Tag Archive for: Ian King
Thank you for helping me get back in to exercise pain free and keeping me there
I recently received this email:
“Hi Ian, 7 years ago I bought your Get Buffed books and did the programs in get buffed 1 and 2. When I did these programs I was in the best shape of my life. After that I made a program of my own when I bought the book ‘How to Write Strength Training Programs, yet still in great shape and getting stronger.
Then some where along the way I decided to look in to power lifting and xxx and using exercise technique from the book xxxx. I started to get minor injuries and weakness with certian muscle groups. After a year of incorrect lifting and programing with little core work (because the progarms said don’t worry about it. and I listened?!?!!?!) I herniated my disc.
I look back today at my lifting career and thank you for all your knowledge and for writing the get buffed books. Those books single handedly are the best books on training I have. I thank you for sharing you training ideas, and exercise techniques.
After my injuries I still use Get Buffed 1 and how to write strength training programs all the time to stay pain free today.
Thanks for everything you do in strength and condidtion, I will always reference your work because it is the gold standard, your methods are unrivaled.
Thank you for helping me get back in to exercise pain free and keeping me there.” –Andrew
To which i responded with:
Andrew – thanks for your email, and great to hear that 7 years ago you got your hands on some of the best training advice available. And great to hear that this resulted in the best shape of your life. This is no surprise because the Get Buffed!™ content and programs are based on decades of application and refinement with large sample sizes of athletes in long-term programs, and including multiple sports.
The programs and content in GB and my other books and educational content are not selected because they are trendy – in actual fact, when I first release my ideas, they are anything but trendy! Take my suggestion to stop doing walking lunges – I am receiving the typical stones being thrown at me when I challenge the habits of the masses driven by the misguided recommendations of ‘experts’. What they do ultimately become is the new trend, as evidenced by the popularity of my bodyweight an other unilateral movements in the GB program, the universal application of my speed of movement (using digits to communicate lifting speed), control drills to activate prior to strength training, and my lines of movement concepts – quad dominant, hip dominant, horizontal and vertical pulling, to name a few.
The programs and content in GB and my other books and educational content are not selected because they support the beliefs of my peers – in fact, quite the opposite. Take my suggestion in the late 1990s that the chin up was not adequate to balance the work of the bench press, and that a horizontal pulling movement (my lines of movement concept) was in fact the true opposing movement, yet was totally absent in the popular programs and guru advice of the time. In fact, that stirred such a hornets nest that things got really ugly in the US, with people being threatened not to attend my seminars. The programs and content in GB and my other books and educational content are not selected because I wanted to be sensationalist – I don’t mess with the careers and potential of Olympic and other high level athletes – there is no room for error at this level. So rest assured ideas such as do abs first, the concept of loading is over-rated, lower volume training, reverse periodization – these we all created in response to long term application with no tolerance for error.
In fact after the stone-throwing slowed down, it was ‘interesting’ to watch (in some cases the most vocal critics!) publish these very same concepts. Books, programs, courses.
You decision to leave the path of my concepts is not totally surprising. I believe that most training decisions (by end users and ‘professionals’ – and I use that latter word lightly!) is more influenced by marketing, scarcity and conformity than by the objective reasoning promoted in science. I have no hesitation in acknowledging my weakness in marketing, and in many ways I don’t want to compete. I have seen completely incompetent people with no experience, to whom the market has spoken because they couldn’t get work training athletes – position themselves as ‘experts’ through marketing in this information era, and I refer specifically to the post 2000 era. How do they do this? Deceit turbocharged by powerful marketing techniques I suggest, and I dedicated my 2010 book ‘Barbells & Bullshit’ to educating about. (see below – I have given you a complimentary copy of the e-book version)
Quite simply, and to use a saying (of which I am prone to doing!) often the empty vessel makes the most noise.
So you got drawn away as do the masses to the new shiny object that ‘everyone’ else is doing, and surprise, surprise, the long term implications were less than what you were hoping for.
To read your words, which I do receive regularly, is encouraging.
“I look back today at my lifting career and thank you for all your knowledge and for writing the get buffed books. Those books single handedly are the best books on training I have. I thank you for sharing you training ideas, and exercise techniques.”
Because I have shared so openly (at least until recently) and honestly. I understand many don’t want to look under the hood of their own industry, with implications for even the end user as you have found out, however for me it has been painful watching my material being plagiarized by those whose sole intent was personal gain. I believe the world it worse off for the actions of these charlatans, some of whom are still feted in professional circles, at least for now.
For me the material in the Get Buffed! series is a by-product of my experience training athletes. As you know it’s a very powerful by-product, so you can imagine how powerful the original intent athlete preparation methods are.
One of the major goals I set my self a few decades ago was to ensure no athlete in my care is injured, and if they are, that I rectify their condition immediately.
So the injury prevention focus in all my training programs is strong, supported by a long list of innovations in injury prevention and rehab (I dedicate a few chapters in the KSI Level 1 ‘Legacy’ Course to this subject alone).
You are an example of a person who has benefitted from this, evidenced when you write:
“After my injuries I still use Get Buffed 1 and How to Write Strength Training Programs all the time to stay pain free today.”
For this I am very happy for you, and I know this material will serve you for life, serve your kids and their kids.
What I am concerned about is the dilution of my works by those who have plagriazed them, as they have lost their power to serve. We are in a world where I believe injuries from training are reaching epidemic levels, and much of what I set out to do has been dissolved by certain individuals who put their needs ahead of the world.
So I am very happy for you that you have returned to the integrity of my works. I am also appreciative of any person who carries on my mission and vision through appropriate sharing the accuracy of my training information backed up ethical referencing. For example the publishing house I worked with recently, only the second publishing house in the world who during the last decade plus have sought my permission to reproduce my concepts, and sought my guidance and approval for how to reference and credit them. When you consider how many books have been published by people who knew or should have known better diluted the intent of my work and amnestically omitting to reference, you may appreciate how low the integrity of the world in which you live in is.
Many will say ‘Ian, shut up and live with it’. I say you are drinking from this well, you are eating from this table. You are paying the price with your bodies, your health. It is not just about me. It is about my children, it is about you, and your children. Do you really want to live in a world, and raise your kids in a world, where the dominant value is deceit, where you will get injured from the training you do because no-one had the courage to stand up and say ‘that’s not right’?
I believe your actions is acknowledging the below go further than you relationship with your maker, I believe you enhance the conditions for all humans when you write the below, and I thank you for this:
“Thanks for everything you do in strength and condition, I will always reference your work because it is the gold standard, your methods are unrivalled.”
And in your final statement, when you say:
“Thank you for helping me get back in to exercise pain free and keeping me there.”
It reinforces that this is my goal, this is my mission and vision, that you enjoy the fruits of your training in an injury-free way. Thank you. To say thank you with more than words, I have just invited you to complimentary access viewing of my seminar ‘What you wish you were told before you got started’, which is for the end user market pursing getting bigger, stronger and leaner, of course with my inseparable focus on injury prevention for life! This is from our growing collection of e-videos: http://subscriptions.viddler.com/kingsports Enjoy!
Ian King
Why I choose to take a stand against plagiarists
I write this in response to an online discussion about the treatment of my copyrighted works at http://on.fb.me/1pCpoXZ.
Craig, as I understand it you would like me to ‘stop griping’ about plagiarism. I would like to. However this is my position. Because it is rife is not a reason to be silent. In the 1950s (as I understand it) an African-American could not ride on the same bus or swim in the same pool or eat at the same restaurant or use the same bathroom as a white American. Racism was rife. On your advice African-Americans should have just shut up and got over it. Well, some didn’t, including Martin Luther King, and whilst he paid a massive personal price for this, the world is a better place for his decision and courage.
Now plagiarism and dishonesty in physical preparation may not rate as high on the scale of consciousness as racism, but the comparison is still valid. And the solution the same. Someone needs to take a stand, absorb the counter-attacks, and the world will be a better place.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” – http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill
I don’t enjoy the time and energy the fight against plagiarism takes. But it’s a conscious decision following significant reflection. It is a cause that goes beyond the massive breach of my copyright. I have seen the unfathomable lack of integrity and I ask if they are willing to deceive readers at this level, what else are they lying about? There are too many young impressionable people who will be influenced by the ‘New Rules’ of publishing – lying, cheating and stealing. One could by you. One could be your brother or sister. One could be your child. One could be the trainer that shapes your body and your future health. I believe the implications go way beyond what one American sought to minimize as a ‘little misunderstanding’.
Shortly after I made the decision to blow the whistle on what I call the greatest intellectual property theft in the modern history of physical preparation I received an email from a former student, strongly recommending I quit. He was concerned that all I was doing was giving publicity to a person who didn’t deserve it. I agreed with him. This is a risk, and one that I don’t enjoy.
In making my decision to expose the ‘New Rules of (Writing about) Lifting’, I had to choose between two options.
The first was to say nothing. This was the easiest thing to do. The safest thing to do. The challenge was it goes against my beliefs to stand by and say nothing when I know of great wrong-doings being perpetrated on people. As I said this new industry standard is one that affects everyone, even those who belief it doesn’t affect them.
The other was to stand up and tell the world what was happening in their industry. This was the tougher of the two because I was aware that I may be drawing attention to a person who I didn’t want to give that attention to. That I would see my name in the sentence as this person, and in my opinion they didn’t deserve this. I’m happy to see my name mentioned in the same context as those who have trained athletes and innovated for the betterment of the world, not those who have turbo-charged their falsehoods with powerful marketing and strategic alliances. And I knew there would be those who would throw stones at me for challenging their perceptions of the person.
It was the classic between a rock and hard place, and you know the decision I made.
This is how I see it – I have spent a lifetime training athletes with a level of intensity, focus and work ethic that few possess. And then shared many of my conclusions with the world. I really don’t enjoy watching my life’s work being raped and pillaged. And then I look at my kids in the eyes and tell them what their daddy did throughout his life. In summary, I have created and shared more concepts with more power that have shaped the way the world train than most would do in a dozen lifetimes – but they would never know it because a few individuals with their own brand of integrity have republished them enmasse and passed them off as theirs. I specifically refer to the person subject to this discussion and the one who walked out of a north eastern seminar in 1999. The only difference is the latter works his keyboard a lot harder, changing up the words but still suffering from amnesia re the source.
Robert and others have talked about hearing the ‘other side’. I’m not sure what can be said. I read the ‘defense’ provided to the Lyle McDonald allegations http://bit.ly/LyleMcDonald. It was a really skilfully crafted response that a press secretary at the White House would be proud of. But it didn’t justify or excuse the act. Now it’s a bit tougher to say the dog ate the homework (on in the Warp Speed case ‘the page with the credits on was left off by the printer….which still didn’t explain how the content ended up in the NROL ‘book’ also…) when the copying covers so many publications – books, articles, seminar and DVDs – and is so extensive.
Take the ‘Bible’ publication, which I describe a the single greatest shameful example of plagiarism ever in the modern history of physical preparation. Fortunately we have succeeded in having this ‘publication’ taken off the market (or at least we believe we have….). It contained two references to myself. One was a singular reference in the text to one concept, the other a book reference in the ‘Recommended Reading’ list. Yet about 50% of the pages contained verbatim copy, and up to 25% more contained conceptual content copied from original works – all unreferenced. Sorry Bret, that’s not a little misunderstanding…And Bill, you did acknowledge he steals, but with all due respect this contradicts your claim that ‘the writer always tell you [the reader] where he steals from’.
Now Lou Schuler would have you belief that there were legitimate circumstances that apparently led me to give carte blanche permission to this person and his partner and their publishers now and into the future of any of my material. Wow. I’m have no idea what he is talking about and you would imagine such magnanimous actions would be supported by some sort of evidence. I wrote a personal and also a public letter to Lou Schuler http://bit.ly/1pkPJOg (a few years ago) – and I’m still waiting for his response….
Some of you wonder about legal action, and I will be sharing this story in full in the updated edition of ‘Winning & Losing’, but suffice to say there are obstacles to justice and these include commercial viability. I would really like to see a federal court ruling in this matter – not for me, because I know what’s gone down, but rather to ‘help’ those who choose to align with character traits like this that they should review their future associations – and so any one with law enforcement experience knows, if one is patient the repeat offender will go for it again and the trap will be set more securely.
Ted, I apologize for your less than optimal experience and I share your thoughts. In hindsight I was being used to provide intellectual property for ‘scraping’ and many things occurred with the running of this event that I was shocked and embarrassed by. We should have never done that event in that venue under those circumstances, and the whole experience was a trigger to do it differently in the future. As a person who was at that event, you do know firsthand how my teachings from that event now appear to have a new teacher. I have offered you a free two day seminar to make that up, and if that doesn’t suit I would like to gift you some e-videos. Just send me an email about this.
I really liked what you said Chris:
“…a culture of unprofessionalism on all fronts. It won’t change until we change it from the inside and the major orgs stop perpetuating it. I like what you guys are doing by putting social pressure on people to be better than this….”
And that is the only way things will change for the better in physical preparation. I have had direct dealings with companies and professional bodies whose short-term commercial interests are tied to this individuals and this behavior, of which the full correspondence will be made available in time, and I know first hand how uninterested they are. However as commercially focused entities I believe when enough people take a stand, they will suddenly develop a conscious and change to match. It is no different that those who were written off as ‘greenie’s and ‘tree-huggers’ in the 960s and 1970s. Now every publicly listed company wants to tell us about their ‘green policies’. It did take a while, but it happened. There is some suggestion that we may see these changes embracing higher levels of integrity sooner than later. I believe the great late US innovator Buckminster-Fuller, who in 1984 sought to create an annual ‘integrity’ day, would smile with joy from the after-life at a society where honesty and integrity and respect were endorsed values.
Yes Khaled, referencing the level plagiarism is evident in my writings and will continue to do so until I it is changed or I pass away.
I don’t believe in the ‘new rules’ (being promoted by the very people whose actions personify them) – that lying, cheating and stealing are ok. I am intrigued by those who say they don’t mind if how they get the information, as long as they get it – yet if they came home and found say their TV had been stolen, would not be too happy. Ironic.
Finally Craig, forgive my ‘self-promotion’. I’d suggest that I have been one of the most humble persons in the industry about my achievements, but as you probably don’t know that it might be unrealistic of me to expect you to appreciate the humility I typically act with. Sometimes (I know, naughty me) I take the liberty of being what I call more accurate in my descriptions. I respect your opinion on this, however make two comments.
Firstly, I don’t mislead readers about who I am, what I have done, and who source of any works I publish. I do note that in the short term or even the long term those that do ‘embellish’ their achievements and competencies do make short term gains. What I wonder about is the long term implications. Does this get under their skin? Does it harden their heart? What will they say when they tell their life story to their making at whatever is their ‘Golden Gates’ on passing?
Secondly, I back my claims. I’ll go head to head in the area of training athletes with anyone, and will respect any lessons I get from this. In fact these are two reasons why I’m been so successful – I’ve been humble and honest, and as a result have during the last 30+ years developed concepts and methods that have been adopted universally. What I readily admit is I can’t market like this others, and I won’t deceive as they choose to do – which means I concede defeat in the arena of bullshit turbo-charged by marketing. They can content that title.
But will I roll over and shut up whilst someone who I believes is an inexperienced and failed strength & conditioning coach passes themselves of as having the experience and competence to develop my life work? No, sorry. Can’t do. And I encourage anyone who shares my view to starve this deceit of oxygen.
The challenge faced with anyone who chooses, knowingly or unknowingly, to be a student of deceivers includes this:
“You can teach what you know but you reproduce who you are.” –John C. Maxwell
Let’s talk about honesty, Lou
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