Ian King

The glutes are over-rated

/by

Prior to the publishing of the Lines of Movement concept in the late 1990s no-one gave a ‘rats-arse’ (an Australian colloquialism) about the glutes. At least no one outside of a therapy clinic. Twenty years later the glutes have been given the same prime time rating as the Swis ball got in the late 1990s. 

I know the message in this article will be as popular as most of my comments at the peak of the popularity of any trend (i.e. not very!) so I am just going to rip the band aid off. 

If you really want to help people, if you want to make significant and more complete changes to the way a human functions, you have got to get past this narrow focus on the glutes.  The glutes are over-rated and you don’t need to be part of this.

Before we go further lets appreciate the short history of ‘glute focus’.  As I said, prior to the Lines of Movement concept (you know, those categories of movement/exercises that a few post 2000 authors got amnesia about when it came time to referencing) there was zero focus, discussion or exercises on or for the glutes – outside of selected physical therapy clinics. The legs were the legs.

Check out the program I use for analysis in Volume 3 of Ian King’s Guide to Strength Training – How to Transfer.  You can see very quickly there is no focus or attention on the glutes. This program was published in a populist mainstream bodybuilding magazine about 6 months prior to the 1998 publication of Vol 1 of Ian King’s Guide to Strength Training – How to Write Strength Training Programs, in which the world got it’s first real view of the Lines of Movement concept.

So what happened post 2000? I guess a few people felt caught out and wanted to compensate. And compensate they did.   Before we get into some of these over-compensation examples, allow me to expand on where I see the glutes in the bigger picture.

Yes, the glutes and glute activation are important.  No, I am contradicting myself! Keep reading.

They were and still are a big part of the pre-activation drill concept (I called this control drills) I began sharing late 1990.  They were part of the reason I expanded the range of unilateral single leg (compound and single joint) exercises when I realized that the Quad Dominant range was far greater than the Hip Dominant range. This is why I took a few exercises out of the aerobic class of the 1980s and 1990s, a few from physical therapy, and made up a few more.

Then why I am so critical of the light now being shone on the glutes?

For a few key reasons. 

Firstly, from my perspective, and from the way I design and teach others to design strength training programs, the glutes act as a ‘force couple’ with the abdominals, in their role in determining the positioning of the pelvis.  Now the abdominals have less role in hip and thigh extension than the glutes but at least equal role in injury prevention as it relates the pelvic stability.

Now I know the debate of pelvis stability and I don’t really want to open that can of worms. I seek to wrap that discussion for now with this comment – a powerlifters competitive day at the office may involve 6 efforts of pelvis control, and who really gives a shit where the pelvis goes? They don’t and therefore, for now, I don’t. It can flap about like a ‘dunny house door in the wind’.  (More traditional Australian colloquialisms!)

But athletes on a continuum from there onwards – athletes whose completion involves more than 6 reps of pelvis control e.g. an athlete who runs 30 kms in multiple directions on a field as part of their competitive day at the office – if you don’t give a shit about that – and by the way I see their programs looking like most of their strength coaches don’t  – then you may as well take a 12 gauge to their lower extremities, because that would quicken the inevitable.

Yes, a bit dramatic – but I really tire of those who use powerlifting as their basis for athletic preparation. Powerlifting is a sport. It is not the basis of all other sports!  

So if you want to muddy the waters about how the focus on certain abdominals muscles and or actions make you ‘weak’ – you need to stay in the powerlifting circle, because outside of that, the need to be able to run pain free for years to come is far more pressing than the ability to displace maximal external load 1 meter in a few very simple movements!

I suggest that this whole misguided discussion about abdominal contribution has singularly contributed to more lower extremity injuries in sports than…well, as equal, at least to the next factor.

The second additional factor that is overlooked is the length and tension of the quads.  Of course many of you will want to say that stretching makes you weak, and really, do I need to go back and tell you to tell someone who cares?

Sadly, many coaches and athletes have been sucked into the vortex of ‘but it makes you weak’, when their future career, their income, their health, their legacy, is more dependent on their ability to remain pain free than their ability to perform some non-specific expression of strength immediately after performing some non-specific stretch, as is the basis of these studies!

So let me put this simply and concisely – the health of the lower back, hips and lower extremities – relies on a discerned distribution of focus between:

  • Length
  • Tension
  • Stability

Of the:

  • Quads/hip flexors
  • Abdominals
  • Glutes

The way I see that, there are nine key focuses (3 x 3 = 9). NOT ONE!

Those of you who are familiar with my work will be familiar with this statement:

Muscles aren’t weak – they are inhibited!

Now if the concept was simpler, and more trendy and closer to Malcom Gladwell’s tipping point – then I am sure you would have read that multiple times by now in a functional training book or heard about it in a functional seminar already!  But’s it not.

It’s not as a brain dead simple as many need to absorb, and it’s not currently popular and it sure as hell isn’t sexy.

But it’s not that difficult either!

Now the reason I raise the above point is this – you can bash the shit out of you glutes as much as you want – but if they are too long, too short or too tight – then they just won’t work anyway!!! It’s not that simple! But it’s not that difficult either – it’s a more holistic approach.

So what are the grounds for my suggestions that glutes are over-focused on in our industry currently? Here’s a real world example:

Question:  A 15 year old female basketball player, who has talent to play at the next level, frequently has to take a game or two off (or play reduced minutes) due to knee pain. She has been diagnosed with bilateral chondromalacia patella.

She has come to you in the early off-season to try to get stronger and reduce the pain in her knees. Starting with an assessment, what do you do?

Answer: 

1) The first thing we would do is to take the athlete through a [functional movement screen]

2) After this assessment we would more than likely confirm our suspicion of weakness in all of the lower body musculature with a large glute med deficit.

3) Next we would palpate the glute med for point tenderness. Our experience is that athletes with patella-femoral pain almost always have significant soft tissue inflammation in the glute medius.

4) I will make the assumption that all leg extensors are weak (quadriceps, glute,hamstrings) particularly the glute med and that there is a significant soft tissue component involving the glute med.

Note: The best description of the glute medius issue is that the glute medius is the muscular connection of the IT band connective tissue to the knee. Inability to stabilize with the glute med will result in knee pain that will exist at a conscious level and glute med pain….[1]

Here’s the scoreboard on this advice – the gluts were mentioned ten (10) times. The abds didn’t rate a mention. The quads / hips flexors earned one (1) mention. 

Unbalanced? I suggest so.

Now what about modalities? Strengthening of the muscle got 7 mentions (6 glutes, 1 quads/hip flexors).  Tension got four (4) (all Glutes) and length didn’t rate a mention.

Unbalanced? I suggest so.

In literal summary, this injury  (bilateral chondromalacia patella ) rehabilitation and (therefore prevention) approach is that the condition was caused overwhelmingly (91%) by weak glutes (and this conclusion was reached by pushing on the glute to see if it was tender…), and would be solved predominantly (60%) by strengthening the glutes.

And the advice above, of course, was concluded with the obligatory promotion to buy a specific coloured band to perform that all-solving strength work.  Hard to sell space on a mat when all they are doing is stretching with no other equipment….or a control drill with no equipment needed…

Now many would say  – so what? That advice sounds right, because that’s what we do. In fact most do this, so go and stick it where the sun don’t shine Ian.

And of course you will get those spineless Internet trolls who will roll out the lovely adjectives I hope they don’t use when their grandmother is listening.

Which is fine by me. My goal is not to convince. Rather to give the opportunity and encouragement to those have this burning niggle in their mind that there is must be a better way, to find that better way.

Because quite simply, in my humble yet firm opinion, if the above example solution is where your commitment to excellence stops, I hope you never get to train a child, or a person who feels compelled to conform.

You can imagine what I think about those articles (marketing pieces) where the story is based on how some guru wrote a glute training program for them and it solved all their problems! It even cleaned the plaque on their teeth, and took out the trash. Okay so maybe I went to far with the add-ons.  However you will find these articles, and they are not helping place the glutes in perspective, which is what I seek to do.

So let me sum up the key reasons I have shared for why I believe the current focus on the glutes is over-rating them.

  1. The glutes act as a ‘force couple’ with the abdominals, and therefore the abs should be getting equal attention.
  2. The length and tension of the quads impacts the functions of the glutes. If they are winning the battle against the force couple of the abs and gluts, – that is, if the pelvis is excessively anteriorly rotated as a result – and if as a result the gluts are not at an optimal length, the gluts are never going to be able to express optimal strength. No matter how much many exercises for the gluts you do.

Thirdly, I suspect a marketing factor –

  • The glutes may have a higher ‘sexy currency’ currently than the abs. Perhaps because the focus on the gluts has a greater gender readership than a similarly narrow focus on abdominals (more females focused on the shape of their butt than whether they are running a six-pack).

The glutes are over-rated in the industry simply because certain other factors are under-rated. The solution provided lacks holism and is doomed for mediocrity, at least in everywhere other than in those miraculous ‘Guru X did a glute program for me and now I don’t need surgery’ articles….

Again, in conclusion I can only encourage you to reflect on this before buying into the current dominant trend that the glutes are the primary cause of all lower body ailments.

[1] Xxxx, 2006, Reference withheld to protect the message.

Ian King

The Strength Training Over-Reaction

/by

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

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

“If anyone gets slower you’re fired.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endurance

Flexibility

Speed

Strength

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

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

Stretching makes you weak.

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

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

Now imagine this statement, if made today:

Strength training makes you tight.

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

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

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

Strength training negatively impacts skill execution in sport.

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

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

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

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

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

Ian King

Trends in Training

/by

In the early stage of my coaching career I was exposed to the belief that studying, internalizing and implementing the latest trends in training was an optimal path for improving coaching competency. During my first decade of professional development (the 1980s) I embraced this paradigm.  However as I entered my second decade (the 1990s) I began to question this approach.

I came to conclude that trends are a reflection of human behavior in a given period of time, rather than an insight into what is optimal.  As a result of this I continued to study trends, however ceased internalizing and teaching them.

So why do I continue to study trends? There are a number of benefits of studying trends. Firstly it is an insight into the mindset of the masses, and as a coach of competitive athletes, it helps us to dominate when we are familiar with the mindset of our opponent. Secondly as a coach educator it helps me understand why the masses are influenced to think the way they do. Thirdly, as a student of behavior and one who enjoys the disciplines of sociology and futurism, it’s just interesting!  It’s a form of archeology rolled into attempting to predict the next trend! For example, its insightful to watch which of my innovations have been accepted by the masses, which have not, and why. That’s what I do in my spare time.

Understanding where humans have come from helps understand why they do what they are doing, and where they are going.It’s the bigger picture of training.

I realized by the early 1990s that the quickest and easiest way to influence people and position yourself as a ‘teacher’ was to use the words ‘trend’ combined with the word ‘modern’.  And if you threw in the word ‘strength’ (and read the article in this series dedicated to ‘strength’) you quickly achieve this goal. And I watched this happen, including the use of some of my works in these very publications.  However I withdrew from this ‘trend’.  Misleading the masses in this way was not congruent with my values.  Would I be more popular and made more money (in the short term) if I stayed with the ‘modern trends’ paradigm. Absolutely.  Would you be more popular and potentially make more money (in the short term) if you did too? Probably. 

It’s a niche role in our industry for individuals to position themselves as ‘teachers’ by identifying the ‘latest trend’ before it reaches the tipping point, and begin teaching it.

For example, the person who has written the most ‘functional’ training books was using the methods they taught in these books when they got exposed to the ideas that form the basis of so-called ‘functional training’. In fact they were highly critical of them at their first exposure. However they were able to jump on this trend and position themselves as an expert in this.  They achieved their goal of being unheard of to becoming ‘significant’.

Now the fact that they have to change their beliefs every time trends change is not a factor that appears to challenge their value system.   For example in the early 2000s static stretching was really, really politically incorrect:

…our facilities train more athlete per day than any other that we know…..None of our athletes, from pros down to middle school students,stretch prior to these workouts. Our athletes do not do static stetches…[1]

As the years rolled on there was a small groundswell of return in interest in static stretching. Enough for a trend spotter to fear the tipping point was arriving, and feel the need to jump onboard:

….stretching is highly underrated…… [2] One thing that’s fundamentally different now from when the original ‘Functional Training for Sport’ book [2004] was written is there was no emphasis on tissue quality…tissue work…rolling, stretching. [3]

When they realized their earlier book has no reference to tissue tension manipulation, they salvaged this by including us ‘all’ i.e. we ‘all’ missed it.

I can’t believe there was no reference to static flexibility and no reference to foam rolling just a few years ago. We had no concept of changing tissue density [tension]. [4]

Really? It was a 2004 publication! Anyone who was a competent coach was all over tissue tension by then!

Put simply trend-spotting publications will only teach you what are the acceptable trends of the time, not what is best for you as a coach and your athletes.

So what can or should you be learning to fulfill your potential as a coach? Generalized principles. This is a term and concept I learnt from the highly acclaimed US innovator, the late Richard Buckminster Fuller.[5]

One of the inherent challenges in studying and embracing dominant trends is the human propensity to over-react. Put simply, the longer a value or person has been suppressed the greater the chances that the release will result in a reaction that is in excess of optimal. 

To explain this phenomenon I shared this thought over the decades:

The standard reaction to anew idea is over-reaction in the short term, and under-reaction in the longterm.[6]

Futurists describe human response to a new idea as an over-reaction in the short term and an under-reaction in the long term.[7]

Don’t get caught up in trends…In the early stages of any trend there is a tendency to over-reaction the short-term, and under-react in the long term. [8

One of my passions is the study of futurism and human behavior. As such I had developed a saying based upon this study, about how humans reaction to new ideas in the short and long term.[9]

Strength training is a great example of this, as it waited over half a century for acceptance. We are now in that over-reaction to strength training phase, as I explain in a later installment of this article series.

In summary, trends should not be ignored. However on the flip side nor should they be glorified and imitated. When I see a coach or facility reflecting the dominant trend I have empathy for the coach/owner and sympathy for the athlete/client.

It’s challenging to fulfill your potential when decisions are driven by trends.

As a coach or gym owner you may feel good about it because you are ‘like’ everyone else, and we all know that leads to others ‘liking’ us. However from the real world of athlete performance, I’ve not met too many champions who were disappointed when their training was different to the masses.

[1]xxxx., 2004, Reference withheld to protect the message

[2] xxxx, 2010, Reference withheld to protect the message

[3] xxxx., 2010, Reference withheld to protect the message

[4] xxxx, 2010, Reference withheld to protect the message

[5] https://www.bfi.org/about-fuller

[6] King, I.,, 1999, Understanding Plyometrics, (book), Introduction, p. 1

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

[8] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed! (book), p. 77

[9] King, I., 2010, Barbells & Bullshit (book), Chapter 3 – Those sayings look familiar?!, p. 13

Ian King

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

/by

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

“You know they are wasting their time!?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

That was it?!

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

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

Really? That was it?!

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

Really? That was it?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strength Coach: No.

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

Strength Coach: Zero.

IK: I’m glad you’re honest with me.

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

And they are not alone in doing so…..

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

References

[1] Reference withheld to protect the message.

[2] Reference withheld to protect the message.

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

[4] Reference withheld to protect the message.

[5] Reference withheld to protect the message.

Ian King

Where’s the evidence?! Part 4 – Choices in ‘evidence’

/by

Through out this article series I have sought to provide a respectful review of ‘evidence’, in answering the common thread of responses to the concepts and innovations in training I have shared during the last four decades.

In Part 1 of this article series I shared my experiences in the field of paradigm shifting and some of the experiences I had. In Part 2 of this article series I discussed the meaning of the words ‘Where’s the evidence?’  In Part 3 of the series I sought to provide support to my suggestion that the main reason those who lash out in response to my innovations demand to see the evidence is that they fear the challenge to change.

In this article, Part 4 of the series, I intend to discuss two primary options or choices in evidence. From the outset I stress there is no suggestion that you have to choice one or the other. You can work with both.

The first is the sort of evidence most are conditioned (at least in the academic influenced fitness and sports training industry) to seek and believe in – randomized double blind placebo controlled study. The second or other option is personal experience. Now I know it’s hard for some of you to even understand the audacity of proposing personal experience as an alternative to the ivory tower of ‘science’, however you could relax and let me finish.

After all, I am not ‘attacking’ the theory of science. I am simply challenging blind compliance.

Let’s imagine that if it’s in print, and published in a reputable journey – it must be so. I certainly believed that at one stage.  So much so that I even referenced a research conclusion in one of my books.

I included a supplement (water) marketed under the trademark ‘Might Atom’ in my 1998 Australian Sports Supplement Review,[1]on the basis of a research[2]supporting it.

The only study that we have seen on this supplement, by Wilson, concluded that ‘Mighty Atom’ resulted in a modest short term increase in maximum (arm) strength during the one week study conducted.  The strength increases were measured at 4%, which the researcher suggested to be similar to the results achieved with the acute use of creatine monohydrate.

One theory for how it may work was presented by Wilson (95).  He suggests that possibly the ‘cleansing effect’ associated with the use of ‘Mighty Atom’ may occur via the removing of accumulated toxins, such as heavy metals, from the body.  He cited a 1990 study which maintained that significant amounts of mercury in the body can produce fatigue and weakness.

Questions were raised at a later date – did the research even occur?

Now that may be a relatively harmless example, however let’s consider something more significant. Such as the circumstances leading to the recent lawsuit against Monsanto in the glyphoshpate (round-up) case in the US where damages in excess of $250 million USD were awarded for the plaintiff, Dwayne “Lee” Johnson.

After all, there is ‘strong evidence that it does not cause cancer in humans’.

The EPA considers glyphosate to have low toxicity when used at the recommended doses. “Risk estimates for glyphosate were well below the level of concern,” said EPA spokesman Dale Kemery. The EPA classifies glyphosate as a Group E chemical, which means there is strong evidence that it does not cause cancer in humans.[3]

Well, that was until just recently.

Johnson’s jury heard evidence that for four decades Monsanto maneuvered to conceal Roundup’s carcinogenicity by capturing regulatory agencies, corrupting public officials, bribing scientists and engaging in scientific fraud to delay its day of reckoning. The jury found that these activities constituted “malice, fraud and oppression” warranting $250 million in punitive damages.

Does this mean all published science should be disregarded? Not at all. The point, should it need to be clarified, is that it may not be prudent to accept science all on face value simply because it has been published. Just as with your foods, ideally trace it back to its origin to understand it fully.

So what’s an alternative?  A man called Richard Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983) who is considered one of the most intelligent Americans in modern history. His patents, ideas and innovations are claimed by many industries.  Here is one of Buckminster’s conclusions, made at the age of 53 years:

…I 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…Exploring, experiencing, feeling, and – to the best of my ability – acting strictly and only on my individual intuition…[4]

I know – it may be difficult for many to accept that intuition and personal experience could ever be given such credibility.

Let’s say for example you had read something somewhere that a certain type of form was the best way to deliver a certain micronutrient. Then you came up on say a multi-vitamin where the formulation used a certain form of a micronutrient that you had read was not as good at another.  So without trying the product, you reject it outright. This is an example of action in the basis only of what you have been led to believe.

Alternatively you acknowledge the information you were exposed to, however tested the multi-vitamin over a reasonable time period with an objective mind, to develop your own conclusions. This is an example of what Buckminster Fuller was referring to, using your own faculties and experience to collect ‘evidence’.

These are your choices.  If you see value in using the latter (personal experience) as in addition to the former (evidence presented by others), then I encourage you to remain strong under the pressure to conform.

Almost anybody can learn to think or believe or know, but not a single human being can be taught to feel. Why?  Because whenever you think or you believe or you know, you’re a lot of other people, but the moment you feel, you’re nobody but yourself.

To be nobody-but-yourself – in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else – means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight and never stop fighting…[5]

Resist the temptation in program design to conform to mainstream paradigms simply for the sake of conforming, no matter how dogmatically they are presented, or how much you may be ridiculed or ostracized for trusting your intuition over conformity. Make our own minds up based on a combination of respect for your intuition, the athlete/client’s intuition, the results, and in respect of the body of knowledge available.[6]

 

References

[1]King, I., 1998, Australia Supplement Review, King Sports International, Bris Aust.

[2]Wilson, G.J., 1997, The effect of Mighty Atom on arm strength, Strength and Conditioning Coach, 5(2):2-4.

 

[3]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

[4]Buckminster-Fuller, referring to his book ‘Critical Path’, 1981.

 

[5]E.E. Cummings

[6]King, I.., 2005, The way of the physical preparation coach (book), p. 17

Ian King

Where’s the evidence?! Part 3 – Here’s the evidence

/by

In Part 1 of this article series I shared my experiences in the field of paradigm shifting and some of the experiences I had. Not quite as fatal as the experience that the 19thCentury Hungarian doctor Ignaz Semmelweis paid. However still an eventful experience.

In Part 2 of this article series I discussed the meaning of the words ‘Where’s the evidence’, again making suggestions that may lead to further evoking of emotions!

In this article, Part 3 of the series, I want to provide some ‘evidence’ of why I said what I said in Part 2 – that the main reason those who lash out in response to my innovations demand to see the evidence is that they are confident there is no randomized double blind placebo controlled study that I can offer, and therefore are looking for the comfort of being ‘right’ enough to keep doing what they are currently doing.

My first point about this call for evidence is this – what percentage of their life actions that they make on a daily basis is based on randomized double blind placebo controlled studies? I suggest very little.

Do they select the mattress they sleep on based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study? Maybe, but I doubt it.  Is the way they lay oh the bed during the night based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Is the way the get out of bed in the morning based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study? Maybe, but I doubt it.  Is the hand they use (right or left) for personal hygiene in the morning based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Is the hand they use (right or left) to move food from their breakfast plate to their mouth based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study? Maybe, but I doubt it.  Is the hand they use to comb their hair or the type of comb they use based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study? Maybe, but I doubt it.

I could go on, all day long…

Bottom line – how much of what you do all day is based on a based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study?

Now let’s talk about training.

Is the way they warm up based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study that shows that compared to all available options, that is the best way? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Are the exercises they choose based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study that shows that compared to all available options, that is the best way? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Are the loading parameters – reps, speed of movement, number of sets, rest periods – based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study that shows that compared to all available options, that is the best way? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Are the exercise technical models they employ – including width of grip and or stance, angle of grip or foot placement, line of movement etc. – based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study that shows that compared to all available options, that is the best way? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Now you can tell me anything you want about how your program is 100% science based – but please, don’t assume me for a fool. I’ve been around the block a few times.  And even in the last few days I’ve been privy to informal discussion between some of the leading US researchers who quite simply had two things in common – firstly, they could not reach a consensus as to the definitiveness of loading parameter for generic optimal muscle hypertrophy. And secondly, they all deferred to their own personal experiences to willingly over-ride the conclusions of one of their own groups recent research conclusions.

So let’s be straight – if a leading group of scientists cannot find consensus in the ‘science’ regarding one single training variable – your training decisions and program design is going to be more art than science.

Now, of course, if you want to abdicate the uniqueness of you as an individual to the average response of the short duration, small group sample in any given study conclusion – be my guest.

In summary, stop kidding yourself that all your training decisions are based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled studies! And stop cherry picking when you are ‘right’ or someone else is ‘wrong’ because of the absence or presence of a randomized double blind placebo controlled study.

Does this mean I am anti-science? Not at all. Does this mean that science in our field is useless? Not at all.  It is however challenged. Challenged by the amount and complexity of physically training an individual, as opposed to the average of a specific sample group.

When I’m making a training decision for a 15 year veteran in a sport, attempting to make their third Olympics Games, where is the randomized double blind placebo controlled study that I will make my decisions based on with absolute certainty? For that matter, where is the randomized double blind placebo controlled study that involved a sample size of clones of your client, irrespective of what their demographic is?

Does that mean I am right about the innovations I share with the world? Not at all. Are the the honest reflections based on about as much empirical evidence I can apply? Are they the best way I have found to date based on my experience? Absolutely.

Now before I scuttle back into the woods to cover from the rounds fired by those inflamed by my audacity to suggest that science has yet definitively navigate program design for each and every person, allow me to share some food for thought about ‘science’.

Marcia Angell, who spent two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, wrote in 2009:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine”[1]

In 2015 Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, wrote that

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness”[2]

Here’s a case study that I have watched with interest. I have worked with a number of Vietnam Veterans over the years. They complained about a thing they called ‘Agent Orange’. Heard of it? It was a chemical herbicide and defoliant was used to clear out tropical jungles in Vietnam during that conflict to expose the hiding places and food supplies of Viet Cong guerrilla fighters. According to an article in Natural News:

“In the years from 1961 to 1971, the American military sprayed roughly 12 million gallons of it across 30,000 miles in the southern part of Vietnam.  Agent Orange contains the toxin dioxin, which has been linked to cancer, birth defects, and other fatal illnesses. Millions of the Vietnamese people are still suffering from the effects of exposure to the chemical.”[3]

Up until 11 August 2018, apparently “it was claimed at the time that there wasn’t enough evidence to link Agent Orange to health problems.” On 11 August 2018 a US High Court was convinced enough to award damages against the firm that makes this drug, Monsanto, of $289 million – for one victim in the US.

Now my question to those who hold or portray to hold the belief that they discard all unless a randomized double blind placebo controlled study supports – would you have backed your belief and be willing to be exposed to being sprayed by Round Up prior to 11 August 2018?

Yes, these statements and case study refer to medical research, not sports science research. However, I know of at least one study that didn’t even happen yet was published as if it did in a peer-reviewed journal…

Okay, maybe there’s been more than one, but I don’t want to burst your bubble all at once. After all, too many are still angry at me for my habit of presenting my evidence, based on at least a decade of observation and experimentation, and backed by four decades of observation and experimentation – that challenges most of what you have been led to believe, or had reached your own conclusion, was the best thing for you….

 

References

[1] Angell M. Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption. The New York Review of Books magazine. [Last accessed August 5, 2015]. Available from: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/ [Ref list]

[2]Horton R. Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? [Last accessed August 5, 2015].  www.thelancet.com. Available from: http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf

[3] Z. Isabelle, 2018, Vietnam demands Monsanto pay hundreds of millions in damages to victims of Agent Orange, Natural news Tuesday, September 04, 2018. https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-09-04-vietnam-demands-monsanto-pay-hundreds-of-millions-in-damages-to-victims-of-roundup-glyphosate-weedkiller.html

Ian King

Where’s the evidence?! Part 2

/by

In Part 1 I spoke about the price some paradigm shifters such as Ignaz Semmelweis, the Hungarian doctor who dared to suggest that doctors were killing their patients by failing to wash their hands, paid.  Without suggesting I was in his league, I gave numerous examples of how people had responded to my paradigm challenging innovations over the last four decades.

Perhaps against better judgement, I continue to share my training conclusions for positive impact by those who embrace them. I say perhaps against better judgements because I receive the same personal attacks and questioning of my sanity as I did four decades ago when I release these ideas, especially the ones that relate to training methods or equipment embraced by the majority.

I naively hope that those threatened by exposure to these suggestions would take some time to check out my track record, however I appreciate I am being unrealistically optimistic.

After all, if Linus Pauling could be subject to such vitriol for his teachings and position in relation to supplemental Vitamin C after he had won two unshared and in two different subject areas Nobel Peace prizes (something no one else has achieved), then who am I to expect a leave pass?

So what do those who make the comment ‘Where’s the evidence?’ (in relation to my audacious suggestions challenging popular training methods and equipment) mean? After all, it shocks me, as I have just shared the rationale in the multiple page article – so what are they referring to when they say ‘Where is the evidence?’

Let’s talk about possible meanings of the word ‘evidence’.

According to dictionary’s: 

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.[1]

one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true:[2]

Now that cannot be what they are referring to, as surely they would not have asked had they been operating on these versions. I mean, I had just explained to them why based on my four decades of experience I reached that conclusion, yet they still asked ‘Where’s the evidence?’

So I believe they are referring to another type of evidence. Here are two possibilities.

The first one is industry specific. Our industry is one where the need to quote a scientific reference is paramount.  Despite being in a field that will always be challenged by the ability to provide ‘scientific’ answers to human adaptations, our industry seems committed on over-compensating.

So one possibility is that they are referring to a randomized double blind placebo controlled study.

Studies follow a hierarchy in terms of the quality of evidence that they can provide. Randomized double blind placebo control (RDBPC) studies are considered the “gold standard” of epidemiologic studies. [3]

There is another form of evidence that I doubt these typically challengers are referring to consciously, however I suggest subconsciously they are looking for – the evidence that ‘the majority’ (or at least a substantial number of people) are doing it also.

I call that conformity evidence.

So I get the rationale of what they are saying – show me the evidence, meaning the randomized double blind placebo controlled study – however there is one more point I will make about this request.

Is this question really driven by a desire to learn, or is it driven by the expectation that the standard cannot be met, and therefore they are safe to keep doing what they are currently doing?

In other words, I suggest that the default ‘where’s the evidence?’; ‘there is no evidence to support that’; is a safe-haven to avoid change, to avoid learning that one may have been off-track or sub-optimal in past beliefs and practices.

I know what you’re thinking…

So where’s the evidence for you saying that Ian?! (Oh I forgot to add the prelude of sentences containing nasty adjectives!)

[Read Part 3….]

 

 

 

[1]https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/evidence

[2]https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/evidence

[3]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3505292/

Ian King

Where’s the evidence?! Part 1 – Ridiculed, opposed, and then self-evident

/by

In the 1840s a Hungarian doctor by the name of Ignaz Semmelweis made the audacious suggestion that doctors were causing the death of their patients because they were not washing their hands before coming into contact with the patient. The doctors didn’t like this suggestion. After all, they were ‘gentleman’, and ‘gentleman’s hands were always clean’. Semmelweis reward was he lost his job, was committed to a mental asylum and was ultimately bashed to death there.

Now we’ve come a long way since then – we don’t necessarily assassinate the bearer of unpalatable ideas, but character assassination is still on the table.

A great quote that I use often, credited to a German philosopher from about Semmelweis’s era, states:

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” – Arthur Schopenhauer

Now I don’t profess to hold the truth, nor do I profess to have impacted the world in the way that Semmelweis has, however I do know first hand the way those who propose unpopular and challenging ideas get treated.

In the early1980s science had ‘proven’ that squats were bad (stretched the knee ligaments irreparably) and leg extensions were a much safer exercise. Based on my experience I reached the conclusion that this may have been back the front, and despite the criticisms of my colleagues and the weight of the ‘science’, continued to promote the double knee bend (squat).

In the early 1980s there was no science to support that the use of knee sleeves during strength training would benefit the joint. Based on my experience I reached the conclusion it may, and despite the criticisms of my colleagues and the absence of ‘science’, continued to promote the use of knees sleeves in the gym for all who were loading their lower body.

In the early 1980s there was no science to support that anyone needed anymore protein or other supplementation than the average person did – in the case of protein, that was about 0.7 grams of protein per kilogram per day. No one. It was, I was told, simply creating ‘expensive urine’. Based on my experience I reached the conclusion that this may off-track, and despite the criticisms of my colleagues and the weight of the ‘science’, continued to promote the use of nutritional supplementation including protein powder.

In the mid 1980s there was no science to support that altering the speed of movement in strength training, or recognizing the pause between eccentric and concentric contraction, was of any value.  Based on my experience I reached the conclusion that there was merit in controlling and manipulating these variables. Despite the ridicule of my colleagues and the absence of the ‘science’ I developed and applied strategies for communicating the concept I called ‘Speed of Movement’ to my clients, using a three digit timing system.

In the mid 1980s there was no science to support that you could or should use a categorization of exercise. In fact even the best bodybuilding books written by great and experienced men called the legs the legs, and the (upper) back the back.  Based on my experience I reached the conclusion that there was merit in categorizing the movements. Despite the ridicule of my colleagues and the absence of the ‘science’ I developed a concept I called ‘Lines of Movement’ where I separated what I called ‘hip dominant movements’ from ‘quad dominant movements’.  And created the simple category of horizontal push and pull and vertical push and pull.

When I taught this and other of my ‘really crazy’ ideas in a seminar in New York NY USA in about 2000, the local ‘guru’ commenced a long running ‘discouragement of attending my seminars’. That’s code for they weren’t allowed to attend – anywhere in the US! And if they did, they needed to know they risked being arrested! And by way, you would also be arrested if you received a package from me (in other words don’t order any of my educational material!) I get it – this guru has zero horizontal pulling in his programs. He needed to crush that idea really fast, or at least long enough to regroup![1]

I’ll never forget walking into a trade-show in Florida in about 2001 and the person behind the desk went all white and his jaw dropped. I said ‘What’s wrong?’ When he could speak he said ‘I thought you were in jail.’  I said ‘Let me guess who told you that one….’

In the late 1980s and early 1990s there was no science to suggest the need or benefit from performing particular exercises at the start of a strength workout to activate the muscles you planned to use.  Based on my experience I reached the conclusion that there was merit in doing so. Despite the ridicule of my colleagues and the absence of the ‘science’ I developed and applied a series of ‘control drills’ to be performed prior to a strength workout.

When I taught this and other of my ‘really crazy’ ideas in seminars in the USA in about 2000, the reaction by the ‘local guru’ was to introduce one exercise (the external DB Rotation) at the end of the workout – loaded. Not what I had in mind but to the masses a suitable counter.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the role of loading and strength training was just becoming accepted in science, I concluded that loading was over-rated and set about creating and integrating a range of single leg (uni-lateral) exercises that could and should be used in conventional strength training.  No one was taking me too seriously. Really Ian, lay on the your back and using one leg push your hips up into the air? Where did you spend summer? Hanging out with Richard Simmons?!

I went even further, suggesting that the strength sub-qualities promoted by the experts of the day was lacking a vital step and sub-quality. I called it ‘Stability and control’, and published a continuum explaining where it sat in the sequence. And talked about the need to develop functional strength.

When I taught this and other of my ‘really crazy’ ideas in a seminar in Boston MA USA in about 2000, the local ‘guru’ (who I had not heard of before) staged a protest walk out taking most of the seminar audience with him. Why? Because my content was ‘really bad’. I suggest it was more of a case of ‘Holy Shit’, I am not doing anything like this, I’d better crush this like the electric cars in the Nevada desert in the 1970s, before anyone realises what’s going on’.[2]

In the 1980s the science of strength training was based on much earlier work that dictated that strength training should be done in multiple sets of 10 reps. Based on my experience I reached the conclusion that there were other and perhaps more efficient ways to apply loading in strength training. Despite the ridicule of my colleagues and the absence of the ‘science’ I developed and applied alternative loading parameters.

When I taught this and other of my ‘really crazy’ ideas in the US internet and hard copy magazine in the USA before and after 2000, the reaction by the ‘local guru’ was to let the owner and editor know that I didn’t quote enough science.

In the late 1980s the science of endurance training and periodization was that if you didn’t first establish an ‘aerobic base’ you would injure yourself. In other words, if you dared engage in sprinting early in the year, you would tear muscles. Based on my experience I reached the conclusion that were other and perhaps more efficient ways to develop endurance, and that you could engage in speed training without first doing the ‘aerobic base’. Despite the ridicule of my colleagues and the absence of the ‘science’ I developed and applied these methods, parallel with colleagues such as the late Charlie Francis, and called it ‘reverse periodization’.

When I published my challenge to the pseudo science of the ‘aerobic base’ in the early 1990s, the local academics had me fired from my position as associate editor of the state-branch of the sports-medicine association. Because apparently my published articles for that magazine lacked adequate referencing of science. I think it might have been because I challenged their beliefs publically….

I could go on…

So unlike Ignaz Semmelweis, I’m still here, despite the efforts of my ‘colleagues’.

I have to tell you the life of a pioneer is not an easy one, but I would not do it any way. I simply want to know what’s the best way to train, and want to ensure that athletes who want that guidance are given this information to fulfil their potential, to avoid injuries.

Now rest assured I have a system of checks and balances in place. I typically develop an idea for about 10 years before releasing it through publications. I like to test it and refine it.

So recently, when I had the audacity to suggest that I see challenges with the way walking lunges are being used (especially walking lunges), with the way kettle bells are being used,with the way bands are being used….

It starts all over again.

Where’s the evidence for that Ian?

Of course, that’s typically after the very unscientific derogatory comments and unsavoury personality profile that they so readily give…..

“…do you live in a cave or what?…

“…this guy is a muppet….”

“Uninformed.  Incompetent.  Ridiculous.  Coach King doesn’t know how to perform the movement to begin with….”

“Have you have lost your mind dude…”

“…I’m embarrassed for this man. Very much so. He has absolutely no clue how to perform any of these exercises…”

:…it’s the exercise equivalent of the flat earth society in 2018…”

“…Mr. King should seek professional instruction, before he makes further comments about a subject that he knows so little about…”

So, where’s the evidence?

(Go to Part 2….!)

“All genuinely creative ideas are initially met with rejection, since they necessarily threaten the status quo. An enthusiastic reception for a new idea is a sure sign that it is not original.”
― Eric Weiner

References

[1] [2] Personal Communication from a KSI Client who attended this seminar, Nov 2017,  “As someone who was actually at those seminars in NY and Boston in the late 90’s, I can attest to what happened. Ian made the “local gurus” realize that they really had no idea what they were doing, they got pissed off, then some of them returned to the “dark side” and some copied Ian’s material and marketed it as their own.”

Ian King

Tribute to Coach Michael Pimentel, 1966-2018

/by

On the morning of 12 July 2018 Coach Mike Pimentel passed away following a near two-year battle with cancer.  His ‘celebration of life’ service was held recently in his home town of Cape Cod.  We believe this moment should be accompanied by a few words in tribute to Mike.

 

I first had communication with Mike in early 2000. He had been exposed to the news that I was going to be giving a seminar in Braintree MA, which wasn’t too far from where he was living in Boston at the time. He had also seen a flyer advertising an upcoming professional development camp we were offering following the seminar.

 

What happened next was the subject to a story I heard Mike tell time after time, and I never tired hearing it. Now keep in mind we had never met, at this time he hadn’t heard me speak, he had only just heard of me and read a few on my articles.

 

Mike emailed me, introducing himself and saying he was looking at attending the seminar.  However, he had one question – how could I justify charging what was the equivalent of his monthly mortgage for a few days with me in the additional ‘boot camp’. We had only just introduced the concept of professional development boot camps to the North American market in 1999, inspired by the equivalent in the personal development industry.

 

I remember writing back and telling Mike that I don’t justify, and perhaps the upcoming boot camp was not something he was suited to.  As Mike told it, that response – a calm, take it away kind of response – was a bit of a shock to him.

 

So Mike as he told it, attended the seminar, and by the end of it approached me and introduced himself as ‘that guy who sent you that email asking you to justify the price of your boot camp!’  As a chat unfolded I could see he was really attracted to the content he had been exposed to in the seminar. He told me he was going to go home and convince his wife to allow him to register for my upcoming event.

 

Which was a great outcome for both of us and all the lives he touched, as that decision set off a chain reaction that would impact literally thousands of athletes in the New England area.

 

It was also a great start to a long and fruitful relationship, from an event that coincidently also witnessed the most aggressive back lash I had even experienced during a seminar. You may have heard me refer to the ‘Boston walkout’, where a local coach summonsed his followers in a very public meeting in the middle of the presentation room during a break and immediately led them out of the building. The next thing I heard of was later that day when my event host called me in tears such was the nature of the threatening email she received at the end of the day.

 

So you had two locals who took very different paths.

 

Mike not only attended that next KSI Boot Camp, he went on to attend and host approximately 40 multi-day intense professional development camps with me during the next eighteen (18) years, including at least thirteen (13) years in a row to our week long annual event in Park City UT; multiple events in New York; a flight to Australia for five days in camp with athletes – to name a few.

 

Mike would have attended the fourteenth year in a row at our annual international get-together in 2017, had his cancer diagnosis not got in the way.  Now we head into our fifteenth year in a row knowing that at least in earthly terms our longest serving coach will not be joining with us. Note I said in earthly terms.

 

From early 2000 for the best part of a decade we ran annual (and sometimes bi-annual) events out of Tufts University in Medford, Boston MA.  Mike served this university firstly as an Athletic Trainer (which was his initial degree) and then as their inaugural strength coach.  Mike downgraded his role at Tufts around 2010s to part-time, then finally ‘retired’ from the university early in the next decade. By the time Mike left Tufts he had built up the facility from a few loose pieces of equipment to a facility that any Div. 1 college would be proud of, along with a small team of assistant strength coaches.

 

During his twenty-six (26) years at Tufts Mike impacted well over 5,000 athletes by my estimates. His typical annual responsibility per year as the sole strength coach was between 700 and 1,000 athletes, something most college strength coaches are all too familiar with.

 

During our collaboration at Tufts we worked to optimize individualization of the training process, shift the culture, the injury incidence, and competitive performances. We worked closely with many of the head coaches in various sports, and also introduced an undergraduate formal course for physical training instructors with the university curriculum.

 

Late in the first decade post 2000 Mike established a 10,000 sq ft athlete training facility on Cape Cod. Not only did the locals receive massive benefits from the service Mike offered, our coaches also benefited from their potential two visits per year for a week at a time, immersed in the KSI way of training athletes.

 

Mike’s commitment to serving the athletes was totally in line with KSI. He suffered the conflict we all face as client-centric service providers – spending so much time with people who ‘need us’, sometimes at the expense of our time with family.  Mike’s attendance at our annual camp in Park City in August each year invariability meant he missed his wife’s birthday. That was tough. Tough on all of us, as I had to pick the needles out of my back as well! (Just joking with you Rho!)

 

As a trained physical therapist Mike had an incredible understanding of the body and healing, which was supplement by his rare touch in tissue work. I been around the world more than a few times, and you don’t find hands like this too often.

 

As a physical preparation coach Mike was able to empty his cup and master the KSI way. I believe his innate intuition not only led him to us, but prompted him to take the leap of faith and become a KSI student.  He went on to become not only our longest serving coach, but an amazing teacher and mentor to all the coaches in the KSI Coaching Program.  This influence will not disappear despite his physical presence no longer being with us. He is featured in so many educational videos in the massive vault of KSI coach only educational videos that he will continue to educate and influence coaches for generations to come.

 

As a practitioner, Mike was the ultimate role model of what we seek to create. Little to no social media and internet presence, little to no interest in marketing. He didn’t need to – when you are as competent as he was, as a rare member of the KSI graduates – you let your actions, your competency, do the talking.  Athlete centric, humble, forever a student, and therefore the ultimate teacher.

 

As a human Mike exemplified the values we stand for and attract.  Humility, integrity, and excellence.  He added his own qualities of kindness and caring, qualities that come from within, cannot be taught.

 

As a husband and father the quality of his relationships spoke for themselves. I have watched this unfold during the last nearly twenty years, met his kids and wife multiple times every year over these years – you could not ask for a better dad and husband. My wife reminds me of this often!

 

I understand some reading about Mike for the first time in this tribute may be inclined to assume this is a case of saying good things once a person passes. Anyone who knows me better would not suffer this conclusion, as they know the directness of my words, unaffected by life or passing.

 

Throughout Mikes two year battle with cancer, I heard of no complaints, no anger, not bitterness. Only positiveness and determination. We spoke weekly, as we had for the past two decades. It was as recent as April this year we were on the Cape for a week of coach education, and Mike appeared and taught the coaches every day.  It was only days before his passing that Mike and I spoke on a live chat call and his focus was not on himself.

 

In fact Mike was very low key throughout his battle with cancer, so some of you may have been surprised to hear of his passing. Unlike some cases in our industry he was not a person to self-promote through his condition.

 

I know those who had the honor and privilege to meet with – and better still, be served by Mike – know I have not embellished. In fact, some would suggest I have not been lavish enough.

 

I could talk about the loss to us of this great coach, at only 52 years. However I am conscious of those with the greatest loss and our need to support them – his family.  I am also conscious of the choice we have to celebrate life as much if not more than mourn loss.

 

We may no longer have our brother with us on this earth. However we have his life lessons, and his ongoing presence from the other side.

 

I am extremely happy in knowing that his teachings and wisdom will be passed on to generations to come in the KSI Coaching Program.

 

One of the legacy’s Mike established was a foundation called the “Coach P Scholarship of Sportsmanship”. Donations can be addressed to c/o The Cape Cod Foundation, 261 Whites Path, Unit 2, South Yarmouth, MA 02664.

 

Thanks Mike for your contribution to so many, in the past, the present and in the future. In the words his family choice to place on the T-shirts produced to raise money for his foundation, you left this world a better place than you found it!

Ian King

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

/by

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q1. Who owns the company?

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

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

Q2. Who founded the company?

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

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

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

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

Q5. How long have they been operating?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q8. Who formulated the product/s?

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

Q9. Are their scientists in-house or outsourced?

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

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

Q10. Do they manufacture in-house or outsource?

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

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

Q11. Do they manufacturer at GMP?

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

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

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

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

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

Q12. Do they guarantee the potency of every pill?

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

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

Q13. What is their refund policy?

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

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

Q14. What customer support do they offer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They also go on to say: [3]

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

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

Q17. Will I pass a drug test?

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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