Ian King

The Barbell Hip Thrust – Winners and Losers

/by

I was receiving requests from some of my coaches to write about the barbell hip thrust. They knew I didn’t buy into it, yet I had remained silent.  They were tiring of the market pressure for them to conform, and wanted me to make a statement.

So I began to prepare, to research.

Didn’t take me long to realize I didn’t need to write an article about this exercise. There are already enough good ones out there. [1] [2] [3] [4]

What I have chosen to do instead is speak to the generation that ‘invented’, endorsed and more pertinently marketed this concept.

According to the number one advocate and ‘originator’ of the exercise, it all began in about 2006.

Almost 11 years ago, I thought up the barbell hip thrust in my garage gym in Scottsdale, Arizona. [5]

So in about 2008, this coach had a ‘bright idea’, apparently. Coach and writer Kim Goss has a different perspective on the history of this lift. [1]

Since then, I’ve been on a mission to popularize the movement….  took this information and ran with it, posting numerous article links and infographics on my social media channels relaying the news that hip thrusts are very well-suited for improving speed and that the force vector hypothesis was legitimate.[5]

Now the first ‘coach’ referred to above is a great marketer.  I like to give credit where credit is due. The world adopted the movement.  Not that they appear to need my acknowledgement. Enough acknowledgment was evident:

…I recently polled my newsletter list and social media followers and received over 7,600 responses as follow……As a prolific S&C educator with a large online following who gets rewarded for being “ahead of the research,” making bold predictions, and playing to the masses…

Rewards? Sounds like a game of winners and losers. And that may be accurate….

Then the bombshell. Some of his academic colleagues failed to support his own earlier studies.[7] [8]  (And yes, the research undermining this exercise may have its own flaws, but no more than the original ‘research’ used to support it…)

Now the retraction did show humility and gained respect from some quarters.

Unfortunately, I spoke too soon. The combination of 1) my inherent biases as an inventor, 2) my role as an online educator always seeking to provide cutting edge information to my followers, and 3) my greenness as a scientist prevented me from exhibiting a more tempered approach to the emerging evidence.[9]

Here’s my challenge.

How many of the athletes and coaches currently engaging in this exercise are aware of this reversal of support and admission of  ‘jumping the gun’? Not many.

Will the impact of this incredible marketing of this exercise go on for generations? Yes. 

Who takes responsibility? No-one.

Who cares? Not enough people. Their too busy moving on to the next way of becoming significant or popular.

Now I understand no-one really wants unsolicited advice, however to those keen to be significant – I express my hope that a few more may first reflect upon the impact of what they market before they met their needs to be significant.

Now I am not suggesting that validation through science is needed before sharing an innovation. I personally don’t.  Science is often a lagging indicator, confirming or otherwise at a later date.   I would just recommend greater reflection or more transparency. If science is going to be invoked as a validation technique, you might want to have more than one of two ‘in-house studies’.

To the physical coach – please use the grey matter you were gifted by your Maker.  I know this plea will fall for the most part on deaf ears, for the same ailment that Dr. Albert Schweitzer lamented in the 1950s  remains. When he was asked by a reporter ‘Dr, what’s wrong with man today?’ he responded:

Man does not think. [10]

To the athlete – you need to be, and have a greater capability to me smarter about your training decisions than your physical coach. They have many masters – ego, colleagues to professional associations, marketing trends. You only have one agenda – the future health of your body and the fulfillment of your potential. Its okay to reach your own conclusions about what’s right for you, even if it differs from your coaches….

This rush to the market exemplifies one of the key reasons I have chosen historically to test a new concept for about a decade before publishing it….

A coach can ‘change their mind’ (even as they hope for a recovery) after marketing, publishing and endorsing something so effectively. [11] [12]

But the stain remains.

With influence comes responsibility.  

[1] Goss, K., 2016, The case against hip thrusts, The Poliquin Group, June 14, 2016, http://main.poliquingroup.com/ArticlesMultimedia/Articles/Article/1478/The_Case_Against_the_Hip_Thrust.aspx

[2] Kavanaugh, J., The heavy hip thrust is ruining our backs and this industry, Speed and Sports Institute, https://www.sportandspeedteam.com/the-heavy-hip-thrust-is-ruining-our-backs-and-this-industry/

[3] Kechijian, D., 2017, Science’ and the Barbell Hip Thrust, Simplifaster, Sep 8, 2017, https://simplifaster.com/articles/barbell-hip-thrust/

[4] Valle, C., 2018, Should Advanced Athletes Use the Barbell Hip Thrust?, Simplifaster, Jan 29, 2018, https://simplifaster.com/articles/athletes-barbell-hip-thrust/

[5] Contreras, B., 2017, Science is self-correcting – The Case Of The Hip Thrust And Its Effects On Speed,  Bretcontreras.com, July 27, 2017, https://bretcontreras.com/science-is-self-correcting-the-case-of-the-hip-thrust-and-its-effects-on-speed/

[6] Contreras, B., 2017, Science is self-correcting – The Case Of The Hip Thrust And Its Effects On Speed,  Bretcontreras.com, July 27, 2017, https://bretcontreras.com/science-is-self-correcting-the-case-of-the-hip-thrust-and-its-effects-on-speed/

[7] Bishop, Chris, MSc; Cassone, Natasha, MSc; Jarvis, Paul, MSc; Turner, Anthony, PhD, CSCS*D; Chavda, Shyam, MSc, CSCS; Edwards, Mike, MSc, 2018, Heavy Barbell Hip Thrusts Do Not Effect Sprint Performance, An 8-Week Randomized–Controlled Study, The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · July 2017

[8] Kun-Han Lin, Chih-Min Wu, Yi-Ming Huang and Zong-Yan Cai, 2017, Effects of Hip Thrust Training on the Strength and Power Performance in Collegiate Baseball Players, Journal of Sports Science 5 (2017) 178-184

[9] Contreras, B., 2017, Science is self-correcting – The Case Of The Hip Thrust And Its Effects On Speed,  Bretcontreras.com, July 27, 2017, https://bretcontreras.com/science-is-self-correcting-the-case-of-the-hip-thrust-and-its-effects-on-speed/

[10] Schweitzer, A., in Nightingale, E., 1975, The strangest secret, Nighingale-Conant.

[11] Contreras, B., 2017, Science is self-correcting – The Case Of The Hip Thrust And Its Effects On Speed,  Bretcontreras.com, July 27, 2017, https://bretcontreras.com/science-is-self-correcting-the-case-of-the-hip-thrust-and-its-effects-on-speed/

[12] Cressey, E., 2017, In defense of the hip thrust, ericcressey.com, September 13, 2017, https://ericcressey.com/in-defense-of-the-hip-thrust

Ian King

The glutes are over-rated

/by

Prior to the publishing of the Lines of Movement concept in the late 1990s no-one gave a ‘rats-arse’ (an Australian colloquialism) about the glutes. At least no one outside of a therapy clinic. Twenty years later the glutes have been given the same prime time rating as the Swis ball got in the late 1990s. 

I know the message in this article will be as popular as most of my comments at the peak of the popularity of any trend (i.e. not very!) so I am just going to rip the band aid off. 

If you really want to help people, if you want to make significant and more complete changes to the way a human functions, you have got to get past this narrow focus on the glutes.  The glutes are over-rated and you don’t need to be part of this.

Before we go further lets appreciate the short history of ‘glute focus’.  As I said, prior to the Lines of Movement concept (you know, those categories of movement/exercises that a few post 2000 authors got amnesia about when it came time to referencing) there was zero focus, discussion or exercises on or for the glutes – outside of selected physical therapy clinics. The legs were the legs.

Check out the program I use for analysis in Volume 3 of Ian King’s Guide to Strength Training – How to Transfer.  You can see very quickly there is no focus or attention on the glutes. This program was published in a populist mainstream bodybuilding magazine about 6 months prior to the 1998 publication of Vol 1 of Ian King’s Guide to Strength Training – How to Write Strength Training Programs, in which the world got it’s first real view of the Lines of Movement concept.

So what happened post 2000? I guess a few people felt caught out and wanted to compensate. And compensate they did.   Before we get into some of these over-compensation examples, allow me to expand on where I see the glutes in the bigger picture.

Yes, the glutes and glute activation are important.  No, I am contradicting myself! Keep reading.

They were and still are a big part of the pre-activation drill concept (I called this control drills) I began sharing late 1990.  They were part of the reason I expanded the range of unilateral single leg (compound and single joint) exercises when I realized that the Quad Dominant range was far greater than the Hip Dominant range. This is why I took a few exercises out of the aerobic class of the 1980s and 1990s, a few from physical therapy, and made up a few more.

Then why I am so critical of the light now being shone on the glutes?

For a few key reasons. 

Firstly, from my perspective, and from the way I design and teach others to design strength training programs, the glutes act as a ‘force couple’ with the abdominals, in their role in determining the positioning of the pelvis.  Now the abdominals have less role in hip and thigh extension than the glutes but at least equal role in injury prevention as it relates the pelvic stability.

Now I know the debate of pelvis stability and I don’t really want to open that can of worms. I seek to wrap that discussion for now with this comment – a powerlifters competitive day at the office may involve 6 efforts of pelvis control, and who really gives a shit where the pelvis goes? They don’t and therefore, for now, I don’t. It can flap about like a ‘dunny house door in the wind’.  (More traditional Australian colloquialisms!)

But athletes on a continuum from there onwards – athletes whose completion involves more than 6 reps of pelvis control e.g. an athlete who runs 30 kms in multiple directions on a field as part of their competitive day at the office – if you don’t give a shit about that – and by the way I see their programs looking like most of their strength coaches don’t  – then you may as well take a 12 gauge to their lower extremities, because that would quicken the inevitable.

Yes, a bit dramatic – but I really tire of those who use powerlifting as their basis for athletic preparation. Powerlifting is a sport. It is not the basis of all other sports!  

So if you want to muddy the waters about how the focus on certain abdominals muscles and or actions make you ‘weak’ – you need to stay in the powerlifting circle, because outside of that, the need to be able to run pain free for years to come is far more pressing than the ability to displace maximal external load 1 meter in a few very simple movements!

I suggest that this whole misguided discussion about abdominal contribution has singularly contributed to more lower extremity injuries in sports than…well, as equal, at least to the next factor.

The second additional factor that is overlooked is the length and tension of the quads.  Of course many of you will want to say that stretching makes you weak, and really, do I need to go back and tell you to tell someone who cares?

Sadly, many coaches and athletes have been sucked into the vortex of ‘but it makes you weak’, when their future career, their income, their health, their legacy, is more dependent on their ability to remain pain free than their ability to perform some non-specific expression of strength immediately after performing some non-specific stretch, as is the basis of these studies!

So let me put this simply and concisely – the health of the lower back, hips and lower extremities – relies on a discerned distribution of focus between:

  • Length
  • Tension
  • Stability

Of the:

  • Quads/hip flexors
  • Abdominals
  • Glutes

The way I see that, there are nine key focuses (3 x 3 = 9). NOT ONE!

Those of you who are familiar with my work will be familiar with this statement:

Muscles aren’t weak – they are inhibited!

Now if the concept was simpler, and more trendy and closer to Malcom Gladwell’s tipping point – then I am sure you would have read that multiple times by now in a functional training book or heard about it in a functional seminar already!  But’s it not.

It’s not as a brain dead simple as many need to absorb, and it’s not currently popular and it sure as hell isn’t sexy.

But it’s not that difficult either!

Now the reason I raise the above point is this – you can bash the shit out of you glutes as much as you want – but if they are too long, too short or too tight – then they just won’t work anyway!!! It’s not that simple! But it’s not that difficult either – it’s a more holistic approach.

So what are the grounds for my suggestions that glutes are over-focused on in our industry currently? Here’s a real world example:

Question:  A 15 year old female basketball player, who has talent to play at the next level, frequently has to take a game or two off (or play reduced minutes) due to knee pain. She has been diagnosed with bilateral chondromalacia patella.

She has come to you in the early off-season to try to get stronger and reduce the pain in her knees. Starting with an assessment, what do you do?

Answer: 

1) The first thing we would do is to take the athlete through a [functional movement screen]

2) After this assessment we would more than likely confirm our suspicion of weakness in all of the lower body musculature with a large glute med deficit.

3) Next we would palpate the glute med for point tenderness. Our experience is that athletes with patella-femoral pain almost always have significant soft tissue inflammation in the glute medius.

4) I will make the assumption that all leg extensors are weak (quadriceps, glute,hamstrings) particularly the glute med and that there is a significant soft tissue component involving the glute med.

Note: The best description of the glute medius issue is that the glute medius is the muscular connection of the IT band connective tissue to the knee. Inability to stabilize with the glute med will result in knee pain that will exist at a conscious level and glute med pain….[1]

Here’s the scoreboard on this advice – the gluts were mentioned ten (10) times. The abds didn’t rate a mention. The quads / hips flexors earned one (1) mention. 

Unbalanced? I suggest so.

Now what about modalities? Strengthening of the muscle got 7 mentions (6 glutes, 1 quads/hip flexors).  Tension got four (4) (all Glutes) and length didn’t rate a mention.

Unbalanced? I suggest so.

In literal summary, this injury  (bilateral chondromalacia patella ) rehabilitation and (therefore prevention) approach is that the condition was caused overwhelmingly (91%) by weak glutes (and this conclusion was reached by pushing on the glute to see if it was tender…), and would be solved predominantly (60%) by strengthening the glutes.

And the advice above, of course, was concluded with the obligatory promotion to buy a specific coloured band to perform that all-solving strength work.  Hard to sell space on a mat when all they are doing is stretching with no other equipment….or a control drill with no equipment needed…

Now many would say  – so what? That advice sounds right, because that’s what we do. In fact most do this, so go and stick it where the sun don’t shine Ian.

And of course you will get those spineless Internet trolls who will roll out the lovely adjectives I hope they don’t use when their grandmother is listening.

Which is fine by me. My goal is not to convince. Rather to give the opportunity and encouragement to those have this burning niggle in their mind that there is must be a better way, to find that better way.

Because quite simply, in my humble yet firm opinion, if the above example solution is where your commitment to excellence stops, I hope you never get to train a child, or a person who feels compelled to conform.

You can imagine what I think about those articles (marketing pieces) where the story is based on how some guru wrote a glute training program for them and it solved all their problems! It even cleaned the plaque on their teeth, and took out the trash. Okay so maybe I went to far with the add-ons.  However you will find these articles, and they are not helping place the glutes in perspective, which is what I seek to do.

So let me sum up the key reasons I have shared for why I believe the current focus on the glutes is over-rating them.

  1. The glutes act as a ‘force couple’ with the abdominals, and therefore the abs should be getting equal attention.
  2. The length and tension of the quads impacts the functions of the glutes. If they are winning the battle against the force couple of the abs and gluts, – that is, if the pelvis is excessively anteriorly rotated as a result – and if as a result the gluts are not at an optimal length, the gluts are never going to be able to express optimal strength. No matter how much many exercises for the gluts you do.

Thirdly, I suspect a marketing factor –

  • The glutes may have a higher ‘sexy currency’ currently than the abs. Perhaps because the focus on the gluts has a greater gender readership than a similarly narrow focus on abdominals (more females focused on the shape of their butt than whether they are running a six-pack).

The glutes are over-rated in the industry simply because certain other factors are under-rated. The solution provided lacks holism and is doomed for mediocrity, at least in everywhere other than in those miraculous ‘Guru X did a glute program for me and now I don’t need surgery’ articles….

Again, in conclusion I can only encourage you to reflect on this before buying into the current dominant trend that the glutes are the primary cause of all lower body ailments.

[1] Xxxx, 2006, Reference withheld to protect the message.

Ian King

It’s Not Fair

/by

The Golden State Warriors were 1-3 down to the Toronto Raptors in the 2019 NBA Finals Playoffs when Kevin Durant made a return to the court after about a month layoff with a calf injury.

His presence made a difference and the Golden State won the game, taking the playoffs to 2-3. Kevin paid the price and left the court during the second quarter, with an injury related to the reasons he had missed the prior month.

Devastated the franchise’s President of Basketball Operations, Bob Myers, spoke about the decision to play him and also defended Durant against criticism that he didn’t care enough for the team to make a comeback. He also said:

It’s not fair.

Now I’m not sure if he was referring to the unwarranted criticism of this great player or the fact that he was injured…again.

I will address the injury side only, and with no intent to make any judgement on the decision to play. Finals are different, the stakes are higher, and this changes the decision making.

What I will talk about is how he got to being injured in the first place. It may not be fair, but that opens a whole discussion about what’s fair.

I actually believe the body is pretty fair. It gives us heaps of warnings -through pain messages, through changes in length, tension and stability/function. And if we don’t listen, it sends bigger messages. Higher level pain, higher level tension and reduced function.

At some point of time the body gives it up, and we have a real injury.

Now don’t get my message wrong, because I’m a big fan of Durant. As an athlete, as a basketball player, as a person who is willing to stand up to being judged, and as a person willing to prove his doubters wrong.

I don’t expect athletes to have all the decision making skills. They rely on, as Myers said, ‘experts’, to guide their decision making.

The mere fact that Durant got injured in the first place was a failure to provide him with the care and guidance that is possible. And not just Durant – any athlete, any person, who is the care of and reliant upon others to guide them. To make, as Myers said, ‘collaborative decisions’.

Injuries are not a new challenge. They are a growing challenge. I call it an epidemic, in fact. And those willing to look at the injury stats are beginning to agree, at least in relation to the well-documented rise in ACL surgeries in Australian sport.

However allow me to really alienate many in my and related professions – nothings going to change. Why? Because if your interpretation of the cause of injury is off-track, you are not going to solve the problem. And in my opinion, based on my four decade professional journey of seeking to understand and optimize human performance in sport, and based on my interpretation of the causes of these injuries – the interpretations of the causes is off-track.

It’s not fair that people judge Kevin for sitting out for a month with the intent to rehab his injury. But the body’s not fair. It gave enough messages. It’s unfair in a way that Kevin was not looked after in so much as preventing this injury in the first place. I mean, how many times do you have to see the patterns of injury to understand in an accurate sense the causes and therefore prevent their repeat?

Kevin is not the ‘lone ranger’. He just happens to be one of the more high profile examples.

There is a better way, and I’m hopeful for those athletes and others who gain access to a high level KSI Coach, because for us – one injury is one too many. And we operate on my fundamental belief that all injuries are predictable and preventable, and this is our aim. Do we always get it right? No, but we go pretty damn close. A lot closer that what is happening to those athletes and others who do not have a high level KSI coach to help them make collaborative decisions.

Ian King

The Strength Training Over-Reaction

/by

In the 1950 and 1960s strength training began to appear in US sport. In 1969 Boyd Epley became the first full-time strength coach hired in the US college system. However the dominant belief at that time about strength training was that it made you slower. 

As an excellent example of this are the words attributed to Nebraska University Athletic Director Mike Devaney when he hired Boyd Epley:

“If anyone gets slower you’re fired.”

I witnessed first hand this era in Australia, with many sports I worked with during the 1980s at the elite level having no prior involvement in strength training.  It wasn’t just athletes and sports coaches that shied away from strength training. Industry professionals had no interest.

In 1988 I was working out in the gym at the Sydney University with the late Charles Poliquin (where the first annual national convention for the National Strength and Conditioning Association of Australasia – as it was known then – was being held) when in bounced through the door two men. One was the person who had essentially brought the organization to Australia and the other was a speaker from South Africa. Both were dressed like Richard Simmons look-a-likes, and they spoke light-heartedly and mockingly about how the ‘aerobs’ (themselves) were off to a jog leaving the ‘anaerobs’ (Poliquin and myself) in the gym.  We were apparently two different tribes. You were either a Fixx like jogger (who felt a unique obligation to dress like Richard Simmons!), or a ‘weightlifter’.

I’ll never forget being in the Australian swim team bus in a pre-Olympic training camp for the 1992 Barcelona Olympics.The athlete I was working with and I were receiving significant mocking for our dalliance into serious strength training.

In the 1980s, if you did anymore than bodyweight or dared to leave the Universal multi-lever machine for the free weights, you were targeted by the other athletes and coaches.

It was not until the 1990s that strength training gained acceptance. That’s at least four decades of waiting and hoping for recognition. In the 1990s strength training research boomed, and strength training gained mainstream acceptance. It was no longer the activity of weird men in dark gyms, or the occasional athlete in diverse sports – it was for everyone.

Up until the 1990s a ‘strength coach’ had to prove they were not going to slow down or cause injury to the athlete.  Up until about the mid-1990s in Australia I was the only one who had full-time income as a ‘strength coach’, paralleling Poliquin’s experience in Canada.  In the mid-1990s things began to shift and positions began to open in the industry in Australia. Post 2000 it became a formality – sporting teams felt obliged to hire strength(and conditioning) coaches.

I share these insights to provide background to my suggestion that what has occurred since is an exuberant over-reaction to a genre that was suppressed for so many decades.

However it’s time to regain balance in the strength perspective.

As a pioneer for strength training in the 1980s and 1990s, I have become an advocate for a more balanced approach since. I am under no illusion – strength training, or the lack of it in sport, was my opening to sport. However unlike some of my colleagues, I didn’t stay there. I moved on to address the success of the athlete in a balanced, holistic fashion, rather than exclusively how much they lifted in the gym.

In the introduction to this series I talked about human over-reaction:

Futurists describe human response to a new idea as an over-reaction in the short term and an under-reaction in the long term.[1]

This is what I suggest has occurred with strength training.  Let’s begin with simple examples.

At the 1991 NSCA convention I watched a number of individuals that were obviously athletes but I could not figure out which sport. This was frustrating me as I take the study of athletic shape seriously. They were more muscular than track and field athletes but lacked the upper trap development of the stereotypical weightlifter. And they had larger than average hamstrings.

I was stunned to learn they were in fact weightlifters on the US national team. It was Wednesday June 19 1991 and the pre-convention seminar was titled ‘The US Approach to Teaching the Olympic-style Lifts and their use in Sports’, presented by Dragomir Cioroslan.[2]  I learnt a lot that day from Dragomir. One of the lessons was the way he had his athletes perform the stiff legged deadlift. So I called this the ‘Romanian Deadlift’ and wrote about it. It got picked up.

So much so that by the end of the 1990s, and to this day, if you ask someone to do a deadlift they will typically immediately perform a stiff legged deadlift. It virtually caused the conventional bent knee deadlift to become extinct. Or at least in the minds of the masses. This became the norm, the trend.

It didn’t stop there. Prior to late 1990s if you asked someone to do a stiff legged deadlift or good morning (assuming they knew what these exercises were) they would perform them with a rounded back.

Now Dragomir’s stiff legged deadlift was flat backed, and the impact on the hamstring was apparent. So now this became the trend, and no one would perform either the stiff legged deadlift or good morning ever again – or so it seemed. In fact, the next phase was the creation of the trend was that rounded back deadlifting was actually bad.

Did either of these responses need to occur? That a deadlift is a stiff legged deadlift, and that rounded back deadlifting became bad? Not at all. Why did it occur? Because humans over-react.

Now you would imagine that this over-reaction is a short-term ‘thing’. What we don’t know is what a‘short-term’ is defined as? We are nearing the end of our third decade of strength acceptance and the trend of over-reaction is still rising.

So what else influences me to believe we are still over-reacting in favor of strength? 

As those who are more familiar with my writing would know I endorse a Tudor Bompa influenced approach to the physical qualities. That there are four dominant physical qualities, presented alphabetically below.

Endurance

Flexibility

Speed

Strength

Most accept that there are other qualities in addition to strength, but I wonder if enough have reflected on their relative values?

One of the greatest examples of this continuing strength bias is the reaction to this statement:

Stretching makes you weak.

The mere forming of these words has effectively discouraged a global generation to stop stretching.   For those who want to get stronger, anything that may impede this outcome is unacceptable.  An antithesis.

The specifics of the studies, the flaws, the limitations, are ignored. In fact in a ‘study circle’ that I participate in, when latest ‘pre-training static stretching makes you weak’ research article was disseminated not a word was spoken. In contrast, the week before, an article proposing the superiority of isolated chicken protein versus beef protein elicited astute and appropriately probing questions about the study protocol and potential flaws.  Analytical thinking was applied.  Yet when the words ‘stretching makes you weak’ care across the desk there was silence.

Now imagine this statement, if made today:

Strength training makes you tight.

For those of you who want to get more flexible and supple, this is the antithesis, and you would pause and reflect on your strength training.

But that is not, and would not happen today. Because today strength training is considered to be the most important variable. Note this is a trend – not the way it will always be.

Now rather than it be about strength vs. flexibility (because that is a battle that cannot be one in todays paradigm), how about this:

Strength training negatively impacts skill execution in sport.

Think this is ridiculous? Try this. Assess your basketball free throw line shooting ability. Go and do a pushing upper body workout and IMMEDIATELY return to the free throw line. (Now no one does that in the real world, but minor (?!) details such as that were of no interest in the stretching makes you weak studies!).  How’s your shooting going?

Now even though athletes value skill, this is still unlikely to sway strength coaches because of a. their current buy into strength training is the most important training component; and b. their jobs are not being measured by the skill set or even by the scoreboard, but by the 1RM or 3RM of the athlete.   And that is just a trend. That will change. One day a more holistic measurement of physical preparation will be applied.

In conclusion, strength as a quality and training method is over-rated in its importance. This is the trend. I suggest you engage in significant reflection before embracing this trend.

[1] King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation (DVD)

[2] King, I., 1999, Heavy Metal No. 6, t-mag.com

Ian King

Trends in Training

/by

In the early stage of my coaching career I was exposed to the belief that studying, internalizing and implementing the latest trends in training was an optimal path for improving coaching competency. During my first decade of professional development (the 1980s) I embraced this paradigm.  However as I entered my second decade (the 1990s) I began to question this approach.

I came to conclude that trends are a reflection of human behavior in a given period of time, rather than an insight into what is optimal.  As a result of this I continued to study trends, however ceased internalizing and teaching them.

So why do I continue to study trends? There are a number of benefits of studying trends. Firstly it is an insight into the mindset of the masses, and as a coach of competitive athletes, it helps us to dominate when we are familiar with the mindset of our opponent. Secondly as a coach educator it helps me understand why the masses are influenced to think the way they do. Thirdly, as a student of behavior and one who enjoys the disciplines of sociology and futurism, it’s just interesting!  It’s a form of archeology rolled into attempting to predict the next trend! For example, its insightful to watch which of my innovations have been accepted by the masses, which have not, and why. That’s what I do in my spare time.

Understanding where humans have come from helps understand why they do what they are doing, and where they are going.It’s the bigger picture of training.

I realized by the early 1990s that the quickest and easiest way to influence people and position yourself as a ‘teacher’ was to use the words ‘trend’ combined with the word ‘modern’.  And if you threw in the word ‘strength’ (and read the article in this series dedicated to ‘strength’) you quickly achieve this goal. And I watched this happen, including the use of some of my works in these very publications.  However I withdrew from this ‘trend’.  Misleading the masses in this way was not congruent with my values.  Would I be more popular and made more money (in the short term) if I stayed with the ‘modern trends’ paradigm. Absolutely.  Would you be more popular and potentially make more money (in the short term) if you did too? Probably. 

It’s a niche role in our industry for individuals to position themselves as ‘teachers’ by identifying the ‘latest trend’ before it reaches the tipping point, and begin teaching it.

For example, the person who has written the most ‘functional’ training books was using the methods they taught in these books when they got exposed to the ideas that form the basis of so-called ‘functional training’. In fact they were highly critical of them at their first exposure. However they were able to jump on this trend and position themselves as an expert in this.  They achieved their goal of being unheard of to becoming ‘significant’.

Now the fact that they have to change their beliefs every time trends change is not a factor that appears to challenge their value system.   For example in the early 2000s static stretching was really, really politically incorrect:

…our facilities train more athlete per day than any other that we know…..None of our athletes, from pros down to middle school students,stretch prior to these workouts. Our athletes do not do static stetches…[1]

As the years rolled on there was a small groundswell of return in interest in static stretching. Enough for a trend spotter to fear the tipping point was arriving, and feel the need to jump onboard:

….stretching is highly underrated…… [2] One thing that’s fundamentally different now from when the original ‘Functional Training for Sport’ book [2004] was written is there was no emphasis on tissue quality…tissue work…rolling, stretching. [3]

When they realized their earlier book has no reference to tissue tension manipulation, they salvaged this by including us ‘all’ i.e. we ‘all’ missed it.

I can’t believe there was no reference to static flexibility and no reference to foam rolling just a few years ago. We had no concept of changing tissue density [tension]. [4]

Really? It was a 2004 publication! Anyone who was a competent coach was all over tissue tension by then!

Put simply trend-spotting publications will only teach you what are the acceptable trends of the time, not what is best for you as a coach and your athletes.

So what can or should you be learning to fulfill your potential as a coach? Generalized principles. This is a term and concept I learnt from the highly acclaimed US innovator, the late Richard Buckminster Fuller.[5]

One of the inherent challenges in studying and embracing dominant trends is the human propensity to over-react. Put simply, the longer a value or person has been suppressed the greater the chances that the release will result in a reaction that is in excess of optimal. 

To explain this phenomenon I shared this thought over the decades:

The standard reaction to anew idea is over-reaction in the short term, and under-reaction in the longterm.[6]

Futurists describe human response to a new idea as an over-reaction in the short term and an under-reaction in the long term.[7]

Don’t get caught up in trends…In the early stages of any trend there is a tendency to over-reaction the short-term, and under-react in the long term. [8

One of my passions is the study of futurism and human behavior. As such I had developed a saying based upon this study, about how humans reaction to new ideas in the short and long term.[9]

Strength training is a great example of this, as it waited over half a century for acceptance. We are now in that over-reaction to strength training phase, as I explain in a later installment of this article series.

In summary, trends should not be ignored. However on the flip side nor should they be glorified and imitated. When I see a coach or facility reflecting the dominant trend I have empathy for the coach/owner and sympathy for the athlete/client.

It’s challenging to fulfill your potential when decisions are driven by trends.

As a coach or gym owner you may feel good about it because you are ‘like’ everyone else, and we all know that leads to others ‘liking’ us. However from the real world of athlete performance, I’ve not met too many champions who were disappointed when their training was different to the masses.

[1]xxxx., 2004, Reference withheld to protect the message

[2] xxxx, 2010, Reference withheld to protect the message

[3] xxxx., 2010, Reference withheld to protect the message

[4] xxxx, 2010, Reference withheld to protect the message

[5] https://www.bfi.org/about-fuller

[6] King, I.,, 1999, Understanding Plyometrics, (book), Introduction, p. 1

[7] King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation (DVD)

[8] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed! (book), p. 77

[9] King, I., 2010, Barbells & Bullshit (book), Chapter 3 – Those sayings look familiar?!, p. 13

Ian King

Where’s the evidence?! Part 5 – Which ‘evidence’ will you choose?

/by

A young adult was watching a physical coach performing a pre-training static stretch with a large group of young athletes. They turned to those around them and said:

“You know they are wasting their time!?”

The coach whose professional implementation judgments they were calling into question was myself. The year was 2018.

Which type of evidence were they operating on? To understand that answer here’s a clue – they were an undergraduate student. There’s additional irony in this story as their college course was in physical therapy.   Here a few years in undergraduate study trumped the experience and conclusions of a person who had conducted four decades of multi-year, large sample size, many sports, many different countries experiments.

Reminds me of the 1980s when periodization was taught dogmatically and as a fact in coach education despite having no real science to justify it. If you were to engage in any speed work before developing an ‘aerobic base’, you were also ‘wasting your time’. Actually, more than that, the athlete was definitely going to get injured.

Was there any real science in this? No, but that didn’t matter. Once enough people were echoing the myth, and that was enough. Once it’s in printed word, that’s enough. Once certain ‘experts’, ‘gurus’ or ‘leading’ coaches saying it, that’s enough. It forms a ‘truth’ all of it’s own and everyone assumes that for a theory to reach this level of ‘definiteness’ it must be fact, supported by science.

I was keen to understand the science of this conclusion. With all due respect to the aerobic base proponents, I didn’t agree. So when I got the chance to listen to a strong advocated of this training method at a national convention I listened intently….. Until I heard the evidence – this is what it was:

…a newspaper article published a story where a person said they heard an New Zealand All-Black say they felt fitter because of their off-season aerobic training.

That was it?!

I was keen two to learn of the convincing science confirming that static stretching before training is bad. Here are two examples of this ‘evidence’:

xxxx says wild animals don’t do static stretching–they do long, slow-moving stretches, or even explosive bounding movements that form an integral part of all of their lives. “And the stretch is not a relaxed stretch; it’s done with a lot of tension. That’s an important point because we are often told to stretch only relaxed muscles. Look at the stretch of a cat, how it stretches up to its maximum with tension, according to what feels right. This type of active intuitive stretching equips you to cope better with strenuous exercise.[1]

Really? That was it?!

If you took rubber bands out of the freezer and prepared to use them by stretching them, what do you think would happen? You would easily break quite a few. This is why athletes frequently pull muscles…[2]

Really? That was it?!

So it must be true. After all, here’s a professional development organization also stating it’s true:

In general, there is little need to place much emphasis on stretching in your exercise routine, at least from a health or injury prevention perspective. [3]

And here’s another ‘guru’ telling you it’s true:

None of our athletes, from pros down to middle school students, stretch prior to these workouts…Our athletes do not do static stretches…[4]

Now did the science change with this very ‘guru’ ‘changed his mind’? An, no.

One thing that’s fundamentally different now from when the original ‘Functional Training for Sport’ book [2004] was written is there was no emphasis on tissue quality…tissue work…rolling, stretching. I can’t believe there was no reference to static flexibility and no reference to foam rolling just a few years ago. We had no concept of changing tissue density [tension]. [5]

I couldn’t believe it either! That this ‘expert’ published on such limited experience in that they no idea in 2004 that stretching and rolling contributed to altered muscle tension! The ‘we’ needs to be ‘I’….”I had no concept….”

What didn’t change was the damage that was done. The myth became a paradigm and the paradigm became ‘assumed science’. Sure there are some abstract short term studies showing that pre-training did certain things. Where there any conducted over years confirming that removing pre-training static stretching was superior?

So perhaps we can forgive or understand this undergraduate ‘I know’ attitude on the basis that all she knew was the theory she was told, and we are in an era of anti-static stretching.

But what about the ‘gurus’ who mess with the values of the average professional and end user and whose ‘teachings’ depends on the popular trend at the time? The way the wind is blowing on any given period of history….

Here’s a great example of this questionable influence. Say a physical coach with university qualifications and 20 years of industry experience? And who was struggling with chronic back pain? What ‘evidence’ would they rely upon to guide their ‘stretching is bad’ position on static stretching? The below is a verbatim transcript:

Strength Coach: I’ve read a lot of stuff that says doing static stretching before [training] actually makes the muscle weaker and the contractions less forceful. So I’ve always seek out stuff to validate this bias. So I’ve never really dived into stretching.

IK: So just as a matter of interest, you’ve heard the theory. Did you test the theory?

Strength Coach: No.

IK: So you’re leading a life on the basis of other peoples opinions? Can I ask you another question – how many original studies have you cited that came to that conclusion? The hard copy or electronic copy in your hands?

Strength Coach: Zero.

IK: I’m glad you’re honest with me.

Yes, just as the majority do – this extremely well intended and experienced physical coach has chosen the ‘evidence’ of the consensus thinking.

And they are not alone in doing so…..

You have choices in evidence, and that is your prerogative. I simply encourage you to be clear about your ‘evidence’, and encourage you to consider a more holistic approach to ‘evidence’. This means that personal and professional experience and observations with cause-effect relationship do count!

References

[1] Reference withheld to protect the message.

[2] Reference withheld to protect the message.

[3] ACSM’s Health & Fitness Journal (July/August 2009), Question Column by David C. Nieman Dr.Ph., FACSM

[4] Reference withheld to protect the message.

[5] Reference withheld to protect the message.

Ian King

Where’s the evidence?! Part 4 – Choices in ‘evidence’

/by

Through out this article series I have sought to provide a respectful review of ‘evidence’, in answering the common thread of responses to the concepts and innovations in training I have shared during the last four decades.

In Part 1 of this article series I shared my experiences in the field of paradigm shifting and some of the experiences I had. In Part 2 of this article series I discussed the meaning of the words ‘Where’s the evidence?’  In Part 3 of the series I sought to provide support to my suggestion that the main reason those who lash out in response to my innovations demand to see the evidence is that they fear the challenge to change.

In this article, Part 4 of the series, I intend to discuss two primary options or choices in evidence. From the outset I stress there is no suggestion that you have to choice one or the other. You can work with both.

The first is the sort of evidence most are conditioned (at least in the academic influenced fitness and sports training industry) to seek and believe in – randomized double blind placebo controlled study. The second or other option is personal experience. Now I know it’s hard for some of you to even understand the audacity of proposing personal experience as an alternative to the ivory tower of ‘science’, however you could relax and let me finish.

After all, I am not ‘attacking’ the theory of science. I am simply challenging blind compliance.

Let’s imagine that if it’s in print, and published in a reputable journey – it must be so. I certainly believed that at one stage.  So much so that I even referenced a research conclusion in one of my books.

I included a supplement (water) marketed under the trademark ‘Might Atom’ in my 1998 Australian Sports Supplement Review,[1]on the basis of a research[2]supporting it.

The only study that we have seen on this supplement, by Wilson, concluded that ‘Mighty Atom’ resulted in a modest short term increase in maximum (arm) strength during the one week study conducted.  The strength increases were measured at 4%, which the researcher suggested to be similar to the results achieved with the acute use of creatine monohydrate.

One theory for how it may work was presented by Wilson (95).  He suggests that possibly the ‘cleansing effect’ associated with the use of ‘Mighty Atom’ may occur via the removing of accumulated toxins, such as heavy metals, from the body.  He cited a 1990 study which maintained that significant amounts of mercury in the body can produce fatigue and weakness.

Questions were raised at a later date – did the research even occur?

Now that may be a relatively harmless example, however let’s consider something more significant. Such as the circumstances leading to the recent lawsuit against Monsanto in the glyphoshpate (round-up) case in the US where damages in excess of $250 million USD were awarded for the plaintiff, Dwayne “Lee” Johnson.

After all, there is ‘strong evidence that it does not cause cancer in humans’.

The EPA considers glyphosate to have low toxicity when used at the recommended doses. “Risk estimates for glyphosate were well below the level of concern,” said EPA spokesman Dale Kemery. The EPA classifies glyphosate as a Group E chemical, which means there is strong evidence that it does not cause cancer in humans.[3]

Well, that was until just recently.

Johnson’s jury heard evidence that for four decades Monsanto maneuvered to conceal Roundup’s carcinogenicity by capturing regulatory agencies, corrupting public officials, bribing scientists and engaging in scientific fraud to delay its day of reckoning. The jury found that these activities constituted “malice, fraud and oppression” warranting $250 million in punitive damages.

Does this mean all published science should be disregarded? Not at all. The point, should it need to be clarified, is that it may not be prudent to accept science all on face value simply because it has been published. Just as with your foods, ideally trace it back to its origin to understand it fully.

So what’s an alternative?  A man called Richard Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983) who is considered one of the most intelligent Americans in modern history. His patents, ideas and innovations are claimed by many industries.  Here is one of Buckminster’s conclusions, made at the age of 53 years:

…I jettisoned all that I had ever been taught to believe and proceeded thereafter to reason and act only on the basis of direct personal experience…Exploring, experiencing, feeling, and – to the best of my ability – acting strictly and only on my individual intuition…[4]

I know – it may be difficult for many to accept that intuition and personal experience could ever be given such credibility.

Let’s say for example you had read something somewhere that a certain type of form was the best way to deliver a certain micronutrient. Then you came up on say a multi-vitamin where the formulation used a certain form of a micronutrient that you had read was not as good at another.  So without trying the product, you reject it outright. This is an example of action in the basis only of what you have been led to believe.

Alternatively you acknowledge the information you were exposed to, however tested the multi-vitamin over a reasonable time period with an objective mind, to develop your own conclusions. This is an example of what Buckminster Fuller was referring to, using your own faculties and experience to collect ‘evidence’.

These are your choices.  If you see value in using the latter (personal experience) as in addition to the former (evidence presented by others), then I encourage you to remain strong under the pressure to conform.

Almost anybody can learn to think or believe or know, but not a single human being can be taught to feel. Why?  Because whenever you think or you believe or you know, you’re a lot of other people, but the moment you feel, you’re nobody but yourself.

To be nobody-but-yourself – in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else – means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight and never stop fighting…[5]

Resist the temptation in program design to conform to mainstream paradigms simply for the sake of conforming, no matter how dogmatically they are presented, or how much you may be ridiculed or ostracized for trusting your intuition over conformity. Make our own minds up based on a combination of respect for your intuition, the athlete/client’s intuition, the results, and in respect of the body of knowledge available.[6]

 

References

[1]King, I., 1998, Australia Supplement Review, King Sports International, Bris Aust.

[2]Wilson, G.J., 1997, The effect of Mighty Atom on arm strength, Strength and Conditioning Coach, 5(2):2-4.

 

[3]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

[4]Buckminster-Fuller, referring to his book ‘Critical Path’, 1981.

 

[5]E.E. Cummings

[6]King, I.., 2005, The way of the physical preparation coach (book), p. 17

Ian King

Where’s the evidence?! Part 3 – Here’s the evidence

/by

In Part 1 of this article series I shared my experiences in the field of paradigm shifting and some of the experiences I had. Not quite as fatal as the experience that the 19thCentury Hungarian doctor Ignaz Semmelweis paid. However still an eventful experience.

In Part 2 of this article series I discussed the meaning of the words ‘Where’s the evidence’, again making suggestions that may lead to further evoking of emotions!

In this article, Part 3 of the series, I want to provide some ‘evidence’ of why I said what I said in Part 2 – that the main reason those who lash out in response to my innovations demand to see the evidence is that they are confident there is no randomized double blind placebo controlled study that I can offer, and therefore are looking for the comfort of being ‘right’ enough to keep doing what they are currently doing.

My first point about this call for evidence is this – what percentage of their life actions that they make on a daily basis is based on randomized double blind placebo controlled studies? I suggest very little.

Do they select the mattress they sleep on based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study? Maybe, but I doubt it.  Is the way they lay oh the bed during the night based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Is the way the get out of bed in the morning based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study? Maybe, but I doubt it.  Is the hand they use (right or left) for personal hygiene in the morning based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Is the hand they use (right or left) to move food from their breakfast plate to their mouth based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study? Maybe, but I doubt it.  Is the hand they use to comb their hair or the type of comb they use based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study? Maybe, but I doubt it.

I could go on, all day long…

Bottom line – how much of what you do all day is based on a based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study?

Now let’s talk about training.

Is the way they warm up based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study that shows that compared to all available options, that is the best way? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Are the exercises they choose based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study that shows that compared to all available options, that is the best way? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Are the loading parameters – reps, speed of movement, number of sets, rest periods – based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study that shows that compared to all available options, that is the best way? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Are the exercise technical models they employ – including width of grip and or stance, angle of grip or foot placement, line of movement etc. – based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled study that shows that compared to all available options, that is the best way? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Now you can tell me anything you want about how your program is 100% science based – but please, don’t assume me for a fool. I’ve been around the block a few times.  And even in the last few days I’ve been privy to informal discussion between some of the leading US researchers who quite simply had two things in common – firstly, they could not reach a consensus as to the definitiveness of loading parameter for generic optimal muscle hypertrophy. And secondly, they all deferred to their own personal experiences to willingly over-ride the conclusions of one of their own groups recent research conclusions.

So let’s be straight – if a leading group of scientists cannot find consensus in the ‘science’ regarding one single training variable – your training decisions and program design is going to be more art than science.

Now, of course, if you want to abdicate the uniqueness of you as an individual to the average response of the short duration, small group sample in any given study conclusion – be my guest.

In summary, stop kidding yourself that all your training decisions are based on a randomized double blind placebo controlled studies! And stop cherry picking when you are ‘right’ or someone else is ‘wrong’ because of the absence or presence of a randomized double blind placebo controlled study.

Does this mean I am anti-science? Not at all. Does this mean that science in our field is useless? Not at all.  It is however challenged. Challenged by the amount and complexity of physically training an individual, as opposed to the average of a specific sample group.

When I’m making a training decision for a 15 year veteran in a sport, attempting to make their third Olympics Games, where is the randomized double blind placebo controlled study that I will make my decisions based on with absolute certainty? For that matter, where is the randomized double blind placebo controlled study that involved a sample size of clones of your client, irrespective of what their demographic is?

Does that mean I am right about the innovations I share with the world? Not at all. Are the the honest reflections based on about as much empirical evidence I can apply? Are they the best way I have found to date based on my experience? Absolutely.

Now before I scuttle back into the woods to cover from the rounds fired by those inflamed by my audacity to suggest that science has yet definitively navigate program design for each and every person, allow me to share some food for thought about ‘science’.

Marcia Angell, who spent two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, wrote in 2009:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine”[1]

In 2015 Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, wrote that

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness”[2]

Here’s a case study that I have watched with interest. I have worked with a number of Vietnam Veterans over the years. They complained about a thing they called ‘Agent Orange’. Heard of it? It was a chemical herbicide and defoliant was used to clear out tropical jungles in Vietnam during that conflict to expose the hiding places and food supplies of Viet Cong guerrilla fighters. According to an article in Natural News:

“In the years from 1961 to 1971, the American military sprayed roughly 12 million gallons of it across 30,000 miles in the southern part of Vietnam.  Agent Orange contains the toxin dioxin, which has been linked to cancer, birth defects, and other fatal illnesses. Millions of the Vietnamese people are still suffering from the effects of exposure to the chemical.”[3]

Up until 11 August 2018, apparently “it was claimed at the time that there wasn’t enough evidence to link Agent Orange to health problems.” On 11 August 2018 a US High Court was convinced enough to award damages against the firm that makes this drug, Monsanto, of $289 million – for one victim in the US.

Now my question to those who hold or portray to hold the belief that they discard all unless a randomized double blind placebo controlled study supports – would you have backed your belief and be willing to be exposed to being sprayed by Round Up prior to 11 August 2018?

Yes, these statements and case study refer to medical research, not sports science research. However, I know of at least one study that didn’t even happen yet was published as if it did in a peer-reviewed journal…

Okay, maybe there’s been more than one, but I don’t want to burst your bubble all at once. After all, too many are still angry at me for my habit of presenting my evidence, based on at least a decade of observation and experimentation, and backed by four decades of observation and experimentation – that challenges most of what you have been led to believe, or had reached your own conclusion, was the best thing for you….

 

References

[1] Angell M. Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption. The New York Review of Books magazine. [Last accessed August 5, 2015]. Available from: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/ [Ref list]

[2]Horton R. Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? [Last accessed August 5, 2015].  www.thelancet.com. Available from: http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf

[3] Z. Isabelle, 2018, Vietnam demands Monsanto pay hundreds of millions in damages to victims of Agent Orange, Natural news Tuesday, September 04, 2018. https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-09-04-vietnam-demands-monsanto-pay-hundreds-of-millions-in-damages-to-victims-of-roundup-glyphosate-weedkiller.html

Ian King

Where’s the evidence?! Part 2

/by

In Part 1 I spoke about the price some paradigm shifters such as Ignaz Semmelweis, the Hungarian doctor who dared to suggest that doctors were killing their patients by failing to wash their hands, paid.  Without suggesting I was in his league, I gave numerous examples of how people had responded to my paradigm challenging innovations over the last four decades.

Perhaps against better judgement, I continue to share my training conclusions for positive impact by those who embrace them. I say perhaps against better judgements because I receive the same personal attacks and questioning of my sanity as I did four decades ago when I release these ideas, especially the ones that relate to training methods or equipment embraced by the majority.

I naively hope that those threatened by exposure to these suggestions would take some time to check out my track record, however I appreciate I am being unrealistically optimistic.

After all, if Linus Pauling could be subject to such vitriol for his teachings and position in relation to supplemental Vitamin C after he had won two unshared and in two different subject areas Nobel Peace prizes (something no one else has achieved), then who am I to expect a leave pass?

So what do those who make the comment ‘Where’s the evidence?’ (in relation to my audacious suggestions challenging popular training methods and equipment) mean? After all, it shocks me, as I have just shared the rationale in the multiple page article – so what are they referring to when they say ‘Where is the evidence?’

Let’s talk about possible meanings of the word ‘evidence’.

According to dictionary’s: 

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.[1]

one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true:[2]

Now that cannot be what they are referring to, as surely they would not have asked had they been operating on these versions. I mean, I had just explained to them why based on my four decades of experience I reached that conclusion, yet they still asked ‘Where’s the evidence?’

So I believe they are referring to another type of evidence. Here are two possibilities.

The first one is industry specific. Our industry is one where the need to quote a scientific reference is paramount.  Despite being in a field that will always be challenged by the ability to provide ‘scientific’ answers to human adaptations, our industry seems committed on over-compensating.

So one possibility is that they are referring to a randomized double blind placebo controlled study.

Studies follow a hierarchy in terms of the quality of evidence that they can provide. Randomized double blind placebo control (RDBPC) studies are considered the “gold standard” of epidemiologic studies. [3]

There is another form of evidence that I doubt these typically challengers are referring to consciously, however I suggest subconsciously they are looking for – the evidence that ‘the majority’ (or at least a substantial number of people) are doing it also.

I call that conformity evidence.

So I get the rationale of what they are saying – show me the evidence, meaning the randomized double blind placebo controlled study – however there is one more point I will make about this request.

Is this question really driven by a desire to learn, or is it driven by the expectation that the standard cannot be met, and therefore they are safe to keep doing what they are currently doing?

In other words, I suggest that the default ‘where’s the evidence?’; ‘there is no evidence to support that’; is a safe-haven to avoid change, to avoid learning that one may have been off-track or sub-optimal in past beliefs and practices.

I know what you’re thinking…

So where’s the evidence for you saying that Ian?! (Oh I forgot to add the prelude of sentences containing nasty adjectives!)

[Read Part 3….]

 

 

 

[1]https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/evidence

[2]https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/evidence

[3]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3505292/

Ian King

Where’s the evidence?! Part 1 – Ridiculed, opposed, and then self-evident

/by

In the 1840s a Hungarian doctor by the name of Ignaz Semmelweis made the audacious suggestion that doctors were causing the death of their patients because they were not washing their hands before coming into contact with the patient. The doctors didn’t like this suggestion. After all, they were ‘gentleman’, and ‘gentleman’s hands were always clean’. Semmelweis reward was he lost his job, was committed to a mental asylum and was ultimately bashed to death there.

Now we’ve come a long way since then – we don’t necessarily assassinate the bearer of unpalatable ideas, but character assassination is still on the table.

A great quote that I use often, credited to a German philosopher from about Semmelweis’s era, states:

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

Now I don’t profess to hold the truth, nor do I profess to have impacted the world in the way that Semmelweis has, however I do know first hand the way those who propose unpopular and challenging ideas get treated.

In the early1980s science had ‘proven’ that squats were bad (stretched the knee ligaments irreparably) and leg extensions were a much safer exercise. Based on my experience I reached the conclusion that this may have been back the front, and despite the criticisms of my colleagues and the weight of the ‘science’, continued to promote the double knee bend (squat).

In the early 1980s there was no science to support that the use of knee sleeves during strength training would benefit the joint. Based on my experience I reached the conclusion it may, and despite the criticisms of my colleagues and the absence of ‘science’, continued to promote the use of knees sleeves in the gym for all who were loading their lower body.

In the early 1980s there was no science to support that anyone needed anymore protein or other supplementation than the average person did – in the case of protein, that was about 0.7 grams of protein per kilogram per day. No one. It was, I was told, simply creating ‘expensive urine’. Based on my experience I reached the conclusion that this may off-track, and despite the criticisms of my colleagues and the weight of the ‘science’, continued to promote the use of nutritional supplementation including protein powder.

In the mid 1980s there was no science to support that altering the speed of movement in strength training, or recognizing the pause between eccentric and concentric contraction, was of any value.  Based on my experience I reached the conclusion that there was merit in controlling and manipulating these variables. Despite the ridicule of my colleagues and the absence of the ‘science’ I developed and applied strategies for communicating the concept I called ‘Speed of Movement’ to my clients, using a three digit timing system.

In the mid 1980s there was no science to support that you could or should use a categorization of exercise. In fact even the best bodybuilding books written by great and experienced men called the legs the legs, and the (upper) back the back.  Based on my experience I reached the conclusion that there was merit in categorizing the movements. Despite the ridicule of my colleagues and the absence of the ‘science’ I developed a concept I called ‘Lines of Movement’ where I separated what I called ‘hip dominant movements’ from ‘quad dominant movements’.  And created the simple category of horizontal push and pull and vertical push and pull.

When I taught this and other of my ‘really crazy’ ideas in a seminar in New York NY USA in about 2000, the local ‘guru’ commenced a long running ‘discouragement of attending my seminars’. That’s code for they weren’t allowed to attend – anywhere in the US! And if they did, they needed to know they risked being arrested! And by way, you would also be arrested if you received a package from me (in other words don’t order any of my educational material!) I get it – this guru has zero horizontal pulling in his programs. He needed to crush that idea really fast, or at least long enough to regroup![1]

I’ll never forget walking into a trade-show in Florida in about 2001 and the person behind the desk went all white and his jaw dropped. I said ‘What’s wrong?’ When he could speak he said ‘I thought you were in jail.’  I said ‘Let me guess who told you that one….’

In the late 1980s and early 1990s there was no science to suggest the need or benefit from performing particular exercises at the start of a strength workout to activate the muscles you planned to use.  Based on my experience I reached the conclusion that there was merit in doing so. Despite the ridicule of my colleagues and the absence of the ‘science’ I developed and applied a series of ‘control drills’ to be performed prior to a strength workout.

When I taught this and other of my ‘really crazy’ ideas in seminars in the USA in about 2000, the reaction by the ‘local guru’ was to introduce one exercise (the external DB Rotation) at the end of the workout – loaded. Not what I had in mind but to the masses a suitable counter.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the role of loading and strength training was just becoming accepted in science, I concluded that loading was over-rated and set about creating and integrating a range of single leg (uni-lateral) exercises that could and should be used in conventional strength training.  No one was taking me too seriously. Really Ian, lay on the your back and using one leg push your hips up into the air? Where did you spend summer? Hanging out with Richard Simmons?!

I went even further, suggesting that the strength sub-qualities promoted by the experts of the day was lacking a vital step and sub-quality. I called it ‘Stability and control’, and published a continuum explaining where it sat in the sequence. And talked about the need to develop functional strength.

When I taught this and other of my ‘really crazy’ ideas in a seminar in Boston MA USA in about 2000, the local ‘guru’ (who I had not heard of before) staged a protest walk out taking most of the seminar audience with him. Why? Because my content was ‘really bad’. I suggest it was more of a case of ‘Holy Shit’, I am not doing anything like this, I’d better crush this like the electric cars in the Nevada desert in the 1970s, before anyone realises what’s going on’.[2]

In the 1980s the science of strength training was based on much earlier work that dictated that strength training should be done in multiple sets of 10 reps. Based on my experience I reached the conclusion that there were other and perhaps more efficient ways to apply loading in strength training. Despite the ridicule of my colleagues and the absence of the ‘science’ I developed and applied alternative loading parameters.

When I taught this and other of my ‘really crazy’ ideas in the US internet and hard copy magazine in the USA before and after 2000, the reaction by the ‘local guru’ was to let the owner and editor know that I didn’t quote enough science.

In the late 1980s the science of endurance training and periodization was that if you didn’t first establish an ‘aerobic base’ you would injure yourself. In other words, if you dared engage in sprinting early in the year, you would tear muscles. Based on my experience I reached the conclusion that were other and perhaps more efficient ways to develop endurance, and that you could engage in speed training without first doing the ‘aerobic base’. Despite the ridicule of my colleagues and the absence of the ‘science’ I developed and applied these methods, parallel with colleagues such as the late Charlie Francis, and called it ‘reverse periodization’.

When I published my challenge to the pseudo science of the ‘aerobic base’ in the early 1990s, the local academics had me fired from my position as associate editor of the state-branch of the sports-medicine association. Because apparently my published articles for that magazine lacked adequate referencing of science. I think it might have been because I challenged their beliefs publically….

I could go on…

So unlike Ignaz Semmelweis, I’m still here, despite the efforts of my ‘colleagues’.

I have to tell you the life of a pioneer is not an easy one, but I would not do it any way. I simply want to know what’s the best way to train, and want to ensure that athletes who want that guidance are given this information to fulfil their potential, to avoid injuries.

Now rest assured I have a system of checks and balances in place. I typically develop an idea for about 10 years before releasing it through publications. I like to test it and refine it.

So recently, when I had the audacity to suggest that I see challenges with the way walking lunges are being used (especially walking lunges), with the way kettle bells are being used,with the way bands are being used….

It starts all over again.

Where’s the evidence for that Ian?

Of course, that’s typically after the very unscientific derogatory comments and unsavoury personality profile that they so readily give…..

“…do you live in a cave or what?…

“…this guy is a muppet….”

“Uninformed.  Incompetent.  Ridiculous.  Coach King doesn’t know how to perform the movement to begin with….”

“Have you have lost your mind dude…”

“…I’m embarrassed for this man. Very much so. He has absolutely no clue how to perform any of these exercises…”

:…it’s the exercise equivalent of the flat earth society in 2018…”

“…Mr. King should seek professional instruction, before he makes further comments about a subject that he knows so little about…”

So, where’s the evidence?

(Go to Part 2….!)

“All genuinely creative ideas are initially met with rejection, since they necessarily threaten the status quo. An enthusiastic reception for a new idea is a sure sign that it is not original.”
― Eric Weiner

References

[1] [2] Personal Communication from a KSI Client who attended this seminar, Nov 2017,  “As someone who was actually at those seminars in NY and Boston in the late 90’s, I can attest to what happened. Ian made the “local gurus” realize that they really had no idea what they were doing, they got pissed off, then some of them returned to the “dark side” and some copied Ian’s material and marketed it as their own.”