Ian King

Coach King, What do you think of CrossFit?  

/by

I recently received another request to share my thoughts about cross-fit.

“As someone who I look up to a greatly respect in the area of physical training, I am interested what your thoughts are on CrossFit as an effective training program?”

Before I responded in full asked “Tell me what you think about CrossFit.” I value the market research that consumer comments provide. The writer kindly responded in full and I will share his response in the below.

Firstly I would like to establish commonality in grounds for discussion. In any meaningful dialogue I believe it’s important that meanings are clarified and defined.

To this end, CrossFit is simply a word, or a mixing of two words. So in itself, CrossFit has no more meaning than the meaning a person attaches to it. For most people, the meaning will be shaped by their experiences or perception of what this word (or two words) stands for.

According to Wikipedia, CrossFit is:

CrossFit is a strength and conditioning program with the aim of improving, among other things, cardiovascular/respiratory endurance, stamina, strength, flexibility, power, speed, coordination, agility, balance, and accuracy. It advocates a perpetually varied mix of aerobic exercise, gymnastics (body weight exercises), and Olympic weight lifting.

This source provides further clarification with:

CrossFit Inc. describes its strength and conditioning program as “constantly varied functional movements executed at high intensity across broad modal and time domains with the stated goal of improving fitness, which it defines as “work capacity across broad time and modal domains.” Hour-long classes at affiliated gyms, or “boxes”, typically include a warm-up, a skill development segment, the high-intensity “workout of the day” (or WOD), and a period of individual or group stretching. Some boxes also often have a strength focused movement prior to the WOD. Performance on each WOD is often scored and/or ranked to encourage competition and to track individual progress. Some affiliates offer additional classes, such as Olympic weightlifting, which are not centered around a WOD. (1)

Acknowledge success

Before I go any further I also want to acknowledge the success of CrossFit as measured by financial value and growth.

To his credit from a financial and organizational perspective, the founder of CrossFit Inc, founder Greg Glassman, has been able to retain control over his training concepts. In contrast, I have watched my original training concepts and methods be published extensively by various ‘authors’ without reference or credit. Take the ‘Functional Training Movement’ for example – if you took my concepts out of the books written by one of the more prolific authors in this sector, the book would fall over. Interesting when you consider this same person orchestrated a mass walkout of one of my seminar in 1999 on the basis of how terrible the content was, only to turn around and republish all the content during the next decade in complete absence of crediting or acknowledgement. So kudos to Greg. He had the business acumen I lacked in the 1990s. He has managed to date to avoid the damage caused by those who adhere to the ‘New Rules’ of publishing in strength training.

The value of CrossFit is reflected in the reported $16 million CrossFit Inc paid his ex-wife for her share in the company.

In relation to growth, since its inception in 2000, the number of affiliated gyms globally is quoted at 9,000 or more. Glassman commercial approach deserves recognition.

Drivers

So what has driven CrossFit? I identify two main drivers of any new trend or movement (apparently it is now a ‘sport’ also). Firstly, the demand from consumers is based on the ‘new’ paradigm solving a problem that was not being solved by their prior solutions. The second driver is marketing forces, driven by commercial interests.

The growth and relatively longevity of the CrossFit movement or trend suggests that it is providing solutions to the unresolved needs of many people. I will leave exactly how to social researchers, however I suspect it may be the attraction of group training combined with the feeling of working hard, meeting the masses perception of what training should feel like.

The involvement of a large fitness industry company in Reebok, who around 2010 entered into a ten year agreement with CrossFit, suggests commercial marketing motivation to contribute to growing the trend. The impact in prize money alone compares a $25,000 total prize money in CrossFit Games 2010 to $1,000,000 in 2011. (2)

It is now in the interests of Reebok to drive this vehicle commercially.

The success to date of CrossFit is undeniable. More evidence of this is the number of my ‘colleagues’ who have become overnight experts on CrossFit, allowing them to jump on it’s band wagon of success.

Now let’s get more specific about CrossFit as a training method.

Opposite and Equal

The attraction of CrossFit to commerce and consumer has been established. So what is it actually going to create in terms of long and short term training effects?

A valuable insight into the potential short term impact of CrossFit as a training method is provided in the response I received from the person who raised the question about CrossFit with me. They wrote:

“Well, I have been involved in CrossFit for about 16 months and found it to be very effective in developing all aspects of fitness. I became leaner, increased my endurance, flexibility, co-ordination, power, speed and strength.”

As CrossFit rises in popularity the amount of what I call short term research conducted on CrossFit (1) will increase. Here’s an example:

A 2010 U.S. Army study conducted during a 6-week period produced an average power output increase of 20% among participants, measured by benchmark WODs. The average one repetition maximum weight deadlift increased by 21.11%. (3)

My attitude is you can wait for the studies but you don’t have to. You can reach conclusions earlier and benefit. Additionally, most studies will be short-term in nature. What may be lacking is a fuller understanding of the long-term impacts of participation in CrossFit.

To help answer that question, there’s a concept that is extremely relevant – the opposite and equal concept. It’s an original concept I released in 1999:

This is a very interesting principle, a concept that I have created. One that upon mastering will assist you to avoid negative outcomes from training. The concept is based on the belief that to every action (in training) there is a positive and a negative outcome, and that often the negative outcome is equal or as powerful as the positive outcome. (4)

Strengths

The strengths of CrossFit are easy to identify. It has attracted a large and enthusiastic following in a short period of time. To achieve this it must be providing a solution that its participants had not been able to find previously.

Additionally once any belief or movement or trend reaches a percentage of market saturation it experiences a degree of self-perpetuating increase. Behavioural scientists suggest that in the same time it takes a new idea to reach 10% of the market, it shoots to 90%. So however long it takes for 10% of the market to accept and join in with an idea, it can advance another 80% in market participation in the same time.

I suggest CrossFit has or is reaching this tipping point.

From what I can see and hear, its participants enjoy the group motivation and the experience of pushing themselves. To this extent CrossFit has achieved a phenomenal job in creating this ‘community’ atmosphere.

Along with this level of physical effort come physical adaptations, including the ones listed by the person who wrote in with the question – effective in developing all aspects of fitness. They became leaner, increased their endurance, flexibility, co-ordination, power, speed and strength.

I would like to place this in context:

• I still call this a short or medium term result, not a long term result.
• I am not making any comment in this article about the effectiveness of CrossFit to transfer to any specific event or sport other than general fitness adaptations and participation in the ‘sport’ of CrossFit itself. The discussion of merits of CrossFit for specific occupational and or sporting outcomes is outside the context of this article, although very deserving of focus in an article dedicated to this topic.

Another strength of CrossFit is that it embraces a wide range of exercises, many of them with excellent theoretical benefits. In fact you could attribute any rise in participation numbers in strength sports (Olympic Weightlifting, powerlifting) to CrossFit.

Additionally, the characteristic of CrossFit to provide frequent variety in exercise programs may be attractive to many who require this to keep the motivation to train.

Now as my opposite and equal concepts suggests, there is an equally powerful downside to CrossFit that need to be considered.

Even the writer of the question that promoted this response recognized this, to their credit:

“There are a lot of things I like about CrossFit, however, I do understand that there are negatives as well.”

Weaknesses

Most of my initial concerns for CrossFit participants revolve around injury potential. I was not surprised when the question writer shared the below:

“Recently I suffered an injury at training, and while it did not occur doing a typical CrossFit exercise, I wonder if the training I have been performing over the past 16 months may have contributed to it. I was in a group fitness class and was asked to perform single-leg bounding over a short distance (around 15-20 meters). This was early in the morning, and there was dew on the grass. Upon landing, my right foot slipped forwards. There was a loud noise and a sharp pain in my knee. I found out later that I had a proximal rupture of the patella tendon. Not a common injury, as you are probably aware, and I was told that it is quite likely I had a pre-disposing weakness in the tendon. I have had a bit of a history if chondromalacia patella, which I had been managing, but no real issues with the knee besides that.”

1 Individualization: The concept of individualization has been a long-touted one in the physical training industry. It makes most text books. I describe this principle of training as:

This principle stresses that to optimize the training effect, it is necessary to take into account all the factors that the individual athlete presents. This suggests that each training program needs to be individualized. Modified to suit the individual, in each aspect of training – speed, strength, endurance, flexibility and so on. (5)

In group exercise, the ability to individualize training is negated, which includes CrossFit.

Now rather than single out CrossFit for this flaw, I suggest that unlike say technology in general, I have seen no advancement at all in over three decades of industry involvement in the ability of fitness ‘professionals’ to individualize training.

There are a number of reasons I propose for this incredible limitation in this industry:

• The focus on research for justification of training protocols – it is difficult if not impossible to find a research study on your specific client giving you answers to stimuli (the training program) that has not been applied yet.
• The complete absence of teaching of the art of training, as opposed to the science of training.
• The willingness of what I certain inexperienced and incompetent individuals to position themselves as ‘experts’, write books and give seminars on how to train people. The people I refer to are very good networkers, very good marketers, will to deceive to create false perceptions of their guru-ness, yet have never coached or trained people to any level of success. In other words they are incompetent yet teaching. An excellent saying I learnt from John C. Maxwell is this:

You teach what you know but you reproduce what you are.

Therefore what they say and write about sounds great, but all that is developed in their paying audience is more of their incompetence, and no advancement occurs in average professional competencies. Unless you believe the ability to market through misleading content is an advancement – you can read more about this in my book ‘Barbells & Bullshit’ (6).

Therefore a person going to see a ‘personal trainer’ is unlikely to receive any more individualization in training than they would if they participated in group training.

2 Level of difficulty in exercise: A CrossFit class can contain a diverse range of exercises including many classics such as Olympic and power lifts. This is great in theory – total body, dynamic exercises etc. However from a finer point of view these exercises can be classed as higher level of difficulty which is associated with higher levels of risk for those whose bodies are or may never be ready for them.

In my 1998 book ‘How to Write Strength Training Programs’ (7) I provide the following guidelines for exercise selection:

Exercise selection in strength training refers to which exercise to use. Exercise selection is often presented as a difficult or confusing task, but the following should simplify this aspect of writing programs. When choosing exercises consider the following:

1. Training method.
2. Exercise suitability.
3. Specificity.
4. Injury history/prevention needs.
5. Training history.
6. Current physical status.
7. Strengths and weaknesses.
8. Level of supervision.
9. Balance. (7)

If you have multiple individuals in the class, it is in my opinion totally improbable that advanced exercises are suitable to them all.

3 Unfamiliar exercises: CrossFit characteristically provides high levels of variety in exercise. This alone could provides a discussion of the merits of this strategy as to the whether it is optimal to train with exploitation of the variety variable, however that is a discussion again beyond the level of this article.

What I will focus on is the impact of conducting a relatively unfamiliar exercise (that is you may not have done it for a few weeks). From a muscle perspective, this ‘shock’ can provide the delayed muscles soreness that some seek to validate their training. In other words, it can feel good. My concern is that loading a relatively new exercise is not necessary or wise for the majority of people the majority of the time.

In sharing my progressive loading models in my Get Buffed! books, I wrote:

In brief, I suggest that the first week of any new training cycle be treated as an ‘exposure week’, not a maximum effort week. What is often overlooked is the adaptation that results simply from the exposure – not only is a maximum effort unnecessary, it may also be counterproductive! Additionally, this sub-maximal approach in the first week allows for greater focus on technique. (8)

4 Extreme loading and technical breakdown: CrossFit is also characterized by high intensity of effort and high loading. In essence, there is a risk most participants are exceeding their technical limit most of the time.

I call this your technical limit – the loading limit before you lose the technical model you have chosen. This is a pretty redundant concept to most in the gym and they have no technical model – they just lift. Now this is great for some competitive lifters, who success is determined simply by whether the load goes from Point A to Point B within minimum guidelines. But if you want to selectively recruit specific muscles for sport performance or aseptic reasons – get a technical model. (9)

I have been discouraging this approach for a number of decades. I published the below nearly 25 years ago:

All individuals will have a ‘technique limit’ in weight selection at any given time on each exercise. The training effect will increase the limit progressively. Utilisation of loads in excess of that technique limit will result in technique breakdown and should be discouraged. (10)

The greatest concern as it relates to CrossFit participants is the injury risk:

In the case where loading exceeds technical ability, injury potential is increased, athlete’s career lengths are reduced, life-time quality of life is reduced, and transfer is reduced. (11)

5 High volumes: CrossFit is also characterized by high volume, although I appreciate this relative nature of this comment. To place it in context, I share my definition of relative volume as measured in number of sets.

Generally speaking, any number of work sets exceeding a total of 12 for the workout (yes, that right, 12 sets for the total workout, not per muscle group!) should only be contemplated by those with optimal lifestyles and recovery conditions. If you have a day job and/or consider your recovery average, this rules you out. (12)

Now in fairness the above describes conventional set, rest strength training. In relation to circuit training, I allow a higher number of sets. In my Guidelines for optimal number of sets per training session for each generalized training method (13) I provide up to 30 sets allowance, however this is on the basis of lower intensity sets.

The risks of high volume work are the reduced ability to recovery, and the increased injury risk associated with training under residual fatigue. I believe injuries resulting from progressive build up of residual fatigue are the ones least likely to be correctly related to their cause.

The battle against ineffective, inefficient and injury creating high volume training will never be over. (14)

6 Imbalances in the training program: In 1998 I released for the first time my concept of ‘Lines of Movement’:

That’s a concept I am sure you have never heard before because this is the first time I have really spoken about it. (15)

Now I am going to show you how I break the muscle groups up: (16)

Lower body:
Quad dominant
Hip dominant

Upper body:
Horizontal plane push
Horizontal plane pull
Vertical plane push
Vertical plane pull

I taught this with the intent of helping the world of strength training reduce their injuries from muscle imbalances. This intent has not been overly successful, in part I suggest because the concept was hijacked by the industry leading plagiarists who really didn’t understand it and therefore could not possibly teach it in with the impact of its intention.

From my generalized understanding CrossFit, there are potential program design imbalances e.g. more exposure to quad dominant exercises than hip dominant exercises, resulting in injury potential. This point was not lost on the question writer:

“My thoughts are that CrossFit did contribute to my injury due to the large volume of jumping, squatting and running. I would love to know your thoughts on this as well.”

7 Time magnifies error: I released a saying in 1998 –

Time magnifies errors in training (17).

All the above concerns will be magnified over time. Considering the extreme nature – volume, intensity, and exercise selection – I suggest you can expect some significant physical complications the longer one participates in activities such as CrossFit. There are many physical therapists and chiropractors who echo this sentiment. Additionally, I am very familiar with the impact on the body of those who participate occupationally in such training environments, especially the Special Forces military personnel.

Summary

The points I raise above in my concerns were well summarized by the question writer whose question stimulated this article:

“…I do understand that there are negatives as well. The focus of the WODS is to perform a given amount of reps in as little time as possible, or to perform as many reps as possible in a given time limit. This can lead to a breakdown in form and potential injury. The volume of training also seems to be quite high and could lead to overtraining and overuse injuries if not properly managed. There is also no individualization in the training program. Though some coaches are quite good at pointing out what you need to work on and many clients will use “open box” time to work on these.”

In summary, when (not if) a person comes to me and tells me of their injuries whilst participating in CrossFit, I initially ask if they plan to continue in CrossFit. If they do, I tell them I cannot help them. I have a saying that you cannot successfully solve an injury problem in the same environment that it was created in (18) and this is more applicable in any training environment that magnifies its flaws, as I suggest CrossFit does.

Conclusion

In conclusion I have been impressed with the magnitude and success of the CrossFit movement, and I am delighted to see the achievement of Greg Glassman in maintaining control of his intellectual property. There are many ways to achieve fulfilment in exercise and participation is CrossFit is an option. The power that Glassman and CrossFit have is their ability to refine and adapt their training protocols to deal with any recognition of the injury potential associated. Whether they do is unknown and their prerogative. Perhaps the masses are happy to take the injury risks in return for what their culture and environment offers.

As to you as an individual making this decision, it is yours to make. For me the body the only one we have for life, and should be treated with the utmost respect and care. I have worked with many athletes who have taken these risks in their training and competition with the potential for great reward, and I can understand why they have done this. An Olympic medal or world championship or playing professional sport comes with many financial and social rewards, and I know even as they suffer physically for the years after, most feel the sacrifice was worth it.

The question I believe you need to ask yourself is – are the rewards and benefits of CrossFit as it is currently conducted worth the risk for you? Only you can answer that, and I respect whatever decision you make.

References

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CrossFit
(2) http://www.afr.com/p/national/little_caution_over_the_crossfit_NlmYqOEvlcD1tAkVQGt94L
(3) Crossfit Study”. U.S. Army. May 2010. Retrieved 11 April 2014.
(4) King, I., 1999/2000, Foundations of physical preparation , p. 25
(5) King, I., 1999/2000, Foundations of physical preparation , p. 30
(6) King, I., 2010, Barbells & Bullshit: Challenging your thinking.
(7) King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (book), p.38
(8) King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!™(book), p. 23-26
(9) King, I., 2000, Heavy Metal #4, t-mag.com
(10) King, I.J, 1990,: Guidelines for the Safe Implementation of Strength Training Programs, The Sportsmed Newsletter (Qld Branch of the ASMF Newsletter), February issue 1990
(11) King, I., 2005, The way of the physical preparation coach, p. 48
(12) King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!™, p. 53-56
(13) King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!™, p. 34
(14) King, I., 2011, Legacy – Ian King’s Training Innovations, p. 82
(15) King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs
(16) King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series (DVD), Disc 3
(17) King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (book), p.75
(18) I wonder how long it will take for the industries leading plagiarists – and they are truly world champions at it – to be publishing this saying/concept one as their own…You may even hear it as soon as the upcoming ‘functional training’ seminars in the US…

Ian King

Buying success – does it work?

/by

I spent the morning watching a sporting team that contained I estimated about 50% imports. At least half the team members were not there the year before, and my understanding is that their arrival was through the usual channels – a financial incentive.

In sport many choose the path of attempting to buy success through purchasing players from out side their usual feeder programs.

My first professional sporting team that hired me in the 1980s produced their own athletic stock, drawing from their geographical area. It was extremely successful, rated the best program in the world as measured by the scoreboard and the trophy cabinet.

My first personal professional experience of this was in the late 1980s with a team in the National Basketball League (NBL) in Australia. There was a two import limit, which made for a reasonably even playing field. And the numbers being lower meant the impact on what I believe is the most important criteria for success – culture – was relatively contained.

My next exposure was with a new start up franchise in the Australia Football League (AFL) national competition. As the team was new it was made up of 100% imports. This was a massive learning experience and the record books show it was not successful for the first five years on the scoreboard, which is the usual outcome in similar situations.

I have watched many professional teams seek to ‘buy’ championships. Has it worked? I suggest the odds are low. My conclusion after 30+ years of studying what it takes to succeed in sport is that you don’t buy success.

In the wise words of the late great American business philosopher Jim Rohn, ‘for things to change, you must change.’ And I don’t see the purchase of talented players synonymous with the change Jim Rohn was referring to.

The team I was watching this morning came from a recent historical culture of about 27% win loss success ratio. Will this statistic suddenly and significantly change with the importing of players? Most likely. Has anything else changed in the culture? I doubt it has. Will any long term lessons be taken away? I doubt it.

I suggest the main impact long term will be a negative one on the culture, as the values of all shift towards the true values of the decision to import – that money is the highest value in the team culture. That you don’t have to change or work or become something – you just buy it. That there is little value in working in and with the system towards self-improvement because when better is wanted, it will be bought.

Do I believe it is wise or desirable to buy success through recruiting? No. The fundamental messages are I believe inappropriate. The young up and coming athletes in the feeder program loose faith in their future in that environment, and lack of commitment and lack of loyalty to the program are fed. The athletes in the program conclude that all they need to do if they are in a hole is to pay their way out of it.

Do you remember the first pro team I worked with during the 1980s which was one of the best in the world in its space? Well I watched that team try to buy success through importing, as they slid to the ranking of the worst team in their southern hemisphere competition. The impact went far beyond the scoreboard on the day. The drain of disillusioned young athletes from their feeder program to other programs became the major source of complaint and reason provided for lack of success by this very team during the ensuing years. Ironic, because they created that problem.

I do however endorse a culture that builds over time to greatness, nurturing and taking responsibility for those in their feeder systems. Where athletes trust the system to support and nurture them, where they know all have the same vested interest in their success. Where they are taught by their role models that greatest can be achieved if you are committed to developing yourself.

And to add a further element, the average age in this sporting team I referred to in the above example was 13 yrs of age…..At this rate we can expect professional importing to dominant in primary school sport within the next decade.

I overheard one of the young athletes enthuse to the coach “Wow, no wonder they are in the A team” referring to the superior performance of his new team mate had pushed him to the sidelines. To which the coach replied “Well you can get there too if you work hard.” To which I mentally replied “Well actually no – there is no evidence at this stage that these imports possess their domiant traits due to hard work. There is the element of genetics, foreign culture upbringing, early maturation etc etc.”

Ian King

Is it really going to help them become a better athlete?  

/by

If they can’t catch and pass there is no value in teaching them how to wrestle!

The young athlete was receptive and hard working, a pleasure to work with. It was his first speed session with me, and it really did need it! We went through a series of basic drills relevant to his need and it was apparent they would really help with his specific sport, a running power sport.

Towards the end we engaged in a time-tested staple of speed development, starts from on the ground. It was really challenging for him however he was fully committed. How did I judge this commitment? By the way he fell to the ground a number of times shortly after the start. Now I always warn the new athlete that this may occur and encourage them that if that happens it is not only okay, but that it means they are committed.

As we got to the end of the session he spoke candidly about the obvious limit in his ability to accelerate up from off the ground. “We have a martial arts coach come in to coach us, and he has told us that you should stand up first then run.” Perhaps explaining why he had been so challenged in the last drills.

I took the time to explain the benefits in transfer to his sport from being able to accelerate from a low body position.

At the same time ruing the popular trend of bringing in an ‘advisor’ coach from another sport because something concluded that this was help the athlete in a different sport. Take wresting for example. This is a out-of-sport skill that is being taught to Australian rugby codes in a ‘must-do’ way, spreading down to even athletes in primary school.

Yes, you could find 101 ways to justify how skills from another sport could transfer into any particular sport. What is missing is the discernment in coaching decisions that reflect the wisdom to know what to bring in and when.

Here’s a hint – if an athlete can’t catch and pass, and is in a hand-eye coordination sport – there is little justification for them learning non-specific skills such as wresting. That’s just one simple example. And when coaches do choose to import ‘advisors’ from other sports, ideally select one that through experience measured in success they have a high level ‘feeling’ for the specific skills and movement patterns in the sport they are advising to!

In summary, you don’t have to follow the trend of importing advisors from other sports. And if you do you need to review and reflect on the accuracy of the ‘advice’ they are giving. You can and should make your own mind up about their relevance at any given time of your athletes progress!

Ian King

Cardio is not evil! Seeking to balance the BS…again…decades later  

/by

I recently received an email that from a great man and avid KSI fan, and I thought the content was worth sharing with you!

Hi Ian, I just ordered book III. In your previous books you downplayed the role of cardio, or so it seemed. As I have got older (I’m 52) cardio has taken a larger role in my training – I want to stay in the same size pants! I also am active in other sports – hiking, running, mountain biking – and am currently gearing up to climb 14,442’ Mt. Rainier in June.

So the question is how will cardio work with the next book’s programs? I have to say that I’ve been pleased with the progression I have seen as I have gone through the Book of Muscle programs and then the GB I and II. At 52 and 160lbs I’m still squatting and deadlifting 400lbs for 1 rep max. Bench is a little off but that’s a function of shoulder pain. I imagine the cardio has limited my lifts, especially the squat, but wanted your opinion. I’m not ready to give up on my other activities and wanted some input on how to combine the two most effectively.

A secondary question is that of repeating some of the GB programs. I used the neural training/advanced rep scheme in book two. If I wanted to repeat with more emphasis on hypertrophy, would it make sense to repeat – or just progress to book III?

Thanks for your help. Following a progressive routine has really helped me push through some barriers that I thought I would ever see again. It’s nice to a small, “old” man outlifting some of the bigger “kids”! –Ken

Ken – great to hear you are continuing your education with our books! Let me give you some historic perspective about my published comments on what you call ‘cardio’.

I noted during the 1980s the promotion of the ‘aerobic base’ in sport. I tried it, and for the most part found it flawed, and certainly lacking in any evidence to support the level of rhetoric.

I also noted the rise of aerobic training post the late James Fixx and Kenneth Cooper influence, in the general population, during the same period. Again, I felt it was exaggerated.

I sought during the 1980s and 1990s to balance the published information, sharing an alternative view.

Post my comments which many perceived were ‘anti-cardio’ (because there were the to other end of the continuum than the dominant paradigm), many trend-spotters jumped on the bandwagon and over-reacted.

The new paradigm driven by these over-reactors was that endurance or cardio was useless. One of the specific over-reactions and questionable claims was that the best way to lower body fat was by high intensity anaerobic type circuits. Now personally I have done both, in my personal training, in my professional coaching of elite athletes, and in vocational training – and certainly didn’t share these ‘new conclusions’.

So what you have is general population clients lacking the preparation and conditioning, engaging in high intensity circuits (boot camps, trendy toy based circuits like swinging ropes and flipping tyres, and ‘cross-fit’ like methodology) and creating a new wave of injuries leaving the physical therapy and joint replacement industries licking their lips. And by the way, typically failing to produce the marketing claims of ‘melting your fat off like butter in a frypan’, and other clinically crafted emotionally-effective marketing scripts.

I have written at length about my conclusion that ‘human over-react in the short term and under-react in the long term’. (not to be confused with the repetitive use of my saying by the industry’s greatest plagiarist).

I have also written at length about the industry direction of lying, cheating and stealing, where how you train and what you think is secondary to the immediate cash flow and perception of greatness sought by certain class-leading bullshitters.

I have also since sought to publish to once again correct the unbalanced influences, however the size of the wave triggered by my original ‘anti-aerobic’ statements is such that is unlikely a person lacking the motive to compete in the bs-marketing stakes can ever really effectively suppress or correct in the short term.(br>
So after a long winded intro, to answer your question… So the question is how will cardio work with the next book’s programs?

Why not? Now of course it really depends on all the variables involved and as such I don’t make guru-like assumptions. What I suggest you do is understand that any training method has many variables that can and should be manipulated and the only way for you to learn what works for you is to record the training and the results over time, and reach your own conclusions. Then share them with others who value objective observations about the cause-effect relationships in training.

What I don’t want you to do is fear doing or using a training method based on incorrect conclusions or over-reactions about the efficacy of any particular training method.

High intensity cardio has potentially more interference potential with your strength changes, however if you used periodization in the way I teach, you can perform maintenance strength training in periods where you may want to do more intensive energy system training.

I am really impressed with your continuity and commitment in training, so keep this going. I’m not surprised you have received great results using my programs – because they were only published after decades of refining them and confirming their effectiveness (one of the many things that make my works unique – its patiently time based and actually what has worked, as opposed to latching onto a new trend to appear to be ‘cutting edge’).

With regard to returning to hypertrophy training – I will start every year out doing the program from the GB book or similar. Which makes me smile when people want to bypass this book and program for the more advanced books and program.

I’m proud of you outperforming the youngsters, and encourage to continue with this, because for me, we were born to train, and when we stop training, you know what happens. It’s the opposite to being born!
–Ian King

Ian King

Stop doing walking lunges! (Especially in the warm up!)  

/by

Why I tell the world to stop doing walking lunge (especially doing the warm up)

Following my post where I pleaded for the world to stop hurting themselves with walking lunges, especially in the warm-up, I was asked by the readers to explain why I said this. I treated their questions with the respect that a genuine desire to learn deserves, and took the time to share the following thoughts.

I want to clarify that no exercise is ‘bad’ – however the way we implement or combine or include them can make the extremely inappropriate for the majority – like the walking lunge!

…from my observations, most physical preparation programs do more harm than good. They may give short term results or confidence to the athlete, but result in significant performance restrictions and or injuries long term.

The more an athlete participates in physical preparation, including the younger they start in physical preparation, the greater the incidence and severity of injury. Unfortunately these injuries are being blamed away by many involved in sport as being a function of the increased demands and impact forces in ‘modern day’ sport. This to me is little more than an excuse, an exercise in putting one’s head in the proverbial sand. Quite simply, the majority of training programs are flawed from a physical preparation perspective and are causing the increased injuries.
–King, I., 2005, The way of the physical preparation coach, p. 66-67

Here’s seven reasons why I tell the world to stop walking lunge. I know what many will say – as I mentioned in my post, the world is making great grounds in life departments such as ‘clear living’. However when it comes to exercise, we are back some 30 years ago….

1. HISTORY – WHERE DID IT COME FROM? Thirty years ago, the walking lunge was almost the exclusive domain of the college basketball player in US strength and conditioning program. I am sure there were some other pockets of use history including for example certain martial art disciples, however there was little other reference or application. The lunge existed n bodybuilding, but the walking lunge as we know see it – conducted by all ages, both genders, all strength levels, at any stage of the workout but most commonly in the warm up – that is a post 2000 phenomenon.

So where did it come from? I suggest that the walking lunge is a trend driven by ‘authors’ who lack the experience and wisdom to understand what they are recommending. With the promotion of the ‘functional training’ movement (advanced by one company in particular with strong commercial interests in the sale ‘functional’ equipment) combined with continued desire to suppress effective and appropriate stretching in the warm up – the walking lunge found its way into books about exercises that should be done, including in the warm up. These trend spread from sport to sport, and then down the ages, like a disease creeping around the world with no geographic boundaries. You cannot go out into the world of sport on any given day and not witness its application, in particular in the warm ups.

When I see groups of athletes and individuals being guided to perform this movement, in particular young athletes in their warm ups, I immediately conclude that their coach is a trend-following non-thinker who has not done many of the exercises they recommend. If they did they would tell you what most young athletes would tell you if their voices were not suppressed – walking lunges hurt their knees!! Coaches do them because they choose to blindly follow the dominant trend and actively seek to appear to like all their peers. And it is a dominant trend globally – one that will during the next 10-40 years see an expansion of the knee and hip replacements at a rate that will please the joint replacement industries, doctors and physical therapist. At a cost to both society and the individual that will rival the strain on the economies that poor nutritional and lifestyle choices make.

2. INAPPROPRIATE WARM UP EXERCISE. The lunge is a loaded strength exercise. If it was being conducted in an adult strength program it would come with some sub-maximal repetitions. At what stage of a warm up protocol is it appropriate to apply what is more most people a maximal if not supra-maximal loading in the warm up? The wear and tear on the patella-femoral joint (under the knee cap) is significant and serious and little time passes before you have eroded the cartilage or bone surface, and experiencing conscious knee pain. If the lunge or walking lunge would be done for valid reasons by an advanced athlete, ideally it would be conducted after appropriate warm up activities and sub-maximal sets.

Put simply – there are very few people on the planet that could safely execute a bodyweight walking lunge in their warm up routine and successfully avoid any short or long term knee damage or pain from doing so.

3. THE LUNGE DOES NOT IMPROVE FLEXIBLITY AND IS NOT A STRETCHING EXERCISES. The walking lunge is not an flexibility exercise and does not contribute to increased length. At best it might maintain range, however the subsequent muscle soreness and associated tightness in the quadriceps and hip flexors ultimately means you will lose range. It lacks the element of relaxation which is key to creating changes in connective tissue length, and is followed by and associated with increased tension and shortening of the connective tissue, as any demanding strength exercise does.

It is a strength exercise. I know of no-one who should be doing in their warm up, where the warm up is less than 30 mins, and that includes the elite male strength athlete. It has no place whatsoever in the warm up routine of a young or developing athlete. Yes where will you most likely see it being done – in the warm up routine young or developing athletes.

4. MUSCLE BALANCE AROUND THE HIP AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS IMBALANCE. When I released the ‘Lines of Movement’ concept in 1998, something I had been developing for the prior decade, it was a result of my awareness of the need to balance the muscles around the hip – especially the quad/hip flexor group and the posterior chain group – hamstrings and gluteals. I was concerned that the plagiarists who hijacked this concept and published it unreferenced would lack the understanding and passion for the intent of this concept such that their frequent publishings would advance this understanding. In hindsight my concerns were founded. In fact, these same plagiarists, even after moving to someone else’s concept because they need to be seen to be new and ‘cutting edge’ – demonstrate their lack of understanding of my concept and its intent with the exercises programs and equipment they promote in their more recent ‘writings’.

What I am saying is that the cause I set out to help – the health of the hip and knee and all connective tissue of the lower extremities – has not been served by the shallowness and lip service that my Lines of Movement concept set out to solve.

Balance : all things being equal, and independent of any specificity demands, the selection of exercises should show balance throughout the body. For example for every upper body exercise there would be a lower body exercise. For every upper body pushing movement, there would be an upper body pulling movement. For every vertical pushing movement there would be a vertical pulling movement. For every hip dominant exercise there would be a quad dominant exercise. And so on. –
– King, I., 1998, How to Write (book)

[NB. The above quote should not be confused with the verbatim and paraphrased copies that have appeared in many unreferenced sources since.]

What we have in the lunge and walking lunge is an exercise that is at the extreme end of the continuum of quad dominant exercises, which the is not balanced by sequence, volume or load potential by another exercise. Quite simply – athletes exposed to this misguide trend of the walking lunge develop imbalances between their quads dominant and hip dominant muscles (the terms I provided in my ‘Lines of Movement’ concept. As such they experience a higher frequency and greater severity of lower extremity injuries – both soft tissue and bone. Groin, abdominal, hamstring, quad, and calf strains. Shin splints. Knee pain.

5. EXCESSIVE LOADING AND RANGE FOR STRENGTH LEVELS If a coach had any ability or awareness to assess each individual athlete for their ability to safely and effectively execute a lunge, let a lone a walking lunge, they would realise that the vast (more accurately overwhelmingly) majority of athletes being asked to perform these exercises lack the ability to tolerate the strength of their own body weight through the full range or in most cases, any range at all. Therefore even if a coach sought to justify inclusion of this exercise on the basis that the athlete needed strength in this range, there is no basis for justification on the grounds the athletes lacks the strength to tolerate the movement. In essence, not only do we have the injury creation realities of excessive loading and inadequate warm up, we also face the transfer of poorly executed loaded movement to sport.

In other words, not only are we injuring the athlete, which in itself is a solid performance decrease, there is also massive potential for the adaptation to these inappropriate movement patterns to further cause performance deterioration.

6. INAPPROPRIATE LOADING WITHOUT SUFFICENT WARM UP. If for whatever reason you believed this exercise were appropriate for you, there are a number of strategies I would strongly recommend you implement. You will note these are not implement by the hordes of young athletes around the world being led to execute these movements in their warm ups. You can learn more about these in my education especially my Level 1 KSI Coaching Course, but here’s some tips to get you going:

a. Joint mobilizations: I teach another unique concept where I apply passive joint preparation drills in the warm up process, particularly relevant for knees. I developed these for personal use whilst rehabilitating my knees post surgery, so I have a very personal connection to the role and benefit of these drills.

b. Control drills prior: another unique concept I introduced to strength training was the concept of performing certain drills to switch on the muscles, especially the stabilisers that control the movement – prior to loading.

c. Warm up sets. How do you do a warm up set of a walking lunge at less than or at 50% of your work set load when your bodyweight is your work set load? That is the challenge for you – because you need to precede these movements with a warm up.

7. LOST OPPORUNITY TO DO SOMETHING MORE APPROPRIATE. Now I am talking about lost opportunity. I believe (nothing new about this!) that time is your only truly limited resource, so use is wisely. I know a lot of things that would be far more effective use of your time than the walking lunge, especially in the warm up. Take for example strength – real stretching. I know, we are in an era in the worlds history where you have been conditioned (during the Decade of Deceit, 2000-2010) that stretching is bad, will make you weak, will cause you to injured, should only be done at the end of the workout, blah blah blah. I don’t ever want to be following what the masses do – how can I give athletes the performance advantage if I am doing what everyone else is doing?

Look at it this way. If you do it the way everyone else is doing it – all things being equal, how are you going to be better than everyone else? Realistically changes do occur (albeit slowly) in sport training – because someone dared to do it differently. These people gain the advantage, are at the cutting edge. The sheep follow. Which do you want to be?
— King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing (book) And I also aim a genuine desire to have an injury free career and life for the athlete.

Conclusion So what does the future hold for you and the walking lunge? I have no doubt that sometime in the next 10-30 years there will be a mass shift away from this exercise, driven by a belated awareness of the damage is had caused. I have placed more concepts and theories in the market that I can remember that were unpopular at the time yet some years later became mass accepted. Typically, at the tipping point of acceptance, a ‘trend spotting author’ that relies on publishing to maintain market credibility and income, will with great fanfare ‘bring these concepts to the market’, with no reference to the pioneers. The mass acceptance of what I teach you now about the walking lunge will be great for the individuals whose training lives begin after this shift.

But what about the ones who have been doing this movement for years now, or will be doing this movement for the time between now and when the market perception shifts? They will pay the price.

Take advantage of what I have shared with you. It is just one of the many training theories and concepts I have formed and shared during the last 30+ years. However one idea that will give you longer and better quality life will be better than none!

So what will it take for you to benefit? However for you to benefit from this wisdom you will need to possess a human trait that perhaps only 5% or less of the population do – you will need to be comfortable breaking the mould, going against the grain, declining these movements when others blindly follow. This will most likely determine whether you will benefit as of now from this wisdom I have shared. What will others think?

I know personally the stones that paradigm shifters get thrown. The irony is that those who mock you today will one day be doing what you are doing. One example of that is burned into my memory is one particular coach who was extremely scathing about my concepts – and then published them for the ensuing 10 years without a single reference. It wasn’t much fun to watch or be part of, but it was a great example of what those who get left behind are willing to do to appear as if they were at the forefront of ‘new ideas’ all along.

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.
— King, I., 2005, The Way of the Physical Preparation Coach

I share the above for the same reason I train athletes –because I want to give them the best that I can to help them be the best they can be. As you can see I lack the motive of appeasing, impressing or endearing myself to my peers. I understand that my approach to training will always antagonise the emotionally immature, whose ego attachments are threatened by ideas or actions they do not do. In our coach education we attract those who seek to fulfil their po9tential, as opposed to those who seek to protect their ego. And as for the athletes – they are very happy to receive the best training guidance available in the world, giving them an injury free career and life, and placing them on the podium ore often than otherwise!

And now with the internet, if you are a non-athlete training, and have succeed to battle you way through the static on the ‘net and found these teaching that for the last few decades have been exclusively for a small elite and very fortunate group of elite athletes – that’s to your credit! Enjoy the rewards!

Ian King

The only coaching program that can and does teach the art of coaching by doing

/by

Every day my coaches and I train athletes, and every day provides new experiences. Today one of my coaches and I were working on a few elite athletes from another country. One of them asked later how I learnt what I did. I said:

“By training athletes”.

Another asked how my coach learnt his skills, and this got me thinking. My answer was:

“By working beside me in many different individual athlete and coach situations in many different sports at all levels in many different countries over many years.” 

As I reflected on how competent the top KSI coaches are, I was reminded of how special our program is. I believe no one offers a teaching experience like this. Yet I am continually amazed at how many are drawn to the bright lights and seductive marketing of certain programs, only to feel short-changed. I can understand how easy it is to be tricked into believing these ‘teachers’ will improve your coaching.

I know one personal trainer who we gave a work experience opportunity to about a decade ago. This personal trainer was simply giving a guided experience in how to write a generic program (and he choose to take the program and publish it and sell it in more than one publication for personal gain) This personal trainer never met the players, coaches or administrators. Never even laid eyes on them, let alone coached them. This personal trainer never saw any interaction between myself and athletes, in this program or any other. And yet ever this personal trainers marketing has claimed  they have worked with elite players in this code, which we have good reason to believe this ‘personal trainer’ refers to the one generic program with no athlete contact.

You learn little by exchange of information compared to what you learn when you are actively involved, observing or assisting, in high level coaches executing their competencies. If you want to learn how to physically train athletes, I suggest you take more than most in reviewing your choices in teaching before investing your time and money.

It’s really nice that you are making charitable contributions however I suggest more worthy causes for this charity than the ones you have been donating to! I also feel you may actually want to learn how to coach one day (just maybe) and get value for your time and money.

Real athletes. Real coaches. Real learning. The KSI Coaching Program. The only program than can or does teach the art of coaching by doing.  http://bit.ly/10pXQu3

Ian King

Looking for the messages from the Lance events  

/by

Watching the Lance Armstrong drug allegations situation I feel this event may be more significant that it appears on the surface. It certainly raised a lot of questions for me – including how far into cycling will the expose go and will it jump to other sports. However the biggest question I have yet to answer is why such a big name American athlete has been ‘taken down’. If you read between the lines there has arguably been a degree of protection offered to high profile US athletes in relation to positive or potentially positive drug tests, so why Lance?

I can only think of two possibilities. Firstly he really upset someone. However the collateral damage to the sport of cycling is too big for this. Which leaves me with my second possible answer – it’s a genuine desire to play it straight, a rare example in a sporting landscape that has all the rules but so few ever get caught up on the wrong side of the rules.

If this is the case, what is driving this position of greater integrity? Is this a sign of the promise of 2012 and the ushering in of a higher social values with the Age of Aquarius?

This will be interesting to watch, to see if this is just that or an aberration before things return to the way they were.

Nike’s decision to cut ties with Lance was either a case of their corporate ethics genuinely being violated, or they were concerned about the impact on their bottom line. Either way, it was a significant move.
One thing I can say with certainty is that I have not seen any promise of this greater integrity in corporate or organizational ethics in physical preparation. I am familiar with certain US companies that see fit to continue to retain and endorse certain individuals who values and actions include publishing other peoples works unreferenced, uncredited and in many cases verbatim, and on a number of occasions claiming or inferring it as their own. In essence, what I believe has been the greatest intellectual property heist in modern physical preparation. Yet these companies still endorse and engage these individuals.

Will the corporate integrity shown in cycling and Nike spread to physical preparation? I hope so, for everyone’s sake.

Ian King

And then it was over

/by

I was driving past a playing field at 6am this morning and saw a group of young people participating in a group training session. I thought on my way back I would stop and watch, get some cultural insights. A few minutes later I was back, and pulled over, enjoying the fresh morning sun and the crisp morning air. They were stretching, in a static hip flexor position, a very popular one, however it only covers half the work needed in that area, so I hoped they would show greater variety in this position. They didn’t. In fairness I didn’t know if they had done this before I stopped. But what I did note was they were doing two stretches in one – an upper body one at the same time they were doing a lower body one. I could see the influence for this, as it’s a current dominant trend.

I was looking forward to the rest of the workout. Then they stopped. I was wondering if it was a drink break, but by the way they were back slapping and packing up I realised it was all over.

Then I remembered – you only do static stretching, at the end of the workout! Another new trend. Then I saw the heavy ropes being packed up, and the Prowler. That was all I needed to know – they were doing all the ‘current things’.

I have had this discussion with many around the world – athletes, coaches, and personal trainers. And one thing keeps coming up – they can rationalize the benefits of it. Overlooking the fact that most of these rationalizations are little more than parroting the marketing – let me make this point. I am not interested in whether you think it is beneficial. I want to know if it is the best thing to be doing. I want to know if you have asked yourself this question. I want to know if you have put in the energy that the end users adaptations deserve as to whether what you are doing is the best choice.

Now if you are involved in personal training, I can cut you some slack. Expectations on outcome are less precise. The main concern is the injury potential of what you are doing. But if you are involved with athletes, there is more weighing on your decisions as the outcome as measured by competitive success is more specific – very specific – and the rationalization that it’s a dominant trend or you can regurgitate the benefits are of even less value, and any absence of discernment in decision making more potentially serious – you are now not only dealing with injury potential, you are also dealing with performance decrement or increase.

The unique thing about sports training is you can’t market or convince your way onto the podium.

So I repeat – I am not interested in the rationalization of the benefits of your training choices. I am not interested whether what you choose to do is the current dominant trend (in fact I am almost definitely going to be concerned if this is the case). I just want to know how much discernment you are willing to employ in your decision making. The world needs more discernment, less non-thinking compliance to training methods and exercise equipment.

Ian King

Can’t attract athletes clients? Three solutions  

/by

In my opinion most athlete preparation is doing more harm than good to most athletes. This statement should not be a surprise to those who have read my works over the last few decades. What surprises me is that so many decades later nothings changed. In fact, I fear it’s got worse. In seeking to understand why this might be I reflect on the career path of most would-be athlete preparation coaches, and share these reflections with you. You might not like what I say, although it is not written with any intent to offend. It does challenge the dominant thinking, so on the basis of this I understand that this may be the effect. However if so few as one athlete is saved from the rubbish training and subsequent career shortening and performance decreasing training stimulus that most athletes get exposed to, the bruising of the reader and the stab wounds in my back will be worth it.

After over thirty years of coaching athletes and educating coaches I have seen the athlete preparation industry go from being an unknown and unheard of role to being a frequently sought after career path. I have also seen many express their desire for the opportunity to train athletes, and watched how they have gone about it. My interest in this has been more than casual, due to my concurrent role in both training athletes and educating coaches. I will share with you the two most popular solutions I have seen used by those seeking to become trainers of athletes. I share them with you not because I endorse them, but rather because this is what I see. I don’t like these solutions and I will tell you exactly why that is. Then rather than leaving you with what not to do, I will share my preferred solution.

Solution 1 – Get higher levels of education

I watched a number of young men graduate from sports science degree in the 1980s and long to work with athletes. Nothing happened. One sustained himself with teaching first aid courses, and the others worked as gym instructors. After a few years most went back to university and obtained higher degrees. Then they succeed in obtaining work with athletes – by impressing the sports administrators, not by attracting the athletes independently.

I was working with a professional national league team in the late 1980s and early 1990s when a young man approached the team. He had never trained athletes before but he was involved in a higher degree course. The coach hired him on the basis of that.

I have seen this solution unfold on many occasions. A graduate wants to work with athletes, but cannot attract them. They go back to university and armed with the authority of their research needs or conclusions, they approach coaches and sporting administrators to gain work. This solution is very effective it seems, and the social status of ‘research’ may hold the explanation. When I say successful, I am referring to the would-be coach. Not the athlete. If you can’t coach, if you can’t attract athletes, there is nothing in a higher degree course that I have seen that is going to make you a better coach, or more likely to attract athletes. They don’t care. They go where their instincts tell them they can trust. Except in a team sport situation – their contractual obligations require them to conform and work with the ‘physical coach’ hired by their team.

As a result many athletes get trained by highly qualified inexperienced and incompetent coaches. The end result – shorter careers and lost opportunities, due to the application of performance decreasing and injury producing training methods.

Now let’s get real clear – I am not attacking higher education. I am critical however of the use of this socially respected qualification to back-door into coach athletes. If you can’t coach, if you lack the gift or the competency, getting a piece of paper, doing some research, and reading a lot of ‘information’ doesn’t change this. I know that is going to upset a lot of people, but irrespective of the unstoppable march of ‘research’ credibility, there is an art to coaching, and I have never seen this art taught successfully in a university.

I believe this trend will continue. In fact you will probably need a PhD in a decade or so just to get hired by many teams. Just remember – this doesn’t mean you can or should coach. It means you are more likely to get a job with a sports team, and more athletes are going to suffer for this.

I call this the back-door approach to coaching – what you can do to get into coaching if you can’t coach. I also liken it to the ‘bail-out’ strategies used by governments during the Global Financial Crisis of the late 2000s’. In the second half of the 2000’s decade a number of national economies got into strife (and are still there). The solution of choice by many governments was to ‘bail-out’ selected industries and companies. Those who support the free market system suggested that the bailed-out industries should have been left to market forces – if that meant they collapse and disappear so be it.

What will be the implications of the bail-out solution? The future holds the answer to this question.
Imagine what would happen if the ability to attract athletes based on competence rather than qualifications or marketing was the system applied? I suggest many currently employed would be out of a job, and many athletes would be better off for this.

Solution 2 – Market Yourself

This scenario starts out the same way, typically with a young person who has graduated from their sports science course and fails to attract athlete clients. The only difference is now some don’t wait to graduate to employ this strategy.

Here’s a great example. In the late 1990s I was approached by a young man who expressed his burning desire to gain employment training athletes. He expressed this goal in his CV, in his emails, and verbally.

“Objective: To gain a full time professional strength and conditioning position with a professional sports organization or high level training facility.”

He had graduated some five years prior and was having no success. He had hoped gaining access to my information would be the key to him overcoming this challenge and finally attracting athletes. It wasn’t.

“I have read “so you want…” thoroughly. While I agree with your statements it is easier for you with an established record to attract new clients than it is for an “outsider” like me to break in. The reason I’m asking is to see where my weaknesses are – what is holding me back in other words as I’m failing to identify it somehow.”

Even when I sought to help him out be referring athletes to him it didn’t work.

“Incidentally the volleyball team that you put me in contact with didn’t return my emails. I guess I’m not important enough yet.”

He could not understand why it wasn’t happening.

“I don’t think it is qualifications – I have a bundle – and I don’t think its training experience – I have lots of that – it just seems to be sports teams/organisations in general that I can’t break into …Your other comments as regards not allowing administrators to evaluate you is a good one – but until I am “in” as it were I don’t see what I can do to avoid it.”

Finally he began to lose hope and consider alternative career paths.

“I’d like to move out of the personal training field and train athletes exclusively but bills need to be paid. I’ve been at this gym since late Sep and was this week offered the head personal trainer position — unsure as to whether or not to accept it — the money is a little more – but the job becomes more of an administrative position….I’m just concerned as to whether or not the move to an administrative position would “hurt” my career in the longer term (ie the goal being to train athletes similar to yourself).”

Then he found marketing. With the tools developed by a fellow failed coach turned marketing expert, he was able to market his way to his desired perception of significance. Through self claims and claims through third party, the perception was promoted.

“In the fitness industry I am probably best known for my ability to design programs…

…he has a stable of Olympic and national level athletes that swear by his training methods.

…he’s a performance coach….”

He just needed to take another coaches experiences and training theories, mix them with the deception that they were his experiences and conclusions, turbo-charge them with marketing – and voila – he was instantly a great coach worthy of learning from.

In fact people pay top dollar to attend his coach education seminars, and he is given regular speaking opportunities at professional development seminars. And people are influenced by this information. Not bad for a person who failed to attract any meaningful athlete client base. That is, if you think that is good. History has shown – he would starve if he relied on his ability to attract athlete clients based on his coaching ability.

In my opinion there is no positive correlation between marketing competency and coaching competency. Rather I suggest their may be an inverse correlation – the more a person markets the lower their coaching competency. You could liken to the theory of compensating.

Here’s another ‘challenge’ from these first two solutions. The two solutions outlined above are now the dominant methods of choice. So when a young or new coach entering the profession seeks ‘practical’ information, they are more likely to be influenced by those who have chosen these two solutions than any other influence.

If they watch sport covered by television they will see the dominant training trends – and probably copy them. When they select books and articles on the basis of the best marketing – because this is the path I suggest most take in selecting their influences – their minds are filled with a lot of damaging, ineffective and confused training methods. Who does this serve? The egos and the bank accounts of those who seek to achieve the perception of ‘greatness’ through marketing. No-one else.

Solution 3 – Get better

For me this is the only solution that serves the world. If you want to attract more athletes, or any athletes, get better at coaching. Not the answer you wanted, I’m sure. I have seen this concept rejected by many before you, some who have turned to the above two solutions instead.

Imagine this. You get one person and train them. You analyse the results of a long period of time. If the results are not good enough you change, experiment. You don’t talk about it, boast about it, lie about it, embellish it, and post about it. You just do it and accept the realities of the outcome. Then you do it again, and with more people, and get better. You may start with kids. You may not charge when you start. The only constant variable is you do and objectively assess. And keep going. To aid your progress you avoid being influenced by those who failed to attract athlete clients or can’t coach. You selectively choose influences that from your first hand experience you know have coached successfully. It means putting the athlete first, ahead of your own ego.

Yes, this would take delayed gratification. It might be slow. It might be hard work. It might mean not feeling important or significant for a long time. It may mean playing second fiddle to the needs of the athlete. This is why most don’t do this. The first two solutions I reviewed above will get faster results in terms of perceptions. They won’t mean you can coach, and they won’t provide you with the tools to attract an athlete client base independent of team employment for the rest of your life.

What it will mean if you follow my third solution of getting better at coaching is that you will positively enhance the careers and lives of athletes. You will develop skills that will ensure you can put food on the table for the rest of your life. You might not become ‘internet famous’ but you may fulfill your potential to serve others. Imagine that.

It’s your choice. I believe however that the world needs more people to follow solution three.

Ian King

Personal Trainer Professional Development – the KSI Way  

/by

In 1998 I recorded a live seminar in which I released for the first time a number of my unique, original innovations in training that I had developed, tested and refined in the prior 18 years of coaching. The concepts released in that seminar have proven to be the most influential (and most imitated/copied) concepts on the planet.

The impact and value of these concepts has, in my opinion, been diluted by the extent of copying they have been subject to. Many personal trainers in the US market have been exposed to some of these concepts – however in a diluted, confused and off-intent manner. Here’s a chance for you to get it right.

Spend a day live in seminar and learn first hand, from the source, the most effective methods for how to write and how to teach training programs, aimed at personal trainers.

This one day seminar will be equally divided between ‘how to write’ and ‘how to teach’, using methods many seek to imamate, but only KSI can truly teach – because we created them! These methods are timeless – you will not need to rely on the ‘latest trend’ or the ‘latest equipment’ when you follow the path taught during this seminar.

Take my exercise innovations for example. One of them, the single leg stiff legged deadlift, was first reproduced without consent of acknowledgement in a Men’s Health magazine in the early 2000s, but a so called ‘student’ of KSI. Something went badly wrong, because the picture accompanying the short article was of a person with the non-working leg lifted back up in the air, making the exercise virtually useless. Suffice to say, this ‘variation’ has now become a main-stay of the ‘functional training movement’ – without anyone realizing how this exercise came to be!

Or take my lines of movement concept – you know the horizontal and vertical push/pull, and quad and hip dominant. For the first few years post release most acknowledged the source, however one particular ‘variation’ of this concept changed the word ‘quad’ for ‘knee’. Pity whoever did this didn’t read the original rationale behind my word selection, as clearly outlined in my 2000 ‘How to Teach’ book. And it hasn’t helped that he most prolific publisher of my concept didn’t seem keen to acknowledge the source for the first 10 years after he caused a mass walkout of my 1999 north-east USA seminar!

Or take the business advice I rolled out in my 1999 ‘So you want to become a physical preparation coach’ book. Not be confused of course with the article of the same name with the exception of the words ‘personal trainer’ inserted, published nearly a decade later.

Or take my ‘over-reaction/under-reaction’ saying and concept. In my limited exposure to marketing-dependant US personal trainer ‘education’ I recently learned that it was apparently the concept of ‘another’ persons’!

Or take my concept of ‘Capable vs. Optimal’ – reversing the words to ‘Optimal vs. Capable’ may fool the masses to thinking it is original, but for me the willingness and propensity to flip words around for self serving purposes is at the expense of the receiver of the message.

Or take my philosophies for example. When you read a paragraph that is poorly paraphrased from my book ‘The Way of the Physical Preparation Coach’, such as this one, that a certain internet magazine thought it was okay to leave posted on their site:

My original version 2005:
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….

‘Later version’ 2006:

When designing training programs, resist the pressure to conform to any tradition or system of beliefs, no matter how dogmatically that tradition or those beliefs are presented, or how much you get “slammed” for not conforming. This applies to training and life

…and in the same article read the ‘author’ claim the philosophies are based on their ‘own experiences’…how many times do you need to be lied to before you realize it’s not in your best interests?

Or during the last seven years you could have paid anywhere between one to two thousand dollars to attend a Californian based seminar on program design, in which you would have been taught my concepts such as family trees, progressing and regressing exercise, reversing exercise sequence in subsequent programs, using the first stage to develop and correct muscle balances and so on. You would probably have got more value by reading my ‘How to Write’ and ‘How to Teach’ books – at least you would have got the honest original source. It least you would receive honest information. And you could have used that money difference to contribute to a worthwhile charity of your choice.

And even when you read in other’s ‘works’ where they could not be bothered to paraphrase and write exactly the same things, such as this paragraph, which has appeared a number of times verbatim in the ‘works’ of the same ‘author’:

all things being equal, and independent of any specificity demands, the selection of exercises should show balance throughout the body

…I still suggest the message is lost. And then there is of course the issue that you are getting your education from thieves who compound the integrity issue by seeking to claim it as their own…

Now some suggest that they don’t care where they get their information? Let me share some insights – most of what you are being taught has not been done by the marketer teaching you it, because for the most part many of them don’t train. To add to this non-experience based training, you often get ‘athlete preparation’ tips, peppered with vague references such as the first name of a boxing medallist from an Olympic games (at a time when the ‘speaker’ was a teenager)….by ‘coaches’ that are only coaches by virtue of calling themselves a ‘coach’ (or more importantly, a performance expert), who have not accumulated enough coaching experience to warrant teaching anyone.

Now if you are happy to be bullshitted to, go ahead and keep learning from these sources. For those who would prefer to get it straight without the BS, here is your chance – learn from the source!

Personal trainer professional development – the KSI Way! Sunday 19 August 2012, Los Angeles. Register here: http://bit.ly/PkWbfK