Ian King

Time, Money & Happiness for the Physical Preparation Coach  

/by

I was sitting having dinner in North America in October last year with a large group of industry professionals, all accomplished in their own right. One of them was talking about the conference he had presented at during 2016 and I asked the question ‘What was one of the key things that stood out to you about the conferences or the trends evident?’ I didn’t expect the answer.

He said ‘The number of how to make more money presentations. At one of them there were 20 presentations, and 16 of them were about how coaches and trainers can make more money.’

This got my attention, as whilst I don’t believe in the blind following or need to conform to trends, I find value in studying trends to understand human behavior and direction of thinking.

There is no other way to say this – physical preparation as a profession is a relatively low income earning profession. Statistics suggest the average western world income is about $50,000, and the stats I have been exposed to suggest that the average physical preparation coach (all disciples) earns less than $50,000. (Remember this is not gross income, this is take home pay).

So it’s no surprise that the industry has gravitated towards solving this problem. I certainly did, back in the 1990s. More on this later.

So I became more focused on this trend towards the teachings of ‘how to make more money in this industry’. I came upon enough web sites to support the trend, and enough ‘trend spotters’ who were ‘fat loss guru’s’ in the early 2000’s and have now morphed into the dominant trend of financial and business educators for the physical preparation industry.

And I came upon an excellent article from a professional organization who seek to be one of the dominant go-to bodies for professional development. An organization with its fair share of peer-reviewed editorializing. I have concluded that this article is an fair reflection of the dominant thinking of the industry. That there is a need to earn more money, that there is a growing interest, and that the solutions suggested were indicative of the current solutions offered industry wide.

I might be a bit old-fashioned but there is nothing like a written article to provide clarity and confirmation about dominant thinking, as opposed to attempting to objectively assess the message in say internet marketing. So I am thankful for the author of this article for his efforts, and stress that any comments relating to this article should not be interpreted as being critical of the person or derogatory of their work. I am truly grateful for their efforts.

But at the same time I have serious concerns for the receiver of the message.

Back in the 1980s when I took on athletes as clients the majority of them had never done any physical preparation work before – they were for the most part clean skin and easy to shape in their values and beliefs about what they needed to do in training, as well as easy to shape physically.

Now most athletes have not only had prior training experience, the majority are broken physical and in some cases mentally by the time they are in the late teens. In the spaced of 3 decades I have gone from picking up ‘clean slates’ to doing damage control. I believe that the contemporary elite athlete (my market) would be better off if had they had kept out of the physical preparation training they have done during their teens and so on. Just like the 1980s and earlier athletes.

It can take years to salvage the bodies of these athletes. If they can be salvaged. The majority of talent identified athletes who have been in ‘high performance’ training squads from their early teens will be injured and out of the sport by around the age of 20 years.

So how does this relate to you?

The athletes I refer to have been trained by physical preparation coaches whose influence has included the post 2000s period, where unsubstantiated yet highly marketed training information and influences dominated the professional development landscape. I say this from a unique perspective. I watched too many key board warriors, who have never trained with any success, never trained anyone else with any success – in fact some downright failed to attract any client base of athletes at all (don’t believe me – I can show you emails….) – reinvent themselves with skillful internet marketing sprinkled with the license to create a perception of their ‘experience’ and ‘success’ that, well, was simply not true. And people bought it.

I have one such physical coach in a professional development course with me in the mid 2000s. I had them write a program for an athlete, and then analyzed the program. I could see the influences – it was after all the ‘most’ were doing at the time’ and I asked them – ‘Why did you write this?’ I followed this up with ‘Have you ever done these exercises?’ To which the answer was ‘No I haven’t’. Once the student coach acknowledged his source, I said ‘Guess what – the ‘author’ hasn’t done these exercise either!’.

The 2000s witnessed an explosion of made up crap, aimed to give a leg up to those seeking to become ‘experts’, for personal ego and financial gain. Some who bought into this said ‘Well what’s wrong this with?’ Let me say this – if you adopt and share methods that are a product of a desperate yet creative individual lacking in integrity, how do you have to add value to the life’s of others in a meaningful and substantial way? Your influence failed to and therefore turned to bogus and oft-times plagiarized content through they usual e-book delivery method etc.

If you need any further help understand why selling things that lack value or have less value than claimed, study the sub-prime driven financial crisis in the US between 2006 and 2010. The world was left with absolute clarity that selling fraudulent overvalued mortgaged backed security that really didn’t have the claimed value will result in collapse.

From what I have seen the ‘financial education being taught currently in the sport and fitness industry has the same absence of value and integrity that the post 2000 internet-guru based information has. And the risk shifts from damaging your body, to wasting time and effort seeking ‘financial freedom’. It’s one thing to arrive in your golden ages physically broken. Its and additional burden to reach the end of your working life to realize you have been led down the garden path.

So what are the alternatives? Let me share with you a time-tested perspective, from a person who reputation has been established on under-promising and over-delivering, straight shooting, to hell with marketing, no bullshit, tell it as it is.

In the early 1990s I realized the limitations as outlined in the article I refer to (reference below). I became a student of money, time and business. Nearly a decade later, in the late 1990s, I wrote a book on the subject (Paycheck to Passive – Going from working for a living to having a life) and began teaching anyone who would listen about money. This has helped a lot of people financially. I won’t make the claim as one of our Internet gurus has – (“…we’ve been helping millions of men and women.…”). Suffice to say there are people who have publicly credited us for moving their financial education forward substantially. What I am saying is its real.

I also provided some excellent business development guidance in my book ‘So you want to become a physical preparation coach?’ (2000), again which served a lot of industry personal.

From 2000 we set out to mentor our coaches and other business partners in financial education. We did so quietly and personally, as opposed to loudly and mass-produced.

However now that financial education for physical preparation coaches in now a trend subject, with our strength experts one day, fat-loss gurus the next, and business and financial educators the next – the message stands to be lost amongst the bogus claims of rags to riches, multiple 7-figure income business etc.

Now I know there will be some who say ‘So what Ian, any information being shared is good; leave them alone’, as was the typical response to previous alerts to the bogus ‘bibles’ of training. My message is not for you.

My message is for those who firstly realize there is a problem surrounding money in their working lives, seek a solution AND have the intuitive realization that the market is full of land-mines full of bogus ‘experts’.

Now let me clarify – the article I referred to above contained excellent, fundamental concepts. I was actually impressed and happy to see these concepts being taught, such as the limitation of selling your time for money. My concerns go beyond the accuracy of the fundamental.

In relation to anyone teaching financial freedom to our industry, my questions include:

1. What level of mastery in financial freedom does the ‘teacher’ have?
2. What reproducible by others business success do they have?
3. What is the true long-term upside of the strategies they are teaching?

Lets touch upon these three briefly.

1. What level of mastery in financial freedom does the ‘teacher’ have?

For example, how long could this person walk away from their business and not experience much of a downturn of income? Do they typically spend a few months a year on holiday, travelling and enjoying their ‘financial freedom?’

2. What reproducible by others business success do they have?

Who are some of the ‘millions’ of people they have helped transform their life financially – what is the answer to these same questions to their students?

3. What is the true long-term upside of the strategies they are teaching?

Do the strategies they recommend really result in ‘financial freedom’? How many people have you met in your lives that have achieved financial freedom from these strategies? E.g. selling e-books and other information on the internet?

Lets ask this simple additional question – how many first generation, self-made multi-millionaires from physical preparation have you met in your life? (not the internet perception – the reality)

Now I appreciate that at different stages of your career you have varying levels of interest in this subject. In my ‘Money and the Physical Preparation Coach Course’ (2016) I dedicated a unit to identify and discussing the concept of ‘stages of career’, sharing the following ‘stages’:

Phase 1: Blinkered and gullible – Years: 0-10 years into their career
Phase 2: At the crossroads – Years: 5-15 years into their careers
Phase 3: Embracing or denying change – Years: 10-20 years into their career
Phase 4: Living with or without the fruits – Years: 20-40 years into their career
Phase 5: Retiring in comfort or destitution – Years: Last 10-30 years of life

I go into more detail about these phases in that course. None-the-less, I imagine that only those in Phase 2 are still reading, and have concerns on this subject.

However, rather than assume this, I have some questions for you:

1. Firstly, do you believe there is a problem, at least in your life, as it relates to your financial future?

2. How many years have you been in the industry?

3. What are the frustrations or challenges you experience?

No I know it’s tough (especially for us males and our alpha sisters), to acknowledge we have a ‘problem’. Let me share a key paragraph outlining some key ‘problems’ as identified by the article I referred to earlier (1):

“The life of a personal trainer can be great, but trading time for money inherently limits income possibilities with only 24 hours in any given day. Furthermore, only so many of those hours are even available to work with clients. In an effort to make more money in that limited time, personal trainers are often forced to sacrifice personal priorities, service quality, and relationships. This can sometimes lead to frustration, burnout, and ultimately, career changes. 
The average personal training income in the United States is thought to be between $35,000 – $45,000 per year… These numbers seem great for passionate personal trainers starting out, but what about years down the road? Those who want to support a family, retire at a decent age, or create freedom in their career must take steps to rise above these industry averages.” (1)

Does that help? Great, here’s what can happen. Participate in this ‘survey’ and see where it can lead. Send your responses to info@kingsports.net with ‘Ian, here is my MTH&TPPC survey response’.

References

(1) Drake, J., and NSCA Personal Training Quarterly, 2016, The training trap – building financial freedom in an appointment-based career, NSCA December Issue Member News

person holding knee injury in pain
Ian King

Knee injuries – How can you hope to solve the problem using the stimulus that caused the problem?

/by

As a student of sports training and competition I took up the opportunity to watch the exercise selection from the waiting room at the physical therapists. I was surprised at the amount of quad exercises used over the weeks of my observing.

Later as I lay on a table in the therapy clinic I listened to a young male client answer the question from this physical therapist.

Therapist: Okay what have we done so far?
Patient: Squats.
My mind: That’s one.
Patient: Wall squats.
My mind: That’s two
Patient: Lunges.
My mind: That’s three.
Patient: Walking lunges.
My mind: That’s four.
Patient: Step ups.
My mind: That’s five.

So far, the workout was 100% quad. I shook my head and said a prayer for the patient. Now to be fair I did see one non-quad exercise being done later. But the first five and the overwhelming majority of exercises being used in the rehab program for what I believe was an ACL surgery patient were quad exercises.

I found this ironic, because it was this very profession some 30 years ago that brought me attention to the risks of ‘quad dominance’ in muscle balance and its relationship with gait and joint integrity. And here I was, some three decades later, and they were creating that exact same condition.

I took this quad dominant concern, along with my own observations, quite seriously and spend a decade or so developing and refining before publishing a concept I called ‘Lines of Movement’ in 1998. You might not recognize the concept title I gave it but you will recognize the terminology by virtue of the prolific unreferenced and uncredited publishing by people who knew better.

In relation to the lower body, I developed the concept to ‘hip dominant’ exercises to counter the concern I learnt from my therapist colleagues about ‘quad dominance’. Now, nearly 20 years after I first published this concept, my theories about the risks of quad dominance have become greater and clearer. I rank the muscle imbalance presented by quad dominant training as one of the highest correlates with ACL ruptures and similar.

If I am track, then the question can be asked:

How can you hope to solve the problem (ACL rupture risk) using the same stimulus that contributed to the problem?

Now I understand that there are many reasons why most will disregard this message. Firstly, and most importantly, because the majority of ‘performance’, ‘injury prevention’ and ‘injury rehab’ strength training does just this – create quad dominance. And to accept this and change would take the emotional intelligence to conclude one is off track and needs to redirection one’s training programs. That’s the biggest reason the message will be ignored.

I understand this. I understand others are waiting for ‘evidence’. I say look at the changing injury landscape. This injury was extremely rare in the 1980s, and even after the surgery became available there was not an instant increase in ACL incidence – so the low incidence was not because the surgery was not available. It was just a rare injury. It is not any more. So what changed? Why are so many athletes suffering from this injury now? But this would take again a degree of commitment to excellence and a detachment from ego that few are committed to.

Evidence is, I suggest, another way of saying I will only do it when I see most others doing it, and when I am doing what most others are doing, I feel ‘right’ and ‘safe’.

What I do say is this – not withstanding the frequent medical claims I here quoted by patients all too often about how their graft will be stronger than the one their Maker gave them – 50% of all ACL patients will have repeat knee surgery, and 100% will have premature degenerative changes such as osteoarthritis. I would not wish this on anyone. If it was your child would you want this?

So while the masses wait the quarter to full century it may take for the ‘evidence’ to ‘allow’ them to take note of my conclusions, another generation or more will suffer from life changing injury and surgery such as the ACL.

It does not have to be this way for you and those in your care, however that is up to you.

Ian King

Ian King

Strength training makes you weak and should not be done  

/by

We’ve been conducting some studies lately and have reached the conclusion that strength training is bad and should not be done.

The protocol we have been using has been to complete a set of near Repetition Maximum reps in the squat, and to test vertical jump and speed within a few minutes of the sets.

There was a direct correlation between level of muscle fatigue and reduced strength, power and speed. There is also a direct correlation between the number of sets and the decrement in strength, power and speed.

The evidence is clear – strength training makes you weaker and slower, and should not be conducted. If you must do strength training, the lower you Repetition maximum you go the less strength, power and speed you will loose, and the less sets you do, the same applies.

I have conferred with a number or colleagues on this and it is our learned recommendation you stop strength training.

Whilst this position has not been formally adopted by any professional development associations, we are confident we will find enough academics and marketing gurus whose lack of strength and understanding of strength should be sufficient motivation for them to temporarily adopt a falsehood until they conduct further personal investigations and gain a higher level of knowledge and personal competence in this area, which will be followed by a range of trend based crappy e-products that create short term cash and the perception of marking leading knowledge, advocating the use of strength training.

And due to the fact that, in the 1950 words of the great Dr Albert Schweitzer, ‘man does not think’ (read – most humans are too dumb or at least have been dumb-downed to question powerful presented paradigms and trends} this will be a really easy sell.

By then, there will be a generation of humans who struggle to loose the conditioning that strength is bad, and who will pass this myth on to their children in a highly non-scientific way, and another if not more generations of humans will suffer for this falsehood that suited the vested interests of a minority.

Hold it – I might be getting confused with the fate of stretching….

PS. Make sure the masses don’t hear that if you waited a few more minutes to test strength it would be a different outcome…

PPS. How is that blindness side-effect going?….

Ian King

The post 2000 fitness ‘professional’ – the long road back  

/by

I often comment on how there’s some really distinct believes and behaviours that I believe identify the persons new to the ‘fitness industry’ post 2000, as a result of the ‘influences’ they were exposed to in this heavily internet marketing based decade. This is a decade I have called a number of things from the Decade of Deceit to the Decade of Bullshit. And these poor souls brought their blank slate into this environment. It’s been an interesting phenomenon to observe. I believe it sent this gullible, trusting cohort on a money and time wasting merry-go-round of confusion.

When someone shared this article with me, written by a Oliver Cummings out of the UK, it summed up this experience better than I could, because he lived it. I learnt from reading the article he fitted the description to a T- a post 2000 entrant to the industry, and he got caught up what most if not all post 2000 newbies got caught up in. To his credit it looks like he has begun the long journey back from this, and in his own words, its been a long road back.

A question I have of those who suffered this fate, this post-2000 intake or cohort – can the mind ever be emptied enough recover from the information they absorbed during this decade when they were so malleable?

Here’s the article, and here’s the authors contact details: oliver_cummings@hotmail.co.uk

“Part 1 of 2. After a conversation with some clients this past week about training methods and a younger trainer last week who asked me about some of the biggest mistakes I’ve made during the last 12 years of coaching, I thought I’d share some of these.

1) Becoming a Functional Trainer specialising in movement patterns. After graduating in 2002, I went on and got my fitness qualifications to work in a gym and quickly found out I didn’t know much so I started reading lots of books on the latest wave of training that was hitting the states – functional training. Shit I was doing it all wrong, barbell curls and any form of sit ups were now on the banned list. So off I went to Canada after devouring the previous 12 months study material to get qualified as a Functional Trainer. From squatting on swiss balls, doing single leg work on wobble boards, stability cushions, to lunging in every angle imaginable with a rotational twist always involved, sometimes even blindfolded..yip that was the “advanced stage..”, and performing countless core drills and exercises to activate the transversus abdominis and other core muscles I didn’t know existed, I wore that t-shirt loud and proud. Apparently my clients and myself were using corrective exercise to improve how our body’s functioned in real life. All this twisting and bending was how we were meant to move as human beings. And I was sold the idea that there would be a transfer over to speed and strength due to being able to recruit my stabilisers much more effectively. Result? Strength and power went backwards, and the back pain that some of my clients and myself were suffering from at that time got worse. This was back in 2003-2004. That shit never worked then and doesn’t work now, no matter how much the new governing body selling their certification program try to convince us.

2) The assessment guy. As part of becoming a functional trainer who now specialised in movement patterns, I needed be able to assess and correct. This consisted of a comprehensive assessment of posture, balance, flexibility, and movement assessments. The assessment took 1 -2 hours to complete for one person which bored the life out of clients, myself included if I’m being honest.

The results of the assessments were now showing that most of my clients and myself were dysfunctional in some way or another– from leg length differences to over tight muscle groups, shoulders not being level on either side, too much forward head carriage, to core being weak and a lot more. The results highlighted red flags which now needed priority in programme design and prevented me from giving clients a lot of the traditional lifts in the gym, these big compound lifts could now kill us. Training programmes were now called Corrective Exercise programmes and consisted of 4 phases of development lasting 6-8 weeks each before you were allowed to pick anything heavy up off the floor. By the end of stage 4 you had lost the will to live never mind lift heavy.

What I’ve learned from experience is that every training session is a testing session. Coaching involves observing clients closely – looking at how their body moves while they perform the warm up and during the training session itself. Things can be corrected on the spot with proper coaching cues. For Gaelic players and soccer players, with a sound athletic programme in place that accounts for structural balance there is no need to spend 4-8 weeks focusing primarily on movement prep and core activation work. All these things can be part of the overall programme but not at the expense of getting the real job done in the weights room – developing explosive strength and power.

With all the work going into FMS and core work over the past few years there seems to be little carryover in preventing injuries going by the global epidemic in sports injuries. As an observation after doing a few thousand hours of assessing normal clients and Gaelic players, a lot of the movement tests can be learned in a relatively short period of time. I still assess all new clients but the difference now and back then is that I’m more specific on what I’m testing for whether it’s a sports person looking to improve speed or a new client with a long term injury. Most of the time all I want to see if there is a major difference between left and right, and if pain exists when they move. After that were good to train.

3) Buying into the whole core myth. This ties in with the first two points. Spending an extensive part of your training time strengthening and activating the core muscles means nothing if your ankles, hamstrings, or neck are weak. Where can all this new core strength go? Your ankles are continually breaking down, your hamstrings are tearing every other game and you think training the core will correct these problems. Fantasy land. I used to believe this too until I found much more effective ways of training for both injury prevention and performance.

Here’s another thing, if you’re sucking your core in to activate your transversus when doing any form of athletic or core training you are destabilising the spine and making the core weaker. If you’re being taught to do this by a physio or anyone else like I was years ago in my functional trainer days then you need to direct them to the work of Dr Stuart McGill a professor of spine biomechanics who has done extensive research on patients and elite athletes with back injuries. Ask any boxer to suck in his abs when punching or when being punched to see his response, or a powerlifter at the bottom of a squat or deadlift – that weight won’t be coming back up again. Instead learn to brace the abs. Squeezing a crap activates the abs more than all that “suck your belly button in” nonsense. Train the abs just like any other body part, no need to specialise unless there is a major weakness, and don’t forget to blast the lower back, when it gets stronger the whole mid-section does too.

4) Joining the Anti-Stretching Establishment. At the time of studying for a sports science degree the research was coming out that static stretching did not reduce injuries and it actually decreased power output if performed before a training session. So I basically stopped stretching and focused instead on dynamic warm up movements. Problem was I sitting all day at university, my hips were becoming chronically tighter, and doing 10-15 minutes of dynamic movements only loosened them up for the training session ahead but did not correct the tightness that was restricting movement. And in today’s day and age this is a common theme for people who drive to work and sit all day over an office desk.

As with any type of training there’s a time and place for all types of stretching. If certain muscles are experiencing chronic tightness get them stretched statically and hold the stretch for 2-5 minutes, 15 second holds don’t cut it as most of us have experienced. Other muscles not as tight can be stretched dynamically, with bands or with PNF.

As much as strength training can enhance athleticism and improve a person’s physique, I’ve learned to incorporate a lot more stretching into the programmes over the years as opposed to 100% dynamic based stretching, and as a result seen a reduction in soft tissue injuries, better range of movement at the bottom of squats and other lower limb exercises and an improvement in stride length while sprinting especially with Gaelic players. For clients pressed for time, static stretching for the lower body specifically the hip area can be performed between rest intervals during upper body training sessions to accommodate training economy. And for coaches who overthink about calming the parasympathetic nervous system down too much doing all this static stretching then weigh out the pros and cons. Having banged up hips from years of sports training won’t benefit performance.

5) Training every client for body composition goals and thinking they need to be at an impressively low level of bodyfat to gain recognition as a trainer who knows what I’m doing. I fell into the trap of thinking every client had my goals – which was to be as lean as possible at all times during the year. Problem was I wasn’t listening to what their goals truly were. If you were a male I wanted you at 10-12% or below bodyfat and if you were a female 15-20%. And in the process I don’t want you having a life away from the gym because that means you won’t hit those figures. And we got to get you in there in 12 weeks or less.

What I’ve learned is that not every client wants to walk about lean or ripped. Some clients just want to get healthier, lose weight to look respectable, and be able to train 3-4 times weekly to feel good about themselves. For quite a few this is much better than doing nothing at all to improve their health or fitness. Being satisfied overweight and not getting healthier or improving fitness levels is not what I’m talking about here, going to the extreme of not being able to eat out and enjoy food on the banned list for 3-6 months is. For competitive athletes, and females and males getting ready for figure or bodybuilding competitions who I have dealt with that’s a whole different ball game. And clients who sign up specifically for a transformation challenge obviously the guidelines are a lot stricter.

But for people new to fitness and those already involved who don’t want the extreme approach the key is compliance and to find what is sustainable long term while keeping the client involved in fitness, otherwise we lose them.

As a side note to this, back in my body composition days, I used to keep my subcutaneous bodyfat at no higher than 12% year round, because I needed to be able to do it myself and to gain respect from clients who would see that if I can be relatively lean all year then I must know what I’m doing. My theory was true to a certain extent but over time I’ve found that the reality is 9 times out of 10, clients or potential clients don’t care if a trainer has a six pack or not. Looking like a sack of shit obviously isn’t a good advertisement for business, being in shape is and can help..a bit. BUT the only thing they truly want to know is can we help them achieve what their looking for. If you’re a new trainer on the scene – that means 3 years or less and you think the current trend on social media of showing what you ate for breakfast and displaying how lean your serratus anterior is I’ve got news for you – clients don’t give one shit. That does not inspire or motivate or help get you new clients.

Arriving at Westside Barbell in Columbus Ohio back in 2008 to spend 2 weeks with Louis Simmons, and after spending the previous year or so training Westside style and mixing it with a strict paleo diet which I had been eating anyway since 2004, Louie shook my hand welcomed me into the gym and asked me if I was a tennis player. Thanks Louie. So much for getting lean.

6) The ball buster. I’ll keep this brief. Training should be conducted with proper intensity and positive stress should be applied at a progressive rate over time so as to get an adaptation response. If too much stress is applied overtime and the person struggles to adapt to the new stress then signs and symptoms of over-reaching can start to show up. That’s when it’s time to back off. If every session is the ball buster, harder than last time, longer than last time etc then progress stalls. We eventually set people up for failure. Being the hardest trainer in town delivering the hardest sessions in town is the one of the first mistakes the new trainer makes to create an impression and looking back I did it too. Not that my sessions are any easier now or less intense, the difference is periodisation of intensity and volume over 4-8-12 weeks periods to get the best possible training outcome. When delivering sessions now I’m asking myself, will this help and progress the client or leave them so tired and fatigued they have a hard time recovering from it. Training clients into a state of exhaustion seems to be a current trend in the fitness industry whereby if they are not on their back wiped out at the end of it the session then it wasn’t productive. From a recovery point of view this is called bullshit. My primary role is to provide a safe and effective coaching environment, and to help a client, not exhaust them. Having a team of paramedics land at one of the gyms I was working at before soon taught me a lesson to calm the fuck down with clients. The minimal effective dose to get the best training response is always the best method. Anything beyond that is a waste of time and messes with the whole recovery process – that forgotten piece of the training process where we do nothing but do the most important thing.

7) The more I learn the less I know. Becoming too emotionally attached to one style of training was something that I suffered from years ago. I’ve invested a fair chunk of my income since 2002 on certification programmes, seminars, workshops, and in private internships, not to mention taking time off from work to shadow coaches at the top of their game in NFL, professional boxing, English and Welsh rugby, and functional nutrition/medicine in America, Canada, and Europe. I look back at the early days and realise that with the few strength and conditioning, nutrition and fitness qualifications I had gained, some good others not so good, that I was becoming attached to certain styles of training and nutrition. Why?

It’s all I knew at the time and I had just spent a fair amount of money and time getting qualified in them so I did become emotionally attached to some of them. Plus I went to these courses and internships to learn with an open mind which I still do, but at the beginning I opened my mind up too much to new ideas that my brain nearly fell out. The old saying that a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous is so true in the fitness industry and hands up it applied to me before. I look at some trainers today who have been in the industry less than 3-5 years which is nothing and they fall into the same trap of believing everything they have been taught in the weekend certification programme they attended or the 4 year sport science degree they have recently completed or worse the latest e-book. Now when I attend seminars or complete certification programmes

I’m looking for that 5-10% piece of information that I feel could be valuable and can be integrated into my system of training. I’m not looking to radically change everything come Monday morning when back at work, I’m looking to fit different pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together so that I can now offer a better way of getting results with clients or teams. Having interned with some of the best coaches in the world and applied their methods over a 12-13 year period I’ve a bit of an idea of what works now and what doesn’t and in comparison to 10 years ago I’m much better at detecting bullshit when I’m looking at new methods from both certification programmes and coaches. I’m still searching for answers to stuff I haven’t figured out and there’s a lot of stuff I haven’t figured out yet.

8) Gurus are a dime a dozen. This follows on from the last point. If you’re a new trainer then you need to learn fast that nobody has all the answers. I used to believe every word that came out of some coaches mouths but found that when I applied some of the information it didn’t work, sometimes results got worse, and sometimes their advice accelerated results greatly. It all gets back to the famous Bruce Lee quote “absorb what is useful, discard what is not.” Every coach has flaws, every training programme has flaws, nothing perfect exists in the training world no matter what the guru tells us or the latest up and coming coach who has had a bit of success over the last 3 year period. The world of strength and conditioning does not begin and end with any one person’s methods no matter how successful they have become. The key is to learn from different coaches and see what works for yourself in your environment.

How do you pick a coach to learn from? Here’s a few tips. Look at their background. How many years have they been coaching? Anything less than 5-7 and be careful. What is their track record? What coaches at the top did they learn from themselves and how many? Success leaves clues. Pick people who have had success, have been in the industry for a respectable period of time, and have learned a lot from other successful coaches at the top themselves.

Bonus tip – being successful on social media platforms and having a good few thousand raving fans and likes means nothing. As for online coaches who have more online clients than people in real life, that isn’t coaching. That’s cutting and pasting programmes and sending it off to the new online client. The best coaches who I have learned from, you won’t find on social media, ever. They are too busy in the real world coaching some of the best athletes in the world. That’s not to say there aren’t any top coaches on the internet, there’s quite a few using the internet to get their information out there. The problem is there is a lot of bullshitters using social media to make themselves look like experts. If their blogging and answering questions on the internet at peak gym times Monday to Friday then you got to question who the hell their coaching in real life.

9) The business of fitness marketing. During the whole time of interning, and attending seminars and courses the common piece of business advice from a lot of the coaches was that when you start to produce results the clients will soon knock on the door. This is partly true and to this day a fair chunk of my business whether it is individuals or teams still comes from referrals which I am always thankful for. There have been times in the past however when business was really bad. Leaving a gym I had worked at for 6 years in 2009 to start working in another gym resulted in losing quite a few clients due to the new gym being geographically too far away to travel for a lot of clients. After quickly discovering that thinking good thoughts and spreading love and positivity out into the universe didn’t attract new clients it gave me a good kick up the arse to start reading reality books like business and marketing. Something that I felt I didn’t need to know and actually hated the thought of to be honest, but it needed to be done as I was self-employed and running a personal training business meant if I didn’t have clients I didn’t get paid and just like everyone else I had bills to pay.

Fast forward 6 years later and I still haven’t really applied anywhere near the amount of the marketing info that I have learned but have become a lot more clued up on the overall business side of things and now appreciate the value of understanding and knowing my numbers, tracking, and generally keeping account of everything. I have during this time read and followed leading figures in the fitness marketing side of things, and have signed up and paid quite a bit for business mentorship programmes. Having already learnt from my past mistakes on the training side of things, I was now able to make a good decision whether Coach X from sunshine coast in some part of America (who I had never heard of before) and was promising to show the secrets to getting more clients than you can handle and earning a 6 figure annual income was legit or a fraud.

I’ve put 6 figure in as it’s the common trend in their advertisements. Their mystical methods that had them running massively successful gyms and bootcamps yet they decided to sell up and teach their principles to gullible personal trainers because there must be more money in that, or they didn’t actually run a successful business at all. What you will find with a lot of these fitness marketing gurus and companies is that 90% of their information products comes from basic books on business and marketing, with the language slightly changed to suit fitness. If you want to learn more about business do yourself a favour and read anything by Michael E. Gerber or Michael Port before you blow money on some guy who for all we know could be and likely is running an imaginary 6 figure business while sitting with his laptop in the bedroom of his parent’s house.

There are however really good business coaches out there who have and still do run successful gyms and other fitness businesses. Find one stick to his methods and don’t get lost amongst all the rest of the noise.

The key point to understand if you’re new to the industry – learn your trade first then study business but don’t leave it to 8 years down the line like I did. But get a handle of the basic business stuff from day one as it will help. On the other hand if you know more about Instagram and other forms of social media than you do about proper programme design and coaching then your priorities are all wrong.

A really good tip for letting people know you’re a trainer on Facebook is to do the following. Go on a diet that absolutely kills you for 12-16 weeks, knock some strong fat burners and whatever else down the neck during this time, train cardio on an empty stomach 5 mornings weekly and weight train in the afternoon. I’m assuming you’re in your twenties and have no family commitments or anything outside of the gym to distract you – you know like real life stuff. Once you’ve leaned out get the fake tan on and get a photo shoot done.

Once you’ve nailed that now you can start advertising for clients on social media. Here’s the rules. Peter Thomas after your name and designer boxer shorts for the profile pic. Daily motivational quotes will now be the norm from here on in not to mention pictures of your breakfast just for extra inspiration. And remember to hit that beast mode button after every training session just in case we forgot about your AM workout that happened 4 hours beforehand. Now go search for that ideal high end client who will stick to your realistic guidelines for getting in shape. Marketing made simple.

That’s pretty much it, I could go into much more detail on any of the above points and I could share much more but I honestly haven’t got the time. Hopefully the new kids on the block learnt something and the more experienced guys in the industry can associate with some of the points.

To finish off I just want to let any coaches know my internship programme will be starting in January 2016. Level 1 National Trainer will last for one weekend and if you pass all practical and written exams you can proceed to Level 2 International Master Trainer which will take 2 weekends to complete. Once you complete Master Trainer Level 2 after 2 weekends you will have your name put up as an affiliated link on my website. This will help clients in your local area find you. But if you don’t reinvest into the programme and retake exams within a 2 year period I will take your name down off the website because I’ll be teaching completely different material in 2 years, and what you were taught 2 years previous to this won’t work anymore. This is the way a lot of fitness qualifications are done now so my Master Trainer Award will be no different. Get signed up on the link below.”

Ian King

Physical train wrecks  

/by

It does not have to be this way

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian King

The rise of the strength sports – and associated training trends  

/by

Many have noted the rise of popularity of the strength sports, particularly Olympic and power lifting. A spin off from the training facilities offering ‘Crossfit’, many suggest, which is a positive for the respective strength sports (and equipment suppliers to these sports!)

What has also become apparent is the trends in training in some circles. Take for example the trend of powerlifting training six days a week, including 3-4 squat sessions a week and at least one three lift day each week.

Training trends far removed from the practice and wisdom of only a few decades ago.

Now as a student of training, I am always open to take a lesson. However as part of being a student I also apply the practice of creating hypothesis for the purpose of testing theories.

So here I go – generally speaking, all things being equal, those adopting these new trends in training in the strength sports will enjoy initial gains (first year). Then they will plateau (within 2 years). And then they will have significant injuries (within 4 years).

Just a hypothesis. I look forward to the study conclusions in the years to come based on adequate samples sizes of at least case studies. Happy however not to be one of the guinea pigs!

Ian King

Mobility training is fake stretching  

/by

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

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

Athlete: “Why not?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian King

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

/by

I recently received a email where the writer asked:

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

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

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

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

This is what I responded with:

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

https://youtu.be/DqNvk12dotE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I trust this answers your question.
–Ian King

Ian King

When buff is ‘bad’  

/by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These categories included:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian King

Planning a specialisation strength program  

/by

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

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

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

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

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

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

To which I responded with:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be well…
-Eric