Strength Development Archives - Page 3 of 11

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

May 30, 2018/by Ian King

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

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

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

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

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

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

So where specifically do the risks lie? Here are

Manufacturing standards
Misleading products and product claims
The sale of illegal supplements
Supplements containing drugs
Raw material selection and contamination
Truth in labeling
Outsourcing manufacturing
All of the above

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

1. Manufacturing standards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Misleading products and product claims

The supplement history has a long history of deceit.

In 1989 Nautilus founder Arthur Jones was quoted as saying:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. The sale of illegal supplements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Supplements containing drugs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These risks are summarized in a 2017 paper as below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some weight loss supplements contain prescription-strength diuretics.

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

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

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

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

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

5. Raw material selection and contamination

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

How is this working out?

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

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

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

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

Of the 134 products tested, 53 were found to have “substantially elevated” levels of the following heavy metals – Lead, Mercury, Cadmium, Arsenic and BPA.
Of the whey-based protein powders, about 10 percent of contained lead levels above health guidelines.
Of the plant-based protein powders.75 percent had measurable levels of lead.
Each contained on average twice the amount of lead per serving as other products.
In addition to lead, the plant powders in several cases contained mercury, cadmium and arsenic above health-based guidelines.

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

In summary:

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

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

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

6. Truth in labeling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Outsourcing manufacturing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. All of the above

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“It is easier to get forgiveness than permission.”

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

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

Now in fairness they do add:

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 22, 2018/by Ian King

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

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

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

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

Two paths

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systems support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learning what works in systems support

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

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

System support nutritional supplement recommendations

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

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

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

Vitamin and minerals

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

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

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

Immune system support

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

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

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

Grape seed extract
Certain strains of mushroom
Baker’s yeast

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

Joint support

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

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

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

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

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

Digestive system support

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

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

These include but are not limited to:

Fiber supplements
Pro and prebiotics
Digestive Enzymes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sleep support

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

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

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

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

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

The path less traveled

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 10, 2018/by Ian King

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

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

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

1940-1950s

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

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

1960s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isn’t that interesting.

Conclusion

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ban the band!

April 4, 2018/by Ian King

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IK: Excellent. Then what happens next?

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

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

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

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

Athlete: It’s get harder.

IK: Excellent. Then what happens next?

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

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

Athlete: I am usually getting weaker.

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

Athlete: No, it doesn’t.

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

Athlete: I need to cheat to finish the rep.

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

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

With that, we went back to training.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

[6] “Minny: “Eat my shit.”

Hilly: “Excuse me?”

Minny: “I said eat…my…shit.”

Hilly: “Have you lost your mind?”

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

*Minny eyes the pie*

Hilly: “Did…What?”

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

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

*Minny runs off*

Missus Walters: “RUN, MINNY, RUUN!!”

*She says this while laughing*”

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

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

March 1, 2018/by Ian King

Physical preparation in athlete preparation is over-rated.

It’s 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/

If only they knew….

January 23, 2018/by Ian King

….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!

Considerations before you pick up a Kettlebell again

November 30, 2017/by Ian King

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…

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

October 16, 2017/by Ian King

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 let’s 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 exercises.

	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 lifetime 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 was 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
Prioritization 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….

References

[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

Stop lifting your leg!

October 13, 2017/by Ian King

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.

The decline of Australian sporting performances

August 3, 2017/by Ian King

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 6^th, and is currently sitting in 4^th. Not acceptable for a team that sat in 2^nd 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 (2^nd) and India (1^st), 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