Ian King

There is no such thing as a functional exercise  

/by

There is no such thing as a functional exercise or training program.

It’s time to put some perspective on the use of the word ‘functional’, which has become somewhat of ‘catch-cry’ since the start of the 21st century. I believe it has probably gone too far now, and too many reputations on based on it, for the use of the term ‘functional’ to regain perspective. Nevertheless, here is my belief:

There is no such thing as a functional exercise. Nor is there such as thing as a functional training method.

To me, function in an outcome. The ability to perform specific function/s. The adjective interpretation.

To claim an exercise or training method is ‘functional’ is to speak from the ‘prescriptive’ perspective rather than the ‘process’ perspective. It is based on an assumption that every person using the exercise or training method has the same training goal AND responds in a predictable way.

Functional as it is popularly used is nothing more than an extension of the over-application of the term and concept ‘specificity’ – which proceeded ‘functional’ in terms of being the dominant trend term and concept – and also assumes an outcome. To claim an exercise or training method is ‘specific’ relies on an assumption that you know how any given person will respond to the exercise or training method, and that you know in advance that this adaptation will enhance their ability to perform a specific task or sport.

It would appear that any exercise that is uni-lateral, bodyweight only, and standing or sitting on an ‘unstable’ surface is instantly titled ‘functional’ – however if applied to say an elite competitive Olympic weight lifter has as much guaranteed ‘functionalism’ as power clean has to an arm wrestler.

Invariably the assumption is made that if we give a person an apparently specific movement for their training goal (e.g. sport) then the exercise is ‘functional’. Let me list some of the flaws:

1. The initial aim of all non-specific (off-field) training should be to counter the damage done by the sport, not rehearse it!

2. For me, the next goal of strength training is to provide a stimulus not found when playing the sport.

3. There is an assumption that the ‘apparently specific’ movement will actually transfer to improved ‘function’. This is a ‘prescriptive’ approach to training, not a process approach. I support the latter.

4. The exercise is an exercise. It is not functional nor dysfuntional. The outcome or training effect MAY be an increase in function.

5. Does this mean that exercises not considered ‘specific’ or ‘functional’ are thereby now dysfunctional?

This mis-use of the term ‘functional’ provides newcomers and students in the industry with a misguided starting point. Unless we delight in misleading others, a serious review of the use if this term is warranted.

The use of the term or concept ‘functional’ has even reached the stage of being used to identify schools of thought or belief – in the same way some refer to there being a ‘one set to failure group’, apparently there is now a ‘functional training group’.

Exercise equipment has suffered to same fate in that during the rise of ‘functional training’ many devices were labelled as bad or causing injuries. Machines are innate. If they are associated with ‘bad’ or ‘injury’ it is a function or outcome of their use, not the machine itself. They are nothing more than an innate object.

There is a time and place for everything. The exercise or training method can be used with an intent to create functional strength (strength that is optimally used by an individual in pursuit of their specific goal), however an exercise or training method is not in itself ‘functional’, nor is it by that definition ‘non-functional’.

To use the term ‘functional’ to label an exercise, training method, program, training device or training philosophy is inappropriate, inaccurate and misleading.

An exercise or training method is not ‘functional’. The outcome or training effect MAY be.

Ian King

What is the future of an industry that condones this type of behavior?  

/by

In 1998 and 2000 I published the How to Write and How to Teach books. I then took some of the How to Write content and made it more user-friendly for the end user in Get Buffed! 1999.

Most appreciated the contribution I made through these writings. They were based on my experiences and conclusions from being in the industry for the prior 2 decades, training athletes at the elite level in over 20 different sports in over 10 different countries; and my personal training experiences from the prior 4 decades, inlcuding competing in a variety of sports.

You can imagine the shock when I found extensive portions of my original works published in a variety of publications by the same author.

It’s been a learning experience as to what certain individuals are prepared to do to gain short term personal advancement. I had never expected to see this type of behavior in the physical preparation industry. I understand there are many and varied moral values in the world and that the prisons around the world are full of people who make decisions that led to their incarceration. Perhaps it was naivety, perhaps a believe and trust in the goodness within people, but for some reason I just didn’t expect to witness such extensive criminal behavior in relation to intellectual property in our industry.

The learning hasn’t stopped there either. There has been many lessons about what so called ‘professionals’ who seek to be ‘industry leaders’ are willing to do actively or by omission to support this behavior. Again, perhaps I was naive, in thinking that those who seek to be role models would not support these criminal acts.

I understand the readership and the followers of those who choose to flaunt copyright law may have varied value systems – until or unless it was their car being stolen or their home being broken into and items stolen. I suggest that they may at that time get a sudden case of morality and claim at least temporarily it’s not right that their possessions be stolen.

Another lesson has been about how organizations – both profit and non-profit – react to these revelations. Again, perhaps naively, I assumed that any organization seeking to position themselves as pillars of the physical preparation industry would distance themselves immediately from this criminal behavior. And certainly any organization seeking to be industry regulators would enact their clearly worded Ethics guidelines and negatively reinforce this behavior.

However the values highlighted by ‘Gordon Gecko’ in the 1987 movie ‘Wall Street’ and by former US President Bill Clinton in 1998 during ‘Lewinskygate’ appear to be inherent in US domestic physical preparation. Values such as: If it’s oral it’s not immoral (I did not have sexual relations with that women). It’s okay to lie if ‘no-one gets hurt’. Its only wrong if you get caught. Or, according to one industry regulating organization – its only an ethics violation if a person is convicted.

Which leaves me asking some big questions – What is the future of an industry that condones this type of behavior? Who is being served by the endorsement of this deceit? How does this serve the greatest good of those who have invested unknowingly in this kind of behavior (in part because of those endorse the individuals/ and who knew better, looked the other way), and who made their investment in the hope that they will be led to a better place personally, financially and professionally? Is the global social and economic environment one that will support this supposedly-left-in-the-1980s mentality that greed is good and there are no moral limits in commercial enterprise?

This is just one example….The Bullshitter’s Program Design Bible 1st Ed: http://bit.ly/9A1OFt

“It’s like lip-synching to someone else’s voice and accepting the applause and rewards for yourself”

–Dummer, G. M., & Douglas, M. M. (September, 2008). Plagiarism. Paper presented at Responsible Conduct of Research Workshop, Michigan State University Graduate School, East Lansing, MI.

Ian King

Players turned coaches have a short memory  

/by

After having watched a player I formerly trained in a team sport for many years become a coach and appear to err in the same over-training ways he would have complained about as a player under my guidance, I formed a hypothesis that many players who were trained in an optimal environment suffer short term memory loss upon making the transition to coach.

Specifically, they revert to training volumes that would have raised their shackles as a player.

I am now seeing another case of this. As a player, this coach was quoted a saying the high volume training being imposed on them was causing high incidence of injuries and depressed team performances.

Now, in his second year of coach of the same team in an Australian national league competition, the coaches season has been described as…..highest incidence of injury in the league, and a rapid fall from top of the latter to bottom half.

Sounds familiar?

Same influence in the physical preparation in both scenarios. Another case of a former player with selective memory loss now that they are a coach?

Ian King

Reflections on a trip around the world of physical preparation  

/by

I want to share briefly with you some of the things that really stood out to me during my recent around the world trip.

Firstly the difference between the sporting industry and the fitness industry. As my background is mainly in sport, I naturally have an affinity with the athlete and coach, and really enjoy the focus on a measurable and competitive outcome.

In addition to which of these two similar but distinct industry people come from, there is another variable that I have concluded determines more about what and the way an individual thinks than anything else – their exposure to what I can ‘pracdemics’ (those wishing to be seen as research quoting practitioners) publishing. It’s amazing how no matter which country these people live in, they all happen to ‘co-incidentially’ thinking and acting on a common thread. I actually feel more future for those who have yet to be exposed to this publishing pracdemic ‘gatekeepers’ of the truth.

Another observation that has not changed – the most common strength program around the world dominates with bench pressing (horizontal push) and squat variations (quad dominant’. This appears a habit tough to lose!

My favourite moments would include:

* Having real coaches and athletes in my seminars in each location, for whom results are measured on the scoreboard, not in who agrees with the dominant trends – this was from South Australia to the North America.
* Stretching on the wet grass in near zero temperatures in a cold breeze and drizzling rain on a hilltop somewhere outside of Dublin with 20 or so gaelic footballers.
* Seeing the old houses, sheds and castles in Ireland – these houses were not build on sand!
* Talking rugby with a South African rugby coach in Austria and taking his charges through their paces.
* Shooting hoop in Innsbruck with a group of basketballers.
* Working with competitive athletes in the winter sports.
* Working one on one with a client whose live was temporarily affected by pain, and watching the face and body language changes as we peeled back the layers in a multi-disciplined fashion.
* Confirming my theories and hypotheses through my experiences and observations from a global and individual human perspective, and creating some more.
* Being in awe of the mountains during my stay and during the coach drive out of Innsbruck.
* Experiencing the accent and language of more cultures that I can count.
* Watching the sun glow through from the bottom of the clouds upwards as we flew on our approach to Brisbane above the cloud layer in the morning prior to sunrise.

And more!

I conducted about 20 seminars or training sessions in as many days, and met many great people and trust my exposure impacted them in a long-term positive way. Until next time, stay focused on your goal and ask – is this the best way I can do this?

In closing I want to thank the seminar organizers. venue hosts, and most importantly those of you who valued leaving home to attend these events. Until next time.

Ian King

A lone voice in a sea of hear no evil, see no evil, do no evil  

/by

I just stumbled upon this post at an internet forum:

http://tnation.tmuscle.com/free_online_forum/diet_performance_nutrition_supplements/warp_speed_fat_loss_ultimate_diet_20

07-12-2008, 05:31 AM

Bricknyce

Level 1
Join date: Nov 2002

Location: New York, USA

Posts: 2702 His Fitness Bible also seemed like a plagiarized Get Buffed! (Ian King). Unfortuntately, I spent 100 bucks on it. Anyone want it for 50?

*****

Three long pages of postings – not one single response to this post.

I am keen to find this person and say I appreciate finding another person, one of the few, in a sea of ‘hear no evil, see no evil. know no evil.’

I have now identified 5 people in the world who have the integrity, honesty and courage to speak up……

Ian King

The publications that I have worked hardest on in my career  

/by

I written a lot of books. More than most. I know they are hard work, as any author would. However during 2009 I worked harder on a publication than I have ever worked before on any publication.

The tragic thing was that my time and energy was not being directed to sharing with the world more of my conclusions and innovations in training. Rather my energy was going towards unravelling a decade of deceit by one ‘author’, identifying potential copyright breaches in approx. 40 of this ‘authors’ publications.

In essence, not only did I work harder unravelling the lies than I have on writing any of my books to date – I also believe I worked ‘harder’ than the author, as repetitive use of the C+C / C+V buttons does not require much effort. Not only does it require little effort, it also require a dearth of integrity.

You are going to be able to learn more about this through various sources including but not limited to:

* the ‘That Looks Familar – Exercise Descriptions ebook
* the ‘That Looks Familiar Blog’
* the ‘Wall’
* to be followed by the ‘Floorboards’
* to be follwed by the ‘Roof’
* to be followed by the ‘Windows’
* the Barbells and Bullshit book (to be released this year)
* the Barbells and Bullshit seminar tour (USA, July 2010, locations tbc)
* the Secrets Series (Volumes 1, 2 and 3 have now been released – more to come)
* videos on YouTube (some up now, especially in the ‘Satire’ playlist, and many, many more to come!
* a book giving specific details about aspects even my closest confidants may not be aware of in relation to the matter
* media releases about the NSCA ethics committee ruling
* media releases about my personal and polite approach to certain publishers/distributors
* and of course, the transcripts of the hearing if it needs to go that far
* and what ever else come ups!

Ian King

Myth – Falsehood (n.), Fiction, Illusion, Invention, Fabrication, Untruth  

/by

Someone sent me a file and said ‘Look at this’. So I did. It was a program, free to anyone to download who visited this particular web site. It was allegedly a program written by the ‘author’ for ‘an international rugby team’. And I nearly fell out of my chair….

You see over the last 30 odd years I have written more programs for athletes than most could dream about. Literally thousands. One of my rules – personally, professionally and in my company – is that the programs written for a client/athlete remain confidential. Any programs I publish were generic programs written for that situation only.

So why was I completely shocked when I opened this file that a concerned person had forwarded to me? Because this ‘free downloadable’ program was EXACTLY the same program that my company had provided one of our clients some years ago. How the f#%k did it get to being given away? How was it that the confidentiality of my company’s client was being compromised?!

This downloand was WORD PERFECT! IT WAS LAYOUT IDENTICAL! I personally did the layout so I know the origin. AND WHEN I LAYED THE ORIGINAL BESIDE THIS ‘AUTHORS’ PROGRAM – ALL THAT HAD BEEN DONE TO CHANGE IT WAS ….NOTHING!!! Hold it – I found ONE change – the word ‘King’ in relation to ‘King Deadlift’ had been replaced with the words ‘Single Leg’.

So 50% of that clients program was included in this ‘give away’. Now it all came back to me – how this breach of confidentiality and breach of KSI copyright could have happened – but I still could not believe it – who would do that? What kind of integrity deficit behaviour is this? I still shake my head to this day….

But it wasn’t over….

Someone else sent me an ‘ebook’ by another ‘author’. I opened it up and…..holy f&$k!! It’s the SAME PROGRAM – AGAIN! This time it was 100% of this program – a confidential, proprietary document, now being sold by the ‘author’…..

By now I didn’t bother sitting on the chair – because I kept falling off it in shock…
I read….

I’ve designed this program around a typical client, looking to get in shape, with limited time, resources and equipment. …

What a load of f%$#&)g bullshit!!  What kind of person would do this?!

Not only do we have the issues of selling/giving away proprietary information the property of another person/company, and the confidentiality issues that have been breached in relation to the clients rights – we also statements grossly misleading statements like this.

The greatest effort that appeared to occur prior to the publising of this document, containing 100% of the program, was on this occasion it appeared the font had been changed….

There were a few other minor modifications – and I mean minor.

I believe that I may spend the rest of my life wondering what it takes for any person to stoop this low.

In naming this product, I ran the word ‘Myth’ through the
Thesaurus, and it listed the following:

Falsehood (n.)

Fiction

Illusion

Invention

Fabrication

Untruth

And I said – that’s about it!

So…You may have heard of the ‘Secret’ DVD, released in the personal development world to much acclaim. This series will expose you to some ‘other’ secrets that will give you a life lesson and insight that could positively shape how you choose to further your professional development.
The ‘Secrets Series’ is a body of works for the consummate professional who is committed to fully appreciating the impact of published works that are based on experiences and conclusions that are not the authors, and understanding the history of conceptual development.

In the Barbells & Bullshit series Ian King teaches how we all decide, consciously or unconsciously, to reason, act and receive based only on our own experiences and conclusions, or to be a collection of the thoughts of others through intentionally or otherwise accepting their influence.

These selected works analyzed in this Series serve to ram home the extent to which people are satisfied to be and teach a collection of others peoples ideas, a dilution of the intent of the original author.
Once you fully appreciate the extent to which this occurs in your industry, it is expected that you will be shocked into being more analytical about the influences you are being exposed to, and the source of all material that is promoted in your intellectual space.

This series provides you with massive lessons in integrity (or lack of) and how you can so easily be caught up in learning second hand, diluted versions of an original message. The marketing and commercial interests of the author and publisher are pitted against the good of the buyer, a battle occurring that many consumers of informal education in this industry are blissfully ignorant of. This ignorance and blind faith in the integrity of others has potential price to pay by misleading the consumer, and by presenting a model of integrity that has dubious value for all within the industry and the broader community.

A true teacher of the art of practical application can seek only to teach what they have mastered. This approach is recommended to anyone serious at being the best they can be in the physical preparation industry.

The titles currently available in this series include:

Vol 1 – The Code to the Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible (1st Edition)
Vol 2 – The Code to the Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible (2nd Edition)

And now….

Vol 3 – The Marcocycle Myth
Subsequent volumes will be released in the immediate future.

Learn more at http://www.kingsports.net/products-ksi-manuals-secrets.htm

Order here http://www.kingsports.net/SearchResult.aspx?CategoryID=34

Ian King

More than a decade behind the times  

/by

10 years after I promoted unilateral leg training including the Bulgarian squats on the same web site, another article promising ‘a faster, safer way to increase lower-body muscle size and strength’ is published (Build Bigger Legs, One at a Time).

The Bulgarian squat, of course given a new name on this occasion, was touted for its superiority, including over the standard squat. Sounds just what Spassov was saying nearly 20 years ago!!

But then I have just given a more accurate history lesson that this 2009 version.

I can only imagine what these authors were doing in the gym during the 1990s – and I can only assume it wasn’t a dominance of unilateral leg work nor was the Bulgarian squat making an appearance. More likely heavy lifting ala the way it was in strength training for sport during the 1990s. Just a hunch….But would love to see their programs. I will be analysing one such program published late 1997 – interesting.

I have more respect for the guys who were taking notes, learning and applying these developments when they came out in the 10-20 years ago than these johnny-came-latelys sharing their belated regurgitations.

Ian King

The NSCA and Ethics  

/by

I have been a member of the National Strength and Conditioning Association (America) since about 1982. In the years that they used to issue annual membership wall certificates, I framed mine and placed them up on the wall with pride. They went from about 1982 to about 1990. It was only when they stopped issuing these yearly wall certificates that I took them down, because as the years passed the missing years may have given the perception that I my membership was no longer current.

So I have been a member for about 28 years. It’s been 21 years since I attended my first NSCA convention in America.

When the NSCA opened in Australia in 1988 I served immediately as the (honorary) State Director for Queensland, and did so until about 1986 (8 years). From 1989 to 1996 I served also as the Executive Director, running and growing this professional body. The Australian organization changed names twice during the period 1988 to 1996.

So I have had a long history with this organization, and feel I have ‘paid my dues’.

Recently I did something that I never done before in my 28 year association with the NSCA. I submitted a formal complaint to the NSCA (America) Ethics Committee. After holding my silence for so long, I felt it was time to draw a line in the sand, and to find out where the professional body stands in relation to certain behaviours.

This complaint centred around the authorized release for commercial and personal gain by a former casual employee of a proprietary information – a 32 week training program and supporting material provided by KSI to a client organization in 2000. The complaint also drew attention to what I considered were dishonest and misleading claims by the ‘author’ in relation to the origin and purpose of the program. Another part of this complaint referred to the duties of the publishers in relation to ensuring that copyright breaching material is not published.

I don’t take any pride or happiness out of taking this action – however I take feel even less positive about the behaviour that led to this action.

I believe it is time to draw a line in the sand in relation to integrity and honesty in relation to this matter, and we are all going to learn the NSCA’s definition of ethics and integrity by how they rule in this case.  Does it have the courage and integrity to stand by its stated ethical standards?

Ian King

Why the variation on my single leg stiff-leg deadlift? I’ve just had an epiphany!  

/by

I was in the eccentric phase of a set of my own innovated exercise, the single leg stiff leg deadlift, when it hit me! No, not the muscle pain! But the realization of a possible explanation of a question that has gnawed at me for a nearly a decade!

You see in the few years following my initial release of this exercise (first in 1998 in my Strength Specialization DVD series, then on t-mag articles, and the video ‘Ian King’s Killer Leg Exercises sold by t-mag, and in the Get Buffed series and in the How to Teach Series in 2000 etc.), I could not fully understand this:

Where did the ‘variation’ on my innovation – where you allow the non-working leg to drift up the back like a counter balance – come from? Why?

My initial conclusion and I believe there still is merit in this possibility – that it was a simple misinterpretation. Keeping in mind that many of the photo shoots done for my articles and book published by other publishers were shot in my absence. So this is a real possibility – the model misunderstood it; the photographer got it wrong, or the editor or the publisher….

But suddenly I had an additional reason!!! And of all places to come to me was while I was at the business end of a set of the very exercise!

Now when I first noticed the ‘variation’ it caused me to scratch my head. And to this day, nearly a decade later, I am still scratching my head. Why? Are they serious?

I have gone through all the possible reasons:

1. Firstly, as I said above there is the real chance of simple misinterpretation.

2. Secondly, some gate-keeper of the truth somewhere felt he was missing out on the kudos so felt the need to tweak the original version to get a warm feeling of being an innovator.

3. Thirdly, you get the approach ‘Well if I reverse it up I can pass it off as mine’. (Like my innovation the Co-contraction partial range – where another has chosen to promote the movement in the absence of credit to its origin, reversed the title to Partial co-contraction Lunge, and reversed the movement order – more on that another day…)

But that was all the answers I had found, and the question still confounded me – not only where did it come from but why would you do it?

Here’s my interpretation of what’s going on when you do this ‘variation’. I have never written about this before so I have kept my silence all these years.

And no, I don’t have any science to ‘back me up’. I’m just a simple coach. A coach who simply developed the movement in the first place, an exercise used throughout the world today, for the most part disconnected from it’s origin because so many want to be ‘significant (like another exercise I innovated, the King Deadlift, where I finally said ‘Right, I am going to put my name on this one because all the others I have realised by have bastardized and claimed by various self-appointed gate-keepers of the truth.’ I was reading a document the other day that is about 20+ pages long and it was a 100% copy of KSI propriety information – with the exception that the word ‘King’ was removed from this exercise description and replaced with ‘the words Single leg’….more on THAT another day.

Anyway, I digress.

From my simple coach mind, using the same thought processes based on extensive practical application, I raise this points about the ‘variation’ where you allow the non-working leg to raise up behind the body as you lower towards the ground:

a. it takes the stretch off the target hamstring, reducing the primary benefit of doing this movement

b. It becomes an exercise of counter-balancing body parts (back leg against trunk) and therefore becomes more of a mechanical balancing act than an isolated exercise full range on the target hamstring and poster chain.

c. if you need more load, as some ‘experts’ claim you need as justification for the movement – go an do more load friendly exercise – like the single leg hip/thigh extension on a roman chair etc.

So I finally have another explanation, and it hit me as I was executing the movement – no better place for real world solutions to appear – THEY CAN’T TOUCH THEIR TOES.

I know what you might be asking – what do I mean? So let me explain.

If you cannot touch your toes with your legs straight, seated on the ground or standing, then you probably won’t have much success in executing this movement full range with the load of your upper body, or external load in the form of DBs. Even though the original movement allowed and expected a minor knee bent, the additional range this allows relative to a fully straight leg is probably negated by the load.

So quite simply if you can’t touch your toes with legs straight, you probably will look for any way to do this movement OTHER than the way I introduced it originally – with working leg knee only slightly bent, and the non-working leg kept still just off the ground, parallel to the working leg but not touching it or the ground.

Is this theory accurate? Can’t say for sure yet. I am happy to test it over time. But I am excited and relieved to have added another possible explanation to a question that has been bugging me since the first person sought to ‘re-invent’ this wheel. And I have often wondered….why haven’t I seen more of those who teach my exercise as the ‘expert’ performing it in the ordinal form, themselves…..