Optimising Human Performance Archives - Page 3 of 4

Nutritional supplements and strength training: Part 3 – Who do you trust?

May 30, 2018/by Ian King

We have a growing consumer awareness of food selection. The interest in organic foods is growing[i], the demand for fast food declining.[ii] So why is the awareness of the inherent challenges in nutritional supplement consumption so low? Why are you – and the majority of people – willing to do what everyone else is doing in the blind faith and trust that the supplement has what the label says it has, and does not contain any toxic or otherwise unhealthy material?

Let me summarize it this way – as long as ‘everyone’ is currently using it, the packaging looks great, and the nutritional labeling appears to be stacked full of what you were looking for, it’s good to go! Take the supplement, no further questions needed.

This may seem a bit too blasé in text, however tell me if this isn’t an accurate description of how the majority think. I suggest it is.

And what categories of nutritional supplement are the most exposed to ‘challenges’? According to a 2015 statement by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

“They’re most common in weight loss supplements, products that promise to boost sexual performance, and bodybuilding products, [FDA spokesperson Lyndsay] Meyer Meyer said”.[iii]

How real is the problem? According to a 2015 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, an estimated 23,000 emergency department visits in the United States every year are attributed to adverse events related to dietary supplements. Note that the categories of supplements where the greatest risks were was similar to those quoted by the FDA spokesperson (see Table).[iv]

So where specifically do the risks lie? Here are

Manufacturing standards
Misleading products and product claims
The sale of illegal supplements
Supplements containing drugs
Raw material selection and contamination
Truth in labeling
Outsourcing manufacturing
All of the above

The following provides further insights into each of these seven areas of risk.

1. Manufacturing standards

The manufacturing of nutritional supplements in the US has been described as ‘lightly regulated’.

Yet these pills undergo limited scrutiny by regulators. The FDA treats them like food — not like drugs — under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. Supplement manufacturers can put a wide variety of claims on their bottles, so long as there’s at least some research to back them up and so long as they’re honest about their ingredients. There’s no requirement for manufacturers to specify the quantity of ingredients or to warn consumers about potential side effects. What’s more, there are no regulators checking to make sure these manufacturers are telling the truth about what’s in their products before they hit store shelves.

To remove a supplement from the market, the FDA first has to prove that it’s not safe — which is what happened in the case of OxyElite Pro. This is basically the opposite of how pharmaceuticals are regulated. There, drugmakers need to prove their medicines are safe and effective through high-quality scientific studies before they ever reach consumers.[v]

Put simply, unlike pharmaceutical drug manufacturing, the FDA does not have premarket approval on supplements. Instead they have post-market oversight on supplements. They have to monitor the landscape and prove issues exist. This opens the door for a ‘it’s easier to seek forgiveness than to get approval’ approach, and you, the consumer, are in the middle of this mess.

The limitations of this lower standard of manufacturing compared to drugs is highlighted by the following:

The passing of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act in 1994 permitted dietary supplement manufacturers to bring to market products labeled as supplements without the scrutiny required of pharmaceuticals.

This lack of oversight has permitted the introduction of numerous supplement products, often containing unapproved active pharmaceutical ingredients, into the marketplace, which has led to harm, as was exemplified by the use of the supplement Pai You Guo.⁷

In these situations, it is incumbent on the FDA to contact the manufacturer of the supplement to trace the source of the product, and initiate a recall. However, a recent investigation by the Office of the Inspector General determined that the FDA does not possess accurate contact information for 20% of supplement manufacturers.⁸ This may explain why our study found a large discrepancy between the number of adulterated supplements reported by the FDA and the number that were actually recalled. .[vi]

As a result, this is what is often seen, as reported by Dr. Daniel Fabricant, who heads the FDA’s division of Dietary Supplement Programs:

Sixteen nationwide recalls and warnings have been issued in the past month and a half, including vitamins manufactured by Mira, which contained the risky steroids dimethazine, dimethyltestosterone and methasterone. More than 3,000 products were recalled nationwide last year.

Written product recipes at numerous supplement companies are nonexistent, Fabricant said, and many recipes — known as master manufacturing records — are apparently cobbled together when owners learn that government inspectors are on their way.

Worse, drums in which products are mixed are not always appropriately cleaned, Fabricant added, and in some firms these vessels are pitted — damaged — possibly from age and/or overuse.

Debris left from previous batches sometimes winds up in newly made products, he said.

Too often, dangerous drugs of all kinds — from male sexual enhancement compounds to weight-loss medications — are turning up in vitamins and other supplements nationwide. [vii]

2. Misleading products and product claims

The supplement history has a long history of deceit.

In 1989 Nautilus founder Arthur Jones was quoted as saying:

“I am not a bullshit artist, and under no circumstances am I going to get involved in the so-called health food market, which is one vast con game.”[1]

Arthur Jones tells a great story in his 2004 autobiography titled ‘And God Laughs’[2] about a veterinarian who was pestering him about the secret to the success of the 1973 Colorado Experiment, where Casey Viator allegedly put on an incredible amount of muscle mass in only four weeks. Jones tells him ‘the secret’, which reminds me a lot of my chapter titled ‘Colates’ from my 2010 book Barbells and Bullshit. Jones went on to write:

But if I had ever published that elephant shit story as fact in a muscle magazine, the bodybuilders would buy it by the ton, at any price; and the worse it tasted the better they would like it. I also told that veterinarian that the elephant shit always made you very sick, but he assured me that he was more than willing to put up with that.

And if I had published that story as fact, within a few weeks Weider would have been offering what he would have claimed was the only source of pure elephant shit.

US Government regulatory action against false claims in the supplement industry can be traced back at least to the 1960s (and probably earlier), when Peary Rader (Ironman Magazine), Bob Hoffman (York Barbell) and then the Weiders (1970s) were all targets of the US Food and Drug Administration.[3]

It appears not much has changed in the near half a century since.

According to the 2010 article explaining labeling and product claims in the US supplement market:

“….The impact and consequences of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA)… Briefly, the DSHEA is an amendment to the U.S. Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that establishes a regulatory framework for dietary supplements. It effectively excludes manufacturers of these products from virtually all regulations that are in place for prescription and over-the-counter drugs.”[viii]

According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) themselves:

“Generally, manufacturers do not need to register their products with FDA nor get FDA approval before producing or selling dietary supplements. Manufacturers must make sure that product label information is truthful and not misleading. FDA’s post-marketing responsibilities include monitoring safety, e.g. voluntary dietary supplement adverse event reporting, and product information, such as labeling, claims, package inserts, and accompanying literature. The Federal Trade Commission regulates dietary supplement advertising.”[ix]

Basically say what you want and unless someone complains or by some other less likely situation the FDA finds out you are ‘embellishing’ at best, downright lying at worst.

Manufacturers can put virtually any claim on a supplement, without any requirement to provide persuasive clinical evidence, as long as it’s accompanied by the Quack Miranda Warning: “These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.” Disease treatment claims are not permitted, but are typically restated as permissible “structure/function” claims, implying an ability to improve the structure or function of the body only….

There are essentially no pre-marketing requirements before selling products. Once available for sale, there is little ability for the FDA to issue cease-sale orders and recalls. Regulators can block the sale of products only after significant problems have been identified (i.e., ephedra)…

The regulation of marketing claims is effectively left to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which can prosecute manufacturers for fraud.” [x]

In 2015 a sweeping multi-agency federal investigation in the US has resulted in a slew of criminal and civil charges being brought against more than 100 companies that either make or market supposed dietary supplements for selling products that allegedly contain ingredients other than those listed on the label, or products that make unsubstantiated health or disease-treatment claims.[xi]

The Justice Department unsealed a criminal indictment against USPlabs of Dallas and a number of the company’s executives and employees. It charges, among other things, that they conspired to import a synthetic stimulant made in a Chinese chemical factory and then used it in products they advertised as containing all-natural plant extracts.

The indictment also alleges that USPlabs knew some of their products could cause liver damage, yet sold them anyway — in particular, a product called OxyElite Pro.[xii]

At the center of the sweep is USPlabs, a company based in Dallas that sold the best-selling workout supplements Jack3d and OxyElite Pro, which contains the amphetamine-like stimulant dimethylamylamine, or DMAA. On Tuesday, federal prosecutors brought criminal charges against USPlabs and six of its executives related to the sale of those products.[xiii]

The United States filed a civil complaint against Riddhi USA Inc. of Ronkonkoma, New York, and its owner and President Mohd M. Alam to prevent the distribution of adulterated and misbranded dietary supplements in violation of federal law, the Department of Justice announced today.[xiv]

3. The sale of illegal supplements

As there is no pre-marketing requirements before selling the products, there is a pattern of companies taking even illegal substances to the market, in the hope that they would be caught.

The following is an example of a large distributor being exposed for allegedly selling illegal supplements. Most of us have shopped here:

GNC Holdings Inc, the largest global dietary supplement retailer, has agreed to pay $2.25 million to avoid federal prosecution over its alleged sale of illegal dietary supplements, the U.S. Department of Justice said on Wednesday.[xv]

The following is an example of a smaller distributor being exposed for allegedly selling illegal supplements. The risks of mail order supplements!

Twelve years after FDA prohibited the sale of dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids (ephedra), a New York man has been found guilty of violating the ban.

Following a three-day trial, a jury in Atlanta convicted Chenhsin Chan (aka Paul Chan) on 30 felony counts in connection with the online sale of dietary supplements containing ephedrine, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced last week.

Chan of Elmhurst, New York was convicted on 10 counts of mail fraud, 10 counts of introducing adulterated food into interstate commerce, five counts of knowingly distributing a listed chemical without obtaining the required registration, and five counts of money laundering.

The 44-year-old Chan sold more than US$4.5 million in dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids, but the jury forfeited assets he purchased with funds from the crimes, including a New York property that had been purchased for $950,000, a Mercedes Benz, a Lamborghini Gallardo and more than $666,000 in proceeds from the illegal activities, the DOJ noted in a press release.[xvi]

4. Supplements containing drugs

In the ideal world when you buy and ingest a supplement you would hope there are no surprises in the contents, especially unknown drugs.

From January 1, 2004, through December 19, 2012, 465 drugs were subject to a class I recall in the United States. Just over one-half (237 [51%]) were classified as dietary supplements as opposed to pharmaceutical products (Table). Most recalls occurred after 2008 (210 [89%]). Supplements marketed as sexual enhancement products (95 [40%]) were the most commonly recalled dietary supplement product, followed by bodybuilding (73 [31%]) and weight loss products (64 [27%]). Unapproved drug ingredients (237) accounted for all recalls. Fifty-seven recalled products (24%) were manufactured outside of the United States. There were 147 recalls (62%) that involved units distributed internationally. No adverse events related to recalled drugs were noted in the Enforcement Reports.

The FDA Tainted Supplement Report listed 332 adulterated products since December 2007. Only 222 of these products (69%) were recalled by the FDA.[xvii]

Placing drugs in supplements, even if only for a short time, is a method that has been spoken about in the industry for decades. The rumor was this was a technique used by early supplement manufacturers post the arrival of steroids in the 1960’s to get early market traction with their product users who were of the impression they were simply buying a supplement product.

The following supports this story. There is some suggestion that manufacturers intentionally add the drugs:

A report in the Journal of the American Medical Association in April noted that potent drugs are sometimes purposely added to supplements to increase strength, usually weight loss remedies and sleep aids. [xviii]

Now if you are a drug tested athlete, or at least a drug tested athlete in a sport that does real and transparent testing, the risk of drugs in your supplements is an additional concern.

These risks are summarized in a 2017 paper as below:

An example of the presence of doping substances in supplements can be seen in the study published in 2003 by Geyer et al., where 94 of the 634 supplements analyzed (14.8%) had prohormones that were not mentioned on the label. More current is the study by Judkins et al. in which, of the 58 supplements analyzed, 25% contained low levels of contaminating steroids and 11% were contaminated with stimulants. These data have led to the investigation of contamination in different food supplements; in most of them, small quantities of banned substances have been found, due to cross-contamination during manufacturing, processing, or packaging. In some cases, this contamination was not intentional and was due to poor quality control, but in others the adulteration of the substance was intentional [10]. In the United States (US), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), broadly speaking, regulates quality, and the Federal Trade Commission supervises the marketing and advertising of dietary supplements. However, according to the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), dietary supplements, including nutritional ergogenic aids, that are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease, currently do not need to be evaluated by the FDA prior to their commercialization.[xix]

In my experience very few athletes succeed in a defense of blaming their nutritional supplement for the positive whereby their sentence is reduced. Examples of these minority include:

In 2008 US swimmer Jessica Hardy failed a drug test (allegedly for the banned drug clenbuterol) and was banned for four years. When the arbitrators found that Jessica Hardy’s positive test was caused by a contaminated Advocare Arginine Extreme supplement her ban was reduced to one (1) year. Hardy subsequently took civil action against Advocare, and Advocare reciprocated in like way.[xx]
In 2003 US swimmer Kicker Vencill failed a drug test (allegedly for the banned drug 19-norandrosterone) and was banned for four (4) years. After appeal the arbitrators accepted the positive result was caused by an inadvertent ingestion and reduced his ban to two (2) years. Following that Vencill won a civil claim when a jury ruled unanimously that a multivitamin taken by Kicker Vencill was contaminated with steroid precursors and was responsible for his positive test. Jurors awarded damages of $578,635 against the manufacturer against Ultimate Nutrition of Farmington, Connecticut.[xxi]
Lyman Good, UFC fighter, was tested positive for steroids in October 2016, and blamed his use of a product called ‘Anavite’ made by Gaspari Nutrition and sold through Vitamin Shoppe. In Oct 2017 he sued the following: Vitamin Shoppe, Gaspari Nutrition Inc., Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Richard Gaspari and Gaspari and Hi-Tech CEO Jared Wheat are also named as defendants. According to his affidavit, his suspension was later reduced when a lab detected the steroid in an unopened bottle of Anavite.[xxii] [xxiii]

The following summary of drugs found in nutritional supplements was published in 2016 that lists 850 US supplements that allegedly contain drugs.

Now you can see if your favorite supplement has been flagged by health authorities. We used data from the FDA and the Department of Defense, as well as published studies from scientific journals and court documents, to create a searchable database of dangerous supplements. All of the products listed below have been found to contain hidden drugs.[xxiv]

Here are some of the categories of drugs found in these supplements in the above collation: [xxv]

Appetite suppressants – Hidden drugs found in supplements in our database: sibutramine and its analogs (deisobutyl-benzylsibutramine, desmethyl sibutramine, didesmthyl sibutramine, n-desmthylsibutramine, n-di-desmethylsibutramine), cetilistat, fenfluramine, lorcaserin, rimonabant.

The government removed sibutramine from the market in 2010 for safety reasons… Sibutramine was the most popular drug on our database: 240 products, mostly for weight loss, contained this drug or one of its derivatives.

Laxatives – Hidden drugs found in supplements in our database: phenolphthalein

Phenolphthalein is a laxative no longer approved for sale in the US… Sixty-six supplements in our database contained phenolphthalein, most of them marketed for weight loss.

Muscle relaxants – Hidden drugs found in supplements in our database: chlorzoxazone, methocarbamol

A number of supplements marketed as arthritis and joint pain relievers have been pulled from the market for containing illegal drugs.

Sexual enhancers – Hidden drugs found in supplements in our database: sildenafil, tadalafil, vardenafil, and their analogs (acetildenafil, aidenafil, aminotadalafil, benzamidenafil, dapoxetine, desmethyl carbondenafil, dimethyl sildenafil, dimethylacetildenafil, dimethylsildenafilthione, hydroxyhomosildenafil, hydroxylthiohomosildenafil , hydroxythiohomosildenafil, noracetildenafil, piperadino vardenafil, propoxyphenyl sildenafil, sulfoaildenafil/thioaildenafil, sulfoaildenafil methanesulfonate, sulfohomosildenafil, sulfohydroxyhomosildenafil, sulfosildenafil, thiomethisosildenafil); dapoxetine

Sildenafil is the active ingredient in the prescription drug Viagra. It’s been found in hundreds of supplements (including 159 on our database). We also found dapoxetine in eight supplements in our database.

Anti-anxiety drugs – Hidden drugs found in supplements in our database: picamilon

Used in Russia to treat various neurological conditions, the synthetic drug has never been approved for sale in the US but has been found in many brain-enhancing supplements here unbeknownst to consumers.

Antidepressants – Hidden drugs found in supplements in our database: fluoxetine, doxepin

Seven of the weight loss supplements in our database contained fluoxetine, which is the active drug in the prescription antidepressant Prozac. Fluoxetine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), a type of drug used to treat depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and panic disorder. You’d have no idea you were taking an SSRI in your weight loss supplement. “SSRIs have been associated with serious side effects including suicidal thinking, abnormal bleeding, and seizures,” an FDA warning letter reads. “In patients on other medications for common conditions (aspirin, ibuprofen, or other drugs for depression, anxiety, bipolar illness, blood clots, chemotherapy, heart conditions, and psychosis), ventricular arrhythmia or sudden death can occur.”

Diuretics – Hidden drugs found in supplements in our database: bumetanide, furosemide

Some weight loss supplements contain prescription-strength diuretics.

Stimulants – Hidden drugs found in supplements in our database: BMPEA, DMAA, DMBA, DEPEA, ephedrine, ephedrine alkaloids, fenproporex

BMPEA, DMAA, and DMBA were hidden ingredients in many popular muscle-building and fat-burning supplements….DMAA was banned in the US, UK, and several other countries because it has been linked to strokes, heart failure, and sudden death. Yet it was the second most popular drug on our database, appearing in 110 products on our database. DMBA is a synthetic version of DMAA …Similarly, BMPEA was never approved as a pharmaceutical, so it has never been studied in humans — and, again, it’s another common supplement ingredient.

Anabolic steroids – Anabolic steroids lurked in 81 products on our database. Most of them were marketed to men, promising to help build muscle fast.

Anti-inflammatory drugs – Hidden drugs found in supplements in our database: diclofenac, ibuprofen, indomethacin, naproxen, phenylbutazone.

Other – Hidden drugs found in supplements in our database: anthistamines (chlorpheniramine, cyproheptadine), phenytoin (anticonvulsant), chlorpromazine (antipsychotic), aromatase inhibitor, propranolol (beta blocker), nefopam (non-opioid pain relief)

5. Raw material selection and contamination

The next step to consider is the selection of the raw material. In essence you are relying on the integrity and values of the company to select safe and effective raw materials, free from contamination.

How is this working out?

In 2010 US based Consumer Reports tested 15 popular protein supplements and concluded:

All of the drinks in our tests had at least one sample containing one or more of these contaminants: arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury. For most drinks we tested, levels were in the low to moderate range, when we could detect them. But with three of the products we tested, consumers who have three servings daily could be exposed to levels of one or two of these contaminants that exceed the maximum limits proposed by U.S. Pharmacopeia, the federally recognized authority that sets voluntary standards to cover dietary supplements.[xxvi]

The worst offending product? EAS Myoplex Original Rich Dark Chocolate Shake.

In 2018 the Denver-based Clean Label Project used the independent analytical chemistry laboratory Ellipse Analytics to test 134 of the top selling (based on Nielsen and Amazon.com best-selling lists) animal- and plant-based protein powders.[xxvii] Clean Label selected and purchased the powders from retail store shelves and from online sources. The products were screened for over 130 toxins including heavy metals, BPA, pesticides, and other contaminants with links to cancer and other health conditions.

Of the 134 products tested, 53 were found to have “substantially elevated” levels of the following heavy metals – Lead, Mercury, Cadmium, Arsenic and BPA.
Of the whey-based protein powders, about 10 percent of contained lead levels above health guidelines.
Of the plant-based protein powders.75 percent had measurable levels of lead.
Each contained on average twice the amount of lead per serving as other products.
In addition to lead, the plant powders in several cases contained mercury, cadmium and arsenic above health-based guidelines.

The five products that received the poorest overall scores in this test were:

In summary:

Unfortunately, federal regulations do not generally require that protein drinks and other dietary supplements be tested before they are sold to ensure that they are safe, effective and free of contaminants. [xxviii]

As a result ‘most consumers don’t realize their lives are on the line before the government steps in’:

“No supplements are prescreened for efficacy and safety by the government,” said Bryn Austin, a professor in the department of Social and Behavioral Sciences at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “The FDA is reactive. Because of the way Congress ties their hands, they have to wait until there’s serious harm — deaths, injury, liver damage, transplants. Most consumers don’t realize their lives are on the line before the government steps in.” [xxix]

6. Truth in labeling

In 2013 ConsumerLab.com found problems with the quality of five the 16 protein products it selected for testing and confirmed these findings in a second independent laboratory:[xxx]

A protein powder from a popular brand was missing 16 grams of protein per scoop — the majority of the protein it promised. Instead, it contained an extra 16 grams of carbohydrates (including an extra 3 grams of sugar)
A powdered meal replacement shake was contaminated with 12.7 mcg of lead per serving (far more than permitted in California without a warning label)
A popular protein energy meal with spirulina had an extra 6.7 grams of carbohydrates (including an extra 4 grams of sugar) and an additional 25.7 calories per serving
A protein powder — from a “GMP certified” facility — claiming “0” cholesterol really had 10.2 mg
A protein supplement claiming 5 mg of cholesterol actually had 14.2 mg

In 2015 the New York State attorney general’s office accused four national retailers on Monday of selling dietary supplements that were fraudulent and in many cases contaminated with unlisted ingredients.[xxxi]

The authorities said they had run tests on popular store brands of herbal supplements at the retailers — Walmart, Walgreens, Target and GNC — which showed that roughly four out of five of the products contained none of the herbs listed on their labels. In many cases, the authorities said, the supplements contained little more than cheap fillers like rice and house plants, or substances that could be hazardous to people with food allergies.

At GNC, for example, the agency found that five out of six samples from the company’s signature “Herbal Plus” brand of supplements “were either unrecognizable or a substance other than what they claimed to be.” In pills labeled ginkgo biloba, the agency found only rice, asparagus and spruce, an ornamental plant commonly used for Christmas decorations.

At Target, the agency tested six herbal products from its popular “Up and Up” store brand of supplements. Three out of six – including ginkgo biloba, St. John’s wort and valerian root, a sleep aid – tested negative for the herbs listed on their labels. But the agency did find that the pills contained powdered rice, beans, peas and wild carrots.

Here are the products that were analyzed by the attorney general, along with the test results that were described in cease-and-desist letters that the agency sent to the four retailers.

In 2016 further tests were conduced by ConsumberLab.com including 27 protein supplements — 14 selected by ConsumerLab.com and 13 others that passed voluntary certification testing – of which 28% failed quality tests. The reports findings included:[xxxii]

Two protein powders contained more cholesterol than claimed. In fact, one which did not list any cholesterol actually had 16.5 mg per serving
One protein powder contained 181.4 mg more sodium than listed
Another product contained 70 mg more sodium than listed and was contaminated with cadmium, a toxic heavy metal

7. Outsourcing manufacturing

In 2003 the AustralianTherapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) suspended the licence held by Pan Pharmaceuticals Limited of Sydney to manufacture medicines, for a period of six months, because of serious concerns about the quality and safety of products manufactured by the company.[xxxiii]

The suspension follows audits of the company’s manufacturing premises, which revealed widespread and serious deficiencies and failures in the company’s manufacturing and quality control procedures, including the systematic and deliberate manipulation of quality control test data. The licence has been suspended in order to urgently address the safety and quality concerns posed by the multiple manufacturing breaches. Where the quality of a medicine cannot be certain, neither can the safety or effectiveness of that medicine.

Due to the serious and widespread nature of the manufacturing problems identified and following expert advice regarding potential risks, the TGA has taken the decision to recall all batches of medicines manufactured by Pan Pharmaceuticals Ltd since 1 May 2002 and that are being supplied on the Australian market.

219 products manufactured and supplied in Australia by Pan Pharmaceuticals Limited have been identified for immediate recall. These products have been cancelled from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods for quality and safety reasons. The company has also had its approval to supply its range of export products (approximately 1650) cancelled.

In addition, a further, larger recall of products manufactured by Pan Pharmaceuticals Limited under contract for other sponsors is underway. The TGA has been working with the sponsors of these products to identify those for recall. Lists of these products have been published in the newspapers and details are also available on this website.

This action essentially emptied all chemists (drug-stores) in Australia of nutritional supplements, creating a national shortage. It also made it very clear to astute consumers that they may have thought they were buying different brands, in reality most were being made in the same manufacturing facility.

While we all have our favorite brands of dietary supplements, the brands may not be as distinct as we think from a manufacturing perspective. Dietary supplement manufacturing spans a wide spectrum. One of the most common manufacturing methods is for a finished product company to contract the manufacturing to another entity. This practice is referred to as contract manufacturing or outsourced manufacturing. Contract manufacturers have been part of the dietary supplement industry from its inception, when most finished product companies were retailers and not manufacturers.[xxxiv]

There are issues arising when the finished product company sub-contracts the manufacturing process:

The use of contract manufacturers also presents some challenges. The finished product company bears ultimate responsibility for the quality of the products that bear their label. This means that the finished product company has to abide by cGMP regulations themselves and must also ensure that their contract manufacturers are compliant as well.[xxxv]

In an already low-regulated and problematic industry, another ‘cog’ in the process provides further potential complications of accountability and quality assurance. The cost to establish in-house manufacturing facilities is a luxury only a small percentage of supplement companies have.

8. All of the above

Many cases that have been subject to reporting by government regulatory agencies include more than of the above seven category breaches. Here’s a great and recent case example of this:

“…an eighteen count indictment against Jared Wheat, the CEO of Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Hi-Tech), a supplement company based in Norcross, Georgia, has been unsealed. According to the superseding indictment, the current charges against Wheat include wire fraud, money laundering, introducing misbranded drugs into interstate commerce and manufacturing and distributing controlled substances, specifically Schedule III controlled anabolic steroids. There are also charges in the indictment against John Brandon Schopp, the Director of Contract Manufacturing for Hi-Tech.

The indictment alleges that Wheat, Schopp, and Hi-Tech manufactured and distributed to prospective and current customers false U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Certificates of Free Sale, good manufacturing practice (GMP) certificates, and GMP audit reports. The indictment contends that the GMP certificates and audits reports, which are supposed to come from an independent third party, were issued by PharmaTech, a company controlled by Wheat. The manufacturing and distributing controlled substances charges stem from the government’s allegations that Hi-Tech produced at least five supplements containing anabolic steroids. Anabolic steroids are a Schedule III controlled substance and require a prescription. The misbranded drug charge alleges that Wheat and Hi-Tech manufactured a supplement named Choledrene which contained lovastatin. Lovastatin is an ingredient used in statin drugs and is regulated by the FDA. Hi-Tech should never have used lovastatin as an ingredient in any supplement, and they did not include it on the list of ingredients on the bottle.[xxxvi]

The following is an interesting insight into the effectiveness of past attempts to modify behavior in this industry:

If he is found guilty, this will not be Wheat’s first time in jail. In 2014, he served two months in federal prison for failing to carry out a recall brought about the Federal Trade Commission’s claim of false advertising for Hi-Tech’s weight loss products. Wheat was released when the recall had been completed. In 2009, the FDA announced he received a two-year prison sentence after being found guilty of selling counterfeit medications online, which he claimed were made in Canada, but were actually manufactured in unsanitary conditions in Belize. An investigation by AJC listed several other legal battles between federal authorities and Wheat/Hi-Tech. [xxxvii] [xxxviii]

An irrestible opportunity to make serious money – Seeking forgiveness is easier than seeking permission

“Pssst! Wanna start a supplement company? There is sooo much money to be made! We can make up anything we want, say anything we want, and if theproverbial hits the wall we can go straight. After all, humans are so gullible. As long as we hire some great copy writers to make some very convincing long copy. We can also make an internet (and or hard copy) magazine to provide ‘third-party’ indirect endorsements!”

The global dietary supplements market is expected to reach USD 278.02 billion by 2024, according to a new report by Grand View Research, Inc. Favorable outlook towards medical nutrition market in light of increasing application for the treatment of malnutrition and cardiovascular disorders is likely to promote the market for dietary supplements.

Rising sales of sports nutrition products in the U.S. and China on account of increasing prevalence of fitness and sports at a domestic level along with new product launches is likely to have a significant impact on the industry over the projected period. The market is expected to generate revenues worth USD 37.16 billion by 2024.

Rising consumption of clinical nutrition products as a prevention medium for reducing malnutrition is expected to have a substantial impact. Furthermore, increasing prevalence of premature births on a global level is expected to promote the use of medicinal supplements over the forecast period. The market was worth USD 19.17 billion in 2015 and is projected to witness growth at a CAGR of 9.5% from 2016 to 2024.[xxxix]

Groundbreaking US female computer scientist and a Navy officer Grace Hopper[xl] (back when it was virtually impossible for a woman to succeed in either role) is commonly credited with coining the phrase that’s the mantra of a lot of 21st Century nutritional supplement entrepreneurs:

“It is easier to get forgiveness than permission.”

The following is an example of this commercial value set:[xli]

AngelList “corporate policy” is that team members should ask forgiveness, not permission. We would rather have someone do something wrong than ask permission to do it.

Now in fairness they do add:

Or better, we would rather have someone do something right and not need permission to do it. This is the most common outcome.

But when you and I can make SO much money, let’s forget about that….

Conclusion

So how widespread in the supplement industry are these ‘challenges’? According to 2013 statement by Dr. Daniel Fabricant, head the FDA’s division of Dietary Supplement Programs at the time:

“…About 70 percent of the nation’s supplement companies have run afoul of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s manufacturing regulations over the past five years, according to a top agency official….

Consumers are put at risk by poorly measured ingredients, uncleaned manufacturing equipment, pesticides in herbal products, supplements contaminated with illegal prescription medications — even bacteria in pediatric vitamins, recall notices and agency inspection records have shown….

While most vitamins and supplements are not harmful — and at least one vitamin brand was credited with an 8 percent reduction in cancer among men over 50 — the industry is beset by repeated recalls, manufacturing problems and adverse reactions caused by tainted products, health experts and regulatory officials say….” ”[xlii]

If you have read this entire article, and have reached this point, I would be keen to know what you are thinking. Has this changed your view point on who you can trust? Personally, the more I became aware of this challenge during the last few decades, the more I have retreated to working with companies led by people whose value for excellence, safety, and regulatory compliance I trust. After all, it is more than just the health of my family and myself – I am responsible for the lives and careers of many athletes and coaches, whose livelihoods, reputations and legacies can be extinguished with a few words – ‘positive drug test’.

Quite simply I am amazed at how much energy goes into the discussion of supplements focused almost exclusively on the manufacturers marketing and labeling claims, completely oblivious to the real challenges in nutritional supplements – the challenges raised in this article. Your beliefs are virtually useless in the absence of your awareness of the companies values, integrity, raw material selection, manufacturing process and so on.

“From California to Maine, consumers ingest pills, powders, and liquids every day, not knowing whether they are wasting money or whether they may end up harming, rather than helping, themselves,” said Benjamin Mizer, principal deputy assistant attorney general. “Unfortunately, many of these products are not what they purport to be or cannot do what the distributors claim they can do.”[xliii]

Here’s my challenge to you. Do you want to do what’s best for your short, medium and long term health? Or is your desire to conform to the power of marketing and social trends so great that you are willing to forgo your health? Because I suggest right now the latter is your dominant value. Perhaps you didn’t know any better? Now you do. It will be interesting to see what direction you take now…..

References

[1] Cited in Roach, R., 2011, Muscle, Smoke and Mirrors, Vol. 2, Author House, p. 619.

[2] Jones, A., 2004, And God Laughs, The Autobiographical Memoirs of Arthur Jones, PDA Press.

[3] Roach, R., 2011, Muscle, Smoke and Mirrors, Vol. 1, Author House, p. 394.

[i] https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/demand-organic-food-growing-faster-domestic-supply

[ii] http://fortune.com/2015/04/22/mcdonalds-restaurants-closing/

[iii] Marcus, M., 2015, How safe are your dietary supplements?, CBS News, Nov 18 2015, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dietary-supplements-how-safe-are-they/

[iv] Geller, A.I., et al, 2015, Emergency Department Visits for Adverse Events Related to Dietary Supplements, New England Journal of Medicine 2015, 373:1531-1540. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1504267

[v] Belluz, J., 2015, The government is bringing criminal charges against companies that sell bogus dietary supplements, Vox, No 18 2015, https://www.vox.com/2015/11/17/9751592/dietary-supplements-justice-criminal-charges

[vi] Harel, Z., Harel, S., and Ward, R., 2013, The Frequency and Characteristics of Dietary Supplement Recalls in the United States, May 27 2013, JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(10):929-930.https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1678813

[vii] Ricks, D., 2013, FDA official: 70% of supplement companies violate agency rules, Newsday, Aug 16 2013, https://www.newsday.com/news/health/fda-official-70-of-supplement-companies-violate-agency-rules-1.5920525

[viii] Gavuro, S., 2010, Supplement Regulation: Be Careful What You Wish For, Science-based Medicine, Augus 5 2010, https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/supplement-regulation-be-careful-what-you-wish-for/

[ix] https://www.fda.gov/food/dietarysupplements/default.htm

[x] Gavuro, S., 2010, Supplement Regulation: Be Careful What You Wish For, Science-based Medicine, Augus 5 2010, https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/supplement-regulation-be-careful-what-you-wish-for/

[xi] Moran, C., 2015, Feds File Criminal, Civil Cases Against More Than 100 Supplement Companies, Consumerist, 17 Nov 2015, https://consumerist.com/2015/11/17/feds-file-criminal-civil-cases-against-more-than-100-supplement-companies/

[xii] Swetlitz, I., 2015, Dietary supplement manufacturers face flurry of federal charges, Statnews, Nov 17 2015, https://www.statnews.com/2015/11/17/supplements-fda-criminal-charges/

[xiii] Latman, P., and O’Connor, A., 2015, Makers of Nutritional Supplements Charged in Federal Sweep, Well, Nov 17 2015

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/federal-officials-target-dietary-supplement-makers/

[xiv] Department of Justice (DOJ), 2017, United States Files Enforcement Action Against Long Island Company and Its Owner to Prevent Distribution of Adulterated and Misbranded Dietary Supplements, Press Release, 23 Oct 2017, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-files-enforcement-action-against-long-island-company-and-its-owner-prevent

[xv] Lynch, S., 2016, GNC settles dietary supplements case with U.S. government, Reuters, 16 Dec 2016, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gnc-hldg-settlement-idUSKBN13W2B2

[xvi] Natural Products Insider, 2016, Dietary Supplement Marketer Convicted of Selling Ephedra Years After FDA Ban, June 03, 2016, https://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/litigation/dietary-supplement-marketer-convicted-selling-ephedra-years-after-fda-ban

[xvii] Harel, Z., Harel, S., and Ward, R., 2013, The Frequency and Characteristics of Dietary Supplement Recalls in the United States, May 27 2013, JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(10):929-930.https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1678813

[xviii] Ricks, D., 2013, FDA official: 70% of supplement companies violate agency rules, Newsday, Aug 16 2013, https://www.newsday.com/news/health/fda-official-70-of-supplement-companies-violate-agency-rules-1.5920525

[xix] Martinez-Sans, J.M., et al, 2017, Intended or Unintended Doping? A Review of the Presence of Doping Substances in Dietary Supplements Used in Sports, A revew, Nutrients, 4 Oct 2017

[xx] Swimming Worldm 2009, Jessica Hardy Suspension Reduced to One Year, Supplement Ruled as Contaminated; USA Swimming Releases Statement; USADA Press Release; AdvoCare Disputes Findings – Updated, 4 May 20109, https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/jessica-hardy-suspension-reduced-to-one-year-supplement-ruled-as-contaminated-usa-swimming-releases-statement-usada-press-release-advocare-disputes-findings-updated/

[xxi] ESPN, 2005, Vencill was suspended two years, missed Olympics, 14 May 2005, http://www.espn.com.au/skiing/news/story?id=2059714

[xxii] Rummell, N., 2017, Pro Fighter Blames Supplements for Failed Drug Test, Courthouse News Service Oct 19 2017, https://www.courthousenews.com/pro-fighter-blames-failed-drug-test-supplements/

[xxiii] Earlier in 2017 the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency conducted its own analysis of Anavite and found it contained 1-andro. The agency now warns athletes not to use it, noting that Gaspari Nutrition has received numerous warnings from the Food and Drug Administration since 2014 regarding claims that its products are adulterated with potentially dangerous ingredients.

[xxiv] Belluz, J., and Oh, S., 2016, Unregulated, https://www.vox.com/a/supplements

[xxv] Belluz, J., and Oh, S., 2016, Unregulated, https://www.vox.com/a/supplements

[xxvi] Consumer Reports, 2010, How about some heavy metals with that protein drink?, June 2 2010, https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2010/06/how-about-some-heavy-metals-with-that-protein-drink/index.htm

[xxvii] Clean Label Project, 2018, 2018 Protein Powder Study, https://www.cleanlabelproject.org/protein-powder/

[xxviii] Consumer Reports, 2010, How about some heavy metals with that protein drink?, June 2 2010, https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2010/06/how-about-some-heavy-metals-with-that-protein-drink/index.htm

[xxix] Marcus, M., 2015, How safe are your dietary supplements?, CBS News, Nov 18 2015, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dietary-supplements-how-safe-are-they/

[xxx] ConsumerLab.com, 2013, 31% of Protein Powders and Drinks Fail Tests by ConsumerLab.com, June 2 2013, https://www.consumerlab.com/news/Protein_Powders_Reviewed/06_11_2013/

[xxxi] O’Connor, A., 2015, What’s in Those Supplements?, Well, https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/sidebar-whats-in-those-supplements/

[xxxii] ConsuberLab.com, 2016, Protein powders, shakes and drinks review, June 10 2016, https://www.consumerlab.com/reviews/Protein_Powders_Shakes_and_Drinks_Including_Nutrition_Diet_Meal-Replacement_and_Sports_Endurance_Recovery/NutritionDrinks/

[xxxiii] Australian Government, Department of Health, Therapeutic Goods Adminstration, Pan Pharmaceuticals Limited: Regulatory action & product recall information, April 28 2003, https://www.tga.gov.au/product-recall/pan-pharmaceuticals-limited-regulatory-action-product-recall-information

[xxxiv] Alschuler, L., 2011, Who Makes These Dietary Supplements, Anyway?, Natural Medicine Journal, Dec 2011, Vol 3(12), https://www.naturalmedicinejournal.com/journal/2011-12/who-makes-these-dietary-supplements-anyway-0

[xxxv] Alschuler, L., 2011, Who Makes These Dietary Supplements, Anyway?, Natural Medicine Journal, Dec 2011, Vol 3(12), https://www.naturalmedicinejournal.com/journal/2011-12/who-makes-these-dietary-supplements-anyway-0

[xxxvi] The Partnership for Safe Medicines, 2017, Company And Ceo Charged With Illegally Adding Scheduled Drugs To Supplements, Oct 27 2017, https://www.safemedicines.org/2017/10/company-and-ceo-charged-with-illegally-adding-scheduled-drugs-to-supplements.html

[xxxvii] The Partnership for Safe Medicines, 2017, Company And Ceo Charged With Illegally Adding Scheduled Drugs To Supplements, Oct 27 2017, https://www.safemedicines.org/2017/10/company-and-ceo-charged-with-illegally-adding-scheduled-drugs-to-supplements.html

[xxxviii] Brunkner, M., 2009, Diet Supplement king gets 50 months in prison, NBC News, Crime and Courts, February 3 2009, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28983195/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/diet-supplement-king-gets-months-prison/#.WwkvG2Xuz7Y

[xxxix] Grand View Research, 2016, Dietary Supplements Market Size Is Projected To Reach $278.02 Billion By 2024, Demand In Food & Beverage Sector : Grand View Research, Inc., San Francisco, July 18, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE), https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/07/18/856668/0/en/Dietary-Supplements-Market-Size-Is-Projected-To-Reach-278-02-Billion-By-2024-Demand-In-Food-Beverage-Sector-Grand-View-Research-Inc.html

[xl] https://www.facebook.com/notes/big-optimism/grace-hopper-its-better-to-ask-forgiveness-than-permission/521620811362966

[xli] Venture Hacks, 2013, Good advice for start-ups, Ask forgiveness, not permission, Feb 11 2013, http://venturehacks.com/articles/ask-forgiveness-not-permission

[xlii] Ricks, D., 2013, FDA official: 70% of supplement companies violate agency rules, Newsday, Aug 16 2013, https://www.newsday.com/news/health/fda-official-70-of-supplement-companies-violate-agency-rules-1.5920525

[xliii] Belluz, J., 2015, How 2 dietary supplement companies made $400 million off bogus weight loss products, Vox, No 19 2015, https://www.vox.com/2015/11/19/9761524/usp-labs-indictment

Nutritional supplements and strength training: Part 1 – The arrival of smoke and mirrors

May 10, 2018/by Ian King

Any survey or cross reference of articles titled ‘The Top Bodybuilding Supplements you need to be taking’– and there is no shortage of the there article [1] [2] [3]– on what are the top most popular strength training supplements today’ would find the following common them – creatine, BCAA, caffeine or similar stimulants, glutamine, fish oils, and protein powders. The question I have, which may surprise – is this approach optimal?

Now we could debate which are really the top most popular supplements, however just run with this message – why is it that everyone is basically singing from the same song sheet? It is because the masses have got it worked out and you shouldn’t mess with this formula? Or is it more of a case of conforming sheep?

Anyone willing to take a journey down the modern history of supplementation in strength training may reach the same conclusions that many have, including the author of trilogy book series ‘Smoke and Mirrors’ Randy Roach[1] – that the game changed forever in the 1960s.

1940-1950s

In the post was late 1940s environment the story goes that friends of English athlete turned bodybuilder Reg Park would share their milk and cream rations with him, allowing him to consume more protein than the average person.

“In the Golden Age of Classic Physique Building (the 1940s and 50s), the approach to diet was much simpler than today. The CPB Champs simply ate a high protein diet consisting of what they considered to be “nutritious, wholesome foods.” So basically the diet was meat (all kinds), dairy (whether cow-based or goat-based), eggs, fruits, vegetables (in salads or cooked), nuts, and a bit of whole-grain cereals & bread (starchy foods were used sparingly).”[2]

1960s

1960 was considered a seminal year in strength training nutritional supplements. During the late 1950s American pharmaceutical companies such as Ciba began producing anabolic steroids for human use. This changed the landscape in the ‘iron game’.

“At the beginning of the decade, protein was still #1 on the bodyuiblders checklist, but it would soon drop to the #2 position as the sport begian to shift into anabolic over-drive.” [3]

Roach in his book ‘Muscle, Smoke & Mirrors’ talks about how the arrival of anabolic steroids on the strength training scene in the US from 1960 onwards muddied the waters, allowing marketers of equipment and supplements to make all sorts of claims about the effectiveness of their equipment, training protocols or over the counter supplements, whilst the truth was more about the steroids.

Bob Hoffman of York Barbell and Joe Weider of the Muscle and Fitness magazine were two names that have been connected with this 1960s phenomenon where drugs were giving the results yet equipment, training programs and supplements were being advertised as the reason behind the great gains.

Here is an example of 1960s marketing (by Bob Hoffman) that Roach raises questions about the true cause of the improvement:

“…training experiments with simple exercises, with particular emphasis on nutrition, notably the continued regular use of Hi-Proteen an ENERGOL, and more use of our Super Gain Weight Tablet, Liver, Iron, Vitamin B12. I gained at an amazing rate and soon developed noticeable muscles.” [4]

Weider it was suggested stood on both sides of the aisle, decrying the use of drugs in articles but willing to use drug supported athletes to market his supplements and other products.

This drug use quickly spread into other sports. In a November 1962 issue of ‘Iron Man’, editor and owner Peary Rader….

“….spoke out early and pleaded with his readership in an article titled “Don’t Do it Fellows” . He wrote on Dianabol and Nilivar and the fact that they had already spread into the coaching ranks of both high school and college football.” [5]

US chiropractor and strength coach Ken Leistner tells a great story about what Joe Weider said to him when Ken challenged Joe as to why Ken, as a teenager bought and used all the supplements that Joe was marketing and they didn’t get him the results advertised. He said Joe Weider said words to the effect:

“My job was to pull as many boys off the street and into the gym as I could using the advertising that I did. In the time you realized it was bullshit, I already had you hooked into a healthier lifestyle of workout out and eating better.” [6]

From my personal observations during the four decades from the 1980 to the current decade, and from my study of iron game magazines from the 1970s, I suggest that the game developed in the 1960s has continued to date – that is, great gains and great outcomes by performance enhancing drugs have provided the backdrop to benefit claims for a wide range of training methods, equipment and supplements.

In the ideal world, it would be of great value to see the full ‘supplement’ use of any claims about supplementation disclosed before any conclusions are reached. This concern not only relates to typical bodybuilding supplement claims, it also relates to a number of ‘research articles’ that have been published based on elite athletes in sports with high performance enhancing drug use. The results are simply misleading in the absence of controlling the variable of drug use. At least that is the objective nature of science – to control the variables and change and measure the other/s.

The same marketing techniques that were developed and refined over half a century ago, I suggest, still dominate the market. And as a result, the masses have been misled for six decades and continuing.

When I ask anyone in strength training which supplements they are taking, the overwhelming majority will be taking the most dominantly marketed supplements of the times. Do they work? Are they effective? Who knows. That is not the reason they are taking them. They are taking them because that is what everyone has been led to believe, through effective marketing, they ‘need’ to be taking them.

What is that was not the case? What if we stripped back to square one and only added for supplements long use after an appropriate, objective personal trial of them.

As with my approach to training, I am less interested in what can be shown to produce an effect, and more interested in what is the optimal approach.

There are only so many supplements most individuals will consume contemporaneously, whether from a budget limitation or other reasons. I suggest your goal should be to order your supplement intake in a priority based on optimal effectiveness, rather than a blind adoption of the dominant, market driven trends.

Now I understand the human desire make emotional decisions and justify them logically. So if you are drawn to using the same supplement suite as everyone else, I’m confident you can find a ‘reason’ for them.

However for those who are committed to thinking for themselves, are willing to act primarily upon their own personal conclusions, to follow the advice of one of America’s most intelligent men – Buckminster Fuller, who wrote:

“…fifty-three years ago at age thirty-two, jettisoned all that I had ever been taught to believe and proceeded thereafter to reason and act only on the basis of direct personal experience.” [7]

So what were the dominant habits of strength athletes prior to the 1960s when the arrival of anabolics masked any hope of truth in marketing? Up until the 1960s two main supplements dominated. You can see these two in this quote from the Legend, three times Mr. Universe Reg Park.

In an interview with Reg published by Osmo “John” Kiiha in his magazine ‘The Iron Master’ Reg is quoted as saying:

“I liked to eat like a king, but only food that was good for me. I ate prodigious amounts of food during the day, but adhered to a very balanced diet with everything in proper proportions. My favorite food is steak, which I sometimes eat twice a day. I also like salads, orange juice and wine. I have a wine cellar in my home. I also have used protein supplements and take vitamin and mineral tablets.” [8]

Isn’t that interesting.

Conclusion

In summary things changed in the 1960s and stayed the same since. Drug supported physiques are used to market you the supplements that you take, on the belief or inference that the results achieved by the model are the ones you are going to achieve by use of the supplement being marketed. And you believe it.

References

[1] https://www.musclesmokeandmirrors.com

[2] Reg Park’s diet for a classic physique, Classic physique builder, https://classicphysiquebuilder.blogspot.com.au/2009/02/reg-parks-diet-for-classic-physique.html

[3] Roach, R., 2008 Muscle, Smoke & Mirrors, AuthorHouse, p. 381.

[4] Roach, R., 2008 Muscle, Smoke & Mirrors, AuthorHouse, p. 383.

[5] Roach, R., 2008 Muscle, Smoke & Mirrors, AuthorHouse, p. 387.

[6] Roach, R., 2008 Muscle, Smoke & Mirrors, AuthorHouse, p. 389.

[7] Buckminster Fuller, R., 1981, Critical Path

[8] Reg Park’s diet for a classic physique, Classic physique builder, https://classicphysiquebuilder.blogspot.com.au/2009/02/reg-parks-diet-for-classic-physique.html

Dysfunctional Training

May 3, 2018/by Ian King

A method you are already employing

After four decades of professional involvement I have concluded that what most of what the world does in their so-called ‘strength and conditioning’ programs is create dysfunction in the body. I have now chosen to call it dysfunctional training.[1] I understand it is not their intent to create dysfunction, however I firmly suggest it is the outcome.

It’s not a totally new thought. In the 1990s, after nearly 20 years in the industry, I wrote:

… I believe that most injuries are actually caused by the way athletes train… – training, during which focus is geared towards performance enhancement, may induce most injuries…. [2]

In the 2000s I wrote:

I have formed the opinion that most strength training programs do more damage than good… [3]

…from my observations, most physical preparation programs do more harm than good….[4]

In the 2010s I wrote:

How many people around the world are being led into less-than optimal training because their trainers/coaches lack the ability to discern and evaluate information? And at what cost to their health, injury status, and longevity? Only those in the sickness industry could celebrate this.[5]

Rather, it is a term coined with the benefit of extensive reflection. I have had four decades professionally to gain additional clarity and have decided this training should be labeled ‘dysfunctional training’. This term not only aptly describes the situation it also provides a counter-balance to the common use of the term ‘functional training’.

Use of the term functional training is complete misnomer. In fact I suggest that is the myth perpetuated by equipment distributors for commercial gain. What I strongly suggest is that what you are doing and what the world is doing would be more actually described as dysfunctional training

I appreciate that the overwhelming majority of my industry ‘colleagues’ are not going to like what I have to say here. That’s okay with me. Just stop reading and move on to more agreeable content. [6] My goal is to help those who are seeking a better way with no intent to offend, nor any fear of doing so.

What is the definition of dysfunction?

I define dysfunction as it relates to training as a collection of training decisions (aka a program) that result in the decrease in function of any systems of the body. Dysfunction is only really noticed when it reaches its finally stage, injury. And even then it is typically denied.

In the early stages of the development of dysfunction in any system, the positive adaptations in other systems can appear to provide a net positive training effect. However as the dysfunction grows it outstrips any positive adaptations, at which point causing some to question what is going on. However prior to this tipping point of a net negative outcome, few if any are aware of the growing dysfunction they are developing through their training decisions.

How does dysfunction occur?

Dysfunction of a system of the body occurs when a stimulus applied to the body (e.g. training) and the adaptation or response to that stimulus degrades the function of any system of the body.

To give examples as they relate to the musculoskeletal and neuromuscular system, I refer to my joint gap theory as an example of function or dysfunction:

I’m going to share with you very simply my philosophy on use injuries. I have two bones and some connective tissue.

We have increased compression of soft tissue as a result of that changed relationship between bones [joints]. We can also have a nerve impingement….[7]

This is my number one reason for stretching. Put simply, if the bones get drawn closer together than desirable, the impingement of connective tissue at the joint can cause all sorts of problems, especially nerve pinching – this can set off all types of neural activity which translates as muscle spasm through to feelings that the muscle has been torn.

You can have a reduction in muscle function due to changes in joint relationships – and you don’t necessarily even know it. This can occur before measurable discomfort occurs. And joint surface changes can also commence before you experience or acknowledge the pain. Pain inhibits function.

In addition to the performance enhancement benefits, your joint health is at risk….

It makes little difference how big and strong you get in the short term, if in the long term you are physically limited because you allowed the joint to become damaged. Joint damage will be accelerated if the joint gap or relationship (distance between two bones) changes. [8]

As it relate to the function of the musculoskeletal and neuromuscular system, any training that negatively impacts the optimal joint relationship is one way to create dysfunction. This form of dysfunction is beyond epidemic – its almost inevitable due to the way programs are designed.

What are the stages of dysfunction?

I have identified five stages of dysfunction:

Dysfunction
Discomfort
Pain
Injury
Surgery

Characteristics of the different stages of dysfunction.

Stage 1 – Dysfunction

Assuming that the human presents in an optimal systems condition prior to the commencement of any physical training program, this period (Level 1) spans from the first stimulus that creates dysfunction through the Level 2 where some signs of discomfort are felt. This can be a lengthy process, depending on the training stimulus and other stresses on the body. What I suggest is that this phase is the phase that occurs over the longest time period, relative ot the other four phases.

This phase is the period during which anyone relying on detectable signals (e.g. pain or injury) is at a loss, as there are no obvious signals. There is a downward trend that is measurable, but only if those performing the assessment had the awareness to look for subtle changes. In other words, this is a period of naïve bliss, typically referred to as the ‘short-term’ adaptations, where the initial conclusion is that great things are occurring, because the initial interpretation or adaptation appears positive.

Stage 2 – Discomfort

The ‘discomfort’ stage is such that it can, and is typically, ignored. Alternatively it is misinterpreted. Either way, the messages being sent out by the body to the brain at a conscious level are rarely respected. Or if they are recognized, the symptoms are addressed, not the cause.

This stage is potentially the second longest time period.

If these messages were respected and a genuine solution sought, it may result in obtaining the solution their and then.

Stage 3 – Pain

This level may be enough to force some to find a solution e.g. rest, or therapy etc. However not all will respect the messages even though they have been raised to a higher level.

The higher the pain threshold, the more ‘determined’ (stubborn?), the more the person has reason to ‘hurt themselves’ – the more the pain will be ignored.

So some may stop here, some will not. This stage is typically shorter in time frames than Stage 2 – Discomfort.

Stage 4 – Injury

After a period of time where the messages from the body are ignored, the body will break. This stage is typically one of the shorter time frames.

Most will stop here, some will not. Either way few will seek and find the true cause, and address it. As such, their injury is likely to return or an injury in a related, explainable way will occur.

If a person reaches this stage they are less likely to acknowledge their contribution to the condition.

Stage 5 – Surgery

If the injury is severe it may warrant surgery or the individual may choose surgery for its expedience or due to the conviction of their advisors.

For the most part surgery requires the same amount of rehabilitation that a less invasive/more conservative approach would require.

Again, if the individual fails to recognize or accept that factors that caused the condition in the first place they are likely to reinjure the same or a related site.

Time based phases of dysfunction

I identify or recognize a sequence or progression of dysfunction that can be categorized as follows:

Short term

It is quite common that a short term positive effect is felt by the person. For example, they may experience increase in muscle strength or size.

Even if the program is dysfunctional – and there is a near 100% probability it is – the negative changes such as changes in join relationship, tissue length, tension or posture will not be apparent, and these degradations may not outweigh the perceived benefits in the short term.

To use the most simple example, a person may be seeking to simply increase muscle size in say their chest and this is occurring. Currently, and beknown to them, their humerus (upper arm) is becoming internally rotated and their chest muscles shortened.

Could you be creating an injury through your training? Even though you are getting bigger, stronger, and leaner and really enjoying it? Sure can – in fact I usually judge how long the average person has been training for by giving their bodies a quick once over visually – the more advanced the postural ‘flaws’, the longer they have been training! Sad? Yes, but fairly accurate.? [9]

Medium term

This is where the individual begins to question either their lack of progress, or clear limiting factors in their function, of the reduced functionality of their body.

They are either experience pains in the shoulder or similar, or wondering why their chest is no longer growing.

Really astute individual may change direction in their training at this stage, but this requires the willingness to be non-conforming with what the masses are doing, ruling out the majority. Most continue as they are despite internal questions as to the efficacy of their approach.

To continue on the simple example of above, this is where the internally rotated upper arm and shortened chest muscles from their dysfunctional, imbalanced program, begin to become evident.

…Imagine that – training and being worse off for it. Well how do you think the athlete would feel if he/she found out! Yeah, they’re real fit – to sit in the stands in their team uniform and watch![10]

Long term

This is the stage where their performance is declining, either through injury induced limitations or limiting factors such as reduced power output etc.

In the simple example above, the individual either faces serious shoulder pain, injury or surgery; and or their chest muscle mass has not progressed for some time. It is quite common to see massive anterior deltoid development in these cases, giving the false illusion of their chest muscle mass. This rarely fools expert observers, however, including bodybuilding competition judges.

…most strength training programs do more damage than good. However it takes many years for the average person to realize this, if ever. The short-term results cause pleasure, but the long-term results inevitably pain. [11]

……most physical preparation programs…may give short term results or confidence to the athlete, but result in significant performance restrictions and or injuries long term.[12]

Why is achieving improved function versus dysfunction so challenging for the masses?

The greatest challenge the world faces in relation to receiving a functional training adaptation is the inability to define and measure it. What is optimal function of the systems of the body? Sure, many can give lovely theoretical response. Let’s be realistic – the industry has yet to learn how to do and or teach individualization of training – what chance do we have of ‘professionals’ being able to diagnose trends in function?

…You need to determine what’s optimal length, tension, stability, and joint position/relationship for each of your “at risk” joints. . Good luck with the latter. I haven’t found too many who’ve mastered the relationship between optimal length and tension and joint health….[13]

The second challenge is the length of time that passes, and the associated change in function of the body, that occur from the point of optimal function to the first sign of discomfort. This is potentially the longest time frame of all five stages. Which means the challenge of reversing the function becomes greater for two reasons. Firstly because ‘professionals’ do not possess the competence to reverse the issues, and secondly because the time frame of reversal is beyond the attention span of most end users.

The third challenge is my perspective or reality that commercial forces, specifically equipment manufacturers, influence the majority of training decisions. The fact that it is rare to see an exercise promoted that didn’t involve the subject holding onto or connected to a training device of some kind is not a coincident. And ideally, a new device, which requires the market to go out and replace their prior purchases. As to what Kettlebells are to Dumbbells, etc. In other words between commercial influence in marketing, the desire to conform by individuals, and the lack of or unwillingness to apply the level of discernment granted the human brain, there is very little chance of the masses moving towards let along achieve true improved functions in the systems of the body as a training adaptation.

Training trends have nothing to do with improving function. The promotion of the term ‘functional training’ sounds as if it does, however I suggest that this very ‘phenomenon’ is in fact a classic example of equipment distributors manipulating the market. I suggest that if you study the rise of this so-called ‘functional movement’ trend, it coincided with the decision by a previously relatively unknown distributor of track and field equipment to shift their focus to the importation and distribution of small pieces of diverse equipment post 2000.

To facilitate this they funded years of national seminar tours under this very name, and promoted willing ‘experts’ who were taken from unknown to recognizable names in exchange for their willingness to espouse the benefits of ‘functional training’. These newly promoted ‘experts in functional training’ were supported in this exchange with the opportunity to publish books on the subject, despite only years before being violently opposed to the suggestion that multi-joint maximal load exercises (e.g. the power lifts and Olympic lifts) were not optimal options for athlete development.

In order to pre-empt the argument that the presence of the term ‘functional training’ in professional development organization’s training modules and seminars etc. is indicative of it’s validity I suggest you look at who is sponsoring the professional development organizations. Equipment manufacturers and distributors figure prominently.

What is significant about the post 2000 era that is tied to a rise in dysfunction?

Post 2000 saw the proliferation of ‘strength and conditioning’ (I really don’t like using that term however I appreciate readers can relate to it) down the ages. Prior to 2000, in Australia, there were less than a dozen or so individuals that were making the equivalent of a full-time salary.

Post 2000 witnessed a strong progressive increase in demand for these services. By 2010, most high schools in the country had strength and conditioning coach and or their own strength training facility.

The more an athlete participates in physical preparation, including the younger they start in physical preparation, the greater the incidence and severity of injury. Unfortunately these injuries are being blamed away by many involved in sport as being a function of the increased demands and impact forces in ‘modern day’ sport. This to me is little more than an excuse, an exercise in putting one’s head in the proverbial sand. Quite simply, the majority of training programs are flawed from a physical preparation perspective and are causing the increased injuries. [14]

Put simply, the same crappy programs that were bring introduced to adults pre-2000 are now being given to children.

The number of young Australians undergoing knee reconstruction surgery has risen more than 70 per cent in the last 15 years, according to the study published today in the Medical Journal of Australia, with the greatest increase among children under 14…

… Nearly 200,000 ACL reconstructions were performed in Australia between 2000 and 2015. The annual incidence increased by 43 per cent, and by 74 per cent among those under 25 years of age,..[15]

Interestingly, these statistics completely support my repeated references to the period post 2000 as being a period of increased dysfunction and injury.

The only discrepancy with this research article is that their conclusions as to the cause does not include my hypothesis – that the number cause of this sharp increase in injury incidence is more correlated with the introduction of so-called ‘strength and conditioning programs’ into the younger age groups than any other potential contributing variable.

So why do the majority allow these dysfunctions to take hold?

I suggest one of the major contributing factors to this blindness to the creation of dysfunction is that is few understand at a sufficiently appropriate level the mechanisms for optimal systems function, and dysfunction in systems performance. They fail to understand that any changes to the joint gap and or join relationship will negatively impact the nerve and blood supply distally.

In fairness the physical therapy professions have limited ability to predict and prevent injury, the final stage of dysfunction. They have zero ability to identify and prevent the early stages of dysfunction. So is it realistic to expect a physical preparation coach (read ‘strength and conditioning coach’ if you need to) to be able to do so?

However I am less interested in what is reasonable for our industry standards currently. I am more interested in what’s best for the end user. And being guided to train to degraded systems function is not what clients/athletes sign up for. But that is what they are getting.

Conclusion

Quite simply what you and everyone else is doing is creating dysfunction. The only difference or question is when will this become apparent? Will you or your client be that exception that survives? Or will your client or yourself be another statistic of unfulfilled potential and or injury?

I understand that this is difficult to accept, and it is much easier to criticize the concept and move on. You can do this, however your body does not lie. If you are creating dysfunction in yourself and or your client/s it will come out one day.

Most of the concepts I published in the 1990s are now universally accepted. Not all – yet – but most. And if this is not apparent to you, this is in part a reflection of the acceptance of low standards of publishing especially in the US where plagiarism in the ‘new frontier’ has been rampant.

Everything I teach will come to pass. Whether in my life-time or after is the only question. The only question that really matters is whether you will take advantage of the concepts I share, or whether you will put your head in the sand (figuratively speaking) and hope I am off-track.

I publish challenging and disruption concepts such as this to give you an opportunity to benefit now. I understand that most of you will choose not to. That is your prerogative. I look forward to studying the long term adaptations from which ever path you choose.

The first thing I recommend you determine is this – is anything you are doing or omitting to do in your training creating an injury? What I am saying is eliminate the self-inflicted injury potential first, as this is the one you have the most control over! [16]

References

[1] An original concept which I trust fares better than many of my earlier concepts in terms of receiving appropriate referencing.

[2] King, I., 1997, Winning & Losing, King Sports International, Ch 5, p. 25

[3] King, I., 2004, Get Buffed!™ III, King Sports International, p. 8-9

[4] King, I., 2005, The Way of the Physical Preparation Coach, King Sports International p. 66

[5] King, I., 2010, Barbells & Bullshit, King Sports International, p. 100,

[6] You won’t see the word ‘research shows’ so you have great justification already. There I have given you your excuse, so don’t waste my time with troll-like responses about the lack of science. If anyone chooses to disregard my four decades of processing more bodies elite athletes than anyone you are likely to meet that’s fine by me. However if you are an end user, you might want to keep reading because at least you won’t have a professional ego to protect, and my message could really save you a lot of grief.

[7] King, I., 2000, Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation Series, Disc 1

[8] King, I., 2002, Get Buffed!™ (book), p. 102

[9] King, I., 2003, Ask the Master, p. 87

[10] King, I., 1999, So you want to become a physical preparation coach, p. 30-31

[11] King, I., 2004, Get Buffed!™ III, King Sports International, p. 8-9

[12] King, I., 2005, The Way of the Physical Preparation Coach, King Sports International p. 66

[13] King, I., 2003, Out of Kilter III – End needless knee pain!, t-mag.com, 28 Nov 2003

[14] King, I., 2005, The way of the physical preparation coach, p. 66-67

[15] https://www.msn.com/en-au/health/medical/acl-reconstructions-up-more-than-70-per-cent-among-young-australians-study-finds/ar-AAwbKpY?li=AAgfDNO&ocid=mailsignout

[16] King, I., 2003, Ask the Master, p. 87

What’s holding YOU back as a trainer?

March 8, 2018/by Ian King

Even been in a place in your career where you wonder why you are not getting where you wanted to go as a trainer? If any of the following apply, you probably should be asking this question – I don’t have enough clients; I don’t get paid enough; I am not sure or confident of my future in this industry, etc. Now if you’ve had the courage to recognize the limitations and ask the question ‘What’s holding me back?’ the next challenge is finding the answer!

Not sure where the weakness is? Is it my qualifications? Do I lack experience? Is it the city I live in? Am I not buffed enough? If you have ever had these questions you are not alone! Should I get more ink? If so arm or leg? Left or right side? (Yes, the last question – the one about the ‘ink’ – or tattoos – is my Aussie humor!)

Ever since getting paid to train another person became a reality (generally speaking during the 1980s) I’ve been helping trainers, instructors, coaches – whatever your job title – find the answers. As I entered the industry in 1980 I was in a position where I became established before anyone knew what I was doing. (Which gave me the experience to write my professional guidance books after some 20 years experience, ‘So You want to Become a….’.)

Take this question for example that I got from a struggling Los Angeles based trainer in the late 1990s:

I have read “So you want to become…” [book] thoroughly. While I agree with your statements it is easier for you with an established record to attract new clients than it is for an “outsider” like me to break in. The reason I’m asking is to see where my weaknesses are – what is holding me back in other words as I’m failing to identify it somehow. I don’t think it is qualifications – I have a bundle – and I don’t think its training experience – I have lots of that…..

I believe just about everyone has this question at some stage of his or her career.

So what are the most commonly looked at solutions? What are the most common mistakes? And what are some of my suggestions for you?

‘GO-TO’ SOLUTIONS

From what I have seen the top 3 most common ‘go-to’ solutions in our industry include:

#1 – Get higher-level qualifications or more certifications

If you have a diploma, get a bachelors degree. If you have a degree, get your masters degree. If you have your maters degree, get your PhD. Or do more short courses with more and different people. Add letters to your name.

Does this work? Yes, it can if you are looking for a job. If you are self-employed, potential clients don’t pay much if any attention to it. I could count on one hand the number of athletes who in four decades have asked what qualifications I have!

I say ‘it can’, in relation to ‘does it work’, because I have seen it work. I have also seen it not work. In my opinion it doesn’t make you a better coach – but it can get you a job.

#2 – Build your C-V

Building your C-V is another popular and potentially effective way to get more work. Provided you are after a job. Here’s how it works. You target a team or job, and hang around there. You get to know the people, you become liked, and you suck up to the decision makers. You exploit the reality that most appointments are decided upon before they are advertised, and it’s someone’s friend. ‘You’ be that person.

Then you take that C-V with that team/athletes name on it, and you leverage it into a higher profile team or individual. And you keep going until you have the best C-V in the market!

Does this work? Absolutely! At least in the short term. Can they coach? That’s pretty irrelevant in this strategy!

#3 – Market Yourself Better

A lot of new entrants into the industry are keen to learn how to market themselves, including on the internet. This is an option, however there are a few things to consider before going down this road.

One of the challenges I suggest you consider before choosing to play in this ‘sandpit’ is the need to understand you are marketing in a profession where the cultural values are that its okay and normal to tell lies to sell yourself. Here’s an example:

The reality is that the lies in fitness far outweigh the truths. …Here’s my premise. It’s OK to tell a lie if you know that it’s a lie… Once a personal trainer or performance specialist knows the truth then, they can tell a little white lie to make the sale or to get the client on board.

Now let me be clear – I don’t agree with or endorse the belief expressed above. It’s not my paradigm or values, however it is from a productive marketer in the industry and therefore it would have had some influence on integrity in the industry.

How are you going to compete in that stinky pond? Tell bigger lies? Get more insights on this challenge in my recent blog ‘Coaching in the Fakebook Era’.

SO WHERE ARE TRAINERS GOING WRONG? (The most common mistakes)

There are two key mistakes made by trainers looking to get past sticking points in their career. Firstly, the point I call ‘jamming a square post in a round hole’. The second is missing the key ingredient.

#1 Jamming a square post in a round hole

Remember the struggling LA based trainer who couldn’t work out what was holding him back? His stated (and yes it was even in writing!) goal was:

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

What were the chances of him attracting athletes? Ah, let me think about that for a moment….Ah…none!

Let’s get this clear – athletes are no better than anyone else, and training athlete’s doesn’t make you any better than anyone else. It’s a common error for so many to want to train athletes because this role has been incorrectly placed on a pedestal!

This trainer was far more suited to the general population, including the fat loss market, where the rules are loose and people are more likely to buy into a ‘story’ – in other words the goals are subjective and the methods to achieve them many.

Why do I say this trainer was more suited to general population? Every market segment has unique traits. Athletes, for example – and especially elite athletes – value discipline, delayed gratification, focus, effort, determination and so on. How much of these qualities did this trainer have? Ah….not much.

Ask yourself – is the target client I am chasing one that resonates with me? Be authentic! Take a path congruent with who you really are and the kind of person that you might inspire. Be yourself. What client sub-group wants more of who and what you are, stand for and have? Any short term ‘success’ from faking or forcing yourself (the post) into an environment (the post hole) will quickly dissolve and those faking it are more than they are ultimately end back at their competence level.

#2 Missing the key ingredient

In about the 1960s a young man said to his mentor ‘Look, this is all the company pays!’, complaining about his paycheck.

To which the mentor replied: “No that is all the company pays YOU!’

The message shared by the late Jim Rohn about his interactions with his mentor Earl Shoaff (in addition to the power of having a mentor!) tell us that what you are getting paid is not what your industry pays. It is simply what your industry pays you!

This applies to all aspects of typical frustration – your client numbers, your client cancellations, your clients reliance on you to be their motivator, your income….

So what’s the missing ingredient? Value. You get paid for the VALUE you bring to the market. Value is measured in the amount of help you give and the number of people you give this amount of value to.

Yes, something is holding you back. Remember – in the words of the wise Jim Rohn:

Don’t take your needs to the market place. Bring your value instead.

…because…

Service to many leads to greatness – great respect, great satisfaction!

The question is….how exactly do you ‘bring your value’ to the market?

Author’s note

The training concepts I developed were developed on athletes, however during the last four decades it’s become very clear that they are equally effective on all humans. In fact I suggest that the elite athlete arena is an excellent testing ground for training theories and concepts. Coaches in the KSI Coaching Program come from all walks of life and apply the KSI way to all types of clients. The KSI way is not limited to athletes, nor are our coaches limited to working with athletes.

There is a better way – Part 6: For whose benefit

March 4, 2018/by Ian King

The coach said to the team –

‘Now I want you to win. Because it makes me look better.’

A few weeks later, in a different sport but with the same athlete, a coach said to the team –

‘Now if some of you are wondering why you didn’t get any game time, I want to remind you – we are playing to win.’

The sample group in reference was 15-17 year olds, playing in late specialization sports. They were a decade away from the potential career peak.

Was this coincidental or reflective of the extent of this value set? I have my thoughts on this.

The concept of ‘long term athlete development’ is now widely known. Few know about the people behind the concept, due to the low level of ethical referencing in this industry, but most will be able to share with you their understanding of ‘LTAD’, in a hip kind of trendy term way.

That’s great, but something is missing, because the talk of long term athlete development is nothing more than lip service.

Either the masses of coaches who claim they are familiar with the concept are not, or they simply don’t respect it.

Because when the coach is ‘playing to win’ with 16 year olds in a late specialization sport, or when the coach is calling upon the athletes to win to boost their coaching credentials, it raises the question – whose benefit is this for?

There was a time when the concept of long term athlete development was known by few. That was not that long ago, as the popularity of this concept has been a post 2000 phenomenon. Yet during this period of ‘ignorance’ I believe coaches and coaching was more enlightening, with a greater chance of the athletes needs coming first.

So how did we get to a point when everyone knows the words, but few demonstrate a true knowledge or respect of the concept?

In the late 1980s and early 1990s one the groups I was working with was the Canadian ski team. The locations we would go into camp were varied, but one thing remained constant – the team Sports Science Director would visit with me multiple times a day, excitedly showing me his latest conceptual development or research discovery, including a concept he was working on at that time – a model for long term athletic development.

His name was Istvan Balyi, a former Hungarian Olympian turned Canadian sports scientist. The work he developed went on to be the most influential model of long-term periodization in the western world during the last two decades.

In essence, and in the simpler earlier version, the model suggested a number of stages in the career of the athlete, and only in the final or latter stage was ‘playing to win’ the priority!

FUNdamentals – where fun based activities developed the fundamentals of athleticism
Training to train – where the athlete trained for the primary purpose of developing the qualities that are derived from training and getting used to training.
Training to Compete – where the athletes training and competition focus was on getting used to competing.
Training to Win – the final stage, at the peak of their career, where the athletes training and games were focused primarily on what needs to be done to win – in the now.

The first three phases of this simplistic interpretation reinforce that all is being done for the delayed gratification of winning at the peak of the athletes career. Despite most coaches of age groups ‘knowing’ this concept, most are implementing the final stage where the primary focus is to win, at the three earlier stages! Even educational institutions who provide a long term athlete development plan in writing fail to do what they say they are doing.

You can learn more about Istvan’s works in his book ‘Long Term Athlete Development’ available on various online websites. Istvan deserves to have his work learnt from the source, and the publisher, Human Kinetics, deserves credit for being the only North American publisher to my knowledge who has made an effort to reference and credit my material in their publication

I say to the coach who told his players to win for his benefit (to enhance his coaching resume), and to the coach who told his mid-teens that some of them would not step off the reserve bench because they were ‘playing to win’, and all coaches who recognize they may share similar values or habits – to reflect upon and review their coaching strategy.

And if they cannot embrace alternatives where the needs of the athlete come first, consider another pursuit other than sports coaching.

Because there is a better way, and athletes deserve to be given every opportunity to fulfill their athletic potential.

Note:

For those athletes and coaches who are concerned about the direction of training and want to believe there is a better way – congratulations. There is a better way. We have spend the last four decades discovering better ways to train, and we teach these better ways when we work with athletes or coaches. The KSI Coaching Program aims to provide you with the tools to train athletes and others in their highest and best interests, with no interest in what the dominant trend is or will be in the future. Learn more about KSI Coach Education here https://kingsports.net/courses/

There is a better way – Part 5: There’s more to athlete preparation than ‘strength & conditioning’

March 1, 2018/by Ian King

Physical preparation in athlete preparation is over-rated.

Its obvious that few share my belief, considering the amount of focus and effort going into physical development globally. I learnt from my professional experience in North America in the late 1980’s and early 1990s that their culture placed a (potentially excessive) premium on physical development. That cultural value is now global, courtesy of the internet.

The model I ascribe to – and teach – for athlete development states there are four (4) components – technical (skill), tactical (tactics), psychological and physical. After based on my four decades of professional experience, I have concluded that (generally speaking) physical development is the least important of them all.

Only in junior sport will a physical advantage at the expense of the development of the other three athlete preparation qualities provide a superior, temporary sport performance advantage. And the athlete in their long-term success, which will be reduced for doing so, pays the price for this.

Now saying ‘physical development is over-rated’ is a tough thing for me to say, especially as doing just that – physical development – has put food on my table for the bulk of my adult life. However I came into this profession to help athletes be successful in sport, not to help them become physical successful per se.

Put simply athletes are spending too much time in the gym and not enough time in skill (technical) and tactical (tactics) development.

Now to make things worse…

The model I ascribe to (and teach) for physical development states there are four (4) components – flexibility, strength, speed and endurance. After based on my four decades of professional experience, I have concluded that (generally speaking) strength is NOT the most important of them all.

But you would not know that, because an increasing percent of physical training time globally in sport is being dedicated to strength development.

So how did we get to this point? In the 1960s strength training in sports was virtually non-existent. In the 1970s it began to raise its head in sport, especially in strength sports such as US college (American) football (gridiron).

One of the leading western world physical preparation professional bodies, the National Strength Coaches Association (NSCA), grew out of this growing movement – football strength coaches at US colleges.

A study of history shows the limits of this association. Strength training was missing, and that is what the NSCA provided. By the time they realized they have overlooked other physical qualities, all they could do was substitute the word ‘conditioning’ for the word ‘coach’, and have to change the acronym NSCA. To this day, their content is reflective of the origin – a heavy bias towards strength training with very little focus on the other physical qualities .

By the 1980s, whilst not as popular as fitness training in the broader society, strength training was being sought out by a growing number of sports (which I where I got my start in sport).

During the 1990s strength training gained acceptance globally – both in sport and the general population.

By now the void had been filled. Strength training was no longer deficient. However in true human ‘over-reaction’ style, we just kept going. In the post 2000 period too much emphasis is being placed on strength.

Now, to drill deeper, not only are we seeing an over-emphasis on strength training, the strength training being conduced is significantly flawed. More on this another day….

So what gave way to allow the extra time for strength training? Playing the sport (skill development), and flexibility training – which ironically (for myself and the values I teach) are THE MOST important athletic and physical qualities respectively….

I was introduced to stretching in high school sport. Half a century later, at the same school, I would be now exposed to less stretching.

Half a century ago I engaged in a sporadic self-driven participation in the strength training gym. It wasn’t organized, and few attended.

Now, at the same school, the strength program is compulsory for all athletes in all sports. If a student athlete does not attend the strength training program for that team, the young athlete is denied selection.

At high school half a century ago my spare time was used up playing kids-organized pick up games. Now, I would not have time to engage in this unstructured, skill-based training. I would instead be at the gym meeting and exceeding the new expectations that athleticism is more effectively developed in the weight room.

So I am not speaking hypothetically. I am speaking as I see it, including a very personal case study using the same high school half a century apart.

So we have potentially given up the two most important qualities of athletic and physical preparation for one quality that is not the most important….

How is that serving us athletically or health wise?

Is this situation likely to reverse? Not in the foreseeable future. Not whilst the trend is towards every high school in the western world having their own full-time ‘strength & conditioning’ coach. Not while the dominant belief is that all there is to athlete preparation is ‘strength & conditioning’.

Hopefully, one day….the world will realize again – that this is more to athlete preparation than ‘strength & conditioning’….

Note:

There is a better way – Part 4:The simple things that can change the way athlete’s view themselves (and perform)

February 27, 2018/by Ian King

Little Johnny (or Julia) goes to mid-week training. The coach raises the ‘mistakes that cost them’ the last game. During training, the coach says:

‘Let’s go through the whole training session without dropping the ball. I don’t want to see any dropped ball!’

Little Johnny’s (or Julia’s) sub-conscious mind repeats the key words:

‘….dropped ball.’

Little Johnny’s (or Julia’s) body complies – the ball is dropped. More than once.

Little Johnny (or Julia) feels bad. One of their team-mates comes up and gives them a verbal ‘spray’:

‘Stop dropping the ball, you clumsy idiot!’

Little Johnny (or Julia) drops his/her head, feeling ashamed. Should a clumsy idiot like himself or herself even be out there, they wonder?

The coach hears this negative reinforcement and sees the exchange, but chooses to pretend they didn’t. After all, perhaps this will help them achieve their agenda?

The drill continues. More dropped ball. The coach tries screams and threats. No success – the ball is still being dropped.

So the coach introduces his ‘ace in the pack’ to solve the problem. Push-ups.

‘…you drop the ball during training, you do 10 pushups.’

Little Jonny (or Julia) drops the ball. The coach yells. Little Jonny (or Julia) does their push-ups.

The coach then raises the level of difficulty of the drill. Little Jonny (or Julia) feels there is no way they could do this! After all, they couldn’t do the simple version. They drop the ball again.

Frustrated by their ‘ace in the pack’ coaching strategy, the coach pulls out the ‘Joker in the pack’ strategy. Elimination. If you drop the ball, you are out of the drill. Little Jonny (or Julia) drops the ball soon after and is one of the first eliminated. They get the least time in technical rehearsal and the longest time on the sidelines reflecting on their failings.

At the end of training the coach says:

‘Its no wonder we lose games when we train like this!’

Little Johnny (or Julia) feels more of a loser now. Should they even bother with the next game?

It’s game day. Little Johnny (or Julia) is not feeling very confident. One of their team-mates comes up and gives them a verbal ‘spray’:

‘Stop dropping the f****** ball, you f****** useless idiot!’

[Yes, language like this occurs in teenage sports…at least in Australia…]

Little Johnny (or Julia) drop their head, feeling so small. Should a ‘f****** useless idiot’ like themself even be on the field?

The coach hears and sees this negative reinforcement – profanity included- but chooses to pretend they didn’t. After all, perhaps this will help them achieve their agenda?

[Yes, turning the blind eye by coaches to internal negative abuse is common in teenage sports, including, as I have seen, in ‘church schools’…]

Little Johnny (or Julia) drops the ball…again. The crowd groans in disappointment. The coach screams in anguish. The parents put it on the top of their ‘to be talked about list’ for after the game.

Little Johnny (or Julia) is feeling really bad about themself. They are looking for a rock to crawl under and hide.

In the team de-brief following the game the coach brings attention to it saying words to the effect ‘We’ve got to learn to hang onto that ball!’, and raves on for a few minutes about the mistakes that cost them the game. The coach concludes the huddle with:

‘Its no wonder we lose games when we play like this!’

Could Little Jonny (or Julia) is feel worse? Surely they will be safe in the refuge of family.

Little Johnny (or Julia) gets into the car for the drive home with the parents, and very quickly the conversation is brought to a discussion of the importance of catching the ball, of not letting the team down.

This is only making Little Johnny (or Julia) feel worse…

Little Johnny (or Julia) goes to mid-week training. The coach raises the ‘mistakes that cost them’ the last game. During training, the coach says:

…and the cycle is played over again….

Soon after Little Jonny (or Julia) wants to quit that sport.

Soon after that Little Jonny (or Julia) want to stop all sports.

Why would they want to play on? They only feel worse about themselves as a result of playing…..

Sound familiar? If you are not sure, ask a young athlete if they can relate to this story…

No, nothing above is embellished or fantasy. It’s real, and its happening just like this – and worse….(including the reference to ‘church schools’….)

In addition to social and physical rational for sports involvement there is the emotional and or psychological justifications. However these are only relevant if they are producing the key outcomes for the athlete.

So ask your self as a coach – by engaging in sports with me as the coach/with their coach, do the athletes:

…Feel better about themselves? (Self-esteem)
…Believe they are capable of even greater things? (Self-confidence)

Changing the way an athlete feels about himself or herself and achieving the purported benefits of sport relating to how an individual feels about themselves can be a simple looking out for and changing the way that athletes, coaches and parents speak to the athlete.

Note:

Technology and training

February 8, 2018/by Ian King

On Dec 3 2017 it was 25 years to the day since the first text message (SMS) was successfully sent. [1] [2] The message required a computer. They could be received on a hand set mobile phone, but could not be responded to.

Twenty five years ago athletes – pro and amateur – were trained on programs that were not individualized, using crude assumptions that what they were doing would make them better, and because they for the most part typically didn’t start the strength training seriously until they were in their late teens or early twenties, the injuries that occurred towards the end of the first decade of strength training were masked by ‘retirement age’.

Twenty-five years later, post 2017, technology is moving to messaging apps such as Facebook, whatsApp, etc. Texting continues, with 800 million a month in Australia on the Vodafone network alone. [3]

Twenty-five years later, post 2017, athletes – pro and amateur – are trained on programs that….are not individualized, using crude assumptions that what they were doing would make them better.

Nothings changed? Yes, there is a change! The starting age for athletes commencing serious strength training has dropped by a decade, which means that the typical injuries caused by strength training that appear within the first decade are appearing a decade before ‘retirement’ age – and are therefore no longer masked.

And this is a problem. Not so much for the coaches with a big talent pool, because there will be someone to take the place. But for the individual athletes, whose hopes and dreams are crushed – when this situation was both predictable and preventable….

Oh, I forgot to mention – if you are really lucky, your coach might change the name on top of your program sheet!

Does this absence of masking of injuries by retirement cause any changes in the way humans act or respond? Apparently not.

There are a few additional technological impacts on physical training.

Firstly, the surgery techniques to repair damaged connective tissue has really advanced, in that the surgeries are less invasive, and the healing time is shorter. Does this mean that surgery no longer comes with further collateral damage? I suggest not.

Secondly, technological advances in measuring training. GPS units to track movement patterns, forces platforms to measure power output, timing gates for displacement speeds etc.

And thirdly advancements in equipment, positively impacting performance.

But what about program design? Is that important? Obviously not important enough for the masses to expect advancement in the ability of ‘professionals’ to provide individualization in program design, because in this regard nothings changed.

Oh, and there is one more change worth noting – the increase in incidence and severity of injuries appears to be constantly rising…..

——-

[1] https://news.sky.com/story/first-text-message-sender-neil-papworth-celebrates-25th-sms-anniversary-11154491

[2] http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/03/worlds-first-text-message-sent-25-years-ago-today-7127957/

[3] https://www.vodafone.com.au/red-wire/text-message-25-years

If only they knew….

January 23, 2018/by Ian King

….what has been in print for over 20 years…

The sport specific technique session was coming to a close when I heard my fellow coach refer to a prior knee injury in one of the athlete. Let’s call that athlete Billy.

Intrigued, at the conclusion of the session I asked the young athlete:

IK: What was the knee injury?

Billy: I had meniscus surgery on my left knee.

IK: Let me ask, were you doing off-field training at that time? Strength and conditioning?

Billy: Yes.

IK: Mmmm…And what age were you when this happened?

Billy: 15.

IK: Mmmm….

So I decided to provide some general guidance in the hope of helping to reduce the damage that was already done.

IK: So you need to keep away from strength training.

Now I know what you are thinking – Ian, does that mean you have changed your mind, that strength training is no longer important and relevant to sport. No, that’s not the case. But what I have got to realize from four decades of professional observation is that what most athletes are doing is damaging and most would be better off doing nothing. Especially those whose positions really don’t require high levels of size and strength, and especially those with prior joint injuries where (in my opinion) the injuries were caused or contributed to be the flawed off-field training).

Billy: Oh. I am doing a fair bit of strength training now.

IK: How much?

Billy: 4 days a week.

IK: Mmmm…Okay the next step would be to minimize your exposure to quad dominant exercises.

In the 1980s I saw first hand the phenomenon that physical therapists were calling ‘quad dominance’, and spend the next decade creating and refining a systems to categorize exercise, to help myself and any others who wanted to use the concept to avoid the damage caused by quad dominance. I called this concept ‘Lines of Movement’. [1]

So we’ve got many ‘professionals’ who can talk the talk – can word drop terms like ‘quad dominant’ and ‘posterior chain’ [2] – but have got no clue how, why or where it should be applied.

IK: You know, squats, lunges etc.

The look on Billy’s face told me all I needed to know.

IK: Okay, where did you get your program from.

The answer confirmed my fears.

IK: Let me see if I can help you. Show me the program and I will tell you the changes to make.

Billy showed me the program. Two days out of four were leg days. Nothing unusual there. And five out of the seven (5/7) exercises in each of those days were…..quad dominant exercises. The usual suspects – squats, lunges, step ups etc.

The boy was dead man walking. He had a challenged future in sport by virtue of what he was led to believe was ‘the right thing’ in his off-field training.

The only exception to this rule is those athletes with genetically gifted with load tolerant connective tissue.The kind that rise to the top in say US pro sport, from a base of millions. The eastern European philosophy – throw a lot of eggs at the wall, the ones that don’t crack – they will be the champions.

IK: Billy, there is possibly that for now you should do NO quad dominant exercise, at least for a few months. The goal is to ideally reverse the imbalance the quad dominance you have created from years of imbalanced strength programs. Now you can move to a ratio of say 3:1 hip dominant to quad, etc. etc.7

Billy: What are some hip dominant exercises?

IK: Deadlifts, deadlift variations, Olympic lifts, Olympic lift variations etc etc. Single leg exercises where the trunk stays over (not that windmill bastardization of my single leg stiff legged deadlift though!

And then I left Billy to ponder the gap between what he had been led to believe was going to make him a better sports person, and those challenging thoughts provided by Coach King!

It’s always tough to walk away from an athlete left possibly to drown from incompetent advice. However I do my best to provide athlete and coach education. The challenge is the swell or rubbish education, at both professional, academic, and lay person level rises faster…..

Ah, the pro’s and con’s of the information age….

If only they athletes knew what damage they were doing to themselves in the way they trust those so-called experts and those in positions of authority.

——

[1] Now despite (or because) this concept has been published more times by others in the absence of any connection to the source than by myself, one would have expected the message would have sunk in. But it hasn’t. Probably because those who published it didn’t really appreciate, value and understand the concept in the first place.

[2] Not the original title ‘Lines of movement’, because this was about the only thing the plagiarist’s changed!

A message to parents of young athletes – would you sign up for this?

October 16, 2017/by Ian King

Imagine this. You are turning up to training 45 minutes earlier than the previous generation did. You are doing ‘dryland’ – alleged performance enhancing and injury reducing physical training. And it is degrading your body shape, increasing the severity and frequency of your injuries, and putting you out of sport, play and movement earlier than if you didn’t do it. And the performance enhancing impacts are unclear at best.

Would you sign up for this?

I would expect not. Then why are you signing your kid up for this?

I know, you don’t know any better. You trust your sports coaches, your school. You don’t know me. What I am saying it a ‘bit left field’. You don’t like what I say etc. etc.

Ignore me at your child’s peril……

I watched 10-14 year olds perform 45 minutes of dry land training before their multi-week swimming training session.

What physical risks does swimming present? Rounded and injuries shoulders, arched and sore backs. Both resulting in performance reduction.

So what will this 45 minute dry land session do to them?

I outline my thoughts below – not holding back, but at the same time not sensationalizing the matter. This is serious, and your kids are in the cross hairs.

I write this for parents of young athletes, or athletes of any age who seek to improve their understanding of optimal athlete performance programs.

I rely on concepts and analytical techniques I published from 1998 onwards in publications such as ‘How to Write Strength Training Programs’ (1998, book), ‘How to Teach Strength Training Programs’ (2000, book) – both of which are available to anyone; and DVD programs such as ‘Strength Specialization Series’ (1998, DVD) and ‘Injury Prevention & Rehabilitation Series’ (2000, DVD) – which are only available to coaches in our coach education program.

If I reduce one injury in one athlete, prevent one athlete from having surgery, extend the career of one athlete, give better quality of later life to one former athlete – my efforts are worthwhile.

Yes part of all of this message will upset, anger, offend etc. some coach or coaches somewhere – but your child is worth more than the feelings of a coach or coaches that should have made a greater effort to be better.

So let’s dive deeper into the dry land program we are using in this real world case study.

STRENGTH VS FLEXIBILITY

Let’s start with simple breakdown of time. It was 40 minutes of strength exercises, followed by 5 minutes of stretching.

If your aim was to accelerate the shortening that swimming causes to the muscle, you would be advised to do just this. 40 minutes of tissue tensioning and shortening work, and 5 minutes of tissue lengthening.

If your goal was to reduce injury and enhance performance and length their careers – you would reverse this. 40 minutes of stretching, and 5 minutes of strengthening.

Now lets talk about sequence. Strength first, flex second. If you flex first apparently, according to rumor and sketchy science, it will make you weak. So the current trend in a world that refuses to think for itself is to do it last.

Now in the real world, if you had the courage to defy conformity, and did stretching first, you would find the stretching open up your joints, free the nerves to fire, reduce the joint wear and tear. The only way to do it! But that’s just my opinion, based on near 40 years of coaching and the experience of training more athletes in one lifetime than you could imagine.

However unless you control the program, don’t hold your breath waiting for this change. Your child will be having shoulder surgery before that happens, as the dominant world trends – the reason why humans do anything including their sports training – are going the other way at them moment. Stretching is bad. Just about the only time you are going to hear your child needs to stretch is after the injury has occurred, from your physical therapist. A little too late….

UPPER BODY VS LOWER BODY VS TRUNK (Core)

If you divide the body simplistically into three sections – upper body, lower body and middle of the body (core) where should the dry land focus go?

Based on how I saw the exercises being conducted, and taking into account my interpretation of the prime mover, I observed that…

…about 12.5% of the exercises go to trunk (abdominal or core as some like to say), and these were done as the last few exercises. The trunk/core/abdominal was given by far the least focus.

….about 25% of the exercises go to upper body and these were for the most part down in the latter half of the strength session.

….about 50% of the exercises go to lower body, and these were done for the mo part in the first half of the strength session. So the lower body was given the most priority.

Now I don’t expect to dwell on the discussion of relative importance of each of these three sections of the body to swimming performance – that would take a bit more time and space, and we can get into that another time.

However I will speak without hesitation to injury prevention (or in this case, as in most cases injury creation). I suggest the neglect of the middle of the body completely unacceptable.

ABDOMINAL BALANCE

Based on the ‘Lines of Movement’ concept I first published in 1998 and now universally adopted (although rarely referenced) I identify four (4) basic lines of movement in the abdominals that generally speaking provide balance in training along with two additional, more advanced ones.

Now there were more exercises in the w0rkout that included abdominal involvement (e.g. med ball throw downs), however when they are not the primary focus, they are listed as abdominal exercises. And when they involve other muscles such as ‘planks’, they get categorized as integrated.

Essentially not only is the abdominal program under prioritizing this muscle group, what is done potentially lacks balance.

	Opportunities I found	Reality of this program
BASIC
1. Hip flexion	Ö
2. Trunk flexion	Ö	Ö
3. Rotation	Ö
4. Lateral Flexion	Ö
ADVANCED
5. Co-contraction glut/ab	Ö
6. Integrated	Ö	Ö

UPPER BODY BALANCE

Based again on my ‘Lines of Movement’ concept I divided the eight (8) upper body exercises into the following lines.

Horizontal pull – 4.5

Vertical Pull – 2.5

Horizonal Pull – 1

Vertical push – 0

The part numbers came from giving a movement that shared dominance in lines of movement 0.5 points to each of the two dominant lines of movement/muscle groups.

This translates into the following table.

Percentage of lines of movement based on number of exercsies.

	My recommended exercise distribution of using 8 exercises	Reality of this program

Horizontal pull	50 %	15%
Vertical push	25 %	0%
Vertical pull	12.5%	30%
Horizontal push	12.5%	55%

What is the main form of upper body imbalance from most swimming strokes? Rounded and drooped shoulders. What causes this? The reliance of the majority of swimming strokes on the chest (horizontal push) and lats (vertical pull) to pull the body through the water.

What does this program do? Makes the imbalances even worse, faster. You can expect a hastened decline in posture, more injuries, more severe injuries, more surgery and a shorter career, followed by a life time of rounded shoulder…

But it doesn’t have to be this way….

And this is without getting into a discussion of relative sequence of exercises, and relative loading potential of exercises selected, the results of which would only painter a gloomier picture.

LOWER BODY BALANCE

The potentially least important muscle group (yes, it is important, and it will be dependent on stroke, style, individual swimmer) that got the most attention in this dry land training program example has it’s own imbalances.

There were a total of thirteen (13) lower body exercises, however leg swings were three of them and I have taken them out of the equation for the moment.

Based again on my ‘Lines of Movement’ concept I divided the remaining ten (10) lower body exercises into the following lines.

Hip dominant – 2

Quad dominate – 8

This translates into the following table.

Percentage of lines of movement based on number of exercises.

	My generalized recommended exercise distribution using 10 exercises	Reality of this program
Hip dominant	60 % (6)	20 % (2)
Quad dominant	40 % (4)	80 % (8)

What is the main form of lower body imbalance from most swimming strokes? The muscle imbalances of the lower body in a swimmer are less than the upper body challenges they face. However sore lower backs are, in my professional opinion, caused by over-used quad muscles pulling on the hips and causing the nerves of the spine to be pinched.

Now swimming in itself does not cause a large number of lower back injuries compared to upper body injury potential. However, if you were to do this kind of dry land program chronically, you would quickly find yourself facing a higher incidence of back pain and lower extremity soft tissue aggravations than you would from normal swimming alone.

Quad dominance caused physical ailments are common in many land based running sports. Now swimming is neither land based or impact, so why would you want to reproduce a potential side effect in a sport that otherwise sees relatively little of it?

And this is without getting into a discussion of relative sequence of exercises, and relative loading potential of exercises selected, the results of which would only painter a gloomier picture.

For example I teach that prioritization of the training effect is caused by three main factors – which exercise/s are done most (relative volume), which exercise are done first or in what order (sequence), and what are the relative loading potential of each exercises (if an exercise can do load, it has the potential to create greater change in the muscle. If not matched by the opposite muscle group exercise, imbalances can result).

Take relative loading potential. All the quad dominant exercises involve the squat or squat variations – the load potential and real load lifted (even if only bodyweight) is far in excess of the load potential of the two hip dominant exercises – which only involved part of the bodyweight, and by nature of the less number of joints involved, could never match the load potential of the squat exercise.

In other words if I painted the full picture, it would get even uglier….

But it doesn’t have to be this way….

SUMMARY

Sport has the potential to create many positive outcomes. What is often overlooked is the potential for sport to also create shape in the body for better or worse, long term. Mostly for the worse. The longer you play, the higher level you play, the greater the chance you take the physical downsides into the rest of your life. It doesn’t take too long or too many training sessions to commence the shaping.

We accept that about sports. It comes with it’s good and bad. However what if what we are doing in our ‘dry land’ or ‘physical preparation’ was making the physical downside worse?

In the 1990s I suggested that most physical training in sport was doing more damage than good.

In fact I believe that most injuries are actually caused by the way athletes train. The only injury acceptable is an unavoidable impact injury. Virtually all soft tissue injuries are avoidable. But imagine that – training, during which focus is geared towards performance enhancement, may induce most injuries. Isn’t this ridiculous! [1]

In fact from my experiences and observation, the greatest effect that I have seen from most physical preparation is to detract from these five factors, not enhance it. Imagine that – training and being worse off for it. Well how do you think the athlete would feel if he/she found out! Yeah, they’re real fit – to sit in the stands in their team uniform and watch![2]

If it was introduced at about 20 years of age, and most athletes retire from competitive sport in their late twenties, the physical damage and the aging factor combined and were hidden.

But what if the training methods now, some two decades later, are just as damaging to the body as they were in the 1990s? What if they were done to kids? The kid would potentially be damaged to the point where a decade later, n their teams, they were too damaged physically to continue to play, or to continue to improve.

And in my observation, that is exactly what is happening.

When assessing the injury potential of your decisions in training today, one must look forward many years. Because few physical preparation coaches train individuals for many years continuously, they do not have the opportunity to understand the long-term implications of the training program they are implementing with the individual athlete. As a result, from my observations, most physical preparation programs do more harm than good. They may give short term results or confidence to the athlete, but result in significant performance restrictions and or injuries long term.

The more an athlete participates in physical preparation, including the younger they start in physical preparation, the greater the incidence and severity of injury. Unfortunately these injuries are being blamed away by many involved in sport as being a function of the increased demands and impact forces in ‘modern day’ sport. This to me is little more than an excuse, an exercise in putting one’s head in the proverbial sand. Quite simply, the majority of training programs are flawed from a physical preparation perspective and are causing the increased injuries. [3]

In my opinion, I repeat my comment of 20 years ago – most training does more harm than good. The only thing that has changed is now we are doing the damage to younger and younger athletes.

The below summarizes in table format how far apart my approach to what is being done by the majority.

A comparison of my generalized recommendations vs. the observed training session.

	My recommendations	Reality of this program
Sequence of dry land	Flex then strength	Strength then flex
Time allocation	Flex–30m/Strength–15m	Strength–40m/Flex–5m
Prioritisation of body part	Middle-upper-lower	Lower-upper-middle
Number of abdominal lines of movement	4-6	2
Prioritization of upper body lines of movement	1. Horizontal pull 2. Vertical push 3. Vertical pull 4. Horizontal push	1. Horizontal push 2. Vertical pull 3. Horizontal pull 4. Vertical push
Prioritization of upper body lines of movement	1. Hip dominant 2. Quad dominant	1. Quad dominant 2. Hip dominant

In summary, what I observed being done these young athletes and what I believe should be done is almost diametrically opposed. It would be difficult to reach more opposite conclusions. Interpretation aside, one of us is really off-track.

Question I have include – who writes these programs? What is their experience? Will they ever be held accountable for the long term impacts? Why are we doing this to our children? Will you keep throwing your child into the ‘lion’s den’?

I was of the understanding we were to care and nurture our children, not accelerate and amplify the damage of sport….

[1] King, I., 1997, Winning & Losing, Ch 5, p. 25

[2] King, I., 1999, So you want to become a physical preparation coach, p. 30-31

[3] King, I., 2005, The way of the physical preparation coach, p. 66-67