Ian King

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

/by

Physical preparation in athlete preparation is over-rated.

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

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

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

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

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

Now to make things worse…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is that serving us athletically or health wise?

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

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

 

Note:

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

Ian King

If only they knew….

/by

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

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

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

IK: What was the knee injury?

Billy: I had meniscus surgery on my left knee.

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

Billy: Yes.

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

Billy: 15.

IK: Mmmm….

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

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

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

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

IK: How much?

Billy: 4 days a week.

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

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

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

IK: You know, squats, lunges etc.

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

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

The answer confirmed my fears.

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

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

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

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

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

Billy: What are some hip dominant exercises?

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

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

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

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

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

——

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

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

Ian King

Considerations before you pick up a Kettlebell again

/by

Seven factors to reflect upon before picking up another Kettlebell

Over time new ways to train are continually introduced, and in many cases these ‘new ways’ include new training devices. In some cases the ‘new device is intended to replace the conventional external loading options, and in some cases they are intended to supplement them. In most cases the basis for the ‘new’ training devices is that they provide a training benefit that the more conventional external loading does not.

You might never have heard anyone challenge the relevance and appropriateness of Kettlebell training for athletes. That’s okay, nor have I. After many years of reflection and reluctance to do so, I have decided to share my thoughts.

My hesitation to date to speak out is for a number of reasons. Firstly, when one challenges dominant paradigms, you need to put on your Kevlar vests, and this gets boring. Sometimes I would rather retire quietly than deal with the BS that comes from upsetting some well-marketed US ‘guru’…[i]

Secondly, when they attack the messenger, the message can get lost. [ii]

Thirdly there are some good people involved in Kettlebells and it is not my intention to offend them. [iii]

Fourthly, there are some big players whose commercial reliance on the dominant trend is strong, and they will kick back like a mule. I am less concerned about them however, and those who put profit before principle should not be feared.[iv]

So as always, take it or leave it. I have no intention to prevent the power of commercially and ego driven trends from rolling. They have been doing so since the first machine for strength training was invented, and they are not about to stop. I simply intend to give those who care about transfer to sport (and their health) to reconsider their application of this dominant trend in training equipment and associated exercises.

To begin with I go back to my first exposure to a concept that we called ‘Soviet Scam’. Back in the days of the Iron Curtain (and I suggest it continues today) a ‘Soviet Coach’ in the USA realized the commercial value of the word ‘Russian’ or similar. So anything that can have a ‘Russian’ connection has a automatic leg-up in marketing! Back in the 1980s the NSCA of America, under the then Executive Director Ken Kontor, would arrange an annual trip to various Soviet states. I would love to hear their stories about the presence or otherwise of this training device….

So lets get into it with some key, simple yet significant ‘considerations regarding the use of Kettlebells.

Consideration #1 – Load placement relative to the center of gravity of the body

The shape of the upper body posture is potentially compromised when the loading is placed in the front of the body. Put simply there is a risk that the lifter will or chooses to lean backwards. This can compromise the center of gravity backwards and or result in trunk extension, and rising condition contaminating many lifts as they are executed globally that I have described as ‘thoracic extension’.

This problem existed (and continues to do so) in selected conventional exercises such as the military press (shoulder press with bar to front of the head); the Lat Pull-down to the front o the body; the front squat; and the front DB raise, to name a few.

In the image below you can see the impact of the bar placement to the front of the body on the extension of the trunk.

In the below image you can see the increased extension at the middle point of the movement.

In the below image you can see the extension of the spine at the top of the movement, courtesy of the bar travelling to the front of the body during the majority of the lift.

In theory with the bar potentially returning to a position in line with the body, the trunk could be returned to neutral. This would require coaching on this point, and a shape in the body (including flexibility around the neck, shoulders and intervertebral joints) that would allow this.

This movement resulted in so much lean back that it was removed from the Olympic lifting competition schedule. You can see the changes in trunk extension that have occurred from the start to the finish position in the military press pictures provided.

However, if we took a snapshot of say the decade half a century (50 years) ago, what percentage of the exercises being performed by the average lifter placed the load in front of the center of gravity? I suggest the minority. Lets say 10%.

Fast-forward to the last ten years and pose the same question – what percentage of lifts being performed by the masses place load to the front of the center of gravity? I suggest, at least in the case of the Kettlebell, the majority are with the load in front of the body.

The majority of exercises involving Kettlebells occur with the Kettlebell held in front of your body. How does this impact your center of gravity? It shifts it forward. What do you do to compensate? You lean back.

What’s the problem with this? There may be none, if you believe that optimal posture and shape for performance and health is either attained through more weight on the heels than the ball of the feet and shoulder placement behind hip placement.

On the other hand, if you believe that optimal performance and posture is achieve with load distribution through the feet more forward than backwards, and that the shoulders should be above or slightly in front of the hips, then you have a problem.

Specifically what problem you ask?

  • From a sporting perspective, unless you are in those hard to find sports where weight on the heels is optimal, you are creating a non-specific adaption in load distribution through the feet.
  • From a health perspective, under what conditions are you better off with a lean-back torso posture? You are placing the lower back and hip joints under unnecessary pressure, highly correlated with conditions of pain.

Now I can go on, however at this level of discussions most readers are probably having their values challenged, and more information will not change their determination to kill the concept. For example, I have yet do discuss never transmission impact, use of levers between lower and upper and so on.

What is the impact of this shift in percentage of exercises performed where the loading is in front of the body? I suggest massive. I suggest we are seeing an increase in postural deviations whereby the shoulders are placed behind the hips in the postural plane, resulting in an increase activation or recruitment pattern of engaging the thoracic extensors out of context and inappropriately in all or at least too many exercises

[I just need to pause to adjust the anti-intercontinental missile device around my house before I go any further….]

Consideration #2 – Load placement to the front of the center of gravity exacerbated by the length of the resistance lever

Basic biomechanics suggest that when you extend the length of the resistance lever, you increase the load.

Are any Kettlebell exercises performed with straight arms out to the front of the body? If so how many or what percent of all Kettlebell exercises involve this situation? And does this constitute a greater number of exercises with long resistance levers to the front of the body (in the sagittal plane) compared to the number of similar exercises used fifty (50) years ago? In the absence of accurate statistical date, I am going to speculate or hypothesize that this is the case – that there are more long resistance lever in the sagittal plane exercises in the last 10 years than in the decade 50 years prior.

Exercises with these long levers out in front of the body in the sagittal plan typically result in or are associated with increased use of the thoracic extensors, potentially providing a negative contribution to the ‘thoracic extension’ condition I have drawn attention to.

Building on the first consideration, the impact on the center of gravity is exaggerated by the distance of the load from the body. As many Kettlebell exercises engage in a straight-arm action to the front of the body, the resulting leaning back of the body to accommodate the change in the combined center of gravity magnifies this condition.

The simple act of shifting the bar from the back of the body in say a standing shoulder press to the front of the body in what some call the military press, is an example of what I refer to. If you are not sure about what I am talking about, try these two positions when you are in a calm, empty cup, reflective mood.

Then consider the further impact of taking that barbell and holding it at full arm’s length in front of the body. For every unit of distance from the unloaded center of gravity of the body, the body leans back a unit.

[I have not been bombed yet, however I appreciate many of you may be still building your counter-attack strategy…..]

Consideration #3 – The shape of the spine in long lever to the front of the body exercise

This third consideration builds on the predominance of standing and swinging the load to the front of the body in an arc movement. Leg drive will create vertical displacement and overcome initial inertia. However to complete an arc movement with load, gravity requires that the trunk must be extended, including extending past vertical.

So what’s wrong with this?

Check out the posture and muscle development of a person who has extensive involvement in these movements. Firstly you might note what I refer to as ‘thoracic extension dominance’, where the muscles that extend the middle back are over-developed. Secondly you may note the postural deviation, where the adaption to the rotational movement and thoracic extension results in a permanent leaning back posture.

Now I know there will be some who will say you can complete the rotational arc of a Kettlebell swing without engaging the thoracic extensors beyond the vertical. Sure, and you can also go out an only have one alcoholic drink, but really, how often does that occur…

The conditions I describe in this third ‘challenge’ are exacerbated by fatigue, excessive load, and or the acceptance (in many cases the encouragement) of a cheat movement.

Consideration #4 – The shape of the shoulders in long lever to the front of the body exercise

I begin with again asking the question – are there more ‘to the front of the body with a long resistance arm’ exercises being performed now than a decade later? The second question I pose is what is the typical upper body share in the horizontal plane in these exercise conditions? Are the shoulders ‘square’ or rounded?

When I refer to ‘square shoulders’ I am referring to a condition where the scapula are retracted and depressed and the shoulder musculature block vision of the upper back when viewed from the side. A rounded position the the complete opposite.

I suggest that irrespective of intention, most Kettlebell exercises performed with a long straight arm in front of the body are executed with a rounded upper back shape.

For those who appreciate the importance of the shape of the body under load and the way the body adapts to shape from load, this is critical. My ‘Shape Theory’ (which I had explained in the unpublished article rejected by the high profile internet magazine) which simply put says ‘The shape under which you load is the shape you adopt’, referring to the risk of sub-optimal musculoskeletal adaptations that negatively impact what we call your posture.

Consideration #5 – The downside of unilateral loading affecting the spine

Unilateral exercises, along with a number of other theoretically sound but mis-used concepts such as close chain exercises (feet on the ground), multi-planar movements, combined exercises etc. are a dominant trend in the current landscape.

The rise of rotation through the spine to the extent to which it is evident is a whole new challenge facing the strength training community. There was a time when you had to participate in unilateral sports such as golf or baseball or tennis to develop the musculo-skeletal challenges associated with rotation of the spine. This is no longer the case. You can simply engage in strength training with your local personal trainer, one who has bought blindingly into every ‘cutting edge’ training principle espoused by their leading professional organization, and you can develop and advanced level of dysfunction through rotation of the spine.

Spinal rotations are amongst the toughest musculo-skeletal challenges to solve, and their side effect varied and extensive. They are developed by a high volume of unilateral life or sport exercises (such as those listed above), or exercise conducted in a unilateral fashion – irrespective of the fact that ultimately both sides are trained.

When untrained people under the supervision of those not competent enough to ensure the side effects (and I suggest that is the majority of service providers in the fitness and sport industries) engage in high volume unilateral exercises they typically perform the movement asymmetrically, influenced by existing strengths and weakness. The end result is the exacerbation of their imbalances.

Variables such as dynamic (cheating) movements, excessive load, fatigue, technical breakdown etc. (all of which are in some way associated) accelerate the degradation.

Kettlebell exercises are a ripe platform for this outcome.

Consideration #6 – The impact of rotation on the wrists

Despite dogma teaching to the contrary, I suggest the rotational forces on the wrists from many Kettlebell exercises is both unnecessary and inappropriate. When compared to other devices, it could be argued they provide an advantage.

In this case, the question remains – are unilateral (load in each hand) dynamic movements necessary? For hypertrophy? No. For sports performance? No. For health? No. Of course, that’s just my opinion, so many would say – where is the science? Perhaps you have not been exposed to my belief that ‘research’ is a lagging indicator and by the time (if at all) that ‘research’ provides the answers that anyone with effective intuition can work out in a couple of weeks, there’s been a lot of collateral damage. Are you going to be amongst that collateral damage?

Why not try this simple method – conduct an anonymous, no penalties survey of a group of personal trainers and others doing a Kettlebell training day or weekend course – how do your wrists feel? You won’t need to wait for the ‘research’…Hold, that is research! Just not a paper published in the peer-reviewed journal of your dogma….

Consideration #7 – The impact of the entire musculo-skeletal system

Let’s take a global view of the musculo-skeletal system and its impact on related systems such as the nervous system – an approach well-supported since so many have now been exposed to Tom Myer’s book on Anatomy Trains.

And let’s flip the question. Rather than giving examples of exercises that damage the posture and degrade transfer to sport and health, help me understand which of the more popular and more commonly performed Kettlebell exercises are positive for posture and transfer?

Now I appreciate this question and the answer will be influenced by your definition and understanding of how strength training exercises transfer to life and sport and impact posture. From my perspective this reflection is rarely done, and the real-world, applicable dialogue is rare.

The fact that you can create hypertrophy from Kettlebell exercise meets only those who act on short-term outcomes. I can hit myself on the head repetitively with a sledge hammer and argue for the hypertrophy benefits in the biceps and forearms. But what of the long term impacts?

I suggest that the images used above provide examples of hypertrophy that are heading toward significant, career threatening, quality of life threatening injuries. I know, that’s just my opinion, where’s the ‘research’, blah blah blah. For the economic benefits to the injury rehabilitation, this is cause for celebration – humans willingness to cause self-inflicted damage in the blatant denial of consideration of long term damage.

For an insight in a typical posture model used in and adapted to by the body from the way many Kettlebell exercises are being taught, check out this video! Yes, it is satire. In this instances, study the posture being adopted by the ‘client’. There is a message here.

Conclusion

So there are the first three reasons why you may want to reconsider your Kettlebell involvement. I know, many of you are either going to reject this information outright or find a way to ‘compromise’ so that you can keep doing it, due an range of emotional attachments.

So I put it this way – would you suffer any loss of training outcomes for sport, health or hypertrophy if you let go of your Kettlebell exercises and reverted to less trending, more old school (God forbid, I am just going to say those heretical words…) barbells and dumbbells?

No. At least not in my opinion.

Would it be tough to let go from a ‘what will others think of me’? Absolutely.

Would it be tough to let go because it may mean acknowledging I was sucked in by a non-beneficial trend? Absolutely.

Would it be tough to do if you are teaching your clients Kettlebells one day and the next you are not? Absolutely.

So what’s going to happen?

The majority are going to do just as Schopenhauer[i] suggested many years ago – ridicule and reject what I have said. And that will work, because the majority of your associates will do the same.

And then, when EVERYONE one knows it, and the trend dies off, you can simply pretend that you were aware of what I am teaching and it’s old news now, who cares. And really, everyone else will be so embarrassed and looking to hide their prior association with the Kettelbell that no-one will be looking in your back yard so it will be all good.

Except for the price you pay in your body continuing to do Kettlebells, waiting for EVERYONE to wake up…..Oh, and if you are a personal trainer or coach, the price in the body of your clients and athletes…..

WATCH VIDEO

Watch a short video discussing some of the considerations covered in this blog article here.

SIDE BAR NOTES

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

[i] …Like the time I had the audacity in a New York seminar in the late 1990s to suggest that a chin up does not balance out the bench press (this was in the days when the only publications of the ‘Lines of Movement’ concept were my own). Wow, did that upset the local guru! What happened to me in the next few years may be of little interest to you, but what happened to you may – because instead of embracing the flaws in teaching, this guru gave you the ‘scapula chin up’….and the problem remained….

[ii] …Like the time in a Boston seminar that I laid out concepts such as loading is over-rated and why use external loading when most athletes struggle with their own bodyweight, and here are some unique original unilateral lower body exercises. The local ‘guru’ held a union meeting at the break, and took the majority of the attendees out of the seminar as a protest against the ‘utter rubbish’ I was teaching, before publishing a series of books on the content. What happened to me following that event is of little interest to you. What happened to you should be, as you all now lift your back leg up when you do my single leg stiff, legged deadlift….

[iii] …Like the time a prominent US internet magazine owner tried to entice me with money and when I said no, he said ‘Damn it, there are only two of you that have ever said no to me!’ […the other person was involved in Kettelbells!…] What happened to me is of no interest to you, but what happened to you should be. One of the ‘replacement’ writer had a massive Pinocchio nose-growing challenge and you went off and followed the training guidance….

[iv] ….Like the unsolicited article I wrote and submitted asking no payment, to a particular high profile internet website. I am not sure if it killed the deal, but I left my notes at the bottom of the article, and they were summarizing the ‘interesting’ things I had seen of their writers performing a series of exercises with Kettlebells….I never heard back. What happened to me is of no interest to you, but what happened to you should be because you were denied the opportunity to review and reflect on what you are doing with those Kettlebells…

 

Copyright 2017 Ian King & King Sports International Inc. All rights reserved.  

Ian King

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

/by

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

Would you sign up for this?

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

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

Ignore me at your child’s peril……

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STRENGTH VS FLEXIBILITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPPER BODY VS LOWER BODY VS TRUNK (Core)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABDOMINAL BALANCE

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

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

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

Opportunities I found Reality of this program
BASIC
1. Hip flexion

Ö
2. Trunk flexion

Ö

Ö
3. Rotation

Ö
4. Lateral Flexion

Ö
ADVANCED
5. Co-contraction glut/ab

Ö
6.   Integrated

Ö

Ö

UPPER BODY BALANCE

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

Horizontal pull – 4.5

Vertical Pull – 2.5

Horizonal Pull – 1

Vertical push – 0

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

This translates into the following table.

Percentage of lines of movement based on number of exercsies.

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

50 %

15%
Vertical push

25 %

0%
Vertical pull

12.5%

30%
Horizontal push

12.5%

55%

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

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

But it doesn’t have to be this way….

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

LOWER BODY BALANCE

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

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

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

Hip dominant – 2

Quad dominate – 8

This translates into the following table.

Percentage of lines of movement based on number of exercises.

My generalized recommended exercise distribution using 10 exercises Reality of this program
Hip dominant

60 % (6)

20 % (2)
Quad dominant

40 % (4)

80 % (8)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it doesn’t have to be this way….

SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My recommendations Reality of this program
Sequence of dry land Flex then strength Strength then flex
Time allocation Flex–30m/Strength–15m Strength–40m/Flex–5m
Prioritisation of body part Middle-upper-lower Lower-upper-middle
Number of abdominal lines of movement

4-6

2
Prioritization of upper body lines of movement 1.     Horizontal pull

2.     Vertical push

3.     Vertical pull

4.     Horizontal push

 1.     Horizontal push

2.     Vertical pull

3.     Horizontal pull

4.     Vertical push
Prioritization of upper body lines of movement 1.     Hip dominant

2.     Quad dominant

 1.     Quad dominant

2.     Hip dominant

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian King

Stop lifting your leg!

/by

The former US NCAA Division 1 athlete started performing the exercise in their program, the single leg stiff leg deadlift, for the first time under my supervision.

As they bent forward their non-support leg began to lift backwards. I asked:

‘Why are you lifting your leg?’

They replied:

‘Because that is how I was taught to do it.’

I found this really ironic, as the exercise I originated the exercise from Australia, and now I had to correct it from American influence. I published this exercise in the from the late 1990s onwards [i] [ii] [iii] [iv] [v] [vi] [vii] [viii] [ix] [x] after a decade or so of testing.

I found it ironic but not surprising, as for nearly two decades now I have watched the bastardization of my innovation. I spend the most of the first decade post 2000 wondering how this ‘variation’ came about. How did my exercise end up being messed up so badly? Then I stumbled on the answer.

It was published in Men’s Health in 2000[xi], unreferenced and un-credited, by another ‘author’.

At the photo shoot I suspect the male model made up his own interpretation.

I understand how most photos shoots happen. The ‘author’ is rarely if ever on site. An unknown organizes the photo shoot, and the result in this case was an exercise where the subject lifted their back leg.

So the reason why the world now does this exercise with the back leg moving backwards is – because they are copying a misinterpretation done by a Men’s Health male model in a photo shoot!

A good enough reason? I don’t believe so….

Reminds me of the story about a trend in marathon runner. The story goes that Australia’s lead marathon runner in the 1982 Commonwealth Games was suffering from diarrhea as they ran. The solution they chose to reduce the embarrassment was to wipe their legs down with the face wipe cloths offered at regular intervals in the break. From watching this act, a new trend was developed – wipe your legs down with the wet face clothes.

Is this a good reason to wipe your legs down in a marathon? I don’t think so….(unless you find yourself with brown colored liquid bodily fluids running down your leg…)

So apart from the fact that the masses of coaches and trainers of the world are imitating a mistake, what is the problem with the exercise. Any movement is good movement, surely? Well, yes and no.

It’s great to be moving. However the general intent of an exercise is to fix one end of the muscle and move or stretch the other end. This makes the muscle work. When you lift your leg backwards, this stretch or strain intended for the hamstring is reduced because of the movement of the back leg. So you are doing an exercise with movement, but a significant reduction in the intended target muscle.

When you lift your back leg up it counterbalances the movement to the front, reducing the stretch and effort. When you go to stand up again, the lower of the leg back down does most of the work. It becomes more of a ballet like balance exercise than a strength exercise. For some that may be all they need, but please, stop masquerading it as a strength exercise!

Put simply you are doing less work.

Now I appreciate that not all can do this exercise full range due to lack of strength or flexibility or balance. However avoiding this challenge is not going to fix the limitations! Start with limited range, and place a premium on increasing the range progressively over time, rather than looking to increase load straightway. Just about every Google image of this exercise has a DB or similar in hand – don’t follow this! Most people cannot get range with their own bodyweight, so don’t add load until you have full range!!!

Just about every gym I go anywhere in the world I see this exercise being done, and it always reminds me of the oil well devices you see littered in the desert, where the lever is long and heavy to assist the oil to be pumped with less energy.

Now for the purists who remember the difference between a single joint and multi-joint movement, they know the single joint movement offers more isolation, and the multi-joint less. By moving the back leg you change the exercise from a (almost) single joint exercise to a double joint exercise.

Now I don’t expect to reverse this mistaken exercise option. It has gone too far. It’s been published without thought by too many well-marketed US ‘gurus’, especially as a key ‘functional’ exercise.

However, for those who would prefer to exercise for a reason better than copying the confusion of a male model at a US photo shoot….here is how I originally intended for you to do this exercise:

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

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

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

Here’s what it should look like, performed by dual Olympian and Gold medalist (2000)!

The top position

The bottom position

Need more clarity?

Unfortunately a few select individuals in the US thought it was okay to publish this exercise innovation without reference or credit. And created a highly marketed mis-interpretation of my exercise.

So what makes me think the ‘author’ of this Men’s Health article was ‘copying’? Maybe it was their email…

From: name withheld  Sent: Saturday, 4 December 1999 5:18 AM To:kingsports@b022.aone.net.au Subject: Re: Between Sets Newsletter #6

Ian, …It’s funny ‐ I have bben doing your t‐mag leg workouts ( the first two). It seems such as hort workout a.. this is done in a half an hour. But ‐ the pain !!!!!!!!!!!! You weren’t kidding ‐ it is a deep muscle soreness ‐ real intense. Interstingly it is a great workout to introduce females to weigth lifting and training. (A lot of them are scared to lift heavy) Keep them coming…
‐name withheld

Maybe it was the way they re-publishing my content verbatim in multiple ‘publications’….[xii]

Single leg standing stiff leg deadlift: Stand on one leg – have the other foot off the ground, but kept roughly parallel with the leg doing the supporting. Bend the knee slightly, but that knee angle should not change during the exercise (get a partner to watch for this, as it will be tempting to do so!). Now bend at the waist, allowing the back to round and reach slowly towards the floor. If your range allows, touch the floor with the fingertips and return to the starting position.

The first time you do this you may find you are touching done with the non-supporting foot regularly to avoid falling over. This is ok, but in later workouts, try to minimise this. When you have mastered this exercise, touching of the ground by the non-supporting leg means terminate the set – this is your challenge.

Not even a conversion from Australian spelling to US spelling, or editing of the grammar or layout! Just a straight (one of thousands) cut and paste. So yes, the Men’s Health submission was an un-credited, unreferenced submission.

A ‘breakthrough’ in later years – same description, but a name change for the exercise![xiii] [xiv]

Single Leg Romanian Deadlift: Stand on one leg – have the other foot off the ground, but kept roughly parallel with the leg doing the supporting. Bend the knee slightly, but that knee angle should not change during the exercise (get a partner to watch for this, as it will be tempting to do so!). Now bend at the waist, allowing the back to round and reach slowly towards the floor. If your range allows, touch the floor with the fingertips and return to the starting position.

It’s tough to watch an otherwise potentially intelligent species of animal blindly follow a misinterpretation. And its tough to watch the potential of this exercise I developed over years be diluted to look like and exercise when it’s not really doing much.

So unless you think it a worthy use of your training to copy a misinterpreted Men’s Health snippet, STOP LIFTING YOUR LEG!

Returning to the NCAA athlete who received a much-needed correction in exercise interpretation, I asked:

‘So how did you feel about the exercise when you were throwing your leg back?’

To which they replied:

‘Well actually, I could feel the exercise doing anything, and I didn’t understand why I was doing it. I did ask the strength coach, but their answer just didn’t add up’.

Mmm. not surprising. At least some human beings are in touch with their intuition…

The key is this – if you have read this you have been given a chance to stop lifting your leg, hold it parallel to the other, foot just off the ground, and get a real workout – the way it was intended!

[i] King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series King Sports International, Brisbane, Aust. (DVD)

[ii] King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series, King Sports International, Brisbane. (Audio)

[iii] King, I., 1998, How To Write Strength Training Programs: A Practical Guide, King Sports Publishing, Brisbane, Aust. (Book)

[iv] King, I., 1999, Ian King’s Killer Leg Exercises, t-mag.com (DVD)

[v] King, I., 1999, 12 Weeks of Pain – Limping into October – Pt 1, t-mag.com, 17 Sep 1999. (Article)

[vi] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!™, 1st Ed., King Sports Publishing, Bris. Aust. (Book)

[vii] King, I., 2000, How To Teach Strength Training Exercises, King Sports Publishing, Brisbane, Aust. (Book)

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

[ix] King, I., 2000, Make your legs soar, Men’s Health, November, p. 28-29. (Article)

[x] King, 2001, Advanced Leg Training: Stage 1, Fri, Jan 19, 2001

[xi] Single leg deadlift, Men’s Health, June 2000

[xii] ‘Authors’ name withheld to reduce drawing attention to plagiarists, 2003, Marcocycle, CA USA

[xiii] ‘Authors’ name withheld to reduce drawing attention to plagiarists, 2005, Program Design Bible, CA USA.

[xiv] ‘Authors’ name withheld to reduce drawing attention to plagiarists, The Female Breakthrough, xxx.

Ian King

The decline of Australian sporting performances

/by

Australia’s sports performances are in decline.  Yes, it’s a generalization, and if this is not the case in your sport, I am happy for you. However. to showcase this suggestion, I have selected five sports or sporting events that possess a proud and long history of international dominance or success. Sports interwoven in the Australian cultural psyche. And then, more importantly, I will address the question why I believe this is happening.

The five sports or sporting events I will reflect upon include swimming, tennis, rugby union, cricket and the Summer Olympic Games.

The recent World Swimming Championships gave Australia, a proud swimming nation, the lowest gold medal count since the 1980s:

“The medal tally of the world swimming championships just concluded in Budapest makes disturbing reading for an Australian …Australia’s gold medal count may have slumped at this event, but on total medals Australia are still equal second with Russia and China. All trail far in the wake of the sport’s only superpower, the USA (38).

However the gold standard is gold medals and by that score Australia have not sunk so low since the 1980s.”[1]

Australian tennis is in a slump. That’s the title of a recent national newspaper article.[2] The article discussed the recent Wimbledon Grand Slam performance by Australian tennis players:

“The Canberran led Australia’s nine-player contingent at the All England Club, with only qualifier Arina Rodionova advancing to the second round.

Kyrgios’s opening-round retirement with hip injury, coupled with difficult draws, meant there were no Australian men in the second round here for the first time since 2012 and only the second time since 1938.”

In the top 100 men’s world ranking Australia has currently only three players. [3]

In rugby union Australia is currently ranked number four in the world. Whilst a slide from say second to fourth or even third to fourth seems minimal, it represents a significant decline in the nations world ranking. Australia hit its low point in 2015 with ranking of 6th, and is currently sitting in 4th. Not acceptable for a team that sat in 2nd place for most of the first decade of this century.

To reinforce this point, at a provincial level, if the guaranteed finals appearance to a conference winner was removed, Australia may not have had a team in the eight-team finals in the last two years.

In Test cricket, Australia has had more months in number one sport in the ICC world rankings than any other team since the inception of this measurement method in 2003. However Australia test cricket current sits at third place, a long way behind South Africa (2nd) and India (1st), with only a slender lead over England, New Zealand, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. [4]

What about Olympic Games performances? At end of the 2016 Sumer Olympic Games in Rio, Australia was ranked in tenth position on the medal table with a total of 29 medals (8 gold, 11 silver, and 10 bronze). This was Australia’s lowest medal tally and lowest rank since the 1992 Olympics.[5] Australia peaked at the 2000 Sydney Olympics with 58 medals in total, and has declined in a linear fashion every Summer Games since.[6]

So what’s behind this pattern of decline? Everyone’s got an opinion, however few have participated and observed professional sport at the elite level for nearly forty years as I have. My suggestions will be dismissed by most, and benefitted by few.

Understand this – misinterpret the cause-effect relationship for losing, and you will fail to win. That’s why it’s so easy to dominate in sport – few are on track with their interpretation and solutions. Everyone’s got an opinion, few are qualified by track record as measured by the scoreboard to give them.

I believe that in the top three reasons why Australian sport is in decline is the way physical preparation is being implemented in this country. Let me give you some history.

The word ‘strength and conditioning’ is an American term, coined in 1981 by the then National Strength Coaches Association of America, who following their 1978 origin, realized they wanted to add something more to the title than strength. This belated lip service didn’t and hasn’t changed anything.

The NSCA was begun for college strength coaches who were involved in American football, that is ‘gridiron’. Whether is it optimal for this sport is another question, however few athletes in that sport run far enough to find out their muscle imbalance, and even fewer touch the ball to find out their technical limitations.

I suggest, after many decades of observation and involvement, that the original intent of the NSCA has not changed, and that the training method proposed are not suitable to the majority of sports.

So in 1988 the NSCA came to Australia. How do I know? Because I was part of it’s inception. However up until about the mid 1990’s there was less than five (yes, 5) people employed full time in this industry. Which meant the impact of the arrival of this American influence was very, very limited.

This all changed in the late 1990s, and into the 2000s. Now, post 2010, nearly every high school in the country (as in the US) has its own ‘S&C’ program, and most private high schools have their own in-house ‘S&C’ coach. Every teenage talent-identification program, every late teens/early twenties development squad, and every elite and professional squad have their own service providers and programs. In fact, in most private high schools, about 50% of the total training time is given to ‘S&C’ activities, and failure or refusal of the young athletes to participate in these dubious activities results in non-selection.

Australia now has twenty plus (20+ years, 1995 to present) of formal, compulsory American ‘strength and conditioning’ influenced programs. Now the impact is being felt.

So what are some of the reasons I am adamant that the sporting decline in this country is due to the way physical preparation is being done, and laying most of this at the feet of the ‘strength and conditioning’?

In tennis all national programs have ‘strength and conditioning’ compulsory from the age of 12 years upwards. In my observations and from my discussions with players and coaches, about 80% of all these young athletes are injured at any one time such that their ability to train and play pain free is compromised. Stress fractures of the lumbar are common place prior to the age of 16 years, and surgery involving shaving of the hip is rising at a rate where the statistics are looking like over 50% of the elite nationally ranked tennis players in Australia will have this surgery during their career.

Quite simply, most elite talent identified tennis players in this country will have surgery prior to the age of 20 years (more likely 18 years), and will be forced into retirement due to their physical inability to play the game by or prior to the age of 24 yrs.

Currently Australia has three top 100 world ranked men’s players, and at least two of these cannot complete tournaments currently due to serious, chronic injuries (Bernard Tomic and Nick Kyrgios). Tomic (ranked 93) is 24 and Kyrgios (ranked 20) is 22 years of age. Jordan Thompson (ranked 75) is 23 years of age. No Australian player in the top 100 men’s world ranking is over 24, and this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

On the basis of my hypothesis, Tomic at 24 years of age, is on the verge of fading out of the top 100. His ranking movement supports my hypothesis.

Now for rugby. The majority of talent identified young rugby players (>50%) will have surgery before they are twenty years of age. At least 25% will have surgery before they graduate from high school. The average number of surgery for a rugby player who plays into his late 20’s is about five.

Let me make this very clear – NO-ONE plays optimal sport on the background of surgery. It is physically impossible. There is a whole arm of medical and paramedical people really enjoying this situation. But the players are not benefitting.

I began preparing athletes in all these sports at the elite level in the 1980s, and have been involved in coach education at a state, national and overseas level from the early 1990s. I have a number of decades of involvement, contribution and participation. I have witnessed these changes first hand. This is not theory. You can argue it’s not science, but you can also put your head in the sand and say it’s not happening.

The trajectory is downwards. I have grave concerns for the physical (and mental) health of Australian athletes moving forward. Additionally, whilst I don’t advocate litigation in sport, the glaring failure of the duty of care by sporting bodies, institutions and schools towards the athletes in their care may only be addressed as a result of a civil suite.

In the 1980s strength training was an element of athletic preparation that was missing. The content that is being provided in ‘strength and conditioning’ in Australia, is in my opinion, inappropriate. Grossly inappropriate. Further exacerbation of the negative impact this training is having on sports performance is that it is taking the place of training that is far more valuable and important to long term athlete development – such as skill (technical) development.

In closing, is this just an Australian issue? No, I suggest, based on the Australian case study, that any nation will suffer the impacts of their nationalized application of American influence ‘strength & conditioning’ after if not before the 20 years anniversary.

I believe for example that the United Kingdom was about a decade behind Australia in embracing ‘strength & conditioning’. UK sport is currently out-performing Australian sport. In swimming, the media recognize that England is now ahead of Australia in swimming.

“The Brits are now better at swimming than Australia. Yes, you read that right.

The medal tally of the world swimming championships just concluded in Budapest makes disturbing reading for an Australian. Occasionally we have to accept that England will win the Ashes and the English rugby team will triumph but our superiority in swimming was a constant, until now.

A nation that has less than a dozen Olympic pools and is the world’s leading creator of head-up breaststrokers has been more successful at this year’s major championship than one bathed in sunshine most of the year round and, well, swimming in facilities.” [7]

In rugby England and Ireland are ranked ahead of Australia in current world rankings, and Scotland and Wales are not far behind.[8]

Rank Team Points
1  New Zealand 94.78
2  England 90.14
3  Ireland 85.39
4  Australia 84.63
5  South Africa 84.16
6  Scotland 82.47
7  Wales 81.73

In cricket England is only one close place behind Australia:[9]

•   ICC Test Championship
Rank Team Matches Points Rating
1  India 32 3925 123
2  South Africa 26 3050 117
3  Australia 31 3087 100
4  England 34 3362 99

And in tennis the UK have the same number of top 100 men’s tennis players as does Australia (3) however their rankings average is far superior to Australia. And they have players older than 24 years of age in this category, unlike Australia.

So this suggests to me that at around 2025 the UK may seem the same sporting decline Australia has, as at that point they will have had twenty or more years of American influenced ‘strength & conditioning’. Now I cannot say if they have applied this training to the teenage athletes in the same ‘enthusiastic’ and compulsory way that Australia has, however I suspect they may have.

What few appear to understand is that there are many ways to gain short-term advantage in sport, however few of these have long term advantages.

For example it is very easy to take a teenage athlete and accelerate the physical maturation process through say strength training, which is basically what ‘strength & conditioning’ is, despite the belated addition and presence of the word ‘conditioning’. So you can take a 14 year old and turn them in to the equivalent of a 17 year old on the following season. However there are many shortcomings with this, not the least the absence of high-level skill development, that will result in long term deficiencies. There is also the muscle imbalances that typically result from the poorly designed strength training programs that are epidemic in sport. So what looks good at the twelve-month mark sours quickly a few years later.

The failure to take a long-term approach to athlete preparation is a key factor in the decline of sports performance.

So why is not affecting the origin country? My hypothesis is at odds with the US dominance in world sport. I have battled with this question also. Here is my conclusion to date. America is blessed with a high population of what I call ‘load resistant’ athletes. A population of 300 plus million plus the gene pool of the whole world to recruit from. The question I also ask is ‘How good could America be if it had to optimize training, instead of getting by on its gene pool?’

So what are Australian sports doing about this decline? It’s early days and I don’t want to limit the possibilities. I will say this however – are they going to recognize the factors I do? Do they have the courage to make the changes to reverse these trends? These are the big questions. I could tell you what I think is going to happen (my coaching experience talking here), however I am going to remain open minded and optimistic (the humanitarian in me!).

However I can only guarantee that the challenge I have highlighted will be overcome and reversed by teams and individuals who share my vision and values on how to train athletes. Will that be you?

Note:

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

References

[1] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/olympics/brits-are-now-better-at-swimming-than-australia/news-story/64f60fb04fdd0282ce057ee48b78c2ef

[2] http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/wimbledon-2017-australian-tennis-in-a-slump-with-only-nick-kyrgios-ranked-in-the-world-top-20/news-story/282426075bd0d235215433b9f07f2930

[3] http://www.espn.com/tennis/rankings

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICC_Test_Championship

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics

[6] http://www.topendsports.com/world/countries/australia/events/olympics/medals.htm

[7] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/olympics/brits-are-now-better-at-swimming-than-australia/news-story/64f60fb04fdd0282ce057ee48b78c2ef

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

[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICC_Test_Championship

Ian King

There is a better way – Part 1: Why are you ignoring the message from Tom Brady, Kevin Durant, and Novak Djokovic?

/by

More athletes are having their athleticism destroyed, their careers shortened, and their long term quality of life threatened because of they way they are being trained than ever before in my lifetime.  The athlete training world has lost the plot.  Not concerned or don’t buy into this statement?  Then you don’t read any further.  There’s heaps of more valuable articles on the internet for you to read, such as how to create hypertrophy in the absence of skills, or the exact liquid temperature to consume your glutamine in the absence of any focus on foundational nutrition…For those that resonate with my concerns, I invite you to stay with me.

Is that my opinion or is it a scientific fact? It’s my opinion. Now those who don’t know or don’t appreciate (or don’t want to do either for various reasons) the depth of experience training athletes or track record in identifying limiting factors in sports training and performance and innovating solutions that have led to this opinion – you may be forgiven for discarding my opinion.

However before you disregard my conclusions on the state of athletic preparation, I want you know you are also disregarding the opinion of a couple of athletes that have also to train differently to what most are doing – Tom Brady, Kevin Durant and Novak Djokovic.

The way we train athletes does more harm than good. That’s the message I have been sharing since the 1990s. And it is not just getting worse. It is reaching diabolical standards.

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

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

…from my observations, most physical preparation programs do more harm than good. They may give short term results or confidence to the athlete, but result in significant performance restrictions and or injuries long term…. Quite simply, the majority of training programs are flawed from a physical preparation perspective and are causing the increased injuries. [3]

For those not familiar with these three athletes who share my opinion, allow me to provide a quick bio. Tom Brady is the most successful quarter back in American Football history with five Super Bowl Championship rings.  Kevin Durant just won his first championship ring with the Golden State Warriors in the NBA.  And Novak Djokovic has been dominating men’s tennis internationally during the ten years, frequently occupying the coveted No 1 world ranking. He is considered one of the greatest tennis players of all time, with a 80+% match winning rate (the second highest in the Open Era).

So what does Tom Brady have to say?

“I have been blessed to learn the right methods, through my nutrition, hydration, pliability and proper rest. It’s really not that hard if you do the right thing.”[4]

No mention of maximal loading or hypertrophy training.  In fact he apparently stays away from lifting heavy weights, and focuses on flexibility.[5]

What does Kevin Durant have to say?

“All the strength coaches were laughing at me and s—. They were giggling with each other that I couldn’t lift 185 pounds and I was like, ‘All right, keep laughing. Keep laughing.’ It was a funny thing because I was the only one that couldn’t lift it and I was struggling to lift it. I was embarrassed at that point, but I’m like, ‘Give me a basketball, please. Give me a ball.’….I was ranked the last person in camp, drills-wise. I was the worst player, and the first player didn’t get drafted. That tells you a lot about the significance of that s—.”[6]

What does Novak Djokovic have to say?

           ….And I know if I need to spend two hours a day stretching, I’ll spend that time, because I know that’s going to make me feel good.”

The following statement comes from his first coach, Jelana Gencic, who guided him between about the ages of 6 years through to his early teens.

“You know Novak was not too strong a boy,” Gencic said. “You know how he is now elastic and flexible. Do you know why? It’s because I didn’t want to work too hard with him.”…Gencic held up her racket. “This,” she said, “is the heaviest thing he had to handle. We only worked on his legs, his quickness, only fitness on the court, not in the weight room. We stretched and did special movements for tennis, to be flexible, to be agile and to be fast and with the legs. And now he’s excellent, excellent, excellent.”

Djokovic said Gencic’s approach was always long-term.

“Jelena was one of the people that had a huge impact and huge influence on that part of let’s say my profession, being flexible and taking care of my elasticity of the muscles,” he said Saturday. “Because she taught me and convinced me that if I stayed flexible, not only will I be able to move well around the court and be able to recover well after the matches, but also I’ll be able to have a long career……[7]

If you look at how the world is training athletes, its obvious that the majority are disregarding the messages from this dominant sporting icons.  Allow me acknowledge one of the most likely criticisms. That the opinions of these three athletes does not override the fact that thousands of other athletes have trained more trend like – heavy load, excessive volume, to high levels of fatigue.  I acknowledge this counter argument.  You are right. You can always provide evidence to support both the for and against of any argument.

However allow me to share what I believe is one indisputable fact – that the evidence provided in the case studies of these three athletes confirms that you can become the best in the world without the training proposed by most coaches and engaged in by most athletes. The way most train is not a common denominator with success.  It’s not necessary,  its not optimal, and I suggest in most cases does more damage than good.

I suggest that conforming to the dominant trends will is a common denominator with injuries, reduced athleticism, shortened careers and a lower quality of later life.

The great thing about human life is we get to choose what we believe in. If you as an athlete choose to embrace the mainstream approach, fantastic and good luck.  If you are a coach and also choose to believe in and embrace the current dominant training methods, I trust in the future you take time to reflect upon the outcomes, and be accountable.   Visit with your athletes 20-40 years after they have retired, and see how they are going. And take responsibility.

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

The training world is now one where you will get a job whether you are great or incompetent – there is simply demand for services. However if you want to go beyond simply ‘getting a job’, if you want to do the best by the athlete, to fulfill your potential – you are not going to achieve these goals training the way everyone else is training.

What is happening is not good enough, and the athlete is paying the price. The good news is there is a better way. The question remains – will you go there?

Note:

In July 2017 we are offering selected physical preparation coaches the opportunity to spend 21 days with my top coaches and myself; through webinar and forum interaction.  It’s not for everyone. Here are some of our pre-qualifications criteria:

  1. You need to have been coaching for at least 5 years.
  2. You need to have come to the conclusion that there is a better way (for both you and your clients).
  3. You need to have taken some action to date to study KSI material (not including free online articles).

21 days with us during which you will get an inside look at who we are, what we do, and why we are totally confident we lead the world in athlete preparation.  Free.  Email info@kingsports.net immediately if you want to be part of this program and qualify.

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

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

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

[4] http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2686534-in-better-shape-than-ever-at-age-39-heres-how-tom-brady-does-it

[5] http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tom-brady-says-hurting-time-162548454.html

[6] http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/kevin-durant-calls-nba-combine-waste-time-top/story?id=47338234

[7] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/03/sports/tennis/djokovic-bends-and-twists-but-doesnt-break.html

Ian King

Hoping to catch up to the other schools in strength & conditioning  

/by

At the end of a coaching session where I was giving back, along with a number of other of former elite athletes in a specific sport, the coordinator introduced me to a young man who he explained was a teacher at a private school who had been entrusted with the task of introducing ‘strength and conditioning’ to his school, with the specific intent of ‘catching up to the other schools in their association as far as strength and conditioning’.

I didn’t want to say anything to the young man, to spoil his eagerness, so I kept a straight face. But inside I cringed – ‘catch up to the other schools in strength and conditioning?’ Why would you want to do that? It should more accurately described as ‘catching down’.

Let me explain.

In the 1970s not many high schools had gyms and in the ones that did have, there was no formal programming and no ‘strength and conditioning’ service provision. Firstly because there was no such thing as a ‘strength and conditioning coach’, as the term ‘strength and conditioning’ was an afterthought by a professional organization with a strength focus that belated wanted to expand their focus without changing their acronym (you can read more about that in my original writings on this subject in ‘So You Want to Become…’). And secondly because organized physical preparation (as I prefer to call it) was not even provided to the majority of western world elite adult teams at that time.

In the early 1980s in Australia the majority of 18 year and older elite athlete that I worked with (and there were thousands) were what I called clean skins. They had never done formal physical preparation. I only had to undo the imbalances that their sport had created in their body. I summarized at that time it usually took three years of solid supervised and individualized training to clean them p to the level of being injury free for the most part for the rest of their career.

Fast forward to the second decade of the 21st century and what’s changed? I inherit broken athletes from the age of 12 upwards. ACL reconstruction, stress fractures of the lower back, shoulder and hip surgery – you name it. So what’s changed?

Many in the respective sports would tell you it’s just the sport – it’s inevitable. I don’t agree, and my experience doesn’t support this. Some will say the athletes are bigger and stronger and the impacts are greater. Really? Aside from non-specific strength tests, my experiences and observations don’t support this. A more recent trendy explanation is that the athletes specialize too early. Sounds good, and it may be a contributor, but for me this also fails to explain the difference. So what is my conclusion?

In the 1970s and 1980s athletes gaining exposure to formal physical preparation as they entered elite ranks around 20 years of age typically retired at about 30 years or age. So that’s about 10 years. What if that retirement was forced more by physical preparation inducted injury than age or their sport? Now holding that thought for a moment, what if take those same flawed training concepts and applied them to a 20 year old? They would be out of the sport by about 20 years of age!

And that’s my theory. In fact I go as far as to say if a young athlete is talent identified around 8-12 yeas of age, and has the (mis)fortune of being exposed to ‘elite strength and conditioning’ – they will be injured by 16 years of age, undergone significant sports-injury related surgery by 18 years of age, and unable to play their sport by about 20 years of age as a general rule.

So in summary when I see the same flawed training methods applied to adults being applied to young athletes, I fear for their future.

So what makes me conclude that most training is flawed? During my last four decades of seeking answers and excellence in how to train, I have reached certain conclusions and theories on what it takes to create or avoid an injury.

Are my conclusions the same as the masses? No. Should this be a concern? Only if you are a conformist. If your dominant need is to be liked, and to achieve this you need to be like others, then you would be concerned by the fact that I have reached certain theories that differ from the mainstream. On the other hand if you realize that to get a different and ideally better result than the masses, you need to train differently – then you would be excited.

In my opinion the only improvements we have seen in training is in the ability to measure it, the technology of equipment, and the technology of the surgery to repaid the injuries.

Could it be possible that what the majority – and that probably means you – are doing more damage to good in their training? That is my suggestion. Is it popular? No. Is it easy to discredit? Yes. Does this what ever else is doing approach to training result in the best possible sporting out comes? No.

So if I am on track, why do most continue on this path? The answers lies there. Because most do it. And the majority are so insecure about their actions they seek comfort in the masses. Will the get away with it? Legally yes, because the interpretation will be that is what is accepted practice. Should they be able to sleep at night? I suggest not, if they have a conscience.

Why I am I so firm about this? I speak for the athlete. My heart goes out to the legally minor young athlete who has an adult guide them to life-long, career threatening, quality of life threatening injuries. There is a better way – I teach it openly and have done for decades. I believe that perhaps in the next generation, after my time on this earth, what I teach will be accepted as the final stage of truth as described by 19th century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer – ‘accepted as being self-evident’.

But what about the one or two generations of young athletes who paid the price in their ‘strength and conditioning’ training between 1980 and whenever a better way is accepted?

So did I get excited for the young man empowered to bring his school ‘Strength and conditioning’ program up speed with other schools in their association? Not al all. I felt sad for the by-products of this intent. The young, innocent and trusting athletes. They are not, in my opinion, going to ‘catch up’. They are going to ‘do down’ in their athletic development.

Ian King

Knee injuries – How can you hope to solve the problem using the stimulus that caused the problem?

/by

As a student of sports training and competition I took up the opportunity to watch the exercise selection from the waiting room at the physical therapists. I was surprised at the amount of quad exercises used over the weeks of my observing.

Later as I lay on a table in the therapy clinic I listened to a young male client answer the question from this physical therapist.

Therapist: Okay what have we done so far?
Patient: Squats.
My mind: That’s one.
Patient: Wall squats.
My mind: That’s two
Patient: Lunges.
My mind: That’s three.
Patient: Walking lunges.
My mind: That’s four.
Patient: Step ups.
My mind: That’s five.

So far, the workout was 100% quad. I shook my head and said a prayer for the patient. Now to be fair I did see one non-quad exercise being done later. But the first five and the overwhelming majority of exercises being used in the rehab program for what I believe was an ACL surgery patient were quad exercises.

I found this ironic, because it was this very profession some 30 years ago that brought me attention to the risks of ‘quad dominance’ in muscle balance and its relationship with gait and joint integrity. And here I was, some three decades later, and they were creating that exact same condition.

I took this quad dominant concern, along with my own observations, quite seriously and spend a decade or so developing and refining before publishing a concept I called ‘Lines of Movement’ in 1998. You might not recognize the concept title I gave it but you will recognize the terminology by virtue of the prolific unreferenced and uncredited publishing by people who knew better.

In relation to the lower body, I developed the concept to ‘hip dominant’ exercises to counter the concern I learnt from my therapist colleagues about ‘quad dominance’. Now, nearly 20 years after I first published this concept, my theories about the risks of quad dominance have become greater and clearer. I rank the muscle imbalance presented by quad dominant training as one of the highest correlates with ACL ruptures and similar.

If I am track, then the question can be asked:

How can you hope to solve the problem (ACL rupture risk) using the same stimulus that contributed to the problem?

Now I understand that there are many reasons why most will disregard this message. Firstly, and most importantly, because the majority of ‘performance’, ‘injury prevention’ and ‘injury rehab’ strength training does just this – create quad dominance. And to accept this and change would take the emotional intelligence to conclude one is off track and needs to redirection one’s training programs. That’s the biggest reason the message will be ignored.

I understand this. I understand others are waiting for ‘evidence’. I say look at the changing injury landscape. This injury was extremely rare in the 1980s, and even after the surgery became available there was not an instant increase in ACL incidence – so the low incidence was not because the surgery was not available. It was just a rare injury. It is not any more. So what changed? Why are so many athletes suffering from this injury now? But this would take again a degree of commitment to excellence and a detachment from ego that few are committed to.

Evidence is, I suggest, another way of saying I will only do it when I see most others doing it, and when I am doing what most others are doing, I feel ‘right’ and ‘safe’.

What I do say is this – not withstanding the frequent medical claims I here quoted by patients all too often about how their graft will be stronger than the one their Maker gave them – 50% of all ACL patients will have repeat knee surgery, and 100% will have premature degenerative changes such as osteoarthritis. I would not wish this on anyone. If it was your child would you want this?

So while the masses wait the quarter to full century it may take for the ‘evidence’ to ‘allow’ them to take note of my conclusions, another generation or more will suffer from life changing injury and surgery such as the ACL.

It does not have to be this way for you and those in your care, however that is up to you.

Ian King

Ian King

I spoke to xxxx (professional) and they said it can’t be so….  

/by

There is a phenomenon in sport, and perhaps life, where decisions are made about potential, possibilities and peoples lives from a remote, authoritarian and dogmatic perspective.

But who does it serve? Surely it wouldn’t be that humbling to take a less all-knowing approach?

In the 1980s a young national league Australian Rules player suffered what we now call chronic fatigue. The coach told him “I talked to the trainer and there is nothing wrong with you. You just aren’t fit enough.” So they send him off on a special training camp where he paddled in the ocean for hours, ran along beaches for hours, swam in open seas for hours.

Who does it serve? The coach’s and trainers need to be able to diagnose all conditions, the ego of the trainer about more of their services being needed…but what about the athlete? Would it be so demeaning to seek independent unbiased professional advice? To say “I don’t really know why you are complaining about being tired, but lets explore your situation and find out more to help you get over the condition.”

In the 1990s in the lead up to a World Cup, a head national coach put his team through a grueling training session, applying the dominant trend of the time, which essentially ended the team’s hope of winning (and that’s the opinion of some of the athletes involved in retrospect). Faced with a very tired and sore group of athletes, the head coach told the team: “I have spoken with the support staff and they have all told me you can’t be tired, so you are not tired!”

Who does it serve? The coach’s need to be right, the ego of the professional o feeling good about being remotely all knowing…but what about the athlete? Or the team? Would it be so terrible to say “I don’t really know why you are complaining about being tired, but lets explore your situation and find out more to help us win?”

In the 2000s a provincial level rugby playing hurt his shoulder. The coach, supported by the medical staff, decided he was okay, and sent him back on. He damaged his shoulder so extensively later in that game it shortened his career and affected his quality of life forever.

Who does it serve? It helped the team win that game. It confirmed the coach had full control over medical interpretations….but what about the athlete? Would it have been so scary for the team to lose that player for the rest of the game to prevent future surgery? To have said “I don’t like the thought of losing you in this tight game but based on your concerns lets check out your injury and not take risks with you.”

In the post 2010 decade I was working with a young UK soccer player who was recovering unsuccessfully from surgery. He had entered into an agreement to play for a US college on scholarship, but was in no condition to do so. The head college told him “The physical therapist tells me there is no reason why you cannot play and train so I expect you to turn up on Monday and participate fully.” And that was before the physical therapist had even laid hands on the athlete…

Who does it serve? The interests of the college, the ego of the professional…but what about the athlete? Would it be so dangerous to say “I don’t really know why you are reporting pain or concern, but lets explore your situation and find out more?”

Post 2010 I raised a point of concern with a sports coordinator of a high school about injury risks in a training session. The response included “I have spoken to our strength and condition coach and he tells me that the volume of training the athletes are doing does not represent a risk.”

Who does it serve? The interests of the school, the ego of the professional to be right, to be all knowing…,but what about the athlete? Would it be so bad to say “I don’t really know why you concerned about pain, but lets explore your situation and find out more?”

I don’t know what training is going to do. I have a theory or hypothesis and I take it carefully in case I am off-track. If it turns out I missed the target, then I seek to amend the situation, and learn from it. It’s not that hard if you can put aside the need to be all knowing or be right. I even tell the athlete in advance – I don’t know for sure but this is where I am thinking of going, is that okay, and let’s learn from this. Together. It’s not that difficult.

Who does it serve? The athlete.