Ian King

Nutritional supplements and strength training: Part 2 – A different paradigm

/by

What supplements should you be taking? If your said goal is to get bigger, stronger and or leaner, surely these are the supplements you should be focusing on? Those supplements that claim these specific benefits on their label and in their marketing? However what if it’s not this simple? What if there is more to it? What if there is a better way to achieve your goals through supplementation? The aim of this article is to encourage you to ask these questions, and guide you to possible answers.

Without a doubt the dominant focus in mainstream influences on supplementation for the strength training market is performance enhancement. However there is another consideration or category of supplementation, that I call ‘system support’.

The question is what is its respective role in the nutritional supplementation? That is how much focus should be placed on performance enhancement supplements and how much on system supporting supplements?

In Part 1 of this article series – The arrival of smoke and mirrors – I raised the question of whether your supplement selection has been fraudulently influenced by the perception that you may receive the same training effects as the drug support physique used to market the supplement. In Part 2 of this series, I raise questions about the focus of your supplement selection.

Two paths

In training the opportunity exists for an awareness of injury prevention versus performance enhancement, in a world fixated on performance enhancement.

As physical preparation consultants, we are involved in two main areas – firstly performance enhancement, and secondly injury prevention. Now those who are familiar with my teachings know I prioritize injury prevention…..[1]

In nutritional supplementation I raise a similar dichotomy. The opportunity exists for systems support (or health) supplements in addition to the performance enhancement category. As with training, the world focuses on performance enhancing supplementation and ignores system support supplements.

In training, the world prioritizes the focus on performance enhancement.

The dominant mainstream way in program design is to be performance focused. I believe that the primary focus should be on injury prevention. Only when injury potential has been negated, should the dominant focus be reverted to performance enhancement. [2]

However if your ‘performance enhancement is creating injury potential – and I suggest most do – then are your really enhancing performance? Or are you engaging in performance decrement training? Or dysfunctional training, as I call it?

In supplementation, if your training degrades the systems of the body – and this is what training does at least temporarily – and you fail to support these systems, yet you take more performance enhancing supplements to in theory allow you to degrade the systems further. How does this make sense?

In essence I suggest performance enhancement in training begins with and is limited by the presence of injury. Performance enhancement in supplementation, I suggest is no different – failing to support the systems of the body is the primary limiting factor to recovery, which is the pre-requisite for training adaptations or performance enhancement.

Systems support

In the area of training I have for decades published on the role and importance of recovery in achieving the desired training outcomes.

So let me make it very clear for you – the training effect is not simply the training! Instead, it is the training followed by recovery. The addition of the ‘recovery’ to the ‘training’ is what gives you the training effect. [3]

Yes, training is important – but it is not the complete picture. If I teach you nothing else, then I have made a significant impact on not only how you train but also the results you’ll get![4]

I truly hope that you come to understand that optimal training is not about how much or hard or long or painful it can be; rather it is about the amount of training, which when combined with the recovery situation you are in, will give you the best training effect…

I am going to make it very clear the need to give the component of recovery the same respect as the component of training.[5]

This same recovery focus in training needs to be mirrored in the recovery focus in nutritional supplements.

The question I encourage you to ask is ‘Have I paid enough attention to the supplements that support my recovery from training?’ I suggest not. Not because I know you, but because I know what most do, and that’s not enough in relation to system support or recovery supplementation.

Learning what works in systems support

In physical injuries I learnt one of the best ways to determine the causes and resolution of injuries was from the end point back up. So from working with injured athletes returning them to sport I learnt most effectively the mechanism I needed to prioritize in preventing these conditions in the first place.

I found similar success in systems support. Studying the solutions that health patients are attracted to when their health (and in some cases lives) are at risk. Some of these lessons influence the below.

System support nutritional supplement recommendations

The first consideration is the percentage of your supplements that fall within the ‘systems support’ (health category).

I suggest that approximately 50% or one half of your supplement types taken on a regular basis should be drawn from the ‘systems support’ category.

The next consideration is specific examples. The following outlines some of the critical system support supplements I use and recommend. Note this is aimed at being illustrative, not prescriptive. That is do not infer or conclude that this is a ‘top 5’ list. Rather is a few examples. Ideally you would individualize your systems support supplementation. This is at least the goal of my coaches and I when we help people/athletes with their supplementation.

Vitamin and minerals

When I set out on my life quest to find the answer to what is the best way to train part of that search was to find out the best way to support the training and recovery process through nutritional supplements. One of my first and strongest influences in this area was Bill Starr in his book ‘The Strongest Shall Survive’ published in the 1970s. It was one of the best guides I could have had. To his credit, the recommendations regarding micro-nutrients made by Starr hold today.[6]

Some choose to put together their own combination of the above; some choose a high quality, high potency multi-vitamin/mineral. Either way this should be the corner stone of any system support nutritional supplement program, and arguably the first supplement you select. The role in cell protection by these micronutrients has led the vitamins to be typically referred to as ‘anti-oxidants’. Training accelerates damage at the cellular level, and anti-oxidants are charged with the role of protecting and rebuilding the cells.

Whilst most companies will market and sell their own version of multi vitamin/mineral product, I suggest a minority of supplement users take advantage of this supplement.

Immune system support

Put simply the immediate impact of training is to suppress the body’s systems. The immune system places a major role in how fast (or if) you recover from training. Many and diverse supplements fall into the category of being immune system support, including the above broad spectrum vitamin and mineral supplements I spoke of.

Getting down into isolated micronutrients one of the most simple yet impactive is Vitamin C. I have long supported the view that there are significant benefits from taking Vitamin C dosages in the realm of what Bill Starr recommended (4,000mg/day) and higher.

There are, as I said above, many other supplements that fall under the category of immune systems support. Here are a few that you may not have heard of:

  • Grape seed extract
  • Certain strains of mushroom
  • Baker’s yeast

I have been testing  the above supplements during recent years and have been very impressed with the outcomes.

Joint support

Support of the musculoskeletal system should place very highly in the list of supplements used by everyone, not just the athlete. However as strength athletes place extra loading on their joints, this option becomes more relevant. Some may belief that unless they have apparent joint degeneration this supplement is not relevant to them. I suggest otherwise. I prefer prevention to correction.

The most popular form of joint support is glucosamine. I wrote the following about glucosamine in my 1998 Supplement Review:[7]

What is the purpose of this supplement? Glucosamine aims to reduce joint pain and stiffness resulting from osteoarthritis or joint trauma, especially cartilage trauma.

How long has this supplement been around? Although glucosamine appears to have only relatively recently become readily available in Australia, there is reference to this substance as early as 1989 by Breuer as cited in the 1987 US patent application by Senin et al (87).   Research as early as 1980 has confirmed the role of this substance : “…oral glucosamine treatment produced significant improvement in the symptoms of pain, joint tenderness and swelling, as well as in restriction of movement…moreover treatment was extremely well tolerated.” Therefore it has been around for quite some time, but perhaps its value has not been fully recognised.

Does it work?   Our experience with feedback from athletes is that it does work, especially for athletes with degeneration in the knee joint. Our findings are supported by research such as that by Bhomer et al (8), who trialed glucosamine on 68 athletes who had cartilage damage in the knees. Of these, 52 had complete disappearance of the symptoms. Many researchers have compared the efficacy of glucosamine with non-steroidal anti-inflammatories such as ibuprofen, including Senin et al (87), who compared glucosamine with ibuprofen 400 mg (taken orally) over a four (4) week period. The difference in effect was only marginally superior for the ibuprofen, with 52% vs 48% success rate respectively. However the side effects were also greater for the ibuprofen users, 35% to 6% respectively.

Digestive system support

The role and importance of food is unquestioned in strength training nutrition. However what about the ability of the digestive system to break down and absorb the nutrients? In the idea world one may obtain this support from diet, however does this occur for you?

If you choose to supplement your diet for digestive system support there are a number of options you should consider, and therefore ensure the optimization of the consumed nutrition.

These include but are not limited to:

  • Fiber supplements
  • Pro and prebiotics
  • Digestive Enzymes

Again, the best way to discern what is the most effective preventative solution is to study what people lean towards when they find themselves in trouble. In relation to fiber supplements Tamara Duker Freuman writes:

I’ve worked in a gastroenterology practice for the better part of a decade and, with each passing year, I see patients arrive at my doorstep on ever-growing lists of evermore expensive designer supplements to help manage their digestive woes. Call me old-fashioned, but I still find there’s one humble, low-tech, no-frills supplement that helps the largest number of my patients with the widest variety of their issues: fiber.

And provides guidelines for selecting a fiber supplement in this article.[8]

In relation to pre and probiotics, the following definition is provided:[9]

Probiotics are live microorganisms found in bacteria, yeast or fungi, and when taken in large doses can help improve and maintain the health of your gastrointestinal tract. This friendly bacteria is essential for maintaining good health and vitality.

In order for the good bacteria to survive in the bowel, you need to feed them ‘prebiotic’ foods. Prebiotics are non-digestible food fibres that enable good bacteria to stick to the bowel wall and also helps to stimulate their growth.

Sleep support

Sleep disturbance is one of the more prominent side-effects of over-training, and at some stage all those training seriously will brush with this challenge. Keep in mind that during sleep much of our recovery from training and certain critical hormone release occurs.

I strongly recommend all who value sleep have in their ‘tool kit’ a sleep support supplement. This may include:

  • Melatonin
  • Magnesium (or magnesium / calcium) supplements
  • Other mineral supplements high in magnesium

Melatonin is available over the counter in the US but not in say Australia. When you do source melatonin the challenge (as with all supplements) is sourcing a product that has consistent doses in each pill. A brand with varied dosage (and unfortunately that describes most brands) can leave you either failing to achieve the sleep desired, or waking up with a hangover like feeling.

Melatonin has also found favor in the life-extension movement.[10]

The path less traveled

My four decades of professional experience has led me to be what I call realistic about the category of supplements that I have identified – systems support (health) supplements. Here are some of my conclusions/observations:

  • Performance enhancement supplements are easier to market because they promise instant gratification, which is an easier sell to a market conditioned to be attracted to promises of fast results.
  • Continuing to ‘discover’ new ‘breakthroughs’ in performance enhancing supplements keeps the profits ticking over for supplement companies. Especially when the masses finally realize that their prior offerings actually didn’t work.
  • System support supplements may take longer to be evident in their effects than prescription drugs e.g. glucosamine vs. prescription anti-inflammatory drugs. However they effects can be equal in the long term, with lower side effect risks.
  • Be your own expert and do your own research – on yourself. The best way to ascertain the efficacy of any supplement or supplement regime is to objectively review and assess the impact of the supplement/s. See to do so independent of conclusions made by manufacturers or ‘science’.

In summary, I am not expecting the habits I recommend – at least 50% of your supplement intake being system support supplements – to ever dominate in the fitness and sport genres. You are going to need to be a person willing to be ‘different’, to go ‘against the flow’, to embrace my recommendations.

Conclusion

In summary, there is a pattern of over-focus on the so called ‘performance enhancing’ supplements in both the sports and fitness genres. I have proposed another consideration in nutritional supplementation, one that only those who express health as their primary goal appear to place adequate attention upon. I have called this category of supplementation ‘systems support’ supplements, as they are aimed to support the systems of the body tolerate, regenerate and recover from stress of all kinds.

My experience has led me to conclude that superior outcomes may be available with a priority placed on systems support (health) supplements compared to the dominant habit of prioritizing ‘performance enhancing’ supplements. I understand this is not what you have been hearing throughout your time pursing fitness, buff or sports performance.

I recommend if you are committed to optimizing your nutritional supplement program that you be willing to objectively reach your own conclusions, independent of the ‘noise’ in the market place. And that could include testing the recommendations and theories that I have proposed in the above.

 

References

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

[2] King, I., 2005, The way of the physical preparation coach, p. 18

[3] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed! (book), p. 3

[4] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed! (book), p. 3

[5] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed! (book), p. 3-4

[6] Starr, B., 1979, The strongest shall survive Ð strength training for football, Fitness Products Ltd, Washington, p. 146

[7] King, I., 1998, Australian Supplement Review, King Sports International Publishing

[8] https://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/articles/2017-06-06/how-to-choose-a-fiber-supplement

[9] https://www.bodyandsoul.com.au/nutrition/nutrition-tips/prebiotics-vs-probiotics/news-story/eaebb9846aa1dd763def0a9a141f7d31

[10] http://www.lifeextension.com/Magazine/2012/9/7-Ways-Melatonin-Attacks-Aging-Factors/Page-01

Ian King

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

/by

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

Ian King

Dysfunctional Training

/by

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:

  1. Dysfunction
  2. Discomfort
  3. Pain
  4. Injury
  5. 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

Ian King

Ban the band!

/by

During a workout the national league, former scholarship holding Div. 1 NCAA athlete from a championship winning team asked ‘Ian, I notice you don’t use bands with me in any exercises. Why do most strength coaches use bands and you don’t?’

I pondered a moment and then said ‘Because the world is brain dead.’

A bit harsh, but I wanted to get my point across.

Now this athlete is very cerebral and not only deserved a more complete answer, but had a thirst for knowledge. The lack of satisfactory explanations to similar questions posed to their previous strength and conditioning coaches had been a source of frustration.

So I took a deep breath, collected my thoughts, and begun one of those very brief but intense summaries you give to athletes with inquiring minds.

IK: ‘Okay, this is a bit of a longer explanation but you deserve it!…..Let me ask you – what exercises have you mainly used bands on?

Athlete: Oh, things like the exercise you call ‘External leg rotations’, but others call clamshells. Or the external arm rotations. Exercises like that.

IK: Okay, so mostly control drills, a concept I introduced to the world in the 1990s[2] to provide a pre-training activation of the muscles and an injury prevention insurance policy by increasing volume in small muscles.

The stretch should be followed by a series of control drills for the joints and muscles to be trained in the workout. [3] … I include 2-4 low volume/low intensity ‘control’ drills at the start of EVERY workout, aimed at reducing the muscle imbalance in the muscle groups to be trained on that day. This is part of my injury prevention ‘insurance’ policy… [4] Control drills by my definition include any exercises that focus primarily on selective recruitment and quality of the movement, as opposed to the load lifted or reps performed That is, a qualitative focus rather than a quantitative focus…[5]

IK: Let me ask you a question – when you start each rep in most exercsies, do you feel at your strongest point or not?

Athlete: Ah, no, most exercises I am not the strongest at the start of the rep.

IK: And that’s normal – it’s called the ‘strength or force curve’ – the amount of force you can produce at the start of the exercise is usually low, then what happens next?

Athlete: I feel a bit stronger as I come up through the rep.

IK: Excellent. Then what happens next?

Athlete: I feel I get a bit weaker towards the end.

IK: Wow, you are sharp! That’s a great explanation for most joint force curves – you start weak, get stronger, then get weaker. Now let me ask – when you start the rep with a band does the resistance start low?

Athlete: Yes, it’s at its easiest point at the start.

IK: Excellent. Then as you come through the movement what happens to the resistance?

Athlete: It’s get harder.

IK: Excellent. Then what happens next?

Athlete: Then I guess it gets really hard towards the end as the band is getting more stretched.

IK: Exactly! Now is this your strongest point or are you getting weaker towards the end of the movement in most cases?

Athlete: I am usually getting weaker.

IK: Great! So does the resistance offered match the force curve?

Athlete: No, it doesn’t.

IK: Can you finish off the rep with excellent technique or do you tend to cheat to get it done?

Athlete: I need to cheat to finish the rep.

IK: So how does that fit in with say my focus on technique and avoiding technique breakdown, especially with control drills?

Athlete: It wouldn’t! Okay, I see now why you don’t use bands!

With that, we went back to training.

Now I am going to extend the discussion for you, as I assume you are not working out as you read! Now of course I need to state that if you don’t like what I am about to say, you can stop reading. Or, you can read on. Now if you don’t have room in your mind for a different perspective, you can of course just ignore it and go back to doing what everyone else is doing – and we need the 90% to do what the 90% do because that’s just the way it is – or you can throw a tantrum and hurl abuse at me – the comment section is below – go for it, I’m pretty used to those affected with the ‘who moved my cheese’ phenomenon!

So for those still with me, I return to my insights….yes, just an opinion based on a little bit of experience….and a keen innovative mind that no matter how much the trolls are pissed off with me, chances are they are already using one or more of my innovations without even realizing it!

(That reminds me of Minny’s lines in the movie ‘The Help’ – “you just ate my xxxx….”[6])

In the 1960s and 1970s, either through a genuine desire to find a better way or for commercial purposes, some sought a ‘superior’ loading alternative to free weights, earlier referred to as ‘isotonic movements’ – the use of eccentric and concentric contractions with a constant load.

Universal released their lever machines, trademarked ‘Dynamic Variable Resistance’ (DVR), proposing the superior training effect. They failed to truly match the force curve and this fell by the way.

Arthur Jones came along in the 1970s and 1980s with the off-set nautilus cam shell shaped pulley system trademarked Nautilus. Really nice equipment, and the off-set cam pulley system got closer than Universal did to matching the joint force curve, but still fell short.

Arthur and his off-spring continued to contribute to the search for optimal resistance modalities, through Medex, Hammer Strength etc.

Isokinetic and semi-isokinetic devices chimed in, all providing alternatives to isotonic exercises, and variety in training.

So why did was it that took us back about half a century and sees athlete’s around the world using resistance options such as bands where the resistance rises in a linear fashion, arguably even less appropriate to the human force curve than isotonic fixed load resistance?

Now perhaps you have a greater affinity for my initial word selection regarding humans being brain dead? Okay, that may be asking too much!

So why are bands so popular? I have three possible answers.

Firstly they are undeniably convenient and cost effective. However when did training to be the best in your conference, best in the nation, and or the best in the world come down to convenience? In other words I can understand why some general population clientele may resort to them especially on road trips. However I don’t believe this is a solid justification for the proliferation of this resistance mode.

Secondly, they are well marketed. In the post 2001 recession response the US fitness industry market turned it’s attention to smaller devices, devices that not only carried lower risk for the manufacturer, importer, distributor and facility owners, but potentially had a higher percentage margin. The promotion of the concept of ‘functional training’ was not without coincidence, rather suggest driven by a market shift toward small cost equipment. And bands are simply part of this market shift. Suffice to say, the promotion of training methods connected to equipment (e.g. foam rollers, bands etc.) rose, whilst the promotion of training methods sans (devoid of) equipment (e.g. stretching) was suppressed.

Thirdly, I come back to brain dead humans. Humans not wiling or able to use the grey matter they were blessed with. Earl Nightingale in his must –listen-to 1956 audio record ‘The Strangest Secret’[7] quoted the wise Dr. Albert Schweitzer responding to a reporter when asked in a circa 1950 press conference “What’s wrong with men today?” After a brief pause he said, ”The trouble with men today is that they simply don’t think.” Not much has changed I suggest!

In conclusion, yes, there is justification for the use of all resistance modes in various cases. However I suggest the current use of bands is inconsistent with this justification. Whilst I was a bit cheeky with my title ‘ban the band’, I am comfortable suggesting you at least reflect on this resistance option before imposing it upon you trusting clients or athletes.

The challenge is not in knowing what is right and wrong. The challenge is to develop the ability to think, to be able to discern if an exercise or training method is appropriate for any given person at any given time, irrespective of and often despite it’s current popularity. This is my hope for you.

References

[1] You know, the ones who are 10/10 on bravery when they’re posting from their basement whom a psychologist would have a field day seeking to unravel the personal hurt they have suffered in life that leaves them in so much pain they want to pass that pain on to complete strangers

[2] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed! (book), p. 118

[3] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed! (book), p. 118

[4] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed! (book), p. 123

[5] King, I., 2002, Get Buffed! II (book), p. 137

[6] “Minny: “Eat my shit.”

Hilly: “Excuse me?”

Minny: “I said eat…my…shit.”

Hilly: “Have you lost your mind?”

Minny: “No ma’am, but you about to, cause you just did.”

*Minny eyes the pie*

Hilly: “Did…What?”

*Minny eyes pie again, Missus Walters gasping and laughing, Hilly eyes pie then gags and runs off*

Missus Walters: “And you didn’t just eat one, you ate TWO slices!”

*Minny runs off*

Missus Walters: “RUN, MINNY, RUUN!!”

*She says this while laughing*”

[7] https://www.nightingale.com/articles/the-strangest-secret/

Ian King

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

/by

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!

  1. FUNdamentals – where fun based activities developed the fundamentals of athleticism
  2. 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.
  3. Training to Compete – where the athletes training and competition focus was on getting used to competing.
  4. 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/

Ian King

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

/by

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:

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/

Ian King

Technology and training

/by

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

Ian King

If only they knew….

/by

….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!

Ian King

Ode to Alice

/by

And a wake up call to the parents of all the Alice’s and Allan’s of the world

I just met Alice. And as a result of that meeting I felt inspired to immediately write on behalf of the ‘Alice’s’ of the world.

Alice will never read this article. Our meeting was brief and coincidental. My hope is that others may read and benefit from Alice’s story.

I walked into a sports store to conduct a product exchange and was served at the front counter by a tall athletic looking young girl, in her late teens I would say.

During our product discussions, which at best we were at the same eye level, perhaps she was slightly taller, I asked:

IK: ‘So tell me, did you use your height to play sport?’

This is a question I ask all tall young people!

Alice: Yes, I played netball, water polo and triathlons. Until I was forced to quit.

IK: Oh, why did you stop playing them?

Alice: Due to my injuries. I was not able to play any more.

IK: What injuries did you suffer?

Alice: I had one shoulder reconstruction and one knee reconstruction and I need a shoulder reconstruction now on my other shoulder.

IK: Oh…..what ages were you when this occurred?

Alice: I was in Grade 9 [about 13-14 years of age) when I had my shoulder reconstruction and Grade 11 [about 15-16 yrs of age] when I had my knee reconstruction.

IK: Oh….Tell me – what level of sport did you play at that made such a sacrifice for?

Alice: District representative level only. My school did take sport very seriously, especially water polo.

IK: Oh….what school was that?

Alice: xxxxxx [School name withheld for the publication]

IK: Oh…yes, they do take their sport especially water polo seriously.

IK: One final question if I may Alice. During high school did you engage in any training that was off the court or out of the pool?

Alice: Yes, I did gym. [strength training]

IK: Mmm…..that’s interesting.

Alice: Now gym is all that I can do.

Prior to the post 2000 period, I could count on one hand the number of elite female athletes I have worked on who had undergone shoulder or knee reconstruction.

My first shoulder reconstruction rehabilitation case with an elite female was with a 1984 Olympian. Prior to 2000 I cannot recall meeting a single elite (and I mean Olympian or similar) female who had shoulder and knee surgeries. And I am talking about elite athletes, with a decade or more of high level training.

Now the list of high school girls having one or both or similarly significant surgery is extensive. It’s the new norm. But why? Does it need to be?

There is a perception that surgery is ‘free’ i.e. there will be no consequences. This is not accurate. Take knee reconstructions. 100% of all reconstruction cases will suffer premature arthritis and 50% will have further knee surgery. Their lives will never be the same.

These injuries are unnecessary and avoidable. If anyone, parents included, cared enough to understand why in a few short decades, the world has changed so much.

Last week I went into another retail outlet and was served by a young male, about the same age as Alice, who I had coached in a a one-off field session in rugby. Let’s call him ‘Alan’. [Yes, Alice was her real name, but that doesn’t matter because Alice will never read this article, few if any teenagers will read this article, and those few parents that do will find a way to dismiss my perspective and go on their merry way endorsing the values and habits that are degrading their children’s lives forever.)

I engaged in conversation with ‘Alan’ about his rugby.

IK: ‘Are you still playing rugby?’

Alan: ‘No. I got hit in a game in my first season out of school and tore my biceps femoris [lateral hamstring] off the bone.’

He turned sideways and showed me his right lateral hamstring, bunched at about halfway up his thigh, with the obvious missing muscle leaving a visual gap at the upper end of his thigh where it would have otherwise attached to the hip.

IK: Wow! [shocked and saddened]

Alan: Yeah, it’s because of the way the game’s played, the way we are expected to take a wide stance and bend over and pilfer the ball.

IK: Really? I’m not sure its so simple. I believe there may be more to it and it didn’t need to have happened. As a matter of interest, what school did you go to?

Alan: xxxxxx [School name withheld for the publication].

IK: Say no more! (I didn’t need to ask my usual next question of ‘Tell me, during high school did you engage in any training that was off the court or out of the pool? Because I knew the answer….]

Alan: [Not buying into my inference that the injury was within his control and he was responsible for it] Yeah, but player [name withheld for the publication] did the same injury? [As if this made it okay, which I guess in a way is exactly what many now believe – it’s normal.]

IK: [Knowing the player involved from watching his career from a distance….] And what school did that player go to?

Alan: Oh….yeah…. [lost his argument there!]

I was in sport for over twenty years professionally before I heard of a rugby player pulling his hamstring off the bone. It took nearly another decade before a similar case, to which I was moved to joke about.

Now it is so common it doesn’t even raise eyebrows.

I could tell you exactly what is going on, and where it is going pear-shaped. But that information is mute and redundant unless you, as a parent, are willing to be different. This level of injury appears to be accepted as the new ‘normal’. So I would be wasting my energy giving the keys to injury prevention to a cohort of parents who believe what is happening and will happen to their children is normal, acceptable, inevitable, and unavoidable.

However in summary let me dismiss the claims the ‘game’ has changed. Yes, there may be some minor rule changes. Yes, more players look like they took the wrong door when they were really heading for the local bodybuilding competition.

However the game has not changed to such an extent to explain or justify the shift in injuries. Injuries that were rare at the elite level thirty years ago, are now common place at the teenage level. This is not right. And anyone who believes it is I assume also supports child abuse. Not meaning to make politically correct inaccurate assupmtions – rather what I am saying is what is being done to the young athlete –whilst still legally a minor – is akin to child abuse.

The fact that the incidence and severity of injures are currently perceived as normal and acceptable is not good enough. The reality is only a parent would care enough to advocate for the child, and then only the parent willing to swim against the tide.

I understand what is going on first hand. My children are being denied selection in the top teams at high school if they do not submit to participating in the ‘strength and conditioning’ programs. Which now constitute approximately 50% of total training. It is a choice of conformity or be ostracized. I understand it.

I estimate that 20% of the upper high school students playing in the ‘A’ teams will have surgery in the next 12 months, 40% of them will not be able to play sport past the age of 20 due to injuries, 60% will not be able to play sport past the age of 24 years, and 80% of them will suffer injuries that will significantly and negatively impact their quality of life in their so-called ‘golden years’ or earlier. Just estimates….And yes, you, as a parent, are throwing the dice for them in this lottery called ‘talent identified youth sport’.

My question to you, parent is this – what price are you willing to pay (and I mean what price are you willing to have your child pay) in your child’s future quality of life, on their behalf, to be seen to be conforming, for something that is clearly and eventually not right, not in the best long-term interests of your child?

The case studies I have shared are not fictitious, nor are they rare. They are the new norm. You just need to decide if you want them to be your child’s new norm?

—-

Footnote. If and when Alice realises that the pain she will experience for the rest of her life from the injuries and surgeries obtained in the name of ‘sport’ and ‘strength and conditioning’ could have been prevented, I hope she can find it in herself to forgive her parents, teachers, sports coaches, and the so-called ‘strength and conditioning coaches’ that were responsible. I could say forgive them for they knew what what they were doing, however I believe it more accurate to say ‘forgive them for they didn’t bother to dig deep enough to obtain the information that was available but not mainstream, that could have prevented the conditions that the ‘Alice’s’ and ‘Alan’s’ of the world will suffer.

Ian King

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

/by

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