Ian King

Burnt at the stake

/by

One more time won’t kill me

In 1997 I labelled the 1980s as the decade of aerobic training:

You could call the eighties the decade of researching aerobic training,
–King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing

And I challenged the dominant values of that decade, only to be figuratively speaking burnt at the stake as a heretic.

In 1997 I labelled the 1990s as the decade of strength training:

…and nineties the era of popularity in researching strength.
–King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing

And I challenged the dominant values of that decade, only to be figuratively speaking burnt at the stake as a heretic.

I have labelled the 2000s as the decade of deceit:

…the 2000s ‘The Decade of Bullshit’
–King, I., 2011, The Times May be A-changing, Strengthguild.com

And am challenging the dominant values of that decade – it won’t kill me to be burnt at the stake as a heretic one more time.

Heresy in endurance training

During the late 1980s and early 1990s I reached conclusions about the flaws in application of aerobic training approach that dominated the 1980s, and I spoke out against this.

I’ve probably lead the anti-aerobic movement. You go back ten years ago and everything was aerobic. I was one of the first to say, listen, I’ve tried it and I’ve tried other ways and I think I can give you a better way. Now what we’re seeing is an overreaction. We’re seeing people saying to not do any aerobics. It’s just gone too far.
–Shugart, C., 2000, Meet Ian King (interview), Fri 29 Dec 2000

During the 1980s I experienced the impact of concurrent aerobic training and strength training in both my personal sports training and in the sports training of the athletes I worked with. Ahead of any research on this topic, I knew something wasn’t right. I experienced and observed the interference that aerobic training had on the strength qualities. I questioned the ‘aerobic base’ approach.

…this excessive aerobic training is not only failing to address their weakness (lack of strength and power), but is often having a negative effect on strength and power.
— King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing

By the early 1990s I published comments that undermined the claim made by leading local academics, who at that time were promoting the aerobic base as a science, and using newspaper clippings of athlete’s quotes as their evidence. I suggested that the aerobic base was a myth, and that in fact there was no science behind it at all.

Instead of producing the evidence of the science behind the aerobic base (of which there was none), the academics whose opinions and reputations were threatened by my comments took action to silence me. I was terminated from my position as the sub-editor of the state branch of the Australian Sports Medicine Federation journal, of which both myself and the academics I apparently threatened by speaking out were contributors and sub-editors of. They had written a letter of complaint to the editor of the publication about me, needless to say it was directed at my position on aerobic training, rather they brought out a strategy that was to be used by others in the years to come – they claimed my writings lacked adequate scientific reference.

Burnt at the stake for such heresy!

After maintaining this position professionally for over twenty years, and bearing the brunt of ridicule and violent attacks, I noted that certain others began publishing similar positions. Two things were apparent –firstly, the writings looked, well, very familiar….

Like this one:

Aerobic training has been overemphasized in training literature and practice. It is essentially in many cases an ineffective and inefficient method for performance improvement
–King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing

….quite simply aerobic training is grossly over-rated. Over rated for health, over rated for performance….
–2005, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

And secondly, the concepts were reaching the stage of acceptance in the market place:

Let us use the aerobic base belief as an example. There has been a traditional bias towards gaining an ‘aerobic base’ at the commencement of the general preparation phase – in all sports, all the time, with all athletes. Is this based on fact? I suggest not. I suggest it is a myth.
–King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing

I’m not exactly sure why we feel so compelled to develop an aerobic base….I don’t believe we have ever really adequately explained this need for aerobic base. I think it is simply an assumption…
–2005, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

Heresy in speed training

During the late 1980s and early 1990s I reached conclusions about the flaws in application of speed training approach that dominated the 1980s, and I spoke out against this.

By the late 1900s I had also begun to implement my reverse periodization model in speed and endurance training for field team sport athletes. Unbeknown to me, the late great Charlie Francis had been implementing a similar model for many years. My suggestion that you didn’t need to and shouldn’t be training speed through the use of long to short distance progression was considered again a threat and heretical. I was banished from the ovals of the field sport team I was initially implementing my trials with, forced to run a renegade program on council parks around the town.

Burnt at the stake for such heresy!

I will never forget the way one particular athlete rubbed his hands together at how he was going to put myself and my small group of speed trained athletes in our place. The pre-season fitness training was build around repetitions of 400 metres, and he knew my boys had barely run further than 40 meters for months, and to make it worse, we rarely ran flat out. It was going to be easy.

My protégés burned this athlete and the rest. When the fruits of my methods became apparent the speed coach quit, and the athlete who led the charge against my boys was forced into retirement that same season. Too slow.

After maintaining this position professionally for nearly twenty years, and (along with Charlie Francis) bearing the brunt of ridicule and violent attacks, I noted that certain others began publishing similar positions. Two things were apparent –firstly, the writings looked, well, very familiar….
Like this one:

Detection of and reaction to stimulus:…the ability to detect and react to stimulus. This is usually the first action in a chain of speed responses.
— King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

Reaction time: The ability to detect and react to a stimulus. This usually the first action in a series of speed responses.
–2003, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

Agility and co-ordination: The first few movements following the reaction to the stimulus…include sports where the distances moved and time frames involved are short…
— King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

Agility and co-ordination: This is the first few movements following the reaction to the stimulus… for sports where the distances moved and the time frames involved are quite short
–2003, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

And secondly, because most of this publishing copying occurs in the fitness industry and they don’t see much need for real sports training information (despite the marketing claims) such as speed training, this area has not yet reached mass popularity and acceptance amongst the market masses to the level where the extensive copying in publishing has occurred.

Heresy in strength training

During the late 1980s I reached conclusions about the flaws in application of strength training approach that dominated the 1980s, and I spoke out against this in the early 1990s.

Strength training of the 1980s was based largely on the belief that heavy loads in strength training were neither specific or beneficial, and therefore higher rep, faster movements dominated training. I was the first ‘strength coach’ in the Australian national league sport of Australian Rules to introduce maximal strength training. I was the first person in perhaps the world of rugby union outside of South Africa to implement maximal free weight strength training in rugby. I was the first person at least in my country in rowing, swimming, squash, and diving, and the list goes on – to promote free weight maximal strength methods in these sports.

I will never forget the day the Australian rugby coach took some of the Australian rugby union players to see the New Zealand ‘All Blacks’ ‘strength and conditioning’ coach (not that was what he was called in the late 1980s). He derided my maximal strength methods to these athletes and the coach, with comments such “When do you get this loads on the field? You don’t! They are not relevant!” And proceeded to show the boys how to do high rep sets of leg presses, leg extensions and bench presses on the Universal machine.

I challenged this over-application of specificity in a presentation in New Zealand in 1993, , the ‘home’ of specificity in strength training:

Without discarding circuit training methods completely, one can question the acclaimed specificity of circuit training to the game of rugby if done for the strength benefits – the loading in inadequate; if done for joint angle specificity – this can only be achieved by playing the game; if done for limb velocity specificity – the angular velocity of the hip in sprinting is between 500-900 degrees per second – unachievable in the gymnasium (28); if done for energy system specificity – only playing the game or performing game like drills will provide the peripheral endurance (34) specificity required.

It is important for the coach to ask “which method will create the most effective transfer to the athletes ability to play rugby?”, not simply “what methods appear the most specific?
–King, I., 1993, Strength training for rugby, New Zealand Journal of Sports Medicine, v. 21(4):23-26

I was ‘burnt at the stake’ for such heresy!

Heresy in flexibility training

During the 1980s I reached conclusions about the flaws in application (or lack of) of flexibility training approach that dominated the 1980s, and I spoke out against this.

I maintained that static stretching can and should be done before training, and that static stretching should dominant the stretching program.

I find it is the most effective practical way to achieve changes or improvements in flexibility…. Generally speaking I recommend your total stretching program consist predominantly of static stretching.
— King, I., 2002, Get Buffed! II

No-one took much notice of this in the 1980s or early 1990s, but by the late 1990s the ‘scientific’ reasons why one should not stretch, static stretch, or do static stretching before training had begun to proliferate. I spend the fifteen years between 1995 and 2010 being pillared from post to post for my position. After all, all the ‘big names’ in the US strength coach and academic circles maintain the evils everything I stood for. Not one person in the world of ‘strength and conditioning’ had the originality or courage to speak up in support.

Burnt at the stake for such heresy!

After maintaining this position professionally for over twenty years, and bearing the brunt of ridicule and violent attacks, I noted that certain others began publishing similar positions. Two things were apparent –firstly, the writings looked, well, very familiar….

Like this one:

I believe that stretching is the only physical quality that in relation to it’s training, the saying ‘more is better’ applies.
— King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

In my opinion – stretching is perhaps the only training activity where more is better.
–2003, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

And secondly, the concepts were reaching the stage of acceptance in the market place:

I do two things that are still considered relatively unique. I recommend stretching, and I recommend stretching before the workout

–King, I., 2002, Get Buffed!™ II

The key may lie in performing static stretching near the beginning of the workout,… Yes, static stretch. Yes, before the workout.
–2011, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

Teaching in America

During the late 1990s, courtesy of the emergence of the internet and a few years of reduced team sports requirements, I took my message to America.

In 1999 I taught my seminars in the US city of New York, which resulted in a serious back lash. I suspect it was my teaching that chin ups do not equate rows, nor do they negate the bench press, that was the cause of most of the angst. At that time, the most influential strength coach who enjoyed control of the market promoted training methods totally devoid of rows, and heavily biased towards chin ups.

I experienced personal attacks and rumour-spreading, like the time I went to a national convention and one exhibition booth person nearly fainted when he saw me – he was adamant I was in jail, and wanted to know when I was released. The old chest-nuts came out – my seminars were bad and I didn’t use enough science. My seminar hosts were threatened with ramifications if they went on with my seminars, seminar participants were personally phoned, including by certain state police calling outside their geographical jurisdiction as well as their legal jurisdiction to threaten arrest of those who got involved with me. Just because I dared suggest that horizontal pulling needed to balance horizontal pushing.

Then on to Boston, where my content was so threatening the local gate-keeper of information gathered his flock a few hours into the seminar, and made a very public showing of walking out, taking his flock with him. Not content with this, this local ‘identity’ contacted my host, and left them in no doubt about how bad my seminar was, how bad a presenter was, and what the serious ramifications would be if they dared bring me back to the area.

I believe that my position about loading being over-rated, that one should use bodyweight before loading were the main killers, along with my suggestions of balance in strength training, and my unique concept of lines of movement. At that time any compliant trend-following person was using the power and Olympic lifts with focus on maximum loading, and the concept of lines of movement and balance in strength training were totally new. And I’d suggest so in contrast to what the gate-keeper of information was doing that I had to be eliminated.

Burnt at the stake for such heresy!

My position of bodyweight before external load. It was considered so extreme in the 1990s that the publisher of the internet magazine t-mag.com felt the need to pre-warm users about the absence of external load and conventional exercises, and encourage them to let go of convention and risk the ridicule of doing something different:

Of course, the most difficult part of the workout was shrugging off years of brainwashing. Doing exercises with little or no weight was a hard pill to swallow, but once I reminded myself that I didn’t care how different or weird the movements looked, I had a great workout. Remember, screw the pack mentality and give this workout a try!
–TC Louma, Editor T-mag.com, Sep 24 1999

By 2005 it was being taught in the absence of credit or reference by people who had attended my seminars where I taught this.

Or my position on balance in strength training:

To help you understand how to divide and balance out your training, Ian came up with a list of major muscle groups that reflects their function:

Horizontal pulling (row)
Horizontal pushing (bench press)
Vertical pulling (chin-up)
Vertical pushing (shoulder press)
Hip dominant (deadlifts)
Quad dominant (squats)
— Shugart, Chris, 2001, The Ian King Cheat Sheets, Part 1 – A quick and dirty look at all the cool stuff Ian King has taught us so far, Fri, Aug 24, 2001, T-mag.com

By 2005 it was being taught in the absence of credit or reference by people who had attended my seminars where I taught this

After maintaining these positions professionally for nearly twenty years, and bearing the brunt of ridicule and violent attacks, I noted that certain others began publishing similar positions. Two things were apparent –firstly, the writings looked, well, very familiar….

Like this one:

…all things being equal, and independent of any specificity demands, the selection of exercises should show balance throughout the body.
— King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs

…all things being equal, and independent of any specificity demands, the selection of exercises should show balance throughout the body.
–2005, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

I apply the following guideline to any athlete, not just young athlete – why use external loading before developing the ability to manage the load of bodyweight?
— King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!™

My theory has always been that the only reason an athlete should lift weights is when their bodyweight no longer provides any challenge to them.
–2003, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

…if your bodyweight for whatever reason is too much for your leg strength, you can always do a one-legged leg press or hack squat.
— King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!™

In fact in my experience I’d suggest that some athletes cannot even work with their bodyweight so we may need to modify certain exercises.
–2003, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

And secondly, the concepts were reaching the stage of acceptance in the market place:

The following article is Part I of a two-part leg training article that’s very different from anything you’ve ever done. How so? Well, for starters, some of the exercises don’t even require you to use any weight…
–Louma, TC., 1999, describing the single leg based lower body program known as ‘The Limping Program’

I occasionally flirt with the idea of not even performing conventional two-legged exercises….and simply concentrating on single leg strength….
–2005, reference available on request (withheld to avoid detracting from the message of this article)

The industry integrity heresy

Post 2010 I find myself again being labelled as a heretic. Even dishonest by some well-marketed industry commentators. Because as I have done during the past thirty years, I am calling it as I see it. Only this time it’s not training methods or paradigms about training. It’s about the standards of the physical preparation industry, specifically the US-led ‘fitness industry’.

I labelled the 1980s as the decade of aerobic training, the 1990s as the decade of strength training focus, and the 2000s as the decade of deceit.

During the decade immediately post 2000 I have observed what I describe as an unacceptable level of deceit in publishing and marketing permeate this industry. To the point where those who have positioned themselves, primarily through symbiotic relationships with information equipment distributors, now openly encourage their followers to lie, cheat and steal.

The situation has got so messed up that potentially good people coming through have unwittingly been caught up in this web of deceit. It will take years to unravel. It may take greater social and economic upheavals to bring to an end. Whatever it takes, it will be a great day when this behaviour is no longer endorsed and accepted.

Contrary to the beliefs of at least one ‘well-respected professional’, I suggest that a companies willingness to engage known individuals whose published words are not original, and who openly encourage people to lie, cheat and steal – is not, for me, an exoneration. Rather it is a sad reflection of the value system of the organizations involved, and the willingness of the masses to accept information from such organizations.

I liken it to the days prior to environmental protection from industrial waste and development. Companies would (and in some cases still do) release toxic waste products into the environment carte blanche. Did the absence of enforcement suggest this was acceptable and in the interests of the planet. No, and history has shown societies are not taking a belated stand against such behaviour. When enforcement is lax – where companies distribute their waste in an environmentally damaging way and no enforcement results – does this mean that the companies were right and acting in the good of greater society? I’d suggest not.

I propose we are in a similar period in the ‘physical preparation industry’. Where companies knowingly mislead or endorse those who mislead the masses through deceitful content, which is not in the interest of the masses. The only interests being served are the professional, personal and commercial interests of those providing the misleading content and benefiting from the subsequent sales.

For me, the absence of any regulation of this behaviour does not equate to the conclusion that the behaviour is right or in the interests of those who it is claimed they are serving. Rather, it is a sad reflection of the current state of integrity in this industry.

I might be amongst the first to have concerns. I might be amongst the first to publicly express those concerns. I might be one of the few who have walked away from consulting/writing opportunities as a personal stand against this situation. However I will not be the last. And I believe that one day, hopefully in my lifetime, we will see a shift towards an industry cultural standard where the interests of the end-user is prioritized, rather than the self-serving interests of select companies, organizations and individuals. (Who knows, it may be even sooner should the broader economy continue its tailspin)

Call me an eternal optimist if you want. That’s a lot nicer than what those who perceive I threaten their egos and income are calling me!

My message to those who perceive my stance threatens them is this – I’ve been around a while, and taken many stance. Throw as many stones as you want. You are not the first to attack, and you won’t be the last. I’m happy to go to battle for things I strongly believe in. It’s not going to change my position and direction. It never has in the past.  What has changed is the way of doing and thinking. Inevitably in the direction I have called. So get ready for the change! You can choose it, or it will be forced upon you. Your call.
Conclusion

From being a paradigm shifter I experienced ridicule and attack. Many times, in many decades over many different aspects of physical preparation. Did this stop me? No. Has history proven me to be off-track? No.

I labelled the 1980s as the decade of aerobic training and during the early 1990s I sought to put the 1980s aerobic training approach back into an appropriate context.

I labelled the 1990s as the decade of strength training and during the late 1990s and early 2000s I sought to put the 1990s strength training load-based focus and other paradigms back into context.

The same people who reacted violently to my teachings now typically teach my innovations. Of course, in the absence of any referencing, as I suspect this would be too embarrassing for them to reveal the hurt I caused with my honest non-compliant teaching.

I predicted the 2000s might be the decade of flexibility training focus and acceptance – but I got this wrong.

Now post 2010 I have labelled the 2000s as the decade of bullshit, a period dominated by lies and deceit, covered over eventually be the teaching of the information gate keepers that it okay to lie, cheat and steal.

And as I have done for the past three decades, I am speaking out without fear or favour, telling you that I believe you are being seriously misled and that the only purpose this serves is the personal and commercial interests of those decades’ information gate-keepers.

I seek to encourage a return to values of honesty and truth; values that the US led fitness market in particular have discarded in the extreme during the 2000s. It seems that anyone with a burning desire to be perceived as an ‘expert’, and a lack of integrity can market successfully the perception of their greatness, and in the absence of appropriate experience. The period of 2000 to 2010 has seen a rapid descent into marketing and publishing deceit, as if the industry and perhaps society is either sensing an end to the current was we life, or intending to induce an end, by such self-destructive and non-sustainable behaviour.

I believe the lies and exploitation of the masses through marketing of training equipment under the guise of ‘new trends in training methods in physical training’ has reached serious stages, and can no longer be ignored.

And just as I did in the decades before, the fire under the stake are being lit. One particular ‘respected author’ referred in writing to my ‘dishonesty’. After all, how dare I undermine the perception of greatness that these people have created through deception? There is no way the product sales of major US equipment and distribution companies are going to be threatened by some irritant from Australia.

And how can the average person, who has believed the marketing pieces and editorially sculptured bios of these ‘experts’, be expected to have their perception of these people shattered by suggesting they are not the honest experts you have been led to believe? And what about the damage that may be caused when the average consumer in this industry concludes ‘If they are lying about x and y, what else are they lying about?’ No, this would be intolerant and must be stopped!

History has shown that the initially controversial and personally-damaging positions I have taken during the last thirty years have eventually become accepted practice, in many cases taught by the very same people who sought to destroy the message initially. Based on this, I suspect that sometime in the next few years or decades, there will be return to integrity in marketing and sales in the physical preparation industry. And it wouldn’t surprise me to see those on the bandwagon include those who currently are the ones throwing stones at my position that the market is dominated by deceitful exploitation of the trust-worthiness of the masses.

Are these personal attacks going to stop me? No. Will history prove my position to be accurate? I believe so.

So take your pick – ridicule and attack my position that lies and deceit in marketing and publication have dominated the landscape during the last ten years like most people will, because this is what the majority do. And I can guarantee you some time in the future you will accept this position, albeit probably taught to you by some trend watcher. Or step back, let go of the conditioned belief you have about the credibility of your ‘gurus’ – and give it an objective reflection.

What do you stand to gain or loose? If you like to be average, you probably want to join the masses and ridicule and attack my position. If you want to gain what I consider to be your best interests – I strongly suggest you consider rejecting the average. Typically there is a decade gap I have noted between when I teach something unique and effective that threatens the status quo, and when these same individuals who were threatened and attacked me begin teaching the very same things. You stand to gain an average of decade head start on the masses if you take the lesson now.

One of the few differences between my ‘controversial’ position in the past and this current controversial position is this – I used to take stands about training methods. Now I am taking stands against human values and behaviours. I believe what’s at stake now and its potential benefits to society are even greater. I guess I can expect the initial back lash to be even greater, as much more is at stake. It’s not just the ego of those who have staked their reputations and credibility on a training method. I am now getting between desperate people and their money.

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

–Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860)

Ian King

The price the children pay  

/by

I looked at two young boys (7 year olds) for their dad, as part of their long term preparation for sporting success. I showed dad what I saw. No, they didn’t stretch. Yes, there were very active in sport and had already done a lot of training. I shared my concerns re injuries with this approach and the direction they were heading. Two weeks later I got a call from Dad – one of his boys had an inflamed Achilles and needed attention.

A few days before I was stretching a group of 9-10 year old boys involved in soccer. I had one of their older brothers (11-12 yrs) in the group for the workout. He was not participating in the stretches. I asked why. He said “I can’t do stretching before games or training.” I said “What are you talking about?” He said “I’ve been told by a physio that I am not to do any stretching before a game or training.” I was shocked and saddened. The boy had already had his first knee surgery under general anaesthetic.

A week before I gave a presentation to a netball coaching group, during which I shared my belief that the absence or lack of stretching, including pre-training stretching, was a breach of our duty to athletes, and in my opinion criminally negligent. But don’t worry, I assured them – you won’t get sued, because it is the dominant belief that avoiding stretching is right and good.

About this time I heard of a local netball club that has informed their amateur/parent coaches that static stretching before training is banned. They are not allowed to do it. I felt sad for this sport.

Last Friday I attended an introductory coaching course for a specific sport. The young, enthusiastic and well meaning coaching director proudly talked to the group about doing a ‘dynamic warm up’. He did one or two quick static stretches, but mostly the ‘dynamic stretches’. He also mentioned the words ‘core strength’ during the workout, confirming that he is ‘up to date’ and ‘all over’ the dominant trends and buzzwords. I felt sad for this sport.

Just today a mum told me of her sons diagnosis of his ankle injury. Don’t worry, she assured me, he is doing a lot of stretching. I felt encouraged about this situation. Then she continued, and demonstrated two dynamic stretches. Then my heart sank for the body….

The price the kids pay. The price the adult athletes and physically active play. For their desire to conform. For their blind belief that their best interests are being taken care of by those who promoted the trends. The trends, that is, once they identify the market acceptance is adequate but not to exposed, so they appear to be the leader of the information.

The irony is this – a trend promoter /information broker can promote the trend, then a few years later promote a new trend, even one 180 degrees turnaround from the first – and walk away with no penalty. Those who follow the trends pay the price.

In the case of stretching, one exact example where a particular information broker spent a number of years warning people off static stretching. Now that there appears to be an inkling of a groundswell of a swing back to the habit of static stretching by the masses, this trend promoter / information broker / social commentator now tells you its okay to do static stretching, and further you should do it. But of course you probably needs to buy their video they currently promote to help you cope with the reversal of position they’ve taken. No mention of the trail of destruction from the dogmatically held ‘belief before this belief’ that static stretching before training has no place. Nor the damage that will occur moving forward in those who cling to the last trend of ‘you can’t do static stretching before training’….

The masses pay the price – the marketeer moves on collecting revenue from what ever information sells the most and provides optimal market positioning at any given time….
If only people knew…But even if they did, they probably wouldn’t believe it….

Hint – don’t take flexibility advice from those who can’t touch their toes….and who don’t live with a commitment to stretching…but how do we tell the kids that, when they accept the authority of those who society has given authority to. Especially those who don’t stretch but have conformed to the dominant and misguided belief that pre-training static stretching is bad. Here’s one technique I use to discern – I listen to what a person giving advice says. If they regurgitate trend based information or buzzwords, I don’t take much notice of them. Just what I do, if it helps.

This morning my 12 year old daughter complained of pain just under her knee joint, and reminded me of it after school. She does 10 or so sessions of training/games a week including school PE, none of which I control. Tonight my 9 year old son complained of back pain. He does about the same volume, of which one of those sessions I control. All I can do is seek to influence the other sessions. And that’s the big battle.

I have added millions of dollars to athletes bank accounts by extending and heightening their careers through my injury prevention work. That’s easy. Typically just the athlete and I, so easy to guide the process and outcome.

But this much more complex. Influencing the beliefs of the average coach – that’s much harder. The faceless men in manufacutring pulling the strings from the shadows, granting those who willing to comply with their quiet requests on content – the researcher, the information broker, the publishing prac-demic. Selling their soul for the short term promise of financial or marketing promotion support.

As I trace the influences back to their sources, I wonder if the information broker publishing content for the sake of maintaining market position and cash flow has a full understanding of the responsibility they bear by disseminating what they do. Flippantly flip-flopping from idea to idea, trend to trend.

The battle to undo the damage caused by these influences is a massive fight. One that I don’t expect to fully win. However it’s a good fight, a worthy battle. If you have children, I believe you will know what I am saying.

Ian King

The moral and economic decline of a once great nation  

/by

My attention was brought to a recent US blog extolling the benefits of stealing. From the outset, I say perhaps I have lost touch with the ‘new world’, because I was stunned by the content and the message.

Apparently, if you are not stealing:

• You do not have the keys to being a good strength coach or personal trainer
• You are a dumb personal trainer
• You are not participating in continuing education
• You are not a good person like Robin Hood (allegedly) was

Apparently, stealing in this context is synonymous with continuing education. Stealing in my legal contexts goes along these lines – an intent to permenantely deprive the owner.

There are apparently added benefits to ‘stealling’:

• Its cool
• All the good coaches do it

Of course, like any advertorial, there was a call to spend money in the writers directions. The reader was encouraged and invited to ‘come and steal’ from the writer and his buddies. And the investment needed, the reader was assured, was akin to buying the tools needed for burglary.

You see, ordinary ‘stealing’ may be free, but ‘good stealing’ involves parting with money. And there were two specific products/services promoted.

Now perhaps I live in a cave hidden form the world, but my understanding was that no religion or law endorsed, promoted or condoned stealing. If fact some cultures cut off your hand for doing so.

So how does the incitement to ‘steal’ help America? A once proud nation, whose national currency has halved in value in the last decade, with no signs of recovery. My understanding was what drove America in its growth periods was innovation and productivity. Writings such as these are the antithesis of this – don’t bother innovating, and don’t bother with productivity – you can get what you want the easy way.

I believe a criminologist from the school of ‘theres a correlation between poverty and criminality’. Are the recommendation and acceptance of these values a result and an indication of how much poverty abounding in this industry in America.

I suggest that the values promoted in this blog contribute to the moral and economic decline of a culture and nation. But what I am learning is those in a sinking ship don’t always think rationally. In fact, in raising similar points, one of their colleagues has labelled me as dishonest, so you are going to have to make up your own mind on this one.

So what was the motive of this promotion of the concept of stealing? Apart from another way to market goods and services, my opinion is that there is a desire to de-sensitize the market to intellectual property ‘stealing’ because this gives more latitude to those who want to publish but don’t have any original ideas.

Personally, I don’t see how the promotion of these values helps anyone, and I don’t know who it serves for America to stay morally and economically depressed or decline further.

Two misguided analogies were given –

1. Anthony Robbins
2. Robin Hood

In relation to Anthony Robbins, copying what they do and copying what they published are not one and the same. Additionally, I doubt Anthony Robbins would have been promoting the concept of stealing and that the investment in his educational material was akin to paying for the tools of burglary. And as for the Robin Hood analogy – I doubt the marketer/author was giving the proceeds of his sales to charity, so that was a real big stretch to make it fit the message.

I’ll say it again – perhaps I am too old fashioned for this world. However I stand by what I said – I don’t see how these values positively serve, and suggest they instead contribute to the moral and economic decline of a once great nation.

Ian King

Be honest? I’d like to see that….  

/by

I must say I was surprised to read this author promote a call for credit to the original source. Very UnAmerican, as least as the US ‘fitness-industry’ has been influenced during the last decade, from 2000 to 2010. A period I refer to as the ‘decade of the bullshitter’.

In this recent book this author referred to another coaches plea for respect and credit to be given to his works.

From what I’ve heard, from the far end of Siberia to Iceland to California, thousands of coaches are performing with their athletes Javorek’s complex exercise, but some of them give credit to themselves. I really worked hard on developing these exercises and I like to share with everyone my ‘little secrets’. Just give credit to the creator.



My original goal with the complex exercises was to find an efficient and aggressive method of performance enhancement that saves time and makes the program more enjoyable. If you choose to use them (in some form) with your athletes, be honest and call your new complex exercises ‘Variations to Javorek’s Complex Exercises’.
–John, D., 2011, Mass Made Simple, Quoting Istvan Javorek’s comments on Javorek’s web site, p. 108

This is the first time I can recall seeing a call of this nature. What I have seen a lot of is what Javorek is referring to – people who know the source, yet choose to take credit, or fail to give credit.

After all, the most common term in the US ‘fitness’ industry lingo of the last decade has been ‘Steal’. Everyone wanted to say they ‘stole’ x from someone else. It was hip. A badge of honor. After all, many of these, especially those who informal education exposure was limited to the period 2000-2011, had been extolled the virtues of stealing. ‘It not cheating’ etc etc. In fact, they had also been extolled to lie.

It was the first time I have seen the act of stealing (in relation to intellectual property) being discouraged. Isn’t that interesting.

As impressive as this is, it did raise a few questions for me.

Firstly, would Americans reach out to non-Americans with the same call? Would Americans encourage their fellow coaches to show the same respect for out-of-country intellectual property? What if those breaching the intellectual property rights of the out-of-country coaches were their mentors, people they had been taught to believe were really knowledgeable, experienced, competent coaches?

I’m not so sure that this would happen. Why? In addition to my belief that America has a history of recognizing only that which is within their own country (have observed this myopic view during my 22 years of travelling in and through North America) it would be a tough pill to swallow for any ‘student’.

Another question, inter linked with the first, relates to the Javoreks plea for those using his intellectual property to be honest. Imagine that – those who seek to control and influence the masses in the US fitness industry being honest. I’d like to see that.

“No, I didn’t come up with that idea.”

“Nor that one.” 

“Or that one.”

“No, not that one either.”

I believe one of the reasons these information brokers fail to give credit when they know the source is that the majority of their publications would be credited. If you took out the credited content, their wouldn’t be enough pages left to hold the book up. Who would buy it? What impact would this have on their reputation? After all, they have wormed for years to be in the position they are in.  Why give it up for honesty? I’ve got certain books on my book shelf where I have color highlighted the copied and / or uncredited content – and there aren’t too many pages left unmarked. The ‘books’ look more like a kids coloring in book than an educational text. On that thought, the kids colouring book would hvae more credibility, and probably more value for a student to study!

Honesty? Istvan would like to see that. I’d like to see that.

Ian King

Do the words ‘volunteer’ and or ‘amateur’ need to be antonyms of excellence?  

/by

Rarely a day passes without the opportunity to watch and analyse a sports coach in action. I don’t mind at what level, what gender, what sport, or what country. I really enjoy studying the art of coaching and asking the question ‘how can it be done better?’

For me, we all have limited resources – limited energy, limited recovery ability, limited time, and limited attention span. The more efficient we teach athlete preparation, the more we have in reserve to include other aspects. Which is divergent to what I see as a growing and continuing trend – the limited focus on improving efficiency and the greater focus on adding more to the athletes schedule, in part because of ‘trends’.

In my discussions with coaches and coaching directors, one common theme appears – ‘We are amateurs and therefore you have to understand Ian’….-read – don’t expect us to pursue excellence because we are ‘just volunteers’.

To which I say – the main differences between a volunteer coach and an elite professional coach is the latter get’s paid, works with higher profiles players with more money at stake, and have bigger egos. There is nothing in my three decades plus of professional observations that leads me to believe that the professional coach is, should or needs to be a better coach. I just don’t understand why the volunteer coach and or amateur coach can’t, shouldn’t or don’t need to strive for excellence. To continually ask and answer the question – ‘How can I do this better? How can I get better results with athletes?’

From my conclusions, we have got sport upside down. The greatest window of opportunity to affect and shape an athlete is when they are young. Very young. And that window reduces with age. In most countries, however, we give the athletes to the volunteers and amateurs during this largest window of opportunity for development. And to those kids that rise to the surface, we give them more funds, allegedly better coaches, and definitely better facilities.  For every kid that rises to the surface in this process, hundreds fall through the cracks, lost potential for all.

Now I don’t have a problem with the fact that most of our young athletes will be coached by volunteers and amateur coaches. What I do have a challenge with is why the assumption that if a coach is a volunteer or amateur that we should all give up and assume the pursuit of excellence is out of the question.

I don’t buy into the cultural perception that to prove you are a great coach you have to show you have worked with elite athletes. Why can’t you be the greatest coach in the land and work with kids? I believe you can, and I believe you should aim to be – because I don’t accept that the words ‘volunteer’ and or ‘amateur’ coach and the world ‘excellence’ are oxymoron’s, incompatible, or are antonyms!

Ian King

Let’s talk about honesty, Lou  

/by

I refer to Lou Schuler’s decision to publicly refer to my efforts to protect my intellectual property as dishonest (http://www.amazon.com/review/R1EKIUGPBU1KDE). I understand there is subjectivity in the definition of this word. I also understand his desire to protect his co-author. That aside…
…Let’s talk about honesty.

I don’t believe it is honest to use Lyle MacDonald’s words in your 2006 book ‘New Rules’ – unreferenced, uncredited, and without permission. For example:

“Imagine my surprise when I saw the original protocol repeated verbatim in New Rules of Lifting completely uncredited.”
–MacDonald, L., 2008,Warp Speed Fat Loss by Alwyn Cosgrove Contains Plagiarised Material, July 9, 2008, http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/miscellany/plagiarism-part-2.html

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it is honest to do a deal with someone for them to be primary author, and then behind the scenes plan to shift them back to secondary author without their knowledge, as occurred in the lead up to the Book of Muscle. Or as it occurred with Mike Mejia’s books with you.

“Now, the big question is, how can we fix this? To credit it to “Lou Schuler, with workout programs by Ian King,” is completely contrary to what we originally discussed. I hope you’ll believe me when I say those original conversations seem like years ago, given how fast things move at Rodale. I have no excuses for switching tracks on this. I just got so caught up in where the book was going that I forgot where it started….

A similar situation cropped up with Home Workout Bible. I’d originally conceived it as Mike Mejia’s book, but an editor got fired, the book fell months behind schedule, and I ended up having to write almost all of it. And by then, Testosterone Advantage had sold well and my name had the power to get us on bookstore shelves. But Mike’s name is as prominent as mine on the cover, and he wrote the foreword, so it looks very much like his book.

I’ll confess I’m panicking a bit here, because I very much screwed this up and I’m not really sure how to get back to the right place. We only have three months to write this thing, and now we have an element of bad faith to further cloud our effort, and it’s entirely my fault.”
–Schuler, L., 2003, Personal communication with Ian King, Saturday, 5 October 2002

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it’s honest to have you listed as the primary author of the Book of Muscle on Amazon.com etc. since the books release in 2003. You blamed the ‘switcheroo’ on Men’s Health decisions makers – it is still MH who influences the ‘switcheroo’ at Amazons?:

Men’s Health: The Book of Muscle : The World’s Most Authoritative Guide to Building Your Body by Lou Schuler and Ian King (Oct 17, 2003)

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it is honest to use content from my works in your 2006 book ‘New Rules’ – yes, I know you did give some credit and referencing – but when I put my Get Buffed!™ II and Get Buffed!™III books beside your 2006 New Rules book – boy, they have a lot in common. With your editing skills you have covered the tracks well, to your credit. When you are confident with your knowledge base, I note that you do really re-work sentences. Much better job than your counter-parts did in editing a certain 2009 book about female training.

What makes me more cynical than your average avid fan is that I have collated a lot of the copying done by your co-author from the original sources, and watched the patterns unfold over the years. Too many ‘co-incidences’ for me. Take the strength programs for example. Now I know the limitations of the intellectual property laws in relation to program design, however seriously – save any denial of ‘open book publishing’ for your less discerning fans.

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it is honest to use someone’s original exercise innovations, exercise names, and loading parameters – ones taught to you personally by the originator – and then tell the audience that the only way to learn more about them is through ‘personal contact with yourself’ or by buying your book:

“Q. [from the audience] Where can I find all these exercises?

A. Only through personal contact [with me]. Firstly, write them all down, and then you have some. And second of all, it is in the ‘Martial Arts book [Secrets of Martial Arts Conditioning, A. Cosgrove, 2003], the early stage exercises are in there, but obviously…
–Cosgrove, A., 2003, Your body as a barbell – unconventional bodyweight exercises, DVD, 18 Oct 2003

My definition of honest would have been to credit all the original innovations, exercise names and loading protocols, and when asked this question, tell the person where you learnt them from, for example:

Ian King’s Killer Leg Exercises (DVD), 1999
Twelve Weeks of Pain, King, I., 1999, T-mag.com
Strength Specialization Series (video/dvd) (1998)
How to Write Strength Training Programs (book), 1998
Get Buffed! I (book), 1999
How To Teach Strength Training Exercises (book), 2000
How to Teach Strength Training Exercises (DVD), 2000
Get Buffed! II (book), 2002
Ian King’s Guide to Control Drills, 2002

And other places….

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it is honest to take advantage of someone’s generosity, following them giving you an opportunity in a guided learning experience because you lack experience in programming and training athletes, to then take the program and publish it in part or whole in the following publications, without permission, authority, and credit or referencing:

Cosgrove, A., 20??, 12 Week rugby program, strengthcoach.com
Cosgrove, A., 2003, Macrocycles

This program was provided to an existing long term KSI client, by KSI, with copyright KSI on every page. Yet the copyright symbol was removed (isn’t that a circumstance of aggravation in US copyright law?) and published in part and whole in at least the above two locations.

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it is honest to tell your readers that the program you have provided in the publication they have bought is designed with them in mind, when it wasn’t:

“I’ve designed this program around a typical client, looking to get in shape, with limited time, resources and equipment.…. This book is written with you in mind.”
— Cosgrove, A., 2003, Macrocycles, p. 7

Unless the target audience of this book were males living in Asia aged between 18 and 28 years, playing elite sport in a government funded program preparing to play in a World Cup – then this is, for me, the absolute opposite of honesty.

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it is honest to infer you trained an athlete to an Olympic medal when your resume from 1999 makes no mention of this:

“I had a guy who took a silver medal for boxing in the Olympics in the super-heavyweight division…”
–Cosgrove, A., 2003, Your body as a barbell – unconventional bodyweight exercises, DVD, 18 Oct 2003

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it’s honest to boast in the morning that you have never had an original idea in your life, and that afternoon to refer to your original ideas:

“I don’t invent anything – I just steal. My joke is I have never had an original idea in my life.”
–Cosgrove, A., 2003, Assessment Seminar (DVD), Charles Staley Bootcamp, 3:05min in

“I remember once thinking that if you did a curl here [beside your body], a curl here [in front of your body] and a curl here [behind your body, that’s three bicep exercises… but then you do cable and dbs and a bar and you actually have nine. And if you do two angles at each position forward that takes you up to 18 exercises……if you did each one for 3 weeks that would be a year before you would have to repeat and I haven’t even turned my hands over [pronated]…”
— Cosgrove, A., 2003, Your body as a barbell – unconventional bodyweight exercises, DVD, 18 Oct 2003

“Biceps – three categories, it’s a very simple approach but it’s very effective. In your biceps, I want you to look at your biceps this way: Category 1 – elbow behind body; category 2 – elbow beside body; category 3 – elbow in front of body. Now with a different colour pen, write the following – supination, neutral, pronation. The message here – to fully exploit your biceps – you would need to consider those 6 options. And that gives you how many? That gives you endless options. Endless options….there is 3 ways by 3 ways…at least 9 if not more variations……in other words if we just took a pair of DBS we have got 9 different bicep…. exercise, without considering all the cables and bars and different sorts of shape bar and the machines…”
— King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization DVD, Part 4, 2 hr 50min

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it’s honest to claim in your bio that you are ‘recognized’ by a company, and to use a company name that doesn’t exist to create for yourself a Mike Myer’s like ‘international man’ perception:

Kingsports International Australia

There is no such company, at least that’s not our company’s name, and never was. If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it’s honest to claim to claim a ‘country’ recognizes you.

Through the years in this field Alwyn has been recognized as a specialist in Athletic Preparation by … Australia

Nor am I aware of any ‘specialist in Athletic Preparation’ certification offered by any organization in Australia. Or for that matter the US or the UK – which is also claimed.

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it’s honest to reproduce someone else’s concepts and theories, uncredited, unreferenced and without permission for reproduction. For example:

Balance : all things being equal, and independent of any specificity demands, the selection of exercises should show balance throughout the body.
–King, I., 1998, How to Write (book)

All things being equal, and independent of any specificity demands, the selection of exercises should show balance throughout the body.
— Cosgrove, A., 2005, Fitness professional program design bible
–Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness professional program design bible (2nd Ed)
— Cosgrove, A., 2009, Program Design Seminar handout

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it’s honest to reproduce someone’s exercise descriptions, as has occurred to over 70 exercise descriptions, appearing uncredited, unreferenced and without permission for reproduction in over 15 different publications by the same ‘author’, all published with the ‘author’ claiming copyright.
For example:

Single leg partial squat

Stand on the edge of a low block (eg. 1/3 to ½ the height of a normal bench height). Have the weak leg on the box and the strong leg off the edge of the box. Bend at the knee of the weak side, lowering down (2-3 seconds) until the sole of your feet almost brushes the floor. Keep sole parallel to ground. Pause for 1 second and return to full extension in about 1-2 seconds. At the 10th rep, pause at the bottom position for 10 seconds. You must not rest the non-supporting leg on the ground at any stage during the set. Hands on hips. Then continue reps until you get to 20. Repeat the 10 second pause. Can you go on? If yes, remember, what you start you must finish – this exercise must be done in multiples of 10, with a 10 second pause in bottom position at the completion of every 10 reps. If you get to 50 reps, look to raise the height of the block. Preferably don’t hold on to anything during the set – the challenge of balance will add to the fatigue. However you may wish to do this near a wall or squat stand just in case. You don’t need to do a warm up set – get straight into the work set. And be careful when you get off the block at the end of the set…..!
–King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!™

Single leg partial squat :

Stand on the edge of a low block (e.g. 1/3 to ½ the height of a normal bench height). Have the weak leg on the box and the strong leg off the edge of the box. Bend at the knee of the weak side, lowering down (2-3 seconds) until the sole of your feet almost brushes the floor. Keep sole parallel to ground. Pause for 1 second and return to full extension in about 1-2 seconds. At the 10th rep, pause at the bottom position for 10 seconds. You must not rest the non-supporting leg on the ground at any stage during the set. Hands on hips. Then continue reps until you get to 20. Repeat the 10-second pause. Can you go on? If yes, remember, what you start you must finish – this exercise must be done in multiples of 10, with a 10 second pause in bottom position at the completion of every 10 reps. If you get to 50 reps, look to raise the height of the block. Preferably don’t hold on to anything during the set – the challenge of balance will add to the fatigue. However you may wish to do this near a wall or squat stand just in case. You don’t need to do a warm up set – get straight into the work set.
-Cosgrove, A., 2003, Macrocycles
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, Fitness professional program design bible

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it’s honest to reproduce someone else’s periodization works uncredited, unreferenced and without permission, with the ‘author’ claiming copyright. For example:

Alternating periodization: involves alternating between volume (another term used is accumulation) and intensity (again, another term seen is intensification).
–King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs

Alternating Periodization: involves alternating between volume and intensity (accumulation/intensification)
— Cosgrove, A., 2005, Fitness professional program design bible
–Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness professional program design bible (2nd Ed)

The advantages includes that it avoids the detraining issues involved in linear progression (ie. reduces the concern of detraining metabolic or neural adaptations because of more frequent exposure to each).
–King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs

Advantages: avoids the detraining issues involved in linear progression (due to more frequent exposure of neural and metabolic effects). Generally speaking this is often the best choice for most trainees.
— Cosgrove, A., 2005, Fitness professional program design bible
–Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness professional program design bible (2nd Ed)

The disadvantages include that it requires to trainee to be experienced in load selection as the reps drop suddenly and significantly.
–King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs

Disadvantages: requires experience in load selection as the reps change quickly and significantly.
— Cosgrove, A., 2005, Fitness professional program design bible
–Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness professional program design bible (2nd Ed)

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it’s honest to reproduce someone else’s philosophies uncredited, unreferenced and without permission, with the ‘author’ claiming copyright. For example:

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

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.
–Cosgrove, A., 2006, 10 Things I’ve Learnt, T-mag.com, Feb

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it’s honest to reproduce someone else’s physical qualities works uncredited, unreferenced and without permission, with the ‘author’ claiming copyright. For example:

Speed can be defined as the time taken between two points.
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

Speed can be defined as the time taken between two points.
— Cosgrove, A., 2003, Martial Arts

There are a number of sub-qualities of speed.
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

Speed can in effect be broken down into several qualities
— Cosgrove, A., 2003, Martial Arts

Detection of and reaction to stimulus: The first sub-quality of speed can be said to be the ability to detect and react to stimulus. This is usually the first action in a chain of speed responses.
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

Reaction time: The ability to detect and react to a stimulus. This usually the first action in a series of speed responses.
— Cosgrove, A., 2003, Martial Arts

Agility and co-ordination: The first few movements following the reaction to the stimulus rely on agility and coordination.
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

Agility and co-ordination: This is the first few movements following the reaction to the stimulus.
— Cosgrove, A., 2003, Martial Arts

Acceleration: The athlete’s speed component focus following the first few movements is on acceleration – provided the sporting action has the distance and time frame to cope. If the action or event is over within one to two seconds, the need to fully exploit acceleration is absent.
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

Acceleration: the ability to increase speed and approach maximum speed. This is less important in short distance sports as the action is typically over in 1-2 seconds and the need to fully exploit acceleration is absent.
— Cosgrove, A., 2003, Martial Arts

Maximum velocity: As stated above, the point at which one ceases to accelerate is ones maximum velocity.
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

Maximum Speed: the point at which you cease to accelerate.
— Cosgrove, A., 2003, Martial Arts

Speed endurance: Speed endurance is the ability to maintain high levels of speed. There are three categories of speed endurance…
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

Speed endurance: the ability to maintain high levels of speed. Can be further broken into…
—- Cosgrove, A., 2003, Martial Arts

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it’s honest to reproduce someone else’s principles of training uncredited, unreferenced and without permission, with the ‘author’ claiming copyright. For example:

Progressive overload: This principle stresses two issues. Firstly the need for overload in training, and secondly the need for progression in training overload.
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

Progressive overload: This stresses two issues. Firstly the need for overload in training, and secondly the need for progression in training overload.
—- Cosgrove, A., 2003, Martial Arts

General to specific: This principle stresses the benefit of progressing from general training to specific training. This principle can be applied in both long-term planning (e.g. multi-year periodization) as well as short term planning (e.g. annual periodization). General to specific can viewed as opposite ends of a continuum…
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

General to specific: This principle explores the benefits of progressing from general training to more about sport specific training. This principle should be used both long term and short term when designing a conditioning program. General training to sport-specific training can be thought of as opposite ends of a continuum.
— Cosgrove, A., 2003, Martial Arts

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

Individualization: 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…
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

Individualization: To really maximize the training effect it is necessary to take into account every single individual difference that the athlete presents. Each training program needs to be individualized and modified to suit the individual.
—- Cosgrove, A., 2003, Martial Arts

I don’t believe it’s honest to reproduce someone else’s recovery theories uncredited, unreferenced and without permission, with the ‘author’ claiming copyright. For example:

The principle of recovery recognizes that the training effect is not simply a result of training alone, but occurs from a combination of training and the subsequent recovery from training. It is only when recovery is allowed that we see the super-compensation effect, the unique phenomenon where the bodies physical capacity is elevated in response to training…
–King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation

The principle of recovery recognizes that training alone does not produce any results. That’s right – you don’t get better by training – you get better by recovering from training…. The training effect is a combination of training and the subsequent recovery from training. It is only when recovery is allowed that we see the super-compensation effect, when the body’s physical capacity is elevated in response to training.
—- Cosgrove, A., 2003, Martial Arts

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I don’t believe it’s honest to reproduce someone else’s ‘steps to program design’ uncredited, unreferenced and without permission, with the ‘author’ claiming copyright. For example:

1. Determine goals
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

1. Determine Goal(s)
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

3. Determine length of program
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

2. Determine the time frame to achieve goals or the length of the training cycle
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

4. Select appropriate method of periodization
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

3. Choose a suitable periodization model
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

5. Determine appropriate rate of change of program
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

4. Determine rate of change of program
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

8. Determine frequency ie. number of training days per week/microcycle
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

6. Determine the frequency of the workouts per week (how many training sessions?)
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

9. Select which training days
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

7. Determine the days of the week for training sessions
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

12. Determine priorities in muscle groups
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

9. Determine movement patterns to be training that will address the biggest weaknesses and prioritize.–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

15. Allocate muscle groups to training days
p. 13 under this step in HTW – If you were doing a total body workout that is the same for each of the 3 or so weekly workouts, you would only use column A. If you were working with a 3 day split routine where each day was different, you would use column A, B and C….
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

11. Allocate corrective stretching exercises and movement patterns to each training day (can use a split routine OR a single workout).
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible, Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

17. Determine proposed duration of program
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

12. Determine total training time per workout.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible, Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

21. Calculate total set time
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

13. Calculate available work time (total training time – warm up time- stretching etc)
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible, Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

22. Determine total number of sets permissible for each training session
This is calculated by dividing the proposed duration of the workout by the total time per set (which is TUT per set + rest period as calculated in Step 22 above)
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

14. Divide available work time by total time-under-tension + rest period for all prescribed sets (determined from periodization model). This will give you a number of allowable exercises.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible, Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

28. Select suitable exercises for each muscle group
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

15. Select the exercises for each movement pattern that is most appropriate for the client and most likely to assist you in accomplishing your objective.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible, Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

31. Determine sets, repetitions and rest periods for each exercise
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

5. Select appropriate set, rep, tempo and rest periods for each program within the cycle
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible, Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

32. Select speed of movement / technique for each exercise–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-7

5. Select appropriate set, rep, tempo and rest periods for each program within the cycle
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible, Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

35. Final analysis of program, including checking total volume and duration
–King, I., 1998, How To Write (book), 35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program, p. 5-

17. Check reps, time under tension, tempo, rest periods etc. after exercise selection for any modifications.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Professional Fitness Coach Program Design Bible, Program Design Checklist, Eighteen Steps to Programming Success

In fact, put simply, I don’t believe it’s honest to knowingly reproduce other peoples works and claim that as your own copyright. If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

Nor do I believe it’s honest to lie, cheat and steal. Apparently your buddy and co-author does:

History suggests that breakaway organisations ultimately fall into the same trap that their original organisation did – take martial arts for example!” 1
—A. Cosgrove in personal communication to I King, 4 Dec 1999

I don’t invent anything – I just steal. My joke is I have never had an original idea in my life.
–Cosgrove, A., 2003, Assessment Seminar (DVD), Charles Staley Bootcamp

I steal from a lot of people.
–Cosgrove, A., 2003, Your body is a barbell (seminar on DVD)

Steal! Ok well, don’t “steal”. Just aggressively learn from everyone you can.
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, Program Design Bible

From my viewpoint, physical training is an actual juggling of seven key areas. (I’ve completely stolen the names for these phases from several sources…)
–Cosgrove, A., 2005, 7 Keys to Athletic Success, t-mag.com, Sep 2006

A saying I stole from Ian King is…
–Cosgrove, A., 200?, Profile Alwyn Cosgrove – Martial Arts Strength Coach, cbathletics.com

Steal. Steal and modify. It’s not “cheating” to use the experiences of others to better yourself.
–Cosgrove, A., 2006, Developing a Training Philosophy, T-mag.com, Wed, Nov 22, 2006

If someone else got results faster than I did, I would copy them. I don’t have a religious attachment to my ideas. I’d steal their ideas.
— Cosgrove, A., 2009, ‘Straight Talk about the Fitness Biz, T-mag.com, Thu, Apr 02 2009

If your definition of honesty is such that this is honest, I would be happy to be labelled dishonest.

I understand that you have your own definition of honest. I also understand that you work this definition in the broader cultural and industry boundaries, which appear in many ways to share you definition. But if it’s okay with you, I don’t share you definition of honesty – and if that make me the opposite, dishonest, I’m happy with that. I sleep well at night, irrespective of how long my fan list is or how many hits I get on my web site. As you have said, one of the many differences between us is that I’m a coach and you are a writer, I don’t need to garner public support and any specific perceptions from the masses to put food on my table.

If you can convince your loyal followers that you and your buddy are honest and have done no wrong and no copyright breaching has occurred – good luck to you. I’m pretty sure that when you reach the pearly gates (or what ever you define as your day of reckoning) your higher source is not going to be so gullible.

Calling me dishonest, Lou
Sure won’t make it right
But if you want
I’ll say a prayer
For your soul tonight

–Modified from John ‘Cougar’ Melloncamp’s song ‘Rain on the Scarecrow [I could have ‘omitted to reference it. Claimed copyright, and then if caught out by John, I could have said – ‘The printer forgot to include the page with the credit on it’…or ‘I thought I had the rights to it’. But to do that would not be honest. Or perhaps from your perspective, Lou, to give credit would be dishonest.]

Kids, I’m sorry
There less legacy for you now
Since some else decided
It’s okay to steal
Rain on the keyboard
Blood on the copyright
Ian King

The times they may be a-changing!  

/by

The Bullshit Backlash

I watched as we moved from a period of honesty in publishing in the period leading up to the start of the 21st century, to a period post 2000 AD where the bullshit in our industry grew exponentially. You didn’t need real world experience. You didn’t need measurable results in success of your trade. You just needed the desire to be perceived as ‘one of the great ones’, skill marketing and a loose moral compass.

And there were no shortage of people who fit this description that put up their hands during the decade post 2000’s, and rode this wave of content aimed to fulfil the needs of the seller, not the needs of the buyer.

Authors rode the wave. Publishers rode the wave. Equipment manufacturers and distributors rode the wave. Organizations turned a blind eye.

I become so moved by this trend that I wrote a book about it – Barbells and Bullshit, published 2010. I wanted to draw attention to what I believed was an undesirable trend. But I am only one person – what difference can I make? And for a while I thought I was the only person who was seeing this, concerned by it, and willing to take a stand against it.

Then I came upon this statement:

“I’d rather sell nothing than sell crap.”

The writer was Phil Stevens (1) and he had my attention. I thought – there are two of us!

Then I learnt more about his initiative:

This site from conception to completion is built out of a collective disdain for the useless drivel and backstabbing that is all too prevalent in the strength and fitness industry today. From that foundation Strength Guild sought out and collected a core group of the best like minded coaches, athletes, and minds in the world of strength to gather under one roof. We endeavor to fight against all that is wrong in the industry today with the over abundance of fly-by-night experts and so-called guru’s that are in it for nothing but making a dollar anyway possible. We are a group of teachers and role models who have been there done that, under the bar, in the books, and with successful clients (themselves included) for over a century combined. We are a group of “No Bullshit” strength practitioners that are here to teach the craft of strength…(2)

Then I thought – there are more than just the two of us!

Imagine that! What if there are even more people out there who feel what’s happening is not right – that there is a better way. And who are willing to make a stand, even if only in the way they invest their hard earned cash!

That’s an exciting possibility!

Naming the decades

I called the 80’s ‘The Decade of Aerobics’, the 90’s ‘The Decade of Strength’, and the 2000s ‘The Decade of Bullshit’. What will the 2010’s be know for? The revolution, the ‘Decade of the Backlash against Bullshit’?

The question is no longer will there be a backlash, or will people stand up against this trend. The question will be when we will reach the tipping point, the point at which the majority of individuals, companies and organizations choose to comply – not because they want to, but because the decisions of the masses in their individual purchasing decisions force this change.

Will the tipping point be reached during this decade? Or will this take longer? If so, how long? To answer these questions I have gone on a trip through history.

The myths surrounding the fall of the once great Roman Empire during the first 500 years AD focus on the “the gradual disintegration of the political, economic, military, and other social institutions of Rome”(3) . This has been perhaps the most famous example of social change in our recorded history.

One of the great examples in our recent history that draws me to compare to the ‘fall of Rome’ was the rise post 2000 AD of the ‘fat loss guru’. I conclude that our society is so decadent that the most pressing need of the masses is to lower body fat. One third of the world starves, yet those in the industrialized western world eat too much. And those seeking to take the profit from this misguided notion have put their hand up. Buy my book – only then will be able to turn on your after-burners. Only when you do my special combination exercise circuit (like what the US company Universal promoted in the 1970s!) will you succeed. Only when you take my special metabolism raising supplement will you achieve your goals. No talk of the simple solution – eat better, eat less, move more, and read less main stream magazines written to condition you to believe you will be inadequate until you look like a (photo-shopped) Hollywood movie start.

I recommend you all watch the movie Wall-E – the message regarding the direction of society when it comes to food, exercise and human movement capabilities – so powerful.

However Rome took up to 320 years to unravel. Are social changes likely to occur more rapidly in current times? To answer this, I look at some of the significant human changes I have witnessed in my life time.

I first noticed the ‘green’ movement in the 1970s. Some suggest it began as early as 1907 (4). I never thought I would see the values of the ostracized ‘greenies’ of the 1960s and 1970s become mainstream. In the last few years, you can see the publicly-listed companies rush to release their ‘Green Policies’. Recycling is mainstream in waste management. Composting decomposable food is hip. I have been amazed at the rapidness of these changes. They have gone from being the values of hippies to the values of mainstream.

As a child in the 1960s, I recall my father writing a letter to the then owner of one of the two largest airlines in Australia, suggesting that cigarette smoking should be banned on flights. You can imagine the answer. Anyway, if he was one of the first to raise this, then you can say this change occurred, which occurred in 1987 on Australian domestic flights – took about 20 years. The tobacco companies and their shareholders had significant power and influence, and may have been able to delay these changes for some time – but not forever.

These are two significant changes in social values that I have witnessed in my life time. I believe the changes are occurring at a fast rate. Now the 320 year period for Rome to implode covered all aspects of society – economics, government etc.

So perhaps in the broader sense, there is much work to be done, much change yet to occur. But in a micro-sense, I will be watching with personal interest how rapid the changes are in the culture of the sport and fitness industry.

In the short term I can see a division – between those who wish to cling to the ‘New Rules of the 2000’s’ – and those who wish to apply the possible ‘New Rules of the 2010s’. Those who chose to cling to last decades values will surely put up a good fight. A fight that may have begun. (5)

The resistance to change

During the 1980s and 1990s there were a few dominant values and beliefs that I decided to challenge, and with success in practical application. I then chose to share my real-world experiments and their conclusions through my seminars and published works late in the 1990s.

This information was not always well received. In one seminar, during the morning of the one of these seminars in Boston MA, an apparent local identity (who I had never heard of before) gathered his colleagues, and stormed out of the seminar. Later that person wrote an email to the seminar host threatening the ramifications for that person should they foolishly decide to host me again. Needless to say, they never did. Ironically the very content I presented in that seminar has been the backbone of this person’s publishing in the decade to follow, and in that time I didn’t see one reference to the source.

In other seminars those planning to attend were directed not to. In other cases some were rung by an out of state police officer assuring them that if they attended they would be arrested. Seminar hosts were told if they were to receive any packages in the mail from me, they would be arrested for this. Great imagination was applied, and due the gullibility of many, the registration withdrawals were many.

Not everyone’s going to be happy if more of the masses shift towards honesty and integrity. They are enjoying the current situation too much – where a low-educated, highly gullible market will believe it if you write or say it, and buy and do anything with a little marketing conditioning. Right now the truth and integrity way is sought to be crushed in the desert like the early electric cars, so we don’t threaten sales and the status quo that was established during the ‘Decade of the Bullshitter’ – in the same way electric cars in the 1970s were perceived as a threat to the sale of oil and gasoline.

The New Rules

Let’s take a look at what I call the ‘New Rules of the 2000s’ – and what I believe may be the ‘New Rules of the 2010s’. At worst, call me an optimist.

Note some of the ‘New Rules of the 2000-2010 Decade’ are not just my observations – some of them are quotes reflecting the accepted values of that period.

Lying

2000-2010
“It’s OK to tell a lie if you know that it’s a lie… Once a personal trainer or performance specialist knows the truth then, they can tell a little white lie to make the sale or to get the client on board. The key to selling fitness lies (clever play on words) in knowing the truth but, also knowing when to lie.” (5)

2010+
It’s not okay to tell a lie. Tell the truth. No matter if there is a sale or anything else at stake.

Cheating

2000-2010
”Steal. Steal and modify. It’s not “cheating” to use the experiences of others to better yourself.” (7)

2010+
It is cheating to use other people’s works to promote and benefit from. That is not acceptable.

Stealing

2000-2010
“Steal. Steal and modify.” (8)

2010+
Stealing is not acceptable.

Experience

2000-2010
None needed – just put ‘coach’ before your name, or otherwise hide behind your keyboard

2010+
You need to have succeeded in the area and at the level you wish to teach others. Not just claim it. Really.

Names

2000-2010
Use names to create market association, create reciprocal endorsement, and cover over copying.

2010+
Use names if they are relevant to the message.

Publishing

2000-2010
Open book publishing – open someone else’s book and copy it. Put your name and the front, claim copyright and sell it as your own.

2010+
Publish only from your own experiences, original, truthful material worthy of being presented to others.

Profit

2000-2010
At any cost. No rules. No guidelines.

2010+
Only when it can be done with others interest put first and within the moral bounds of this new era.

Sales

2000-2010
Sell anything. If you think there is a demand, sell whatever is in demand. If there isn’t a demand, create it.

2010+
Sell only when and to whom it will benefit, without lies and exaggerations of the benefits of the product/service.

Not if but when

The only question is how long will the change take?

How long will it before internet and hard copy publishers cease to publish content by people who in my opinion are simply demonstrating their left brain knowledge or their creative imaginations. When we stop reading about how to get big arms by people who have never had them. Or how to get big and strong by people who have never been big and strong. Or how to get lean by people who have never been lean. Or the keys to athletic success by personal trainers who failed to find them for themselves? Or the promotion of products for the sake of a profit?

The key to change will be people power. I noted with interest the commentator in the highly recommend movie Food Inc. comment that the big corporations don’t change because they suddenly find morals – for the most part the change is consumer led. When enough people reject label deficient genetically-modified foods and demand organic foods instead, then the major companies find the motivation to join this consumer led trend towards healthier eating.

The Iron Game Woodstock

There were a few events that defined history and marked the beginning of a new era. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of Communism in 1989 are great examples of this. And the event known as ‘Woodstock’ is another. Here’s a description of that event:

“From August 15-18, 1969, 500000 young people from across the United States converged on Max Yasgur’s 600-acre dairy farm in Bethel, New York.” (9)

Woodstock was the iconic event that heralded in people power and social change in many areas.

No-one expected these numbers to attend Woodstock. They planned for 50,000. They got 500,000!

In 21-22 June2011 – perhaps we are going to have such an event when the StrengthGuild.com annual get-together takes place. An event that triggers a longer lasting greater impact.

Conclusion

I am under no illusions that the change to our world and sport/fitness industry towards one of greater integrity will be quick or easy. Coning from a long line of previous life warriors, I am up for the fight. I hope that you will join us in this crusade.

It would be fitting to end with lyrics modified from a song considered to be the flag-ship song of the social change, by Bob Dylan.

Come gather ’round people
Wherever you train
And admit that the bullshit
Around you has grown
And accept it that soon
You’ll be dumbed-down to the bone.
If your training to you
Is worth savin’
Then you better start standing up to it
Or you’ll drown in the shit
For the times they are a-changin’.

Come writers and publishers
Who bullshit with your keyboard
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won’t come again
And don’t bother throwing stones
For the wheel’s still in spin
And there’s no tellin’ who
That it’s namin’.
For the honest ones now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin’.
Come manufactures, distributors
Please heed the call
Don’t stand on the platform
Don’t block up the gym
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There’s a battle outside ragin’.
It’ll soon shake your barbell
And rattle your kettle-bell
For the times they are a-changin’.

Come internet site owners
Throughout the world
And don’t criticize
That you can’t understand
Your clients and customers
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly changin’.
Please get out of the new one
If you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The honest one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin’.
And the bullshitter now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’

–Modified from the Bob Dylan classic, ‘The times they are a-changing’

References
(1) http://Philstevens.com
(2) http://strengthguild.com/blog/?page_id=2
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline…e_Roman_Empire
(4) http://webecoist.com/2008/08/17/a-br…reen-movement/
(5) http://bit.ly/dGOEOj
(6) Boyle, M., 2006, Telling lies in America, strengthcoach.com
(7) Cosgrove, A., 2006, Developing a Training Philosophy, T-mag.com, Wed, Nov 22, 2006
(8) Cosgrove, A., 2006, Developing a Training Philosophy, T-mag.com, Wed, Nov 22, 2006
(9) http://bit.ly/gykwPT

Ian King

Out-dated methods – shame, shame, shame!  

/by

Imagine if this was a respone my last post generated (just imagining of course):

“My understanding from studies concerning this issue that I have read, are simply stating that static stretching prior to physical exercise causes a decrease in force output of muscle tissue (poor performance). The studies opt for dynamic stretching prior and static stretching at the end of physical exercise. I do believe we need to read ANY study with a “critical eye”, but we shouldn’t be to bold as to suggest motive when we simply do not want to let go of dated methods.”

Ah, studies, studies, studies. I am glad we have studies to guide us from ‘outdated methods’. I am glad I didn’t squat until the mid 1990s because studies didn’t support it. In fact, they discouraged it. I am glad I didn’t start using a multi-vitamin until after the 2002 JAMA study said it may be prudent.  I am glad I didn’t use protein powders or amino acids unitl the 1990s because only then were there studies supporting it.

And it’s unfortunate I just can’t let go of out-dated methods. You know, some people even still use the missionary sex position – and as our great-great grandparents and their grand parents before them and so on probably did the same, that’s really outdated…..Shame, shame, shame!

YOU JUST CAN’T USE SOMETHNING THAT ANOTHER PERSON/S LABELS AS OUTDATEd!

And while we are being open and confessing, I must admit to using a barbell…And I believe my great uncle Vinny also trained with one, so I know I really should let go of that outdated method….

Isn’t it great that most of use don’t do outdated stuff! But those who do – don’t they know that is not acceptable?!

Now thats ANOTHER logical reason not to static stetch – it’s outdated!!!

More than that – it’s another FEAR based reason – fear that you may not be ‘up-to-date’ with the latest ‘trends’ and ‘science’….

After so many decades you would have thought I would have learnt to conform…and if I haven’t, a response like this imaginary email may surely guide me to conformity…

..we need to …

…we shouldn’t …

And Ian, stop being so brave as to sugest motive….how dare you. After all, there is at least one other person (I know, a few more!) that strongly believes you have no right to form an opinion outside the boundaries of the dominant beliefs….

Let’s get real clear – I don’t give a rat’s arse what you belive in or do in training, In fact, the more f-up the methods used, the easier for otheres to succeed in competitive sport etc.  My goal is simply to let those who do have some semblance of belief that they were born with a brain and intuition that it still works, and they are allowed to use it if they want…that there may be an altenrative to the dominant beliefs – as threatening as that may be to some……

Quick question if I may – do the studies show that ‘out-dated’ is sub-optimal? I sure hope so, because I need those words to cling on to….

Ian King

Feedback on my latest book – Barbells & Bullshit  

/by

I recently received this feedback about my latest book:

Ian, Great book… …keeping me up late. Very entertaining, hilarious, gut-wrenching and scary as you unfold the reality of this industry, while pairing it with guidance to a conscious way of thriving in the field of physical preparation and life. Also, you have brilliantly made the book very interactive, which I assume was done purposely, and adds to the suspense and overall enjoyment.  Thank you once again!
–Ryan

To which I replied on the KSI forum as follows, content that normally stays on the members only http://www.coachking.net/ forum:

Excellent perception Ryan – there are many subtle and interwoven themes in this text which you have an awareness of, and even for my top coaches, they need all their knowledge and experience to decipher them

I appreciate your feedback, and commend you for digging into the book. many will disregard as a reading option simply because it’s theme is not compliant with mainstream conditioning of ‘what you need to study – e.g. references to research, or how to get bigger biceps, or apparently ever more pertinent today, how to lower body fat using the ‘only’ way to train ‘that only I know how’

As the fitness industry grows, should it continue along its current path, I will be exposing more ‘conspiracies’ of the exploitation of the masses for the gain of a few – economically and egotistically.

One only needs to lift the lid on larger and older industries to see the techniques that are and will continue to expand in their use in the ‘fitness industry’

Like the US economy, I feel the American-influenced fitness industry may be so ‘sick’ that it is beyond repair, short of greater social changes. An alternative is to create a universal sub-culture of those whose are passionate about physical preparation at any level of involvement, have the ability to think objectively and independently and reject the conditioned thinking enforced on the masses, and who do not support, endorse or wish to be part of a current, self-serving ‘fitness industry’.

Ian King

The World is Flat!  

/by

Popular stories have humans believing the world was flat and that Christopher Columbus, in his late 1400’s explorations to the America’s, travelled in spite of this belief and the risk of ‘falling off the edge’ of this flat earth. If this were true, Columbus showed courage and shaped the world as a result.

As a race humans have advanced in many regards, however the limiting beleifs prevail. That is, whatever is the domiantly held belief is what the majority cling to without adequate investigation of the accuracy of the belief.

These holding to domianant beliefs may provide short term feelings of security, but at what price?  You would not have squatted until the 1990’s when ‘science’ first endorsed this exercise. You would not have taken a multi-vitamin until post the year 2000, when for the first time a medical journal acknowledged that most people should consider taking a multi-vitamin. The list goes on. At what price to you? You could spend most of your life missing many valuable and beneficial activities simply because of your desire to comply with the dominant beliefs.

Which raises the question – where do the dominant beliefs come from and who controls them? Two key answers – commercial interests and information gatekeepers.

When does an exercise trend become a trend and why? For the most part when an equipment manufacturer concludes their is a market for their proposed product and moves forward.

The second player is the ‘information gatekeeper’. The person or organization who upon realizing that a new habit is about to gain momentum, seek to endorse and teach the new habit (now called a trend) simply to be seen as being on the cutting edge of yet another new development.

A summary of many dominant trends over the last decade reveals a list of equipment that in my opinion was not borne out of the need for a new solution. But rather out of the realization that it could be manufactured and sold to the masses.

Most of what you do, as an end user as well as a professional in the fitness or sport industries, is a product of the influences created by equipment manufacturers and distributors, often in combination with the information gate keepers of their chose.

Do you need it? Is it the best solution for you? Is it in your best interests? These are some of the questions you have not likely asked. Rather, you have probably accepted the dominant trend and followed along.

That’s your choice. I suggest you can do better.  I suggest you can get better results. I suggest you deserve better. Are you ready and willing to learn how?

———————-

New DVD released Oct 2010 –

The World if Flat!
Challenging your point of view!

In this DVD from a live seminar I dedicate approximately two hours to this and surrounding topics.

YouTube clips from that DVD:

Click here to order the DVD – http://bit.ly/9KJVmR