamin C in the 1930s. Within a few years, vitamin C (ascorbic acid) became recognized as a substance that greatly improved one’s health.[4]

One prominent US scientist who took a great deal of interest in the vitamin discovery was Linus Pauling.

Linus Pauling has a very substantial resume. He is described as: [5]

“…an American chemist, biochemist, peace activist, author, educator, and husband of American human rights activist Ava Helen Pauling, Pauling published more than 1,200 papers and books, of which about 850 dealt with scientific topics. New Scientist called him one of the 20 greatest scientists of all time,[6] and as of 2000, he was rated the 16th most important scientist in history.[7]

Along the way he won two Nobel Peace prize – unshared (1954 for Chemistry; and 1962 for Peace Activism) – making him only one of four individuals to have won two, one of only two to have won them in different fields, and the only person to have been awarded two unshared Nobel Peace Prizes. [8]

He then turned his attention to health, and concluded that:

Optimal health could be achieved by perfecting reaction conditions and making sure that the body maintained the proper balance of chemicals–nutrients, catalysts, and products.“[9]

He coined the term ‘orthomolecular’, meaning the ‘right molecules in the right amounts, and used the term in conjunction with the word ‘medicine’.

He first used the term in print in 1967 in relation to psychiatric therapy. He had by then become convinced that conditions such as schizophrenia could be treated with nutrients such as niacin, an approach developed by Abram Hoffer and Humphrey Osmond. However, his theory of orthomolecular psychiatry was ignored or criticized by the medical community. [10]

Pauling became openly vocal specifically about vitamin C form about 1969, when he “was commenting to reporters that physicians should pay more attention to vitamin C”. [11]

Pauling took a much larger step when he became intrigued with the biochemistry of nutrition. This included exploring the possibility that mental retardation and mental illness (especially schizophrenia) were caused by various biochemical and genetic disorders. This later led to collaborative clinical research with Dr. Abram Hoffer on the therapeutic efficacy of vitamins in cancer.[12]

Pauling proposed that conditions such as:

“…mental abnormalities….. and cancer might be successfully treated by correcting imbalances or deficiencies among naturally occurring biochemical constituents, notably vitamins and other micronutrients, as an alternative to the administration of potent synthetic psychoactive drugs”. [13]

In 1976, Pauling and Dr. Ewan Cameron, a Scottish physician, reported that a majority of one hundred “terminal” cancer patients treated with 10,000 mg of vitamin C daily survived three to four times longer than similar patients who did not receive vitamin C supplement. This research was criticized by r. William DeWys, chief of clinical investigations at the National Cancer Institute, amongst others.[14]

They published their results between 1974 and 1978. [15] [16] [17] [18]

This is where he may have stepped over the line in the eyes of the medical and pharmaceutical industries. He was easy pickings as he was reaching into areas that many were to claim were not his ‘specialty’:

Many felt Pauling was too far out of his field of expertise with his research into nutrition, and he was largely ignored by mainstream medicine and nutritional science.[19]

I’m not sure that ‘ignored’ is the best way to describe the response. I suggest it was more active than that, as exemplified by the below comment:

Treating cancer with high-doses of vitamin C is a zombie idea that began with Linus Pauling, and has failed to die ever since. But has new research vindicated this idea? No. No in any meaningful way.[20]

The medical response to Vitamin C

At the time of Linus Pauling putting his credibility behind increased Vitamin C dosage, the US Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA – RDAs were originally set in 1941)[21] and the figure in place at that time for Vitamin C was 60 mg/day for both adult men and women.[22] Which was the equivalent of the vitamin C in average orange.[23] In other words, it was expected that most people could get all the vitamins they needed from their diet, and to suggest supplementation was challenging to the mainstream belief.

In response to Pauling’s claims:

Dr. Victor Herbert, a clinical nutritionist who had helped set the FDA’s recommended daily allowances for vitamins, wrote Pauling a letter demanding the evidence for recommending increased doses of vitamin C”.[24]

In return Pauling collated the literature and research on the health benefits of Vitamin C and in 1971 published a book titled ‘Vitamin C and the Common Cold’.

This contributed to a generation who began taking their daily Vitamin C tablet, as you may discover if you ask those alive during that decade.

Not everyone was happy however. This is one of the reviews to Paulings book, published in the Journal of American Medical Association.

“Unfortunately, many laymen are going to believe the ideas that the author is selling,” Franklin Bing wrote in a scathing review of the “irritating” book in the Journal of the American Medical Association.[25]

In his 1971 book Pauling recommended 1,000 mg of vitamin C daily, claiming it will reduce the incidence of colds by 45% for most people but that some people need much larger amounts. In his 1976 revision of the book he suggested even higher dosages, and in third book, Vitamin C and Cancer (1979) he claimed that high doses of vitamin C may be effective against cancer.

In How to Feel Better and Live Longer (1986) Pauling claimed that megadoses of vitamins

“….can improve your general health . . . to increase your enjoyment of life and can help in controlling heart disease, cancer, and other diseases and in slowing down the process of aging.”[26]

By 1991 he was recommending daily doses of 6,000 to 18,000 mg of vitamin C, 400 to 1,600 IU of vitamin E, and 25,000 IU of vitamin A, plus various other vitamins and minerals.

In a 1984 US court case,[27] Pauling testified that the proper intake of vitamin C for adults was “around 10 or 20 grams per day,” that this would significantly reduce death rates, and that he knew of people who had taken 150 grams of vitamin C daily for years without serious side effects:

I have taken 50,000 milligrams a day for several days in succession without having any serious side effect, and I know people who have taken a hundred and fifty thousand milligrams, a third of a pound a day, day after day for years without any serious side effects. [28]

Within a year of Pauling’s 1978 research into the cancer benefits of Vitamin C, research results from a Mayo Clinic trial that apparently ‘proved’ Pauling’s conclusions were mistaken[29] [30] and he was generally criticized for ‘flawed research’. [31]As to the accuracy of these claims I will allow you to reach your own conclusions.

You can also reach your own conclusions about two very different ‘research conclusions’ as to the role of Vitamin C in cancer treatment. Some suggest their were less than desirable motives behind the Mayo study results.[32]

Meanwhile, the RDA for Vitamin C was upgraded in 2000 from 60 mg for both adult men and women to 75 mg/day for adult women and 90mg/day for adult men.[33] Some variation was provided for different conditions, and for the first time an ‘upper safe limit’ was given, at 2,000 mg/day.

So there is movement in the mainstream, medical industry influenced recommendations, however the gap remains huge between what the likes of Linus Pauling and others concluded some half a century ago, and what we are ‘allowed’ to consume.

So what were leading strength training expert saying during the decade where Pauling and his associates were producing their studies? In the late 1970s, in his book, The Strongest Shall Survive,[34] Bill Starr suggested the strength training athlete consume 4,000 mg/day of Vitamin C.

A significant breakthrough in the medical community occurred when in 2002 in a Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) article, vitamin supplementation was embraced for arguably the first time, even if it was at a lower level.

Most people do not consume an optimal amount of all vitamins by diet alone. Pending strong evidence of effectiveness from randomized trials, it appears prudent for all adults to take vitamin supplements. The evidence base for tailoring the contents of multivitamins to specific characteristics of patients such as age, sex, and physical activity and for testing vitamin levels to guide specific supplementation practices is limited. Physicians should make specific efforts to learn about their patients’ use of vitamins to ensure that they are taking vitamins they should…. avoiding dangerous practices….[35]

Even so, fifteen years later, the medical embrace of Vitamins such as Vitamin C is lukewarm at best:

The data show that vitamin C is only marginally beneficial when it comes to the common cold,” says Dr. Bruce Bistrian, chief of clinical nutrition at Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.[36]

What if?

So what if vitamins had the potential to do more than reduce the time frame for a common cold, or enhance general health? What if it could do the things that Linus Pauling; Canadian biochemist, physician, and psychiatrist Abram Hofer;[37] [38] and others (including more recently the likes of Andrew Saul)claim they can do?

What if, for example, the story of the New Zealand farmer who recovered from near death through intravenous Vitamin C administration is true?[39] What if this case has broader application?

The challenge with this latter case is that it was published in a very mainstream Australian TV program, a serious break from tradition in what could reasonably be described as a bow for the anti-vitamin advocates and industry.

Here’s the major stumbling block – nutritional supplement labels cannot make disease related claims.

Developed country nutritional supplement manufacturers can only make certain claims. For example in the US claims on the label must meet one of three criteria, as determined by the relevant government regulator, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA):[40]

1) the 1990 Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) provides for FDA to issue regulations authorizing health claims for foods and dietary supplements after reviewing and evaluating the scientific evidence, either in response to a health claim petition or on its own initiative;

2) the 1997 Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act (FDAMA) provides for health claims based on an authoritative statement of the National Academy of Sciences or a scientific body of the U.S. government with responsibility for public health protection or nutrition research; such claims may be used 120 days after a health claim notification has been submitted to FDA, unless the agency has informed the notifier that the notification does not include all the required information; and

3) as described in FDA’s guidance entitled Interim Procedures for Qualified Health Claims in the Labeling of Conventional Human Food and Human Dietary Supplements, the agency reviews petitions for qualified health claims where the quality and strength of the scientific evidence falls below that required for FDA to issue an authorizing regulation.

In essence, until the medical and scientific community is willing to embrace that nutritional supplements have more of a role to play via supplementation than ‘general health’, there is little chance that the broader society will learn about any such additional benefits.

At this stage the FDA accepts some general health benefits of nutritional supplements, but nothing more:[41]

Scientific evidence shows that some dietary supplements are beneficial for overall health and for managing some health conditions. For example, calcium and vitamin D are important for keeping bones strong and reducing bone loss; folic acid decreases the risk of certain birth defects; and omega-3 fatty acids from fish oils might help some people with heart disease. Other supplements need more study to determine their value. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not determine whether dietary supplements are effective before they are marketed.

Until this changes – and it’s been this way for over half a century – you will only find a diluted ‘general’ comment about nutritional supplements in relation to their role in dealing with more serous health issues.

…if you start to look at supplement labels or brochures you’ll find diseases are not mentioned. Instead of finding supplements labeled for arthritis or high blood pressure, the labels say things like “helps maintain healthy joint movement” or “supports blood pressure levels in the normal range.[42]

This has been a point of frustration in the bodybuilding and fitness industry since as early as the 1950s in the US, where the enforcement action taken by the FDA against all the major supplement industry players (Weider, Hoffman, Johnson, and Rader, in relation to his labeling claims.[43]

If you want to hear more about or from those who belief that nutritional supplements have the ability to fulfill the things that Pauling, Hofer and others spoke about, you won’t get that information from manufacturers. But you will get that information from sources that are not regulated by government agencies.

Here are a few resources you might want to check out if you are interested in this area:

These are just a few of the growing global discussion on the role of supplementation in matters relating to larger health issues.

A question worth asking for those who are not currently facing serious medical issues and who are committed to optimal health – if certain nutritional supplements (e.g. Vitamin C) in specific dosages (i.e. what are considered above the RDA upper limit of 2,000mg/day) – do have the potential or ability to positive impact the more serious health conditions, what could they do for the health of others?

I will leave you to determine if that is a question you have.

Conclusion

So who do you believe when it comes to your health and vitamins and minerals? Or vitamins and minerals vs. drugs for your health? This is your decision. What I have done in the above article is to give you some insights into the history of vitamins and minerals,and sought to broaden your awareness about the claims and history of the claims as they relate to vitamins and serious health conditions.

On one hand you have incredibly smart people such as Linus Pauling (even though some found it appropriate to label him a quack[44]) making significant claims about the health benefits of vitamins, yet on the other hand you have some saying they are either useless[45] or actually cause disease[46].

There is a lot of talk on the internet about whether Linus Pauling has been vindicated. Here are titles from just the first page of a Google search ‘has Linus Pauling been vindicated’:

  • Linus Pauling Vitamin C Theory Vindicated? [47]
  • Linus Pauling May Have Been Vindicated – Vitamin C May Treat Cancer[48]
  • A vindication of Linus Pauling’s bizarre theory that vitamin C prevents cancer? [49]
  • High dose vitamin C and cancer: Has Linus Pauling been vindicated[50]
  • Vitamin C, Linus Pauling was right all along. A doctor’s opinion[51]
  • Linus Pauling vindicated – International Health News[52]
  • Vindication For Linus Pauling | Life Extension Magazine[53]
  • Linus Pauling Vindicated; Researchers Claim RDA for Vitamin C is Flawed[54]

It’s been over 50 years since Linus spoke out about the benefits of high dose vitamins. If he was on track, there’s been more than one generation of humans potentially denied the benefits due to the lack of clarity on the subject. Are you going to be one of them? It may be time to do your own research, including personal experiments to reach your own conclusions.

 

References

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_Funk

[2] https://amazingwellnessmag.com/features/history-of-vitamins

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_Funk

[4] https://paulingblog.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/casimir-funk-and-a-century-of-vitamins/

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#cite_note-Horgan-6

[6] Horgan, J (1993). “Profile: Linus C. Pauling – Stubbornly Ahead of His Time”. Scientific American. 266 (3): 36–40. Bibcode:1993SciAm.266c..36H. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0393-36.

[7] Gribbin, J (2002). The Scientists: A History of Science Told Through the Lives of Its Greatest Inventors. New York: Random House. pp. 558–569. ISBN 0812967887.

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#cite_note-Horgan-6

[9] https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/MM/p-nid/57

[10] https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/MM/p-nid/57

[11] https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/MM/p-nid/57

[12] http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/about/linus-pauling-biography

[13] http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/about/linus-pauling-biography

[14] https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.html

[15] Cameron E, Campbell A. The orthomolecular treatment of cancer. II. Clinical trial of high-dose ascorbic acid supplements in advanced human cancer. Chem Biol Interact 1974;9:285-315

[16] Cameron E, Campbell A, Jack T. The orthomolecular treatment of cancer. III. Reticulum cell sarcoma: double complete regression induced by high-dose ascorbic acid therapy. Chem Biol Interact 1975;11:387-93.

[17] Cameron E, Pauling L. Supplemental ascorbate in the supportive treatment of cancer: prolongation of survival times in terminal human cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1976;73:3685-9.

[18] Cameron E, Pauling L. Supplemental ascorbate in the supportive treatment of cancer: reevaluation of prolongation of survival times in terminal human cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1978;75:4538-42.

[19] https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/11/23/vitamin-c-curative-power.aspx

[20] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/high-dose-vitamin-c-and-cancer-has-linus-pauling-been-vindicated/

[21] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Reference_Intake

[22] http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/93/25/14344.full.pdf

[23] http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/many-mgs-vitamin-c-medium-oranges-6455.html

[24] https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/MM/p-nid/57

[25] https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7547741/vitamin-c-myth-pauling

[26] http://osupress.oregonstate.edu/book/how-to-live-longer-and-feel-better

[27] Pauling L Testimony at a hearing concerning Michael Gerber, M.D., March 6, 1984

[28] https://www.casewatch.org/board/med/gerber/pauling_1984.pdf

[29] Creagan ET, Moertel CG, O’Fallon JR, et al. Failure of high-dose vitamin C (ascorbic acid) therapy to benefit patients with advanced cancer. A controlled trial. N Engl J Med 1979;301:687-90.

[30] Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Creagan ET, et al. High-dose vitamin C versus placebo in the treatment of patients with advanced cancer who have had no prior chemotherapy. A randomized double-blind comparison. N Engl J Med 1985;312:137-41.

[31] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1405876/

[32] https://www.cancertutor.com/war_pauling/

[33] http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/vitamins/vitamin-C

[34] https://www.amazon.com/Strongest-Shall-Survive-Strength-Training/dp/B000GK2BLU

[35] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12069676

[36] https://www.health.harvard.edu/cold-and-flu/can-vitamin-c-prevent-a-cold

[37] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abram_Hoffer

[38] http://orthomolecular.org/history/hoffer/index.shtml

[39] https://www.foodmatters.com/article/nz-farmer-beats-swine-flu-with-vitamin-c-60-minutes-report

[40] https://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/ucm111447.htm

[41] https://ods.od.nih.gov/HealthInformation/DS_WhatYouNeedToKnow.aspx

[42] https://www.nowfoods.com/now/nowledge/why-dont-supplement-labels-talk-about-disease

[43] Roach, R., 2008, Muscle, Smoke and Mirrors, Vol. 1, Author House, p. 208.

[44] https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.html

[45] https://www.businessinsider.com.au/what-vitamins-should-i-take-2015-10?r=US&IR=T

[46] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-184617/Vitamins-increase-risk-heart-disease.html

[47] https://newsblaze.com/issues/science/linus-pauling-vitamin-c-theory-vindicated_40227/

[48] https://raypeatforum.com/community/threads/linus-pauling-may-have-been-vindicated-vitamin-c-may-treat-cancer.14891/

[49] http://edzardernst.com/2014/08/a-vindication-of-linus-paulings-bizarre-theory-that-vitamin-c-prevents-cancer/

[50] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/high-dose-vitamin-c-and-cancer-has-linus-pauling-been-vindicated/

[51] 8https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=has+linus+pauling+been+vindicated&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[52] https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=has+linus+pauling+been+vindicated&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[53] https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=has+linus+pauling+been+vindicated&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[54] http://www.laleva.org/eng/2004/07/linus_pauling_vindicated_researchers_claim_rda_for_vitamin_c_is_flawed.html