Ian King

The glutes are over-rated

/by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For a few key reasons. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Length
  • Tension
  • Stability

Of the:

  • Quads/hip flexors
  • Abdominals
  • Glutes

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

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

Muscles aren’t weak – they are inhibited!

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

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

But it’s not that difficult either!

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

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

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

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

Answer: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unbalanced? I suggest so.

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

Unbalanced? I suggest so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thirdly, I suspect a marketing factor –

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

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

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

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

Ian King

Lines of Movement – The Origin and Intent

/by

During the 1980s I began to research methods of categorizing strength exercises.  By the end of this decade I had developed a concept I called ‘Lines of Movement’.  After trialling this method for about ten years, I released details of this and other methods I had developed for categorizing exercises. I structure this organization under the umbrella concept of ‘Family Trees of Exercises’. I then expand into ‘Lines of Movement’. Then I divide exercises based on the number of limbs and joints involved.

These methods go far beyond simple organization – they allowed me to develop my methods of analyzing balance in strength training program design.  I believe these innovations are highly effective tools available to guide a person designing a program to create optimal balance and reduce injury potential.

I began my first public teaching of these concepts in 1998 with the following statement:

That’s a concept I am sure you have never heard before because this is the first time I have really spoken about it. [1]

I began teaching the concept of ‘Line of Movement’ during the late 1980s.  For example, in my 1989 presentation titled ‘5 Steps to Improved Resistance Training’[2] I wrote:

However it was not until 1998 that I chose to expand publicly on my innovations in this area: [3]

Family Trees of Exercise

The Family Tree concept is the foundation of my categorization, as taught below:

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. [4]

The first time I expanded fully on this concept was in a 1998 seminar:

After many years I have decided that there is two family trees in lower body exercises – one where the quad dominates, and one where the hip dominates. When I say hip I mean the posterior chain muscle groups – the hip extensors;  which are gluteals, hamstrings, and lower back – they’re your hip extensors.  And I believe this – the head of the family in the quad dominant exercises is the squat.  That’s the head of the family. And there are 101 lead-up exercises to it and there’s a few on after it as well. But the core exercise for the quad dominant group is the squat.  It’s the most likely used exercise in that group for the majority of people. 

The hip dominant exercises – the father of the hip dominant tree is the deadlift – which when done correctly would be the most common exercise of that group. There are lead-in exercises, and there are advanced exercises from it.

So I build my family tree around the squat and I build my family tree around the deadlift.  And I balance them up. In general, for every squat exercise or every quad dominant exercise I show in that week a hip dominant exercise in that week. And what do most people do in their program designs – they would do two quad dominant exercises for every hip dominant exercise.  What is the most common imbalance that occurs in the lower body? 

….To balance the athlete I work on a ratio of 1 to 1 of hip and quad dominant  – in general.  And I can assure you – most programs you’ll see are 2 to 1 – quad and hip.

That’s a concept I’m sure you’ll have never heard before because this is the first time I have spoken about it. [7]

In the following I discuss exercise options within each Family Tree:

….[hip flexion] Perhaps the long term staple of this family tree has been the straight or bent knee leg lifts whilst hanging from a chin bar…. Alternatively, I have devised many lower level movements so that this family tree can be given appropriate attention [9] 

…[quad dominant] I therefore chose to use the squat as the ‘head’ of the quad dominant family tree… Take the squat (quad dominant) and the deadlift (head of hip dominant family tree). [10] 

The squat is what I refer to as the ‘head’ of the quad dominant ‘family tree’…[11]    

The deadlift is what I refer to as the ‘head’ of the hip dominant ‘family tree’ …[12]  

The ‘head’ of the vertical pulling family tree is the chin up or similar. [13]

The chin up is what I refer to as the ‘head’ of the vertical pulling ‘family tree’. [14]

I spoke about Family Trees and my subsequent exercise category, Lines of Movement, in a number of different publications in the late 1990s:

I’m going to start working with exercises that I call come from the hip dominant family tree. Some of them are fairly unusual. But the aim of them is to balance the muscle development and the strength development with exercises more commonly done with the quadriceps.[15] 

Lines of Movement

I first expanded in writing on the Lines of Movement concept in my 1998 ‘How to Write Strength Training Programs’ book:  [8]

My first step is to create the following three sections:

  1. Upper body.
  2. Trunk.
  3. Lower body.

I then divide these three into the following:

1.  Upper body

  • Pushing.
  • Pulling.
  • Rotation.

2. Trunk

  • Flexion.
  • Extension.
  • Rotation.

3. Lower Body

  • Quad dominant (exercises that prioritize the quadriceps e.g. the squat and all its variations).
  • Hip dominant (exercises that prioritize the hamstrings, gluteals, and lower back (e.g. the dead lift and all its variations).
  • Rotation.

My next division is as follows, and takes into account lines of movement (i.e. vertical and horizontal.  Technically speaking, the vertical plane should be called the frontal plane, but more relate to vertical)… [17]

Up until I released these concepts in the late 1990s, the strength training industry relied solely on the division of the body into muscles groups when designing or analyzing a strength training program.

Before Ian popped up from Down Under, most coaches said to train all the muscles of the legs in one session and use the most efficient exercises. That means squatting and deadlifting on the same day. Problem — As effective as these big mass builders are, they’re also very fatiguing and really sap your energy levels. If you start your workout with squats, your deadlifts will suffer and vice versa. [18]

The following is a sample list, not in any order, of the major muscle groups of the body that I published in 2000: [19]

A sample list of muscle groups, not in any order. [20]

_______________________________________________

abdominals

lower back

hip dominant (e.g. deadlift and its variations)

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

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

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

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

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

biceps

triceps               

plantar flexors (calves) / dorsi flexors

forearm extension/flexion

________________________________________________

The following is another sample list, not in any order of importance, of the major muscle groups of the body and the ‘new terms’ I used to describe them, published in 2000. This list also clarifies the core strength movements associated:[21]

Table 1 – The twelve major muscle groups.

Street Name Anatomical Name My Terms Core Movements
Chest Pectorals Horizontal push Bench press
No name! Scapula retractors Horizontal pull Row
Shoulders Deltoids Vertical push Shoulder press
Upper back Lats Vertical pull Chin ups
Legs Quads/hamstrings Quad dominant Squats
Butt Gluteals Hip dominant Deadlift
Lower back Spinal erectors Back extensions
Stomach Abdomen Trunk and hip flexors Sit ups and knee ups
Lower leg Calf Calf press
Upper arm Bicep and tricep Arm curls/extensions
Lower arm Forearm flexors/extensors Wrist curls/extensions
Traps(upper) Trapezius Shrugs

After applying the conventional muscle group methods for many years, I had come to the conclusion that they did not adequately respect the overlap of muscles used in the different days of strength training, nor did it provide adequate insurance against imbalanced programs.

This injury prevention motive for creating this concept was reinforced in my earlier writings:

To simplify and ensure balance in upper body program design and training, I have divided the upper body movements generally speaking into four…..[22]

Muscle imbalance

Historically the focus in lower body strength training has been on the quads, and quadricep dominant exercises such as the squat.  This has been OK for say bodybuilders, whose worst-case scenario is to have poor posterior leg muscle development.  Even in track and field you will find authors admitting that during the 70’s the focus in power development in sprinters etc. was via leg extension as opposed to hip extension. If you take this fault in program design and training into strength training for athletes in general, the price can be a lot higher.  It is my belief that an imbalance between quad dominant and hip dominant exercises where quad dominance is superior results in a significantly higher incidence of injury and a detraction from performance.[23]

At the time of developing this concept (the late 1980s) the only references in the industry were to ‘quad dominant’ (a physical therapist term) and push-pull (a term used in strength circles).

There was no reference to ‘hip dominant’, nor was there any recognition to the differentiation of the vertical and horizontal planes available in upper body movements.

So I developed, tested, refined and ultimately shared my concepts by 1998 and in the years that followed:

Now, a little additional clarification before I go on. I refer to muscles or workouts that are predominantly anterior thigh as being quad dominant, and those that are predominantly posterior thigh as being hip dominant. The following is a hip dominant routine that balances out the previous quad dominant routine. [24]

Initially appropriate recognition was given, for example:

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:

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

Ian has a few other categories for abs, lower back, calves, and arms, but the ones above are main muscle groups you need to worry about. Based on this list, you need to be doing vertical as well as horizontal pushing and you need to be doing the same number of sets for each and keep the rep ranges equal where appropriate.

Let me give you an example of how this list can help you. Before Ian provided this simple list, I did almost nothing but chin-up variations for back training. Sure, I did rows occasionally, but not very often as compared to chins. This was an imbalance. Now I do just as many sets of horizontal pulling as I do vertical pulling and it’s really helped my back development. [25]

And this:

My favorite four-day configuration is one Ian King uses in his more advanced workouts, which you can find on t-nation.com.  I use his terminology to describe them:

Horizontal push/pull: …

Hip-dominant: ….

Vertical push/pull: …

Quad-dominant:….[26]

For simplicity’s sake, let’s use Ian King’s terminology and call them ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ pulling.[27]

The unreferenced and un-credited use of Lines of Movement

From about 2005 onwards, the number of ‘author’s publishing my original works without appropriate referencing or and credits resulted in a dilution of the quality of the concepts, and the awareness of the origin.  In my opinion this original desire by these authors to take credit for the concepts resulted in later publishing by ‘authors’ whose education lacked the teachings of the origin and intent of the concepts.

In the case of one ‘author’ who has created a niche market in the area of this and related topics, I have not found a single reference or credit to the source during the decade post 1999. Ironically this ‘author’ instigated a mass walk out of a seminar I conducted in the north-east of America where I was teaching these very concepts – alleging the content was terrible.

It is difficult to reconcile claims such as made the statement below from this ‘author’.

“I have read nearly everything there is to read in the field of strength and conditioning….”[28]

Either this claim is significantly embellished, or alternatively they choose to suppress the origin of the concept.  Neither option presents a positive role model of ethical, professional behavior, for future generations.

I note also there has also been a trend in some instances from 2005 onwards (seven years after I first publicly released the concept and nearly two decades after I created it) to substituting one word in my model – the word ‘knee’ replacing the word ‘quad’.

In fact, these authors now publish more widely than I do on my concept, without any reference to its origin, and may have succeeded in leading the masses to conclude this is the model.

I note that only ethical and well-read ‘authors’ reference the source.

Using Lines of Movement in program design

I used my Lines of Movement concept to illustrate program design breakdown and progressions. A number of examples of this are found below.  Prior to my publishing this technique, there was no such method of presentation.

Apart from the obvious advantages of analyzing and discussing program design via the use of Lines of Movement, the method I innovated to present program design as shown in the example below allows a person to illustrate or refer to Lines of Movement / muscle groups without needing to name the specific exercise.

An example of a 3/wk ’semi-total body’ split routine.  This split requires less of your time and allows more time for muscle recovery than a standard total body workout. [29]

Monday (A) Wednesday (B) Friday (C)
Quad dominant (e.g. squat) Horizontal push  (e.g. bench) Hip dominant (e.g. deadlift)
Lower back (e.g. good morning) Horizontal pull (e.g. row) Vertical push (e.g. shoulder press)
Vertical pull (e.g. chins) Triceps Biceps
Forearms Calves Upper traps

An example of a 4/wk split routine.  This split requires more of your time but also allows more time on muscle group. [30]

Monday (A) Tuesday (B) Thursday (C) Friday (D)
Horizontal push (e.g. bench press) Hip dominant (e.g. deadlift) Vertical pull  (e.g. chin up) Quad dominant (e.g. squat)
Horizontal pull (e.g. row) Hip dominant (e.g. good morning) Vertical push (e.g. shoulder press) Quad dominant (e.g. lunge)
Triceps Upper trap Biceps Calf

Unlike those who have copied my works in this regard, I did not abandon reference to or respect of the subject of muscle groups. In fact, I would typically interchange between terms as a synonym. This is also well illustrated in the above table from my 1998 book ‘How to write strength training programs’. [31]

Conclusion

The Lines of Movement Concept was released 21 years ago, in 1998, and was quickly embraced by authors who in the first instance recognized and credited the source. It within a few years from that certain authors began using this concept frequently in their publications, unreferenced. Professions with higher integrity protect the copyrights of innovators. Apparently not this industry. 

Writers who have done their research and are ethical in their values will appropriately and consistent with acceptable professional referencing guidelines will display referencing and crediting when using these concepts in their publications.

[1] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs (Book)

[2] King, I., 1989, 5 Steps to Improved Resistance Training, Weights Workout ’89, Workshop Tour

[3] King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series (DVD), Disc 3, approx. 1hr 03m 00sec in.

[4] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (Book), p. 38

[5] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (Book), p. 38

[6] King, I., 2000, How to teach strength training exercises (Book), p. 41

[7] King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series (DVD), Disc 3, approx. 1hr 06m 00sec

[8] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (Book), p. 39

[9] King, I., 2000, How to teach strength training exercises (Book), p. 54

[10] King, I., 2000, How to teach strength training exercises (Book), p. 99

[11] King, I., 2000, How to teach strength training exercises (Book), p. 102

[12] King, I., 2000, How to teach strength training exercises (Book), p. 108

[13] King, I., 2000, How to teach strength training exercises (Book), p. 115

[14] King, I., 2000, How to teach strength training exercises (Book), p. 118

[15] King, I., 1999, Ian Kings Killer Leg Exercises’, t-mag.com

[16] King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series (DVD), Disc 3, approx. 1hr 03m 00sec

[17] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (Book), p. 40

[18] Shugart, C., 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, t-mag.com, 24 August 2001

[19] King, I., 2000, How to Teach Strength Training Exercises (Book)

[20] King, I., 2000, How to Teach Strength Training Exercises (Book)

[21] King, I., 2000, So You Want To Start A Weight Training Program? Part 4: Muscle group allocation and Exercise selection, Peakhealth.net  August, 21 2000

[22] King, I., 2000, How to Teach Strength Training Exercises, (Book), p. 114

[23] King, I., 2000, How to Teach Strength Training Exercises (Book), p. 99

[24] King, 1999, Limping into October Pt. 2 (now showing as ‘Hardcore Leg Training – Part 2’)
T-mag.com, Fri, Sep 24, 1999

[25] 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

[26] Schuler, L., 2006, The New Rules, Ch. 3 – The building blocks of muscle, p. 42, (2009 paperback version) Penguin Publishing, New York.

[27] Schuler, L., 2006, The New Rules of Lifting, p. 149, Penguin Publishing, New York.

[28] Authors name withheld to protect the message. A 2005 quote.

[29] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!, Chapter 4 – How often should I train? (Book), p. 18

[30] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!, Chapter 4 – How often should I train? (Book), p. 18

[31] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (Book), p. 25

Ian King

The Strength Training Over-Reaction

/by

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

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

“If anyone gets slower you’re fired.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endurance

Flexibility

Speed

Strength

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

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

Stretching makes you weak.

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

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

Now imagine this statement, if made today:

Strength training makes you tight.

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

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

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

Strength training negatively impacts skill execution in sport.

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

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

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

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

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

Ian King

Trends in Training

/by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian King

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

/by

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q1. Who owns the company?

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

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

Q2. Who founded the company?

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

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

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

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

Q5. How long have they been operating?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q8. Who formulated the product/s?

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

Q9. Are their scientists in-house or outsourced?

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

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

Q10. Do they manufacture in-house or outsource?

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

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

Q11. Do they manufacturer at GMP?

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

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

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

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

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

Q12. Do they guarantee the potency of every pill?

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

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

Q13. What is their refund policy?

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

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

Q14. What customer support do they offer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They also go on to say: [3]

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

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

Q17. Will I pass a drug test?

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian King

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

/by

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

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

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

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

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

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

The vitamin story origin

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

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

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

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

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

The Vitamin C story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pauling proposed that conditions such as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The medical response to Vitamin C

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

In response to Pauling’s claims:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What if?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

 

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian King

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

/by

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

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

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

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

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

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

So where specifically do the risks lie? Here are

  1. Manufacturing standards
  2. Misleading products and product claims
  3. The sale of illegal supplements
  4. Supplements containing drugs
  5. Raw material selection and contamination
  6. Truth in labeling
  7. Outsourcing manufacturing
  8. All of the above

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

 1.  Manufacturing standards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.  Misleading products and product claims

The supplement history has a long history of deceit.

In 1989 Nautilus founder Arthur Jones was quoted as saying:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.  The sale of illegal supplements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.  Supplements containing drugs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These risks are summarized in a 2017 paper as below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some weight loss supplements contain prescription-strength diuretics.

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

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

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

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

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

5. Raw material selection and contamination

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

How is this working out?

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

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

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

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

  • Of the 134 products tested, 53 were found to have “substantially elevated” levels of the following heavy metals – Lead, Mercury, Cadmium, Arsenic and BPA.

  • Of the whey-based protein powders, about 10 percent of contained lead levels above health guidelines.

  • Of the plant-based protein powders.75 percent had measurable levels of lead.

  • Each contained on average twice the amount of lead per serving as other products.

  • In addition to lead, the plant powders in several cases contained mercury, cadmium and arsenic above health-based guidelines.

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

In summary:

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

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

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

6.  Truth in labeling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.  Outsourcing manufacturing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.  All of the above

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“It is easier to get forgiveness than permission.”

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

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

Now in fairness they do add:

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian King

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

/by

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

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

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

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

Two paths

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systems support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learning what works in systems support

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

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

System support nutritional supplement recommendations

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

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

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

Vitamin and minerals

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

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

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

Immune system support

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

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

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

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

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

Joint support

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

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

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

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

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

Digestive system support

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

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

These include but are not limited to:

  • Fiber supplements
  • Pro and prebiotics
  • Digestive Enzymes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sleep support

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

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

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

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

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

The path less traveled

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

 

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian King

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

/by

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

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

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

1940-1950s

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

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

1960s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isn’t that interesting.

Conclusion

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian King

Ban the band!

/by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IK: Excellent. Then what happens next?

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

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

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

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

Athlete: It’s get harder.

IK: Excellent. Then what happens next?

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

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

Athlete: I am usually getting weaker.

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

Athlete: No, it doesn’t.

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

Athlete: I need to cheat to finish the rep.

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

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

With that, we went back to training.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

[6] “Minny: “Eat my shit.”

Hilly: “Excuse me?”

Minny: “I said eat…my…shit.”

Hilly: “Have you lost your mind?”

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

*Minny eyes the pie*

Hilly: “Did…What?”

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

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

*Minny runs off*

Missus Walters: “RUN, MINNY, RUUN!!”

*She says this while laughing*”

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