Ian King

Jett’s in the loop – and that’s a problem

/by

In late 2015 an Australia family packed up and left for Europe to support their teenage athlete children’s motorcross dreams.  Hunter was Jett was 16 years of age, and his younger brother Jett was 12. They spend about three years in Europe racing before achieving the bigger picture goal of gaining the opportunity to compete in the US supercross and motorcross seasons.

Their competitive success to date has left no doubt that they are amongst the greatest athlete exports out of Australia.  So great, one or both could challenge for the title of GOAT – greatest of all time, in US super/moto cross racing history. Of the two Jett is currently more dominative – when he is on the track.

And that’s the challenge for Jett. The greatest challenge for Jett in achieving the GOAT status are potential injuries. In the AMA 450cc Supercross class, Jett has completed one out of three seasons. He won the season completed. In the AMA 450cc Motorcross  class, Jett has completed one out of three seasons. He won both of the seasons he completed.

That’s a total of 3 seasons out of six or 50% completion.

While many ask whether he is going to be the next GOAT, perhaps a more pertinent question may be to understand why he is in the situation where he has a combined season completion rate in the 450cc class of 50%.

I suggest that Jett’s in ‘the loop’. The injury loop as I call it. And that’s a problem.

The aim of this article is to discuss the ‘loop’.  Ideally, we would be discussing the cause of the injuries in the first place, however that would be for most too esoteric. So, at the shallow level of public discourse, I will stick with the less disputable – the injury loop.

The challenge for me is witnessing greatness being jeopardized by the preventable. The talent is indisputable. But is it going to be unfulfilled?

The Loop

The injury loop is where an athlete gets an injury, fails to rehabilitate fully before returning to competition, and suffers another injury as a result of that failure. [1]  I have spoken about this phenomenon for a number of decades now.

This is what most people do. They get a niggle, they ignore it. The niggle kind of keeps coming back. They say it can’t be so, because their left brain will tell them it can’t be so. They ignore it. Now perhaps at some point in time it gets so bad they’ll go and see someone and get ineffective treatment. It won’t work.

They’ll keep training and then they’ll blow up. They’ll have a tear. They’ll have an injury. Then they’ll get poor rehabilitation. They won’t fix the cause. They’ll address the symptom. They’ll go back to training. They’ll either blow the same thing, or they’ll blow the other side. And this is a pattern that continues to repeat itself.

So, I cannot stress enough. If your body is telling you there’s something not right, fix it. When we’re young we think we’re bulletproof. When we get a little bit older, reality sets in. You should be wiser beyond your years when it comes to the pain message from the body. Do not ignore your body. Find somebody who can help you remove that little niggle. Do not wait until it becomes an injury. Do not injure yourself before you cease training.[2] [3]

Predictable and preventable. Now, according to some, injuries can only be avoided through divine intervention. That’s a theory. There are many theories, but mine is human intervention can actually prevent because you can predict them. So, what we’ll be doing today is showing you how very briefly to look at a joint and say, ‘this is what’s going to happen.’

So, after trauma, what happens next?  We have some form of treatment or intervention. So, the intervention comes in two forms. The intervention can either be through treatment of some kind, or it can come through surgery.

And most treatments are ineffective and ultimately end in surgery anyway.

And this is a loop. I get a pain message, I ignore it, it goes away, I get it again, I ignore it, and you start looping down here and ultimately there’s trauma, which brings us to our next level. After trauma, we go through a period of rehabilitation. And then we return to training. And then what happens next? The cycle begins again. I’m not being cynical, I’m being literal. The cycle begins again. They either injure the same side again, or they injure the opposite side, or contralateral.

So, the other side in that plane, to the back, to the other side, or the front to the other side. So basically, the first inhibition here will lead to all these things and will lead to a subsequent injury.  So, the cycle goes round and round in circles until the person can’t train and has to quit physical activity or retire from sport. So, with my approach to prevention of injury as being the most important thing a physical preparation coach does, nobody will get surgery, and everything below here becomes redundant. [4] [5]

Sometimes the lack of full rehabilitation is caused by impatience. Sometimes by incompetence on the part of the support team. Sometimes it neither but instead a high-level concept that is outside the awareness of the majority.

Either way there are two indisputable facts – one, it could be prevented. And two, it is going to cause future injuries and negatively impact the duration and or height of the athlete’s career.

Jett’s injuries

Dec 2025 – Fractured right ankle (talus and navicular), surgery

July. 2024 – Torn left thumb ligament (ulnar collateral ligament), surgery

2-25 – ACL tear, meniscus damage, right knee, surgery

Solutions

Rather than simply criticize what’s going on, I provide some guidance for those are looking for a better way to return to sport from injury.

  • Respect the niggle
  • Fix the niggle – fast
  • Get the best guidance possible
  • Establish clarity around risk : reward outcomes
  • Have a clear time frame
  • Ensure optimal rate of rehab
  • Create a progressive return to sport plan
  • Have pre-determined milestones for determine when to return to eath progressive level of sport
  • Stop with the ‘injuries in sport are normal’ attitude

Respect the niggle

The body sends messages about pain and impending injury potential

… generally speaking, most people get a niggle and they ignore it. They get a niggle and then someone else tells them to ignore it. And they get a niggle, and they go to someone and they say, ‘Oh, I don’t know about it, I don’t really know.’ And six months later, it’s a big problem. So, they’ll sit out for a few weeks, and they’ll come back and it’s okay now and they’ll get injured again… A few weeks from now, they’ll be out for a few more months, and it’ll just go like this. This is how sport’s done.[6]

Fix the niggle – fast

I suggest you respect the message, which I call a niggle. And fix it immediately. [7]

The second thing that happens, you get to know about it at this point in time, is you get some sort of symptom or pain. You get a message from the body.

And I’ll call it pain, but most people don’t describe it as pain because it’s too low level. It’s more like a niggle. They feel a niggle. And typically, we ignore it. Or we tell someone about it and they say, ‘oh, it’ll go away shortly, don’t worry about it.’ Or tell me about it if it’s still there in two weeks’ time. The bottom line is it’s really just, now that’s the body giving you a message. There’s something wrong, fix it. Most of us ignore the message. Now there’s also a left-brain desire not to have the problem, so it doesn’t exist, doesn’t exist, put your head in the sand and hope it goes away. My approach to this is I remove the niggle within the first 24 hours.

My approach to this is I remove the niggle within the first 24 hours. I want to get rid of all niggles within the first 24 hours. That means two things. It means the athlete has to report the niggle, and then you have to have the ability to remove it. Now, the athlete can also be educated to the point where they learn to remove it themselves. And athletes I work with are that well-trained and that smart about their body, they know how to address their niggles.[8] [9]

Get the best guidance possible

My hope is that the level of guidance sought at least matches what is at stake.  In other words, in the case of a elite athlete, let alone a potential GOAT, I would hope no stone has been left un-turned, so to speak.

I have spent too much time with elite athletes who were broken when I met them and chose to stay on their own path to know that this is simply not the case.

I don’t put all the blame on the athlete alone, although unless they are a minor (under 18 years of age) they have to take some responsibility.

I believe that in many cases its their support staff or sports medicine team protecting their own egos that denies the athlete the best outcome.

Here are a few examples:

Case study 1 – The athlete was the reigning Olympic champion in their sport, but injury and poor results had meant they were not on track to even qualify to go to the next Olympics. They were advised by their physical therapist to come and see me and they did. They returned to the next Olympics and were on the podium.

Case study 2 – The athlete was the reigning Olympic champion in their sport but injury had meant they were not on track to even qualify to go to the next Olympics.  They wanted to come and see me but their physical therapist didn’t want them to. They sent them to someone else. They failed to qualify and be selected for the next Olympics, and their career came to an end.

Case study 3 – The athlete had missed selection for the Olympics because of injury. The national team doctor had recommended surgery to solve the problem and they did this. The problem remained. The national team doctor had another solution – retire. The athlete did not take this advice, instead following the recommendation of a team mate to see me. They overcame the injury and went to the next Olympics.

Case study 4 – The athlete has just gone to their third Olympics and at the age most have retired by were performing at their career best. They met a physical coach who encouraged them to change their physical coach. They failed to qualify and be selected for the next Olympics, and their career came to an end.

Case study 5 – The athlete had been selected for their first Olympics but had injured themselves prior to the event and could not attend. They began training for the next Olympics. In this time they met with me and they knew I had helped another athlete podium in their discipline. They did not follow my guidance. They had repeat injury prior to the next Olympics but were given to the 11th hour to qualify post-surgery, which they did.  They finally got to their Olympics but how many more? And will they ever stand on the podium at the Games?

Case study 6 – The athlete has just become the first person in their country to win a Gold Medal in a certain Olympic event.  However, injury and poor results had meant they were not on track to even qualify to go to the next Olympics. I met with them and I gave them insights into what was going on.  The athlete was furious with the coach for allowing this situation to develop without understanding what was happening. The coach did all they could to prevent the athlete from continuing along the guidance as it was exposing their mistake.  They failed to qualify and be selected for the next Olympics, and their career came to an end.

What are you willing to do get the best answers? Recently I got up a 4am, flew a few hours, drove a few more – to have a 2 hour consult with a person I believe to be the best in their field in the country – and then returned along the same drive / fly travel, arriving home at 10pm that night. And that was for a non-national level (at the moment) athlete.  Being and getting the best is not convenient.

Establish clarity around risk : reward outcomes

There are times in injuries when I recommend you understand the risks and rewards. And there are times you will take the risks and there are times when you will not. But I recommend you be informed and make an informed decision.

The risk reward goes beyond surgery and treatment decisions. It includes return to sport decisions. Unless that athlete is either at the end of their career or the opportunity reward is incredibly high, I do not support return to sport prior to full recovery.

Here’s a challenge for motorbike athletes – you might be limping, but you can still twist the throttle. In other words, you can ride, but should you?

Here are a few examples:

Case study 1- The athlete was selected for their run-on opportunity in their career for their national team. The challenge is they had broken ribs.  We spend some time discussing the risk : reward. If they sit out, the opportunity may never come again. If they play, they could puncture their lungs. They sat out. And the opportunity came again. They had promised to gift me that game journey. I lost out on the jersey, but we gained on the future health and career longevity of the athlete.

Case study 2 – The athlete has, I suspect, been offered an inducement not to play, to damage the team’s success.  I had previously salvaged their career through over-rediing a inaccurate diagnosis and treatment path that was seeing them out of their sport for an extended period. They came to me, and every consultant in the team, to support their decision not to play based on a cited injury. I did not give them guidance either way, as I believed that was their decision to make. They chose to sit out. They got the inducement. The team lost that day.°

Case study 3 – The athlete had a displaced clavicle (collar bone)  at the sternum (chest) end. They had been selected to play for their national team. I took them to meet with a trusted orthopedic surgeon. We discussed the risk reward at length. If they didn’t have surgery they could play tomorrow, but risk puncturing their lungs. If they had surgery, there would be no risk of lung damage, but they would be out of selection for an extended period of time.  There not competing for selection with other genuine competitors. They chose not to have surgery. They did not suffer any lung damage. They played the number of games they were driven to play.

Have a clear time frame

Time frame matters for perception. There is a saying in sociology that revolts are caused when there is a discrepancy between what someone has been told or been lead to belief, and reality. The same frustration can creep into return to sport decisions.

In sport there are diverse approaches to time frame. One physical therapist I worked with would tell everyone a time frame longer than what they know would occur, I suggest embellishing their reputation as a ‘god’.

Many coaches I have worked with would pressure the medical team to shorten the prognosis time frame for return to sport in the interests of the coaches win : loss record.

Predicted time frames aside, consider also the individual situation. Surgery technique advancements have led to short recovery times, but the human doby ultimately will decide, in collaboration with how and what you are doing, when it is ready. This reality needs to be including in the counselling of the athlete from the start.

Ensure optimal rate of rehab

If or when the rehabilitation from injury is going slower than is optimal, frustration and the associated poor decision making can come into the equation.

People just accept slow rehab and then they train at the same time because they’re not going to take two months off or six months off or two years off training. So, it just slows it down again. You know, slow rehab causes a lot of problems…I want to get results really fast. [10]

Fix it. It’s not being fixed fast enough. Rehabs too slow. Rehab across the world is too slow.[11]

To provide clear expectations around this, I teach that if within two weeks you are not confident that the current consultant or strategy used by consultant is going to get you the results you want within the time frame you want, look to change it up. [12]

And what I’ll teach you is that if the issue isn’t resolved within two weeks, you need to go see someone else. Now I’m being a little bit exaggerated, but not too much. If you’re not making pretty significant progress in a two week time period, move on. Either move on to the technique you’re using in treatment, or move on to another therapist. But the therapists that really annoy me are those who create an emotional dependence of the client or the athlete on them. And it does occur. [13]

If someone is going to a therapist, this is my rule to an athlete: if you go to somebody two times and you aren’t confident that you’re on the road to full recovery, change your direction. You’ve got two shots at it. Fix it or merely fix it in two shots or we’ll move on …. [14] [15] [16]

Create a progressive return to sport plan

The benefit of making a theoretical plan in advance is that it can help you mitigate decisions influenced by non-optimal factors such as athlete or stake-holder frustration about any delays in return to sport.

This plan is a projection and can be simple or structural in nature. However, no matter how minimal the plan, an expectation set in relative calmness prior to the moment it is needed is a wise step in this situation.

For example – and only as an example e-  training comes before competition, lower-level competition comes before higher level competition, and race simulation in training comes before lower-level competition.

Have pre-determined milestones for determine when to return to each progressive level of sport

Once you have a progressive plan of activity in the return to sport plan, you will want to have a set of criteria to match that activity.

To be blunt, if you are still limping, you are not ready to be racing at the highest level. Yes, you can do it, but that decision is keeping the athlete in the loop.

Ideally, stay consistent to the plan.

My goal is to get this ankle fully healed up and return as competitive as ever and make the 2026 season as successful as we can.—Jett Lawrence, Dec 2025[17]

Stop with the ‘injuries in sport are normal’ attitude

It’s one thing for low level and amateur athletes to blame their injuries on the sport. [18]

I really believe that there is a philosophy at least in western world sport and in general life that it’s okay to be injured and injuries are normal. Aside from the cost of injury to the community, the cost to the individual is significant and my philosophy is that no, it’s not okay to be injured….[19]

However, to hear it from athletes and stakeholders of athletes who are at or aim to be the elite level, it unacceptable.

I have a different attitude, and it’s a better one that ‘injuries are out of our control’. [20]

It is my belief that the injuries are unnecessary and unacceptable. And I get tired of people saying that that’s just the impact in sport. You know, that’s just the nature of the sport. That’s bullshit. [21] [22] [23]

…too many in the sports circle now accept, embrace and even benefit from this high incidence of injury. [24]

With all due respect, it was tough hearing the number one stake holder default to this attitude:

“It’s just one of those things. A lot of people go through it, they have just a few years of just silly mistakes and that’s all it is with Jett. Like, the knee was just something weird, tabbed his foot and it did his ACL, it was just weird, you know.

“So, this one was the same, it just went over a jump, his foot touched the gear lever, clicked it into neutral and boom, had neutral when he hit the face of the next jump. We have not hit neutral on that motorcycle in four years, but just his foot just touched it and that was it, game over.

Here’s a different viewpoint, one that seeks to bring more variables back into the control of the athlete and their support team:

Traumatic injuries, sometimes called impact injuries, occur suddenly and often when significant forces (gravity or external load/other people’s bodies) are involved.  Because of this, it is easy to explain them away as ‘it just happened as a result of the impact’. I do not agree with this. I believe most impact/traumatic injuries are chronic injuries in disguise and can be avoided or at worst reduced in incidence and severity.

If fifty percent of all injuries were of this traumatic/impact nature (just to use an example), I believe that more appropriate understanding of injury symptoms and cause-effect relationships in training program design could eliminate these  chronic injuries. [25]

Conclusion

Jett’s injuries during the last five seasons are indisputable. That he is in what I refer to as the ‘injury loop’ is conjecture. Based on a bit of practice.

I do not expect the case study here to change direction. However anyone in a similar situation, or wishing to avoid this situation, may benefit from from the lessons provided.

However, no lesson will be taken if the common thinking is maintained. This is a Google AI conclusion to the question ‘which knee did Jett Lawrence injury’.

“Lawrence also sustained an unrelated injury to his right ankle during a pre-season training crash in December 2025).

If you think its unrelated, you have a lot of company, with people who abdicate the opportunity to shape their destiny. If it’s unrelated, he is not an my so-called ‘injury loop’.

On the other hand, if you believe the ankle injury may be related to the knee injury, then you might find value in lessons shared.

 

References

[1] King, I., 2025, Legacy Vol 1 – Injury prevention, Theory #77 – The injury loop

[2] King, I., 2015, The Stop Injuries in Strength Training Video Series, Pt 2 of 10 – Why injuries in strength training occur

[3] King, I., 2018, Zero Tolerance to Injuries Video Series, Pt 2 of 10: Why injuries in strength training occur

[4] King, I., 2015, The Stop Injuries in Strength Training Video Series, Pt 3 of 10: Insights into common strength training injury sites and causes

[5] King, I., 2018, Zero Tolerance to Injuries Series, Pt 3 of 10 -Insights into common strength training  injury sites and causes

[6] King, I., 2015, Injury prevention and rehabilitation (Seminar), Singapore 11 April 2015

[7] King, I., 2025, Legacy Vol 1 – Injury prevention, Theory #75 – Remove the niggle in 24 hours

[8] King, I., 2015, The Stop Injuries in Strength Training Video Series, Pt 3 of 10: Insights into common strength training injury sites and causes

[9] King, I., 2018, Zero Tolerance to Injuries Series, Pt 3 of 10: Insights into common strength training  injury sites and causes

[10] King, I., 2012, Speed seminar, Adelaide, Sun 25 March 2025

[11] King, I., 2012, Speed seminar, Adelaide, Sun 25 March 2025

[12] King, I., 2025, Legacy Vol 1 – Injury prevention, Theory #84 – The two week rehab rule

[13] King, I., 2000, Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation Series (DVD)

[14] King, I., 2015, Strength Training and Injury Prevention. 2015 SWIS Conference 13-14 Nov 2015, Canada

[15] King, I., 2015, The Stop Injuries in Strength Training Video Series, Pt 1 of 10

[16] King, I., 2018, Zero Tolerance to Injuries Video Series, Pt 1 of 10: Introduction into injuries in strength training

[17] https://racerxonline.com/2025/12/20/jett-lawrence-injured-in-training-crash

[18] King, I., 2025, Legacy Vol 1 – Injury prevention, Theory #29 – It’s not okay

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

[20] King, I., 2025, Legacy Vol 1 – Injury prevention, Theory #30 – The sport didn’t cause the injuries

[21] King, I., 2015, Strength Training and Injury Prevention. 2015 SWIS Conference 13-14 Nov 2015, Toronto ONT Canada

[22] King, I., 2015, The Stop Injuries in Strength Training Video Series, Pt 1 of 10 – Introduction to Injuries in Strength Training

[23] King, I., 2018, Zero Tolerance to Injuries Video Series, Pt 1 of 10: Introduction into injuries in strength training

[24] King, I., 2015, Physical train wrecks – it does not have to be this way, 13 Aug 2015

[25] King, I., 2005, The way of the physical preparation coach – Ch 13: Injury prevention and rehabilitation, (Book),

 

Image  “Washougal MX 2021 P1277967” by Ryan Elwell is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Ian King

Awesome Abs – And 10 reasons why it won’t happen!

/by

The abdominals are one of the most emotionally driven muscle groups in physique enhancement. Perhaps not as high up on the value list as say arms for males or currently the gluts for women, but they have been a mainstay for a long time.

There are a few questions about this, including is the focus producing the full potential of the abdominals? If it was, because of their relatively high standing in the emotional stakes, then the outcomes should mean there are very few shortcoming existing.

I suggest that is not the case. However, I respect that my ‘take’ on abs may be different than yours, and definitely different to the mainstream interpretation.

Here’s ten reasons why I have little confidence that what you are doing with your abdominal training will meet my definition of ‘Awesome Abs’:

  1. Your ab picture is small (Purpose)
  2. Your values are upside down (Visual)
  3. Your ab work is not contributing to the battle (Injury prevention)
  4. Your transfer to sport and or life is not effective (Transfer)
  5. You didn’t take the class (Prioritization)
  6. You do abs last (Sequence)
  7. You do too few ab exercises (Volume)
  8. Your ab view is too narrow (Lines of movement)
  9. You’re too scared to be / do differently (Conformity)
  10. You’re sucked into the conspiracy (Commerce)

 

  1. Your ab picture is small (Purpose)

I’ve said above that abdominals are a highly emotional muscle group in physical enhancement training. However, that is predominantly for one purpose only – aesthetics. The visual appeal of ‘ripped/shredded’ abs, affectionally referred to as a ‘six pack’. And no longer the exclusive domain of males.

That’s cute. But it’s a small picture.  If you consider my alternative picture on what the abs offer, you are focusing on 33% or 1/3rd of the ab offering and leaving the remaining 2/3rds on the table.

Here’s my ‘bigger picture’ of the abs, one that I have been sharing for over quarter of a century:

There are a number of reasons why you may or should be doing abdominal exercises and they include:

  • Abdominal training and visual impact
  • Abdominal training and transfer to sport and or life
  • Abdominal training and injury prevention [1] [2] [3] [4]

Perhaps now you can see why I suggest that if not you, the majority have a very small picture view on their abdominal training influences.

  1. Your values are upside down (Visual)

To continue with this discussion, even if you were to suggest that your training embraced this bigger picture, I would challenge you on your values. Which of these purposes do you hold in the highest regard and which do you place at the bottom of your focus?

I suggest that an objective analysis of your abdominal training values, as demonstrated by your exercise choices, may be different to mine.

One of us is upside down…

As you will learn in this book there are a number of purposes or benefits from doing what I refer to abdominal training including visual, transfer to life and or sport (function) and injury prevention.  As you may have picked up on by now, I actually have a reverse perspective on the relative value of these three purposes or benefits – injury prevention, transfer and visual.[5]

Make no mistake – your values will drive your program design, and in turn the training results you get.

  1. Your ab work is not contributing to the battle (Injury prevention)

When I’m talking about the injury prevention role of abdominals, one of those key tasks is to contribute to a force couple with the abdominals to posteriorly rotate the pelvis (stand the pelvis up). [6]

I’m going to ask her to suck her stomach thin and to squeeze her cheeks. Why do I want to do that?  Well, I want to, they’re the two force couples and we’ll change the shape of her pelvis…She’s got a lack of awareness posturally. She hasn’t got a lot of support. And I’ve only just looked at one half of the force couple. [7]

What are the force couples for posterior rotation of the pelvis? …Glutes and abs…Versus what? Quads and hip flexors, generally speaking…[8]

I call this ‘the battle’: [9]

What is it, the force couple? Hip flexors, quads, pulling the pelvis forward, glutes not strong enough to hold it back, abdominals not contributing to hold it back. The hip flexors and quads are winning the battle. [10]

And the challenge for you, the way I suspect you are doing abdominal training, you are losing the battle:

Why is it pulling forward? What’s winning the battle? … The hip flexors and quads are winning the battle. [11]

This pattern results in the hip flexors winning the battle against the abs and glutes, consequently pulling the top of the pelvis forward and resulting in a pinching of the nerves feeding the lower body. Why? Because the quads/hip flexors get a better training effect. [12]

  1. Your transfer to sport and or life is not effective (Transfer)

The third purpose for abdominal training I identify is transfer.  And yes, everyone talks about – but if I was to literally interpret what the world is doing, I am going to assume that the so called ‘plank’ is the exercise that has been crowned as being the exercise with the greatest transfer. Now I don’t, because I do not believe that is the reason this exercise is arguably the most commonly used abdominal exercise in the world these days, taking over from the pre-2000’s garden variety ‘sit-up’. Call me cynical, but I suspect that the plank is chosen because it’s perceived as easy to teach and creates a painful muscle fatiguing outcome in the clients who have been conditioned to believe that muscle fatigue means a satisfactory training effect is occurring.

But if I did literally interpret the omnipresent ‘plank’, humans must live and play sport with rigor mortis….

  1. You didn’t take the class (Prioritization)

Since the 1990s, I’ve been providing a concise ‘prioritization of strength training’ lesson.

Prioritization of muscle group

i. By sequence:

a. Within the workout.

b. Within the training week.

ii. By volume.

iii. By load:

a. Load potential.

b. Percentage of maximum load. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

I may be off point here, but if you are doing what everyone else is doing with your abdominal training, I am going to conclude you didn’t take the class – Prioritization in Strength Training 101!  Because they are simply not congruent!

  1. You do abs last (Sequence)

If most or all the time you do abs last in your strength workout, you are being compliant. Compliant with what most do.

The continuing dominant paradigm is that abdominals should be done last.  What if they are the weakest body part?  That doesn’t seem to matter!  What if they are the number one training focus for performance?  Again, it doesn’t seem to matter – they are placed last.  Why?  The repetitive answer I get to this is ‘because they cause fatigue of stabilizers and it would be dangerous to do things like squats after doing abdominals’.  Where is the evidence?  Is this evidence from empirical observations or ‘scientific’ research?  Again, that doesn’t seem to matter.  NOBODY does abdominals first!  What a load of trash!  The excuses support the paradigm, nothing more.  I train abdominals first when they are the priority for whatever reason and only put them to the end of the workout when I don’t want to totally avoid any possibility of total body fatigue prior to a maximal strength workout.  That is, I wouldn’t want the total body fatigue draining the neuromuscular system, reducing the potential for load.  But nothing to do with injury potential! [20]

But not compliant with what I concluded in the 1980s and shared repetitively in print from the 1990s onwards. [21]

Some key things I do (and perhaps a little different to what you may be used to!) is I spend a substantial amount of program time doing abdomen at the START OF THE WORKOUT.  Yes, that’s right, before any other exercises.  I know what you are going to say – how many times have I heard it?  Your granddaddy told your daddy and he told you – doing abs first will cause fatigue in the support muscles, which is evil blah blah.  Before you reel out the rhetoric give it a go.  Absolutely bash your abdominals and then squat – then come to your own conclusions.  It’s okay to have a different opinion to the rest of the well-trained monkeys! [22]

So, if you are doing what everyone else is doing – doing abs last most or all of the time – you are not going to achieve what I believe is the potential of your abdominals.

  1. You do too few ab exercises (Volume)

Most do one or two sets of abdominal exercises per workout and believe that’s sufficient. That might be in point some of the time, or for those who say only doing a total of one or two sets of lower or upper body per workout. And that’s rare.

Most do two to six (2-6) exercises and four to twelve (4-12) sets per muscle group. But not on the abs.

Bill Pearl’s  classic Keys to the Inner Universe lists and graphically illustrates over 100 ab and trunk exercises! Despite all this info, there seems to be a gap in the knowledge and the actual practice. I still see exercise programs that select only one abdominal exercise, usually a trunk flexion movement. Would you use only one exercise to train your legs or your chest? [23]

How do you explain that?

The only way you can is on the basis you believe the abs don’t deserve equality in volume to other muscle groups.

And that’s another reason you are not going to experience ‘Awesome Abs’, not at least by my definition.

  1. Your ab view is too narrow (Lines of movement)

Prior to the release of the Lines of Movement concept in the 1990s, the world viewed ‘legs’ as just that – legs.  All leg exercises were grouped together. Don’t believe me? You obviously weren’t doing leg exercises pre-2000 if you don’t!  In his classic book ‘classic Keys to the Inner Universe’[24] the legs were just that. A category that included squat and squat variations, along with deadlifting and deadlift variations.

This is not a criticism of Bill’s work. He was just reflecting the thinking of the time.  And so was everyone else. Up until at least, the late 1990s when I began to speak more openly about ‘Family Trees’ and ‘Lines of Movement’ in strength training.

That’s a concept I’m sure you’ll have never heard before because this is the first time I have spoken about it. [25]

The challenge with a broad grouping list is that it’s easy to miss appropriate balancing where there is the need to recognize the differences in specific muscle group actions within the muscle group.

Which is why I separated ‘Hip dominant’ from ‘Quad dominant’.

After many years I have decided that there are two family trees in lower body exercises – one where the quad dominates, and one where the hip dominates. [26]

And you are probably making this mistake by assuming and treating the ‘abdominals’ (or worse still, the ‘core’) as one. They are not.

I divide the abdominal muscle groups or functions down into six (6).  The technical correctness of my divisions I will leave to those with the time and motivation to debate to do so.  This is a simple and effective approach to ensuring exposure to all abdominal and some of the other trunk stabilizers…[27]

I provided the ‘Abdominal Lines of Movement’ over a quarter of a century ago, yet most chose not to ‘take that class!’. If you are choosing to ignore some or most of these abdominal ‘Lines of Movement’ – and most are – you’d better have a very good reason for it – other than ignorance…

  1. You’re too scared to be / do differently (Conformity)

As I mentioned above, you are most likely doing abdominals the way everyone else is. And that’s fine. It’s just not optimal.

I resonate with the American existential psychologist and author Rollo May’s treatise on conformity:

The opposite of courage isn’t cowardice; it’s conformity.[28]

It may be harsh, but I am willing to challenge you – one of the main reasons you are doing what you are doing in relation to your abdominal training is that you would prefer to conform. And that’s a choice.

You could break the mold. But it would mean being different, and I understand not too many of you are ready to be different.  Conformity is much more comfortable… Most humans chose to live a life less courageous, more ordinary. So, you are ‘normal’ by choosing the same.[29]

It’s just a choice worth reflecting on.

Including once you have considered my thoughts about the drivers of the trends you are conforming to.

  1. You’re sucked into the conspiracy (Commerce)

When I first started writing about a possible ‘conspiracy’ in training back in the late 1990s, I didn’t feel totally comfortable because back then anyone talking conspiracy was considered somewhat of a ‘nutter’, at risk of not being taken seriously. Fast forward to the 2020s, and everyone has a conspiracy theory they want to share. So, rest assured, this talk is not a new post-Covid trend compliant behaviour. I’ve been singing from this song-sheet for a bit longer than that…[30]

So, your approach to abdominal training is compliant with the majority, or the dominant trend.  For those interested in unpacking this, how is a trend shaped?  I have for a number of decades shared my beliefs on what are the influences that shape trends in strength training. [31]

Trends I suggest are commercially driven. So, they are not there because they are optimal, they are not dominating because they are in the best interests of the end user – they dominate because people with adequate financial resources have driven the paradigm for their commercial benefit. [32]

For me the number one driver of behavior in our industry are those with vested interests.  The product/equipment manufacturers and distributors are great examples of this…

In the early years of my coaching career, I was where many of you are probably now, believing that to study and learn from ‘trends in training’ was wise.  It didn’t take me long to revise my perspective substantially since then. Throughout the 1990s I warned of the dangers of following trends. In my 2002 second edition of my 1997 book Winning and Losing I dedicated an entire chapter to this topic, titled ‘Don’t Get Sucked in by the Trends!’ [33]

To cut to the point – the risk abdominal training trends face is that too many can be done without equipment. And this is a problem…

Did you know the next craze to come out in this industry is this? It takes 15 minutes a day, six days a week, and involves no equipment. It’s going to be the next really big fad. There’ll be no equipment, and it will take up a time. What are my chances? None whatsoever. Because of why? There’s no equipment. Can’t sell it. No one’s going to make any money off it. And it doesn’t meet the needs of instant gratification. There are two criteria. The only stuff that you get exposed to in this country is stuff that people can make money off, and it’s convenient. And your entire professional thinking is based on those two things. You are completely bound on the variables of because someone decided they could commercialize it and make a profit margin from the sale of goods, that it met your perception of instant gratification. Neither of those two things are fundamentally sound. [34]

Just like another training method that has for the last few decades been successfully suppressed – stretching. Because it too – God forbid – is not equipment dependant…yet!

Who’s promoting you to flexibility? No one because they can’t make any money out of it. What’s the other thing? It’s one of the few physical qualities where perhaps more is better. How are you going to sell that? I want you to stretch for 20 hours a week. Not too many people want to join me. 

I’ll go and stretch for two hours. Who’s going to come with me? It doesn’t meet the social trend. Because you are marketing driven to be this, and the quickness, the marketing stimuli is so short and fast now that no one produces articles. They produce short things and they’ll be this and they’ll be this. And instead of every month, they go every week and it’s every day and it’s five times a day. And that’s the speed of marketing. The world isn’t stretch deficient because stretching isn’t effective. It’s just not marketable from the American marketing perspective. [35]

I know the world has fallen off the map when it comes to appropriate application of stretching.  I fear also that abdominal training may be slipping as well – for the same reason. Exercises that do not rely on equipment threaten the take up of equipment sales for those exercises that are reliant on equipment. Your training habits are up against well-funded opposition. You need to decide whose interests you are going to serve.

Conclusion

So, there you have it. You have the opportunity for ‘Awesome Abs’, but odds are, at least from my perspective, you probably won’t achieve them.   That may be harsh, but from travelling the world helping athletes and others with their training during the last half a century, that’s the conclusion I’ve reached.

But there is hope.

Provided you are ready and willing to take a bigger picture view of your abdominals, and to step outside the comfort and confines of the average person’s choices. To ‘think for yourself’. [36]

To help you do this, I have a created a book to help – and yes, the book is titled ‘Awesome Abs!’

When the abdominal student is ready, the ‘Awesome Abs!’ book can appear. That’s up to you. And of course, your view of the abdominals purpose and whether you feel you have fulfilled the potential of your abdominals.

 

References

[1] King, I., 2001, Thinking Man’s Guide to Ab Training, Testosterone, Issue No. 4, April 2001, p. 42-49. (Article)

[2] King, I., 2002, Awesome Abs – Stage 1, t-mag.com, 12 April 2002. (Article)

[3] King, I., 2002, Get Buffed! II: Get MORE Buffed! Ch. 9 – The abdominal exercises. (Book)

[4] King, I., 2026, Awesome Abs – Ch. 3- Why do abdominal training, Get Buffed Specialization Series (Book)

[5] King, I., 2026, Awesome Abs – Introduction, Get Buffed Specialization Series (Book)

[6] King, I., 2025, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 1 – Parts 1 & 2 : Injury Prevention and Performance Enhancement – Theory #94 – The pelvis force couple (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[7] King, I., 2016, A coach’s guide to preventing, identifying, managing, and rehabilitating lower back injuries, SWIS Presentation, Canada

[8] King, I., 2018, Does powerlifting transfer to sport? SWIS Convention Canada, 28 Oct 2018

[9] King, I., 2025, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 1 – Parts 1 & 2 : Injury Prevention and Performance Enhancement – Theory #95 – Who’s winning the battle? (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[10] King, I., 2010, Barbells & Bullshit, Los Angeles, 2 Oct 2010 (Seminar)

[11] King, I., 2010, Barbells & Bullshit, Los Angeles, 2 Oct 2010 (Seminar)

[12] King, I., 2001, Pelvis has left the building – How pelvic alignment and proper exercise program design can keep the injury goblins at bay, t-mag.com, 28 Dec 2001

[13] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Prioritizing muscle groups (Book)

[14] King, I., 2011, KSI Coach Education Program, L1 Legacy, Unit 10 – Balance (Course)

[15] King, I., 2013, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations, Ch. 28- Prioritization (Book)

[16] King, I., 2015, Strength training and injury prevention, Presentation at the 2015 Society of Weight Training Specialists (SWIS) Symposium, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 13-14 November 2015 (Presentation; Video)

[17] King, I., 2018, Ian King’s Guide to Strength Training, Vol. 3 – How to transfer strength training, Chapter 6

Avoiding creating new imbalances (Book)

[18] King, I., 2026, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 2 – Parts 3 & 4: Flexibility & Strength, Theory #255 – Reimagining strength training prioritization, (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[19] King, I., 2026, Get Buffed! V – Get Optimally Buffed, Chapter 7 Program design for Neuromuscular Optimization (Book)

[20] King, I., 2002, Get Buffed! II (Book), Sequence of Abdominal Training within the Workout, p. 130

[21] King, I., 2025, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 1 – Parts 1 & 2 : Injury Prevention and Performance Enhancement – Theory #99 – Abs first (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[22] King, I., 2003, Ask the Master (Book), p. 15

[23] King, I., 2001, Thinking Man’s Guide to Ab Training, Testosterone, Issue No. 4, April 2001, p. 42-49. (Article)

[24] Pearl, B., 1979, Keys to the Inner Universe, 1st Ed., Physical Fitness Architects, Pasadena, California

[25] King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series (DVD)

[26] King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series (DVD)

[27] King, I., 2002, Get Buffed! II: Get MORE Buffed! Ch. 9 – The abdominal exercises. (Book)

[28] May, R., 1953, Man’s Search for Himself (Book)

[29] King, I., 2022, Off the Record #122 – We work together every week, 6 April 2022 (Article)

[30] King, I., 2025, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 1 – Parts 1 & 2 : Injury Prevention and Performance Enhancement – Theory #27 – It’s a conspiracy (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[31] King, I., 2025, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 1 – Parts 1 & 2 : Injury Prevention and Performance Enhancement – Theory #122 – Training trends are commercially driven (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[32] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book), Chapter 7 – Training Theories, p. 41-42

[33] King, I., 2018, KSI Coaching Program, L0 – Orientation, Unit 2 – What are the influences on the way I train my clients?

[34] King, I., 2010, It won’t sell, 8 Oct 2010, YouTube

[35] King, I., 2010, It won’t sell, 8 Oct 2010, YouTube

[36] King, I., 2025, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 1 – Parts 1 & 2 : Injury Prevention and Performance Enhancement – Theory #124 – Over-react in the short-term and under-react in the long-term (Book, 2nd Ed.)

Ian King

Jimmy you might be asking the wrong person!

/by

I recently received a marketing email from Jimmy on behalf of a Chinese equipment company. It contained training values around a subject if have some familiarity with – the concept of control and stability and selective recruitment as it relates to strength training. Marketing my idea back to me a quarter of century later and wrapping it in the all-important marketing word ‘sciences’ …-well, Jimmy you might be asking the wrong person!

I began publishing an alternative model for the periodization of strength in the 1990s. This model included the sub-quality of control and stability, which prior to that did not exist in the strength vernacular, with all due respect to those who published on this topic before this.

I presented my unique model of strength periodization from the early 1990s onwards. [1] [2]  [3] The followings show the contrast between the classical or mainstream accepted model and my innovative model of strength periodization – which included a never included sub-quality – Control and stability. [4]

Here’s an example of this:

An alternative model for the periodization of strength. [5] [6]

Control/ stability/ recruitment enhancement

Hypertrophy/General strength

Maximum strength

 Explosive Power Maintenance of specific strength qualities

So – control, stability and recruitment…

Fast forward a quarter of a century later and I receive this marketing email from some China based manufacturing company:

Hi there, We’ve long admired how KSI grounds athlete development in science — especially your emphasis on ‘Control & Stability’ and ‘Muscle Activation’ as foundational, not just outcomes.

That’s why we designed three pieces specifically to support those principles *in practice*:
• Yoga rollers — for deep neuromuscular activation during stability drills
• Stability balls — with consistent rebound & surface grip to challenge control without compromise
• Non-slip base kettlebells — so asymmetrical loading stays focused on muscle recruitment, not floor friction

All use odor-free, eco-friendly materials (TPE/EVA/rubber-coated) — because safety and feel matter when teaching.

Which of these aligns most with your current teaching focus? Happy to share specs or samples if helpful.

Best regards,-Jimmy, Senior Marketing Specialist [7]

Now perhaps I can’t expect young Jimmy from Nantong, Jiangsu Province, China to be a student of the modern history of physical preparation. And I shouldn’t be too surprised how marketers lean on the magic word ‘science’ to validate what they are selling. After all, many ‘professionals’ in our industry do the same.

The challenge I have is that as the person who introduced the idea, I have some degree of familiarly with its origin. And if you refer to science as an academically approved study published in a peer-reviewed journal – no Jimmy, it was not based on science. If you definition of science is a coaches ideas doing their best to be objective, then maybe it was science. But I know my academic colleagues would not agree,

The Sports Science section in the May issue of Sportsmed News is characterized by poor attention to detail and again, a lack of science.  Had the author (lan King) invested sufficient time in collecting his ideas… There continues to be a paucity of sports science reaching the readers of Sportsmed News and the content in future issues must be improved; reliance on “theories based on tradition” (Sportsmed News May 1996,p7) is not science – it is handed-down information based on the guess-work and hit-and-miss efforts of others. Sports Science is evolving at a phenomenal pace and your readers deserve better. [8]

After all, if I have a dollar for every time I have been accused of lacking in ‘science’, then I would be sitting on beach with my feet up.[9] [10] Now if ‘science’ has provided validation since, I am not sure what it is in comparison to. My goal was simply to share with the world the conclusions I had reached during the 1980s about something that I felt was missing in the sub-qualities and periodization of strength.

Jimmy if you have a moment, and if you have the desire to learn some modern history, and if accuracy matters in your marketing – check out a summary of the origin of these terms and concept in the context of strength in Theory #381 – Period if strength and a new sub-quality! in Volume 3 of the 2nd Edition Legacy book trilogy. Or take me off your marketing list as it’s tough to read this BS….And while you are at it, because I know you are driven to excellence, can you reference your studies re. the ‘science’….As a lifelong student I am keen to learn!

As to your question –

Which of these [items of equipment] aligns most with your current teaching focus? Happy to share specs or samples if helpful.

Can I suggest you check out my thoughts about the relationship between equipment manufacturing and marketing”

I’m not here to make money for an equipment distributor. I’ve walked away from significant offers because I don’t like their ethics. What I tell you is free of commercial, cultural bias, and obviously that’s not popular. It’s not allowed to be popular. For starters, I’m telling you, you don’t need equipment. [11]

And the influence on training trends.

No. Can you tell me a piece of equipment that surpassed a barbell or dumbbell? Now, most people would answer that question. They would paraphrase the marketing that they’ve been told. I know the answers. Fortunately, you’ve been silent long enough for me to keep talking. But I’m telling you, there hasn’t been. Between your body weight, a barbell and a dumbbell, you don’t have a bloody good reason for something else. A really good reason. [11]

Jimmy if you are interested check out the following:

  • #207 – The way you train is driven by commerce [13]
  • #208 – The equipment manufacturers conspiracy [14]
  • Chapter 1 – in the soon to be released Get Buffed! V book….[15]

I know, it’s probably AI anyway…And Jimmy might not actually be Jimmy… None-the-less, Jimmy, you might be asking the wrong person….

 

References

[1] King, I., 1993, Multi-year Periodization of Strength, A presentation at the Resistance Training Seminar for the Australian Coaching Council High Performance Course, Australian Institute of Sport, Canberra, 11-12 October.

[2] King, I., 1995, Periodization, ASCA Seminar Series, Brisbane 11 April 1995. p. 9.

[3] King, I., 1995, Periodization, ASCA Seminar Series, Brisbane 11 April 1995, p. 10.

[4] King, I., 2013, Legacy- Ian King’s training innovations (book) 1st Edition book

[5] King, I., 1999, Foundations of physical preparation (Course)

[6] King, I., 2000, Foundations of physical preparation (book), Table 20,  p. 75

[7] Nantong Modern Sporting Industrial Co., Ltd.  Nantong Modern Sporting Industrial Co., Ltd.  Nantong, Jiangsu Province, China

[8] Jenkins, D., 1996, Letters to the Editor, Sportsmed News, August 1996, authored by two academics at the local university

[9] King, I., 2025, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 1 – Parts 1 & 2 : Injury Prevention and Performance Enhancement, Theory #16 – Sticks and stones,  King Sports International (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[10] King, I., 2011, Burnt at the stake, 3 May 2011 (Article)

[11] King, I., 2011, How to Write Seminar Series – Pt 1 – How do I ensure balance in my strength training to prevent injuries? Nerang Gold Coast Qld Aust., Sun 15th May 2011 (Seminar/Video)

[12] King, I., 2011, How to Write Seminar Series – Pt 1 – How do I ensure balance in my strength training to prevent injuries? Nerang Gold Coast Qld Aust., Sun 15th May 2011 (Seminar/Video)

[13] King, I., 2026, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 2 – Parts 3 & 4: Flexibility & Strength, King Sports International (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[14] King, I., 2026, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations – Volume 2 – Parts 3 & 4: Flexibility & Strength, King Sports International (Book, 2nd Ed.)

[15] King, I., 2026, Get Buffed! 5 – awaiting publication

 

Ian King

Big Muscles, Busy Schedules – 24 years on…

/by

Recently I received this question about an article i wrote nearly a quarter of a century ago. It was a great question and deserved a great answer. I share it with you and trust you find value in this exchange.

“I’ve been training for almost 16 years now, but with the demands of becoming a licensed psychotherapist, running my own practice, and having a family, time has become pretty limited. “Big Muscles, Busy Schedules” was exactly the kind of two-day-per-week program I’d been looking for—so thank you for that!

I do have a question though: looking back after 24 years, would you make any changes to the program today? For instance, Stage 6 doesn’t include shoulder work, and after Stage 1 there aren’t any direct arm exercises. Considering the more recent insights from hypertrophy research—especially from people like Chris Beardsley—would you add or modify any movements, maybe include some isolation work?

Thanks so much for your time, and for all the great work you’ve done over the years!–Jacob, DE

Jacob – thank you for reaching out and great to hear you have found value in my article/program. I fully understand the added challenges of study, work, family etc. on one’s training. This is exactly what much of my ‘Get Buffed!’ writing is for, and I quote from my Get Buffed! book: “For the average drug free-got a job/go to school person, I recommend consider using…”

As to your questions, let’s get into it:

“Looking back after 24 years, would you make any changes to the program today?”

Absolutely there may be changes – but they may not be what you think or expect. Allow me to explain – I have written very few generic programs, relatively speaking. I have actually avoided writing generic programs for the first 20 years of my coaching, and it was only from 2000 that I realized the need to write a few. I have always, and I stress always, individualized programs for athletes. Very individual.

So, the challenge I have with generic programs is the way they are interpreted. They are general examples. They are not really written for an individual per se, and ideally once the value is found in them by the end user,I would prefer they take advantage of my extensive efforts through tools including but not liited to the current Get Buffed! four book sequel and shape these programs at least a little for themselves. As the Taoist saying goes regarding the fish and the fishing basket: “

The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you’ve gotten the fish, you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you’ve gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you’ve gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?”

So, I would prefer an end user who finds value in my generic programs move on, forget the generic program in the literal sense, and shape it to their needs.

In summary, I have some degree of embarrassment and concern about writing generic programs, for the fear many will be stuck on the program, and not the message. They are not, and cannot be, designed for anyone, as they are composites of imagination as to who the end user might be.

Hopefully this is not too deep or esoteric. I just wanted to express my reservations when asked to provide generic programs. Despite the number of generic programs that I have written for end user and coach education, I have only once in sport at the representative level provided a generic program, and that was a reflection of the budget, and a realization that what I might write may be better than what they would otherwise receive.

Now let’s go deeper on your question, breaking it up into bite size pieces:

“For instance, Stage 6 doesn’t include shoulder work…”

There is absolutely a time and place to remove any given muscle group, but that decision hopefully is individualized! So I would write that again in a program, 24 later, under appropriate circumstances. Are those your circumstances? I don’t know – that is why I have a dissonance with generic programs…

“…and after Stage 1 there aren’t any direct arm exercises…”

There is absolutely a time and place to remove any given muscle group, and I do it more times than you might imagine. In particular with athletes – there are relatively few (and note I said relatively few) competitive sports that require or benefit from an over-focus on arm size. Yes, I know, this is contrary to dominant trends. It’s akin to bench pressing in alpine skiing. The focus on the chest in the last decade or so – in particular in a country with 50 or so states…. – is insane. And the rise in torn biceps in athletes is also insane. And ironically, most athletes who tear their biceps did so in the pursuit of upper arm strength and size in excess of what I consider optimal for their sport. But what would I know? I have only been at this for 45 years…

There are no shortage of individuals (and I refer mainly to non-athletes) whose arm development gives the casual observer the impression they are huge – but a closer review reveals a trunk that is not much bigger than the arms…

It all comes back to what you are chasing. And some just want the instant gratification of arm isolation programs and that a life-style choice. I am not knocking it – I just want to put arm training in context.

“Considering the more recent insights from hypertrophy research…”

Now that opens up a whole new can of worms. A few points:

• ‘Research’, and I assume you mean from a ‘recognized academic institution’, is what is allowed to be selected as a study topic and published.

• I take a different approach to research – I consider it involves objective analysis as the primary requirement, not something that is the exclusive domain of the ‘ivory tower’.

• Historic analysis of ‘research’ influence on strength training provides an ‘interesting’ insight into the mandate of being ‘research compliant’. For example, through the 1970s and early 1980sif you did heavy loaded exercises (what we now call maximal strength training) you were engaging in dangerous and high risk of injury activity. The use of free weights was painted with the same brush. If you engaged in squats (the double leg bent knee type), you were stretching the ligaments of the knee and you should not squat. The lower back EMG studies showed little to no activity past a certain degree of flexion (they omitted to place the electrodes on any other muscles involved including the hamstrings…) and therefore you should not engage in forward flexion such as a deadlift. I could go on.

• ‘Research’ for the most part does not answer long term questions such as what should I do today that will optimize my training outcome in 40 year’s time.

So no, I am not ‘research compliant’. I wasn’t when the article and program was written in 2002, and I am still not now. Does that mean I am divisive of ‘research’? Not at all. I just take it with a grain of salt, except when I find a person is the average of the dozen or so undergraduate students and their long term goal is the 8 weeks duration of the study…(Yes, I am being facetious.)

To take this one step further, I seek to provide what the late US thinker Buckminster-Fuller is credited with calling ‘generalized principles. The aim is to provide guidance that does not need massive tweaking every tie there is a ‘trend’ or ‘research’ change. Which is why we are still talking about this program 24 years later….

“…would you add or modify any movements…?”

I may well do, but I would prefer to provide those tweaks on the basis of knowing more about the end user. I read a few years back in one of those ‘secret’ titled books about program design that a ‘fitness professional’ knows 80% of what they need to know before meeting the client, and only an additional 20% is gained upon meeting them. What a load of BS! Did this ‘author’ actually believe this, or was is a shot at an impressive marketing line? If they did believe it, God help their clients…

We can be better than this. And you, the client, deserve better that this.

‘Research’ or that ‘80%’ learnt by the ‘fitness professional’ does not answer questions such as:

• What is your age and gender?

• What is your maturation and aging status?

• How many hours a week do you work at your job? • Is your job blue (manual) or white (more sedentary) collar?

• How much stress is involved in your job?

• How long does it take you to travel to and from work?

• How many days a week do you work from home?

• How are your personal relationships going, including with any significant other?

• How many kids do you have?

• How old are your kids?

• What is your training history?

• What is your injury history?

• What equipment do you prefer to train on?

• What exercises do you prefer to do?

• What training methods do you prefer to do?

• What training equipment do you prefer to use?

• What results have you got from your training?

• What is the temperature, humidity, altitude and air quality where you live and train?

• What is the water quality, amount and frequency that you consume?

• What about your diet and nutritional supplements?

• What about your past and present medications

• What other health conditions are you at risk or suffer from?

• What is your personality and emotional status and how does this impact your choice of training location?

• What time of day do you get the best results from training? Listen, I am just warming up. But I hope you get the hint. ‘Research’ does not have those answers, and good luck if you believe your ‘fitness professional’ has 80% of all they need to know to program you before you even meet them….

In conclusion, it takes all types to shape our world. Some want a free or cheap program that will meet a lot of their needs. Other will want a bit of help, some with their motivation, or accountability, others with some more superficial guidance. When I fully individualize training program for an athlete or client, ideally with the prospect of being involved in a primary role of a decade or two, I take all the time I need to match the program variables to the individual. My generic programs are great, and in some cases may be better than what some may provide you in their best interpretation of an ‘individualized’ programs. But when comparing apples to apples, my individualized programs, or you tweaking my generic programs relying on the education I have provided in books and articles during the last five decades, is better.

Ian King

34 year ago…

/by

A few weeks ago another athlete reached out for a phone chat. They wanted to say thank you for you contribution to their sporting career. The last time we met and sport was 34 years ago.

He also spoke proudly of the reports and other printed information I had prepared and given him back in the day, and kindly offered to send them to me so I could obtain a copy. After all, computers had just arrived in 1992 – they are very simple, more like glorified type-setting devices – but emails had not, an internet as we know know it and cell phones were even further away.

I am always touched by athletes who care enough to express gratitude, and I told them that. I also took the time to catch up on their life, and there were some lessons for me.

  1. Show gratitude – forever

I know it sounds basic however I do my best to do this, and I appreciate athletes who also do this. I am humbled by the actions of some of the athletes, who work hard to find me over a quarter of a century later, as I realize they may have exceeded their teacher in this regard.

  1. I need to be better

I learnt during this chat that he had a serious, life impacting injury later in the seasons that I had prepared him for. Although he was in an Australian Institute of Sport squad, there were higher levels of squads above that, and he did not receive the level of service that these higher level squads were given. I did not recall his injury, and had no involvement in his rehab – which was tough for me to learn.

With all due respect to my sports medicine colleagues of that era, I typically took a responsible to assist towards an optimal outcome of an injury athlete.  I was under the pump so to speak with the higher-level squads (and other sports) in that era, but I should have done more for him

  1. Theories leave a paper trail

In the paperwork this athlete shared with me I took note of certain items that showed my long commitment to certain beliefs, including and listed alphabetically:

Clean skins

I have used the words ‘clean skins’ to describe the athletes I ‘inherited’ in the 1980s and 1990s who had never done physical preparation before.

When I first started professionally training athletes in the early 1980s, I got what I now call clean skins. These were athletes that were great at their sport (typically at the top of their sport provincially, nationally, and internationally) yet has never done what I call dryland or physical preparation. Others now instinctively default to the less-than-optimal term ‘strength & conditioning’…That’s right – never ever done anything more than non-specific fitness training run by their coach. So, what I got to learn from and observe were bodies where the only collateral damage to their bodies was what playing their sport had done. I am talking about Olympians, and captains of national teams included.  Yes, their bodies had collateral damage, but it was directly correlated with their position in their sport. [1]

Here’s a statement in this 1992 communication that confirmed that this reality:

If you commence training some muscles for the first time e.g. shoulder joint muscles, you will need to learn to stretch these joints specifically.[2]

Predict into and plan for the future

A mindset I teach athletes and coaches is what it takes to be great, to be the champion today, dose not stand still. To maintain dominance in sport, we need to anticipate and plan for what the sport may be like moving forwards.

You can see this in my 1992 report to the athlete:

Plan for the [their sport]  of the future – it will be faster, more skillful, the players bigger, stronger, faster……. [3]

Recognizing the sub-qualities of strength

In the 1980s and early 1990s the greatest challenge in strength training for sport in Austarlia was to overcome the negative attitudes athletes had towards strength training. Yes, I know, that’s hard to imagine. Note the references to this:

It is important to note that the term strength i s used t o describe all types o f strength – maximal strength, speed-strength (including explosive power) and strength endurance…. Whilst different players play different styles o f [their sport] and different positions have varied strength requirements, don’t make the mistake that has been made by many players in the past, largely from poor advice given – get strong! Strength is not a dirty word – just make sure that you are developing the correct type of strength in the correct muscle groups.

Now that the world, including Australian athletes, have over-reacted, post 2000 in particular I have felt compelled to take the opposite approach – counselling against the over-reliance on strength and strength training. And that has happened in the span of just a decade or so.

Don’t assume, as an athlete, that strength training holds your salvation! Strength training only holds your salvation if lack of the specific strength qualities needed in your sport is truly your number one limiting factor to enhanced performance. And in my opinion, it rarely is. Technique, tactics and selected psychological traits rate higher in my opinion as the limiting factor in most athletes, rather than strength.

So when you strength train, do it in context – balance it relative to your limiting factors i.e. what stands between you and the next step of greatness.  Prioritize the most importance or weakest link, that which will have the greatest impact now on your performance.  And when you do strength train – do it well.  Do what you need to perform, not look good relative to the model of the bodybuilding physique[4]

Relationship between strength and endurance

In the 1980s and early 1990s developing an ‘aerobic base’ in the off-season was the dominant paradigm.

There has been a traditional bias towards gaining an ‘aerobic base’ at the commencement of the general preparation phase – in all sports, all the time, with all athletes.  Is this based on fact?  I suggest not.  I suggest it is a myth.  Yes, there will be times when this method is applicable, and there will be times when it won’t be. 

My breaking of this ‘aerobic base’ rule has attracted a lot of flak, as would any paradigm shifter.  I was wrong. It can’t be done.  This is the way we have always done it.  It has to be done this way. [5]

I wrote my report in 1992 for this athlete and their squad in this environment.

The relationship between strength and endurance is becoming more clearly

understood. During periods of priority strength training, endurance training needs to be minimized and well controlled. Failure to achieve a balance between the two will have a greater negative effect on strength than endurance. [6]

A point of significance worth noting was that one of my ‘co-consultants’ in this athletes squad was one of the very consultant who retaliated against my stance against the sanctity of the aerobic base.  When I say I have been stoned and burnt at the stake metaphorically:

I have fallen on my sword and been burnt on the stake a lot of times in the last 30 years. Not because I want to be right, but if I feel the dogma isn’t serving the athlete or the people, why go on with it? [7]

I say it because it is real, and one of those moments was because I took a stance against the aerobic base myth, partly based on my personal and professional conclusions, and partly because the ‘interference’ conclusions raised in research.

The Sports Science section in the May issue of Sportsmed News is

characterized by poor attention to detail and again, a lack of science.  Had the author (lan King) invested sufficient time in collecting his ideas… There continues to be a paucity of sports science reaching the readers of Sportsmed News and the content in future issues must be improved; reliance on “theories based on tradition” (Sportsmed News May 1996,p7) is not science – it is handed-down information based on the guess-work and hit-and-miss efforts of others. Sports Science is evolving at a phenomenal pace and your readers deserve better. [8]

Yet, in the very same sports squad that this athlete was part of, my strength training programs were paired with an ‘endurance’ program based on this very ‘aerobic base’. Not only is it difficult to produce optimal results with conflicting guidance, irrespective of all other physical quality training including strength, how does an athlete actually ‘convert’ their long distance and interval training to ‘speed’ during the pre-season, in a way that results in dominating in speed during the season proper?

Well done xxxx – concentrate on your speed over the shorter distances in the next few months – Off season report for this athlete[9]

No-one can suggest this quote or the endurance programs provided were me demonstrating a ‘poor research’ approach. It is factual. And the athletes and team in this sport who were able to fully follow my more encompassing athlete preparation guidance won a number of significant championships during the 1990s…but of course, that is not ‘research’, my apologies, just poor ‘empirical’ information.

Experiences like this led me to share the below:

I became known as a person who was not that scientific. But guess what? The athlete standing on the podium didn’t give a …. rat’s ass that I wasn’t very academic or that I’d forgotten how to pronounce an anatomical term. They really didn’t care. So, I don’t mind being considered as unacademic, because my role, my niche, my gift, is to help the elite athlete become successful beyond their own expectations. There’s no correlation with my academic qualifications. [10]

When an athlete is on the podium, you think they care whether what they did was in the latest scientific journal. There is no correlation between science and what happens to performing sport at the elite level. [11]

There is no correlation between the podium and science – in other words, that a Gold medalist is not likely to be backed by more science than a Silver medalist, and who in turn is not likely to be backed by more science than a Bronze medalist.  Well, at least, not the ones I help put on the podium. [12]

I understand I am expected to be apologetic for the heretical stance I have and continue to take – putting the athlete before the professional reputation of academics who recommend training based on the very thing they virtual-signaled me for – lack of research.

But I don’t think I will. And I don’t believe the athletes who have stood on the podium, or the teams that have won Championships are losing too much sleep about that.

Relationship between strength and flexibility

There has been one constant in my professional career – the value I have placed on flexibility this has led to very clear and effective theories about the role and application of flexibility training. That the post 1995 training world has stepped further away from these theories that I developed in the 1980s has not changed that position.

Flexibility and strength training have also suffered misinterpretation. If you increase your volume of training by adding strength training, you will need to increase your stretching… The factor that will influence your flexibility the most – either negatively or positively – is whether you are doing enough flexibility training of the correct type. [13]

Relationship between strength and skill

One of the key reasons strength training was rejected in Australia by sports coaches, athletes and academics until about the mid 1990s (this phenomenon existed in other countries such as the US, they simply moved through them at an earlier year) was the fear of being ‘muscle bound’.

This a valid conclusion I suggest, at least in the way strength training was conduced in the 1960s and 1970s:

Between 1960 and 1970 many leading sports coaches in the western world gave strength training a go and found it was causing their athletes to become muscle bound (stiff) and resulted in increased injuries. So, they stopped, concluding that strength training was bad for sport.

They were right with the way they were doing it- it was not optimal. It took another 2-3 decades for the sporting world to learn that there are many different variables in strength training that when manipulated in varying combinations created diverse results. And some of these were better than others for any given athlete at any given time. [14]

However, I felt I was providing the 1980s and 1990s athletes with a more optimal form o strength training, I needed to encourage them to overcome the negative recent history of the impact of strength training on skill.

Another traditional attitude in [their sport] is that strength will decrease skill. Strength training has the potential to enhance many skills, and the finer skills which it has minimal impact o n it certainly doesn’t have a negative impact on. If you wish to retain or improve skill – you need t o train that exact movement! [15]

Post 2000 the overreaction to strength training, at the expense of other athletic components, let me to counsel in reverse:

Many athletes get a warm feeling from the muscle mass and strength increases from strength training. In part because of the social rewards placed on ‘getting buffed’, and in part because it gives them a feeling of being a warrior. There is no correlation between muscle mass and or non-specific (gym) strength that trumps optimal technical and tactical development. More likely, you will see a decline in technique if your dryland adaptations contest skill execution. [16]

Relationship between strength and speed

During the 1989 and early 1990s, strength training was not used by athletes in Australia to develop speed. In fact, very few athletes – including elite athletes – were given any speed training. What was done was more endurance, interval training. Hard to believe?

In 1999, an athlete who I had cared for since our first meeting after he graduated high school, was at a World Cup. He approached the coach responsible for their physical training, and asked if he could have a supervised speed session. In response, based on what the athlete shared with me, this national team physical coach said words to the effect:

‘You don’t need to do speed training, You get your speed from the gym. But if you feel you need to, run up and down that grassed area, and I will watch you from the roof top (of the local licensed premises)…’

This ‘interesting’ phenomenon where even speed-strength sport athletes were denied either strength or speed training or both was what I was countering when I wrote this in my 1992 report:

From a historical perspective it has been believed that forwards need to be stronger than backs. When one considers the relationship between strength and speed, one may recognize the need for greater strength. [17]

Strength tests do not measure your ability to play your game

In the 1980s I became concerned that the advent of strength testing in Australia was being used to inappropriately select athletes for teams or squads. For example, in 1989 I was in a national team selection discussion where the head coach was using my testing results to justify his desired selection. I did all I could to negate this direction.

It is also important to note that strength testing does not measure your ability to play [their sport] – but rather, measures qualities that contribute to success i n [their spor]. Whilst different players play different styles of [their sport] and different positions have varied strength requirements… [18]

Think for yourself

My consistent message to athletes and coaches is think for yourself.

But at this stage, it’s still considered a little bit naughty for a person to form their own opinion, or for a person like myself to teach you to form your own opinion, but it’s a little bit naughty. By now you’ve realized that that’s what I do, and I believe it is the most effective way to act as a professional as well as live your life. And I also believe that if you’re intuitively smart, that your conclusions will be confirmed by inverted comma science at a later date, as a number of mine have. So, I didn’t read a book and say, that’s the belief I want to have. I didn’t go to a seminar and heard a speaker and was so influenced by it that I thought, well, that’s the belief I want to have [19]

At the end of the day, all I really ask you to do is think and ask yourself the question, what’s best for them now? What’s best now? What’s best now? What’s best now? Never assume, never apply a stereotypical or generic concept. Always question it. And even if you don’t have the answer now, guess what? The fact that you’ve raised the question will give you a chance of having the answer in one day. If you never ask the question, you will never get the answer. [20]

You can see this was there in 1992:

Don’t blindly follow the leader’ in your training – think about what you are doing. [21]

Title

I signed that 1992 document off with…

lan King, Consultant – Physical Preparation of the Athlete [22]

I have written about the options and history of a job descriptions as far back in the 1990s, through to more recent times.

I am not supportive of  the  term strength and conditioning…I believe the term ‘physical preparation’ is a better term.  Athletic preparation another.[23]

Is there a better term than ‘strength and conditioning’?   Yes, I believe that the words ‘physical preparation’ is a more appropriate term. [24]

In the 1980s, I  forged a career in Australia that did not exist. The role did not exist, and there was no job title. What would I call myself?  I looked around the world for guidance and found two dominant influences – the United States National Strength & Conditioning Association (NSCA) and an Eastern European perspective on athlete training by Tudor Bompa, whose 1983 book ‘The Theory and Methodology of Training’ was one of the most influential books I was exposed to in that decade.

The answers and conclusions I reached from my search for a professional job title continue to shape the world in various ways.   With a growing number using the term ‘physical preparation coach’, it’s timely to share the origin and intent of this term. In this article, I achieve this through consideration of cultural influences, sports history, and my personal experiences. [25]

Learn more about the history of this title or role description in this article series. [26] [27]

Conclusion

I want to say thank you to the athlete who triggered this article. Thank you for trusting me 34 years ago. Thank you for reaching out, for your gratitude. I know we could have done more for you back in the day. However ,it is never too late – I will be reaching out to you for an in-person consultation to make amends and meet my commitment to the athlete – for life.

 

References

[1] King, I., 2023, I miss the clean skins, Leondo #14, 14 Sep 2023

[2] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[3] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[4] King, I., 2004, Get Buffed! III, Introduction

[5] King, I., 1997, Winning & Losing, p. 19-20

[6] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[7] Casey, Sean, 2011, Interview with the expert – Ian King – Part 1 of 2, Casey Performance, March 02, 2011

[8] xxx, x., 1996, Letters to the Editor, Sportsmed News, xxxx1996 (full reference withheld in respect)

[9] Provided by the fitness consultant

[10] King, I., 2010, Barbells and Bullshit – Challenging your thinking, Pt 1of 10 – How to think and learn

[11] King, I., 2011, Child to Champion, Cape Cod MA USA, 4 November 2011 (Seminar/Video)

[12] King, I., 2020, In theory this should, Off the Record #124, 21 Oct 2020

[13] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[14] King, I., 2020, Stereo-typing training, Off the Record #115, 8 Sep 2020

[15] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[16] King, I., 2023, Supercross Super injured, Blog, 23 May 2023 https://kingsports.net/supercross-super-injured/

[17] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[18] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[19] King, I., 2012, KSI Coaching Program Level 2 Foundations, Unit 4 – Theory of flexibility development, (Video) 17 May 2012

[20] King, I., 2013,  Lines of movement, Presentation at Tufts University,  Boston, MA, USA, 12 March 2013

[21] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[22] King, I., 1992, AIS [their sport] Off-season Training Program – Strength Training and Strength Testing Report, 22 Dec 2022

[23] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing, Ch. 16 – The strength & conditioning coach, p. 87

[24] King, I., 1999, So you want to become (Book), p. 16-17

[25] King, I., 2025, What’s in a name? Pt 1 – Origin and intent of the term physical preparation coach, (Blog), 16 May 2025

[26] King, I., 2025, What’s in a name? Pt 1 – Origin and intent of the term physical preparation coach, (Blog), 16 May 2025

[27] King, I., 2025, What’s in a name? Pt 2 – Considering the bigger picture of physical preparation, (Blog), 30 May 2025

 

 

Ian King

The “ABC” of program design

/by

In 1980 I set out on my professional journey to find answers to the question ‘What is the best way to train?’  How to design training programs was integral to finding these answers, as the decisions made in program design shape the training outcomes.

One of the components of training design is the decision as to what days to perform certain training on.  I refer to this program design step as the allocation of training, specifically exercises and or muscle groups to training days.

This refers to all forms of training, not just strength training. However, in relation to strength training it was apparent there were three dominant approaches – the method that referred to a sequential number of the training day within the week e.g. Training Day 1, Training Day 2 etc.; the method that referred to the day of the week that certain training was to be performed on e.g. Mon, Wed, Friday; and the method that referred to the muscle groups to be trained in the workout on that day e.g. Leg day; chest, shoulders and triceps day; and back and bicep day.

These three approaches to allocation of training were evident over decades, and therefore, I suggest they earned the title as ‘traditional’ approaches.  They were also evident in a broad range of strength training disciplines and across cultures, therefore earning the title of ‘dominant’ approaches.

I considered these traditional dominant approaches and soon found significant limitations with them, based perhaps on the fact that the bodies that I was testing and refining my training solutions on were athletes in diverse sports as opposed to general population or athletes limited to one sport, and the fact that I moved away from an exclusive muscle group approach to include my Lines of Movement concept. In summary, I found these traditional approaches for the allocation of training to be limiting, presumptive and restrictive in nature.  So, I did what has become a half-century habit – I innovated. This is discussed in full later in this article.

The aim of this article is to review the influences and adoption of these three traditional, dominant approaches to allocation of training, and to outline the alternative I developed to overcome the limitations of these traditional approaches.

The dominant approaches to the allocation of training

From my professional entry point in 1980, I identified three dominant approaches to the allocation of training.  They were as follows.

Allocation of training to a sequential number of training days within the week

The allocation of training to a sequential number of training days within the week resulted in the workout being named as a number, e.g. Workout 1, Workout 2, etc.

Workout 1 Workout 2 Workout 3
Exercise 1 Exercise 1 Exercise 1
Exercise 2 Exercise 2 Exercise 2
Exercise 3 Exercise 3 Exercise 3
Exercise 4 Exercise 4 Exercise 4
Etc. Etc. Etc.

 [1]

Allocation of training to the day of the week

The allocation of training to the day of the week resulted in the name of the day being used to identify that workout.  For example, a three-day-a-week strength program would be depicted as below, and it was either ‘Monday’s workout’, or ‘Wednesday’s workout’, or ‘Friday’s workout’.

Monday Wednesday Friday
Exercise 1 Exercise 1 Exercise 1
Exercise 2 Exercise 2 Exercise 2
Exercise 3 Exercise 3 Exercise 3
Exercise 4 Exercise 4 Exercise 4
Etc. Etc. Etc.

[2]

Allocation of muscle groups to workouts

The allocation of muscle groups to the workout approach resulted in the name of the muscle groups being used to title that workout.  For example, a three-day-a-week strength program would be depicted as below, e.g. the ‘chest/shoulders/triceps’ workout might be done on say Monday, the ‘Legs’ workout may be done on Wednesday, and the ‘Back & Biceps’ workout might be done on Friday. Realistically, the frequency of training may be higher; however, this was kept simple for illustrative purposes.

Chest/Shoulders/Triceps Legs Back & Biceps
Exercise 1 Exercise 1 Exercise 1
Exercise 2 Exercise 2 Exercise 2
Exercise 3 Exercise 3 Exercise 3
Exercise 4 Exercise 4 Exercise 4
Etc. Etc. Etc.

 [3]

The traditional influence on these dominant approaches to the allocation of training

From my professional entry point in 1980, I began collating training reference material as part of my search for the answer to the question, ‘What is the best way to train?’ This reference material indicated that there was a strong enough history to describe these three dominant approaches to allocation of training as traditional.

As I began to develop, test, and refine an alternative approach from the early 1980s onwards, the reliance of these dominant approaches to the allocation of training continued for another two decades.  Therefore, these three methods dominated program design for a minimum of thirty years (1970-2000).

It was not until after I published my 1998 book ‘How to Write Strength Training Programs’ that the alternative approach that I had developed gained traction, as evidenced in program design-related publications.

The global acceptance of these dominant approaches to allocation of training

The use of these two dominant approaches to the allocation of training has not been restricted to one country. They have appeared in literature in many different countries.

The strength training genre adoption and preferences to these traditional dominant approaches to the allocation of training

A number of different strength training genres contribute to strength training as a whole. These include but are not limited to, weightlifting. powerlifting and bodybuilding.  There are also sports such as track and field that have led the way in the use of strength training for sport. There are also professional genres, such as the American concept of ‘strength and conditioning coach’ (originally referred to as ‘strength coaches’),that have made a significant contribution to strength training as it is now known. All of these genres had adopted these traditional dominant approaches to allocation of training.

There does appear to be a historic preference amongst each strength training genre for one or the other of these two traditional dominant approaches to allocation of training.

For example, weightlifting may have a historic preference for the allocation of training to a sequential number of training days within the week approach.

  [4]

Powerlifting may have a historic preference for the allocation of training to the day of the week approach.

[5]

Bodybuilding may have a historic preference for the allocation of muscle groups to the training days approach.

 [6]

The ‘strength & conditioning’ genre has a historic preference for the allocation of training to the day of the week approach.

 

 [7]

And in some cases, referenced the muscle group to training days ala bodybuilding.

 

 [8]

The limitations of these traditional dominant approaches to the allocation of training

Each of these dominant traditional approaches to allocation of training presented specific limitations, especially in the application of program design to the bodies on which I was testing and refining my training solutions on.  My niche since 1980 has been the physical and athletic preparation of elite athletes in diverse sports and countries, as opposed to a one-sport focus, or domestic-based athletes, or lower-level athletes or the general population.

The limitations of each traditional dominant approach to the allocation of training

In addressing the limitations of each of these three approaches to allocation of training,  I will reverse the order to work from most restrictive to least.

The most presumptive and restrictive is what I will refer to as the bodybuilding approach, which groups muscle groups together in a broad-brush method and allocates them to training days, e.g. the ‘back’. Before my Lines of Movement concept being published, and in some situations, I am sure this continues to today, the ‘back’ refers to both horizontal and vertical pulling muscle groups. I found this approach inadequate and replaced it in the 1980s with my Lines of Movement approach to allocation of training days.

The second most restrictive approach, although not to the extent of the above, is what I will refer to as the powerlifting approach, which nominates a day of the week. This suits domestic-based, stable competition; however is more clunky for the internationally competing athletes, who competition is not a regular one day of the week, on a predictable cycle e.g. every weekend for some weeks, e.g. American football is played domestically, and in many leagues up u on the same day each week, or a primary day of the week.  This approach is not suitable for many sports.

Thirdly, what I will refer to as the weightlifting approach, simply adds a number to the more workouts in a week planned. This is a more flexible approach.

It is interesting to note the historic influence adopted by more recent influences, such as the US National Strength and Conditioning, which in its relatively short history, appears to have favored what I refer to as the powerlifting approach to allocation of training day, with a lesser inclusion of bodybuilding.

Below is an example from what I believe is the origins of the NSCA – a powerlifting strength coach with a major focus on servicing American football players – in the case of this program shared by the late legendary Bill Starr, the author of the iconic book ‘The Strongest Shall Survive’.

  [9]

An alternative approach to the allocation of training

In the early 1980s, I was following the powerlifting approach. Here is an example of this from a program I wrote in 1983.

 [10]

However, during the 1980s, I adopted a new approach of allotting training days by sequential letters of the alphabet.  Here is an example from 1990.

 [11]

You will see this practice of muscle group allocation to the sequential letter of the alphabet in all my published works from about the mid-1980s onwards. Here is an example from my 1998 book, How to Write Strength Training Programs. [12]

Allocation of muscle groups to training days in strength training refers to the decision of which muscle groups to place on which training days.  Once the number of training days and which training days have been selected, this is somewhat like filling in the spaces. 

The steps involved in allocating muscle groups to training days include:

  1. Determine all the muscle groups to be trained: Simply brainstorm and list all the muscle groups you wish to train. The following is a sample list, not in any order:

Figure 1 – A sample list of muscle groups, not in any order.

_______________________________________________

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

biceps

abdominals

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

hip dominant (e.g. dead lift and its variations)

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

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

triceps

lower back

calves

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

forearm extension/flexion

________________________________________________

  1. Determine how many days of training per week or microcycle: Now decide how many training days per week or microcycle.  For the purposes of the example we are using, I have chosen four (4).
  1. Determine which days will be training days within that week or microcycle: Now determine which days you will train on – the following table builds on the example we are developing.

Table 1 – Number of training sessions and which days in the week.

 

SUN MON TUE WED THUR FRI SAT
  A B   C D  

 [13]

The popularization of my alternative approach to the allocation of training

The following are examples of the application of this method for the allocation of training.  These tables are from my 1998 book How to Write Strength Training Programs. [14]

[15]

Despite about a decade and a half of use and publishing about this method, from the mid-1980s to 2000, it was not until my work was published in the US online bodybuilding magazine known at that time as t-mag.com that it gained popularity, and this approach became more common. When you consider that significant training methods such as the West German sport scientist Dietmar Schmidtbleicher’s alternating accumulation and intensification did not get much notice from its earlier publishing in the early 1980s until it was published by a different author on t-mag.com, it should not be a surprise. The fact that it takes a bodybuilding magazine to gain traction is not lost on me, however.

 

References

[1] Qld Amateur Weightlifting Association, Preliminary Certificate Course

[2] Kazmier, B., 1981, The Bench Press

[3] Fleck, S.J., and Kraemer, W.J., 1987, Designing resistance training programs, Human Kinetics

[4] The United States Weightlifting Federation Coaching Manual, Vol. 3 – Training Program Design

[5] National Coaching Accreditation Scheme, Australian Powerlifting Federation, Interim Level 1 Powerflifting Manual, 1 Jan 1994

[6] Keller, L., 2000, The Men’s Health Hard Body Plan, Rodale Publishing

[7] Baechle, T.R. (Editor), 1990, Essentials of strength training and conditioning, National Strength and Conditioning Association of America

[8] Baechle, T.R. (Editor) et al, 1994, Essentials of strength training and conditioning, National Strength and Conditioning Association of America

[9] Starr, B., 1979, The strongest shall survive

[10] King, I., 1983, Bodybuilding programmes (Booklet), unpublished

[11] King, I., 1990, Program written for an athlete

[12] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Chapter 3 – Allocation of muscle groups

to training days

[13] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Chapter 3 – Allocation of muscle groups

to training days

[1] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Chapter 10 – Frequency of training

[2] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Chapter 10 – Frequency of training

 

© 2025 Ian King & King Sports International. All rights reserved.

Ian King

What else don’t we know?

/by

This article is not about sets and reps. However, I suggest it relates to our physical training. This story appears to be geographically specific. However, I suggest that if you dig deeper into the history of your own region, you may see relevance.  The message is we might believe we have a full grasp of the information, only to learn we don’t. And how that information could serve us to achieve our best and highest good.  The focus on conspiracies in our society appears to be rising. This is not a conspiracy story, but in less clear-cut circumstances, it may be relevant to other conspiracy theories.

Sqn Ldr John Francis Jackson                                                         

The main airport in Port Moresby is named Port Moresby International Airport (sometimes in full Port Moresby Jackson International Airport) and is the largest airport in the country.

As a commercial airport, it was built on the airport created by the Allied Forces in the New Guinea war campaign against the Japanese Imperial Army. It was named after  Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Squadron Leader John Francis Jackson, who was killed in action in 1942 while defending the city from Japanese forces.

John Jackson’s story is worth reading. The sacrifice, the risks, the determination, the willingness to defend his country. His two kids never got to know their father, as he went off to war shortly after they were born.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

John Jackson’s courage, leadership, and ultimate sacrifice became a symbol of Australia’s and Papua New Guinea’s shared wartime struggle. [7]

Following Jackson’s death in combat on April 28 1942, the airport was named after him in various forms, including Jackson’s Drome, Jackson Field.  By the time I first flew into it in the early 1960s, it was known as Jackson’s Airport.

It was not until April 24 2017, that John’s story was formally recognized and his daughter Patricia Jackson and son Arthur Jackson were present to receive the acknowledgement, with the unveiling of a commemorative display. [8] That was 75 years later, almost to the day.

Bomana War Cemetery

John was buried at Bomana War Cemetery, [9] [10] [11]. The Bomana War Cemetery was officially opened on August 5 1944. I have strong memories of visiting this cemetery many times as a young boy. You can imagine the impact on a young person of seeing so many headstones. On the upside, the cemetery was always immaculately presented.

Kokoda 

One of the popular recreational activities for families living in the Port Moresby area was a day trip to Owen’s Corner in the Owen Stanley ranges, about a 40km drive out of Port Moresby, to walk and explore the trail that runs through the village of Kokoda. This trail was used by the Allies to provide a final defence against the Japanese Imperial Army, who were traversing the main island of PNG from the north, from their base in the town of Rabaul on the Island of New Britain.[12] [13]

The Kokoda Trail was a path that linked Ower’s Corner, approximately 40 km north-east of Port Moresby, and the small village of Wairopi, on the northern side of the Owen Stanley mountain range. From Wairopi, a crossing point on the Kumusi River, the Trail was connected to the settlements of Buna, Gona and Sanananda on the north coast. Its name was derived from the village of Kokoda that stood on the northern side of the main range and was the site of the only airfield between Port Moresby and the north coast. [14]

I recall it being called the ‘Trail’ – when I was walking it as a child, but I have since been corrected by many (who have never been there!) that it is ‘Track’!

“Kokoda Trail” and “Kokoda Track” have been used interchangeably since the Second World War and the former was adopted by the Battles Nomenclature Committee as the official British Commonwealth battle honour in October 1957. [15]

It was impactful to be in the foxholes and walk the same track as the Allied Forces did, albeit in a more playful mood. Or as playful as you can get, walking up and down the single steep path. The creeks in between the ridges provided relief.

Rabaul

The Japanese Imperial Army captured the township of Rabaul on the Island of New Britain on 23 January 1942. From there, they commenced an overland trek from the north of the main island of PNG to capture Port Moresby, which would have exposed Australia to greater attack. Australia was exposed, as it would have been difficult for Australia to defend its sparsely populated north. The Japanese surrounded Rabaul back to the Allied Forces on September 6 1945.

I was born in that town a decade and a half later.

War relics 

Whilst families enjoyed sites as the Kokoda Trail, kids in PNG enjoyed collecting war relics. The American Forces have been very ‘generous’ in what they had left behind. Our collection as kids was diverse and large.  You didn’t have to walk far from your home in towns such as Port Moresby to find war relics. It was something you could do on the spur of the moment on any afternoon after school.

Relatives who served in PNG

Many Australians have relatives or know someone who has served in the World Wars, and the Pacific campaign was no exception. I had an uncle who served in PNG. [16]

I thought I knew a lot about WWII in PNG

As you can see from the above, where I have sought to provide a snapshot of my belated exposure to the events of WW II in PNG, I had reason to believe I was all over it.

I had walked the paths, been in the foxholes, touched the relics, visited the war cemetery – and not just once. All the above was a regular occurrence.

And then in 2023, I learnt about an event on the 7th September 1943 at what I knew as Jackson’s Airport. It had been kept a secret for 80 years.

How secret?

General Douglas MacArthur ordered a shroud of secrecy around the crash and threatened to court-martial anyone who spoke of it. Relatives of the dead were kept in the dark.[17]

The day in PNG during WWII when a US plane killed 63 Australian soldiers

On September 7th 1943, at Jackson’s Field (Drome) a US Liberator bomber laden with fuel clipped a tree on take-off and crashed into a convoy of trucks carrying soldiers of the 2/33rd Australian Infantry Battalion. The result:

  • 60 Australian Army members from the 2/33rd Australian Infantry Battalion were killed
  • 2 Australian truck drivers killed
  • 11 US air service members killed
  • 90 other Australians were injured

I know the authorities had their reasons for the ‘secret’

I know the authorities of the Allied Forces had their reasons.

“For morale reasons, General Douglas MacArthur ordered a shroud of secrecy around the crash…”[18]

However, this decision was not without ramifications. I am not suggesting MacArthur didn’t consider them.

The connection for me continues

I learnt 80 years later that the Liberator involved, the “Pride of the Cornhuskers” was named in honor of Nebraska, home US state of the 21-year-old flight officer Howard J. Wood.   I took multiple trips to Nebraska in the late 1980s and early 1990s, spending time at the then headquarters of the NSCA in Lincol,n Nebraska.  I also have positive memories of my time spent with one of the original coaches of the NSCA, Boyd Epley,[19] and his crew, at the University of Nebraska[20].

To be clear:

“An Australian Army Court of Inquiry handed down its findings into the disaster in December 1943. It attached no blame to the pilot or crew of the Liberator, but ordered a review of airfield marshalling procedures to avoid putting future troop carrying trucks in danger at the end of runways.” [21]

The US military review was perhaps less forgiving:

A US Air Force Inquiry placed 90 per cent of the blame on pilot error during an instrument take-off and 10 per cent on the dark, foggy weather conditions.” [22]

The enormity of the secret

This was the largest aviation disaster loss of lives – in peace or war – for Australia:

Former Sun-Herald editor Peter Allen, writing in the Order of Service for the ceremony, says: “Because Papua New Guinea was then under Australian administration, the crash still ranks as the biggest in Australian aviation history, in peace or war. Although being Australia’s worst aviation disaster, it remains one of the least known major accidents of World War II.”[23]

And yet no one knew about it…

Bigger than Black Hawk Down

Australia had its own version of the US Mogadishu Black Hawk down incident. [24] An aviation crash in 1996 involving two Black Hawk helicopters during a training exercise outside of Townsville by the Australian army, including the Special Air Services Regiment, resulted in the loss of 18 lives. [25]

This was a tragic incident. We were told at the time that this was Australia’s worst peacetime military aviation disaster.[26] I appreciate that’s technically correct, but in 1996, no one (other than the survivors in threat of court-martial) had any idea about the loss of lives in 1943.

What does this all mean 

Firstly, from a personal perspective.

I flew in and out of Jackson’s Airport more times than I can remember during a four-decade period spanning the 1960s to 2000. At no stage was I given the opportunity to pause and reflect on those who lost their lives on the 7th September 1943.  In my visits to the Bomana War Cemetery, I was not given a chance to visit their final resting place.

You could say that’s a ‘me’ problem, a ‘first-world problem’, and I would agree. It doesn’t change the fact that I feel denied a part of history for so long.

Now, from the perspective of the family and friends of the deceased. Many would have passed away by now and never known the truth.  And I can only imagine how those who received the belated information felt. Now that’s not a first-world problem. They deserved better.

Now, from your perspective. My goal in sharing this somewhat personal story – how I felt finding out so many years later about information intentionally withheld – was to bring to light the question for all of us –

‘What else don’t we know?’

And that question relates both to life as well as to physical training information.

The only solace I can provide around this is that I am committed to sharing with you what I discover in relation to answers to the question I have asked since I set out on this journey – ‘What is the best way to train?”

And the final thought goes to those who gave their lives on the 7th of September 1943 at Jackson Fields, Port Moresby. I am sorry we could not recognize your sacrifice for those 80 years. When I fly into Jackson’s Field next, I will be thinking of you. When I’m back at Bomana next, I will visit with you.

 

References

[1] https://www.thenational.com.pg/jackson-airport-got-name/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Francis_Jackson

[3] https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/jackson-john-francis-10600

[4] https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C2123818

[5] https://vwma.org.au/explore/people/633642

[6] https://www.facebook.com/groups/139215886513324/posts/2337901856644705/

[7] https://www.facebook.com/groups/139215886513324/posts/2337901856644705/

[8] https://pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/p-40/A29-8/2019/jackson-termianl-memorial.html

[9] https://www.cwgc.org/visit-us/find-cemeteries-memorials/cemetery-details/2014300/port-moresby-bomana-war-cemetery/

[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Moresby_(Bomana)_War_Cemetery

[11] https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C65569

[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokoda_Track_campaign

[13] https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/E84663

[14] https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/E84663

[15] https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/E84663

[16] KING, Charles Elvery : Service Number – N441284 : Date of birth – 20 Aug 1923 : Place of birth – ALSTONVILLE NSW : Place of enlistment – CASINO NSW : Next of Kin – KING B 

[17] https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-men-dying-still-haunt-me-the-day-a-us-army-crash-killed-62-australians-20230829-p5e0dw.html

[18] https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-men-dying-still-haunt-me-the-day-a-us-army-crash-killed-62-australians-20230829-p5e0dw.html

[19] https://huskers.com/staff/boyd-epley

[20] https://www.unl.edu/

[21] https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-men-dying-still-haunt-me-the-day-a-us-army-crash-killed-62-australians-20230829-p5e0dw.html

[22] https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-men-dying-still-haunt-me-the-day-a-us-army-crash-killed-62-australians-20230829-p5e0dw.html

[23] https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-men-dying-still-haunt-me-the-day-a-us-army-crash-killed-62-australians-20230829-p5e0dw.html

[24] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)

[25] https://www.defence.gov.au/news-events/news/2021-06-12/25th-anniversary-black-hawk-accident

[26] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-11/survivor-remembers-1996-black-hawk-tragedy/7497914

Ian King

What’s in a name? Pt 1 – The origin and intent of the term physical preparation coach

/by

In the 1980s, I  forged a career in Australia that did not exist. The role did not exist, and there was no job title. What would I call myself?  I looked around the world for guidance and found two dominant influences – the United States National Strength & Conditioning Association (NSCA) and an Eastern European perspective on athlete training by Tudor Bompa, whose 1983 book ‘The Theory and Methodology of Training’ was one of the most influential books I was exposed to in that decade.

The answers and conclusions I reached from my search for a professional job title continue to shape the world in various ways.   With a growing number using the term ‘physical preparation coach’, it’s timely to share the origin and intent of this term. In this article, I achieve this through consideration of cultural influences, sports history, and my personal experiences.

Australia

I entered the profession in 1980 in Australia through an exercise physiology degree and that was the only possible specific outcome expected for graduates. And that was only available in corporate fitness. I knew only a few graduates that got that work. The rest added a second degree (e.g., teaching, physiotherapy etc.) or got work in totally unrelated fields.

There were no jobs in sport outside sports administration for graduates. At best you could hope to get a volunteer role as a fitness coach or sprint coach. For that you might receive a season pass. However, to get those roles you needed no qualification other than a proven personal history in the activity.

Therefore, a very fit person who loved to run a lot could be considered as a candidate for a role as a fitness coach, as all fitness training for sport in the early 1980s in Australia was distance running with a sprinkling of interval training

And a former sprinter could be considered as a candidate for the role of sprints coach. All sprint training for sport conducted in Australia in the first half of the 1980s was interval training, as the bias in speed was towards endurance.  And keep in mind that many sports, including what was then the Victorian Football League (VFL – now the Australian Football League or AFL) didn’t endorse any short sprinting as it was considered too risky for their players to engage in due to the risk of soft tissue injuries.

You might be wondering what was going on with strength training in sport in that era. The very few sports that engaged in strength training limited their work to bodyweight exercises, and for this training was supervised by the sport coach e.g. some swim coaches such as the late John Carew (this story shared with me in person) would have basic equipment on the side of the pool such as a chin up bar. However, this was rare. Strength training was taboo in Australian sports, as it apparently caused athlete to be ‘muscle bound’ and or injured.

In fact the status of the sporting training industry in the early eighties was one where strength training was rarely conducted.  The ‘it will slow me down’, and ‘it will make me inflexible’ attitudes dominated.  Training in general was at that time a neglected area.  The Australian Rules Football players (then playing in the VFL) were participating in various types of formal training, but the strength training was circuit training with light weights and the conditioning consisted of carrying bricks in the hands for many kilometers.  At least they were doing something.  Rugby league players in the New South Wales Rugby League were starting to do things, but they were even more archaic than the Australian Rules footballers.  Rugby union players were warming up by stubbing out their cigarettes and then commencing a short game of touch football.  Swimmers would fade like superman faced by kryptonite at the mere mention of the word weight training. [1]

And in all fairness, the way strength training was being conducted, the concerns were reasonable. I specifically refer to the influence of bodybuilding training, the methods, of which I have spoken about in length in prior publications.

A lack of awareness of the ‘need for speed’ (attempted acceleration) in the concentric phase in the power athlete may result in an adaptation to a non-specific rate of force development.  This is the same non-effective and perhaps detrimental training effect that occurred when athletes first started using strength training and used the bodybuilding methods. [2]

As the only one in my entire university department with a serious interest in strength training.

My main focus in study at that time was on strength.  I appeared to be the only one in my course with this interest at that point in time.  Aerobic training was the main focus of research in the seventies and early eighties.  The main vocational specialty areas being pushed onto students at that time (outside of physical education teaching) was laboratory testing.  A number of graduates went out and established commercial laboratory fitness testing facilities and services – with limited success.  Corporate fitness was also being promoted as a future growth area. [3]

I was confident that there was a better way for athletes to strength train than the dominant paradigms and was committed to helping athletes achieve that.

However, who was getting to train athletes in the early 1980s? It wasn’t happening. At best you could get a job in the fitness industry as a ‘gym instructor’, and if athletes just happened to be gym members, you may get contact with them.

I was in a unique situation at my university during the early 1980s for a number of reasons. Firstly, the weightlifting club I was involved in attracted athletes who embraced strength training in that era, including track and field athletes, martial artists, and contact sport athletes. Secondly as the only university in our state at that time, we had an incredible number of Olympians as students, and I became the first strength consultant employed at the university gym. Essentially, I spent more time in the gym that I did in the lecture rooms and that didn’t go unnoticed by the athletes. That became my classroom.  Additionally I was working part-time and one off gigs as an exercise physiologist and gym instructor at various gymnasiums.

In summary Australia did not have a term to describe a profession of training athletes because the role did not exist.  The Australian Sports Medicine Foundation (ASMF) was founded in 1963 and they provided education in the area of in the moment treatment of injuries as their only specific to sport educational offering. Individuals who filled these roles were referred to as ‘trainers’, typically of lower qualifications than a physiotherapist, whose role was to provide massages, run water, and provide immediate assistance to athletes at the moment of injury.

And that was the landscape of Australian sport when I was creating a role that didn’t exist – providing professional commercial physical training services to athletes. When asked what I did in the early 1980’s I would say ‘I train athletes’. To which the response was invariably ‘What sport?’ People assumed I was a sports coach because there was no other role in sport at that time.  I was doing something that had no name in Australia.

United States of America

There had been a different role and position description in the US.  This was referred to as a ‘strength coach’.  The use of this term and role professionally can be traced back to the 1950s in the United States.

Gym owner and former team manager of the 1952 US Olympic Weightlifting Team, Alvin Roy, is proposed to have been the first strength training consultant engaged in US high school, notably in the sport of American football. [4]  Roy went on to also become possibly the first strength training consultant engaged in American college sport when he worked with the Louisiana State University Football team in 1958.  [5]

Alvin Roy is also considered to be the strength consultant in professional sport in the US when in 1963 he was hired to work with the 1963 San Diego. And Kim Wood is considered the first full time NFL strength coach when he was hired to work for Cincinnati Bengals. [6]

Boyd Epley is considered the first strength coach hired full-time in US college sport  when he was hired in 1969 by the Athletic Director of the University of American to work with the American football team.[7]

The National Strength Coaches Association (NSCA) was formed in the US in 1978, specifically to unite and support strength coaches at the college level in American football. In 1981, they changed the name to the National Strength & Conditioning Coaches Association, broadening the title to include ‘conditioning’, without having to change the acronym of NSCA.

Europe

There was less clarity from Europe as to a term or job description. The UK was relatively underdeveloped in the area of sports training. One of the key influences in the UK was Frank Dick, who published a book titled ‘Training Theory’ in 1974.  There was no reference to a term for the coach responsible for physical training, likely because this was most likely the responsibility of the head coach in the UK during that era.  Most found the information from the Soviet Union during the 1980s to be unreliable, in part due to the Cold War between the US and the USSR (1947-1991).[8]  The ‘Berlin Wall’ didn’t fall until 1989, therefore, literature coming out of the well-organized state known as East Germany was limited.

This didn’t mean literature was devoid in Europe. It just wasn’t readily available to the rest of the world.  This changed when Canada became one of the most highly funded nations in sport preparation in the lead up to their two decades of Olympic Games – the Montreal Summer Olympics in 1976 and the Calgary Winter Olympics in 1988.

One such immigrant to Canada was Hungarian Tudor Bompa, who released the first edition of this book, ‘Theory and Methodology of Training’, in 1983.

In this book, he shared a very different approach to sports training compared to the only other organized theory, that of the US – and their ‘strength and conditioning’ –  identifying what he referred to as four ‘Training Factors’ – physical, technical, tactical and theoretical.

Choosing a path

As a student of the profession seeking direction in a career path that did not exist in Australia (at least not in a commercial, get paid for your services, sense), I was left to make a decision – which path to follow? What name do I use to describe my services? Do I follow the path that made the most sense – the Eastern European influence shared in the book by Bompa? Or do I follow the US path, one that was showing greater growth in public awareness, and backed by the might of the US culture, population, popularity and money?

I share this dilemma in my 1997 book ‘Winning and Losing’:

The concept of strength and conditioning as a role has a strong American influence.  Not so the concept of someone responsible for physical preparation. [9]

I did not rush to this decision. The pattern I have established is test and refine a training concept or innovation for about a decade before sharing it as a recommended way.

In 1988, the NSCA arrived in Australia. I took on the state director role in that first year, and then the National Executive Director role (an unpaid role) for nearly a decade.

During that time, a few key events occurred. I share two of them with you.

A conversation that shaped the acceptance of the term ‘Strength & Conditioning’ in Australia

After the arrival of the NSCA in Australia, and in my role as the leader, I had a meeting with the key figure in the Australian Sports Commission/Coaching Council. The NSCA of Australia (as it was known at that time) was seeking recognition from this body to be treated in the same way as all other sports registered with and recognized by the government regulatory body.

He expressed serious reservations about this, specifically that he felt that the NSCA was too unbalanced, more about strength training than other forms of physical training. I assured him that was not the case. I believe that this conversation was pivotal in achieving the goal of the NSCA of Australia. I also believe my answer was naïve.

I have reflected on that conversation a lot since and realize in retrospect how my advocacy shaped the history of this movement in Australia.

By the early 1990s, as I developed a more thorough insight into the NSCA in the US,  I had moved away from my support for the term ‘strength & conditioning’.

Inspired by Bompa’s writing, I formed the belief that adding the word ‘coach’ after the training factor ‘physical preparation’ would be a far better alternative.

I shared the reasons for this conclusion in my 1997 book ‘Winning and Losing’:

I am not supportive of  the  term strength and conditioning for two reasons.  …  Firstly, I am not supportive of this term because of the implications of its literal interpretation.  It separates strength from all the other elements of conditioning.  I believe this is inappropriate and misleading.  It then, by virtue of word sequence, places strength as a more important component than conditioning.  Again I suggest that this is inappropriate and misleading.  The message being given by the mere use of this term is counterproductive – unless you agree with strength being separate and more important.

The second reason I am not supportive of the term strength and conditioning is based on a historical understanding of it’s origin.  In 1978 the National Strength Coaches Association (NSCA) was created in mid-west America.  In 1982, for whatever reason, the word ‘Coaches’ was replaced with the word ‘Conditioning’.  (it fitted in with the initials NSCA!)  This association has gone on to shape and influence the role of ‘strength and conditioning coaches’ throughout the western world.

…. I believe the term ‘physical preparation’ is a better term.  Athletic preparation another.  [10]

A second conversation that shaped the future of the term ‘strength & conditioning’ in Australia.

Following on from my formative late 1980s conversation with a key government figure and the resultant regret, I did not want to be in that position again. I had decided that the term ‘physical preparation coach’ would be my path.

In the early 1990s, an opportunity arose to change the NSCA of Australia to an independent organization. This was not a breakaway in any sense. The population of the target audience in Australia was so small the organization struggled to stay afloat, and the US NSCA was clear in their lack of interest at that time in establishing themselves outside of the US.

A meeting of the then Board of Directors was called to discuss and decide on the future of our organization.  I saw this as an opportunity to move the organization to a term more aligned with my values. At the same time, I recognized that the organization was not mine per se, and that the Board would ultimately make that decision.

I shared this story and the outcome in my 1997 book ‘Winning and Losing’:

  In 1993, I proposed to the then Executive Committee that the NSCA (Australia) be replaced by a Australian organization, with no royalties being paid to America, providing publishing opportunities to Australians, and providing information relevant to Australian sport, employment and culture.  This recommendation was accepted.  However my views that the term strength and conditioning be deleted was not supported.  The end result – The Australian Strength and Conditioning Association.  This decision may have had a big impact on the acceptability of this term in Australia today. [11]

I accepted the decision of the board and continued to serve the organization for the rest of the decade, despite holding different values about the title I preferred to describe my services.  Up until 1996, I was one of the only individual gaining full-time income in Australia training athletes, and the broader sporting bodies had not been exposed to the term ‘strength & conditioning’, so what I referred to myself as was not an issue.

Post 1996, certain changes occurred in the Australian sporting landscape, and the awareness of this term ‘strength & conditioning’ grew at a faster rate. This and other factors led me to decide in 1999 to commence my own coach education program.

Adoption of the term ‘physical preparation coach’

Up until I published my 1997 book ‘Winning and Losing’, only a few Australians in the physical training niche had heard of my term, and some later adopted it.  After the release of my 1997 book and subsequent books, along with the commencement of the KSI Coach education program in 1999, others around the world who were exposed first-hand to this term began to adopt it.

It’s now been 40 years since I was first faced with the dilemma of what path to choose in the title of my services and its associated training values.  I see the term now being used in a ‘second generation’ sense, that is by individuals who did not learn it firsthand from me.

For anyone who values origins and intents, this journey back in time may serve to educate.

Conclusion

In this article, I have sought to share with you the origin and intent of the term ‘physical preparation coach’. I have consistently referred to and recommended the book by Tudor Bompa, as this book shaped my thinking.

…by Tudor Bompa in his classic book Theory and Methodology of Training: The Key to Athletic Success  (first published 1983).  This is an excellent text and I believe it should be in every coach’s library.  Not an easy book to read first up, but one which you will find yourself returning to as a reference guide.  An excellent starting point to give you structure in theory and methodology. [12]

I have no ‘skin in the game’ as to what term you use to describe yourself. At the end of the day, it is a semantic. I am less interested in a persons name or title, and more interested in how they conduct themselves and serve the athlete/client.

I have seen the term ‘physical preparation coach’ abused by individuals who I suggest apply to term to themselves to provide the perception they offer more than they do.  As the person who coined the term, it was intended to be used as a reflection of a more balanced and holistic approach than what the term ‘strength & conditioning’ implies. Most personal trainers, from my perspective, typically work with only two physical qualities, e.g., strength and endurance. Unless your services offer a full suite of physical preparation training, then the use of physical preparation is not relevant.

Finally, both the term ‘strength & conditioning coach’ and ‘physical preparation coach’ have one word in common – coach. For me, coaching involves regular collaboration over the training process. Most physical coaches operate from a prescriptive approach, and as such, the term ‘coach’ is not relevant on this basis.

 

References

[1] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book)

[2] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs (book)

[3] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book)

[4] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book)

[5]  https://titansupport.com/category/ken-leistner/

[6]  https://titansupport.com/category/ken-leistner/

[7] Shurley, JP, and Todd, JS. “The Strength of Nebraska”: Boyd Epley, Husker Power, and the Formation of the Strength Coaching Profession. J Strength Cond Res 26(12): 3177–3188, 2012

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

[9] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book)

[10] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book)

[11] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book)

[12] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book)

Ian King

Coach, Trainer or Ambulance Chaser?

/by

In 1997 I published a book titled ‘Winning and Losing’, aiming to share the lessons of my prior two decades of professional experiences. One of those was that I felt physical preparation coaches should be more focused on injury prevention and rehabilitation, not just performance enhancement.  Additionally, the 1990s strength coaching focus was on how much you could lift in compound lifts such as the power and Olympic lifts, which was in itself leading to more injuries as not everyone was ready to go heavy in compound strength exercises, as was the dominant paradigm of that decade.[1]

There is no reason why a strength and conditioning coach should not be contributing to injury prevention/rehabilitation.[2]

Nearly 30 years later I back what I said. What I didn’t anticipate was the direction that would be taken, and I don’t support aspects of this approach. A statement in my 1999 book ‘Understanding Plyometrics’ sums it up.

The standard reaction to a new idea is over-reaction in the short-term and an under‐reaction in the long term. [3]

Tracking the changes in industry response to injury prevention and rehabilitation

Having been involved in the era of no interest/focus on injury prevention/rehabilitations through to now, I have had the opportunity to track the changes.

Firstly, from a broader professional ‘strength and conditioning’ role perspective, one of the major shifts has seen sporting team employ individuals whose work sits between the physical therapist and the physical preparation coach. In speaking with a sport coach in South Africa recently, I was given an insight into how South Africa potentially leads the way in this area. Irrespective of the value of this role, at least one can see the intention to transition between various professional services.

Secondly from the second-tier ‘personal trainer’ market, one that since its inception around 1990 has been fixated on trend following, there has been a post 2010 demand for them to be able to ‘fix imbalances’ and injuries.  This is replacing the dominant focus of the first decade this century where everyone was a ‘fat loss expert’. Now they are clamouring to be an injury rehab specialist.

It has been, hands down the most dominant question I have been asked by personal trainers during the last five years.

Here’s a major challenge for me. Who contributed to the injury epidemic? Those who physically train others. Who is going to, apparently, solve this with their ‘rehab knowledge and skills’? The same group.  So we are going to solve this societys injury problems withj the same ‘professionals, with the same thinking, and in the same environment in and by which the injuries occurred in the first place?

I suggest not.

My hope is that some will see the light in this oxymoron, and choose to master injury prevention before they pick the low hanging fruit of the situation they contributed to.

Of course, that is a tough ask, and I am under no illusion that my sentiments will put the brakes on the trend to be the injury rehab hero.  A client base conditioned by marketing -combined with the average person’s desire for instant gratification – is going to have its wants (note, not needs) met by a profession that essentially trend chasers.

Secondly, on a more micro-level, I have been able to observe the response to a specific artifact I published in 2000, before the shift in focus to include injury prevention and rehabilitation.  It was a video series titled Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation.

Ambulance chasing

The almost immediate effect I witnessed on those who ordered this educational video was a significant shift to what it referred to as an ‘ambulance chasing’ in many industries. They have a powerful new toy that would give them more clients and they became consumed with this.  To the point where these individuals would market:

‘Hey, do you have an injury? Contact me and I will fix it’.

You have probably seen similar billboards on the side of a highway or similar, where a pro bono motor vehicle or workplace accident attorney is inviting ‘victims’ to contact them.

My concerns

What don’t I like about this?

  1. Injury prevention/rehabilitation should be a holistic part of what you do as a physical preparation coach, not the leading focus of your service (unless you are a physical therapist)

My interpretation of a physical preparation coach’s role is to physically prepare individuals, not to offer or lead with injury prevention, offering ‘treatment’, or claiming they can ‘fix’ injuries in individuals they have not met yet. If an injury issue arises in the broader services, approach pathways should be considered – and these pathways should include a multi-disciplinary approach.

  1. How can the injury problem be solved by the same professionals that created them?

As I stated above, in my opinion, the exponential increase in injury rates and severity is in large part caused by the physical preparation training provided.  I understand that this is just my opinion. However, if there is validity in this perspective, under what circumstance can the conditions that caused the injury be resolved by the same person, in the same environment and or the same conditions? To think that this is a viable option is one of the great mysteries to me.  I do not support an injury rehabilitation skill claim by a physical preparation coach until they have demonstrated their competence in injury prevention.

  1. If you want to focus on injury rehabilitation, become a physical therapist.

Now if a physical preparation coach is so attracted to injury rehabilitation, I suggest they complete appropriate professional development courses (e.g. a degree in physical therapy) and become a physical therapist. At least then you may have some appropriate professional indemnity insurance.   I know many individuals who have graduated with sports science degrees and then also completed physical therapy degrees when they realized they were more attracted to rehabilitation. To their credit, they have sought the approach of professional development for their chosen path.

At least then you will be working ‘in your lane’, have an industry body to support you, be able to get professional insurance covering your services, and are more likely to survive being judged in the light of a court-house should that occur.

  1. Who is being served by a physical prep coach chasing injured clients? The needs of the physical prep coach to gain clients and significance, or the clients?

I understand that there is a massive demand for injury rehabilitation. I also know there are some relatively powerful yet simple methods to address basic injuries, some of which I outlined in my 2000 video series.  However, I question the motivation of a physical coach when it is apparent that they are short of clients and seeking significance.  Absolutely in today’s market, it is low-hanging fruit, and you can pay your car lease payments and gym rent by this path.

However, if you were good at what you are doing – training individuals using long-term planning and results – you would not have the time to do what essentially is a separate higher education degree – and be the ‘physical therapist’.

I suggest the needs of the client should come first, not the needs of the service provider.

  1. The human body and injuries are very complex – are you really the person to ‘treat’ them? Instead of a professionally trained physical therapist?

A lesson I am continuously reminded of as the decades pass is how complex the human body is. I continue to get lessons and learn about the body and injury.  I appreciate the support and guidance I receive from professionals I collaborate with to seek solutions and answers to injuries including but not limited to doctors, surgeons, radiologists, physical therapists, chiropractors, and orthotists.   I don’t know too many physical preparation coaches who have this level of knowledge of the human body. One was our late KSI graduate coach Mike Pimentel. Note Mike was a university-qualified Athletic Trainer with years of clinical experience before training and converting to become a full-time physical preparation coach. ,

Other than Mike Pimentel I have not met – in my 45-year professional journey to date – anyone else who is a competent, successful and in-demand physical preparation coach – who leads with or dominates in their service focus on attracting and ‘healing’ injured clients. They may be out there, but we have not crossed paths.

If you want to be a physical therapist, do the right thing by clients and get appropriate higher-level education and training..

My response to these ambulance chasers

Within a few years of releasing the video series Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation I made it very clear to the coaches in the KSI Coaching Program who had been side-tracked by the shiny new object of being a healer that they were not using the information I provided in the manner intended, and encouraged them to become a physical therapist if that was their primary interest. This seemed to work at the time.

When I realized this message was not getting through to those who were not in the KSI Coaching Program, I made the video series available exclusively to KSI Coaches.

When I realized this was not working, and that there were still individuals mistreating the information, I restricted its sale to those at a minimum of L2 in the KSI Coaching Program.  Unfortunately, that still failed to solve what I saw to be a mistreatment of the intent of the information, and have since raised the pre-qualification to L4 and now L6 respectively.

What I was looking for is at what level of learning is it apparent that individuals will respect the intent. A major conclusion I have reached is that until a physical preparation coach can demonstrate that they can provide services that prevent injuries, they have no place in claiming or offering services that ‘rehabilitate’ injuries.

I understand that with the exponential growth in injuries, the new ‘black’ (the new go-to) in physical preparation is the desire to be able to ‘fix injuries’. It’s replaced the hottest trend in the physical preparation world between 2000 and 2010 to be a ‘fat-loss expert’.

But who is this desire to be in the pathway of profit from injuries serving?

I suggest the service provider more than the client, which will mean another failure to solve the rapidly growing injury trend.

And I do not support that.

Solutions

Addressing significant and or chronic injuries is most likely going to need a multi-disciplinary approach. If you are seeking these services, I encourage you to consider some of the issues raised in this article when selecting your service provider.

Even our high-level coaches – Level 8 and above – recognise when they are out of their depth.  In fact, in our most recent high-level camp, we held a meeting with a 40-year physiotherapist to allow our coaches to discuss best practices when working with aligned professionals.

Let me be very clear – due to the level of competence I believe needed before seeking to develop competence in injury rehabilitation (as opposed to prevention) we do not teach rehabilitation until L8 of 10 levels in the KSI Coaching Program.  Now I understand that this statement alone will preclude many from starting the KSI Coaching Program – when Joe Bloggs down the road claims he can teach PTs how to be physical therapists in a short course.

But that’s the way we roll.  The most important aspect of our service is what’s best for the client. Or as our slogan says ‘Where the athlete comes first’

If, as an end user, you do have injury concerns and want a physical preparation coach who is highly trained in the KSI, whose values align with those in this article, and who embraces the client’s needs first, I encourage you to seek out current L8 and above KSI coaches.

I appreciate there are relatively few current high-level KSI coaches, however, if you do have the opportunity to work with one, you will experience that current high-level KSI Coaches are trained in the KSI approach to injury prevention and rehabilitation. You will not see them soliciting injured people to contact them, nor will you see them offering to ‘fix’ injuries out of context.

Conclusion

During the last five decades, I have created a holistic approach to helping people with needs in physical preparation. This work has been at the forefront. For the last three decades, I have been sharing with physical preparation coaches what I have learnt through the KSI Coaching Program.

The ongoing challenge I have faced is encouraging these ‘students’ to hold the interests of the client first, rather than their own needs for significance and clients.

So what’s it going to be? Coach, trainer or ambulance chaser?

—-

PS. As a matter of reflection, there was another sentence or two in the same paragraph that appeared in my 1997 book that appears to have been selectively ignored by ambulance chasers:

As with all aspects of training, I never make a big deal about what I can do. I try to take a low profile. This is very important when you are taking a big step outside your boundaries, into another’s field of expertise, such as injury prevention and rehabilitation.

References

[1] At least until I began publishing my ‘different’ approach e.g. The Limping Programs published on T-mag (as it was known then) from 1999 were disruptive to these values.  You can find these programs and the rationale behind them in the Get Buffed!™ educational range.

[2] King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing

[3] King, I., 1999, Understanding Plyometrics – A Guide for Athletes and Coaches

Ian King

Rhabdo – The New Black

/by

Mike would not be happy

In the late 1990’s a member of the Tufts University in Boston Massachusetts reached out to me. As a result of that initial email exchange, he first attended a live seminar with me in his home city in 2000,  and from there attended every professional development opportunity held in the US and some additional ones abroad. He was committed to this role, serving the athlete.

His name was Mike Pimentel.  Mike’s initial qualification was as an Athletic Trainer and he worked in the Tufts Athletic Training Department for about a decade, from memory. In the 1990s he was then approached to start up and run a new department at Tufts, their ‘strength & conditioning department’.

Faced with serving the entire athletic preparation at the university of over 700, Mike was no stranger to going the extra mile for his clients. Sleeping under the desk in his office due to working late and the long drive home and back for an early start, was just one example.

Being at the coal face, Mike felt pieces were missing and was looking for the answers, looking for a better way to prevent injuries and enhance performance.  That’s where I came in.

From about 2002 to 2018 I visited the university annually, providing guidance and learning more about the challenges faced.

One of the many innovations Mike put into place was a course that resulted in students with the qualifications to provide training supervision to their cohort.  Mike was a pioneer in solving the challenges faced by NCAA colleges, where the demand for athlete preparation services typically exceeded the budget.

I know I speak for all the students and alumni during Mike’s 30-year contribution at Tufts that all were blessed by his presence. It may have only been a Div. 3 college, but they received first-class service.

Just six years after Mike’s passing, his beloved Tutfs was home to the latest new-age equivalent of vomiting to prove how tough the training session was – heat induced near fatal rhabdomyolysis.

So what is rhabdomyolysis?

Rhabdomyolysis is a big word for saying that training was so intense, and the body temperature was so elevated, the muscles started breaking down, releasing their content into the bloodstream, and endangering organ status in doing so.

Rhabdo is the abbreviation.

What are some other variations?

Rhadbo symptoms can appear similar to heat-related illnesses and dehydration. It’s likely that athletes training in hotter environments show extreme symptoms of heat stroke first. The only way to determine if you have rhabdo is through testing.

How dangerous is it?

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention it is “a serious medical condition that can lead to permanent disability or death.”

How common is it?

Rhabdo is fast becoming the gold standard of ‘conditioning training intensity’. Here are some other examples (this list is not exhaustive):

Year Institute Sport # affected Timing
2024 Tufts Univ. Boston[1] Men’s Lacrosse 12 out of 50

(25%) confirmed [2]

 Sep 16 2024
2023 Mid America Nazarene University in Kansas, American Football Pre-season football late July
2023 US Miltiary[3] Military training 52 – 40.5 cases per 100,000 person-years, the highest rate observed during this study’s 2019–2023 surveillance period.
2018-2022 Between 2018 and 2022, at least 11 football players in the US—at the student and professional level—have died of heat stroke. And the number of young athletes diagnosed with exertional heat illness has been increasing over the past decade or so…[4] [5] [6] [7]
2020 Manly-Warringah Rugby League Club, Sydney[8] Rugby League 1 death 23 Nov 2020; First training back in the off-season
2019 Manly-Warringah Rugby League Club, Sydney [9] Rugby League 1 near-death offseason conditioning
2012 Ohio State University[10] Women’s Lacrosse 6 athletes admitted to hospital March[11]
2011 University of Iowa [12] American Football 13 athletes admitted to hospital offseason conditioning, return from school break
2010 Oregon high school American Football Among 43 players, 22 (51%) experienced rhabdomyolysis; 22 patients had upper arm myalgia; 12 were hospitalized; 3 experienced triceps compartment syndrome. an upper arm exercise held in a non-air-conditioned wrestling room.

Conclusion

There was a time when getting an athlete to vomit during ‘conditioning’ training was a sign of how ‘tough’ the session was, perhaps a badge of honour for the trainer. Not that I agree with this approach but it cannot be denied as a phenomenon.  Now it appears the stakes have been raised. Vomiting is not good enough. Near-death or death appears to be the new gold standard in ‘that was a tough workout.

That’s not encouraging. It’s insane, but is it going to turn around? Based on the lack of accountability I see in the official who ran the programs highlighted above, I suspect the answer is no.  It is going to get worse.

What you and I can do, if you share my thoughts on this, is to ensure that no such situation or outcome occurs on our watch.

We are here for the athlete, and I cannot see now near-death or actual death experiences from off-season conditioning training is serving the athletes.

On its surface, a statement such as this should be redundant. But it isn’t, considering the trend.

I believe Mike would not be happy about the event that occurred at his beloved alma mater in 2024. And no one who puts the athlete first should be happy with this new ‘training trend’.

 

References

[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2024/09/23/tufts-university-lacrosse-players-rhabdo-training/75347715007/

[2] https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/tufts-mens-lacrosse-players-hospitalized-following-workout-led-by-graduate-of-navy-seal-training-program/3494987/

[3]  https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11107841/ The 529 reported incident cases of exertional rhabdomyolysis among active component U.S. service members in 2023 represent an unadjusted annual incidence rate of 40.5 cases per 100,000 person-years, the highest rate observed during this study’s 2019–2023 surveillance period. This increase in crude incidence rates was most noticeable in the Marine Corps,

[4] https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2023/09/football-players-deaths-excessive-heat-coaching/

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/24/football-player-heat-deaths-athlete

[6] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/09/21/heat-kills-student-athletes-how-schools-can-help/74843984007/

[7] https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/aug/23/high-school-football-deaths-heat-stroke

[8] https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/may/03/nrl-player-keith-titmuss-died-after-inappropriate-training-session-coroner-finds

[9] https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-premiership/nrl-2024-former-prop-lloyd-perrett-launching-legal-action-against-sea-eagles-heat-stroke-keith-titmuss-news-videos-highlights/news-story/f444cc32ea5ef9d968a7d5b899af09c8

[10] https://www.dispatch.com/story/lifestyle/health-fitness/2013/03/09/rhabdomyolysis-laid-low-6-athletes/23706206007/

[11] “In the Ohio State case, Kelly Becker told university officials that on March 6, 2012, the women lacrosse players performed a series of grueling upper-body workouts unlike anything they had done to that point in the season. The workout included pull-ups (she did 56), chin-ups and triceps-crunching dips without rest during a 20-minute workout. Two days later, they pushed football blocking sleds. The six players went to the hospital the next day.”

[12] https://www.espn.com/college-football/news/story?id=6061650