Ian King

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

/by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who does it serve? The athlete.

Ian King

Physical train wrecks  

/by

It does not have to be this way

Every day I speak with athletes who have more injuries than I believe are necessary or acceptable. The list of injuries is getting longer, relative to the decades past. This may be the trend, however no athlete needs to follow the trend. However for them to buck the trend, they will need to think differently, act differently and have different values than those around them. Because too many in the sports circle now accept, embrace and even benefit from this high incidence of injury.

Todays athlete injuries story – shoulder surgery at 17 years of age, multiple shin stress fractures in the next few years, following by multiple ankle joint and ligament strains in the next few years, followed by a dislocated wrist.

The one before – ACL, torn peck, etc etc.

Now I don’t blame the athlete in the first instance, especially when their first injury was in an age when in other aspect of life society does not deem them legally responsible. Noting that the exposure to ‘strength and conditioning’ was about two years prior to the shoulder injury, I confirm another example supporting my hypothesis that if we were to remove all ‘strength and conditioning’ programs globally, the athlete injury rare would halve or more.

In the first instance the sports administrators, coaches, physical coaches, and commercial sellers of goods and services should take a look at their values and competencies. Coaches – if just getting a job gives you a sense of fulfilment, I hope one day you look for more, including best the best you can be for the athlete. However as that is not likely to occur en-mass, the responsibility must come back to the athlete, especially the athlete 18 years or older.

Athletes – it’s time to wake up. You don’t have to be injured. You don’t have to accept this paradigm. But you are going to need to do something about it yourself because no one else is. Its your call. Accept the smorgasbord of injuries like most do – or be different. Find out what you can do to fulfill your potential through injury free training and competing. It is possible. We do it every day.

Ian King

I never get lost – I’m always being told what I should and shouldn’t do….  

/by

I’ve a personal joke about never getting lost because in everything I do or go there is always someone keen to tell me what I can or should do or not do!

Here are some of the things I have been told I can and can’t do, or what I am. That I chose to ignore and instead make my own decision about what I should do or be, just as I encourage everyone to do.

You can’t coach!

It was about 1981 and I was doing a sport specific coach accreditation course. I got a ‘C’ for my practical coaching assessment, and it was pretty clear the coach teaching the course believed I could not coach. That coach went on to be the national coaching director amongst other roles. Right or wrong, I keep going, and there are thousands of athletes who would score me a bit higher than a ‘C’ from their personal experiences!

You can’t teach!

I was doing my final year of practical PE teaching and the superving teacher left me no doubt as to his assessment – I could not teach. Right or wrong, I keep going, and there are thousands of athletes and hundreds of thousands in training around the world who have benefitted from and enjoyed my teachings.

You don’t know what you are doing in training!

I was the first Australian to make a living out of training athletes, and yet many who came later were common in their claims that I didn’t know what I was doing. Apparently I had no idea on how to train athletes. Knowing what I now knew about the intentions of these ‘coaches’, I get why Right or wrong, I keep going, and there are thousands of athletes who whose sporting goals were met or exceeded, and hundreds of thousands if not millions whose training has been positively impacted by my training conclusions.

You can’t write!

After I published my first book on bodybuilding (Get Buffed! 1999) I received an email from an established industry writer with professional training in journalism. He went paragraph after paragraph about how bad my writing was. I got the sense he wanted me to stop writing, and knowing his influences, I get why. Right or wrong, I keep going, and there are hundreds of thousands of people around the world if not millions whose training has been positively impacted by my writings.

You can’t present and your concepts are crap!

During a seminar in Boston around 2000 I noted a mass walk out of attendees, let by a local coach who I had never head of before, despite travelling throughout and studying all prominent S&C coaches in North American for the prior decade. Later that day he sent a scathing email to my host telling them my content was really bad, and my delivery was really bad, and threatening what would happen to my host if they dared bring me back. Knowing what I now know about the intentions of this ‘coach’, I get why. Right or wrong, I keep presenting, every year there are thousands around the world who seem to really enjoy and benefit from my presentations!

You are an arse-hole and nobody likes you!

During a presenters dinner at a national level conference about a decade ago I listened to a physical preparation coach embellish their role in the success of an athlete (nothing new about that!). Then I watched them walk into the trap being set by another at the dinner table, who then set about challenging why that had had certain technical limitation. At this stage the embellisher didn’t know which hole to crawl into. I was almost on the floor laughing. It was, at least in my opinion, really funny! I got the obligatory ‘no-one likes you email’ a few days later…

Shortly after than I got an email from a young wannabe who sought direction in relation to his first knee reconstruction. I asked him some direct questions, which resulted in an immediate push back, and that was the end of the dialogue. Within 12 months that same person who could not engage in a straight discussion about why they got injured in the first place has work hard on marketing themselves on having a bullet proof solution on how to prevent or rehab knee injuries….

I get a lot of emails (nothing new about that) most asking for guidance. When I give them guidance, I look at their willingness to help themselves. Are they willing to buy the educational material I suggest, or is their interest limited to if they receive ongoing free email mentoring from me. Sometimes I even ask them what action they have taken in relation to the prior actions that I gave them to do to test their true intentions. Sometimes this doesn’t go down too well, like the one writer who suggested I was an arse-hole for suggesting that there was a limit to my desire to provide free email mentoring in the absence of a commitment to take the actions I recommend….

Right or wrong if you speak BS (there a number of bi or multi-linguals in the industry…English…BS…!) I will laugh. Right or wrong if you ask me send me emails asking for my help I will continue to challenge you in your thinking and (I know, very audacious!) expect you to take action to find your own answers also! If you don’t like it, stop BS’ing or don’t send me emails asking for something when you are not willing to take action for yourself, to reflect on your own paradigms!

I keep answering emails in the same I reserve the right to ask you a question also way. And every year (and there’s been a few years since emails entered our lives) there are thousands around the world who seem to really enjoy and benefit from my responses!

Now I ‘ve give heaps of personal examples. I know you have heaps too. The only question is – will you stand true to your path or be buffeted by the actions of others whose motives are at best questionable? Will you be true to yourself, or feel the need to follow the directions given to you indirectly by those who do not necessarily have your best interests at heart?

We all face these decisions, ever day.

Ian King

Trust and action  

/by

I speak and present to a lot of people. Ideally to highly pre-qualified people who have my experience and drive to excellence. However in the case of presenting to large groups I understand the need to be give anyone in the audience a chance to be exposed to the lessons I share, knowing some will ignore the message for a variety of reasons.

One of the most common reasons I believe is I teach things that are beyond the current dominant paradigms, things that are not trend yet – so the majority won’t want to do them – but things that once the industry trend-spotters pick up on the groundswell and imminent tipping point they will rush to publish them (even if it means rewriting chapters from previously published book) – just to be seen as the ones who ‘brought this stuff to light’ (one of my favorite BS statements code for we had no idea but realized it was going to be a hit so we wanted to be associated with it’s popularity).

So when I receive feedback from an otherwise lowly pre-qualified seminar attendee who has never heard of me before, never met me before, and never had a one on one consult with me before – they were simply in the audience – that they have taken action and it has opened their eyes to the possibilities and potentially changed the quality of their lives – well, that’s really, really rewarding.

This is exactly what happened when I received this email today:

“Hi Ian, I met you on Saturday afternoon in Perth, I was asking questions about where to start when you’re broken. You recommended a stretching DVD. Was that the Guide to Individual Stretching that you talking about? And is the DVD the same as the video that is available on your site? If so, then I’ll buy the one on your site. I just wanted to be sure it was the correct video that you mentioned.

After the presentation I went searching and found an article that you wrote a few years back on the Lazy Man’s Guide to Stretching.

About four weeks ago I tore my left soleus, only a minor tear, but the second one on that leg in two years (the previous one was a grade 2 tear in the gastroc). After resting for a week my physio said I could walk as much as I wanted as long as the leg didn’t hurt, and not to walk two days in a row so as to give it time to rest in between. Since I don’t have a moderate bone in my body, I walked 12km in the next few days (with the days off in between) at a pace that was only just slower than my running pace. My calf didn’t hurt, but I did end up inflaming both hips and glutes. Since then, for the last three weeks I’ve had a burning muscular pain in my glutes and aching hips. Foam rolling, massage, gentle walking, none of it really helped. It improved a little, but was hurting constantly.

I did the Lazy Man’s stretching last night, and a few minutes after finishing I realized that neither my hips nor glutes were hurting. I had a little bit of an ache this morning when I got up, so did the stretches again and have been fine all day. Three weeks of discomfort and it’s gone with two sessions of stretching.

This is why I’d rather not wait a few weeks for the DVD if I can access it via video now. If a few simple stretches can fix that then I can’t wait to see what a proper full body routine could do! Thanks,”
–M, Perth

To which I replied:

“M – that is the DVD I was referring to – you can get it hard copy here

http://kingsports.net/GetBuffed/dvds/menu.htm

Or electronic here:
http://subscriptions.viddler.com/kingsports

Great to see you dig up an online article! Here are a few more for you:
http://kingsports.net/ksi/articles.htm

When you say:

“Three weeks of discomfort and it’s gone with two sessions of stretching.”

I get very happy! And people wonder why I am so confident about he effective of my conclusions about the best way to train!

To reward you for you willingness to trust my recommendations, to take action, to find ways to heal yourself – I have just given you free 1 month access to the ‘KSI Athletes, Family and Friends section of the KSI E-Video Library – which includes the e-version of the dvd you are going to buy – so that you can get started now! And you will note this section includes so much more incredible (and now free to you) content!

Well done! I am so proud of you!”
–Ian King

Wow! Isn’t it great to impact peoples lives through training, only possible with trust and action!

Ian King

Ian King

NSCA seeks feedback from long serving members  

/by

I received an email from the NSCA that was unique in my 30+ years of membership. They recognised my long-term membership, and sought my opinion. I don’t recall that ever happening before. So I shared it with them. At the end of the questionnaire there was a box to tick if you were happy for them to share your feedback in an upcoming publication. I ticked that box, but am not holding my breath as to it happening. The questions and and mhy responses are below:

 

Dear Ian,

First of all, I want to thank you for your commitment to the NSCA as an organization through 10 or more years of service. Our Association is only as strong as its members, and you have raised the bar in terms of your commitment to the NSCA and to the profession – thank you!

We hope you can spare a few minutes of your time to complete a short profile of yourself by answering a few questions about your experience as a member and your growth as a professional.

Thanks in advance for a few minutes of your time to share your membership experience with us. We plan to feature several of these responses in an upcoming NSCA Bulletin as well as other channels.

* 1. Tell us a little about your current role in strength and conditioning.
I began coaching in 1980 and founded one of the world’s first athlete preparation / coach education companies in 1986, and continue in this capacity to this date.

* 2. How did you first hear about the NSCA?
I was first introduced to the NSCA in about 1981 by my college professor, who gave me a number of his personal NSCA journals, and I became a member shortly afterwards.

* 3. What are the most significant changes you’ve seen in your line of work since you became a member of the NSCA?
I believe the most significant changes I’ve seen in my line of work is the Internet, and not necessarily for the better. The Internet has provided the opportunity for individuals who lack integrity and experience to plagiarize and promote themselves beyond their competencies. When these same individuals are then giving positions of teaching and influence in professional development such as presented at the NSCA convention, it provides a sub-standard and inappropriate role model to the young members who are seeking direction early in their careers. This has not been a positive step forward in this profession. The losers are the athletes and others influenced by athlete training. We are seeing, in my professional opinion, an epidemic of training induced injuries, largely as a result of publications and teachings by individuals who lack the experience (in some case any experience training athletes) to be teachers.

* 4. What is the most meaningful highlight of your career since becoming an NSCA member?
Helping athletes fulfill their potential as athletes and in life, and guiding coaches to achieve similar results with athletes.

* 5. Why have you stayed with the NSCA these years?
I have stayed with the NSCA as a member for over 30 years because I am thankful for the opportunities to meet with and learn from experienced coaches during the formative years of my career, during the 1980s and 1990s. I have chosen to support and remain loyal for this reason, combined with an optimistic hope that one day the NSCA may return to an organization of values more similar to the early days, rather than what i see now in the NSCA. I have also remained a member despite the NSCA choosing not to take a stand against plagiarism and other blatant ethical breaches, not to fulfill its promise and potential as an organization that sets a high standard of ethics and enforces it. And I have chosen to remain loyal despite the NSCA’s choice to endorse plagiarism and plagiarists by appointing certain speakers to their events knowing they have an extensive track record of unethical behavior. As such you are testing my desire to remain loyal.

* 6. Why did you choose NSCA over other associations?
When I joined the NSCA (early 1980s) there was no other organization. However over time i have noted the NSCA has moved away from its roots of training athletes through strength & conditioning coaches to a greater personal training focus.

7. How can the NSCA better serve you? (optional)
I only ask that the NSCA give consideration to its role in maintaining ethical behavior in an environment, which is in great need of it. I am sure that had Fleck & Kraemers books (or any other prominent NSCA member) been plagiarized to the extend that my books have, that the offenders would not have avoided sanction, and that the offenders would not have been speaking at the NSCA conventions, including the upcoming 2015 convention. This lack of consistency in maintaining industry standards has many pitfalls, i suggest, and is a failing of the NSCA to fulfill it’s potential to provide an ethical environment for all members. I am encouraged and thankful, however, that for the first time in over 30 years, that my long service has been recognized and my opinion sought, although I am realistic, based on the responses (or lack of) that I have received from the NSCA during the last five years, as to whether my message will be heeded.

Ian King

Should I stretch before or after training?  

/by

Shortly after the ‘stretching before training and games is bad’ paradigm raised up in the late 1990s, a default position was also promoted – to stretch afterwards. Ironic (or tragic) in that in my opinion for the most part, those promoting this position don’t stretch and have low competency and personal scores in flexibility.

I am often asked my position on this topic. The mere fact a person asks indicates they have been influenced in some way by this ‘trend’. Here is typically how I answer this:

The new athlete asked: “Do would you recommend stretching before or after training?”

Coach King: “Stretch before. Stretching afterwards is the default positioned promoted by those involved in discouraging effective stretching, their motive something we could chat fo hours on.

Stretching after has the single advantage of having higher body temperature, which in itself is not a pre-requisite for success or change from stretching.

Stretching after has the following disadvantages:
1. You fail to receive the benefits of pre-training stretching, which include but are not limited to increased joint gap therefore reduced joint wear, reduced compression of nerves, better blood supply, and less pain.
2. You are tired and therefore risk the following – performing the stretching will less quality than if done first and fresh; and not doing it all because you just want to have a shower, meal etc and relax

So if it was a choice, I would always do before.”
–Ian King

Ian King

Mobility training is fake stretching  

/by

The new athlete said to me: “I do my mobility work and then I feel good for a while but during the workout I feel all stiff again.”

I said: “Before we go any further I just to make it clear I don’t use the word ‘mobility’, at least not in the way it is currently used.”

Athlete: “Why not?”

IK: “I believe the term mobility is used to give people the feeling they are doing what stretching used to do for them before the ‘stretching inquisition’. In other words it’s fake stretching, and it’s about as effective as a fake.”

Athlete: “Why do people say stretching is bad and mobility exercises are better?”

IK: “Let me share with you my observations over the last few decades. First athletes stretched or they didn’t, depending on their sport historical or their own individual influences. For example, track and field and dance and martial arts and gymnastics were great examples of sports that stretched. But not the only ones. I can remember attention given to stretching in one of my first weightlifting books, and also in other strength books from the 1970s.

There was no judgment – you either did it or not. Then I noted the rise of popularity in stretching and at the same time the rise of individuals and organizations such as academic institutions keen to control sport and leave their foot print.

Now the individuals involved in seeking to be in control for the most part didn’t stretch themselves, were not flexible and no-one had worked out how to make money from stretching.

I believe this is why stretching is being demonized. I suggest that when those who seek to control information and trends find themselves able to touch their toes or make a quick buck, you will be given the green light.

But you don’t have to wait – you can take the benefits of stretching right now.

As for ‘mobility’ warm ups – apart from raising body and joint temperature (which are good things) they have no significant impact on flexibility. So stop kidding yourself. Stretch first, and then if you need or want specific warm ups, do activities that you are going to be done in load – not some non-specific irrelevant exercise just because everyone else is….

So if you are training with us, there will be no fake stretching….”

Ian King

Are your single leg training concepts from the 1990s still relevant?

/by

I recently received a email where the writer asked:

“ Dear Ian, I’ve come across your single leg 2 part routine limping into October online. This I believe is the gold dust I have been looking for. I’ve been attempting to create something similar to this without realizing it!

Is this something you would still recommend as I notice it was posted online in the late 90’s? It still seems very relevant to me.

I feel it’s next to exactly what I’m looking for. A routine to follow for a 3-4 week phase that will help reduce any muscular imbalances I have before I start my pre season conditioning early June.

Any advice on this would be very much appreciated. Kind regards.”
–Tom

This is what I responded with:

“This is a program that changed the way the world trains, and the reason why you were looking to create something similar – because it created a human trend that spread throughout the world. Take the concepts I promoted in the late 1990s about unilateral body weight lower body exercises, lines of movement, speed of movement, control drills prior to strength training and so on, out of those interesting books on ‘functional training’ and books would fall over, and no, despite the complete absence of ethical and professional referencing, that author did not come up with those ideas. What he do however was orchestrate the famous ‘Boston Walkout’….

https://youtu.be/DqNvk12dotE

Is the content of this 1990s program still relevant? I don’t produce trends. I produce concepts that serve forever. So yes, it is still relevant. It will not in itself solve your problems because it only addresses the strength side, and there is so much more to training as an athlete than ’strength and conditioning’, despite the dominant paradigm created by a historical incident of convenience in 1981. Keep in mind also that it is a generic program, not individualised.

On that point, on individualization, it’s ironic that the industry has not only failed to moved towards higher competency in individualization, but the trend based focus is attaches to (and you have been caught up in) has result, I suggest, in a move away from individualization. The art of individualizing training is not taught, and possessed by few. It goes a massive distance further than doing a weekend course with a three digit trademark certification and buying the related testing device.

On the point of relevance I developed these ideas during the late 1980s and early 1990s and published them after over a decade of experimentation and refining in the late 1990s. If you think the ideas may be dated, you are more alone than you may appreciate.

Now it was only about 5 years later, but I nearly fell out my chair and swallowed my protein shaker when I was sent (by a concerned colleague) a video from a 2003 seminar in Nevada where the presenter presented my unique approach to bodyweight exercises and then told the audience the only way to learn more about them was through personal communication with himself or by buying his book (must have had amnesia about the dozen or so resources he learnt them from that he could have recommended, or the actual source of the info…)

https://youtu.be/dbE90Fr_vgc?list=PL502185E23BBDA89F

I was shattered to see virtually the entire contents of my ‘How to Write Strength Training Programs’ book (1998) repackaged verbatim and promoted as an ‘industry bible’, (verbatim and lightly paraphrased), in 2005 and again in 2009, with the ‘authors’ seeking to pass it off as their own works, sold for 3 times the price people would have paid for the original works.

https://youtu.be/E5sQ05aA728?list=PL502185E23BBDA89F

I was ‘intrigued’ when I noted an article by a certain ‘functionalist’ author promoting the benefits of single leg exercises in around 2011, over 10 years since I championed the concept against industry beliefs, and in the same online magazine. I failed to see how you could publish with such ‘revolutionary’ ideas in the same magazine over a decade later! And then there was the national convention in a large island country where the key note speaker proudly presented on the concept of stability exercises etc., and new strength sub-quality that I published about in the early 1990s, nearly 20 years prior!

So if these otherwise ‘highly regarded’ industry experts (although I not sure how you get ‘highly respected’ when the C+V keyboard buttons are your best friend?) find worthiness to promote off these concepts some 10-20 years after they were first published (and up to 30 years after I began developing them conceptually), and the market didn’t react poorly to them (after all, some will only present on content they are confident will be ‘popular’ and ’trendy’) then this may be a hint of their timelessness!

I trust this answers your question.
–Ian King

Ian King

When buff is ‘bad’  

/by

I was near the finish line at a high school yesterday watching over 100 thirteen to fourteen year old boys complete a cross country race. As I do everywhere I studied their shape and development.

Apart from the expected changes some were experiencing consistent with entering the early teen age years, there was another noticeable physical sign on many of the boys.

It was apparent to me which of the boys was engaging in body shape changing strength training. Now for most the changes they were making would have been impressive – larger muscles, heavier and potentially stronger than they were or their peers were. This is what would catch the eye of most, and appear impressive.

And I have no doubt in the short term they will experience these benefits and feel rewarded for participating in what is considered normal and appropriate – the application of strength training to young athletes applied with the current paradigms.

However, based on over three decades of stuying the human body’s response to stimuli, and seeking to understand and then be able to predict the relationship between cerain stimuli in training and the incidence and severity of injury, I d did not share that feeling of being impressed.

Quite the opposite actually. I added more numbers to the sample group for the purposes of testing my hypothesis of future injuries patterns for these boys.

What I saw was a potential relationship where over 80% of these boys engaged in what is considered normal practice strength training will suffer injuries during the next few years BECAUSE of their strength training.

The most glaring imbalance I saw in their body was quad dominance, with their quad muscles over-shading lagging hip muscles – hamstrings and glues.

During the 1980s, after identifying muscle imbalance from traditional strength training, I began to develop a concept I called ‘:Lines of movement’. What resulted were six primary divisions or categories of exercise, which I didn’t publish until 1998.

These categories included:

• Hip dominant • Quad dominant • Horizontal push • Horizontal pull • Vertical push • Vertical pull Within a few years this concept was hijacked and published unreferenced by certain ‘writers’ keen to promote their self-interests, rather than the interests of the end-user, for whom it was developed.

Perhaps this is the reason why not only have we failed to fulfill the concept I developed nearly 30 years ago, we are arguably worse off as a society in relation to injuries that I suggest are a direct result of the training we do.

Once I realized the tragic direction the world has been taking in relation to training induced injuries, combined with the unfettered abuse of my concepts for self-serving purposes at the expense of the intended recipients – I have dedicated more time and energy to the purpose of helping people avoid the pitfalls presented by writers who for the most part lack real success in training, yet are ‘teachers’.

I have done a number of seminars throughout the world this year on this subject, and will peak this message at the November 2015 Society for Weight Training Specialists (SWIS) convention in Toronto, Canada – in addition to a number of presentation on this topic in a number of different countries during the remainder of the year.

I can only reach out and seek to warn parents and other care-givers – we need to pull back in the involvement of young athletes in the formal physical preparation program, especially strength training, until training methods and coach competencies are significantly higher.

If you have children in sport, or if you coach young athletes in physical training, I want to say thanks for contributing and look forward to meeting you in a seminar during 2015! The world need you to step up, up-skill and take great pride in ‘first, do no harm!’

Ian King

Planning a specialisation strength program  

/by

One of the great challenges for a person (including the ‘professional’ coach/consultant) is to design a strength training program around a body part or line of movement specialisation program. This challenge was reflected in this question i received from a KSI client:

Since I no longer train for sporting prowess/performance (basketball and track), but simply for health/fitness (and to keep up with my kids’ play) yet, feeling like a “somewhat” concrete goal might be fun, I’ve been looking at various “symmetry” scales and formulae (McCallum’s, as well as Willoughby’s in your GBIV), which has quickly made me become aware of a few things: My training/sporting background gave me a solid lower-body foundation (hips/glutes being 3” above “ideal”, thighs 2½” above “ideal”, and calves 1″), but to the “detriment” of upper body symmetry.

For example, according to various scales (and, of course, I realize fully this is just for “fun” and to give a general perspective on things), chest size is below by 2”, arms by 1 to 1½ inches, forearms 1 inch, and neck, 1¼ inch!!!!!

In terms of strength, and as one would expect, lower body strength is well above average, and upper body is just around average, except for one glaring exception: shoulder pressing strength is well below (in spite of having reasonable shoulder development?!?). So, this leads me to the following (and was hoping to get your feedback)…

I was considering giving your Great Guns program a go (which I thought would be a great way of emphasizing arm/forearm development), but was wondering how to prioritize (or deprioritize the lower body, as the case may be) other lagging parts (neck, chest, and, then, shoulder pressing strength)?

Should I postpone those other areas to future cycles/phases? Is there any way to work on chest size AND shoulder strength, WHILE still prioritizing arms? Or is this overkill? Your comments, as always, are appreciated.—Éric

To which I responded with:

Eric- a specialization program is just that – specializing in one area. What I taught in my 1998 ‘How to Write’, in my 1999 book ‘Get Buffed!’ and throughout my articles in various magazines (hard copy and online), every singe program creates a priority – by virtue of the sequence, relative volumes and relative load potential of the exercises provided.

You are leaning towards doing the arm specialization program, which is great, but at the same time are wishing you could specialize in a number of other muscle groups. When you specialize by sequence – which is inherent in all program by default – assuming volume to each muscle group or line of movement is equal, you still have prioritization or specialisation.

However when you add prioritization or specialization by volume also, which occurs in specialization programs such as the ‘Great Guns’ program – you are forced then to reduce volume in other muscle groups or lines of movement. What you are being tempted to do is overload your program, which in turn will overload your body. This is common in strength training, and the most common outcome is the conclusion that growth without drugs is impossible.

This is not correct. The best way to answer your own question – and that is the purpose and intent of my educational material, to help you make your own decisions – is to determine the amount of volume (lets use the simple method of number of sets to measure that) to your number one specialization. In this case, you have nominated your arms.

Lets take my general recommended volume range of 8-15 sets per workout (not including abdominal, control or warm up sets) and use the average number of 12. Now lets use my maximum number of workouts per 7 day cycle that I believe suits most and that is four workouts a week. We are left with 60 work sets in total for the week.

Once you have worked out how many sets you want to allocate from these 60 sets to your number one specialization priority (in this case your arms), then allocate volume (total number of sets) to your remaining body.

You can show a secondary priority and a third priority – in fact this will happen by default – and so to some extent you can sequence your priorities, but no other muscle group other than your arms is going to get real prioritisation.

On the flip side the only way you can do a specialization program and get away with it is to put other muscle groups / lines of movement on hold, or in maintenance. This applies to training outside of strength training also, which has direct application for all athletes.

So I know, I have not answered your question in the way you may have been hoping – in the old world ‘I am the guru and the only way you will get anywhere is through me’ approach – but I believe I have answered your question from the ‘you are your own guru’ perspective, or at least nudged you to realize your own ability to answer your questions.—Ian King

Now I’ll be the first to agree that the challenge of designing a strength program around a specialisation program is a challenging task. The approach I use and teach my high level coaches at an individual consulting level is one that applies a series of high level decisions and a considerable time to construct the training program, which is a level of excellence and cost that many avoid in the ‘hope’ that their quicker, less considered decisions are adequate. I am continually amazed at how humans give their motor vehicle more individualised service than their bodies! To answer the challenges presented by this task i encourage close study of my Get Buffed! educational series and or a program design consultation with one of my high level coaches.Ian King PS. The following response was received:

Ian… Contrary to what you might have implied in your last paragraph, this has been IMMENSELY useful. Right in line with your espoused philosophy and educational approach of “teaching a man how to fish” rather than simply “giving him the fish”

As you know, I already own a very extensive library of much of your material but, in some cases, getting a fresh perspective and slightly different angle (with a more specific context) on some of the ideas can help one along in exactly the right way.

This will help guide me with my planned phases. If need be, I’ll send you a copy of my written program, for some more specific guidelines, but I feel you’ve already done more than enough.

As always, I’m grateful for your time, insights and wisdom.

Be well…
-Eric