Ian King

7 Obstacles that stand in the way of optimizing Control Drills

/by

Introduction

What I learnt in the 1980s from physical therapy was there was an opportunity to ensure the small muscle groups critical in controlling joint function were given adequate focus in training. The physical therapists were championing this focus in a clinical setting and for the most part reactively – after injuries had occurred. I took this concept out of the clinic and integrated it into everyday strength training.

And as much as it’s hard for the newer entrants to imagine, these types of exercises, and the concept, simply did not exist in the strength training world at that time. Yes, everyone ‘knows’ about it now, and everyone ‘does’ some form of it now (note the inverted commas) – but it was not always that way.

So, what is the purpose of control and stability? Why did I bring this concept into the realm of mainstream strength training? And why do I make such a big deal about it?

In 1998 I said this about the role of control exercises:

One of the roles of a control exercise is to correct imbalances. The primary role, if it’s prevention as opposed to rehabilitation, the primary role of inserting a control drill is to ensure that the joint is being controlled in execution of a more complex movement. That’s the prevention role. The role … described is then the rehabilitation role. [1]

A secondary role of control drills is to activate the muscles:

… control drills are … aimed … to switch the muscles on.  They can be sequenced in such a way or provided with such a volume that they’re causing fatigue in themselves, but the primary goal of the control drill is to switch the muscle on… they’re there for selective recruitment of muscles… The control drills can be used in a number of ways. You can use them prior to each workout, as I do, to switch the muscles on, or you can use them as a workout in themselves, in particular where an athlete really lacks in control.[2]

These purposes of control drills are well summarized here:

They can be performed in higher volume in rehab/muscle balance situations, and in lower volume for maintenance of muscle balance and to ‘switch’ the muscles on. [3]

One of the keys to success as a coach and I’m sure in any high-performance endeavour is the willingness to learn and adopt new things when you see something that can better serve those you serve.

…we should not get attached to the way we do things today. If we find a better way tomorrow, we should feel no attachment to the limitations of our current way and be willing to replace any aspect of our thoughts or actions with more effective thoughts or actions.

If we become overly attached to the way we are, think and behave, we may struggle to let any aspect go and replace with a more effective option.  The key here is not to allow oneself to stereotype or perceive oneself as a person who thinks or acts in a particular way – rather, a person who thinks or acts in the way that produces the best results. [4]

Control drills have so much to offer. Yet there are a few major obstacles that stand between you and fulfilling their potential. These include but are not limited to:

  1. They are a qualitative exercise
  2. Delayed gratification
  3. The industry guru’s reactive theories and methods
  4. The industry default to loading
  5. The ‘functional training’ myths
  6. Conformity
  7. Success has many fathers

 

  1. They are a qualitative exercise

Over a quarter of a century ago I described Control drills as having a ‘qualitative focus’.[5]

To summarize this concept, the completion of an exercise set can be divided into three key components: how the exercise is done (technique), the number of repetitions completed, and the load used.  The first component can be described as qualitative and the latter two as quantitative.

This theory considers the implication of a low technique conformity. In other words what is the impact on the training effect in any given exercise when less than ideal technique is used.

The theory proposes that the training effect from an exercise where the training effect is more dependent on the technique will suffer more when that exercise is subject to low technique conformity.

Conversely, in an exercise where the training effect is less dependent on the technique and equally or more so dependent on quantitative variables – such as how many reps were completed, and what load was involved – the training effect is less compromised, relatively speaking.

Therefore, if you accept that control exercises are ‘qualitative’, you may accept that there are very limited training effects when the exercise technique is compromised.

To be blunt odds are if you have been doing what you think are control exercises, you are unlikely to have been receiving any of the benefits I proposed when I introduced this concept.

Because ‘cheating’ in terms of technique is accepted within the four walls of strength training facilities.

The limitations of cheat movements include:

  • They don’t develop the strength through the full range of movement
  • They don’t develop optimal joint and muscle interaction for athletes in some cases.
  • They can be used unnecessarily when mental discipline is lacking, or the desire for instant gratification wins over discipline and delayed gratification.
  • They give you the temptation to go to the cheat movement when you could have pushed on another rep or two without starting the cheat movements.
  • They can give false impressions of ability and program effectiveness.
  • They can result in more cheating rather than greater strength, as when the load is increased the progression can be in the degree of cheating, rather than an increase adaptation and strength expression.
  • They are difficult to monitor in degrees of cheating, which as explained above, can mean this variable is moving in addition to the progression in load.
  • They may have greater injury potential than a conventional lift. [6]

 

  1. Delayed gratification

The reduction in external load due to the reduction in speed of movement in the exercises has the potential to negatively impact the egos of some. For too many, how much weight they appear to be displacing is more important than the training effect.

There is a real chance you will not embrace the variable of technical limit combined with Speed of Movement to select your load. Instead, you may be more guided by your ego, failing to appreciate the time and place to delay gratification.

If you do not have the ability to delay gratification, I suggest you will never fulfill your potential.

This is the way the game is played. Most people go the gym and create problems. They don’t know it, but they’re creating problems. Most programs – including those being promoted as “guru” programs – are creating problems. It’s a simple tradeoff between instant gratification and delayed long-term results. Sure, you might get a pump today, but in three years’ time you’re having surgery, or you can’t train for 12 months. How does it feel to put in those 5000 hours and find out you’ve only created an injury? [7]

 

  1. The industry guru’s reactive theories and methods

Odds you are you going to be waylaid by the guru’s reacting to the disruption that resulted from my introduction of the concepts of muscle balance and muscle control from the early 1990s onwards.

After I release new concepts that disrupt the training world, the contemporary gurus have a choice to make. They could say, ‘Hey, I missed this, but that’s a great idea and I’m going to get behind it’. Or they could take action to appear as if they were all over it, typically under the pre-text ‘Hey, I didn’t miss this, you just haven’t caught up with my alternative theory’.

Here’s a few examples.

After I started teaching the important of muscle balance in program design in North America from the late 1980s onwards, including statements such as:

Balance:  all things being equal, and independent of any specificity demands, the selection of exercises should show balance throughout the body.  For example, for every upper body exercise there would be a lower body exercise.  For every upper body pushing movement, there would be an upper body pulling movement. For every vertical pushing movement there would be a vertical pulling movement.  For every hip dominant exercise there would be a quad dominant exercise.  And so on. [8]

Most programs I see lack balance.  They focus too much on one exercise or muscle group at the expense of others.  Or they may even have totally neglected a muscle group. [9]     

After I started training athletes in North America in the late 1980s and this teaching included that chin ups do not balance out bench press, I later wrote:

There is this misdirected belief that a chin up or similar (vertical pulling) is the same as horizontal pulling and work equally to provide the push-pull ratio with benching. What a load of trash! [10]

And after I began teaching my control drills concept, the external DB rotation started appearing more regularly.

Here are a few ‘challenges’ with this:

  • It was only one exercise for one joint.
  • It was almost always only one variation of all the options available.
  • I suggest it was selected because of it provided a photogenic picture.
  • It was done last in the workout.
  • It was depicted with and encouraged to use loading that essentially denied it falling within my definition of a control drill.

But what about you? There is an incredibly high probability – and I mean incredibly high – that you got sucked into to a knee-jerk reaction theory rushed to market will little care for efficacy to save face, that you have paid the price for your gullibility.  But hey, that’s marketing for you. And who cares about the long-term implications for the consumer as long as the guru stays on their perch?

 

  1. The industry default to loading

I describe the 1990s as the decade during which strength training came of age, the decade during which it became the most popular and trending physical quality.

Having lived, trained, worked and observed through prior decades when strength training was unpopular and distrusted, I sensed an incredible liberation in the ‘profession’. One of the by-products of this was the promotion of external load. By the end of the 1990s you were not really doing it right if you were not going heavy on compound movements. Even those who sought to be ‘leaders and teachers’ in the functional training movement post 2000 were part of the 1990s trend towards load. The fact that I introduced a completely different attitude at this peak should give you some insights into the push-back I received by those whose values I threatened.

Now the greatest set of exercises at risk from this industry default to loading are the selective recruitment that control drills are based on.

One of the most common beliefs is that the more you lift in the gym, the better athlete you’re going to be, and I do not support that. I believe loading is overrated. Now, that doesn’t mean that it’s bad to be stronger. That means what I’m saying is if strength, out of context with all the other factors of sport – sport technique, sport tactics, speed, and other physical qualities (speed, strength, endurance) – if strength is out of context, it doesn’t make them a better athlete. And secondly, if it’s loading that results in them compromising the selective recruitment or any of the other two factors, then it doesn’t serve them either. [11] [12]

Introducing bodyweight exercises into conventional strength training programs as I did in my published works in the late 1990s was audacious, but I got away with it, mainly in part because the exercises I introduced combined with the speeds of movement and focus on technique provided a level of muscle soreness in the short term and enhanced muscle size and strength in the medium term, not to mention the reduced injury incidence over the long term.

This acceptance of bodyweight exercises was further enhanced in the early days of the post 2000 ‘functional training movement’, where certain authors copied my exercises and methods sans referencing.

But it didn’t take long before the spectre of loading crept in. Here a few examples of this:

  • The supine single or double leg hip thigh extension with bodyweight was not suffice – along came the ‘hip thrust’ – where you could meet the default of loading. Don’t worry about the intended training effects of the original exercise, or the potential for collateral damage from the barbell version – it must be such a relief to be able to displace higher loading!
  • The external DB rotation lying on the side with little to no external load – was not suffice. Not only should you ditch the isolated nature of this exercise and instead plant yourself with one foot on a bench and the other on the ground and support yourself with your free arm braced to maximize load.

 

  1. The ‘functional training’ myths

I began sharing the control concepts and exercises in the late 1990s, before the advent of the ‘functional training movement’.  What was once relatively wise words about the need for ‘functional strength’ became commercialized post 2000 into ‘rules’ about exercise that shaped the values, habits and exercise choices of the masses.

Note there is a significant different between ‘functional strength’ and a predetermined assumption that any pre-determined exercise is ‘functional’. Which is one of my larger concerns about this ‘movement’.

These ‘functional training exercise rules’ (I call them myths) steered many away from utilizing excises like primary control drills – because they ‘broke the rules’.  This was and continues to be a loss for many.

Some of these rules (again, myths) that discouraged more discerning exercise selection included that you can only do exercise that:

  • Are closed chain i.e. You are standing on your feet
  • Are ‘compound’ i.e. multi-joint
  • Involve balance
  • Involve multiple planes of movement

Put simply this shopping list rules out most of the exercises I would recommend in the primary control drills list.  I saw this resistance coming when I said back in 1998:

And these are open chain exercises. Currently subject to debate as to whether control drills are best done in a closed chain environment. That’s the next trend. Closed chain control exercise, which a slow speed squat is anyway. [13]

And this is another obstacle for the end user – who do you listen to? What exercises do you do?

I suggest this is a case where ‘the trend is not your friend’.

 

  1. Conformity

Taking into account the above possibilities and combining this with humans innate desire to conform provides another obstacle.  After all, who feels comfortable going into a commercial gym and doing something that is so far removed from and at odds with what everyone else is doing? It takes a special person to be seen to be non-conforming.

So over time athletes have to make a choice – they keep doing what may not be serving them optionally or they find a better way.  Not all athletes want to take the better way. It requires courage and resistance to the forces of conformity and that is not the path for everyone. [14]

Keep in mind I’m not a popularist. I reach conclusions based on the efficacy of the method, not the conformity.

I train to win on the podium, not to gain friendship, respect, and allegiance or show conformity. I understand that my values may be different in this regard. [15]

I can only encourage you to think for yourself in the face of conformity pressure.

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. [16]

 

  1. Success has many fathers

When I began sharing my control theories and exercises in the late 1990s the only place you could learn about them was myself, as the source.   I expected and predicted the impending popularity of the theory and exercises:

These methods are so effective, they are sure to become mainstream.

Learning them ahead of the crowd is not just about being first…[17]

What I did not expect and predict was the way this unique concept would be treated by my ‘colleagues’.

There is a great saying about success.

Success has many fathers; failure is an orphan.[18]

As the years passed post the release of this concept, those who held or sought ‘guru’ status had a choice to make. They could cite the origin and direct you back to the source or seek to take credit and direct the interest to themselves.

I can’t say how many chose each path, but I can tell you there has been enough of those who chose the latter to muddy the water.

So, what’s that got to do with you, the end user?  You are cut off from the source, the history and original intent.  This has been the strategy of colonizers – to cut off the connection of the indigenous people from their culture, ceremonies, traditions, dress, foods, way of living and spirituality.

For a long time, the masses may have also said they see no problems with this. But at some stage more recognize the loss of indigenous wisdom is not only damaging to the effected tribe, it is damaging to society, as we all lose the lessons and wisdoms learnt by indigenous groups over long periods of time.

I say the same from the strength training world. In this case, the history of why control was introduced and integrated into strength training is being lost, as is the critical intent of the theory and method.

This Control Drills book is an attempt to claw this back; however, it would be foolish to suggest that this effort can compensate for the wholescale damage done when those who know the source choose to ignore the source and publish their diluted imitation for personal gain.

This book is giving you, the consumer, the chance to go to the source. To those for whom accuracy matters, I believe this is worthwhile.

 

Conclusion

There is so much upside to control exercises being done in manner they were introduced for. Increases in joint control, muscle balance, reduction in injury, enhanced hypertrophy and strength – just to name a few.

However not many people see these benefits because even when they stumble upon the concept of control, they are typically lured by a guru reaction theory to remain relevant and led down the proverbial garden path.

What they will get is a warm feeling from being seen to be doing the dominant trend, what all those around them are doing.

If you have been exposed to the contents of this book you now have the opportunity to choose a different path to the masses – if you want.

These are the typical challenges of any person on a journey, especially in the early days of a new frontier.

 

Note – this article is an abridged extract from the book ‘Control Drills‘ from the  box set ‘Get Buffed! Specialization Series’ of books.

References

[1] King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization (DVD)

[2] King, I., 2000, How to Teach Strength Training Exercises, King Sports International, Brisbane, Aust. (DVD)

[3] King, I., 2002, Ian King’s Guide to Control Drills (Get Buffed! ™ Series), King Sports International, Brisbane, Aust. (DVD)

[4] King, I., 2005, The way of the physical preparation coach, Ch. 18 – Right and wrong

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

[6] King, I., 2003, Heavy Metal Q&A, t-mag.com, May 2003

[7] King, I., 2000, in Shugart, C., Meet the Press – Coach of coaches: An interview with Ian King, 29 Dec 2000, t-mag.com

[8] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (Book)

[9] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!™ (Book), p. 77

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

[11] King, I., 2015, The Stop Injuries in Strength Training Video Series, Pt 8 of 10: The importance of technique in strength training

[12] King, I., 2018, Zero Tolerance to Injuries Series, Pt 8 of 10: The importance of technique in strength training

[13] King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization (DVD)

[14] King, I., 2020, This is the difference we make, Off the Record #86, 17 Mar 2020

[15] King, I., 2019, Respect, Off the Record #34, 10 Apr 2019

[16] King, I., 2005, The way of the physical preparation coach, Ch. 4 – Training program design

[17] King, I., 2002, Ian King’s Guide to Control Drills (DVD)

[18] https://www.quora.com/Who-said-Success-has-many-fathers-but-failure-is-an-orphan

Ian King

The information-solution quandary

/by

How do you solve an unresolved challenge e.g. injury, when one is applying the same information the caused the problem?

Go back two generations ago and you struggled to find answers to training questions. Information was difficult to obtain. But it was usually good information when you did find it. There was in that generation an unwritten code that you needed to have the runs on the board to justify publishing your ideas.

In the current generation it’s easy to find answers to your training questions. And that’s even before AI!  The question is, how good is that information. The old unwritten rules of you have to have proven you are an expert in the real world before you should publish are gone. Everyone with a keyboard is sharing training guidance.

With the current generation swimming in information, there is another challenge that is in part tied to the quality of the information. How do you solve an unresolved challenge e.g. injury, when one is applying the same information the caused the problem

Here’s a real-world example of that quandary….it was not created with the intent to share, but the insights and lessons are too powerful not to be shared.

Q. Greetings KSI Team, I genuinely hope this message finds you all well.

In the past, I have contacted you a couple of times to express my gratitude for your consistent efforts to provide unique insights for athletes/coaches, and for leading the industry in a way that I have rarely seen before.

With that said, I understand how busy you are, and I was genuinely hesitant about writing this email because I did not want it to come across the wrong way. However, I decided to reach out.

Long story short, in May 2025, I injured my right shoulder for the second time while performing overhead hanging. The diagnosis was subacromial impingement, bursitis, and rotator cuff tendinopathy. The first time (2018) I was diagnosed with impingement and a rotator cuff tear.

Thankfully, my right shoulder eventually recovered significantly. However, in March of this year, I injured my left shoulder while performing overhead dumbbell pressing. An ultrasound subsequently showed shoulder bursitis and rotator cuff tendinopathy, specifically involving the supraspinatus.

After extensive research and learning from individuals such yourself with experience in this area, I have come to understand that the factors contributing to this type of problem are far more complex than I initially thought. 

 As a result, I began paying more attention to scapula control/stability, direct rotator cuff work, and from a programming perspective, structural balance—a concept I had never intentionally incorporated into my training to this extent during almost a decade of training.

 The imbalances I have discovered in my body are quite significant. However, over the past year or so, after following what I believe to be a well-structured programme in which I train the basic fundamental movement patterns on a 1:1 ratio, some of these imbalances have improved.

My left shoulder is now around four months into rehabilitation. It has progressed considerably, but it is still occasionally painful, particularly when exposed to overhead positions involving either full abduction or full flexion, especially when the scapula is fully elevated and my arm is in a vertical position.

Moreover, after repeatedly observing my movement during different exercises, I have noticed that during bench pressing, my left arm—the side currently affected—appears to elevate more than my right at the top position. I have noticed something similar when performing bilateral trap 3 raises on an incline bench, as well as during prone T raises.

Perhaps I am simply being impatient, or perhaps what I am missing is hidden in plain sight. I completely understand that trying to identify the underlying issue without assessing someone in person is extremely difficult.

Nevertheless, it would genuinely mean a great deal to me if you could suggest anything that you think might be worth considering, whether that is something I may be overlooking or a different way of approaching the problem.

At this point, my best hypothesis is that there may be an issue with the coordination and balance of the scapulohumeral musculature. I have also noticed that my T-spine appears to have a slight clockwise rotation, although I appreciate that this is simply my own observation and may not be clinically meaningful.

I have wondered whether this rotation could be influenced by factors such as my writing position I have maintained since childhood, my preferred posture, my habitual sideways sleeping position, etc…

I understand this is a lot of information, and I certainly do not expect you to diagnose anything remotely. I am simply trying to learn from the best people with considerably more experience than myself and see whether there is something I may be overlooking.

Once again, I genuinely enjoy all forms of your work, and I want to thank you for being willing to share your knowledge and experience with the wider athletic and coaching community.

Keep up the excellent work, and if this is something that is difficult to respond to due to your busy schedule, please do not worry at all. I completely understand.

Kind regards.–xxxx.

P.S. After learning about your perspective on kettlebells, do you think using kettlebells or dumbbells for overhead pressing would make any significant difference in improving shoulder stability?

A. To answer your questions can I ask:

Overhead hanging – to confirm – you are holding vertical bar such as a chin bar with both hands using a prone grip (palm facing away from you) and your feet are not touching the ground?

Can I ask where the influence for this exercise came from?

The diagnosis was subacromial impingement, bursitis, and rotator cuff tendinopathy. The first time (2018) I was diagnosed with impingement and a rotator cuff tear.

Should I assume the first time you injured was doing the same exercise?

Thankfully, my right shoulder eventually recovered significantly. However, in March of this year, I injured my left shoulder while performing overhead dumbbell pressing. An ultrasound subsequently showed shoulder bursitis and rotator cuff tendinopathy, specifically involving the supraspinatus.

There is a message here – either you have a genetic weakness in the shoulder structures, or you have allowed them to become degraded over time. When I say degraded this could be any of the structures of the joint and connective tissue that contributes to the function and health of the joint.

After extensive research and learning from individuals such yourself with experience in this area, I have come to understand that the factors contributing to this type of problem are far more complex than I initially thought.

Yes, the shoulder joint is a very complex joint, due in part to the freedom of movement it has been afforded in our evolution. With this comes the burden of complexity and the great responsibility to support and control a joint with so much freedom.

As a result, I began paying more attention to scapula control/stability, direct rotator cuff work, and from a programming perspective, structural balance—a concept I had never intentionally incorporated into my training to this extent during almost a decade of training.

From this statement I see support for my earlier observation – that perhaps in the past you had not done so. Any athlete that has started their training career with me has been exposed to a high level of this joint health focus from the outset. That high standard of training is becoming less and less from what I observe. 

The imbalances I have discovered in my body are quite significant. However, over the past year or so, after following what I believe to be a well-structured programme in which I train the basic fundamental movement patterns on a 1:1 ratio, some of these imbalances have improved.

Two things – firstly a 1:1 ratio (assuming you are talking about opposing lines of movement (is not adequate when the imbalances have become advanced. That ratio is for ‘clean skins’ from the outset.

Secondly, there is more to joint health than strength exercise. I believe you have been exposed to my four pillars of joint health, however it is unlikely you have internalized them or have the skill set to implement them with the level of discernment needed to recover the condition you have created in a timely or fully effective manner.

My left shoulder is now around four months into rehabilitation. It has progressed considerably, but it is still occasionally painful, particularly when exposed to overhead positions involving either full abduction or full flexion, especially when the scapula is fully elevated and my arm is in a vertical position.

This time frame is not unusual but at the same time it is not ideal. With higher level guidance I believe the time frames can be shorter.

Moreover, after repeatedly observing my movement during different exercises, I have noticed that during bench pressing, my left arm—the side currently affected—appears to elevate more than my right at the top position. I have noticed something similar when performing bilateral trap 3 raises on an incline bench, as well as during prone T raises.

Firstly, great that you have become more observant, aware. Secondly, I am not surprised that the shoulders are acting asymmetrically. Thirdly, at a higher level of guidance you would be advised to avoid any movement and or range that results in postural deviation so to speak.

Perhaps I am simply being impatient, or perhaps what I am missing is hidden in plain sight. I completely understand that trying to identify the underlying issue without assessing someone in person is extremely difficult.

You are being impatient so to speak but if you were not you would be possibly complacent. The key is less about the emotion, and more about how you use it. You could use it get better guidance or you could use it be become more frustrated.

Yes, it is difficult so to speak without more information / assessment, but I have been involved in enough shoulder rehab to confidently know you and your current in person treatment professionals do not have the higher level skills to create a faster and more effective rate of recovery.

Nevertheless, it would genuinely mean a great deal to me if you could suggest anything that you think might be worth considering, whether that is something I may be overlooking or a different way of approaching the problem.

I definitely do not play guru from a distance. I know you will be missing something—more than one thing actually – and I know there would be things that you are doing but not doing with optimal understanding and application.

But that level of troubleshooting and individualized guidance is not something I believe should be done flippantly from a few paragraphs of text.

At this point, my best hypothesis is that there may be an issue with the coordination and balance of the scapulohumeral musculature.

Absolutely there is something ‘wrong’. But it it a structural issue and your x-rays / scans have not indicated you have torn ligaments or tendons off bone) or is it a functional issue – the way you are moving it in your attempt to rehab it is more likely the problem. What movement, when, how, etc. – and what other modalities being applied – this is most likely where the errors are being made.

I have also noticed that my T-spine appears to have a slight clockwise rotation, although I appreciate that this is simply my own observation and may not be clinically meaningful.

If it is relevant is it the chicken or egg? Was it there before the injures and contributed to them, or was it a result of the injuries? Was it like this a few years back before you first injury? And it may not be relevant to the shoulder, but it is relevant.

I have wondered whether this rotation could be influenced by factors such as my writing position I have maintained since childhood, my preferred posture, my habitual sideways sleeping position, etc…

Any spine deviations have many potential contributors – but it does help to reach a hypothesis, work on it, and see if you can correct or reduce it.

I understand this is a lot of information, and I certainly do not expect you to diagnose anything remotely. I am simply trying to learn from the best people with considerably more experience than myself and see whether there is something I may be overlooking.

You are definitely not doing it optimally. Few do, and in reality, optimal is on a continuum. The main differentiating point is what one is willing to do to find the answers. And in some cases, if one is driven to do anything. Most don’t. there is a reason I have been treated by medical professionals in Canada, or by the founder of ART in Colorado Springs USA before anyone in Australia had even heard about it; or why I travelled with an athlete 10 hours a few weeks ago for a 2 hour consult with Australia’s number one physiotherapist, or why I have had a 40-year relationship with one of Australia’s leading orthopedic surgeon. Because I am a person who will go a long way to find the answers. It’s not cheap, it’s not easy, it is time-consuming – and it is fruitful. And why I have spent a billable period of time responding to your email for free. Because I care, but I am also experienced enough to know that it is not productive or successful to care more than the individual involved, as this is a false economy that leads to dependance and lack for accountability.

Once again, I genuinely enjoy all forms of your work, and I want to thank you for being willing to share your knowledge and experience with the wider athletic and coaching community.

You are welcome. I came into a world where there was so little information, and I felt that personally. So, I have been committed to sharing, giving others what I did not have 50 years ago when I was searching for answers.

The only difference not that there are so many now with a social media account and a desire for attention that are flooding the ether, making it more challenging from individuals to sift through to find the effective and time- tested content. But that is not you. You have found KSI.

Keep up the excellent work, and if this is something that is difficult to respond to due to your busy schedule, please do not worry at all. I completely understand.

I type this somewhere over the Pacific Ocean, an hour out of landing in LA. USA, on a 14 hour flight, one of a number of legs. I typically don’t watch movies on planes. I might spoil myself with one over a meal. But on this occasion I was working on this email before breakfast was served, and went straight back to it after I ate. I just work, sleep and work. If I did not, I would not get to help enough people, such as yourself, with your question in emails. I am enroute to one of my demanding weeks of our annual calendar. But life goes on and people want answers.

I never ‘not respond’ to any genuine, worthwhile request for help. In other words, I have committed to answering every email from genuine people since emails were invented in the 1990s. Emails are an imposition in our life’s that I don’t enjoy, as I know life before them. But I do respect the access it gives everyone to be able to reach out to someone who prior they would have had no access to. Before emails if I wanted this level of interaction I would have to jump on a plane and fly to meet the person, as I have done around the world.

After learning about your perspective on kettlebells, do you think using kettlebells or dumbbells for overhead pressing would make any significant difference in improving shoulder stability?

The first question is not the equipment. This is an example of how you are potentially off-track. This is not a criticism, a reality from my perspective. And you are above average in your knowledge, so God help the rest. Here are a few more pressing questions:

  1. Should you be pressing overhead?
  2. If so, when should you return to it?
  3. What should you be doing before you return to it?
  4. Once you return to it what range, load, and SOM to use?
  5. What rate of increase in loading should you use?
  6. And then, maybe then, we can talk about the mold that the external loading was cast in….

Remember I am not denigrating your knowledge or path. Just helping you see that there are levels of skill set involved in rehab, and there are options above where you currently are. Now I fully recognize that the world is full of false prophets, so it is easy to be misled.

For example, after one US strength coach was exposed to my knee specific injury prevention and rehab, he suffered an ACL tear recreationally skiing. After the rehab of one knee in one person (himself) he felt emboldened to market himself as a knee expert, guiding others to having ‘bullet-proof’ knees. ‘Borrowing’ content from others and publishing them as your own combined with the sum total of one ACL rehab (his own) does not an expert make! Yet I see this all the time and I know the unfounded baseless crap they disseminate as a ‘guru’is not positively contributing to humanity!

I could go on with these examples, especially in this decade, the Decade of the Injury Rehab specialist….So, to all – make sure you review your influences, because unless I was you first and only influence, you are probably doing things that you think I endorse but don’t’….like overhead hanging.—Ian King

Q. Greetings KSI Team, Before I say anything, I would like to deeply express my gratitude not only for taking the time to respond, but for responding in a way that was not only surprising, but also an expression of what kind of individuals you all are.

With that said, after going through your response, I realised that there were certain gaps in the information I provided that I had neglected to mention for better context. Some of them you were able to guess correctly. I did not want my original message to become too long, as I understand even more now what your schedule must be like.

Please find below my responses to some of your well-thought-out questions:

“Overhead hanging – to confirm – you are holding a vertical bar such as a chin-up bar with both hands using a pronated grip (palms facing away from you) and your feet are not touching the ground?”

“Can I ask where the influence for this exercise came from?”

My first shoulder injury (right shoulder in 2018) occurred while performing a gymnastic rings L-sit supinated narrow-grip pull-up. The second injury (2025) occurred after performing L-sit alternating pronated-grip hangs from a pull-up bar which I haven’t attempted for years (immature and stupid). The third shoulder injury (2026) this time involving my left arm, occurred while performing overhead dumbbell pressing.

As for the influence behind these exercises, since my training discipline is calisthenics, most of it came from the internet.

“Two things – firstly, a 1:1 ratio (assuming you are talking about opposing lines of movement) is not adequate when the imbalances have become advanced. That ratio is for ‘clean skins’ from the outset. Secondly, there is more to joint health than strength exercise. I believe you have been exposed to my four pillars of joint health, however it is unlikely you have internalised them or have the skill set to implement them with the level of discernment needed to recover the condition you have created in a timely or fully effective manner.”

Yes, I was referring to the lines of movement and I have been exposed to your four pillars of joint health. However, I am confident that I do not implement them correctly. Since my shoulder problems started last year, I have not performed any upper body stretching because so-called experts on the internet advised that stretching an injured area is not a good idea. Additionally it feels a bit painful on the currently injured shoulder when performing stretches mainly for lats and shoulders like dead hang.

It’s worth noting that your overall response really made me think about a lot of things. Once again, I understand that I know nothing. And although I genuinely appreciate the compliment, I do not think I even know how to walk on all fours when it comes to knowledge and experience compared with people like yourself.

I personally responded to what I felt needed further clarification, because everything else while I was reading it, felt like being in real life and shutting my mouth (forgive my language), because that is exactly what you have repeatedly achieved throughout your response.

I could definitely keep writing and share more, but I genuinely respect your time. At the end of the day, as you rightly said, it is best for these things to be evaluated in person which I completely agree with.

The truth is that I currently live in xxxx, and I cannot travel abroad due to a visa decision that is still awaiting a decision. I would definitely like to meet in person, but for now, my current circumstances, although they may sound like an excuse, do not allow this.

However, if traveling to the xxx is something that may be within your future schedule, I would be honoured if you could let me know. You and your team are genuinely good people, and I know that sometimes positive comments can make someone settle and stop striving. However, you do not, which is a character trait I personally find quite admirable.

Thank you for every single word, thing, and act that you have done, continue to do, and will continue to do. It goes a long way.

God bless and hopefully we will meet one day. Kind regards.–xxxx

A. xxxx – Thanks for clarifying some points, and confirming you found value in my response.

When I said in person, I meant at least a person with appropriate expertise looking over your body on zoom.  Secondly, I was not suggesting myself. I am hoping that one of my higher-level coaches can look after you. I never seek to solicit work. In fact, my approach is completely the other way around.

What I was aiming to impart is that there is a level of information that if a consultant exceeds without the specific information of the individual, it can be misleading, in accurate, and in some cases potentially raise injury risk.  So, I am a big proponent of individualization in training, and this includes rehab.

I believe at least a one-off consult via zoom with one of my high level coaches would be a good start and you can receive more individualized guidance, and determine if there is value moving forwards in this approach.–Ian King

Q. Greetings KSI Team, and thank you once again for getting back to me.

Everything mentioned above has been well received, understood, and agreed with.

If you don’t mind, I would like to know what this process involves and what financial investment would be required.

In the meantime, I genuinely wish you a great day.

Kind regards.–xxxx

A. xxxx – our coaches work with our clients on a needs basis. After a pre-qualification chat, if agreed to move forward, the commitment is for the next consult only, and the rates are provided. Following that experience, you decide if you sant subsequent service

Let me know if you want to set up a call with one of my coaches.

Can you also advise – What of the KSI materials you have purchased to contribute to your education? Thanks.–Ian King

Q. Greetings KSI team. Once again, I genuinely appreciate you getting back to me with such a willingness to help.

 I would like to explore your recommendation, but I am not particularly interested in coaching. 

What I am interested in is learning more about structural balance in the body, and more specifically in the shoulder.

If there is a coach who can be trusted to guide me with this, it would be an honour to arrange a meeting. 

As far as the content forgive me, but I haven’t purchased anything yet, although it is definitely on my list. 

Speaking of content, I have been exploring more of your work and came across The Guide to Shoulder Injuries book.

Does this book contain practical applications that could help restore balance in the shoulder and help better understand it?

Thank you so much for your time and continued assistance. I look forward to hearing from you. Kind regard.–xxxx

A. 

I would like to explore your recommendation, but I am not particularly interested in coaching. 

If there is a coach who can be trusted to guide me with this, it would be an honour to arrange a meeting.

A bit confused by these two statements.  Can you help us understand what you are looking for in terms of service?

What I am interested in is learning more about structural balance in the body, and more specifically in the shoulder.

Structural balance is not a concept we use.

As far as the content forgive me, but I haven’t purchased anything yet, although it is definitely on my list.

That would explain many of the training methods and terminology you use. They are not reflective of the KSi way, which is an insight into your current injury status.

 I have been exploring more of your work and came across The Guide to Shoulder Injuries book

Book? We are not aware of this ‘book’. Can you share the url to this book?

Does this book contain practical applications that could help restore balance in the shoulder and help better understand it?

We can’t comment on that because we don’t know what book you are referring to.–Ian King

Q. Greetings, Reading again my statements at the beginning, I can see that they do in fact sound confusing.

To reiterate, I’m not looking for coaching packages, but simply some guidance that could perhaps be provided through a virtual conversation.

However, you made it clear which I appreciate, that structural balance (for the whole body and shoulder specifically) is not something you use at KSI.

It turns out that The Guide to Shoulder Injuries is not a book but a series of recorded videos, so that’s entirely my mistake.

https://kingsports.net/product/ian-kings-guide-to-shoulder-injuries/

Regardless, could this help someone learn more about shoulder health? Not just theory, but also practical application in training?

Many thanks once again.-–xxxx

A.  xxxx – thanks for seeking to clarify

Can I ask:

I’m not looking for coaching packages

What is a coaching package? Had I offered or suggested that? (I hope not because I don’t know what it is.

 guidance that could perhaps be provided through a virtual conversation.

When you say this do you mean a free chat? Ie. I arrange one of my coaches to set a time to chat at no cost?

The Guide to Shoulder Injuries is a video

Yes.  It definitely could help someone learn more. But we have put a prerequisite on the sale and are selective as to who sells sell it for. We want to ensure that learning is optimized through a better understanding of injury prevention before individuals are supported by us to ’solve the problem’. The problem Is only truly solved when one knows how to prevent it in future. And you don’t have any of our resources to our knowledge along these lines.–Ian King

Q.  Dear KSI Team, No you haven’t, but predominantly that is how coaching nowadays works.

It would have been a good start to arrange a meeting with a coach, but as you said, you don’t deal with structural balance, or specifically with the shoulder.

As far as the rest, I totally get it. I will definitely take this into consideration.  Kind regards.–xxxx

A.  Thanks for confirming we have not mentioned the words ‘coaching packages’.

I started out providing coaching services in 1980. There was no industry. The word ’strength & conditioning coach’ had not been coined. The word ‘personal trainer’ had not been coined.  There was no role in the Australian society of being paid to physically train someone, outside of say the military. I formed my company in 1986 after having build my client base to in excess of 100 elite athletes, as the first commercial entity to me knowledge in the world committed exclusively to athlete preparation and coach education. There was still no industry or profession at that time in Australia.

Thanks for enlightening me about how ‘coaching nowadays work’. I must admit, I live a sheltered life. But it did have my wondering why you would assume I would change the approach I formed before there was a ‘profession’ or ‘industry’, to conform with whatever the ‘industry trends’ are now. However, I appreciate you may not be that familiar with my professional journey or me as a person.

I simply help people. If a person fears that I am setting a trap to sell them an overpriced service that they don’t need, I cannot take responsibility for that.  I started out helping people. And the demand for my services exploded. Boring as it may seem, I still do the same thing  help people. Only now it seems some peoples perception of what I do, what I have been doing for 47 years now, is prejudiced by what newcomers to this ‘profession’ do. That’s unfortunate but it is what it is.

Yes, I did say that ’structural balance’ is not a term I use. It was, I suggest, a term that was coined in response to my teachings about the need for balance in program design supported by my Lines of Movement concept. It was a knee-jerk reaction to a challenge to the lack of balance in program design by a certain person. That makes it a greater irony for me. If you dress up a pig, it’s still a pig. A fancy name doesn’t change things.

If that is interpreted as we don’t deal with our interpretation of what causes imbalances and or we don’t deal with the shoulder joint, what can I say.

It’s been an interesting journey, and I thank you for giving me insights into how the dominant trends and thinking. I learn new things every day and I learn from everyone, and for this I am grateful to you.–Ian King

Q. Dear KSI Team, It is really hard nowadays to come across good people, let alone people who are both good and wise. Just by exchanging some emails recently, I can tell that you are quite unique. The pleasure and honour have been all mine to learn from the individuals who have shaped this industry. With that said, if that is okay with you, I would be willing to have an online video chat to learn more about your services.Many thanks.–xxxx

A. Thanks xxx – I have achieved what I have because the world has appreciated my personal commitment to helping. Let’s set up a short pre-qualification chat with one of our most suited coaches. Thanks.–Ian King
Ian King

Awesome Abs – And 10 reasons why it won’t happen!

/by

The abdominals are one of the most emotionally driven muscle groups in physique enhancement. Perhaps not as high up on the value list as say arms for males or currently the gluts for women, but they have been a mainstay for a long time.

There are a few questions about this, including is the focus producing the full potential of the abdominals? If it was, because of their relatively high standing in the emotional stakes, then the outcomes should mean there are very few shortcoming existing.

I suggest that is not the case. However, I respect that my ‘take’ on abs may be different than yours, and definitely different to the mainstream interpretation.

Here’s ten reasons why I have little confidence that what you are doing with your abdominal training will meet my definition of ‘Awesome Abs’:

  1. Your ab picture is small (Purpose)
  2. Your values are upside down (Visual)
  3. Your ab work is not contributing to the battle (Injury prevention)
  4. Your transfer to sport and or life is not effective (Transfer)
  5. You didn’t take the class (Prioritization)
  6. You do abs last (Sequence)
  7. You do too few ab exercises (Volume)
  8. Your ab view is too narrow (Lines of movement)
  9. You’re too scared to be / do differently (Conformity)
  10. You’re sucked into the conspiracy (Commerce)
  1. Your ab picture is small (Purpose)

I’ve said above that abdominals are a highly emotional muscle group in physical enhancement training. However, that is predominantly for one purpose only – aesthetics. The visual appeal of ‘ripped/shredded’ abs, affectionally referred to as a ‘six pack’. And no longer the exclusive domain of males.

That’s cute. But it’s a small picture.  If you consider my alternative picture on what the abs offer, you are focusing on 33% or 1/3rd of the ab offering and leaving the remaining 2/3rds on the table.

Here’s my ‘bigger picture’ of the abs, one that I have been sharing for over quarter of a century:

There are a number of reasons why you may or should be doing abdominal exercises and they include:

  • Abdominal training and visual impact
  • Abdominal training and transfer to sport and or life
  • Abdominal training and injury prevention [1] [2] [3] [4]

Perhaps now you can see why I suggest that if not you, the majority have a very small picture view on their abdominal training influences.

  1. Your values are upside down (Visual)

To continue with this discussion, even if you were to suggest that your training embraced this bigger picture, I would challenge you on your values. Which of these purposes do you hold in the highest regard and which do you place at the bottom of your focus?

I suggest that an objective analysis of your abdominal training values, as demonstrated by your exercise choices, may be different to mine.

One of us is upside down…

As you will learn in this book there are a number of purposes or benefits from doing what I refer to abdominal training including visual, transfer to life and or sport (function) and injury prevention.  As you may have picked up on by now, I actually have a reverse perspective on the relative value of these three purposes or benefits – injury prevention, transfer and visual.[5]

Make no mistake – your values will drive your program design, and in turn the training results you get.

  1. Your ab work is not contributing to the battle (Injury prevention)

When I’m talking about the injury prevention role of abdominals, one of those key tasks is to contribute to a force couple with the abdominals to posteriorly rotate the pelvis (stand the pelvis up). [6]

I’m going to ask her to suck her stomach thin and to squeeze her cheeks. Why do I want to do that?  Well, I want to, they’re the two force couples and we’ll change the shape of her pelvis…She’s got a lack of awareness posturally. She hasn’t got a lot of support. And I’ve only just looked at one half of the force couple. [7]

What are the force couples for posterior rotation of the pelvis? …Glutes and abs…Versus what? Quads and hip flexors, generally speaking…[8]

I call this ‘the battle’: [9]

What is it, the force couple? Hip flexors, quads, pulling the pelvis forward, glutes not strong enough to hold it back, abdominals not contributing to hold it back. The hip flexors and quads are winning the battle. [10]

And the challenge for you, the way I suspect you are doing abdominal training, you are losing the battle:

Why is it pulling forward? What’s winning the battle? … The hip flexors and quads are winning the battle. [11]

This pattern results in the hip flexors winning the battle against the abs and glutes, consequently pulling the top of the pelvis forward and resulting in a pinching of the nerves feeding the lower body. Why? Because the quads/hip flexors get a better training effect. [12]

  1. Your transfer to sport and or life is not effective (Transfer)

The third purpose for abdominal training I identify is transfer.  And yes, everyone talks about – but if I was to literally interpret what the world is doing, I am going to assume that the so called ‘plank’ is the exercise that has been crowned as being the exercise with the greatest transfer. Now I don’t, because I do not believe that is the reason this exercise is arguably the most commonly used abdominal exercise in the world these days, taking over from the pre-2000’s garden variety ‘sit-up’. Call me cynical, but I suspect that the plank is chosen because it’s perceived as easy to teach and creates a painful muscle fatiguing outcome in the clients who have been conditioned to believe that muscle fatigue means a satisfactory training effect is occurring.

But if I did literally interpret the omnipresent ‘plank’, humans must live and play sport with rigor mortis….

  1. You didn’t take the class (Prioritization)

Since the 1990s, I’ve been providing a concise ‘prioritization of strength training’ lesson.

Prioritization of muscle group

i. By sequence:

a. Within the workout.

b. Within the training week.

ii. By volume.

iii. By load:

a. Load potential.

b. Percentage of maximum load. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

I may be off point here, but if you are doing what everyone else is doing with your abdominal training, I am going to conclude you didn’t take the class – Prioritization in Strength Training 101!  Because they are simply not congruent!

  1. You do abs last (Sequence)

If most or all the time you do abs last in your strength workout, you are being compliant. Compliant with what most do.

The continuing dominant paradigm is that abdominals should be done last.  What if they are the weakest body part?  That doesn’t seem to matter!  What if they are the number one training focus for performance?  Again, it doesn’t seem to matter – they are placed last.  Why?  The repetitive answer I get to this is ‘because they cause fatigue of stabilizers and it would be dangerous to do things like squats after doing abdominals’.  Where is the evidence?  Is this evidence from empirical observations or ‘scientific’ research?  Again, that doesn’t seem to matter.  NOBODY does abdominals first!  What a load of trash!  The excuses support the paradigm, nothing more.  I train abdominals first when they are the priority for whatever reason and only put them to the end of the workout when I don’t want to totally avoid any possibility of total body fatigue prior to a maximal strength workout.  That is, I wouldn’t want the total body fatigue draining the neuromuscular system, reducing the potential for load.  But nothing to do with injury potential! [20]

But not compliant with what I concluded in the 1980s and shared repetitively in print from the 1990s onwards. [21]

Some key things I do (and perhaps a little different to what you may be used to!) is I spend a substantial amount of program time doing abdomen at the START OF THE WORKOUT.  Yes, that’s right, before any other exercises.  I know what you are going to say – how many times have I heard it?  Your granddaddy told your daddy and he told you – doing abs first will cause fatigue in the support muscles, which is evil blah blah.  Before you reel out the rhetoric give it a go.  Absolutely bash your abdominals and then squat – then come to your own conclusions.  It’s okay to have a different opinion to the rest of the well-trained monkeys! [22]

So, if you are doing what everyone else is doing – doing abs last most or all of the time – you are not going to achieve what I believe is the potential of your abdominals.

  1. You do too few ab exercises (Volume)

Most do one or two sets of abdominal exercises per workout and believe that’s sufficient. That might be in point some of the time, or for those who say only doing a total of one or two sets of lower or upper body per workout. And that’s rare.

Most do two to six (2-6) exercises and four to twelve (4-12) sets per muscle group. But not on the abs.

Bill Pearl’s  classic Keys to the Inner Universe lists and graphically illustrates over 100 ab and trunk exercises! Despite all this info, there seems to be a gap in the knowledge and the actual practice. I still see exercise programs that select only one abdominal exercise, usually a trunk flexion movement. Would you use only one exercise to train your legs or your chest? [23]

How do you explain that?

The only way you can is on the basis you believe the abs don’t deserve equality in volume to other muscle groups.

And that’s another reason you are not going to experience ‘Awesome Abs’, not at least by my definition.

  1. Your ab view is too narrow (Lines of movement)

Prior to the release of the Lines of Movement concept in the 1990s, the world viewed ‘legs’ as just that – legs.  All leg exercises were grouped together. Don’t believe me? You obviously weren’t doing leg exercises pre-2000 if you don’t!  In his classic book ‘classic Keys to the Inner Universe’[24] the legs were just that. A category that included squat and squat variations, along with deadlifting and deadlift variations.

This is not a criticism of Bill’s work. He was just reflecting the thinking of the time.  And so was everyone else. Up until at least, the late 1990s when I began to speak more openly about ‘Family Trees’ and ‘Lines of Movement’ in strength training.

That’s a concept I’m sure you’ll have never heard before because this is the first time I have spoken about it. [25]

The challenge with a broad grouping list is that it’s easy to miss appropriate balancing where there is the need to recognize the differences in specific muscle group actions within the muscle group.

Which is why I separated ‘Hip dominant’ from ‘Quad dominant’.

After many years I have decided that there are two family trees in lower body exercises – one where the quad dominates, and one where the hip dominates. [26]

And you are probably making this mistake by assuming and treating the ‘abdominals’ (or worse still, the ‘core’) as one. They are not.

I divide the abdominal muscle groups or functions down into six (6).  The technical correctness of my divisions I will leave to those with the time and motivation to debate to do so.  This is a simple and effective approach to ensuring exposure to all abdominal and some of the other trunk stabilizers…[27]

I provided the ‘Abdominal Lines of Movement’ over a quarter of a century ago, yet most chose not to ‘take that class!’. If you are choosing to ignore some or most of these abdominal ‘Lines of Movement’ – and most are – you’d better have a very good reason for it – other than ignorance…

  1. You’re too scared to be / do differently (Conformity)

As I mentioned above, you are most likely doing abdominals the way everyone else is. And that’s fine. It’s just not optimal.

I resonate with the American existential psychologist and author Rollo May’s treatise on conformity:

The opposite of courage isn’t cowardice; it’s conformity.[28]

It may be harsh, but I am willing to challenge you – one of the main reasons you are doing what you are doing in relation to your abdominal training is that you would prefer to conform. And that’s a choice.

You could break the mold. But it would mean being different, and I understand not too many of you are ready to be different.  Conformity is much more comfortable… Most humans chose to live a life less courageous, more ordinary. So, you are ‘normal’ by choosing the same.[29]

It’s just a choice worth reflecting on.

Including once you have considered my thoughts about the drivers of the trends you are conforming to.

  1. You’re sucked into the conspiracy (Commerce)

When I first started writing about a possible ‘conspiracy’ in training back in the late 1990s, I didn’t feel totally comfortable because back then anyone talking conspiracy was considered somewhat of a ‘nutter’, at risk of not being taken seriously. Fast forward to the 2020s, and everyone has a conspiracy theory they want to share. So, rest assured, this talk is not a new post-Covid trend compliant behaviour. I’ve been singing from this song-sheet for a bit longer than that…[30]

So, your approach to abdominal training is compliant with the majority, or the dominant trend.  For those interested in unpacking this, how is a trend shaped?  I have for a number of decades shared my beliefs on what are the influences that shape trends in strength training. [31]

Trends I suggest are commercially driven. So, they are not there because they are optimal, they are not dominating because they are in the best interests of the end user – they dominate because people with adequate financial resources have driven the paradigm for their commercial benefit. [32]

For me the number one driver of behavior in our industry are those with vested interests.  The product/equipment manufacturers and distributors are great examples of this…

In the early years of my coaching career, I was where many of you are probably now, believing that to study and learn from ‘trends in training’ was wise.  It didn’t take me long to revise my perspective substantially since then. Throughout the 1990s I warned of the dangers of following trends. In my 2002 second edition of my 1997 book Winning and Losing I dedicated an entire chapter to this topic, titled ‘Don’t Get Sucked in by the Trends!’ [33]

To cut to the point – the risk abdominal training trends face is that too many can be done without equipment. And this is a problem…

Did you know the next craze to come out in this industry is this? It takes 15 minutes a day, six days a week, and involves no equipment. It’s going to be the next really big fad. There’ll be no equipment, and it will take up a time. What are my chances? None whatsoever. Because of why? There’s no equipment. Can’t sell it. No one’s going to make any money off it. And it doesn’t meet the needs of instant gratification. There are two criteria. The only stuff that you get exposed to in this country is stuff that people can make money off, and it’s convenient. And your entire professional thinking is based on those two things. You are completely bound on the variables of because someone decided they could commercialize it and make a profit margin from the sale of goods, that it met your perception of instant gratification. Neither of those two things are fundamentally sound. [34]

Just like another training method that has for the last few decades been successfully suppressed – stretching. Because it too – God forbid – is not equipment dependant…yet!

Who’s promoting you to flexibility? No one because they can’t make any money out of it. What’s the other thing? It’s one of the few physical qualities where perhaps more is better. How are you going to sell that? I want you to stretch for 20 hours a week. Not too many people want to join me. 

I’ll go and stretch for two hours. Who’s going to come with me? It doesn’t meet the social trend. Because you are marketing driven to be this, and the quickness, the marketing stimuli is so short and fast now that no one produces articles. They produce short things and they’ll be this and they’ll be this. And instead of every month, they go every week and it’s every day and it’s five times a day. And that’s the speed of marketing. The world isn’t stretch deficient because stretching isn’t effective. It’s just not marketable from the American marketing perspective. [35]

I know the world has fallen off the map when it comes to appropriate application of stretching.  I fear also that abdominal training may be slipping as well – for the same reason. Exercises that do not rely on equipment threaten the take up of equipment sales for those exercises that are reliant on equipment. Your training habits are up against well-funded opposition. You need to decide whose interests you are going to serve.

Conclusion

So, there you have it. You have the opportunity for ‘Awesome Abs’, but odds are, at least from my perspective, you probably won’t achieve them.   That may be harsh, but from travelling the world helping athletes and others with their training during the last half a century, that’s the conclusion I’ve reached.

But there is hope.

Provided you are ready and willing to take a bigger picture view of your abdominals, and to step outside the comfort and confines of the average person’s choices. To ‘think for yourself’. [36]

To help you do this, I have a created a book to help – and yes, the book is titled ‘Awesome Abs!’

When the abdominal student is ready, the ‘Awesome Abs!’ book can appear. That’s up to you. And of course, your view of the abdominals purpose and whether you feel you have fulfilled the potential of your abdominals.

 

** The Awesome Abs! e-book is now available here! Education and programs for abdominal training, the first edition in a new series called the Get Buffed! Specialization Series.

 

References

[1] King, I., 2001, Thinking Man’s Guide to Ab Training, Testosterone, Issue No. 4, April 2001, p. 42-49. (Article)

[2] King, I., 2002, Awesome Abs – Stage 1, t-mag.com, 12 April 2002. (Article)

[3] King, I., 2002, Get Buffed! II: Get MORE Buffed! Ch. 9 – The abdominal exercises. (Book)

[4] King, I., 2026, Awesome Abs – Ch. 3- Why do abdominal training, Get Buffed Specialization Series (Book)

[5] King, I., 2026, Awesome Abs – Introduction, Get Buffed Specialization Series (Book)

[6] King, I., 2025, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 1 – Parts 1 & 2 : Injury Prevention and Performance Enhancement – Theory #94 – The pelvis force couple (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[7] King, I., 2016, A coach’s guide to preventing, identifying, managing, and rehabilitating lower back injuries, SWIS Presentation, Canada

[8] King, I., 2018, Does powerlifting transfer to sport? SWIS Convention Canada, 28 Oct 2018

[9] King, I., 2025, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 1 – Parts 1 & 2 : Injury Prevention and Performance Enhancement – Theory #95 – Who’s winning the battle? (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[10] King, I., 2010, Barbells & Bullshit, Los Angeles, 2 Oct 2010 (Seminar)

[11] King, I., 2010, Barbells & Bullshit, Los Angeles, 2 Oct 2010 (Seminar)

[12] King, I., 2001, Pelvis has left the building – How pelvic alignment and proper exercise program design can keep the injury goblins at bay, t-mag.com, 28 Dec 2001

[13] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Prioritizing muscle groups (Book)

[14] King, I., 2011, KSI Coach Education Program, L1 Legacy, Unit 10 – Balance (Course)

[15] King, I., 2013, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations, Ch. 28- Prioritization (Book)

[16] King, I., 2015, Strength training and injury prevention, Presentation at the 2015 Society of Weight Training Specialists (SWIS) Symposium, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 13-14 November 2015 (Presentation; Video)

[17] King, I., 2018, Ian King’s Guide to Strength Training, Vol. 3 – How to transfer strength training, Chapter 6

Avoiding creating new imbalances (Book)

[18] King, I., 2026, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 2 – Parts 3 & 4: Flexibility & Strength, Theory #255 – Reimagining strength training prioritization, (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[19] King, I., 2026, Get Buffed! V – Get Optimally Buffed, Chapter 7 Program design for Neuromuscular Optimization (Book)

[20] King, I., 2002, Get Buffed! II (Book), Sequence of Abdominal Training within the Workout, p. 130

[21] King, I., 2025, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 1 – Parts 1 & 2 : Injury Prevention and Performance Enhancement – Theory #99 – Abs first (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[22] King, I., 2003, Ask the Master (Book), p. 15

[23] King, I., 2001, Thinking Man’s Guide to Ab Training, Testosterone, Issue No. 4, April 2001, p. 42-49. (Article)

[24] Pearl, B., 1979, Keys to the Inner Universe, 1st Ed., Physical Fitness Architects, Pasadena, California

[25] King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series (DVD)

[26] King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series (DVD)

[27] King, I., 2002, Get Buffed! II: Get MORE Buffed! Ch. 9 – The abdominal exercises. (Book)

[28] May, R., 1953, Man’s Search for Himself (Book)

[29] King, I., 2022, Off the Record #122 – We work together every week, 6 April 2022 (Article)

[30] King, I., 2025, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 1 – Parts 1 & 2 : Injury Prevention and Performance Enhancement – Theory #27 – It’s a conspiracy (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[31] King, I., 2025, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 1 – Parts 1 & 2 : Injury Prevention and Performance Enhancement – Theory #122 – Training trends are commercially driven (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[32] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book), Chapter 7 – Training Theories, p. 41-42

[33] King, I., 2018, KSI Coaching Program, L0 – Orientation, Unit 2 – What are the influences on the way I train my clients?

[34] King, I., 2010, It won’t sell, 8 Oct 2010, YouTube

[35] King, I., 2010, It won’t sell, 8 Oct 2010, YouTube

[36] King, I., 2025, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 1 – Parts 1 & 2 : Injury Prevention and Performance Enhancement – Theory #124 – Over-react in the short-term and under-react in the long-term (Book, 2nd Ed.)

Ian King

Where it all began

/by

On the eve of releasing the fifth volume of the Get Buffed! book sequel, I’m taking time out to remember where it all began.

I don’t expect many of you to remember the 1960s, and I expect even less of you to have a memory of the 1960s in an island in the Pacific Ocean.

What are the chances of crossing paths with a person in the 1960s on an island in the Pacific who would shape my journey in strength training and getting buffed?  But that is what happened and the impact in reflection is indisputable.

I can’t say for sure what my exact age was, but it was single digits, when I met Iwila Jacobs. Iwila was a young man – perhaps in his late teens, perhaps in his early 20s. I didn’t know, and didn’t care. He was learning how to service motor cars in a program running out of our yard offering technical training for indigenous men, and I would help out. This worker was different. He loved to flex his bicep and show me his guns. I have never seen this before. I had never met anyone who did strength training. He would also love to walk on his hands and generally show off his strength. Yes, the 1960s island version of a strong man. Not blowing up water bottles and other tricks that I learnt later were the go-to in the US I that decade, but he had my attention!

He took me under his wing and became my first strength coach.  I wrote about this in the original Get Buffed! book in 1999:

I first went into a gym in the 60’s, when I was about 7 years of age.  I had attached myself to the local strongman, an islander by the name of Iwila Jacobs.  He was my first mentor in what was an incredibly early-developed passion for physical preparation!  The gym was the Port Moresby (Papua New Guinea – or the Territory of Papua and New Guinea as it was more correctly known at that time) YMCA.  When I was ‘discovered’ by the staff they ‘kicked’ me out – too young, they claimed![1]

My first exposure to strength training was around the age of seven years, early for any child, even in the US during the 1960’s. I befriended an employee of the family named Iwila Jacobs. He was a local with a hearing and speech disability, but what he lacked there he had decided to make up physically. Although a small man, as a young boy I thought he was Superman.

He’d developed size and strength like I’d never seen before. He was the only strength-developed person I knew. He’d obviously been reading enough muscle mags to know what to do. He’d give me endless biceps flexes, and I came to be in awe of the physique he was able to build. He’d perform walking handstands along the grandstand of the local public swimming pool and he enjoyed the reputation as the local strongman.

Iwila took me into the only gym in town, the local YMCA. I lasted only a few weeks once they worked out my age — too young to train there apparently (and I thought political correctness only came in the last decade or so!). We retreated to an alternate venue. He knew some young men who lived in a local hostel, and they had the bench press/leg extension, single station does-all machine.

I can’t say I trained continuously from that age, but the seed was planted. I’d discovered strength, hypertrophy and weight training, but my focus was still on playing various sports. With no TV, I knew nothing about the Olympics; the greatest show on earth in my world being the South Pacific Games! [2]

My first exposure to strength training may have been the catalyst that led me to pursue answers to what is the best way to strength training and therefore where the book sequel about getting buffed originated.  In reflection, it was an experience that may have been more about a pre-ordained path than coincidence. What are the chances of a young boy growing up in the islands of Papua and New Guinea during the 1960s meeting a young man who was dedicated to strength training to be bigger and stronger?

Iwila’s journey in strength training was probably in it’s infancy when our paths crossed in the 1960s. He went on and dedicated his entire life to strength training, training athletes and the strength sports.

Iwila passed away in the 2020s, perhaps in his 70s.  I wanted to share observations from others about a life dedicated to what the path he set me off on, in an era well before it was trendy or mainstream.

The following eulogy about Iwila from the PNG Olympic Committee. [3]

PNG Mourns passing of Iwila Jacobs. The Papua New Guinea sporting fraternity mourns the passing of Iwila Jacobs. The Board and staff of the Papua New Guinea Olympic Committee share shock, a deep sense of loss and sadness on his sudden passing.

 Selfless, epitomizing a humble dedicated volunteer serving at various times as an administrator, coach and referee in three (3) sports he built up over a span of five (5) decades since 1966 – Bodybuilding, Powerlifting and Weightlifting. He was instrumental in establishing the National Federations of these three sports.

He was Honorary Life Member with the Papua New Guinea Weightlifting Federation; received three SP Sport Awards for Distinguish Services to Sport in 1992; Coach of the Year in 1993 and Technical Official of the year in 1997; awarded the Logohu Medal and the International Weightlifting Federation’s Distinguished Service Award of Merit Gold Star and National Honour Award Gold Medal.

Iwila competed as an athlete as part of Team PNG in the 1979 Suva South Pacific Games, the 1982 Commonwealth Games, and the 1983 Apia South Pacific Games.

He also competed in numerous Masters powerlifting events where he reigned as champion in the Australian National & Pacific Challenge 60kg Masters Category for 14 years until his retirement in 1999.

He was proactive in all facets of Powerlifting and Weightlifting and his career is splashed with his role as an Athlete, Coach, Referee and Judge, Trainer, Tournament Director, Team Manager and Administrator.

He coached weightlifting and powerlifting teams to Oceania and Commonwealth Championships, Pacific Games and to the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester, United Kingdom.

He was also an accomplished Referee for Powerlifting and Weightlifting at the Pacific Games, Oceania and Commonwealth Championships.

He went beyond our shores, helping establish the Oceania Powerlifting Federation and a founding member of the Oceania Weightlifting Federation.

With the sport of Bodybuilding, Iwila started out as an athlete and went onto achieving accreditation as one of PNG’s first Bodybuilding Judge officiating at various regional events including the national championships and PNG Games. [4]

The above demonstrates the breadth and depth of his life in strength sports. He was one of those rare individuals who was involved in all three of the strength sports – weightlifting, powerlifting and bodybuilding – something perhaps more common back in the middle of the 20th Century.

I believe I learnt more from Iwila than simply strength training. You can see from his story his positive and determined nature in the face of adversity.  Iwila was unable to hear and his speech was challenged.  He always found a way to communicate, doing his best with the limited speech he had, using writing, or just showing you. As a child I assumed he was born with this challenge, but I since learnt that his challenges were inflicted during his childhood.

While a Grade 4 child student, Iwila was physically and brutally attacked resulting in losing his hearing which in a turn of good fortune allowed him to get treatment in Australia, where he also attended Arthur Phillip High School in Parramatta, Australia. Most remember that he could only whisper when chatting. If he couldn’t say what he wanted to, he simply wrote it down. [5]

His positivity and determination to find a way were traits I realize in hindsight have been very valuable ones to model.

In hindsight, his life is testimony to the nation, to everyone, that he was, never was, despaired nor impeded by his hearing and speech challenges, but rather, one who rose above those and went on to lead a worthy life which we all celebrate now. [6]

Iwila also succeeded in turning his passion into employment. Just as I did in the 1980s, he found a way to share the lessons he learnt about training with others, transitioning from trainng buddy to coaching volunteer to professional coach.

Iwila was an employee of High Performance Sport PNG and Technical Adviser on the PNG Weightlifting Federation Executive at the time of his passing. [7]

Iwila’s achievements in all levels of the three sports – as an athlete, coach, judge and administrator are significant.  Not many will earn a eulogy like this:

PNG Olympic Committee describes Iwila’s passing as a tremendous loss to PNG sport and the nation. He was a great ambassador for Papua New Guinea. His pioneering and spirit of excellence advanced PNG’s success in the three sports he served Bodybuilding, Powerlifting and Weightlifting. [8]

His involvement in the strength sports is somewhat of a mirror to what the Get Buffed! book sequel is – a combination of bodybuilding, powerlifting and Olympic weightlifting. Although I could not claim the level and extent of contribution he made

For the record, I had spelt his name in the way I remembered it – Iwela. I have since learnt that it was more commonly spelt Iwila.  I don’t think Iwila would have minded either way!

In the late 2000s I sent Iwila a care package of all Get Buffed! material I had published to date with a big thank you letter. I am not sure if it found its way to him, however I know he would have appreciated even the thought.

The spirt of Iwila – passion for strength training and an integrating of the three strength sports into training programs that can benefit everyone. And the encouragement to do strive for excellence whilst overcoming challenges.

His accomplishments are a testament to the enduring passion, commitment and determination to excel and achieve as an athlete and official. His path blazed a trail for all those who wanted to push their limits and excel and inspiring champions and generations to come.[9]

I hope, Iwila, that I have done justice to you and our time together in my writings over the years. I have sought to let anyone who reads my writings on strength training that it all began with you. Thank you Iwila!

 

References

[1] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed! 1 – Introduction

[2] King, I., 2004, Ian King’s Top 10 Lessons, t-mag, 20 Oct 2024

[3] http://www.pngolympic.org/uploads/documents/201218_PR_IwilaJacobsPassing_FINAL.pdf

[4] http://www.pngolympic.org/uploads/documents/201218_PR_IwilaJacobsPassing_FINAL.pdf

[5] http://www.pngolympic.org/uploads/documents/201218_PR_IwilaJacobsPassing_FINAL.pdf

[6] http://www.pngolympic.org/uploads/documents/201218_PR_IwilaJacobsPassing_FINAL.pdf

[7] http://www.pngolympic.org/uploads/documents/201218_PR_IwilaJacobsPassing_FINAL.pdf

[8] http://www.pngolympic.org/uploads/documents/201218_PR_IwilaJacobsPassing_FINAL.pdf

[9] http://www.pngolympic.org/uploads/documents/201218_PR_IwilaJacobsPassing_FINAL.pdf

Ian King

Jimmy you might be asking the wrong person!

/by

I recently received a marketing email from Jimmy on behalf of a Chinese equipment company. It contained training values around a subject if have some familiarity with – the concept of control and stability and selective recruitment as it relates to strength training. Marketing my idea back to me a quarter of century later and wrapping it in the all-important marketing word ‘sciences’ …-well, Jimmy you might be asking the wrong person!

I began publishing an alternative model for the periodization of strength in the 1990s. This model included the sub-quality of control and stability, which prior to that did not exist in the strength vernacular, with all due respect to those who published on this topic before this.

I presented my unique model of strength periodization from the early 1990s onwards. [1] [2]  [3] The followings show the contrast between the classical or mainstream accepted model and my innovative model of strength periodization – which included a never included sub-quality – Control and stability. [4]

Here’s an example of this:

An alternative model for the periodization of strength. [5] [6]

Control/ stability/ recruitment enhancement

Hypertrophy/General strength

Maximum strength

 Explosive Power Maintenance of specific strength qualities

So – control, stability and recruitment…

Fast forward a quarter of a century later and I receive this marketing email from some China based manufacturing company:

Hi there, We’ve long admired how KSI grounds athlete development in science — especially your emphasis on ‘Control & Stability’ and ‘Muscle Activation’ as foundational, not just outcomes.

That’s why we designed three pieces specifically to support those principles *in practice*:
• Yoga rollers — for deep neuromuscular activation during stability drills
• Stability balls — with consistent rebound & surface grip to challenge control without compromise
• Non-slip base kettlebells — so asymmetrical loading stays focused on muscle recruitment, not floor friction

All use odor-free, eco-friendly materials (TPE/EVA/rubber-coated) — because safety and feel matter when teaching.

Which of these aligns most with your current teaching focus? Happy to share specs or samples if helpful.

Best regards,-Jimmy, Senior Marketing Specialist [7]

Now perhaps I can’t expect young Jimmy from Nantong, Jiangsu Province, China to be a student of the modern history of physical preparation. And I shouldn’t be too surprised how marketers lean on the magic word ‘science’ to validate what they are selling. After all, many ‘professionals’ in our industry do the same.

The challenge I have is that as the person who introduced the idea, I have some degree of familiarly with its origin. And if you refer to science as an academically approved study published in a peer-reviewed journal – no Jimmy, it was not based on science. If you definition of science is a coaches ideas doing their best to be objective, then maybe it was science. But I know my academic colleagues would not agree,

The Sports Science section in the May issue of Sportsmed News is characterized by poor attention to detail and again, a lack of science.  Had the author (lan King) invested sufficient time in collecting his ideas… There continues to be a paucity of sports science reaching the readers of Sportsmed News and the content in future issues must be improved; reliance on “theories based on tradition” (Sportsmed News May 1996,p7) is not science – it is handed-down information based on the guess-work and hit-and-miss efforts of others. Sports Science is evolving at a phenomenal pace and your readers deserve better. [8]

After all, if I have a dollar for every time I have been accused of lacking in ‘science’, then I would be sitting on beach with my feet up.[9] [10] Now if ‘science’ has provided validation since, I am not sure what it is in comparison to. My goal was simply to share with the world the conclusions I had reached during the 1980s about something that I felt was missing in the sub-qualities and periodization of strength.

Jimmy if you have a moment, and if you have the desire to learn some modern history, and if accuracy matters in your marketing – check out a summary of the origin of these terms and concept in the context of strength in Theory #381 – Period if strength and a new sub-quality! in Volume 3 of the 2nd Edition Legacy book trilogy. Or take me off your marketing list as it’s tough to read this BS….And while you are at it, because I know you are driven to excellence, can you reference your studies re. the ‘science’….As a lifelong student I am keen to learn!

As to your question –

Which of these [items of equipment] aligns most with your current teaching focus? Happy to share specs or samples if helpful.

Can I suggest you check out my thoughts about the relationship between equipment manufacturing and marketing”

I’m not here to make money for an equipment distributor. I’ve walked away from significant offers because I don’t like their ethics. What I tell you is free of commercial, cultural bias, and obviously that’s not popular. It’s not allowed to be popular. For starters, I’m telling you, you don’t need equipment. [11]

And the influence on training trends.

No. Can you tell me a piece of equipment that surpassed a barbell or dumbbell? Now, most people would answer that question. They would paraphrase the marketing that they’ve been told. I know the answers. Fortunately, you’ve been silent long enough for me to keep talking. But I’m telling you, there hasn’t been. Between your body weight, a barbell and a dumbbell, you don’t have a bloody good reason for something else. A really good reason. [11]

Jimmy if you are interested check out the following:

  • #207 – The way you train is driven by commerce [13]
  • #208 – The equipment manufacturers conspiracy [14]
  • Chapter 1 – in the soon to be released Get Buffed! V book….[15]

I know, it’s probably AI anyway…And Jimmy might not actually be Jimmy… None-the-less, Jimmy, you might be asking the wrong person….

 

References

[1] King, I., 1993, Multi-year Periodization of Strength, A presentation at the Resistance Training Seminar for the Australian Coaching Council High Performance Course, Australian Institute of Sport, Canberra, 11-12 October.

[2] King, I., 1995, Periodization, ASCA Seminar Series, Brisbane 11 April 1995. p. 9.

[3] King, I., 1995, Periodization, ASCA Seminar Series, Brisbane 11 April 1995, p. 10.

[4] King, I., 2013, Legacy- Ian King’s training innovations (book) 1st Edition book

[5] King, I., 1999, Foundations of physical preparation (Course)

[6] King, I., 2000, Foundations of physical preparation (book), Table 20,  p. 75

[7] Nantong Modern Sporting Industrial Co., Ltd.  Nantong Modern Sporting Industrial Co., Ltd.  Nantong, Jiangsu Province, China

[8] Jenkins, D., 1996, Letters to the Editor, Sportsmed News, August 1996, authored by two academics at the local university

[9] King, I., 2025, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 1 – Parts 1 & 2 : Injury Prevention and Performance Enhancement, Theory #16 – Sticks and stones,  King Sports International (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[10] King, I., 2011, Burnt at the stake, 3 May 2011 (Article)

[11] King, I., 2011, How to Write Seminar Series – Pt 1 – How do I ensure balance in my strength training to prevent injuries? Nerang Gold Coast Qld Aust., Sun 15th May 2011 (Seminar/Video)

[12] King, I., 2011, How to Write Seminar Series – Pt 1 – How do I ensure balance in my strength training to prevent injuries? Nerang Gold Coast Qld Aust., Sun 15th May 2011 (Seminar/Video)

[13] King, I., 2026, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 2 – Parts 3 & 4: Flexibility & Strength, King Sports International (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[14] King, I., 2026, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 2 – Parts 3 & 4: Flexibility & Strength, King Sports International (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[15] King, I., 2026, Get Buffed! 5 – awaiting publication

 

Ian King

Big Muscles, Busy Schedules – 24 years on…

/by

Recently I received this question about an article i wrote nearly a quarter of a century ago. It was a great question and deserved a great answer. I share it with you and trust you find value in this exchange.

“I’ve been training for almost 16 years now, but with the demands of becoming a licensed psychotherapist, running my own practice, and having a family, time has become pretty limited. “Big Muscles, Busy Schedules” was exactly the kind of two-day-per-week program I’d been looking for—so thank you for that!

I do have a question though: looking back after 24 years, would you make any changes to the program today? For instance, Stage 6 doesn’t include shoulder work, and after Stage 1 there aren’t any direct arm exercises. Considering the more recent insights from hypertrophy research—especially from people like Chris Beardsley—would you add or modify any movements, maybe include some isolation work?

Thanks so much for your time, and for all the great work you’ve done over the years!–Jacob, DE

Jacob – thank you for reaching out and great to hear you have found value in my article/program. I fully understand the added challenges of study, work, family etc. on one’s training. This is exactly what much of my ‘Get Buffed!’ writing is for, and I quote from my Get Buffed! book: “For the average drug free-got a job/go to school person, I recommend consider using…”

As to your questions, let’s get into it:

“Looking back after 24 years, would you make any changes to the program today?”

Absolutely there may be changes – but they may not be what you think or expect. Allow me to explain – I have written very few generic programs, relatively speaking. I have actually avoided writing generic programs for the first 20 years of my coaching, and it was only from 2000 that I realized the need to write a few. I have always, and I stress always, individualized programs for athletes. Very individual.

So, the challenge I have with generic programs is the way they are interpreted. They are general examples. They are not really written for an individual per se, and ideally once the value is found in them by the end user,I would prefer they take advantage of my extensive efforts through tools including but not liited to the current Get Buffed! four book sequel and shape these programs at least a little for themselves. As the Taoist saying goes regarding the fish and the fishing basket: “

The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you’ve gotten the fish, you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you’ve gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you’ve gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?”

So, I would prefer an end user who finds value in my generic programs move on, forget the generic program in the literal sense, and shape it to their needs.

In summary, I have some degree of embarrassment and concern about writing generic programs, for the fear many will be stuck on the program, and not the message. They are not, and cannot be, designed for anyone, as they are composites of imagination as to who the end user might be.

Hopefully this is not too deep or esoteric. I just wanted to express my reservations when asked to provide generic programs. Despite the number of generic programs that I have written for end user and coach education, I have only once in sport at the representative level provided a generic program, and that was a reflection of the budget, and a realization that what I might write may be better than what they would otherwise receive.

Now let’s go deeper on your question, breaking it up into bite size pieces:

“For instance, Stage 6 doesn’t include shoulder work…”

There is absolutely a time and place to remove any given muscle group, but that decision hopefully is individualized! So I would write that again in a program, 24 later, under appropriate circumstances. Are those your circumstances? I don’t know – that is why I have a dissonance with generic programs…

“…and after Stage 1 there aren’t any direct arm exercises…”

There is absolutely a time and place to remove any given muscle group, and I do it more times than you might imagine. In particular with athletes – there are relatively few (and note I said relatively few) competitive sports that require or benefit from an over-focus on arm size. Yes, I know, this is contrary to dominant trends. It’s akin to bench pressing in alpine skiing. The focus on the chest in the last decade or so – in particular in a country with 50 or so states…. – is insane. And the rise in torn biceps in athletes is also insane. And ironically, most athletes who tear their biceps did so in the pursuit of upper arm strength and size in excess of what I consider optimal for their sport. But what would I know? I have only been at this for 45 years…

There are no shortage of individuals (and I refer mainly to non-athletes) whose arm development gives the casual observer the impression they are huge – but a closer review reveals a trunk that is not much bigger than the arms…

It all comes back to what you are chasing. And some just want the instant gratification of arm isolation programs and that a life-style choice. I am not knocking it – I just want to put arm training in context.

“Considering the more recent insights from hypertrophy research…”

Now that opens up a whole new can of worms. A few points:

• ‘Research’, and I assume you mean from a ‘recognized academic institution’, is what is allowed to be selected as a study topic and published.

• I take a different approach to research – I consider it involves objective analysis as the primary requirement, not something that is the exclusive domain of the ‘ivory tower’.

• Historic analysis of ‘research’ influence on strength training provides an ‘interesting’ insight into the mandate of being ‘research compliant’. For example, through the 1970s and early 1980sif you did heavy loaded exercises (what we now call maximal strength training) you were engaging in dangerous and high risk of injury activity. The use of free weights was painted with the same brush. If you engaged in squats (the double leg bent knee type), you were stretching the ligaments of the knee and you should not squat. The lower back EMG studies showed little to no activity past a certain degree of flexion (they omitted to place the electrodes on any other muscles involved including the hamstrings…) and therefore you should not engage in forward flexion such as a deadlift. I could go on.

• ‘Research’ for the most part does not answer long term questions such as what should I do today that will optimize my training outcome in 40 year’s time.

So no, I am not ‘research compliant’. I wasn’t when the article and program was written in 2002, and I am still not now. Does that mean I am divisive of ‘research’? Not at all. I just take it with a grain of salt, except when I find a person is the average of the dozen or so undergraduate students and their long term goal is the 8 weeks duration of the study…(Yes, I am being facetious.)

To take this one step further, I seek to provide what the late US thinker Buckminster-Fuller is credited with calling ‘generalized principles. The aim is to provide guidance that does not need massive tweaking every tie there is a ‘trend’ or ‘research’ change. Which is why we are still talking about this program 24 years later….

“…would you add or modify any movements…?”

I may well do, but I would prefer to provide those tweaks on the basis of knowing more about the end user. I read a few years back in one of those ‘secret’ titled books about program design that a ‘fitness professional’ knows 80% of what they need to know before meeting the client, and only an additional 20% is gained upon meeting them. What a load of BS! Did this ‘author’ actually believe this, or was is a shot at an impressive marketing line? If they did believe it, God help their clients…

We can be better than this. And you, the client, deserve better that this.

‘Research’ or that ‘80%’ learnt by the ‘fitness professional’ does not answer questions such as:

• What is your age and gender?

• What is your maturation and aging status?

• How many hours a week do you work at your job? • Is your job blue (manual) or white (more sedentary) collar?

• How much stress is involved in your job?

• How long does it take you to travel to and from work?

• How many days a week do you work from home?

• How are your personal relationships going, including with any significant other?

• How many kids do you have?

• How old are your kids?

• What is your training history?

• What is your injury history?

• What equipment do you prefer to train on?

• What exercises do you prefer to do?

• What training methods do you prefer to do?

• What training equipment do you prefer to use?

• What results have you got from your training?

• What is the temperature, humidity, altitude and air quality where you live and train?

• What is the water quality, amount and frequency that you consume?

• What about your diet and nutritional supplements?

• What about your past and present medications

• What other health conditions are you at risk or suffer from?

• What is your personality and emotional status and how does this impact your choice of training location?

• What time of day do you get the best results from training? Listen, I am just warming up. But I hope you get the hint. ‘Research’ does not have those answers, and good luck if you believe your ‘fitness professional’ has 80% of all they need to know to program you before you even meet them….

In conclusion, it takes all types to shape our world. Some want a free or cheap program that will meet a lot of their needs. Other will want a bit of help, some with their motivation, or accountability, others with some more superficial guidance. When I fully individualize training program for an athlete or client, ideally with the prospect of being involved in a primary role of a decade or two, I take all the time I need to match the program variables to the individual. My generic programs are great, and in some cases may be better than what some may provide you in their best interpretation of an ‘individualized’ programs. But when comparing apples to apples, my individualized programs, or you tweaking my generic programs relying on the education I have provided in books and articles during the last five decades, is better.

Ian King

34 year ago…

/by

A few weeks ago another athlete reached out for a phone chat. They wanted to say thank you for you contribution to their sporting career. The last time we met and sport was 34 years ago.

He also spoke proudly of the reports and other printed information I had prepared and given him back in the day, and kindly offered to send them to me so I could obtain a copy. After all, computers had just arrived in 1992 – they are very simple, more like glorified type-setting devices – but emails had not, an internet as we know know it and cell phones were even further away.

I am always touched by athletes who care enough to express gratitude, and I told them that. I also took the time to catch up on their life, and there were some lessons for me.

  1. Show gratitude – forever

I know it sounds basic however I do my best to do this, and I appreciate athletes who also do this. I am humbled by the actions of some of the athletes, who work hard to find me over a quarter of a century later, as I realize they may have exceeded their teacher in this regard.

  1. I need to be better

I learnt during this chat that he had a serious, life impacting injury later in the seasons that I had prepared him for. Although he was in an Australian Institute of Sport squad, there were higher levels of squads above that, and he did not receive the level of service that these higher level squads were given. I did not recall his injury, and had no involvement in his rehab – which was tough for me to learn.

With all due respect to my sports medicine colleagues of that era, I typically took a responsible to assist towards an optimal outcome of an injury athlete.  I was under the pump so to speak with the higher-level squads (and other sports) in that era, but I should have done more for him

  1. Theories leave a paper trail

In the paperwork this athlete shared with me I took note of certain items that showed my long commitment to certain beliefs, including and listed alphabetically:

Clean skins

I have used the words ‘clean skins’ to describe the athletes I ‘inherited’ in the 1980s and 1990s who had never done physical preparation before.

When I first started professionally training athletes in the early 1980s, I got what I now call clean skins. These were athletes that were great at their sport (typically at the top of their sport provincially, nationally, and internationally) yet has never done what I call dryland or physical preparation. Others now instinctively default to the less-than-optimal term ‘strength & conditioning’…That’s right – never ever done anything more than non-specific fitness training run by their coach. So, what I got to learn from and observe were bodies where the only collateral damage to their bodies was what playing their sport had done. I am talking about Olympians, and captains of national teams included.  Yes, their bodies had collateral damage, but it was directly correlated with their position in their sport. [1]

Here’s a statement in this 1992 communication that confirmed that this reality:

If you commence training some muscles for the first time e.g. shoulder joint muscles, you will need to learn to stretch these joints specifically.[2]

Predict into and plan for the future

A mindset I teach athletes and coaches is what it takes to be great, to be the champion today, dose not stand still. To maintain dominance in sport, we need to anticipate and plan for what the sport may be like moving forwards.

You can see this in my 1992 report to the athlete:

Plan for the [their sport]  of the future – it will be faster, more skillful, the players bigger, stronger, faster……. [3]

Recognizing the sub-qualities of strength

In the 1980s and early 1990s the greatest challenge in strength training for sport in Austarlia was to overcome the negative attitudes athletes had towards strength training. Yes, I know, that’s hard to imagine. Note the references to this:

It is important to note that the term strength i s used t o describe all types o f strength – maximal strength, speed-strength (including explosive power) and strength endurance…. Whilst different players play different styles o f [their sport] and different positions have varied strength requirements, don’t make the mistake that has been made by many players in the past, largely from poor advice given – get strong! Strength is not a dirty word – just make sure that you are developing the correct type of strength in the correct muscle groups.

Now that the world, including Australian athletes, have over-reacted, post 2000 in particular I have felt compelled to take the opposite approach – counselling against the over-reliance on strength and strength training. And that has happened in the span of just a decade or so.

Don’t assume, as an athlete, that strength training holds your salvation! Strength training only holds your salvation if lack of the specific strength qualities needed in your sport is truly your number one limiting factor to enhanced performance. And in my opinion, it rarely is. Technique, tactics and selected psychological traits rate higher in my opinion as the limiting factor in most athletes, rather than strength.

So when you strength train, do it in context – balance it relative to your limiting factors i.e. what stands between you and the next step of greatness.  Prioritize the most importance or weakest link, that which will have the greatest impact now on your performance.  And when you do strength train – do it well.  Do what you need to perform, not look good relative to the model of the bodybuilding physique[4]

Relationship between strength and endurance

In the 1980s and early 1990s developing an ‘aerobic base’ in the off-season was the dominant paradigm.

There has been a traditional bias towards gaining an ‘aerobic base’ at the commencement of the general preparation phase – in all sports, all the time, with all athletes.  Is this based on fact?  I suggest not.  I suggest it is a myth.  Yes, there will be times when this method is applicable, and there will be times when it won’t be. 

My breaking of this ‘aerobic base’ rule has attracted a lot of flak, as would any paradigm shifter.  I was wrong. It can’t be done.  This is the way we have always done it.  It has to be done this way. [5]

I wrote my report in 1992 for this athlete and their squad in this environment.

The relationship between strength and endurance is becoming more clearly

understood. During periods of priority strength training, endurance training needs to be minimized and well controlled. Failure to achieve a balance between the two will have a greater negative effect on strength than endurance. [6]

A point of significance worth noting was that one of my ‘co-consultants’ in this athletes squad was one of the very consultant who retaliated against my stance against the sanctity of the aerobic base.  When I say I have been stoned and burnt at the stake metaphorically:

I have fallen on my sword and been burnt on the stake a lot of times in the last 30 years. Not because I want to be right, but if I feel the dogma isn’t serving the athlete or the people, why go on with it? [7]

I say it because it is real, and one of those moments was because I took a stance against the aerobic base myth, partly based on my personal and professional conclusions, and partly because the ‘interference’ conclusions raised in research.

The Sports Science section in the May issue of Sportsmed News is

characterized by poor attention to detail and again, a lack of science.  Had the author (lan King) invested sufficient time in collecting his ideas… There continues to be a paucity of sports science reaching the readers of Sportsmed News and the content in future issues must be improved; reliance on “theories based on tradition” (Sportsmed News May 1996,p7) is not science – it is handed-down information based on the guess-work and hit-and-miss efforts of others. Sports Science is evolving at a phenomenal pace and your readers deserve better. [8]

Yet, in the very same sports squad that this athlete was part of, my strength training programs were paired with an ‘endurance’ program based on this very ‘aerobic base’. Not only is it difficult to produce optimal results with conflicting guidance, irrespective of all other physical quality training including strength, how does an athlete actually ‘convert’ their long distance and interval training to ‘speed’ during the pre-season, in a way that results in dominating in speed during the season proper?

Well done xxxx – concentrate on your speed over the shorter distances in the next few months – Off season report for this athlete[9]

No-one can suggest this quote or the endurance programs provided were me demonstrating a ‘poor research’ approach. It is factual. And the athletes and team in this sport who were able to fully follow my more encompassing athlete preparation guidance won a number of significant championships during the 1990s…but of course, that is not ‘research’, my apologies, just poor ‘empirical’ information.

Experiences like this led me to share the below:

I became known as a person who was not that scientific. But guess what? The athlete standing on the podium didn’t give a …. rat’s ass that I wasn’t very academic or that I’d forgotten how to pronounce an anatomical term. They really didn’t care. So, I don’t mind being considered as unacademic, because my role, my niche, my gift, is to help the elite athlete become successful beyond their own expectations. There’s no correlation with my academic qualifications. [10]

When an athlete is on the podium, you think they care whether what they did was in the latest scientific journal. There is no correlation between science and what happens to performing sport at the elite level. [11]

There is no correlation between the podium and science – in other words, that a Gold medalist is not likely to be backed by more science than a Silver medalist, and who in turn is not likely to be backed by more science than a Bronze medalist.  Well, at least, not the ones I help put on the podium. [12]

I understand I am expected to be apologetic for the heretical stance I have and continue to take – putting the athlete before the professional reputation of academics who recommend training based on the very thing they virtual-signaled me for – lack of research.

But I don’t think I will. And I don’t believe the athletes who have stood on the podium, or the teams that have won Championships are losing too much sleep about that.

Relationship between strength and flexibility

There has been one constant in my professional career – the value I have placed on flexibility this has led to very clear and effective theories about the role and application of flexibility training. That the post 1995 training world has stepped further away from these theories that I developed in the 1980s has not changed that position.

Flexibility and strength training have also suffered misinterpretation. If you increase your volume of training by adding strength training, you will need to increase your stretching… The factor that will influence your flexibility the most – either negatively or positively – is whether you are doing enough flexibility training of the correct type. [13]

Relationship between strength and skill

One of the key reasons strength training was rejected in Australia by sports coaches, athletes and academics until about the mid 1990s (this phenomenon existed in other countries such as the US, they simply moved through them at an earlier year) was the fear of being ‘muscle bound’.

This a valid conclusion I suggest, at least in the way strength training was conduced in the 1960s and 1970s:

Between 1960 and 1970 many leading sports coaches in the western world gave strength training a go and found it was causing their athletes to become muscle bound (stiff) and resulted in increased injuries. So, they stopped, concluding that strength training was bad for sport.

They were right with the way they were doing it- it was not optimal. It took another 2-3 decades for the sporting world to learn that there are many different variables in strength training that when manipulated in varying combinations created diverse results. And some of these were better than others for any given athlete at any given time. [14]

However, I felt I was providing the 1980s and 1990s athletes with a more optimal form o strength training, I needed to encourage them to overcome the negative recent history of the impact of strength training on skill.

Another traditional attitude in [their sport] is that strength will decrease skill. Strength training has the potential to enhance many skills, and the finer skills which it has minimal impact o n it certainly doesn’t have a negative impact on. If you wish to retain or improve skill – you need t o train that exact movement! [15]

Post 2000 the overreaction to strength training, at the expense of other athletic components, let me to counsel in reverse:

Many athletes get a warm feeling from the muscle mass and strength increases from strength training. In part because of the social rewards placed on ‘getting buffed’, and in part because it gives them a feeling of being a warrior. There is no correlation between muscle mass and or non-specific (gym) strength that trumps optimal technical and tactical development. More likely, you will see a decline in technique if your dryland adaptations contest skill execution. [16]

Relationship between strength and speed

During the 1989 and early 1990s, strength training was not used by athletes in Australia to develop speed. In fact, very few athletes – including elite athletes – were given any speed training. What was done was more endurance, interval training. Hard to believe?

In 1999, an athlete who I had cared for since our first meeting after he graduated high school, was at a World Cup. He approached the coach responsible for their physical training, and asked if he could have a supervised speed session. In response, based on what the athlete shared with me, this national team physical coach said words to the effect:

‘You don’t need to do speed training, You get your speed from the gym. But if you feel you need to, run up and down that grassed area, and I will watch you from the roof top (of the local licensed premises)…’

This ‘interesting’ phenomenon where even speed-strength sport athletes were denied either strength or speed training or both was what I was countering when I wrote this in my 1992 report:

From a historical perspective it has been believed that forwards need to be stronger than backs. When one considers the relationship between strength and speed, one may recognize the need for greater strength. [17]

Strength tests do not measure your ability to play your game

In the 1980s I became concerned that the advent of strength testing in Australia was being used to inappropriately select athletes for teams or squads. For example, in 1989 I was in a national team selection discussion where the head coach was using my testing results to justify his desired selection. I did all I could to negate this direction.

It is also important to note that strength testing does not measure your ability to play [their sport] – but rather, measures qualities that contribute to success i n [their spor]. Whilst different players play different styles of [their sport] and different positions have varied strength requirements… [18]

Think for yourself

My consistent message to athletes and coaches is think for yourself.

But at this stage, it’s still considered a little bit naughty for a person to form their own opinion, or for a person like myself to teach you to form your own opinion, but it’s a little bit naughty. By now you’ve realized that that’s what I do, and I believe it is the most effective way to act as a professional as well as live your life. And I also believe that if you’re intuitively smart, that your conclusions will be confirmed by inverted comma science at a later date, as a number of mine have. So, I didn’t read a book and say, that’s the belief I want to have. I didn’t go to a seminar and heard a speaker and was so influenced by it that I thought, well, that’s the belief I want to have [19]

At the end of the day, all I really ask you to do is think and ask yourself the question, what’s best for them now? What’s best now? What’s best now? What’s best now? Never assume, never apply a stereotypical or generic concept. Always question it. And even if you don’t have the answer now, guess what? The fact that you’ve raised the question will give you a chance of having the answer in one day. If you never ask the question, you will never get the answer. [20]

You can see this was there in 1992:

Don’t blindly follow the leader’ in your training – think about what you are doing. [21]

Title

I signed that 1992 document off with…

lan King, Consultant – Physical Preparation of the Athlete [22]

I have written about the options and history of a job descriptions as far back in the 1990s, through to more recent times.

I am not supportive of  the  term strength and conditioning…I believe the term ‘physical preparation’ is a better term.  Athletic preparation another.[23]

Is there a better term than ‘strength and conditioning’?   Yes, I believe that the words ‘physical preparation’ is a more appropriate term. [24]

In the 1980s, I  forged a career in Australia that did not exist. The role did not exist, and there was no job title. What would I call myself?  I looked around the world for guidance and found two dominant influences – the United States National Strength & Conditioning Association (NSCA) and an Eastern European perspective on athlete training by Tudor Bompa, whose 1983 book ‘The Theory and Methodology of Training’ was one of the most influential books I was exposed to in that decade.

The answers and conclusions I reached from my search for a professional job title continue to shape the world in various ways.   With a growing number using the term ‘physical preparation coach’, it’s timely to share the origin and intent of this term. In this article, I achieve this through consideration of cultural influences, sports history, and my personal experiences. [25]

Learn more about the history of this title or role description in this article series. [26] [27]

Conclusion

I want to say thank you to the athlete who triggered this article. Thank you for trusting me 34 years ago. Thank you for reaching out, for your gratitude. I know we could have done more for you back in the day. However ,it is never too late – I will be reaching out to you for an in-person consultation to make amends and meet my commitment to the athlete – for life.

 

References

[1] King, I., 2023, I miss the clean skins, Leondo #14, 14 Sep 2023

[2] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[3] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[4] King, I., 2004, Get Buffed! III, Introduction

[5] King, I., 1997, Winning & Losing, p. 19-20

[6] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[7] Casey, Sean, 2011, Interview with the expert – Ian King – Part 1 of 2, Casey Performance, March 02, 2011

[8] xxx, x., 1996, Letters to the Editor, Sportsmed News, xxxx1996 (full reference withheld in respect)

[9] Provided by the fitness consultant

[10] King, I., 2010, Barbells and Bullshit – Challenging your thinking, Pt 1of 10 – How to think and learn

[11] King, I., 2011, Child to Champion, Cape Cod MA USA, 4 November 2011 (Seminar/Video)

[12] King, I., 2020, In theory this should, Off the Record #124, 21 Oct 2020

[13] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[14] King, I., 2020, Stereo-typing training, Off the Record #115, 8 Sep 2020

[15] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[16] King, I., 2023, Supercross Super injured, Blog, 23 May 2023 https://kingsports.net/supercross-super-injured/

[17] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[18] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[19] King, I., 2012, KSI Coaching Program Level 2 Foundations, Unit 4 – Theory of flexibility development, (Video) 17 May 2012

[20] King, I., 2013,  Lines of movement, Presentation at Tufts University,  Boston, MA, USA, 12 March 2013

[21] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[22] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[23] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing, Ch. 16 – The strength & conditioning coach, p. 87

[24] King, I., 1999, So you want to become (Book), p. 16-17

[25] King, I., 2025, What’s in a name? Pt 1 – Origin and intent of the term physical preparation coach, (Blog), 16 May 2025

[26] King, I., 2025, What’s in a name? Pt 1 – Origin and intent of the term physical preparation coach, (Blog), 16 May 2025

[27] King, I., 2025, What’s in a name? Pt 2 – Considering the bigger picture of physical preparation, (Blog), 30 May 2025

 

 

Ian King

The “ABC” of program design

/by

In 1980 I set out on my professional journey to find answers to the question ‘What is the best way to train?’  How to design training programs was integral to finding these answers, as the decisions made in program design shape the training outcomes.

One of the components of training design is the decision as to what days to perform certain training on.  I refer to this program design step as the allocation of training, specifically exercises and or muscle groups to training days.

This refers to all forms of training, not just strength training. However, in relation to strength training it was apparent there were three dominant approaches – the method that referred to a sequential number of the training day within the week e.g. Training Day 1, Training Day 2 etc.; the method that referred to the day of the week that certain training was to be performed on e.g. Mon, Wed, Friday; and the method that referred to the muscle groups to be trained in the workout on that day e.g. Leg day; chest, shoulders and triceps day; and back and bicep day.

These three approaches to allocation of training were evident over decades, and therefore, I suggest they earned the title as ‘traditional’ approaches.  They were also evident in a broad range of strength training disciplines and across cultures, therefore earning the title of ‘dominant’ approaches.

I considered these traditional dominant approaches and soon found significant limitations with them, based perhaps on the fact that the bodies that I was testing and refining my training solutions on were athletes in diverse sports as opposed to general population or athletes limited to one sport, and the fact that I moved away from an exclusive muscle group approach to include my Lines of Movement concept. In summary, I found these traditional approaches for the allocation of training to be limiting, presumptive and restrictive in nature.  So, I did what has become a half-century habit – I innovated. This is discussed in full later in this article.

The aim of this article is to review the influences and adoption of these three traditional, dominant approaches to allocation of training, and to outline the alternative I developed to overcome the limitations of these traditional approaches.

The dominant approaches to the allocation of training

From my professional entry point in 1980, I identified three dominant approaches to the allocation of training.  They were as follows.

Allocation of training to a sequential number of training days within the week

The allocation of training to a sequential number of training days within the week resulted in the workout being named as a number, e.g. Workout 1, Workout 2, etc.

Workout 1 Workout 2 Workout 3
Exercise 1 Exercise 1 Exercise 1
Exercise 2 Exercise 2 Exercise 2
Exercise 3 Exercise 3 Exercise 3
Exercise 4 Exercise 4 Exercise 4
Etc. Etc. Etc.

 [1]

Allocation of training to the day of the week

The allocation of training to the day of the week resulted in the name of the day being used to identify that workout.  For example, a three-day-a-week strength program would be depicted as below, and it was either ‘Monday’s workout’, or ‘Wednesday’s workout’, or ‘Friday’s workout’.

Monday Wednesday Friday
Exercise 1 Exercise 1 Exercise 1
Exercise 2 Exercise 2 Exercise 2
Exercise 3 Exercise 3 Exercise 3
Exercise 4 Exercise 4 Exercise 4
Etc. Etc. Etc.

[2]

Allocation of muscle groups to workouts

The allocation of muscle groups to the workout approach resulted in the name of the muscle groups being used to title that workout.  For example, a three-day-a-week strength program would be depicted as below, e.g. the ‘chest/shoulders/triceps’ workout might be done on say Monday, the ‘Legs’ workout may be done on Wednesday, and the ‘Back & Biceps’ workout might be done on Friday. Realistically, the frequency of training may be higher; however, this was kept simple for illustrative purposes.

Chest/Shoulders/Triceps Legs Back & Biceps
Exercise 1 Exercise 1 Exercise 1
Exercise 2 Exercise 2 Exercise 2
Exercise 3 Exercise 3 Exercise 3
Exercise 4 Exercise 4 Exercise 4
Etc. Etc. Etc.

 [3]

The traditional influence on these dominant approaches to the allocation of training

From my professional entry point in 1980, I began collating training reference material as part of my search for the answer to the question, ‘What is the best way to train?’ This reference material indicated that there was a strong enough history to describe these three dominant approaches to allocation of training as traditional.

As I began to develop, test, and refine an alternative approach from the early 1980s onwards, the reliance of these dominant approaches to the allocation of training continued for another two decades.  Therefore, these three methods dominated program design for a minimum of thirty years (1970-2000).

It was not until after I published my 1998 book ‘How to Write Strength Training Programs’ that the alternative approach that I had developed gained traction, as evidenced in program design-related publications.

The global acceptance of these dominant approaches to allocation of training

The use of these two dominant approaches to the allocation of training has not been restricted to one country. They have appeared in literature in many different countries.

The strength training genre adoption and preferences to these traditional dominant approaches to the allocation of training

A number of different strength training genres contribute to strength training as a whole. These include but are not limited to, weightlifting. powerlifting and bodybuilding.  There are also sports such as track and field that have led the way in the use of strength training for sport. There are also professional genres, such as the American concept of ‘strength and conditioning coach’ (originally referred to as ‘strength coaches’),that have made a significant contribution to strength training as it is now known. All of these genres had adopted these traditional dominant approaches to allocation of training.

There does appear to be a historic preference amongst each strength training genre for one or the other of these two traditional dominant approaches to allocation of training.

For example, weightlifting may have a historic preference for the allocation of training to a sequential number of training days within the week approach.

  [4]

Powerlifting may have a historic preference for the allocation of training to the day of the week approach.

[5]

Bodybuilding may have a historic preference for the allocation of muscle groups to the training days approach.

 [6]

The ‘strength & conditioning’ genre has a historic preference for the allocation of training to the day of the week approach.

 

 [7]

And in some cases, referenced the muscle group to training days ala bodybuilding.

 

 [8]

The limitations of these traditional dominant approaches to the allocation of training

Each of these dominant traditional approaches to allocation of training presented specific limitations, especially in the application of program design to the bodies on which I was testing and refining my training solutions on.  My niche since 1980 has been the physical and athletic preparation of elite athletes in diverse sports and countries, as opposed to a one-sport focus, or domestic-based athletes, or lower-level athletes or the general population.

The limitations of each traditional dominant approach to the allocation of training

In addressing the limitations of each of these three approaches to allocation of training,  I will reverse the order to work from most restrictive to least.

The most presumptive and restrictive is what I will refer to as the bodybuilding approach, which groups muscle groups together in a broad-brush method and allocates them to training days, e.g. the ‘back’. Before my Lines of Movement concept being published, and in some situations, I am sure this continues to today, the ‘back’ refers to both horizontal and vertical pulling muscle groups. I found this approach inadequate and replaced it in the 1980s with my Lines of Movement approach to allocation of training days.

The second most restrictive approach, although not to the extent of the above, is what I will refer to as the powerlifting approach, which nominates a day of the week. This suits domestic-based, stable competition; however is more clunky for the internationally competing athletes, who competition is not a regular one day of the week, on a predictable cycle e.g. every weekend for some weeks, e.g. American football is played domestically, and in many leagues up u on the same day each week, or a primary day of the week.  This approach is not suitable for many sports.

Thirdly, what I will refer to as the weightlifting approach, simply adds a number to the more workouts in a week planned. This is a more flexible approach.

It is interesting to note the historic influence adopted by more recent influences, such as the US National Strength and Conditioning, which in its relatively short history, appears to have favored what I refer to as the powerlifting approach to allocation of training day, with a lesser inclusion of bodybuilding.

Below is an example from what I believe is the origins of the NSCA – a powerlifting strength coach with a major focus on servicing American football players – in the case of this program shared by the late legendary Bill Starr, the author of the iconic book ‘The Strongest Shall Survive’.

  [9]

An alternative approach to the allocation of training

In the early 1980s, I was following the powerlifting approach. Here is an example of this from a program I wrote in 1983.

 [10]

However, during the 1980s, I adopted a new approach of allotting training days by sequential letters of the alphabet.  Here is an example from 1990.

 [11]

You will see this practice of muscle group allocation to the sequential letter of the alphabet in all my published works from about the mid-1980s onwards. Here is an example from my 1998 book, How to Write Strength Training Programs. [12]

Allocation of muscle groups to training days in strength training refers to the decision of which muscle groups to place on which training days.  Once the number of training days and which training days have been selected, this is somewhat like filling in the spaces. 

The steps involved in allocating muscle groups to training days include:

  1. Determine all the muscle groups to be trained: Simply brainstorm and list all the muscle groups you wish to train. The following is a sample list, not in any order:

Figure 1 – A sample list of muscle groups, not in any order.

_______________________________________________

vertical pulling (i.e. scapula depressors e.g. chin ups)

biceps

abdominals

vertical pushing (i.e. arm abduction e.g. shoulder press)

hip dominant (e.g. dead lift and its variations)

horizontal pulling (i.e. scapula retractors e.g. rows)

quad dominant (e.g. squats and its variations)

triceps

lower back

calves

horizontal pushing (i.e. horizontal flexion e.g. bench press)

forearm extension/flexion

________________________________________________

  1. Determine how many days of training per week or microcycle: Now decide how many training days per week or microcycle.  For the purposes of the example we are using, I have chosen four (4).
  1. Determine which days will be training days within that week or microcycle: Now determine which days you will train on – the following table builds on the example we are developing.

Table 1 – Number of training sessions and which days in the week.

 

SUN MON TUE WED THUR FRI SAT
  A B   C D  

 [13]

The popularization of my alternative approach to the allocation of training

The following are examples of the application of this method for the allocation of training.  These tables are from my 1998 book How to Write Strength Training Programs. [14]

[15]

Despite about a decade and a half of use and publishing about this method, from the mid-1980s to 2000, it was not until my work was published in the US online bodybuilding magazine known at that time as t-mag.com that it gained popularity, and this approach became more common. When you consider that significant training methods such as the West German sport scientist Dietmar Schmidtbleicher’s alternating accumulation and intensification did not get much notice from its earlier publishing in the early 1980s until it was published by a different author on t-mag.com, it should not be a surprise. The fact that it takes a bodybuilding magazine to gain traction is not lost on me, however.

 

References

[1] Qld Amateur Weightlifting Association, Preliminary Certificate Course

[2] Kazmier, B., 1981, The Bench Press

[3] Fleck, S.J., and Kraemer, W.J., 1987, Designing resistance training programs, Human Kinetics

[4] The United States Weightlifting Federation Coaching Manual, Vol. 3 – Training Program Design

[5] National Coaching Accreditation Scheme, Australian Powerlifting Federation, Interim Level 1 Powerflifting Manual, 1 Jan 1994

[6] Keller, L., 2000, The Men’s Health Hard Body Plan, Rodale Publishing

[7] Baechle, T.R. (Editor), 1990, Essentials of strength training and conditioning, National Strength and Conditioning Association of America

[8] Baechle, T.R. (Editor) et al, 1994, Essentials of strength training and conditioning, National Strength and Conditioning Association of America

[9] Starr, B., 1979, The strongest shall survive

[10] King, I., 1983, Bodybuilding programmes (Booklet), unpublished

[11] King, I., 1990, Program written for an athlete

[12] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Chapter 3 – Allocation of muscle groups

to training days

[13] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Chapter 3 – Allocation of muscle groups

to training days

[1] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Chapter 10 – Frequency of training

[2] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Chapter 10 – Frequency of training

 

© 2025 Ian King & King Sports International. All rights reserved.

Ian King

What’s in a name? Pt 1 – The origin and intent of the term physical preparation coach

/by

In the 1980s, I  forged a career in Australia that did not exist. The role did not exist, and there was no job title. What would I call myself?  I looked around the world for guidance and found two dominant influences – the United States National Strength & Conditioning Association (NSCA) and an Eastern European perspective on athlete training by Tudor Bompa, whose 1983 book ‘The Theory and Methodology of Training’ was one of the most influential books I was exposed to in that decade.

The answers and conclusions I reached from my search for a professional job title continue to shape the world in various ways.   With a growing number using the term ‘physical preparation coach’, it’s timely to share the origin and intent of this term. In this article, I achieve this through consideration of cultural influences, sports history, and my personal experiences.

Australia

I entered the profession in 1980 in Australia through an exercise physiology degree and that was the only possible specific outcome expected for graduates. And that was only available in corporate fitness. I knew only a few graduates that got that work. The rest added a second degree (e.g., teaching, physiotherapy etc.) or got work in totally unrelated fields.

There were no jobs in sport outside sports administration for graduates. At best you could hope to get a volunteer role as a fitness coach or sprint coach. For that you might receive a season pass. However, to get those roles you needed no qualification other than a proven personal history in the activity.

Therefore, a very fit person who loved to run a lot could be considered as a candidate for a role as a fitness coach, as all fitness training for sport in the early 1980s in Australia was distance running with a sprinkling of interval training

And a former sprinter could be considered as a candidate for the role of sprints coach. All sprint training for sport conducted in Australia in the first half of the 1980s was interval training, as the bias in speed was towards endurance.  And keep in mind that many sports, including what was then the Victorian Football League (VFL – now the Australian Football League or AFL) didn’t endorse any short sprinting as it was considered too risky for their players to engage in due to the risk of soft tissue injuries.

You might be wondering what was going on with strength training in sport in that era. The very few sports that engaged in strength training limited their work to bodyweight exercises, and for this training was supervised by the sport coach e.g. some swim coaches such as the late John Carew (this story shared with me in person) would have basic equipment on the side of the pool such as a chin up bar. However, this was rare. Strength training was taboo in Australian sports, as it apparently caused athlete to be ‘muscle bound’ and or injured.

In fact the status of the sporting training industry in the early eighties was one where strength training was rarely conducted.  The ‘it will slow me down’, and ‘it will make me inflexible’ attitudes dominated.  Training in general was at that time a neglected area.  The Australian Rules Football players (then playing in the VFL) were participating in various types of formal training, but the strength training was circuit training with light weights and the conditioning consisted of carrying bricks in the hands for many kilometers.  At least they were doing something.  Rugby league players in the New South Wales Rugby League were starting to do things, but they were even more archaic than the Australian Rules footballers.  Rugby union players were warming up by stubbing out their cigarettes and then commencing a short game of touch football.  Swimmers would fade like superman faced by kryptonite at the mere mention of the word weight training. [1]

And in all fairness, the way strength training was being conducted, the concerns were reasonable. I specifically refer to the influence of bodybuilding training, the methods, of which I have spoken about in length in prior publications.

A lack of awareness of the ‘need for speed’ (attempted acceleration) in the concentric phase in the power athlete may result in an adaptation to a non-specific rate of force development.  This is the same non-effective and perhaps detrimental training effect that occurred when athletes first started using strength training and used the bodybuilding methods. [2]

As the only one in my entire university department with a serious interest in strength training.

My main focus in study at that time was on strength.  I appeared to be the only one in my course with this interest at that point in time.  Aerobic training was the main focus of research in the seventies and early eighties.  The main vocational specialty areas being pushed onto students at that time (outside of physical education teaching) was laboratory testing.  A number of graduates went out and established commercial laboratory fitness testing facilities and services – with limited success.  Corporate fitness was also being promoted as a future growth area. [3]

I was confident that there was a better way for athletes to strength train than the dominant paradigms and was committed to helping athletes achieve that.

However, who was getting to train athletes in the early 1980s? It wasn’t happening. At best you could get a job in the fitness industry as a ‘gym instructor’, and if athletes just happened to be gym members, you may get contact with them.

I was in a unique situation at my university during the early 1980s for a number of reasons. Firstly, the weightlifting club I was involved in attracted athletes who embraced strength training in that era, including track and field athletes, martial artists, and contact sport athletes. Secondly as the only university in our state at that time, we had an incredible number of Olympians as students, and I became the first strength consultant employed at the university gym. Essentially, I spent more time in the gym that I did in the lecture rooms and that didn’t go unnoticed by the athletes. That became my classroom.  Additionally I was working part-time and one off gigs as an exercise physiologist and gym instructor at various gymnasiums.

In summary Australia did not have a term to describe a profession of training athletes because the role did not exist.  The Australian Sports Medicine Foundation (ASMF) was founded in 1963 and they provided education in the area of in the moment treatment of injuries as their only specific to sport educational offering. Individuals who filled these roles were referred to as ‘trainers’, typically of lower qualifications than a physiotherapist, whose role was to provide massages, run water, and provide immediate assistance to athletes at the moment of injury.

And that was the landscape of Australian sport when I was creating a role that didn’t exist – providing professional commercial physical training services to athletes. When asked what I did in the early 1980’s I would say ‘I train athletes’. To which the response was invariably ‘What sport?’ People assumed I was a sports coach because there was no other role in sport at that time.  I was doing something that had no name in Australia.

United States of America

There had been a different role and position description in the US.  This was referred to as a ‘strength coach’.  The use of this term and role professionally can be traced back to the 1950s in the United States.

Gym owner and former team manager of the 1952 US Olympic Weightlifting Team, Alvin Roy, is proposed to have been the first strength training consultant engaged in US high school, notably in the sport of American football. [4]  Roy went on to also become possibly the first strength training consultant engaged in American college sport when he worked with the Louisiana State University Football team in 1958.  [5]

Alvin Roy is also considered to be the strength consultant in professional sport in the US when in 1963 he was hired to work with the 1963 San Diego. And Kim Wood is considered the first full time NFL strength coach when he was hired to work for Cincinnati Bengals. [6]

Boyd Epley is considered the first strength coach hired full-time in US college sport  when he was hired in 1969 by the Athletic Director of the University of American to work with the American football team.[7]

The National Strength Coaches Association (NSCA) was formed in the US in 1978, specifically to unite and support strength coaches at the college level in American football. In 1981, they changed the name to the National Strength & Conditioning Coaches Association, broadening the title to include ‘conditioning’, without having to change the acronym of NSCA.

Europe

There was less clarity from Europe as to a term or job description. The UK was relatively underdeveloped in the area of sports training. One of the key influences in the UK was Frank Dick, who published a book titled ‘Training Theory’ in 1974.  There was no reference to a term for the coach responsible for physical training, likely because this was most likely the responsibility of the head coach in the UK during that era.  Most found the information from the Soviet Union during the 1980s to be unreliable, in part due to the Cold War between the US and the USSR (1947-1991).[8]  The ‘Berlin Wall’ didn’t fall until 1989, therefore, literature coming out of the well-organized state known as East Germany was limited.

This didn’t mean literature was devoid in Europe. It just wasn’t readily available to the rest of the world.  This changed when Canada became one of the most highly funded nations in sport preparation in the lead up to their two decades of Olympic Games – the Montreal Summer Olympics in 1976 and the Calgary Winter Olympics in 1988.

One such immigrant to Canada was Hungarian Tudor Bompa, who released the first edition of this book, ‘Theory and Methodology of Training’, in 1983.

In this book, he shared a very different approach to sports training compared to the only other organized theory, that of the US – and their ‘strength and conditioning’ –  identifying what he referred to as four ‘Training Factors’ – physical, technical, tactical and theoretical.

Choosing a path

As a student of the profession seeking direction in a career path that did not exist in Australia (at least not in a commercial, get paid for your services, sense), I was left to make a decision – which path to follow? What name do I use to describe my services? Do I follow the path that made the most sense – the Eastern European influence shared in the book by Bompa? Or do I follow the US path, one that was showing greater growth in public awareness, and backed by the might of the US culture, population, popularity and money?

I share this dilemma in my 1997 book ‘Winning and Losing’:

The concept of strength and conditioning as a role has a strong American influence.  Not so the concept of someone responsible for physical preparation. [9]

I did not rush to this decision. The pattern I have established is test and refine a training concept or innovation for about a decade before sharing it as a recommended way.

In 1988, the NSCA arrived in Australia. I took on the state director role in that first year, and then the National Executive Director role (an unpaid role) for nearly a decade.

During that time, a few key events occurred. I share two of them with you.

A conversation that shaped the acceptance of the term ‘Strength & Conditioning’ in Australia

After the arrival of the NSCA in Australia, and in my role as the leader, I had a meeting with the key figure in the Australian Sports Commission/Coaching Council. The NSCA of Australia (as it was known at that time) was seeking recognition from this body to be treated in the same way as all other sports registered with and recognized by the government regulatory body.

He expressed serious reservations about this, specifically that he felt that the NSCA was too unbalanced, more about strength training than other forms of physical training. I assured him that was not the case. I believe that this conversation was pivotal in achieving the goal of the NSCA of Australia. I also believe my answer was naïve.

I have reflected on that conversation a lot since and realize in retrospect how my advocacy shaped the history of this movement in Australia.

By the early 1990s, as I developed a more thorough insight into the NSCA in the US,  I had moved away from my support for the term ‘strength & conditioning’.

Inspired by Bompa’s writing, I formed the belief that adding the word ‘coach’ after the training factor ‘physical preparation’ would be a far better alternative.

I shared the reasons for this conclusion in my 1997 book ‘Winning and Losing’:

I am not supportive of  the  term strength and conditioning for two reasons.  …  Firstly, I am not supportive of this term because of the implications of its literal interpretation.  It separates strength from all the other elements of conditioning.  I believe this is inappropriate and misleading.  It then, by virtue of word sequence, places strength as a more important component than conditioning.  Again I suggest that this is inappropriate and misleading.  The message being given by the mere use of this term is counterproductive – unless you agree with strength being separate and more important.

The second reason I am not supportive of the term strength and conditioning is based on a historical understanding of it’s origin.  In 1978 the National Strength Coaches Association (NSCA) was created in mid-west America.  In 1982, for whatever reason, the word ‘Coaches’ was replaced with the word ‘Conditioning’.  (it fitted in with the initials NSCA!)  This association has gone on to shape and influence the role of ‘strength and conditioning coaches’ throughout the western world.

…. I believe the term ‘physical preparation’ is a better term.  Athletic preparation another.  [10]

A second conversation that shaped the future of the term ‘strength & conditioning’ in Australia.

Following on from my formative late 1980s conversation with a key government figure and the resultant regret, I did not want to be in that position again. I had decided that the term ‘physical preparation coach’ would be my path.

In the early 1990s, an opportunity arose to change the NSCA of Australia to an independent organization. This was not a breakaway in any sense. The population of the target audience in Australia was so small the organization struggled to stay afloat, and the US NSCA was clear in their lack of interest at that time in establishing themselves outside of the US.

A meeting of the then Board of Directors was called to discuss and decide on the future of our organization.  I saw this as an opportunity to move the organization to a term more aligned with my values. At the same time, I recognized that the organization was not mine per se, and that the Board would ultimately make that decision.

I shared this story and the outcome in my 1997 book ‘Winning and Losing’:

  In 1993, I proposed to the then Executive Committee that the NSCA (Australia) be replaced by a Australian organization, with no royalties being paid to America, providing publishing opportunities to Australians, and providing information relevant to Australian sport, employment and culture.  This recommendation was accepted.  However my views that the term strength and conditioning be deleted was not supported.  The end result – The Australian Strength and Conditioning Association.  This decision may have had a big impact on the acceptability of this term in Australia today. [11]

I accepted the decision of the board and continued to serve the organization for the rest of the decade, despite holding different values about the title I preferred to describe my services.  Up until 1996, I was one of the only individual gaining full-time income in Australia training athletes, and the broader sporting bodies had not been exposed to the term ‘strength & conditioning’, so what I referred to myself as was not an issue.

Post 1996, certain changes occurred in the Australian sporting landscape, and the awareness of this term ‘strength & conditioning’ grew at a faster rate. This and other factors led me to decide in 1999 to commence my own coach education program.

Adoption of the term ‘physical preparation coach’

Up until I published my 1997 book ‘Winning and Losing’, only a few Australians in the physical training niche had heard of my term, and some later adopted it.  After the release of my 1997 book and subsequent books, along with the commencement of the KSI Coach education program in 1999, others around the world who were exposed first-hand to this term began to adopt it.

It’s now been 40 years since I was first faced with the dilemma of what path to choose in the title of my services and its associated training values.  I see the term now being used in a ‘second generation’ sense, that is by individuals who did not learn it firsthand from me.

For anyone who values origins and intents, this journey back in time may serve to educate.

Conclusion

In this article, I have sought to share with you the origin and intent of the term ‘physical preparation coach’. I have consistently referred to and recommended the book by Tudor Bompa, as this book shaped my thinking.

…by Tudor Bompa in his classic book Theory and Methodology of Training: The Key to Athletic Success  (first published 1983).  This is an excellent text and I believe it should be in every coach’s library.  Not an easy book to read first up, but one which you will find yourself returning to as a reference guide.  An excellent starting point to give you structure in theory and methodology. [12]

I have no ‘skin in the game’ as to what term you use to describe yourself. At the end of the day, it is a semantic. I am less interested in a persons name or title, and more interested in how they conduct themselves and serve the athlete/client.

I have seen the term ‘physical preparation coach’ abused by individuals who I suggest apply to term to themselves to provide the perception they offer more than they do.  As the person who coined the term, it was intended to be used as a reflection of a more balanced and holistic approach than what the term ‘strength & conditioning’ implies. Most personal trainers, from my perspective, typically work with only two physical qualities, e.g., strength and endurance. Unless your services offer a full suite of physical preparation training, then the use of physical preparation is not relevant.

Finally, both the term ‘strength & conditioning coach’ and ‘physical preparation coach’ have one word in common – coach. For me, coaching involves regular collaboration over the training process. Most physical coaches operate from a prescriptive approach, and as such, the term ‘coach’ is not relevant on this basis.

 

References

[1] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book)

[2] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs (book)

[3] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book)

[4] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book)

[5]  https://titansupport.com/category/ken-leistner/

[6]  https://titansupport.com/category/ken-leistner/

[7] Shurley, JP, and Todd, JS. “The Strength of Nebraska”: Boyd Epley, Husker Power, and the Formation of the Strength Coaching Profession. J Strength Cond Res 26(12): 3177–3188, 2012

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War

[9] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book)

[10] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book)

[11] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book)

[12] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book)

Ian King

Does exercise accuracy matter?

/by

Introduction

When speaking to physical trainers, therapists and other aligned professionals as I travel on the quest to answer the question ‘What is the best way to train?’, I appreciate learning from them. What they think, what they say, and what they do with athletes and clients.

This journey has involved the privilege of travelling the world for many decades seeing these training trends firsthand.  When asked what the most common exercise I see being done from my innovation, it is, without question, the single-leg stiff-legged deadlift.  The only problem is that I almost never see it being done in the way I intended. It would be difficult to walk into any gym in the world now and not see someone performing an imitation of a small oil rig.

Over time I also hear the words used to describe the exercise and the interpretation of when and how to use it varies more and more.

For example, I was recently in a seminar when one of the participants  – a highly qualified and experienced practitioner, albeit a post-2000 entrant to their profession – repetitively referred to my exercise innovation of some forty years ago as a ‘single leg RDL’. And spoke about their application of it to rehab a client’s chronic hamstring injury. With limited success.

It may have been that little bit of German heritage in myself, but my excellence-at-risk meter tends to rise towards the red line when I see and hear these things that for me are the opposite of exercise accuracy. But perhaps that is my problem. Perhaps exercise accuracy doesn’t matter?

When I speak about exercise accuracy, I refer to the origin, name, execution, the application.  I will continue on with the theme of the exercise I called the single leg stiff leg deadlift.

The origin

In this section, I share my observations of the evolution of the stiff-legged deadlift.

The stiff-legged deadlift

First, there was the stiff-legged deadlift.  It was an exercise done for the most part by competitive lifter – Olympic and power – as a supplementary exercise to pulls and deadlifts.

I described this exercise many years ago in the following way:

MG Stiff Legged Deadlift:  Take a medium grip (about shoulder width) and commence in a standing position.  Lower the bar down by bending at the hips, not at the knees.  In the start, the knees should be slightly bent and remain exactly at joint angle during the lift. [1]

It was a two-legged (bi-lateral) loaded exercise using the barbell.

You will find this exercise championed in books that shaped training through the lat half a century including but not limited to:

The single-leg stiff-leg deadlift

During the early 1980s, I concluded that the dominant approach to strength training was creating muscle imbalances because of the bias in programs towards exercises such as the bench press and the squat.  I didn’t want that collateral damage for the athletes I trained, and I set about developing a categorization of exercises to avoid such imbalance in program design. This led to the concept of ‘Lines of Movement’, where I introduced terms and definitions to place every strength exercise into an exercise category.

 The following shows a breakdown of the body into major muscle groups/lines of movement, and then into examples of exercises. It is what I call ‘the family trees of exercise’. Use this to assess balance in your exercise selection.  

To help you understand how to divide and balance out your training, Ian came up with a list of major muscle groups that reflects their function:[3]

Horizontal pulling (row)
Horizontal pushing (bench press)
Vertical pulling (chin-up)
Vertical pushing (shoulder press)
Hip dominant (deadlifts)
Quad dominant (squats)

So, when I was writing a program, I increased the balance of the program by ensuring balance in the Lines of Movement.

When developing the term ‘hip dominance’ and defining what constitutes a hip dominant exercise, I realized that there were too few exercises in this category and that I needed to match the number, joint involvement and loading potential of exercises in the ‘Quad Dominant’ category.

I leaned on the traditional double leg barbell stiff-legged deadlift to create a single-leg, nil, or low-loaded variation option.

During the 1980s I refined the movement however, as with all my innovations, I trialled and tested it for a decade before extensively publishing it commencing from the late 1990s.

You can see the original exercise in the image below, taken from the How to Teach Strength Training Exercies Video Series (2000).

The ‘Romanian Deadlift’ (RDL)

The “Romanian Deadlift’ appeared in the US in the early 1990s. Initially, this exercise had no known name, or at least not one that the person I learnt it from gave it.  Dragomir Cioroslan, (a former Romanian national weightlifting coach who went on to work with the US Weightlifting team) and his protegee’s were doing a series of demonstrations and seminars during the early 1990s when many, including myself, were intrigued by a unique exercise that they were using as a supplementary exercise – somewhat of a cross between a deadlift and a stiff-legged deadlift.

I had been analyzing the physiques of Dragomir’s athletes for a few days before I got to see them train, and I was puzzled by their hamstring development. There were other shape differences between the and other weightlifters of that era, but that was the one that I linked to this exercise. So, before I got to see them lift, they had my attention.

I began integrating the ‘Romanian Deadlift’ into my training programs and in the absence of a name I called it the Romanian Deadlift, in respect of the origin. I have since noted others came to this same name conclusion. In all publications since that time, I have continued to use that name for this exercise.

The name

By the time I learnt of the loaded bilateral single-joint exercise we called the Romanian Deadlift, I was already well advanced in using the exercise variation I had developed and named the single-leg stiff-legged deadlift.

I began integrating the ‘Romanian Deadlift’ into my training straight away, however, it was not as a substitute or synonym for what I had developed but rather as an additional tool in the toolbox. In my mind they were two different exercises.

Not only was one unilateral and the other bilateral, but also because they were conducted with strikingly different techniques and loading potential.

When I see or hear the term ‘RDL’ to refer to the single-legged deadlift as I had innovated, I question their understanding of that person as to the execution and intent of each exercise.

For me, the only thing they have in common is that they are both relatively isolated posterior chain exercises i.e., they only involve the hip, rather than the knee and the hip.

The execution

To commence the discussion of the difference in execution between the single leg stiff legged deadlift and the Romanian Deadlift, I share the descriptions of each I provided in the late 1990s.

Romanian Deadlift

In plainer terms this is a flat back version of the stiff-legged deadlift.  With the bar on your back, take a shoulder-width stance and slightly bend the knees.  The knee angle is now not to change during the lift.  Flex or lower forward from the waist, keeping your chest up and hip/spine flat i.e. aligned.  Only flex forward as far as you can PRIOR to any rounding of the spine or posterior rotation of the hip.  For most, this will not be very far!

You can also accentuate the hamstring involvement by pushing the bum back and allowing your weight to drift to your heels during the lowering.     During the lift, squeeze the gluts.  This increases the hamstring involvement, which is the aim.[4]

Single Leg standing Stiff Legged Deadlift

Let the fun begin!  Stand on one leg – have the other foot off the ground, but kept roughly parallel with the leg doing the supporting.  Bend the knee slightly, but that knee angle should not change during the exercise (get a partner to watch for this, as it will be tempting to do so!).  Now bend at the waist, allowing the back to round and reach slowly towards the floor.  If your range allows, touch the floor with the fingertips and return to the starting position.  Use a speed of 3 seconds down, 1 sec pause at the ends, and 3 seconds up.

You may struggle with balance, but persist – you will be developing the muscles in the sole of the foot!  The first time you do this you may find you are touching down with the non-supporting foot regularly to avoid falling over.  This is ok, but in later workouts, try to minimize this.  When you have mastered this exercise, and touching of the ground by the non-supporting leg means terminate the set – this is your challenge.

Don’t be surprised if you can only do 5 reps on day 1!  Look to increase the reps from workout to workout.  Hold light DB’s in your hand ONLY when you get to 10 reps at the speed indicated.  No warmup set necessary.   Remember the weak side rule. [5]

Unfortunately for the world’s interpretation of how to execute the single leg stiff legged deadlift, only a few years after I began more openly sharing the exercise in publications, it appeared unreferenced in a prominent magazine, performed in a way that reflected the ‘author’s’ lack of understanding (and perhaps also the male models lack of flexibility, balance and single leg strength – to be able to do the exercise!). Learn more about that here.

To be clear, consider the following comparison:

Variables SL Stiff Legged DL Romanian Deadlift Similar Different
Hip dominant exercise

*
Isolated hamstring Less so More so (1)

*
Number of limbs One (unilateral) Two (bilateral)

*
Loading on feet Central Rear

*
Spine shape Rounded Flat

*
Chest shape Collapsed Up

*
Loading potential Lower Higher

*
  • When done correctly as per the manner originally intended.

Between the descriptions provided and the table above, it may be clearer why I do not see the words ‘RDL’ relevant to the single-leg stiff-legged deadlift. There are far more differences than similarities.

The application

The original rounded-back stiff-legged barbell deadlift is an excellent exercise for strengthening spinal segment strength in addition to hamstrings. However, the political correctness trend in exercise has veered away from exercises and variations that include a rounded spine. That’s unfortunate for athletes who experience loading and/or impact in a less-than-neutral spine shape.

The application of the exercise I innovated, the single-leg stiff-legged deadlift, is not as clear-cut as many assume. In theory, being a unilateral, single-joint exercise, it would have a broad application earlier in the training career, year and return from injury/surgery.

However due to the range involved, the increased loading on the hamstring due to the more bloated nature of the exercise, the increased demand on balance, and the fixed load of the body, this exercise needs to be reviewed and reflected on prior to being included in a training program.

Additional points to consider include:

  • When conducted in an optimal manner (as per it was developed) – with the non-working leg remaining still and parallel to the working leg – the range may be limited by the hamstring flexibility (this was not a problem for me during the developmental decade, because of the premium I placed on flexibility training).
  • If the athlete/client lacks the balance and or range to execute the movement tin the intended manner, you can choose between developing these qualities or default to the influence of allowing the back leg to raise.
  • If you go with the softer option, you are reducing the work (including balance) in general due to counterbalancing of the back leg, and reducing the workload and isolation on the hamstring by allowing the pelvis hemispheres to diverge.
  • Therefore, a decision needs to be made regarding progression – to work on improving range, repetitions, and or load. Generally speaking, I recommend working from the former to the latter.

The Romanian Deadlift (RDL) provides greater loading potential than the single leg stiff legged deadlift version, however, the following are important points:

  • The RDL should not be considered as an equal and opposite of a squat, as the relative loading potential of this exercise compared to the squat is less.
  • The RDL as a rounded back exercise should not negate the inclusion of a rounded back variation in athletes who may be exposed to loads in their sport where the spine is less than in neutral (rounded).
  • If the pivot at the hip joint is not maintained as the exclusive pivot point, the relative load/work/isolation on the hamstrings is reduced.
  • Therefore, considering the progressively reducing nature of athlete flexibility, you may not be working through the range you initially expected or anticipated.

Now to touch briefly on a key point in the application. There has been a long-retained belief, at first in the physical therapy disciplines and now also in the physical training disciplines, that isolated hamstring strength training is the key to rehabilitating or preventing hamstring strains.

Many decades ago, I reached an alternative conclusion. It’s not the aim of this article to go deep on this subject, however, I feel it may be remiss of me to not touch upon it.

Keep in mind my suggestion that if you fail to identify the cause of the injury (and I suggest weak hamstrings are not the cause in the overwhelming majority of cases), then your ‘solution’ may contribute to the problem.

Learning that the single leg stiff legged deadlift – an exercise near and dear to my heart because it is essentially one of my ‘babies’ –  is being used in a ‘hamstring strengthening program’ to rehabilitate athletes with hamstring strains, or prevent hamstring strains, is difficult to hear.  I do not believe the goal will be achieved, and the athlete does not deserve to be a guinea pig for this misguided paradigm.

Conclusion

For almost twenty years now I’ve watched the single-leg stiff-legged deadlift gain global acceptance – in and out of the gym. The only problem was that it was not being done in the intended manner.  More recently I have seen this popularity expand into rehabilitation, and this becomes even more concerning.  And to hear the confusion around the name, such as the use of the term ‘RDL’ in the same exercise name, is a reflection of a lack of understanding o the nuance of the RDL to achieve the hamstring isolation.

Maybe that’s just me being too German-like, seeking precision and excellence in the process.

Maybe exercise accuracy doesn’t matter?

 

References

[1] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed! 1 (book), p. 244

[2] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, P. 32

[3] Shugart, Chris, 2001, The Ian King Cheat Sheets, Part 1 – A quick and dirty look at all the cool stuff Ian King has taught us so far, Fri, Aug 24, 2001, T-mag.com

[4] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed! I, p. 230-231.

[5] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed! I, p. 210-211.